Never mind: OC supervisor term limits measure

A week after Orange County supervisors voted to put a measure on the ballot with the statewide recall election planned this fall, California legislators barred piggybacking.

A budget bill passed Monday night includes a provision that any local governments that want to combine their issues with the state special election – which will ask whether voters want to recall Gov. Gavin Newsom – had to have already decided by June 15 to call their own election; Orange County made the decision June 22.

A majority of the OC supervisors had wanted to ask county voters whether to adjust their term limits, which currently allow people to serve two back-to-back terms on the board but then requires them to leave before they’re eligible to run again. The proposed ballot measure would have changed the rule to let people serve no more than three terms in total as a supervisor.

Backers said the change would honor the spirit of term limits – giving new people a chance to serve and preventing politicians from becoming entrenched – while allowing supervisors time to build experience and relationships that would help them best serve the public.

Critics argued the measure was unnecessary – only one person has ever hit the two-term limit and later been reelected to the board – and could be seen as self-serving for incumbents.

Now, that debate appears to have been for naught. The change to the budget bill made June 23 prevents local agencies from adding their measures to the recall election ballot unless they meet certain conditions, which Orange County doesn’t seem to.

County spokeswoman Molly Nichelson said Tuesday the bill’s language “is being reviewed for impacts to the term limit matter the board approved on June 22.”

Supervisor Don Wagner, who opposed putting the local measure before voters, said state legislators changing the rules during the game is “nefarious, but they have a right to do it, I think.”

Wagner – a Republican and key recall proponent – said he suspects legislators in the Democratic majority thought, “We don’t want any of those rascally red counties to stick something on the ballot that’s going to bring out their voters” and potentially hurt Newsom’s prospects.

Supervisor Doug Chaffee – A Democrat who supported sending the term limit measure to OC voters, but said he never intended to seek more than two terms – is also convinced state legislators’ move was political, but for a different reason: if the measure succeeded, it would give the GOP a better chance of holding onto Supervisor Lisa Bartlett’s District 5 seat. (Three of five OC supervisors are Republicans.)

“Turning the county blue is a priority of the Democratic party,” Chaffee said.

A spokeswoman for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon disputed the suggestion that state legislators were reacting to Orange County’s decision to place a measure on the recall ballot.

“The first we heard about this was from a reporter who called us last week. There is zero connection between any amendments to (Assembly Bill) 152 and Orange County’s, or any jurisdiction’s, local ballot measures,” Katie Talbot said in a text message Tuesday.

Chaffee said he hasn’t looked into placing the term limit measure on a future ballot, but he still thinks it’s a useful proposal.

In the meantime, Wagner said for the average voter, the kerfuffle has “no significance whatsoever. Nothing has changed as a result of this.”


Supervisors will ask to adjust term limits

An idea that never quite seems to die – changing the limit on Orange County supervisors’ service from two back-to-back terms to three lifetime terms – has reared its head again, just as two current board members are set to hit the limit in the next few years.

Since 1996, county supervisors have been permitted two consecutive four-year terms, after which they must leave office for a time before they’re eligible to run for a board seat again. The proposed change, which must be approved by voters, would impose a lifetime cap of three terms.

Supporters of the measure say it would help ensure eventual turnover on the board while allowing supervisors to build experience and relationships that can make them more effective legislators. Critics see the measure as misleading to voters and self-serving, noting that the same officials backing the idea would get to run for reelection if it passes.

On Tuesday, June 22, supervisors agreed to put the measure on a special election ballot that will be held later this year, when voters statewide will decide on the possible recall of Gov. Gavin Newsom. The 3-2 vote drew support from board Chairman Andrew Do (currently termed out in 2024), Lisa Bartlett (termed out in 2022) and Doug Chaffee (whose first term ends next year), and opposition from Don Wagner (whose first full term ends in 2024) and Katrina Foley (who won a special election in March).

Do and Bartlett pointed out that a three-term limit would put the county on par with the rules for state legislators and with the rules of some other California counties. Bartlett added that in counties with no term limits some supervisors serve for decades even though voters “want to see a rotation.”

“What’s good enough for the state, and good enough for many other counties, why wouldn’t it be good for us?” Do said.

If approved, it appears the new rules would only apply going forward, meaning current and past supervisors could serve up to three additional terms.

The only former county supervisor who has left for another position and returned to win a supervisor’s seat again is Todd Spitzer, currently the county’s District Attorney. But Wagner said the example that illustrates why the rule change isn’t necessary is former supervisor John Moorlach, who finished two terms as supervisor in 2014 and went to the state legislature, then lost a bid for the District 2 supervisor seat to Foley in the March 2021 special election.

“The public chose to put someone else in his place,” Wagner said of Moorlach. “We didn’t need term limits. We didn’t need this initiative in place.”

