Read these carefully.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Shock: Another Victory For Corporate Interests!
http://calitics.com/diary/9396/shock-another-victory-for-corporate-interests
Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Judy Chu, Jerome Horton, Board of Equalization, corporate taxes, (All Tags)
Shock: Another Victory For Corporate Interests!by: David DayenThu Jul 16, 2009 at 18:00:00 PM PDT |
Judy Chu was sworn into office today as the first Chinese-American woman to serve in Congress. Her departure opens a whole at the Board of Equalization, a little-known four-member board that collects taxes and determines a lot of corporate tax policy. The four districts are gerrymandered to produce two Democrats and two Republicans, with the state Controller making up the swing vote. Today the Governor announced his choice to replace Chu, and boy are the richest companies doing business in California happy: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today will appoint Jerome Horton, a business-friendly former Democratic lawmaker, to the state's tax board, an administration official said. Well, good for the business lobby, right? It's not like they have had multiple victories in the past year, what with getting all sorts of permanent corporate tax breaks in the past two budget agreements and pushing the Parsky Commission in an effort to eliminate corporate taxes altogether. They needed a leg up. Horton needs both houses of the Legislature to sign off on the appointment, but much like with Supreme Court appointments, I fail to see how rejecting him would somehow yield a better result. |
| David Dayen :: Shock: Another Victory For Corporate Interests! |
Thursday, July 16, 2009
"Balance of power in flux on California tax board" LAT
Balance of power in flux on California tax board
Judy Chu's departure for Congress leaves an opening on the evenly divided panel. Corporations want a business-friendly replacement while consumer advocates hope for another liberal.
By Shane Goldmacher
July 16, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- Judy Chu's election to Congress on Tuesday after more than two years on the state tax board could change the balance of power on the panel, which can affect corporate taxes to the tune of millions of dollars.
Her now-vacant board seat gives California's business lobby a coveted opportunity for more influence on its decisions, especially if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a longtime ally, makes a business-friendly appointment to replace her, as he is expected to.
The tax board's decisions can have major consequences for industry; its wide-ranging actions include determining which companies are eligible for California's myriad corporate tax breaks, and raising taxes 16-fold on fruity and fizzy "alcopops."
Consumer advocates hope for a liberal in the mold of Chu to fill the seat.
Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Assn., said only special interests pay close attention to the tax board -- "generally corporate interests that are trying to get their way with millions of dollars."
Liberal Democrats have dominated the five-person Board of Equalization in recent years, but Chu's exit leaves the panel evenly split between two conservatives and two liberals. Whomever Schwarzenegger picks would be the swing vote.
"We will appoint a pro-taxpayer replacement very soon," said Aaron McLear, a Schwarzenegger spokesman.
With the nominee requiring confirmation from both houses of the Democratic-controlled Legislature, focus has been on business-friendly Democrats to represent the Los Angeles-area tax district. Topping the list are state Sen. Ron Calderon of Montebello and former Assemblyman Jerome Horton of Inglewood, according to lobbyists who are tracking the appointment process.
Also angling for the job is Chu's husband, Assemblyman Mike Eng of Monterey Park.
Chu's chief deputy, Steve Shea, will serve as the interim fifth board member until a nominee is confirmed. The next election for the post will be held in 2010. Because of the Board of Equalization's low profile, incumbents rarely lose bids for reelection.
Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers Assn., a business-backed group, said her organization wants a nominee who is "fair and open-minded and respectful of the position of taxpayers."
The California Chamber of Commerce declined to comment, as did many business lobbyists.
Calderon, a self-described "pro-growth" moderate, said he has been lobbying the governor's office for the job. He said he believes businesses appealing their tax bills aren't given the benefit of the doubt by the current board.
"There's an attitude right now. . . . They're guilty before they're proven innocent," he said. "I'd like to change that tone."
Horton, also a moderate, lost the 2006 Democratic primary to Chu. During his six years in the Assembly, he was perhaps best known for holding out as long as possible before casting a vote, calling himself "Mr. 41," a reference to the last vote needed to past most bills. Both come with political baggage.
Calderon is known for extravagant campaign spending.
Horton was sued in April by his former campaign strategist, Richie Ross, for failing to pay $17,424 in fees accrued during his 2006 campaign. Ross said Horton paid up almost immediately after the suit was filed. Horton could not be reached for comment.
Eng said Monday that he had not spoken with the governor's office about the post but would seek the seat.
