POL 104 — California Politics Midterm Study Guide

Howard Jarvis

American businessman, lobbyist, and politician. He was a political entrepreneur who formed a coalition around tax reform without being elected to office. He was an anti-tax activist who founded the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and spearheaded California's Proposition 13 (a statewide initiative that cut property tax revenues by 57%) to pass in 1978. At the time, he was representing the Los Angeles Apartment Owners Association. He is an important figure in California politics because of the way he reintroduced the initiative process in California. The initiative process was largely abandoned during the 50's and 60's. However, it was brought back in the 70's with Prop 13 and the process was largely used once again ever since.

Shrimp Hour

An unending cocktail party hosted by Artie Samish, a very powerful lobbyist who virtually controlled the legislation of California (more powerful than the governor at the time.) Assembly and Senate members came to the Suite at the luxurious Senator Hotel in Sacramento to fill up their needs on gourmet foods, cigars, and booze (possible women in the room as well). This was generally an event hosted by Artie Samish to give legislators a good time and buddy up with them to gain influence and power in California. This was important to California politics mainly because it paved a way for Proposition 1A (1966) to kick in (gave it a reason to) and professionalize the California legislation and limit the legislation's dependency on lobbyists.

East-West Divide

In the past couple of decades the north-south rivalry has fade for a variety of economic and cultural reasons. An east-west split is emerging that this recession, the worst since the Great Depression, has exacerbated. → Coastal Californians have higher levels of education, higher family incomes, higher levels of environmental consciousness, better health and decidedly more liberal political and cultural values than inlanders, a split graphically seen in statewide contests. → Democrats' success in district elections in the more heavily populated coastal region has ensured their control of the state legislature and congressional delegation. *Republicans generally win the EAST, while Democrats dominate the more populous WEST. → Look at reading to find why it is important. East is rural, west is cities. It used to be north south, now it's east west. Immigration plays a factor with immigrants settling along the coast. There has been a shift of whites more toward the inland. This was because of higher standards of living for lower costs. They have tried to redictrict, but it has not changed this trend.

Micro-targeting

Micro-targeting is a part of step one in campaign field work. Once a candidate has identified who supports them, they should micro-target them with information based on their demographics. This process has been increased through the use of technology. You can separate voters into categories such as saints (those who consistently vote your party lines), sinners (those who consistently vote against your ideals) and salvageable who are (Undecided). This is important because it is a useful tool (technique) that politicians and campaigns use to reach out to voters and their constituencies.

Independent Expenditure Campaigns

Money raised and spent, typically by Pacs, with the purpose of getting a candidate elected or an initiative passed. These Pacs cannot have a communication link with candidates, however, under their organizational model they, are permitted to contribute an unlimited amount of money in effort to get someone elected. The practice of using independent expenditures was catalyzed through a loophole that was written into Prop 34, a piece of legislation drafted by the legislators themselves. Prop 34 was a strategic move made by the legislature to nullify the effects of prop 208 (which created strict donation limits and campaign finance regulations.) Prop 34 still enforced a cap on donations, however, these limits were more laxed. The proposition also included the loophole for independent expenditures. Ostensibly, this proposition was a money laundering scheme portrayed as campaign finance reform. Important to understand because this act is being practiced in Sacramento today.

The Cycles of Legislative Power. You are the one hundred year-old lobbyist for the University of California, and you are always trying to pass a law reducing student fees. Making reference to the lessons in lectures, in the Cain, Kousser and Kurtz chapter, and in the Peverill Squire article, describe what strategies you used to pass this law in the Artie Samish days, in the era of professionalization, and after term limits.

Peverill Article: http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1093&context=polisci_pubs • Lobbyists faced an unprecedented challenge after the rollout of professionalization. Before the institutionalization of the Assembly office of research and hired legislative staff, lobbyists and special interests were able to influence legislation. The Squire article notes that after professionalization legislators began to takwe their legislative responsibilities more seriously. It was harder to influence them than before the reforms. Jesse Unruh, who catalyzed the efforts that would ultimately lead to legislative professionalism through prop 1a, made the legislature transformative and hired expert staff to diminish the influence lobbyists and special interests had on the legislative process. Unruh, however, failed to eradicate the influence lobbyists and special interests had on legislators. Special interests could still wield power through campaign contributions. As a lobbyists during this time, I would host fundraisers for legislators in an effort to gain alliances in the legislature. The squire article explains, through quantified data, that the implementation of professionalism did not make members of the legislature more likely to stay because they still had their own career goals. By fundraising and donating money to their campaign, you might be able to get your interests pushed through the legislature vicariously through the person to whom you contributed. → Professionalism made the third house move to the speaker's office and the creation of the AOR made it difficult for lobbyists to influence legislation. • During the Artie Shamish days (30s-40s) lobbyists had the ability to unilaterally buy elections and nurture alliances in the legislature. Shamish represented the liquor, hore racing, chemical manufacturers, and transportation industries. He would take the payments from the companies and turn them into votes by buying legislators or creating a coveted culture in the capitol. Through the select and elect system, lobbyists could select like-minded politicians or candidates and help them win by funding their campaign. In return, the legislator would push policies of your choosing once elected to office. Samish also held a site at the Senate hotel. He would throw shrimp hours. Building this exclusive culture was another way to gain loyalty. • Gatekeeping in the assembly diminished after the implementation of term limits. The Life Under Term Limits chapter notes that before term limits committees killed 23% of presented bills. After the implementation of term limits that number dropped to 16.8%. This has to do witht he inexperience of the new assembly members (there is a muhc higher rate of leadership turnover in the leg now) and the cut to leg. staff. This stunted the assembly's gatekeeping ability. Given the lack of expertise in the assembly today, be it with the issues and not having experienc egoverning, I would offer to help shape a legislator's initiative as a lobbyist. I would teach them how to get something passed through committee in an effective manner. With the reductio of tenured staff, the elemination of the AOR, and the cuts to the Senate office of research, legislators had to rely on outside expertise. One sait it was to the order of 90% during his first term. • Members of the California Assembly understand higher positions will eventually be available to them. o Politicians have exploited statewide officers for their career advancement. Professionalization did not incentivize Assembly members to stay because the changes did not alter their career goals.