The debate over term limits isn’t new. In 2012, Moorlach pitched a similar idea but the board majority said no. In 2016, former Supervisor Shawn Nelson brought it up again, but yanked the proposal over a lack of support. And as recently as July 2020, Bartlett and Chaffee put a new term limit proposal on the agenda, though it was removed before coming to a public discussion or vote.

The 2020 proposal specifically said anyone who had already served two terms on the board could run for one more. The measure added to the agenda by the county’s attorney doesn’t make that distinction.

Political observers from both ends of the spectrum said the term-limit proposal looks to them like a last-ditch effort by politicians hoping to extend their own careers.

Jim Righeimer, a former Costa Mesa mayor who is active in county GOP politics, said that because it’s harder for a newcomer to beat an incumbent any extension of term limits is essentially job protection for sitting supervisors.

He speculated that the measure might pass because it will be on a special election ballot, when turnout typically is low, but “anybody who knows what it is, is not going to vote for it.”

Chapman University political science professor Fred Smoller said term limits typically have been popular with voters, who tend to view long-serving politicians as entrenched and less responsive to constituents. And when combined with the fact that supervisors will use 2020 census data to redraw their own districts later this year — a process that is required by law — Smoller suggested the new term limit proposal could be viewed negatively by some voters.

“Does it look untoward?” Smoller said. “Sure it does.”

Chaffee said Tuesday that voters can reject the idea, and that the measure doesn’t change the fact that supervisors who want to keep serving would have to win reelection.

“I’m only suggesting that this is something that people can decide,” he said.

“It’s a message to us if it’s rejected.”


Three Korean American women to Congress


By text, by phone and by social media, they trumpeted the news from California to Asia: Late Friday, Young Kim had joined her “sister” Michelle Steel in making history as two of the first three Korean American women ever elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.

In winning two hotly contested Southern California districts, Kim and Steel helped Republicans push back against the blue wave that resulted in Democrats gaining all seven Orange County congressional seats in the 2018 midterms.

The two Orange County Republicans will be sworn into office in January alongside a third Korean American congresswoman-elect, Marilyn Strickland, a Democrat from western Washington state.

Apart from politics, many Korean Americans said it was a moment to savor.

“How cool is this?” said Ellen Ahn, executive director of the nonprofit Korean Community Services, the largest Korean American social services agency in Orange County. “It’s amazing that women are making inroads on all political platforms.”

For Steel and Kim, the victories go beyond giving California’s beleaguered GOP a boost; they could offer the party a way forward, post-Trump, to appeal to voters outside the white, suburban Republican base.

National exit polls showed that Asian Americans backed Joe Biden over President Trump. Political analysts say there are lessons in the wins by Steel and Kim, which came even though Biden beat Trump in Orange County, and after years of outreach by local Republicans to Asian communities.

“It looked like they were taking Asian votes for granted in the past, so they had to start paying more attention to the communities,” said Karthick Ramakrishnan, a professor of public policy and political science at UC Riverside. “These wins prove the Republican Party is still strong in O.C., and the message they want to share with people is that you have a home in our party.”

In a rematch of their 2018 contest, Kim, a former state Assembly member, defeated Gil Cisneros with 50.6% of the vote in the 39th District, which spans Anaheim Hills to Buena Park and includes parts of Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties. Steel triumphed over incumbent Harley Rouda with 51.03% of the vote in the coastal 48th District, which stretches from Seal Beach to Laguna Niguel. Workers are still counting provisional and mail-in ballots, but the victories are clear in both districts.

The contests were among the most closely watched battles for the House, and coverage in Korean-language media was intense.

Steel, 65, said she wouldn’t be heading to Washington “without teamwork. At this stage, the first feeling I have is relief.

“It’s been tough,” she added. “What made the difference is I stick to my issues, and I’m determined to fight for less government regulations and more aid for the small businesses.”

Kim, 58 — who received a congratulatory call from Cisneros, a Navy veteran and lottery winner turned philanthropist — posted a message on her Facebook page Friday evening. “As an immigrant to America, I know that the promise of America is alive,” she said in the video. “Thank you for your faith in me, and let’s get to work.”

Kim, born in Incheon, South Korea, grew up in Guam before moving to Hawaii, then went to USC to earn a degree in business administration. The mother of four worked for Ed Royce, then a state senator, and stayed on his staff after his election to the U.S. House of Representatives, devoting more than two decades as his community liaison and director of Asian affairs. She served in the California Assembly from 2014 to 2016 and, when Royce retired two years ago, decided to run for federal office.

“Whoever you voted for in this election, I hope you know that regardless of any differences we may have, I will always work on your behalf and fight for you,” Kim said in the video.

Steel, chairwoman of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, signaled her intention to continue creating “stepping stones” to public office for young Asian Americans.

In an interview last week before her flight to the nation’s capital to attend orientation, she reflected on her relationship with Kim. The women’s children are close, and Steel’s mother and Kim’s father-in-law taught at the same high school in South Korea.