"I think I have the ability to make, to evaluate, complex decisions as to public policies," said Eng, who was elected to the Assembly in 2006 after holding local government posts.
Judy Chu's departure for Congress leaves an opening on the evenly divided panel. Corporations want a business-friendly replacement while consumer advocates hope for another liberal.
By Shane Goldmacher
July 16, 2009
Reporting from Sacramento -- Judy Chu's election to Congress on Tuesday after more than two years on the state tax board could change the balance of power on the panel, which can affect corporate taxes to the tune of millions of dollars.
Her now-vacant board seat gives California's business lobby a coveted opportunity for more influence on its decisions, especially if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a longtime ally, makes a business-friendly appointment to replace her, as he is expected to.
The tax board's decisions can have major consequences for industry; its wide-ranging actions include determining which companies are eligible for California's myriad corporate tax breaks, and raising taxes 16-fold on fruity and fizzy "alcopops."
Consumer advocates hope for a liberal in the mold of Chu to fill the seat.
Lenny Goldberg, executive director of the California Tax Reform Assn., said only special interests pay close attention to the tax board -- "generally corporate interests that are trying to get their way with millions of dollars."
Liberal Democrats have dominated the five-person Board of Equalization in recent years, but Chu's exit leaves the panel evenly split between two conservatives and two liberals. Whomever Schwarzenegger picks would be the swing vote.
"We will appoint a pro-taxpayer replacement very soon," said Aaron McLear, a Schwarzenegger spokesman.
With the nominee requiring confirmation from both houses of the Democratic-controlled Legislature, focus has been on business-friendly Democrats to represent the Los Angeles-area tax district. Topping the list are state Sen. Ron Calderon of Montebello and former Assemblyman Jerome Horton of Inglewood, according to lobbyists who are tracking the appointment process.
Also angling for the job is Chu's husband, Assemblyman Mike Eng of Monterey Park.
Chu's chief deputy, Steve Shea, will serve as the interim fifth board member until a nominee is confirmed. The next election for the post will be held in 2010. Because of the Board of Equalization's low profile, incumbents rarely lose bids for reelection.
Teresa Casazza, president of the California Taxpayers Assn., a business-backed group, said her organization wants a nominee who is "fair and open-minded and respectful of the position of taxpayers."
The California Chamber of Commerce declined to comment, as did many business lobbyists.
Calderon, a self-described "pro-growth" moderate, said he has been lobbying the governor's office for the job. He said he believes businesses appealing their tax bills aren't given the benefit of the doubt by the current board.
"There's an attitude right now. . . . They're guilty before they're proven innocent," he said. "I'd like to change that tone."
Horton, also a moderate, lost the 2006 Democratic primary to Chu. During his six years in the Assembly, he was perhaps best known for holding out as long as possible before casting a vote, calling himself "Mr. 41," a reference to the last vote needed to past most bills. Both come with political baggage.
Calderon is known for extravagant campaign spending.
Horton was sued in April by his former campaign strategist, Richie Ross, for failing to pay $17,424 in fees accrued during his 2006 campaign. Ross said Horton paid up almost immediately after the suit was filed. Horton could not be reached for comment.
Eng said Monday that he had not spoken with the governor's office about the post but would seek the seat.
"I think I have the ability to make, to evaluate, complex decisions as to public policies," said Eng, who was elected to the Assembly in 2006 after holding local government posts.
"The wages of political cascading" LA Times
http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2009/07/the-wages-of-political-cascading.html
LA Times Opinion
The wages of political cascading
Here's something that leftish Democrats talked about a lot -- but only quietly, over drinks in back rooms -- when they were trying to decide whether to back Judy Chu or Gil Cedillo to replace Hilda Solis in Congress when President Obama picked Solis for labor secretary.
If we go with Gil, they said, we can hand-pick some reliable Democrat to replace him in the state Senate. But Gil's gone sort of moderate. So maybe we should go with more reliably leftish Judy. Oh, but wait, that will mean Schwarzenegger would appoint her replacement on the state Board of Equalization, and he'd choose someone who's gone sort of moderate.
Well, they went with Chu in the special primary, and she won. Today Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed moderate Democrat Jerome Horton to the Board of Equalization, and if he's confirmed, it's a major defeat for leftish Democrats. Even though Horton's a Democrat. Which raises some questions:
Q: What the heck is the state Board of Equalization?