Phillip Burton

Served as a member of the California assembly before serving as a member of the US house (D). He was instrumental in creating the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. Often referred to as the Master. Burton was a contemporary political boss, he "reinvented the machine" (by mobilizing the minority groups in SF, such as the Chinese and African Americans). His ability to mobilize minorities helped Democrats in the entire region. He also tried to gerrymander the state in favor of the Dems. Burton was originally unpopular and shunned by older members of his party. He was aided by the abolishment of cross filing, and won his first. Mention that he was a coalition builder.

Assembly Office of Research

result of prop 1a. term limits have dramatically changed California's Legislature. Many veteran legislators and staff members regret Proposition 140's effects, which include a decline in the Legislature's research capacity. → (The Legislative Analyst's Office, for example, lost a large portion of its staff, with the sharpest drop coming immediately in the wake of Proposition 140.) Reduction in the Expert Staff → "Prop. 140 killed the staff, because Jesse Unruh had brought the best and brightest into places like the Assembly Office of Research, which is now defunct. They wrote the last big round of important legislation in California." - former Assembly committee chair.31 → "[When Prop. 140 mandated staff cuts,] the Assembly took that right out of their policy staff, and fired the experienced, expensive people, hired more, very inexperienced, very inexpensive staffers, and mostly campaign people. In the Senate, the old-time staffers, who have been around a while and understood the nuances, remained. And the difference is like night and day for us." - lobbyist Ken Emanuels. 32 →Opponents also predicted that if Proposition 140 passed, "lobbyists could substitute their own paid employees for the independent staff researchers." As nonpartisan staffing groups such as the Legislative Analyst's Office, the Senate Office of Research, and the Assembly Office of Research have been cut or disbanded, lobbyists appear to be more active in shopping bills and helping members round up votes. *staff levels only declined 12.5 percent between 1988 and 1996, in part because many of the most senior (and thus highest paid) staff members left during this period.

Plural versus Unitary Executive

Plural Executive means that each office within the executive branch is split, opposed to a unitary executive system where everyone is on the same agenda (Ex: The Obama Administration.) This is important to take note in California because we have a plural executive system in the executive branch. California is split into 8 executive branches with each office not having to serve the governor. (Ex: the attorney general does not have to take the governor's side on anything. He is free to do his job without coercion from the higher office.) This check and balance system ultimately helps California from forming a corrupt authoritarian regime. However, the possible problem is that there may be gridlocks that happen in the executive branch due to different agendas being pursued.

Identify two essential elements of running a successful campaign for elective office in California. Describe how a candidate's use of these elements might change according to: 1) the personal characteristics of the candidate, and 2) the type of office the candidate is running for (e.g., local, state legislature, statewide, or congressional).

1) Message--a candidate's message is the one thing they want voters to have in mind entering the ballot box. It can be about: a) issues--Ex: Jerry Brown, "live within our means, restore power to local level, no new taxes without voter approval" b) biography: emphasizing something about who you are and that communicates with voters the sorts of things you're more in favor of--Ex: Karen Underwood saying she's a doctor, small business owner and mother. Ex: Romney's background as business executive somehow makes him well-positioned to make good policy c) performance: either basing the message on the candidate's performance, or the opponent's performance; a retrospective appeal on what the candidate has done--Ex: Jack Scott compared the success rate of his 66 bills introduced in the assembly in 3 years versus Jack Wildman's 66 bills (introduced in the same three years) 2) Medium--the medium a candidate uses to get their message out. a) free media: (newspapers, television news), candidates have much less control over the message but it has potential to reach many voters. b) paid media: ads in newspapers/ on tv-- it's expensive 3) Field--how the candidate structures an operation to make it more likely for voters to turn out on election day. Has three steps: a/ identifying their supporters-- - use lists that identify a person's party registration/voting frequency - use technology that allows micro-targeting - suss out supporters, opponents, swing voters (saints/sinners/salvageables) - call/knock on doors of these voters - calling is quicker/less effective - most effective way to get ppl to turn out to vote is to personally contact them (even through a campaign worker) b/ letting their supporters work for them-- - provide bumper stickers/yard signs - invite participation (walking precincts w/ the candidate; making donation to the campaign; hosting fundraisers for the candidate) c/ getting out the vote (GOTV)-- - recruiting lots of volunteers and having them call supporters to remind them of election day/polling places ("phone banking") - have volunteers check in at precincts on election day to see who voted; contact supporters who haven't yet statewide race candidates can expect paid TV and free media; district race candidates can't, but it is also unclear if those are ideal strategies/mediums for reaching their particular voters. District race candidates can use: Direct mail (but few ppl will actually look at those); paid phone banking (labor intensive and less than 1/10 strike rate); walking door-to-door (requires field operation) Take home: leg is weaker in the face of term limits. Less vetoes. Change less from governor's budget.

Legislative Professionalization

A Jesse Unruh wanted the Legislature to be able to accomplish more because at the time they were not well paid (most had other jobs) and didn't have their own staff. When Unruh was Speaker from 1961 to 68 he "professionalized" the legislature making fundamental changes to staff, salaries and session length. He gained support for his best interests by using loan money to fund legislators' campaigns. The amount of staff was increased and better experts were hired in an effort to become independent of lobbyists and the governor. Salaries were also increased and he changed the session length to full-time so Legislative service could be a career option. Unruh also proposed public financing which didn't pass. In 1962 the Assembly Office of Research was created to improve information and in 1966. Prop 1A was passed allowing the legislature to set its own calendar and salaries. This is important for California politics because it changed the kind of people we see in the legislature. Before the legislature was made up of people from a wide variety of career paths because no one could afford to just be legislator (lawyers). Professionalization allowed legislators to be more focused and experienced; their expert staff decreased the power of lobbyists and they could better design and change bills as opposed to just rubber stamping cabinet requests. Wanted to be free of political bosses like Artie Samish. However, it also allowed for "career politicians" to come about who were not as in touch with their constituents, incumbents became much more powerful due to increased resources and special interests were still able to wield power through campaign contributions.