“Young and I, we go way back,” she said. “You can be sure we’ll be helping one another, doing projects together.”

Last Tuesday, word of Steel’s election prompted Kim to post to Facebook an old photo of the two hugging. “So excited to see my good friend and sister Michelle Steel win her seat to represent the CA-48!” Kim wrote. “Congratulations on your hard-fought campaign!”

Steel, a mother of two, is the daughter of a diplomat who moved the family from their native South Korea to Japan. She later immigrated to the United States to attend Pepperdine University and earned an MBA from USC. She is married to Shawn Steel, former chairman of the California Republican Party, and has served on the State Board of Equalization.

Ahn said the wins by Steel and Kim “are such a validation of the immigrant experience. Having a person who looks like you and having a seat at the highest level of government can be a game-changer. I hope they don’t forget the issues that affect people of color, and healthcare tops that list.”

Strickland, who served as mayor of Tacoma from 2010 to 2018, challenged legislator and environmental activist Beth Doglio in Washington’s 10th Congressional District, which covers the southern portion of Puget Sound from Olympia to the Tacoma suburbs. Strickland won with 58.1% of the vote.

In the weeks leading to the election, she took part in a Zoom call featuring all five Korean American candidates for Congress, including Andy Kim (D-New Jersey), who won reelection, and David Kim, an immigration attorney who ran unsuccessfully to represent California’s 34th District. “It was remarkable to have us all talking,” Strickland said.

“It’s hardly easy running for national office and, as a woman, just think of the calculations we make before we can jump in,” she added. “Not only do you need to ask, ‘Am I qualified?’; you also have to ask, ‘How’s this going to affect everyone else in my family?,’ as women are the primary caregivers.”

Like Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, Strickland, 58, is of Asian and Black heritage.

“There are still issues of inequities we need to resolve,” she said, “and though I understand my duty to my past, I’m also here to represent all of my constituents.”

The rise of Korean Americans in Congress, particularly of Kim and Steele, is partly the result of significant investment by the GOP to diversify its ranks and launch targeted outreach at Asian American voters starting in 2013, according to observers. Some of those efforts have been obscured by Trump’s actions and caustic comments about immigrants, rhetoric that critics say fuels racism and violence. In March 2018, Steel was the only elected official to greet Trump when he arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on his first official trip to California as president. Kim, meanwhile, publicly criticized the commander-in-chief’s use of the term “kung flu,” saying such language incites hate against Asian Americans.

Ramakrishnan said the GOP’s Growth and Opportunity Project has aimed to transform the party — it set aside $10 million to create better connections with minority communities and spur efforts to recruit and back Asian American candidates.

Most Asian Americans vying for Congress come from districts that are not majority Asian, Ramakrishnan said. That’s true in Steel’s 48th District, which is 71.8% white, 15.9% Asian, 11.8% Latino and 0.5% Black; and in Kim’s 39th District, which is 49.4% white, 25.7% Latino, 24.1% Asian and 0.8% Black.

A preliminary analysis shows that in early returns for Steel, her core support came from affluent white neighborhoods, according to the Orange County Civic Engagement Table.

“I think it was very clear there was an investment by the Republicans in this district,” said Jonathan Paik, the group’s executive director. “Overall, the questions remain for any of the winners: How committed are they to better listen to Asian American voters? Are they still going to represent the most vulnerable communities, the ones most struggling and the undocumented? Yes, the O.C. landscape is shifting, and we’ll all be watching to see how these officials make their mark.”

Both Paik and Tammy Kim — the top vote-getter in the Irvine City Council election, who will assume her new position in January — said outreach by Kim and Steele in Asian languages leveraged their backgrounds to attract the relatively small proportion of Asian Americans in their regions.

“If you believe that every vote counts, they did fully embrace that,” Tammy Kim said, citing Steel’s texts and mailersreleased in both simplified and traditional Chinese. Both women also appeared on Vietnamese-language television.

Young Kim had an edge over Cisneros who was “shut out by Korean media, though he was a strong advocate for the Korean community through his term and did so much for Korean veterans and adoptees through legislation,” Tammy Kim said.

Some immigrants believe that what helped Kim and Steel cement their victories was a mistake made byJeff LeTourneau, the vice chair of the Orange County Democratic Party, who shared a Facebook post glorifying Ho Chi Minh, the former communist leader of North Vietnam. His comments led to immediate criticism from politicians of both parties and from the county’s conservative-leaning Vietnamese American community, which backed Trump for reelection.

“Again, Asian American voices are becoming more dominant, as they should be,” Tammy Kim said.

Strickland, the Washington representative, can’t forget how her 91-year-old mother reacted upon hearing that her daughter had cleared a historic hurdle.