A: It's the nation's only elected tax body. It's in charge of collecting sales and property taxes, and is not to be confused with the Franchise Tax Board, which collects income taxes. We need a separate, elected BOE because -- um, because -- well, because California needs more elected officials. Also, without a BOE, termed-out legislators who aren't yet ready to run for statewide office but who can't get appointed to the Waste Management Board would have no power base and limited fund-raising opportunities. The BOE keeps them in the game.
Q: Horton's a Democrat. And there's nothing wrong with being a moderate. So what's the big deal?
A: In tax policy circles, "moderate" is code for business-friendly, which changes the balance on the five-member board. The state is divided into four districts: 1st (representing the entire California coast, from Oregon to Santa Barbara; automatically a Democratic seat); 2nd (cow counties, tax revolt counties, the desert portion of L.A. county: Republican seat); 3rd (San Diego, Orange, Inland Empire; in other words, Republican seat); and 4th (the non-desert portions of L.A. County. Democrat). The tie is broken by the state controller, who is Democrat John Chiang. But Horton would be expected to mix things up by voting, sometimes, with the Republicans. And those tax policy votes will make a far bigger difference to California, in the short run at least, than anything Chu could possibly do in Congress.
Q: Wait, didn't Chu beat Horton in the last BOE Democratic primary?
A: Indeed she did: Chu got 49.7% of the vote in the 4-person field; Horton got 31.5%. So should we say that Schwarzenegger is flouting the choice of voters, who had a chance to pick Horton and overwhelmingly said no? Or should we say that Schwarzenegger is doing the voters' will by giving them their back-up choice?
Q: Is Horton even qualified for this job?
A: No, unless you count his two-decade career at the BOE, his six years as a state assemblyman, and his four years on the Inglewood City Council. Some Democrats who oppose Horton likely do so because of his pro-business approach on taxes and his penchant for avoiding Assembly votes to keep lobbyists on both sides courting him until the last possible moment.
Q: What about Chu's husband, Mike Eng? Doesn't the state Constitution require Eng to always succeed Chu in any elected position?
A: No, although it's understandable why someone might think that. Eng succeeded Chu on the Monterey Park City Council, as Monterey Park mayor, and as member of the Assembly from the 49th District.
Q: Is Horton going to be confirmed by the Legislature?
A: Not without a lot of angst and political saber-rattling. If he's not confirmed, and no follow-up appointment is confirmed, a former Chu staffer will fill in until the BOE election next year. Bet you can hardly wait.
Q: If the BOE board is supposed to represent the entire state, how come four of five members come from the L.A. area?
A: District line-drawing at its finest.
Photo: Robert Durell /
LA Times Opinion
The wages of political cascading
Here's something that leftish Democrats talked about a lot -- but only quietly, over drinks in back rooms -- when they were trying to decide whether to back Judy Chu or Gil Cedillo to replace Hilda Solis in Congress when President Obama picked Solis for labor secretary.
If we go with Gil, they said, we can hand-pick some reliable Democrat to replace him in the state Senate. But Gil's gone sort of moderate. So maybe we should go with more reliably leftish Judy. Oh, but wait, that will mean Schwarzenegger would appoint her replacement on the state Board of Equalization, and he'd choose someone who's gone sort of moderate.
Well, they went with Chu in the special primary, and she won. Today Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed moderate Democrat Jerome Horton to the Board of Equalization, and if he's confirmed, it's a major defeat for leftish Democrats. Even though Horton's a Democrat. Which raises some questions:
Q: What the heck is the state Board of Equalization?
A: It's the nation's only elected tax body. It's in charge of collecting sales and property taxes, and is not to be confused with the Franchise Tax Board, which collects income taxes. We need a separate, elected BOE because -- um, because -- well, because California needs more elected officials. Also, without a BOE, termed-out legislators who aren't yet ready to run for statewide office but who can't get appointed to the Waste Management Board would have no power base and limited fund-raising opportunities. The BOE keeps them in the game.
Q: Horton's a Democrat. And there's nothing wrong with being a moderate. So what's the big deal?
A: In tax policy circles, "moderate" is code for business-friendly, which changes the balance on the five-member board. The state is divided into four districts: 1st (representing the entire California coast, from Oregon to Santa Barbara; automatically a Democratic seat); 2nd (cow counties, tax revolt counties, the desert portion of L.A. county: Republican seat); 3rd (San Diego, Orange, Inland Empire; in other words, Republican seat); and 4th (the non-desert portions of L.A. County. Democrat). The tie is broken by the state controller, who is Democrat John Chiang. But Horton would be expected to mix things up by voting, sometimes, with the Republicans. And those tax policy votes will make a far bigger difference to California, in the short run at least, than anything Chu could possibly do in Congress.
