The California Conundrum

Why The Scarlet Letter R Keeps California Bluer than it Wants to Be

As last Tuesday’s dust settles, those Californians not telling their friends that they are moving to Canada because Donald Trump won, may be wondering about something that seems rather odd:  why does the state, as a whole, so consistently tend to vote more down the middle than it does in district elections, like those for the state Assembly?

There are two reasons for the phenomena:  rotten districts and The Scarlet Letter R.

Let’s start with the R.

On Tuesday, Republican senate candidate Steve Garvey pulled about 43% - not too shabby, considering, but not an earth shattering result – in fact it was very expected. 

In 2022, Democrats running for statewide office, including Gavin Newsom, averaged 57.7% of the vote. Tuesday, Kamala Harris got 58% of the state vote -  though less than Hillary or Biden, one can still see the pattern?

In 2022, only state controller Republican candidate Lanhee Chen did any better that that magical 57% number, cutting that by four points and losing 53 to 47%.  Of course, that took a flawless campaign, very unusual endorsements from the state’s major media outlets, and an incredibly compromised Democratic nominee.

So, at this point in California, statewide races that involve people having an R next to their name are pretty much stuck at about that number.

But what about non-partisan, i.e. proposition campaigns?  Of course, they are in fact partisan with Democrats and their allies – read public unions - putting up most of the measures.

That – over the past couple of elections – is where the numbers change.  In March, Gov, Gavin Newsom’s Prop 1 – re-direct mental health money, shovel billions more into the homeless industrial complex, etc. – just barely squeaked by by less than a point.  True, it had opponents on both the right – really, more money for failed homeless programs? – to the left – really, less money to pay the social outreach contracts we depend upon? – but the incredibly close result was really about Californians tired of wasting massive amounts of money on programs that do not work.

Tuesday, state voters took a hammer to the most progressive propositions.  Allow cities more leeway to impose rent control? No.  Allow cities and counties to have to get only 55% of the vote to approve new bonds?  Hell no.  Making it illegal (ish) for prisoners to work?  Very no.  Raising the minimum wage?  You’re kidding, right?

And then of course there was Prop 36 that makes crime illegal again in California.  70% approval, a crushing defeat for the woke justice mob.

Add Los Angeles District Attorney George Gascon getting obliterated and the Oakland Mayor and DA being recalled and the election of a (comparable) moderate as San Francisco’s new mayor and the wokest of the woke went, politically speaking, brokest of the broke.

Then why is the state legislature – which for the 12 years of the Democrat’s “super majority” has been systematically destroying the state, dare I say even more than Newsom - not changing? 

For background, the state legislature is divided into the Assembly with 80 seats and the Senate, which has 40 members.  It is the smallest state legislature – per capita – in the country, with assembly district having about 450,000 members each while senators rep about 900,000 people.  That, by the way, is a larger district than a member of the federal House of Representatives and, on both sides of the legislature, that very size is a key element of the current power structure due, in large part, to the extreme cost of the campaigns.  To be blunt, many a candidate has to have very serious public union backing and has to pass the “Sacramento primary” of going to the capitol and convince the permanent power blob of lobbyists, etc. that, in exchange for campaign cash, you will not really try to change anything important when elected.   

Right now, there may be a few seats still on the fence, but the Assembly make up will be about 62 to 18, Democratic, and the Senate will be 31 to 9, Democratic.  Controlling more than two-thirds of each house means the Democrats can literally pass any bill (and, God help us, they do)   they want with no “interference” from the Republicans, hence the term “super majority.”

So back to “why?”

First, welcome again to the Scarlet R.  For decades, it has been socially anathema to even be a Republican in California, let alone tell anyone you are, and god forbid you express an opinion even slightly to the right of Pol Pot in public.

The social dynamic that has established a stranglehold on the state’s public politics is real and incredibly damaging – never underestimate the power of the mob and the fear of possible ostracization.

Note – the district attorney races are non-partisan as are the ballot measures and the recalls – no little R (or D) next to any of those names.  For example, LA DA Gascon is a Democrat and was backed by the much of the party; the guy who beat him 60-40, Nathan Hochman, switched registration from Republican to “independent” (in California, technically “no party preference/NPP”) before entering the race.  While even with an R next to his name he still would have beaten Gascon (I would have beaten Gascon, you would have beaten Gascon,) he might not have survived the March primary to be in Tuesday’s runoff if he was an “out” Republican.

Looking at the legislature, the Democrats control about 77% of the seats, overall.  Combining all of the raw vote together for the legislature, though, shows Democrats only get about 62% of the total votes.

This 60-ish percent number is far more in line with what one would expect in the legislature.  50% of Californians are Dems, 25% NPP, and 25% are Republicans.  Interestingly the NPP vote leans consistently to the Republican side, a perfect example of the social dynamic of problematically being labeled a Republican. In the 2022 recall effort of Newsom, for example, he won overall but actually lost the NPP vote.