“Every generation, people want better for their children. And she was happy about a 14-point victory,” Strickland recalled. “Then she said, ‘Now you have to work really hard to get reelected.’ ”


Ballot data reveals curious shifts

How did your neighborhood vote? Ballot data for Orange County reveals curious shifts, splits

Some minds changed. Some communities switched. Some ballots were split. A precinct-level exploration of county voting records offers a glimpse of an unusual election.

By BROOKE STAGGS | bstaggs@scng.comIAN WHEELER | and ALICIA ROBINSON | | Orange County RegisterPUBLISHED: November 13, 2020 at 5:30 p.m. | UPDATED: November 15, 2020 at 10:23 a.m.

Over the past month, more people turned out to vote in Orange County than in any election in more than a half century.

With old trends upended by the coronavirus pandemic and political rhetoric, more voters submitted their ballots via drop box than by any other voting method.

And while reliably blue neighborhoods in Santa Ana and Irvine strongly favored President-elect Joe Biden, President Donald Trump flipped Little Saigon this year, which in 2016 gravitated toward Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.

These are a few of the electoral facts emerging as the Orange County Registrar of Voters counts the last of the ballots from the 2020 general election.Top ArticlesUCLA studied film of Denver Broncos’ offense to preparefor CalUCLA studied film of Denver Broncos’ offense to prepare for CalREAD MORERams defense rises to occasion again in 23-13 win over SeahawksREAD MOREYorba Linda Country Riders trot into the future with 50th anniversary showREAD MOREREAD MOREWhicker: The silencer: Dustin Johnson routs the record book and the Masters fieldREAD MORECoronavirus: 639 new cases and 2 new deaths reported in Orange County on Nov. 15READ MOREjavascript:false00:28/00:30SKIP AD

While final numbers are expected to be certified in December, a precinct-level analysis of the preliminary totals offers insight into how local voting patterns have changed, where some residents left ballots blank and when they did something increasingly rare in American politics — split their tickets.

The vote for president

Across the county, 54% of voters chose for Biden while 44% picked Trump. Another 2% voted for third-party candidates.

This election, the county was diced into 1,795 precincts, many with hundreds or thousands of registered voters and others with as few as zero.

While many neighborhoods showed a presidential preference that mirrored the overall county numbers, most were at least somewhat lopsided. In all, some four in ten of all active precincts showed a difference of 10 percentage points or less between Biden and Trump, while more than half (55%) showed a bigger gap.

If you pull away the tiniest precincts, where just a few votes were cast, Biden is most popular in the neighborhoods around UC Irvine, which include student and faculty housing. In those, Biden won around 9 out of 10 votes out of about 2,300 ballots cast for president.

Trump’s support in Orange County was more scattered.

While the outgoing president got 100% of the vote in a small horse country precinct in Orange Park Acres, where all 14 voters chose him, and 11 out of 12 votes cast in a precinct that touches Newport Beach’s Back Bay, the most Trump-friendly standard precincts weren’t quite as supportive. For example, in the voting zone that includes Fashion Island, where 2,232 ballots were cast for president, Trump took about 65% of the vote.

The data also showed this: In some parts of Orange County, voters changed their minds about Trump.

Four years ago, Clinton led strongly over Trump in many neighborhoods of Santa Ana and Little Saigon. This election, while many Santa Ana precincts still favored Biden, the share of votes that went to Trump grew. And in much of Little Saigon, centered in Westminster, voters that once liked Clinton outright favored Trump this time around.

Conversely, voters in some parts of Mission Viejo and other South County areas who in ’16 liked went to Biden this year.

Looking at total votes by city, Villa Park, Yorba Linda and Newport Beach, the first, second and third most Republican cities by party registration, were, in that order, Trump’s strongest supporters.

However, the same wasn’t true for Biden. Voter registration shows that Santa Ana, Stanton and Anaheim are the county’s top three Democrat cities, but Biden drew his biggest vote shares in Santa Ana, Irvine and Laguna Beach.

How we cast ballots

The March primary was the first time a ballot was mailed to ever registered voter, and the first time the county opened multi-day vote centers and placed drop boxes around the county to collect mail ballots.

Though Orange County Registrar of Voters Neal Kelley couldn’t have anticipated the coronavirus when he began pushing to update the county’s voting system in 2017, the changes that started in March came in handy during the general election, allowing anyone who chose to cast a ballot from home.

Kelley said it’s hard to tell how much the pandemic influenced voters’ behavior because the high turnout for the Nov. 3 election included some younger voters who may simply have been energized to vote early. But he said, “We did hear from a lot of voters that they were thankful that they did have the opportunity to vote through the mail because of COVID.”

Another sign of things to come: the term “vote by mail” ballots might not be 100% accurate anymore. More people ultimately returned their Nov. 3 ballots via county drop boxes (about 583,000) than sent them by the postal service (about 512,000), while another group (about 195,000) brought completed mail ballots to vote centers during the last five days they were open.