Q: Wait, didn't Chu beat Horton in the last BOE Democratic primary?
A: Indeed she did: Chu got 49.7% of the vote in the 4-person field; Horton got 31.5%. So should we say that Schwarzenegger is flouting the choice of voters, who had a chance to pick Horton and overwhelmingly said no? Or should we say that Schwarzenegger is doing the voters' will by giving them their back-up choice?
Q: Is Horton even qualified for this job?
A: No, unless you count his two-decade career at the BOE, his six years as a state assemblyman, and his four years on the Inglewood City Council. Some Democrats who oppose Horton likely do so because of his pro-business approach on taxes and his penchant for avoiding Assembly votes to keep lobbyists on both sides courting him until the last possible moment.
Q: What about Chu's husband, Mike Eng? Doesn't the state Constitution require Eng to always succeed Chu in any elected position?
A: No, although it's understandable why someone might think that. Eng succeeded Chu on the Monterey Park City Council, as Monterey Park mayor, and as member of the Assembly from the 49th District.
Q: Is Horton going to be confirmed by the Legislature?
A: Not without a lot of angst and political saber-rattling. If he's not confirmed, and no follow-up appointment is confirmed, a former Chu staffer will fill in until the BOE election next year. Bet you can hardly wait.
Q: If the BOE board is supposed to represent the entire state, how come four of five members come from the L.A. area?
A: District line-drawing at its finest.
Photo: Robert Durell /
Mr. Tobacco
The University of California’s Center for Tobacco
Control Research and Education studied the effect of tobacco company contributions—
and they determined that State Assemblyman Jerome Horton had the
highest pro-tobacco industry rating of any Democratic Assemblymember. They
also reported that Horton received $61,000—more than any other Democrat.
(source: “Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003,”)
http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmus/CAPolicy2003/
Control Research and Education studied the effect of tobacco company contributions—
and they determined that State Assemblyman Jerome Horton had the
highest pro-tobacco industry rating of any Democratic Assemblymember. They
also reported that Horton received $61,000—more than any other Democrat.
(source: “Tobacco Policy Making in California 2001-2003,”)
http://repositories.cdlib.org/ctcre/tcpmus/CAPolicy2003/
Mr. 41
"I'm Mr. 41," said Assemblyman Horton, referring to the last vote needed to pass most bills. "I'm always in the game."
LA Times
August 29, 2005
Not Yes, Not No, Not Even a Maybe
Nancy Vogel
Some legislators choose to abstain rather than vote. It's all about power -- or political cover.
Los Angeles Times
SACRAMENTO ' Whenever the state Assembly votes on a bill, there's a good chance Jerome Horton will press neither the green "yes" nor the red "no" button on his desk. He says abstaining makes him powerful.
"When you vote yes or no," said the Democrat from Inglewood, "it takes you out of the negotiations, and I don't ever want to be out of the game."
When lawmakers can't get the votes they need to pass their measures, they rush to court the undecided in hopes of changing an abstention to a "yes" on another round of voting. That gives the abstainer leverage to argue for changes in the bill.
"I'm Mr. 41," said Assemblyman Horton, referring to the last vote needed to pass most bills. "I'm always in the game."
What Horton sees as clout, others see as the shirking of a lawmaker's essential duty. One of Horton's Democratic colleagues, Assemblyman John Laird of Santa Cruz, almost always picks yes or no.
"I just think I was sent up here to vote," Laird said.
A lawmaker has the right to abstain from any ' or every ' vote that occurs during his or her term. But regardless of the reason ' a purposeful dodge, an absence due to illness, a visit to the restroom ' a withheld vote has the same effect as a no vote.
California's legislative rules, unlike those in a few other states, require bills to be passed by a majority of lawmakers ' not a majority of those who happen to be present and voting.
In the only recent study of non-voting by California lawmakers, researchers found that Democrats decline to vote more often than Republicans ' 32% of the time, on average on bills that fail.
Lawmakers skip votes on bills that run from the arcane to the important, from banning the slaughter of farm animals on school campuses to legalizing gay marriage. Veterans say the practice is increasingly common.
"These days you see [non-voting] a lot more," especially in the Assembly, said Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta), who spent eight years in the Senate and is now in his fifth year in the Assembly.
The practice runs counter to a core tenet of democracy: that lawmakers take a stand on behalf of the people who elected them.
