To avoid the easy criticism that this post is just a shameless attempt by a termed-out legislator to get another term – let me start right off by admitting that, yes – if Prop 93 passes it would allow me to run for another term. (** full disclosure **)
If we chose to, it would allow me (proud recipient of the FlashReport Senator of the Year Award) – and Tom McClintock (conservative living legend) – and Dick Ackerman (Senate Republican Leader) – and George Runner (author of Jessica’s Law) – and Dennis Hollingsworth (conservative Senate Budget Vice-Chair) – and Jeff Denham (recall target of the California Democratic Party because he stood strong and voted NO on last year’s budget) – and Dave Cogdill (rock-ribbed conservative stalwart) and the rest of the Senate Republican Caucus to serve three terms in the Senate. If Prop 93 fails, McClintock, Ackerman, Bob Margett and I retire this year and the rest of my caucus gets two terms.
But keeping proven, committed conservative Republicans in office another term isn’t my main point in this argument – it’s keeping Republicans in office – period.
If Prop 93 fails – it’s a very real possibility Republicans will lose seats in both the Assembly and the Senate.
—- and, for the record – I don’t want that to happen. If Prop 93 fails, I will fight like hell to keep the seats I’m going to discuss below. I’m already backing candidates that would run if the incumbents can’t run again and I’ll be intimately involved in holding these seats – believe me.
I’m not betraying any secrets here – the Democrats know this as well as we do – but we could lose a couple seats in the Assembly and one in the Senate if we don’t have our incumbents running.
AD 78 – currently held by Assemblywoman Shirley Horton – is in real jeopardy. The registration is against us (33.78% Rep vs. 41.2% Dem). The Democrats have this as their number one priority for pickup and are already very active here. Shirley has held this seat three times and is the single perfect candidate to hold it again. Without her we are behind from start.
AD 80 – currently held by Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia – is another Democrat target. The registration is tough here too (36.63% Rep vs. 45.62% Dem). I know this district better than anyone in the state (except maybe Bonnie) and worked very hard with her to take it from the Democrats in 2002. Since then, the Democrats have gone after Bonnie every election. Last year they spent over $2 million. She won, barely. They are so eager about this seat they already have 5 candidates running. We’ve got a great candidate in Gary Jeandron, but honestly, Bonnie is in a much, much better position to keep it.
SD 19 – currently held by Senator Tom McClintock – is a major target by the Senate Democrats if Tom isn’t the candidate. Last cycle, when Tom was our candidate, the Dems just didn’t even try. Why waste millions against icon Tom McClintock? Now, even though our candidate Tony Strickland is great, the Democrats will spend millions and millions to pick this seat up. The registration is tough for us (40.31% Rep vs. 36.32% Dem), and the Dem leadership is already clearing the field on their side for former Assemblywoman Hannah Beth Jackson.
Now every dollar we spend fighting to hold SD 19 is a dollar we don’t have to hold SD 15 (Abel Maldonado’s seat). SD 15 is the Senate Dems top target to take a seat. Having to defend TWO multi-million dollar campaigns is going to be a herculean task. This will leave us very little to try and pick up SD 5 (Democrat Mike Machado’s seat). Our candidate for SD 5, Greg Aghazarian is outstanding – we need to have every dollar available to help him.
Now that you know that – here’s another ugly dose of reality: the Democrats in the Assembly, the Senate and the in the California Democratic Party have lots more money than we do. Lots more money (did I say LOTS more money?). We are always outspent – that’s a given, but this year without strong incumbents the money advantage is going to be a real factor. Having an incumbent in office is worth millions for us. Without any incumbents, in every seat we are stressed.
I know this may sound grim. But grim or not, it’s an honest analysis.
I’ve read post after post on this site attacking Prop 93. Opponents want to make this a referendum on Fabian Nunez and Don Perata and haven’t looked beyond that and how it will impact our party’s political fortunes. It’s time to give a dose of political reality.
Frankly, I don’t care about either Perata or Nunez. I’ve served with several Democrat Speakers and pro Tems and one isn’t any better than the other – all of them are die hard liberals. Antonio Villaragosa wasn’t any better than Willie Brown and Fabian isn’t better or worse than Antonio. Perata’s politics are exactly the same as John Burton’s. It’s just plain silly to think that whoever follows Perata or Nunez will be any better to California or Republican legislators. It’s just as likely they’ll be worse.
I’m sure we’ll have lots to discuss about Prop 93 in the next few days. Let’s keep the debate about the facts and look at what its passage or defeat will actually mean – not just emotional rhetoric.