The last week before Election Day, the registrar’s data shows a clear drop-off in voters using USPS and a spike in use of drop boxes. This came despite some confusion over unofficial drop boxes placed by the California Republican Party, and online chatter about whether drop boxes were secure. Kelley said there were no broad problems related to any voting method.

Changes in how voters cast their ballots also appears to have changed how results were reported, upending conventional wisdom from prior election cycles.

In previous Orange County elections, ballots counted on election night included votes cast early in the mail-in period and in person — a voting block that typically leaned Republican. But ballots counted and reported after Election Day tended to favor Democrats.

This year, for reasons ranging from fears of the postal service being slow to spread of coronavirus, the voting patterns seemed to shift. Democrats mailed their ballots in early and Republicans voted on Election Day. That meant the first vote counts announced favored Democrats, while the next round of vote counts shifted to Republicans. And as later mail-in votes and provisional ballots have been counted, the Democrat tilt hasn’t been pronounced, with many Republican candidates making gains as final ballots are tallied.

Kelley said he expects use of mail ballots to continue to grow, though many voters may opt not to return them through the post office. The 1,000-pound metal ballot drop boxes were permanently installed and will remain in place for future elections.

Historic voter turnout

Orange County posted high voter turnout in this election, shattering the notable 2016 number and on track to tie with turnout last seen in 1968.

As of Friday, Nov. 13, county turnout was 86.6%, with 1.53 million ballots cast from a pool of 1.77 million registered voters.

That’s significantly higher than statewide turnout, which as of Friday was at 75.3%. Both figures will inch up even as late mail-in and provisional ballots are tallied, with more than 1 million ballots still being processed across the state as of Thursday night.

In the 2016 election, voter turnout was at 80.7% in Orange County, with 1.2 million ballots cast from 1.5 million registered voters. That marked the county’s highest election participation rate in four decades — O.C. turnout was 67.3% in 2012, 72.6% in 2008 and 73.2% in 2004.

The county’s all-time turnout record is 90%, hit in 1960 and again in 1964.

Heading into this election, Kelley had predicted perhaps an 80% turnout given the enthusiasm on both sides of the aisle. His office doubled its scanning and automation capacity over the past six months so they’d be ready, with O.C. counting ballots at a significantly faster rate than neighboring counties.

Ballots partially complete

Most people who vote regularly have at one time or another “undervoted,” meaning they’ve left some races or measures blank, whether by mistake, as a protest against the available choices, or because they didn’t know enough about the candidates or measures to decide.

Some Orange County voters failed to vote in certain contests, but on top-of-the-ticket choices most people had their minds made up. The presidential race appeared to have the lowest rate of undervoting of anything on the ballot, with fewer than 1% of voters not picking a candidate, according to the registrar’s data.

That’s a change from four years ago, said Michael Alvarez, a Caltech political science professor who studies elections and voting. His research found that in the 2016 general election there was a national jump in voters who passed on casting a vote for president, with Republicans often unwilling to pull the lever for Trump or Clinton.

This year, most county voters also made their wishes known in congressional and state assembly races, and on statewide initiatives and a few local measures only about 5% of ballots cast left those options blank.

“Most likely, when you see an undervote, it’s because people don’t know the choices,” Alvarez said.

Because California ballots are often quite long, he added, there’s an increasing tendency to “roll off,” or quit filling in boxes, the farther down a voter gets.

Voters split tickets

There’s also evidence that some Orange County voters split their tickets, casting votes for Democrats and Republicans on the same ballots.

Though split-ticket voting was common as recently as the late 1970s, it’s become rare as politics have become more polarized.

It’s tough to definitively identify ticket splitting without seeing actual ballots, since other factors can come into play. But in a majority of O.C. congressional districts there were thousands more ballots cast for Biden than for Trump, while tighter margins — or even reversed partisan results — were seen in House contests, with little evidence of ballot drop-off between those races.

The biggest discrepancy was in the local portion of the 39th House District, which Includes northern Orange County cities from Buena Park to Anaheim Hills. There, Biden had 51% of the vote Friday while Democratic incumbent Rep. Gil Cisneros had 47%. Meanwhile, in the same area, Trump had 45% of the vote while Republican congressional contender Young Kim had 51%.

Even after accounting for third-party presidential candidates and other factors, the results indicate thousands of people voted Biden for president and Kim for Congress.


The only congressional district where it appears voters may have split their tickets the other way was the 46th District, which includes Anaheim, Santa Ana and parts of Orange. There, Democratic incumbent Rep. Lou Correa earned a higher percentage of votes than Biden, while Correa’s Republican competitor received a lower slice of the vote than Trump. That suggests several thousand CA-46 residents — who in the March primary backed Democrat Bernie Sanders for president — voted for Correa and Trump.

Kevin Wallsten, political science professor at Cal State Long Beach, said most people still vote the party line. “It is also obvious, however, that there is an anti-Trump/never-Trump/save-democracy constituency in the Republican Party that probably voted for Biden as a protest to Trump but wanted to check the Democratic Party more broadly by voting for conservative candidates down ballot.”