"You're there to do a job and to represent your constituents," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. "If you're not making decisions ' it seems to me you're not fulfilling your obligation."
Abstentions so annoy one group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, that it has drafted a ballot initiative that would withhold the pay of lawmakers on days when they don't vote.
"If I came to my job and a third of the time didn't do what I was supposed to, I wouldn't have a job," said foundation President Jamie Court, who hopes to put the initiative on the ballot next year.
Abstentions are more common in the 80-seat Assembly, where voting occurs in an electronic rush, than in the smaller Senate, where the roll is called.
When a bill comes up for a vote in the Assembly, a bell rings and lawmakers race to press their plastic buttons. Big scoreboards at the front of the chamber listing all of the members' names light up red and green ' or not at all for those who abstained.
In the Senate, every time a bill comes up for a vote, the clerk reads the last names of all 40 members, waiting to hear yes or no from each. To not vote, a senator must sit unresponsive while his or her name is called repeatedly.
Among the Democrats who dominate the Assembly, some ' Horton, Edward Chavez of La Puente, Simon Salinas of Salinas, Rebecca Cohn of Saratoga and Ronald S. Calderon of Montebello ' abstain more than others.
Chavez, for example, was present but did not vote on 13 of 35 contentious bills voted on the Assembly floor in May and June. Horton abstained on 11 of those, and Salinas, Cohn and Calderon each abstained on eight. More than 30 lawmakers abstained on none or only one of the 35 votes.
Chavez declined to speak on the record about why he abstains so frequently. Cohn and Calderon did not respond to requests for an interview.
Republicans, who make up 32 of the Assembly's 80 members, abstain far less often, and many times they do so en masse to make a point.
Public policy students at USC who studied non-voting during the 2001-02 legislative session found an average abstention rate among Republicans of 13.5%, compared with the Democrats' 32%, on bills that failed.
Assembly records show that one Republican, Keith Richman of Northridge, was present but did not vote on nine of the 35 controversial bills. Most of the votes came on a single day, June 2, when the Assembly session stretched past midnight. Richman's staff said he flew back to his district that afternoon for a personal obligation and missed many votes.
Explanations for non-voting abound among lawmakers, their staffs and political scientists.
One is cultural. It's considered "in your face," they say, to vote against a bill written by a member of your party. Abstaining, some say, is a way to sugar-coat a no so it won't offend a colleague or a committee chair who could exact revenge on your own legislation.
"I know it's stupid, but there is a psychological effect in people when you vote no on their bill," said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Newark), who in June abstained on several bills dealing with air pollution, land use and chemical regulation.
"My constituents want me to be effective," Torrico said, "and one way to be effective is to not [anger] senators and Assembly members." Torrico said he could avoid the problem "by laying off stuff instead of saying no."
Freshman Assemblyman Juan Arambula (D-Fresno) knows about the expectation that members will "go along to get along." Not long after he voted against a few Democratic bills, he said, another Democrat asked whether he was inadvertently pressing the wrong button.
"I jokingly said I had learned my colors in first grade," said Arambula, a former Fresno County supervisor.
Another member said to him: "Didn't you know that you're not supposed to vote against other Democrats' bills?"
Sometimes, lawmakers say, they abstain to avoid "throwing away" a vote that would anger a constituent or donor.
Torrico, for example, originally voted for a bill, AB 1101, to regulate air pollution at ports, airports, rail yards and distribution centers where diesel trucks congregate. He supported it even though it was opposed, he said, by New United Motor Manufacturing, a General Motors-Toyota venture that employs 5,000 people in his Bay Area district.
"I thought, 'This is a good bill,' " Torrico said.
Bills that don't pass the first time may be brought up repeatedly by the author, and subsequent votes showed the diesel measure would probably fail. In the end, Torrico abstained, opting not to attach his name to a losing proposition that might have offended one of his district's big employers.
"It was going nowhere," said Torrico. "And I said: What's the point of me being on the bill?"
Horton, for his part, said he wouldn't feel compelled to abstain so often if committees, which are supposed to massage bills into shape and kill those that are fatally flawed, did their jobs better. The assemblyman said the bills he abstains on often end up being vetoed by the governor or needing follow-up legislation to fix technical glitches.
"If we spend 30 minutes on an issue [in committee], everyone's attention deficit sets in," Horton said. "We're spending five, 10, 15 minutes on issues that will affect hundreds of thousands of people.