Tort reform "napkin deal"

A deal struck by seasoned legislator, and current state treasurer, Bill Lockyer. Lockyer gathered representatives from trial lawyers, insurance and medical firms in a Chinese restaurant and hammered out a deal that relieved insurance companies from additional regulations, increased the amount trial lawyers could earn in medical malpractice cases, and assured that doctors would have no changes to malpractice. This deal was exemplary of the times. Legislators and lobbyists could meet behind closed doors, make deals, and stay true to their word. This was done without lengthy floor debates. it went right through committee and got passed. This is important to remember because it helps legislators to get what they want by reaching out to other parties by striking a deal without having to go through lengthy debates in the assembly/senate floor. Tort reform was an active issue before the Legislature at the same time as ACA 14, and the CMA needed to protect its Malpractice Insurance Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). In 1975 the CMA had persuaded the Legislature to pass MICRA, which capped medical malpractice judgments and the size of trial lawyer contingency fees. MICRA had launched an ongoing fight about product liability among doctors, trial lawyers, insurance companies, manufacturers, and others, with everyone willing to make substantial campaign contributions to block everyone else from getting what they wanted through the Legislature.

Proposition 34 (2000)

A legislative initiative setting contribution limits for individuals and political action committees; commonly circumvented through independent expenditures. The proposition was masked as a campaign finance reform, but in reality, it allowed for unlimited contributions to flow into parties and candidates. This proposition is important to California politics because it essentially limited the contributions (voice) of the average voter, while leaving PACs and special interests with hefty sums of money to have access in California's state politics (still no explicit data whether these translates to votes.)

Machine politics

A political machine is a political organization in which an authoritative boss or small group commands the support of a corps of supporters and businesses (usually campaign workers), who receive rewards for their efforts. The machine's power is based on the ability of the workers to get out the vote for their candidates on election day. → EX: Samish had a political machine → In statewide contest Samish welded his special interest group into an efficient machine that could deliver a large enough block of vote to swing the election. → EX: Samish represented 50,000 → Each owner of a liquor store could be counted on to vote the same way samish asked → Each store would have a dew customers who also could be counted to vote Samish recommendations. → Therefore, Samish felt that he had about 500,000 votes he could direct. To gain that block of votes from Samish politicians would have to " play ball" with Samish. Important because individuals can build machines that guide their interests. This can harm the interest of the median voter. Professor wants us to look at the things we can observe in this system. How do people get things done? Compare a machine politics system to a different system. EX: We do not see Presidential elections as machine politics. Compare this with a machine politics example.

Petition Referendum

A process that allows citizens to repeal laws enacted by the legislature. It can delay and put up for a vote a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. In California, some laws are exempt from referendums such as: emergency statutes, laws calling for elections, tax laws, and most appropriations. In addition, the state's requirements for qualifying a referendum are challenging. Proponents only have 90 days from enactment of the law to complete the entire process: (1) request title and summary from the Attorney General (2) print petitions (3) gather valid signatures equal to 5% of the vote for governor in the previous gubernatorial elections and file petitions with county elections officials. This process is important within California's political system because it places a negative check on representatives. However, it does not affirmatively make law or constrain future actions enacted by the legislature. Activists and proponents usually prefer the initiative rather than the referendum process.

Cross Filing

A result of the institution of direct primaries in 1908. Cross filing removed a candidate's political party label from the ballot. The proponents of cross filing were progressives who wanted to weaken political parties as they existed. This system favored incumbents, since most voters made their decisions based on name recognition. This system allowed candidates to run in both party's primaries. Occasionally a single candidate would win both primaries, essentially guaranteeing them a victory in the general election. Cross filing was valuable from an ideological standpoint because it could prevent hyper polarization if candidates were trying to appeal to both major parties. Cross FIling helped many republicans.

California Special Election of 2005

California voters were rejecting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's special election agenda Tuesday, handing the governor a humbling loss after he gambled on a high-stakes plan to reshape state government. At the time the Governor was very popular and tried to circumvent the legislature to get these initiatives pass (would rely on his popularity to get these initiatives passed). With more than three-quarters of the votes counted, the four initiatives that Schwarzenegger said were needed to reform California were all losing. The centerpiece of the governor's agenda, → Proposition 76, which would limit state spending, was trailing badly. → Proposition 77, which would strip lawmakers of the ability to draw political voting districts; → Proposition 74, which would lengthen the time it takes for public school teachers to get tenure; → Proposition 75, aimed at curbing public employee unions' political spending, were also losing. Why is this important?--> No amount of likeability can nullify sloppy legislation. The content of legislation is what matters most.

Duverger's Law

Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a Party System and an electoral system: a Proportional Representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system. → Because voter have strategically favor → Always come down to 2 parties/ candidates Take away points: Voters will vote strategically. Assuming this, races only come to two parties because voters want to maximize their interests. EX: Libertarians won't waste their vote on their candidate. they will vote for republican because they still hold values and have shot of winning. This kills the third party. People hurt their interests by fracturing their votes, so they maximize their interests by voting for the person who represents their interests and has the best chance of winning. This exists because of plurality and the single member districts California has. It solidifies a two party system.