Wallsten doesn’t expect such ticket splitting to be a trend, however.

“Once Trump is off the ballot,” he said, “many Republicans will probably ‘return home.’”


Voters reject Prop 13

Large commercial properties would face higher property taxes under Proposition 15.(Mel Melcon / Los Angeles Times)By JOHN MYERSSACRAMENTO BUREAU CHIEF NOV. 10, 20207:17 PM UPDATEDNOV. 11, 2020 | 3:35 PM


A four-decade quest to downsize Proposition 13, California’s famed limit on property taxes, has come up short after supporters failed to convince a new generation of voters that businesses should pay more to help fund schools and local services.

Defenders of the landmark 1978 tax-cutting initiative say that the defeat of this year’s proposal, Proposition 15, should serve as a warning to liberal activists and labor unions.

“Like it or not, Prop. 13 has almost mythical powers against those who would assail it,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., wrote last week.

On Tuesday, the Associated Press projected Proposition 15 had been defeated with 48% of votes in support and 52% opposed — more than 15 million votes have been tallied so far. Final results aren’t expected until the end of the month.

More than $139 million was spent by supporters and opponents combined on the Proposition 15 campaign. Its backers spent years crafting their plan to strip high-value business properties from the protections provided by Proposition 13, arguing that the long-standing law has allowed powerful corporations to avoid paying property taxes they can easily afford. Had they prevailed, independent analysts said, the higher business property taxes could have brought in as much as $11.5 billion a year in new funds for public schools and local governments.

The California Teachers Assn., one of the state’s most politically powerful labor unions, contributed more than $20 million to the campaign in favor of Proposition 15.

“We came very close, but we demonstrated the power of democracy in action. We demonstrated the difference we can make for ourselves and the next generation. That alone is a victory,” E. Toby Boyd, the union’s president, said in a statement.

Supporters prevailed in Los Angeles, the Bay Area and a handful of other coastal counties, according to unofficial returns. But Proposition 15 ran into strong opposition just about everywhere else, resoundingly rejected in the Central Valley, Inland Empire and Orange and San Diego counties.

The tally of support was close to that found in a poll last month by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, in which 49% of likely voters said they would vote for Proposition 15. The business-funded campaign opposed to Proposition 15 said its own private polling found that voters who were undecided toward the end broke sharply against the measure.

Check this page for live California election results

Where Proposition 13 sets the value of a property by its purchase price and caps the annual tax at 1% of the value, Proposition 15 would have generated new tax revenue by allowing more frequent valuations of commercial and industrial property holdings worth $3 million or more. Some lower-valued properties would have also been swept into the system because their owners have large portfolios of property across California.

“California voters understood the very real threat Proposition 15 presented to small businesses, farmers and consumers,” Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said in a written statement. “Voters in California smartly recognized that enacting the largest tax hike in California history would have been devastating to jobs, our economy and California’s future competitiveness.”

While the homeowner tax protections of Proposition 13 have remained popular over the last four decades, liberal interest groups and labor unions believed few voters realized that the low-tax rules also applied to multimillion-dollar corporations. Numerous studies revealed that many of these companies, many headquartered in Southern California and the Bay Area, operate in facilities where land values have changed very little since the 1970s — even as new businesses and homeowners alike pay taxes on property assessed more closely to market value.

Larry Grisolano, a Democratic campaign consultant to the effort supporting Proposition 15, said the big business donors to the opposition campaign — which spent some $72 million to defeat the initiative — were never mentioned in the advertising blitz.

“There was not one element of the ‘no’ campaign that said we should keep helping these big corporations,” he said. “That ought to tell you something.”

Instead, business groups focused on Proposition 15’s potential impact on small businesses. Their advertising campaign hammered away at the fact that business owners who lease their locations are often required to pay some, or all, of the building owner’s property taxes.

And while Proposition 15 was explicit in its protection of residential property tax rules, some of its opponents ominously warned that it was the first step toward a complete overhaul or outright repeal of Proposition 13.

Too few voters were swayed by the promise of new, substantial tax revenue. About 40% of the revenue would have been sent to K-12 schools and community colleges, while the remaining 60% would go to counties, cities and special districts for services such as law enforcement and fire suppression. The Berkeley poll found that less than a majority of middle-aged voters and those who described themselves as moderates or conservatives believed the new tax revenue was needed.

Though other tax increases have been approved by California voters in recent years, the uncertainty of the current economy may have presented too strong a head wind for Proposition 15 supporters. The pandemic, Grisolano said, created “cross-pressures” for voters who are worried about schools and public health but fearful of a staggering economy.

“People have a very strong sense of uncertainty,” he said. “Those insecurities make it very difficult for them to take a risk on a change.”

Howard Jarvis, chief sponsor of the controversial Proposition 13, signals victory as he casts his own vote at the Fairfax-Melrose precinct. June 6, 1978 photo by Ben Olender/Los Angeles Times. For From The Archives.