"Sometimes I think the only time a policy gets challenged effectively is when it gets to the floor," he said. That can result in poor legislation, Horton said. "We're turning out broken products. Sometimes you have to participate in that; sometimes you don't."
Horton said the Legislature was "more political than we've ever been before, and less methodical and thoughtful," and "term limits has caused this."
Many lawmakers and experts agree that term limits are a factor. Passed by voters in 1990, the limits force legislators out after six years in the Assembly or eight years in the Senate.
Politicians who always have an eye on another office are less willing to cross the special interests that push legislation and fund campaigns, many said.
"Under term limits, people know their next race for office is in two or four or six years, and they're looking over their shoulder to see who they need to avoid offending," said Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood), who rarely abstains. "I think that's part of where the abstentions come from."
One group of 14 Assembly Democrats with more moderate, pro-business views than those of their liberal colleagues makes regular use of abstentions as a way to get bills changed. Salinas, a member of the "mod" caucus, said "people were more coordinated to send a message" with abstentions this year.
For example, as the Assembly faced a June 3 deadline to pass its proposals to the Senate, the "mod" caucus considered AB 1007 by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills). The bill would have required the California Air Resources Board to write a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol in California. It also would have authorized the board to require use of alternative fuels in cars and trucks.
The measure was opposed by the Western States Petroleum Assn., which has spent $1.4 million lobbying for and against various bills this year, and the California Trucking Assn., whose members have given a wide range of lawmakers a total of $47,000 this year.
Pavley's bill failed to pass on several votes June 2, largely because "mod" caucus members abstained. Pavley negotiated with Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg), a caucus leader, and Calderon, who relayed the petroleum association's concerns. Pavley agreed to delete the second half of the bill, which would have expanded the air board's regulatory authority.
On June 3, after Pavley promised to change the bill so it simply required a plan by the air board, the measure cleared the Assembly, 49 to 27.
Court, the consumer advocate, complains that abstention "is a way special interests have found to get lawmakers to do what they want."
Canciamilla dismisses that criticism, saying moderate caucus members tend to represent blue-collar districts wary of government regulation.
"Not all of us believe that regulatory agencies or boards can best serve the needs of the public when they are given carte blanche," said Canciamilla. The Pavley bill, he said, shows that "if it's used judiciously and in the proper context," abstention is "a constructive device and useful tool."
Pavley sees it another way. She noted that the idea for the bill was brought to her by Silicon Valley business leaders who see economic and environmental benefits to weaning California from petroleum.
"I didn't consider the fuels bill anti-business," Pavley said, "but it was heavily lobbied by WSPA [Western States Petroleum Assn.], and that was all it took."
The only recent analysis of non-voting in the Legislature is the USC study. The researchers analyzed the 2001-02 legislative session and concluded that abstentions were decisive in nearly 40% of the bills that failed ' many bills got more yes votes than no votes but still failed because so many lawmakers abstained.
The study also ranked Assembly members by how often they abstained on 328 bills that failed. The top non-voter was Horton, who abstained on 60% of the bills that failed. (He abstained on 7% of a sample of 400 bills that ultimately became law.)
Close behind in abstentions were Democrats Tony Cardenas of Panorama City, Kevin Shelley of San Francisco, Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles and Manny Diaz of San Jose. Only Horton and Cedillo are still in the Legislature. Cedillo was frequently absent that year to tend to his ailing wife.
LA Times
August 29, 2005
Not Yes, Not No, Not Even a Maybe
Nancy Vogel
Some legislators choose to abstain rather than vote. It's all about power -- or political cover.
Los Angeles Times
SACRAMENTO ' Whenever the state Assembly votes on a bill, there's a good chance Jerome Horton will press neither the green "yes" nor the red "no" button on his desk. He says abstaining makes him powerful.
"When you vote yes or no," said the Democrat from Inglewood, "it takes you out of the negotiations, and I don't ever want to be out of the game."
When lawmakers can't get the votes they need to pass their measures, they rush to court the undecided in hopes of changing an abstention to a "yes" on another round of voting. That gives the abstainer leverage to argue for changes in the bill.
"I'm Mr. 41," said Assemblyman Horton, referring to the last vote needed to pass most bills. "I'm always in the game."
What Horton sees as clout, others see as the shirking of a lawmaker's essential duty. One of Horton's Democratic colleagues, Assemblyman John Laird of Santa Cruz, almost always picks yes or no.
"I just think I was sent up here to vote," Laird said.