First Two Laws of Initiative Qualification

First Law of Initiative Qualification: Without $1-2 million, you cannot get anything on the ballot, no matter how popular. Example: the "3 Strikes Law" needed help from the Legislature to pass, even though it stemmed from the furor over the murder of a little girl and was widely supported. Second Law of Initiative Qualification: If you have $1-2 million, you can get absolutely anything on the ballot, no matter how wacky. Example: Prop 6 which prohibited horse slaughter and the consumption of horse meat. Other example: the proposition to put "none of the above" on ballots as sponsored by a Silicon Valley billionaire. Understanding this reality is crucial because it shows how money plays a big role in California's politics. Though there are not enough empirical data that suggest big money turns into votes, it does show that for every $100,000 spent in support (or against) of an initiative, the chances of it passing increases by 1%.

Get Out the Vote (GOTV)

GOTV pertains to the "final push" in a campaign. The intended purpose of GOTV is to get people to the polls. To do this, camaigns lauch a comprehensive field program that requires and abundance of volunteers to phone bank and canvass on behalf of their candidate. On election day, volunteers can implement micro-targeting by checking who has voted and either call or canvass the remaining people to help them turn in their ballot. The use of micro-targeting and volunteer outreach makes this the most effective way to mobilize voters. Important in California politics because it is widely used today in campaigning and election seasons.

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Christopher Newsom (born October 10, 1967) is an American Politician . He is the 49th and current lieutenant governor of California, after being elected in 2010. In 2003, he was elected the 42nd Mayor of San Francisco, the city's youngest in a hundred years. Newsom was re-elected in 2007 with 72 percent of the vote In 1996 San Francisco mayor Willie Brown appointed Newsom to serve on the city's Parking and Traffic Commission, and then as a member of the Board of Supervisors the following year. Newsom drew voter attention with his Care Not Cash program, designed to move Homeless people into city-assisted care. Take away: had a lot of influence in SF, and is now just a figurehead for the governor's administration.

The Convention System

The Conventional system 1849-1908 → Parties got to throw their own parties managing and paying for convention that were not regulated by the state. → No laws against bribing delegates → No laws guaranteeing delegates the right to vote at a convention → Political bosses determined the outcomes at the conventions. Important because we got the primary system from this.

Abraham Ruef

Often referred as the "Boss" of San Francisco, Ruef used Eugene E. Schmitz (26th Mayor of SF) as his puppet to control the city. He also had the Chief of police, the board of supervisors (Reuf would use retainers from legal cases to buy supervisors' votes), and several judges in his pocket. Like other political bosses, Reuf relied on material incentives to nurture loyalty. He was once a reformer who wanted to beat the special money interests and was the driving force behind the creation of the Union Labor Party. However, he had the "If you can't beat them, join them" mentality and became one of the biggest corrupt special interests himself. He was later proven guilty by Hiram Johnson for charges of bribery, corruption, etc. He is an important figure of California politics because of his symbol of corruption and his trial brought Hiram Johnson the popular image which landed him a gubernatorial seat. → Important because he gave Hiram Johnson prominence. Johnson gave us direct democracy.

Blanket Primary

Proposition 198 introduced the blanket primary system to California. This system allowed voters (regardless of their registration) to vote in any election of their choosing. The intent was to bring more moderates and independents into electoral politics and elect more moderate candidates. However, it backfired because some members of one party would vote for the weakest member in the other party to make the general election more manageable for their party's candidate. The Democratic and Republican party sued to overturn the proposition, and the case was heard before the California Supreme Court--where it was eventually overturned. After this, California adopted the modified closed party system (Dems and Repubs could only vote in their party's primary, while independents could vote in the primary of their choosing). → Professor wants us to be able to explain the difference between blanket primary system, cross filing, and our current primary system.

Proposition 25 (2010)

Proposition 25 ended the state's requirement of a ⅔ majority to pass a budget and replaced it with a simple majority. It also cuts legislators' pay until they agree on a budget after the budget deadline has passed. This gave a strategic advantage to the majority party, since they did not need to whip votes to pass a budget. Additionally the "big five" (governor, assembly speaker, assembly minority leader, senate president pro tempore and senate minority leader) would often negotiate a budget deal when the legislature could not pass a budget. It is now limited to three. → Take home: budgets are much more easily passed because CA will always have a dem majority. You do not have to do as much deal making.

Proposition 1A (1966)

Proposition that altered California's part-time legislative status to a full-time status (Professionalization.) This bill allowed the legislature to set its own calendar and salaries. A cap of 5% per year was established for increases in salaries and was increased from $6,000 to $16,000 (made public service a career.) The proposition was largely spearheaded by Jesse Unruh, the speaker of the assembly (D). With this initiative, more expert staffs were brought in, salaries increased, and the legislative session operated full-time. Unruh wanted the legislature to be independent of lobbyists and the governor. This is important in California politics because it paved a new course for the state. Though there were unintended consequences that professionalization brought, (i.e.: made campaigning very expensive, polarized the assembly, made budgets to be often late, and increased district size which led politicians be out of touch with their constituencies.) the benefits of professionalization far exceeded its cons.

Several observers of California politics blame the state's system of primary elections for increasing polarization in the state. In 1996, voters passed Proposition 198 to allow voters to participate in the primary of their choosing, even if they were registered under a different party. Discuss the pros and cons of such a system. Why did the U.S. Supreme Court strike down the system?

Pros: let independents and moderates into the process, and select more moderate nominees. Opened the primary system to get a more realistic view of voters in the primary elections. Cons: Allow for voters of opposite parties to vote for a bad candidate or a candidate they believed they could easily defeat in the general election. SCOTUS: violated a party's freedom of association. Determined in California Democratic Party vs Jones, 2000.

Hiram Johnson

Successfully prosecuted Abe Ruef (after original prosecutor Henry was shot) and then became Governor in 1910. While "Progressives" were moderate republicans who split with the rest of their party; businessmen who wanted to bring technical expertise into government; and political reformers, Johnson was a "non-traditional republican" who battled special interests (namely: Southern Pacific Railroad.) In 1911, Johnson and the Progressives added initiative, referendum, and recall to the state government, giving California a degree of direct democracy unmatched by any other U.S. state.