Proposition 13 treats all California property taxes the same. Voters could change that in 2020

Supporters of changing the rules for corporate property taxes are unlikely to see the relatively narrow defeat of Proposition 15 as the end of the effort. The proposal had the support of Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has also suggested broader reviews of California’s tax structure in an effort to limit some of the lingering effects of Proposition 13 — most notably, how the cut in property taxes made government services more dependent on income and sales taxes, both susceptible to rapid up-and-down changes.

Boyd, whose union of more than 300,000 educators has led a number of efforts to increase K-12 school funding, said the pandemic-induced recession has only amplified the needs of students.

“The fight for much-needed funding for equitable resources continues as our schools and communities face billions in devastating budget cuts,” he said in a statement.

Any new effort would likely again be contested by business groups, who argue that California is already one of the most expensive states in the country for entrepreneurs and corporate operations.

Whether any future effort would more directly tackle the legacy of Proposition 13 is unclear. Neither side in the Proposition 15 campaign chose to invoke the well-known proposition, and public polling suggests voters generally think of it in positive terms.

Similar polls have also found support for rethinking the tax law’s benefits to business — an embrace of an idea that the election results suggest may be hard to turn into reality.


We will not stand by while our community is lied to

For decades, a handful of the oldest and largest corporations in California have exploited a loophole in our commercial property tax system to dodge paying their fair share. As a result, they’ve taken away the resources our communities — particularly in Black, Brown, and Asian neighborhoods — need to thrive.

Image for post

It’s structural racism in a nutshell: executives and investors in big corporations make millions, while people of color breathe polluted air, are forced to cram together to make rent, can’t get proper healthcare and education, and don’t have the reliable public transportation and safe walkable streets to get to work.

Proposition 15 is a necessary step towards correcting the historical underfunding of communities of color. By closing this corporate loophole, we can reclaim $12 billion a year statewide to fund our schools and community colleges, housing, healthcare, parks, libraries, fire services, and more.

But the corporations opposing this measure will do anything to protect their billions. As election day gets closer, we’ve seen an influx of targeted advertisements meant to spread misinformation and dissuade our Latinx communities from supporting Proposition 15. This use of scare tactics is dangerously misleading, and we cannot stand by while voters are lied to.

They claim the burden of Prop 15 will fall on schools, small businesses, and homeowners, when that simply is not the case.

The truth is, 92% of the revenue reclaimed by Proposition 15 would come from just 10% of the biggest and oldest corporations in California, such as Disneyland, Chevron’s Richmond refinery, the LA Country Club, and Intel.

Homeowners, renters, and all residential property are fully protected under Proposition 15, as are small businesses worth less than $3 million. In fact, Proposition 15 would help small businesses by cutting business personal property taxes.

Additionally, 40% of the revenue from Proposition 15 would go directly to our schools and community colleges. As it stands, California ranks 39th in per pupil spending and dead last with largest class sizes in the nation. Prop 15 ensures every school district in the state receives additional funding, and provides greater resources to students who need them most, like low-income students, English-learners, and foster youth.

Proposition 15 invests in an inclusive society by directly providing resources to pay for the local schools and services we all need to thrive. But we can only win this if we come together.

We urge everyone to vote yes on Proposition 15. Vote yes for our kids’ future, for our communities, and for each other.


Blanca Alvarado, Former City Councilmember & County Supervisor

Camille Llanes-Fontanilla, Executive Director, SOMOS Mayfair

Cayce Hill, Executive Director, Veggielution Community Farm

Claudia Rossi, President, Santa Clara County Board of Education

Cindy Chavez, President, Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

Darcie Green, CEO/Executive Director, Latina Contra Cancer, community leader, mother

Gabriela Chavez-Lopez, President, Latina Coalition, community leader, mother

Jessica Paz-Cedillos, Executive Director, School of Arts and Culture at the Mexican Heritage Plaza

Maria Noel Fernandez, Deputy Executive Director, Working Partnerships USA

Maritza Maldonado, Executive Direcotor, Amigos de Guadalupe

Rebeca Armendariz, Political Coordinator, Silicon Valley Rising Action

Tamara Alvarado, Executive Director, Shortino Foundation, community leader, mother

Veronica Goei, Executive Director, Grail Family Services

Zelica Rodriguez-Deams, Santa Clara County Office of Immigrant Relations Manager, community leader, mother

Affiliations listed for identification purpose only


Workers target McDonald’s in rally for Prop 15

A group of essential workers from Los Angeles claim McDonald’s is exploiting corporate tax loopholes by failing to pay nearly $30 million in property taxes annually that would help fund schools and a range of essential services, including public hospitals and affordable housing.

The contingent – including nurses, janitors, security guards, school employees and fast-food workers — made its way to a McDonald’s on South La Brea Avenue on Monday to admonish the company for taking advantage of California’s “broken property tax law” and to rally support for Proposition 15.