A lawmaker has the right to abstain from any ' or every ' vote that occurs during his or her term. But regardless of the reason ' a purposeful dodge, an absence due to illness, a visit to the restroom ' a withheld vote has the same effect as a no vote.
California's legislative rules, unlike those in a few other states, require bills to be passed by a majority of lawmakers ' not a majority of those who happen to be present and voting.
In the only recent study of non-voting by California lawmakers, researchers found that Democrats decline to vote more often than Republicans ' 32% of the time, on average on bills that fail.
Lawmakers skip votes on bills that run from the arcane to the important, from banning the slaughter of farm animals on school campuses to legalizing gay marriage. Veterans say the practice is increasingly common.
"These days you see [non-voting] a lot more," especially in the Assembly, said Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta), who spent eight years in the Senate and is now in his fifth year in the Assembly.
The practice runs counter to a core tenet of democracy: that lawmakers take a stand on behalf of the people who elected them.
"You're there to do a job and to represent your constituents," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley. "If you're not making decisions ' it seems to me you're not fulfilling your obligation."
Abstentions so annoy one group, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights in Santa Monica, that it has drafted a ballot initiative that would withhold the pay of lawmakers on days when they don't vote.
"If I came to my job and a third of the time didn't do what I was supposed to, I wouldn't have a job," said foundation President Jamie Court, who hopes to put the initiative on the ballot next year.
Abstentions are more common in the 80-seat Assembly, where voting occurs in an electronic rush, than in the smaller Senate, where the roll is called.
When a bill comes up for a vote in the Assembly, a bell rings and lawmakers race to press their plastic buttons. Big scoreboards at the front of the chamber listing all of the members' names light up red and green ' or not at all for those who abstained.
In the Senate, every time a bill comes up for a vote, the clerk reads the last names of all 40 members, waiting to hear yes or no from each. To not vote, a senator must sit unresponsive while his or her name is called repeatedly.
Among the Democrats who dominate the Assembly, some ' Horton, Edward Chavez of La Puente, Simon Salinas of Salinas, Rebecca Cohn of Saratoga and Ronald S. Calderon of Montebello ' abstain more than others.
Chavez, for example, was present but did not vote on 13 of 35 contentious bills voted on the Assembly floor in May and June. Horton abstained on 11 of those, and Salinas, Cohn and Calderon each abstained on eight. More than 30 lawmakers abstained on none or only one of the 35 votes.
Chavez declined to speak on the record about why he abstains so frequently. Cohn and Calderon did not respond to requests for an interview.
Republicans, who make up 32 of the Assembly's 80 members, abstain far less often, and many times they do so en masse to make a point.
Public policy students at USC who studied non-voting during the 2001-02 legislative session found an average abstention rate among Republicans of 13.5%, compared with the Democrats' 32%, on bills that failed.
Assembly records show that one Republican, Keith Richman of Northridge, was present but did not vote on nine of the 35 controversial bills. Most of the votes came on a single day, June 2, when the Assembly session stretched past midnight. Richman's staff said he flew back to his district that afternoon for a personal obligation and missed many votes.
Explanations for non-voting abound among lawmakers, their staffs and political scientists.
One is cultural. It's considered "in your face," they say, to vote against a bill written by a member of your party. Abstaining, some say, is a way to sugar-coat a no so it won't offend a colleague or a committee chair who could exact revenge on your own legislation.
"I know it's stupid, but there is a psychological effect in people when you vote no on their bill," said Assemblyman Alberto Torrico (D-Newark), who in June abstained on several bills dealing with air pollution, land use and chemical regulation.
"My constituents want me to be effective," Torrico said, "and one way to be effective is to not [anger] senators and Assembly members." Torrico said he could avoid the problem "by laying off stuff instead of saying no."
Freshman Assemblyman Juan Arambula (D-Fresno) knows about the expectation that members will "go along to get along." Not long after he voted against a few Democratic bills, he said, another Democrat asked whether he was inadvertently pressing the wrong button.
"I jokingly said I had learned my colors in first grade," said Arambula, a former Fresno County supervisor.
Another member said to him: "Didn't you know that you're not supposed to vote against other Democrats' bills?"
Sometimes, lawmakers say, they abstain to avoid "throwing away" a vote that would anger a constituent or donor.
Torrico, for example, originally voted for a bill, AB 1101, to regulate air pollution at ports, airports, rail yards and distribution centers where diesel trucks congregate. He supported it even though it was opposed, he said, by New United Motor Manufacturing, a General Motors-Toyota venture that employs 5,000 people in his Bay Area district.