The bias is not overwhelming – say, of the 25%, Rs may get 14% with 11% going to the Ds – but it exists and the more moderate/conservative bias shows up far more strongly in the propositions and “non-partisan” elections.

For example, Prop 36 – which rolled back much of the culture-killing Proposition 47 of a decade ago that essentially ended drug crimes and made it only a misdemeanor (which were never filed, let alone prosecuted) to steal up to $950 from a store every day among other things – had overwhelming NPP support, essentially matching the 70 to 30% victory (note: things are so bad in California that even a slight majority of Democrats voted for Prop 36.)

In theory, the state has an independent re-districting system made up of wonderful and politically moderate people who just want to make districts fair and proper to best represent the people of California.

In practice, not so much and while during the last two re-districting processes the state’s Republican Party leadership was fighting over the scraps they get from the Sacramento table and asking water board candidates about their stance on abortion, the Democrats were actually paying close attention and gaming the system.  Even liberal ProPublica says so.   

Let’s look at 2020 – the 2024 numbers are not yet finalized and very little has changed overall anyway and they break out estimates of people who can legally vote.   

There were 59 competitive Assembly races, “competitive” being defined as having both a Republican and a Democrat in the November general (the remining 21 seats either had two members of the same party, one party versus a member of a third party or write-in or independent, or were not contested.)

In the contested races, the average turnout was about 207,000 people per district (each district having about, at this point, 500,000 residents).  In districts that had higher turnout – more than 250,000 votes cast, or about 20 percent above the average – four races were won by a Republican and five were won by a Democrat.

In the lower turnout districts – defined by being under 170,000 votes cast or about 18 percent below the average – one Republican was elected while 10 Democrats prevailed.

When compared to statewide party registration numbers, the high turnout districts should have elected five Democrats and three Republicans while the low turnout district split should have been four Republicans and seven Democrats, a shift of two seats to the Democrats  (obviously there are numerous other factors in play and each election has its own issues so no “shift” can be guaranteed).

Interestingly, on the rare occasion when a Republican won any district they received about 56 of the vote cast, while Democrats who prevailed received 67 percent of the vote.  Additionally, Republican won districts had a turnout figure of about 223,000 total votes while Democrat victories occurred in districts with an average turnout of 200,000 votes, or about 10 percent less (the previous 207,000 statewide figure is an average of all competitive districts no matter who won.)

The citizenship numbers also show distinct differences.  According to the figures, only about 78 percent of Californian’s old enough to vote are legally allowed to vote.  This non-voting population is made up of various groups, including those in the state on work visas, long-term permanent residents (“green card” holders), and – the largest group – non-citizen permanent (or illegal, depending upon the choice of terminology) residents.

An average district has about 275,000 legal voters.  Districts that have more than 300,000 legal voters (about 10 percent higher than the average) returned seven Republicans, 16 Democrats, and one independent, results roughly in line with statewide party registration figures.

But districts that have fewer than 250,000 legal voters showed a very significant tilt, electing three Republicans and 17 Democrats, more than twice the difference that could be expected vis a vis statewide party affiliations.

It should be noted that the turnout and citizen rates appear to be intertwined.  The competitive districts with the highest percentages of citizens had the highest turnouts, with the top eight turnout districts showing an average citizenship rate of 87 percent, while the lowest 10 districts by turnout carried a citizenship rate of 62 percent (Republicans and Democrats split the top eight districts four to four while the lowest went Democrat by nine to one.)

Add all of that up and you have the systemic – yup, used word correctly – creation of a system of “rotten boroughs” guaranteed to vote only one possible way.

By the way, if the districts were created by the count of citizens rather than count of total number of bodies, experts estimate Republican would automatically gain another 10 to 12 seats in the legislature.

Combine the rotten districts with the evil R and that is why the state legislature does not at all reflect the actual mood and desires and even politics of California.

How to fix this?  First, have an actually independent re-districting commission and make sure they are properly vetted and begin each process literally from the ground up.  Essentially, “zero based budgeting” for districts.

Second – and this will not happen – create districts based on citizen counts rather than body counts.

Third, get rid of the R.  This, too, will not happen but the state’s Republican Party leadership is just plain awful.  Insider fights, weird issue focus, and an apparent beingokaywith-ness of being in a permanent minority status as long as they get paid are the hallmarks of the party now.

The party establishment is well-fed and contented and doesn’t really have work – Try to win elections?!?  That seems hard…

The party is a vestigial embarrassment, like being born with a tiny tail, and should, like the tail, be removed.

California without a Republican Party? Heaven forfend.

But replacing it with a socially moderate, fiscally hardcore “California Party” might just work.

The dreaded R would be gone, the NPP voters would have a home, and its focus would be on the state, which, as too many people point out, would be the fifth largest economy in the world if it were its own country.

The new party would have a relationship with the national Republican Party and there could still be a local version the run the more federal things like presidential primaries, etc.

But the Golden C would replace the Scarlet R and that could make all the difference.