If you want to know more about Prop 93 – check out the Term Limits Reform website.
If you want to read Governor Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of Prop 93 – click here.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jim, moving past the idea that this measure is so self serving for termed out incumbents (like yourself), the real case that you are making is that you oppose term limits.
The whole reason why Prop. 140 was passed by the voters was the notion that we have a citizen legisature — that being a representative in Sacramento should not be a career, but rather a place where citizens can serve for a relatively short period of time, and then return back to their community and live under the laws they help create.
I spent enough time in politics before the passage of 140 to remember what it was like. Legislative seats would open up once in a generation, and those in office quickly forgot (or didn’t care) about the folks back home.
Maybe with competitive legislative districts, I could be open to exploring changes to our term limits.
But without fair districts, the only way to keep things mixed up, and keep someone like a Fabian Nunez from being the next Willie Brown (reigning for ten or twenty years) is term limits.
I admit that we do lose some great legislators (such as YOU!). But since the option under these legislative lines is to allow the Democrat majority to entrench for even longer period of time… I think Prop. 93 is a bad, bad idea.
The chaos and political swirl caused by three terms in the Assembly and two terms in the Senate benefits us all. In its absence, Democrats would create even more trouble (if that is possible).
January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon –
I felt it was important to detail what will happen in the legislature if Prop 93 fails: Republicans will very likely lose seats. And that will have real impact on California. This you did not address in your comment.
All that stands between tax increases in the Senate is TWO Republicans – we are in jeopardy of losing one or both of them.
I would love to have redistricting, but on this ballot we’re not going to get it – that’s the reality. But cutting your nose off (eliminating our incumbent advantage in ALL of our target seats) to spite your face (because there isn’t a redistricting element on the ballot) isn’t the best strategy to elect or keep Republicans in the legislature.
I’ll be there 100% on supporting a redistricting plan – on this we will agree.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Funny how Proposition 140 was brought up. Didn’t anyone approach then-Supervisor Pete Schabarum how this would affect our state government towards a dysfunctional banana republic?
I find it very ironic that no one criticized then Schabarum for serving 6 years in the Assembly and 18 on the Board of Supervisors for a grand total of 24 years on the taxpayers dime.
We all knew that Proposition 140 was aimed at Willie Brown and there is no denying that fact.
Now look at what we get ourselves into defending several legislative seats that the Democrats want back…BADLY.
Proposition 93 is the only remedy and even this Republican is open to discuss the merits without emotions towards Nunez and Perata.
Frankly, this California government belongs to the people and we need elect good people to Sacramento to solve problems.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
But if it passes, Democrats will hold onto too many seats.
January 16th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Good News for the No on 93 forces….
“John and Ken”, the KFI radio talk show hosts in Los Angeles, are starting to talk
about Prop. 93, calling it deceptive. They reach an enormous audience each day
in LA, OC, and Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
The “too-clever-by-half” nature of Proposition 93 is just their meat.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
The “irony” of Pete Schabarum’s sponsorship of 140 was pointed out repeatedly during the passage and (very expensive) defense of term limits. The reality is that only someone who knew first-hand the abuses of the system would have sufficient credability with the voters to bring about a needed changed (think Nixon going to China).
The hypocricy on this issue never ceases to amaze. How many bonefide (younger) conservatives now in office owe their opportunity to 140, and how many termed-out legislators (or soon to be termed-out) would gladly embrace federal congressional term limits (another cause advanced and financed by Pete Schabarum, embraced by the voters, but overturned by the courts).
The deal was supposed to be term limit modification with a common sense and honest formula for redistricting. That didn’t happen. Prop 92 deserves to be defeated.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
Jon–
You can accuse Sen. Battin all you want about really wanting to do away with term limits, but Prop. 93 doesn’t do that. It does not get us back to pre-Pro. 140 times where legislative seats were occupied by an incumbent for decades at a time.
He says that defeating Prop. 93 will strengthen the Democrat majority; you say eliminating term limits helps the Democrats. Since you won’t engage him on the issue at hand, I’d say he wins the argument on Prop. 93. You only win the argument on whether we should have term limits, since he’s not arguing that point.
January 17th, 2008 at 12:00 am
We must vote NO to defeat Prop 93, the ruling elite power grab. We need new blood in the Republican Party to advance the conservative agenda. The old guard has failed to support: a redistricting plan, the Electoral College reform, voter registration programs, the Republican youth movement, Young Republican Clubs, County Central Committees, and the State Party. With a new class of elected officials we will receive new ideas, and hopefully a new winning strategy for the Republican Party.