"I thought, 'This is a good bill,' " Torrico said.
Bills that don't pass the first time may be brought up repeatedly by the author, and subsequent votes showed the diesel measure would probably fail. In the end, Torrico abstained, opting not to attach his name to a losing proposition that might have offended one of his district's big employers.
"It was going nowhere," said Torrico. "And I said: What's the point of me being on the bill?"
Horton, for his part, said he wouldn't feel compelled to abstain so often if committees, which are supposed to massage bills into shape and kill those that are fatally flawed, did their jobs better. The assemblyman said the bills he abstains on often end up being vetoed by the governor or needing follow-up legislation to fix technical glitches.
"If we spend 30 minutes on an issue [in committee], everyone's attention deficit sets in," Horton said. "We're spending five, 10, 15 minutes on issues that will affect hundreds of thousands of people.
"Sometimes I think the only time a policy gets challenged effectively is when it gets to the floor," he said. That can result in poor legislation, Horton said. "We're turning out broken products. Sometimes you have to participate in that; sometimes you don't."
Horton said the Legislature was "more political than we've ever been before, and less methodical and thoughtful," and "term limits has caused this."
Many lawmakers and experts agree that term limits are a factor. Passed by voters in 1990, the limits force legislators out after six years in the Assembly or eight years in the Senate.
Politicians who always have an eye on another office are less willing to cross the special interests that push legislation and fund campaigns, many said.
"Under term limits, people know their next race for office is in two or four or six years, and they're looking over their shoulder to see who they need to avoid offending," said Assemblyman Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood), who rarely abstains. "I think that's part of where the abstentions come from."
One group of 14 Assembly Democrats with more moderate, pro-business views than those of their liberal colleagues makes regular use of abstentions as a way to get bills changed. Salinas, a member of the "mod" caucus, said "people were more coordinated to send a message" with abstentions this year.
For example, as the Assembly faced a June 3 deadline to pass its proposals to the Senate, the "mod" caucus considered AB 1007 by Assemblywoman Fran Pavley (D-Agoura Hills). The bill would have required the California Air Resources Board to write a plan to increase the use of alternative fuels such as ethanol in California. It also would have authorized the board to require use of alternative fuels in cars and trucks.
The measure was opposed by the Western States Petroleum Assn., which has spent $1.4 million lobbying for and against various bills this year, and the California Trucking Assn., whose members have given a wide range of lawmakers a total of $47,000 this year.
Pavley's bill failed to pass on several votes June 2, largely because "mod" caucus members abstained. Pavley negotiated with Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla (D-Pittsburg), a caucus leader, and Calderon, who relayed the petroleum association's concerns. Pavley agreed to delete the second half of the bill, which would have expanded the air board's regulatory authority.
On June 3, after Pavley promised to change the bill so it simply required a plan by the air board, the measure cleared the Assembly, 49 to 27.
Court, the consumer advocate, complains that abstention "is a way special interests have found to get lawmakers to do what they want."
Canciamilla dismisses that criticism, saying moderate caucus members tend to represent blue-collar districts wary of government regulation.
"Not all of us believe that regulatory agencies or boards can best serve the needs of the public when they are given carte blanche," said Canciamilla. The Pavley bill, he said, shows that "if it's used judiciously and in the proper context," abstention is "a constructive device and useful tool."
Pavley sees it another way. She noted that the idea for the bill was brought to her by Silicon Valley business leaders who see economic and environmental benefits to weaning California from petroleum.
"I didn't consider the fuels bill anti-business," Pavley said, "but it was heavily lobbied by WSPA [Western States Petroleum Assn.], and that was all it took."
The only recent analysis of non-voting in the Legislature is the USC study. The researchers analyzed the 2001-02 legislative session and concluded that abstentions were decisive in nearly 40% of the bills that failed ' many bills got more yes votes than no votes but still failed because so many lawmakers abstained.
The study also ranked Assembly members by how often they abstained on 328 bills that failed. The top non-voter was Horton, who abstained on 60% of the bills that failed. (He abstained on 7% of a sample of 400 bills that ultimately became law.)
Close behind in abstentions were Democrats Tony Cardenas of Panorama City, Kevin Shelley of San Francisco, Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles and Manny Diaz of San Jose. Only Horton and Cedillo are still in the Legislature. Cedillo was frequently absent that year to tend to his ailing wife.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)