Baker v. Carr

Supreme court case that outlawed Malapportionment. The case started when Baker, a republican, sued Carr (secretary of state for Tennessee) on the grounds of not receiving the same protection under the 14th amendment. Baker's county was unfairly redistricted, where his county now had 10 times the population than other counties. Carr defended that redistricting issues are a political question and not a judicial one, as held by Colegrove V Green. However, the court reached the consensus that each county should be redistricted to have equal amount of people in each (one man, one vote ruling.) This is important in California politics because this Supreme Court ruling prevents malapportionment in California as well. → Rural counties lose influence under this new scheme.

Two Constituencies Problem

The "People" and lawmakers disagree because the people who vote don't represent the same demographics as those who live in the district. This creates two constituencies: the electorate and residents. The Legislature is apportioned to represent residents in their district. In 2000, 32.4% of residents were Latino and only 16.2% had household incomes of 40-75,000. However the electorate in 2000 was 36% middle class and 13% Latino. This disparity causes the Legislature to reflect the needs of the electorate more, which may not be what residents of the state want (it is out of touch with the voters who make less that the income stated above. Unequal representation.) → Voters are overall more white. For assembly, they have more minorities in their district--which will guide their messaging (they are a larger part of their district). It's important because legislators feel more beholden to their district and residence, while the governor is more concerned with the general population and state as a whole. Governor and statewide officials might make local constituencies feel disenfranchised through policies they implement.

Proposition 28 (2012)

The Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce were the original sponsors of the measure and named their group "Californians for a Fresh Start." Prop 28 would allow future legislators to serve for a total of 12 years in either or both houses of the Legislature. An individual could serve up to six 2‐year terms in the Assembly or three 4‐year terms in the Senate or a combination of terms in both houses totaling 12 years. Unlike a similar 2008 proposition which was defeated at the polls, Prop 28 would not apply to sitting members of the Senate or Assembly, but would apply only to members of the Senate or Assembly first elected after this June 5, 2012 election. →Voter approved → The constitution now allows legislators → To serve up to 12 years in the legislature before being lifetime ban → Mix and match terms → Assembly and Senate or, → simply spend a dozen years in 1 house if they continue to be (re-elected) Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 28: → Prop 28 actually weakens term limits for state legislators by lengthening the amount of time politicians can serve in one of the two houses. → Members of the Assembly would be able to serve for 12 years, instead of the current 6 years, and members of the Senate would be able to serve for 12 years, instead of the current 8 years. Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 28: → The Legislature is still filled with career politicians more focused on campaigning for their next office than doing their jobs. → By removing the incentive to change offices to complete their lifetime officeholder limit, legislators will be more likely to learn their jobs, get things done, and be more accountable to their constituents. Take home: Prop 28 was blanket term limits. You can serve 12 years in either chamber. After 12 years there is a lifetime limit. before it was 14 total with limits on how many terms you could spend in each house. They get less years in office, but they can mix and match. This is the second time this system was attempted before by a prop that wouldn't apply terms retroactively (meaning, the clock would start over on their limits once the policy was implemented). The benefit to 28 is creating more senior members of each house, it adds more professionalization and still tries to prevents career politicians. it is a compromise between experience while still having a citizen's legislature (fresh minds). It does not, however, eliminate career politicians. They can still serve elsewhere before and after the state legislature.

Thornburg v. Gingles

The North Carolina General Assembly passed a redistricting plan for the state's Senate and House of Representatives. Black citizens of North Carolina alleged that the plan created seven new districts where blacks would not be able to elect representatives of their choosing. They filed suit in a District Court claiming that this violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Before the District Court could hear the case, Congress amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in order to clarify that voting violations needed only to have a "discriminatory effect" and required no "discriminatory purpose." Considering the "totality of circumstances" of the redistricting plan, the District Court ruled that six of the new districts violated the newly amended Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of the black vote. The North Carolina Attorney General appealed the decision directly to the Supreme Court. → Section 2 enables majority-minority districts, which are districts where minorities comprise the majority or a sufficient percentage of a given district such that there is a greater likelihood that they can elect a candidate who may be racially or ethnically similar to them. This Comment will focus on how minorities can establish vote dilution claims against electoral systems under Section 2. → Section 5 is more geographically focused than Section 2, based on the history of political discrimination in the South. Section 5 requires the Justice Department to approve of any changes in the election systems or procedures in states where there has been a history of racial discrimination with regards to voting.12 The goal of this requirement, known as the "preclearance"13 requirement, is to ensure any change in voting procedures has neither discriminatory "purpose" nor "effect."14 The burden of proof is on the jurisdiction that wishes to change its voting scheme to show a lack of discriminatory purpose or effect to obtain preclearance.15 By making review of such proposals automatic, private parties and civil rights groups do not have to invest significant resources—financial or otherwise—to bring judicial challenges to measures it sees as biased. Section 5 currently applies to "all or parts of the following states: California Summary: North Carolina spread the black votes out in 7 districts. Creating several strong black districts to create disproportionate minority in a majority of districts. This was extreme gerrymandering and violated the voting rights act.

What are the main formal powers available to governors in California? What other powers or strategies are available to governors for achieving policy objectives? Select one formal and one informal power and explain how Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger used them to further his goals in office.

The governor's formal powers: • Ability to propose a budget. Governor's budget due in January, and to be voted on and finalized by June. • Ability to appoint. Governor has the ability to appoint thousands of members like judges, board members, and cabinet members. • Ability to issue executive orders. For example, governor Davis re-imposed a car tax after it was shut down by the courts in 2003. • Ability to veto legislation. The governor can override any bill or any portion of a bill through the line item veto. He can also veto the whole bill by not signing it. The governor's informal powers: • Power of initiation. The governor can set the tone of the legislative agenda through their State of the State address and can call special sessions to achieve a certain goal. • Power of provision. The governor has the upper hand when bargaining with legislators and special interests because of his appointment powers. • Power of publicity. The governor is more popular than legislators. The governor can leverage his or her popularity to approach the media and draw public support to further push his agenda. (Formal) Immediately taking office in 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to repeal the vehicle license fee, a revenue source that had been restored by Governor Gray Davis. By taking this action, Schwarzenegger honored a crucial campaign promise he made when running for governor. (Informal) In 2005, governor Schwarzenegger used his State of the State address to declare war on Sacramento's special interests and belittled legislators who didn't adopt his budget plan by calling them "girlie men." He also appealed directly to the public to build momentous support for proposition 58, a measure designed to create more reserves in the future. He used his fame to his advantage and bypassed legislation to get what he wanted.

What were the major justifications cited by Progressives for implementing recall elections in California? What is necessary to qualify a recall petition for a statewide officer in California? For a state legislator? Has the actual use of the recall in California been consistent with the goals of Progressive Era reformers? Explain your answer using a specific example.

The major justification to implement (add) the recall process in the state was to combat the graft and corruption that was prominent at the time. After all, the state legislature was heavily influenced by political mob bosses like Abe Ruef and big moneys (special interests) like the Southern Pacific Railroad company. By adding the recall process, citizens have the power to keep their elected leaders in check. • In California, you can recall an elected official for any. This is more lenient than any other state that has adopted the recall. To put a recall on the ballot for a statewide official you need to gather petitions that represent 12% of the voters in that official's last election. It takes 20% of the electorate to put a recall of a legislator on the ballot. Once the proponent garners enough signatures, the recall goes on the ballot. There is a yes or no option to recall the official (a simple majority is required to recall a officer). All qualified replacement candidates appear on the same ballor (the requirements for qualification are very simple to attain) and it takes plurality to win. • Recalls are usually unsuccessful o 37 gubernatorial recall attempts before, 10 after the Davis recall, all failed to reach the ballot in CA In practice, low signature thresholds, professional gatherers allow well-funded groups to target the politicians who oppose them e.g., In 1994, the NRA targeted David Roberti, president pro tempore of the California Senate for efforts to pass a semiautomatic assault weapons ban. The effort failed but Roberti spent $800,000 and subsequently lost his race for state treasurer

Line Item Veto

The power of the governor to delete or reduce the budget within a bill without rejecting the entire bill or budget; an absolute 2/3 vote of both houses of the state legislature is required to override. Important because it provides power to the governor by giving him or her the ability to tailor legislation to their preferences. Also serves as a check and balance to keep order within state government.

Media market

The various television broadcast regions throughout the state. There are fewer media markets than assembly districts. This is an issue in areas like Los Angeles, where the plethoric amount of assembly districts and the expansive nature of the broadcast range saturate the media market and diminish its effectiveness at reaching out to voters. Television is expensive and not very targeted. Many campaigns choose to invest their money in targeted mailers (the saints, sinners and salvageable), phone banks, and canvasses instead of television advertisements. Whether television is worth the investment depends on the level of office 9not worth it in school board race) and the drawing of the media markets. There is also free media (free tv, radio and newspapers). While candidates do have less control over the content, it is still worthwhile to utilize it because it is free. → It is not cost effective for the smaller offices because you will not reach a majority of your voters.

Communities of interest

This is a term coined under the 2008 Prop 11 which established a new process for redistricting using a 14 member Citizens Redistricting Commission on state legislative and board of equalization districts. A "community of interest" is a criteria the commission must use when drawing the districts; however, it was not actually defined until 2010 with Prop 20. Here it was stated to be a "population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation". Give examples → check chapter.

Proposition 140 (1990)

This was the first imposition of term limits in California and it passed by a 52 to 48 margin. It limited members to three two-year terms in the Assembly and two four-year terms in the Senate. These were lifetime limits so once a legislator reached the limit they could not ever run again. It also reduced the amount of staff by 30% in an effort to cut campaign staff, but instead, it cut bipartisan experts hired to advise the legislature (it let the legislators choose who to cut and they immediately went for the legislative staff). The hope was that term limits would do the following: • End careerism • Diversify the legislature • Bring politicians closer to the people and stop the expansion of bureaucracy. Careerism was not ended, as most politicians just found different venues like local government. There is evidence to support that term limits increased the amount of minorities, and to a smaller extent, the amount of women in the legislature. However, it also caused greater turnover in committee leadership and reduced gatekeeping (the legislature is no longer providing a check on other branches.) Also, more bills are being "hijacked" meaning they are proposed as doing one thing then completely changed to reflect another agenda but still being marketed under the same title which is highly manipulative.

Between 1961 and 1968, the California state legislature was transformed from an amateur to a professional body. What major changes were implemented during this time? What are the advantages and disadvantages of legislative professionalism?

Through proposition 1A (1966,) the California legislature transformed from a part time legislation to a full time legislation. Also during this time, Jesse Unruh (the speaker of the assembly at the time) moved the 3rd house to his office and brought other changes. This way, the legislation was not constantly dependent on lobbyists and special interests. Unruh was the primu mobile (Prime Mover) that brought professionalization to the state. Professionalization brought growth in salaries for staff, brought in experts, and increased the amount of legislative sessions. With the passing of proposition 1A at the time, California became one of the 7 states to have a full-time legislation. Benefits of Professionalization: • It made the legislature transformative. In contrast to a parliament that rubber stamps cabinet requests, it could change proposals and design bills on its own. • It allowed legislation to increase its own salaries and set its own calendar. • Expert staff made lobbyists less powerful • Leg could hear more bills (pervill article) jumped to 3,700 bills immediately after the passage of prop 1a. • Full-time members not tied to the whims or special interest of a day job (current salaries exceed $113,000 per year. Also made public service a career.) → People could devote their lives to governing and become experts on the issue. • Assembly Office of Research created to improve information (1962.). • Legislators also reaped political benefits from the reforms. District offices gave members a permanent presence back home and promoted their reelec- tion prospects. More staff increased the legislators' abilities to deliver con- stituent services. Also, funds were created to pay for four constituent news- letters per two-year session (Jewell 1982, 61-63).8 • Consequently, most post-1966 legislators approach their service as a pro- fession. Observers claim there are fewer alcoholics and that legislators are more serious about their duties Problems Professionalization brought: • Power of incumbency grows with increased resources, makes government less responsive.

Ayatollah of the Assembly

Willie Brown was the 41st mayor of San Francisco and former speaker of the assembly. He was not universally loved, and is the reason we have term limits in California. Brown served 30 years in the assembly, and was eventually voted out due to the passing of Prop 140 (term limits and reducing staff by 30%.). He then ran a successful campaign for mayor of San Francisco. He is an important figure because he is the reason why Proposition 140 was initiated in the first place. He was the longest serving speaker in state history, and also one of the most powerful to have ever served (due to his exceptional ability to manage people). Even when a group of legislators (the Gang of 5) attempted to oust Brown from the legislature, Brown maintained his speakership. Brown stayed in power for numerous reasons: • He could appoint committee members and would only appoint his allies to committees. • Brown controlled the flow of money. He enjoyed a strong relationship with interest groups and contribute to their campaigns. • Brown could also hire and fire anyone in the capital, and he could choose which offices people received. He also kept may proteges who would eventually repay him once they became prominent politicians (Gavin Newsom.) Brown used his formal abilities as speaker, as well as his ability to control the flow of money in Sacramento and his ability to manage people, to prolong his tenure in the legislature. This power was later successfully challenged by the people through prop 140.

Consecutive versus Lifetime Term Limits

With consecutive term limits a politician must leave the position once the limit has been reached but they can come back again and start over. This is meant to force incumbents to do other work so they don't become completely detached from their constituents should they decide to come back to the legislature. Lifetime term limits never reset. One a politician has served the set number of terms in a position they can never run for it again. A benefit to consecutive term limits is that it does not lose the expertise of incumbents because they can come back with a clean slate as long as they do something else for a term. Lifetime limits guarantee turnover but at the expense of lost expertise in a way that consecutive limits do not. → Consecutive can still give in to the power of the incumbancy, You cna leave and come back and still easily win. However, it is a good middle ground It forces a breath of fresh air. Advantages: they get a breath of fresh air and can diversify the leg. However, it does not end the political machine. it's very easy for them to get re-elected. Forcing lifetime term limits upsets the career politician trend.

Reforming the Progressive Reforms. Select one of the changes that the Progressive Movement made to California's political institutions, and use evidence from lectures and readings to evaluate whether the reform has had the effects that Progressives intended. Propose and defend your own idea for updating this reform.

• Initiative: - placing an initiative on the ballot is relatively easy here; CA initiatives are binding and the legislature cannot amend them; since 1978 heavier use of the process more than other states; - an initiative is a proposal for a new statute or constitutional provision that is wholly drafted by a citizen and voted on by the state electorate; - Did initiative process keep out special interests/corruption? • Referendum: - a petition referendum delays and puts up for vote a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor; - compulsory referendum is a constitutional amendment or a bond that ⅔ of the Assembly and Senate put on the ballot; - Did referendum process keep out special interests/corruption? • Recall: - 1911 constitutional amendment pushed along with the initiative and referendum by Gov. Hiram Johnson, the recall which was justified as a way to attack the graft and corruption of the time; does not specify the misdeed that it punishes; "recallable offense" is whatever majority says it is, etc. - Effects: Gray Davis recall 2003; since 1912 eight CA legislators have faced a recall election; only four were successfully replaced (Casualties of the Speakership fight "Assm. Paul Horcher (R-Los Angeles, 1995) , Assm. Doris Allen (R-Orange, 1995); recall allows successor to be chosen in an open primary-style election; abbreviated process, lack of coordination among candidates, plurality rule virtually guarantees winner with minority of the vote; does the possibility of removal change the behavior of elected officials?' The other side might say that while elected officials have not been recalled for being corrupt (much of the time at least), they have been recalled for taking actions that are arguably out of step with their constituents (for instance, we talked in class about how GOP Assemblywoman Doris Allen was recalled in her heavily-GOP Orange County district after she voted with Democrats to let Willie Brown stay in power as Speaker of the Assembly despite the fact that Dems no longer had a majority) and that this is in keeping with the Progressive Movement's general goal of promoting direct democracy. So there is one way that the recall isn't consistent with the Progressive Movement but another way in which it (arguably) is.

What effects, if any, have the implementation of term limits had on the composition of the California legislature? Have term limits changed the type of individuals who serve in the legislature? Have term limits made legislators more or less effective in getting bills passed?

• Term limits increased turnover in the CA legislature resulting in more officials lacking leadership experience. • Increase in minority members largely the result of underlying demographic changes. • Some minorities and women replaced termed out members, although many minority reps, like Willie Brown, were termed out too. o Further analysis of California Congressional delegates proves that term limits may not be responsible for any of the increase in women's representation. → Amount of women in legislature jumpes immediately jumped after term limit tollout. However, the number dropped later. o Similar analysis proves that term limits made state seats more attainable for Latinos. Compared it to Congressional make up. Therer were more LAtionos elected in leg. o Term limits increased the vulnerability of black representatives elected in the 70s and 80s • Partisan Composition o No serious challenges to Democratic control of congressional houses. ♣ Party switches in individual districts are rare. ♣ Any changes in membership are the result of redistricting efforts. • Age o Newly elected members are younger in the term-limits era. • Experience o Number of former staffers turned reps dropped. o George Millir's claim that temr limits would end carteerism (as explained in the Life Under term Limits chapter) was wrong. It s not a citizen's democracy. Peolpe coming in usually held office prior to entering the legislator. • Studies showed that there was no major change in getting bills passed. However, amount of bills passed in final term was lower because the legislator is preparing for their next career move. • Although the point of term limits was to enforce citizen legislature, we do not have citizen legislature. People who join the assembly have usually held another political office, and will continue to run for office after they fulfil their term limits. Severed electoral links is negative effect. Severed link between electeds and constituents.

How did the relationship between the California state legislature and the executive branch change after the implementation of term limits? Have term limits weakened the legislature in relation to the governor and executive agencies? Briefly discuss the evidence presented in lecture and the readings for and against this view?

• The Governor will usually be an experienced politician and have more media exposure. Willie Brown could hold his own with Deukmejian and Wilson, but because leadership will turn over every few years, they are at a disadvantage. This adds to the power of a governor who already has constitutional powers." • Study evaluated four budgets to determine if legislature was less willing to write the governor's budget proposals post term limits. • The most powerful weapon that California's Legislature possesses in its frequent battles with governors is its ability to tighten - or to loosen - the state's purse strings. Question: whether terms limits has sharply curtailed the legislature's ability and or willingness to rewrite the governor's budget proposals. • The legislature changes half as much of the governor's budget after term limits as it did before. The trend is the same under divided and unified government, and represents billions of dollars in legislative discretion that is no longer exercised. • The legislatures are less likely to override governor's vetoes and less likely to go against governor's proposals. Find reading examples.

The initiative process places a special burden on voters, who must make consequential policy decisions directly rather than rely exclusively on elected officials. How do voters make up their mind about particular initiatives? In California, political parties, interest groups and others spend vast sums attempting to influence voters' choices. Are these attempts effective? What are the advantages and disadvantages of making consequential policy decisions in this way?

• Voters make up their mind about particular initiatives based on what information they are exposed to. Research shows that many voters are uninformed about ballot initiatives • the more people learn about an initiative the less they like it: only two initiatives have passed when they originally polled under 50%.. • scholars have noted the heavy spending against a measure is effective; heavy spending for a measure has minimal impact • when voters are uncertain about the consequences of an initiative, they vote "no" • FYI: heavy spending by incumbents is a sign of electoral weakness, while heavy spending by challengers is a sign of electoral strength • voters also make up their mind based on their loyalty to their political party

Some observers of California politics believe that the initiative process allows special interests to "buy" legislation by placing items on the ballot and financing expensive campaigns to pass them. The problem is compounded, they say, because voters typically do not understand the effects that particular propositions will have. Are these fears about the influence of big money and voter confusion warranted? Please explain.

• Yes the fears about the influence of big money and voter information is warrant given the power that money has in the political outcome • Money plays an important role in politics: for example first of law of initiative qualification: without $1-2 million, you cannot get anything on the ballot, no matter how popular. o → Three strikes and you're out initiative did not pass because of funding. VS. The second law of initiative qualification: if you have $1-2 million, you can get absolutely anything on the ballot no matter how wacky such as the proposition of horse slaughter and sale of house meat which passed Take away points: Getting on the ballot can be bought with money, getting it passed is another story. People tend to vote on initiatives that they prefer. The content of the initiative proves to be more important. People also tend to vote in favor of the status quo, therefore it is easier for initiatives to fail (voting no.) Money plays a role, but it cannot literally buy legislation. It's true that about every $100,000 can increase support by 1%, however, money spent against is more effective. There are a lot of factors playing against this. The more people hear about it the more they tend to dislike it. The no campaigns are more effective. Money is very important to get initiative in the ballot (get the signatures). → for last part, just say big money is a large influence, but it cannot literally buy legislation.

George Deukmejian

→ Born June 6,1928 → an American politician who as a Republican served as → the 35th Governor of California (1983-1991) AND, → He pursued relatively modest legislative agendas → crackdown on child abuse → The major public works effort of his tenure = construction of prison. → California saw a skyrocketing prison population during his time on office → Opposed tax increase and pursed conservative economic policies. → California Attorney General (1979-1983) → He led a high profile campaign against marijuana in North California.

Legislative polarization

→ There are other states where the Democrats and Republicans in the statehouse are separated by a wide gap but California is in a different realm. It looks like it has the most liberal Democratic caucus and the most conservative Republican caucus of any state legislature in the country. → the GOP is a very small minority (< 31%) in both houses of the CA legislature so they can't even stop things that require various supermajorities anymore, and so they have no incentive to track to the center to try to gain control one of the houses. Second, until the commission -- two parties colluded to gerrymander everyone on both sides of the aisle into very safe districts while roughly preserving the balance of power. Studies show that legislators are more polarized than the voters. Many attributed this hyperpolarization to the state's primary system. Others attributed polarization to California's redistricting system which decreased competition. However, research disproves these point. DTS is the fastest growing registration population in the state, however, there are no independents in the legislature. The median voter is not being heard due to hyperpolarization.

Legislative Oversight

→ the frequency of legislative oversight through the LAO's "Supplemental Report to the Budget Bill" has decreased dramatically. → because of funding →legislative oversight of the executive branch has declined significantly → increased training in legislative oversight could improve the Legislature's performance in this area. The Legislature could also ensure more stability and responsibility in the budget process by: • Holding more joint Senate-Assembly subcommittee hearings to work out agreements in specific funding areas. • Giving these subcommittees specific funding targets to work within. • Reporting proposals from each house's subcommittees under closed rules so that they are not easily changed in the budget conference committee. This former practice of "locking" budget items on which both houses agreed should be reinstated to make subcommittee hearings more consequential. • Strengthening the Legislative Analyst's Office, giving it a larger role, and staffing it at previous levels. • Making chairs of the budget subcommittees members of the final budget conference committee to ensure that agreements made early on are adhered to more closely in the final stages. Take home from TA: Mention how it touches on checks and balances btw leg and governor. Professionalization of legislature instituted oversight by providing staffers.