Representatives with McDonald’s could not be reached for comment Monday.

Prop. 15

The November ballot measure is designed to close tax loopholes for large property holders and spend the resulting revenues on local governments and schools. California, the workers say, would reclaim up to $12 billion each year from wealthy corporations like McDonald’s.

That would be accomplished by amending the state’s constitution to require certain commercial and industrial properties worth more than $3 million to be taxed based on their market value.  Agricultural property would be exempt. The change from the purchase price to market value would be phased in beginning in fiscal 2022.

Supporters say Prop. 15 would also cut taxes for small businesses while protecting homeowners and renters. Opponents claim it amounts to a $12.5 billion property tax increase that would boost prices for food, gas, utilities, daycare and health care.

Prop. 15 is designed to close tax loopholes for large corporations and spend the resulting revenues on local governments and schools. (Photo courtesy of Fight for $15)

Standing atop the flatbed of a semi tractor-tractor trailer, workers at Monday’s rally implored Southern Californians to hold McDonald’s accountable and to vote yes on Prop. 15.

“The black, brown and immigrant communities have borne the brunt of this pandemic,” said Robert Branch, a security guard and member of SEIU United Service Workers West. “We need investment in public programs that ensure our health and safety — not cuts.”

A wide discrepancy in tax assessments

Drawing on data from the fast-food giant’s SEC filings and various reports, the workers note that McDonald’s built many of its California restaurants in the 1960s and 70s. Under Prop. 13, which was passed in 1978, they allege those locations are typically taxed on prices that are decades old.

An SEIU analysis estimates a typical McDonald’s store is taxed on a value of less than $2 million, although McDonald’s restaurants in California routinely sell for $4 million or more.

Data from the Los Angeles County Office of the Assessor website show, for example, that a McDonald’s at 6904 La Tijera Blvd. was assessed at $8 a square foot, while a Goodwill thrift shop across the street was assessed at $73 a square foot.

Another McDonald’s at 2810 S. Figueroa was assessed at $7 a square foot, county records show, while the motorcycle shop behind it was assessed at $52, and the office building next door was valued at $137 a square foot.

The workers contend McDonald’s makes most of its money charging rent to the franchisees who run 95% of the company’s U.S. stores. The company took in $7 billion in rent from its franchisees in 2018, according to an SEC filing.

Those workers have enlisted the support of Fight for $15, a political movement that’s seeking to boost the nation’s federal wage to $15 an hour. They say McDonald’s in California would pay about $30 million more a year in property taxes under Prop. 15. That equates to $150 million over the next five years.

Schools are in need

Jannette Verbera, a special education assistant with the Los Angeles Unified School District and an SEIU member, said schools were already struggling before the COVID-19 pandemic hit.

“There weren’t enough special education assistants to help our children,” she said in a statement. “We lacked proper equipment and I had to buy basic things like wipes for students.”

Making McDonald’s and other big corporations pay their fair share, she said, means additional funding for distance learning, for the safe reopening of schools and for “quality education for all beyond the pandemic.”


CA NAACP aids corporate prop campaigns

Alice Huffman, who is both a professional campaign consultant and long-time NAACP leader, was especially sought after this year as political campaigns respond to the national reckoning over race.


LA Times: Yes on Prop 15

Proposition 15 is arguably the most consequential measure facing California voters on the Nov. 3 ballot. By creating a “split-roll” system that taxes commercial and industrial property differently from homes, it would transfer as much as $11.5 billion annually from businesses to local governments and schools.


PPIC Poll: California

A slim majority support a November ballot measure that
would change how commercial property is taxed, and well below half support a measure that would
repeal the state’s ban on affirmative action in the public sector. Most Californians are concerned about
contracting COVID-19—similar to May—while on the issue of race relations in the US, six in ten believe
they have gotten worse in the last year, a major shift in opinion from early 2019. These are among the
key findings of a statewide survey released today by the Public Policy Institute of California.
Proposition 15 would change the tax assessment of commercial and industrial property by basing it on
current market value instead of purchase price—amending the 1978 landmark citizens’ initiative (Prop
13) and creating a “split roll” tax. Among likely voters, 51 percent favor and 40 percent oppose, with
Democrats (72%) far more likely to support than independents (46%) and Republicans (17%). Less than
half of homeowners (47%) would vote yes, compared with 56 percent of renters. Younger Californians
are much more likely than older residents to support Proposition 15 (60% ages 18 to 44, 46% age 45
and older). Support is highest among likely voters in the San Francisco Bay Area (62%) followed by
those in Los Angeles (54%), Inland Empire (51%), Central Valley (47%), and Orange/San Diego (41%).
“Californians are divided on Proposition 15, with Republicans and Democrats, younger and older voters,
and renters and homeowners showing widely different support for this tax and spending initiative,” said
Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO.