The California State Assembly is half of the state’s Legislature. It has 80 members—twice the number in the state senate, the other half of the Legislature. Each member is elected by a geographic district for a two-year term, and can serve no more than three terms. In committee hearings, the Assembly introduces, analyzes and debates the more than 5,000 bills that may become law in the state during each two-year session.

Even before becoming a state, California convened a constitutional convention in 1849 and set up a system of government. The first constitution did not specify the number of Assembly members to be elected annually, but the new government decided that 36 members should suffice. Since the Gold Rush brought most men to California, none were native Californians. While two Assembly members were foreign born, the majority (19) came from northern states. The richest mining areas—Sacramento and the San Joaquin district—supplied 18 members.

The first Legislature of the soon-to-be state met in December of that year in San Jose, the capital, and passed 19 joint resolutions. They set salaries for the state’s officers, divided California into counties, created a State Translator, set up a property tax structure, and more. Statehood came in 1850, and one year later, the legislators moved to Vallejo, where a former military governor of Alta California, Mariano Vallejo (who gave his name to the town) gifted them with a building—but most legislators had to sleep and eat on a steamer ship, since there were no hotels or boarding houses available. The Legislature bounced between Vallejo, Benicia and Sacramento until 1854. The members did not meet in their own building until 1869 when the State Capitol was half-built. That building has been home to California’s Assembly and Senate ever since.

From the beginning until 1862, sessions began on the first Monday in January. Starting in 1862, this was changed to the first Monday in December following the election, and the terms of the Assembly members were extended to two years. A new constitution in 1879 removed a 120-day limit to the length of the session during odd-numbered years, when general business—not the budget—was before the Assembly. The new constitution also set the number of Assembly members at 80, as it is today.  Starting in 1911, the Assembly would spend 30 days introducing bills in these general sessions, then take a mandated 30-day recess before returning to work. During the second part of their session, no new legislation could be introduced. The senate followed the same routine.

The Collier Lobby Control Law of 1949 and the Erwin Act of 1950 required the Assembly’s chief clerk and the secretary of the Senate to register lobbyists. These rules were in effect until 1970, when the Joint Rules Committee and then the Secretary of State took over the registration of lobbyists. In 1974, the Fair Political Practices Commission was created to provide public disclosure of financial influence of state and local public officials.  All Assembly candidates were required to disclose the amount of money raised and spent in campaigns, and their sources.

The 30-day legislative recess was abolished in 1958. Up until 1966, members still met in general session during odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, a budget session of not more than 30 days took place. An amendment which became a ballot proposition approved by California’s voters changed that, and since 1967 the Legislature has met each year for sessions of unspecified duration. In fact, in 1971 and 1972, the legislative sessions lasted for 364 and 369 days!

In 1954 legislators’ salaries were set at $500 per month and needed a constitutional amendment to be changed. The 1967 changes included raising the salaries to $16,000 per year, and allowing the Legislature to raise its own compensation by a two-thirds vote of each house, subject to gubernatorial veto and certain restrictions. A conflict-of-interest law and provisions governing travel expenses, living expenses and retirement benefits for legislators were also enacted that year.

The current two-year session system started in 1972 because of a constitutional amendment, with sessions beginning the first Monday in December in even-numbered years and adjourning by midnight of November 30 in the next even-numbered year. To avoid confusion, legislative sessions from 1849 to 1947 are referred to by session number, while those from 1947 to 1972 are identified by year. Since 1973, the sessions are referred to by years and the term Regular Session, as in 2009-2010 Regular Session.

In the 1990s a Constitution Revision Commission recommended replacing the state Assembly and senate with a 121 member unicameral body that would be elected to 4-year terms. The commission’s recommendations did not pass the Legislature.

California’s Legislature (California Legislative Information)

The 80 members of the California State Assembly legislate for more than 38 million Californians, with each Assembly district representing around 475,000 people. Each member of the Assembly is elected for a two-year term, and can serve no more than three terms. Members convene on the first Monday in December of even-numbered years, elect a Speaker to manage the group and other officers to assist the Speaker, all of whom will serve for the two-year session.

In committee hearings, the Assembly analyzes and debates the bills that may become law in the state. A Rules Committee conducts the business affairs of the Assembly and all members of this important group are appointed by the Speaker. When bills are introduced, the Rules Committee decides which standing committee should hear and discuss the bill. Sometimes more than one committee must hear the bill, but the Rules Committee hands it off to one standing committee to start. The Rules Committee also provides clerical assistance and offices for Assembly members, and approves expenditures.

Most of the Assembly’s work is done by its standing committees, and the leadership of these committees is determined by the Speaker. Dozens of committees exist, from Accountability and Administrative Review to Water, Parks and Wildlife; the Assembly website maintains a linked list to all committees and subcommittees. All focus on different policy issues that concern Californians, so the sizes of committees vary, and the scope and subject matter of committees may change over the years.

Over the two-year session, bills are introduced and referred to committees where they are discussed and acted upon. Committees do not hear the bills until 31 days after introduction. Once a committee takes up a bill, citizens, lobbyists and experts are invited to testify. Committees may amend the bills that they review, and they can refuse a bill or recommend it—which means, the committee returns the bill to the floor. All actions on bills are printed in the Daily Files, which serves as the daily agenda, and all information from the Daily File is compiled into the Assembly Daily Journal, a searchable database.  A Legislative calendar showing deadlines is online.

When a bill is returned approved from a committee to the floor, it is read a second time, then a third time on a subsequent day. After the third reading, debate may ensue. Bills are voted on electronically in the chambers, and once passed by both the Assembly and senate, are sent to the governor for signature. A simple majority of 41 or more will pass most bills, except for specific tax levies, urgency measures, general fund appropriation bills or constitutional amendments—these exceptions require a two-thirds majority. The legislative process invites public opinion and each Assembly member’s District Office fields questions about the bills before the Legislature.

A bill must be approved by both houses of the Legislature before it goes to the governor’s desk for signature. If the senate amends a bill that has already been approved by the Assembly, the bill goes back to the Assembly for approval of the changes. Bills enacted by October 2 become law on January 1 of the next year. Urgency measures, which are defined as bills necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health or safety, take effect as soon as they are signed by the governor.

In addition to regular, two-year sessions, the Assembly and Senate may be called by governor’s proclamation into special or extraordinary session to consider a specific issue. Bills enacted at these sessions become effective 91 days after the extraordinary session is adjourned.

In addition to its legislative duties, the Assembly shares confirmation power with the senate in cases of gubernatorial appointments to fill a statewide office and of actuarial appointments.

The state Assembly has sole power of impeachment, although the state senate serves as the tribunal for impeachment trials. All impeachment resolutions must originate in the Assembly and be adopted by a majority vote there. The Assembly would then elect managers to prepare articles of impeachment to be presented at the senate.

To fill vacancies in the Assembly, the governor must, within 14 calendar days of the vacancy, call a special election, and that election must be held at least 112 days hence, but not more than 126 days. An exception occurs when a statewide, local or special election is being held in the same geographic area; in that case, to consolidate the elections, the vacancy-filling election can be held up to 180 days after the governor’s call. Also, if the vacancy occurs near the end of a term, the seat remains vacant until the next general election.

California State Assembly (pamphlet, California State Assembly, Chief Clerk’s Office) (pdf)

A proposed $146.7 million is budgeted for the Assembly for fiscal year 2012-2013, the same as the previous two years. All of its money comes from the state General Fund.

Californians pay their state Assemblymembers $8.4 million a year in salary, $2.3 million  session per diem and $8,000 for mileage. Operating expenses gobble up all the rest of the budget.

Staff salaries and benefits cost taxpayers $98 million a year. $3.5 million is spent on building expense and $1.7 million goes for staff travel and per diem. Other expenses include: $1.1 million for printing, $1 million for communications, $596,000 for the phone bill, $497,000 for office supplies, $247,000 for furniture and equipment, $196,000 for postage, and $18,000 for meals.

The Assembly also transfers $24.2 million to other state agencies and $3.8 million to an adviser, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.

In 2010, 275 Assembly candidates sought election to the 80 seats up for grabs and raised $77.4 million for their campaigns. The top six fundraisers were Democrats.

The biggest fundraiser was Alyson Huber, who won her seat, with $3.4 million, followed by successful candidates Joan Buchanan ($3.3 million), Richard Pan ($2.8 million), Speaker John A. Pérez ($2.1 million), V Manuel Pérez ($1.8 million) and Marty Block ($1.8 million). Next on the list was the top GOP fundraiser, Andy Pugno, who lost the general election despite raising $1.4 million.

The California Democratic Party was the #1 contributor to Assembly candidates ($6.7 million), followed by the state Republican Party ($1.8 million), Sacramento County Democratic Central Committee ($612,026), California Association of Realtors ($585,754),  California Teachers Association ($580,141), Los Angeles County Democratic Party ($556,653), AT&T ($519,788), California Dental Association ($499,849), Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians ($442,300) and California State Council of Laborers ($437,200).

Party committees were the overall largest contributors to campaigns ($11.2 million), followed by trade unions ($6.1 million), public sector unions ($4.6 million), candidate self-finance ($2.9 million), lawyers & lobbyists ($762,853), health professionals ($2.6 million), the insurance industry ($2.5 million), candidate committees ($2.3 million), the real estate industry ($1.9 million), tribal governments ($1.7 million), telecom services & equipment ($1.2 million), pharmaceuticals & health products ($1.1 million), electric utilities ($858,711), oil & gas ($745,916) and beer, wine & liquor ($670,081).

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Personal Staff for Members (National Conference of State Legislatures)

Assembly Candidates’ 2010 Fundraising (National Institute on Money in State Politics) 

Assembly Politics: Payback or Bickering?

A battle between Assembly Democratic leaders—including the Speaker—and a party member from Los Angeles County led to claims of underhanded accounting trickery. The public brouhaha began in June 2011, when Assemblyman Anthony Portantino became the only Democrat to vote against the state budget.

That did not please Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez. But it wasn’t the first time Pérez and Portantino, who had run for Speaker twice himself since first being elected in 2006, had bumped heads. Pérez had stripped Portantino of a committee chairmanship several months before the budget vote after Portantino criticized proposals to cut funding for higher education. Portantino said Pérez had told him he was too outspoken.

Portantino’s office funding dropped as a result, but he kept the aides and a consultant that he’d hired as committee chair. He was warned about his office’s spending, Portantino said, but claimed Pérez warned him months before “that he would face consequences if he didn’t toe the party line on key votes,” according the Sacramento Bee.

Days after the budget vote, Portantino was ordered by Rules Committee Chair Nancy Skinner, “to cut his own budget by $67,000 or have his office staff furloughed.” Portantino claimed this was simply punishment for his independent vote and accused the Assembly of “secretive bookkeeping practices.” In August, he introduced AB 1129, which would force the Assembly to comply with the California Public Records Act, making access to financial records much easier.

The very next day, as CalWatchdog described it, the battle escalated. “Apparently seeking to embarrass Portantino by making him look as if he was the biggest spender on Assembly staff salaries, the Assembly Rules Committee one-upped him on Friday when it released current member-by-member spending records. Portantino was listed at the top of the big spenders.”

However, not everyone read the numbers the same way. Stanford-based California Common Sense (CACS) calculated that Portantino’s staff spending was 37^th on the list. The CACS researchers, in fact, called the Rules Committee data “awfully suspicious,” and told CalWatchdog that they found “very fishy inconsistencies” in the Assembly’s figures, including mislabeling his staffers to skew the data.

The Los Angeles Times and Sacramento Bee wanted a better look at the numbers and filed a public-records lawsuit in Superior Court. In December, the judge ruled the Assembly must disclose more information.

The records showed Portantino had the lowest office budget among Assembly Democrats in 2011. He overspent his $518,000 budget by $33,000, but the $551,000 total was still lower than 38 of 52 Assembly Democrats. Portantino had a much bigger budget in 2010, when he chaired the Assembly Revenue and Taxation Committee and had an office budget of $694,000.

Speaker Pérez racked up his own $20,000 deficit in 2011 on a $781,000 budget.

The termed-out Portantino, who had indicated an interest in running for Congress, announced in January 2012 that he was leaving politics to take care of family matters. (His mother was entering assisted living on the East Coast and his brother, Michael, killed himself in December 2010 after Michael’s magazine, Gay and Lesbian Times, closed amid rumors of financial improprieties.)

Redistricting had changed Portantino’s area and he now resided in entrenched Democrat Carol Liu’s state senatorial district and incumbent Democrat Adam Schiff’s congressional district.

Assembly Records Don’t Declare Winner in Anthony Portantino Budget Fight (by Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee)

Charge: Assembly ‘Cooks the Books’ (by Katy Grimes, CalWatchdog)

California Assembly Says Budget Records Lawsuit “Unfounded” (by Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee)

Portantino Spent Less Than Most Democrats, Records Show (by Joe Piasecki, Pasadena Sun)

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino Will Not Seek Office This Year (by Jim Sanders, Sacramento Bee)

Redistricting from a Candidate’s Viewpoint

The hardest part of campaigning for a seat in California’s Legislature throughout 2011 and into 2012, according the Los Angeles Times, “is not knowing what the districts will be until a citizen commission finishes drawing new boundaries this summer.”

Legislative districts must have roughly the same number of residents, so every 10 years the state’s districts are adjusted to conform with population figures from the census. In 2010, however, California voters decided that drawing political district boundaries should be taken out of the hands of the legislators themselves, who have been accused of gerrymandering in the past. Now, a citizen commission has taken over that job.

“Observers expect at least some changes in every district. Some legislators and would-be candidates could find themselves without a district to run in, or could be included in the same district as another lawmaker, or could face less favorable registration and demographics,” reported the Times. “A few candidates have hedged their bets by signing up in two places at once.”

Why file to run before the districts are finalized? “Many candidates and strategists say the advantage of getting in now [April, 2011]—raising money and gaining early recognition—outweigh the downside of seeing the district redrawn unfavorably.”

One strategist pointed out that a redrawn district could exclude a candidate’s home, and force him or her to switch districts. And first-time candidate Brian C. Johnson, who is backed by former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan, “said he couldn’t afford waiting to see how the 42^nd Assembly District would be redrawn. Three others also have begun campaigning” in that district.

Redistricting Poses Challenge to Candidates Pondering a 2012 Run (by Jean Merl, Los Angeles Times)

Should the Legislature Cut Its Hours?

“The lowly regarded California Legislature is widely viewed as accomplishing so little that some critics say the solution is to cut back lawmakers’ hours—way back.” In the  San Diego Union-Tribune, journalist John Marelius gathered opinions on whether the Assembly and senate should just go back to the pre-1967 schedule of limited hours. The 2010 article was motivated by a proposed ballot initiative called the Citizen Legislature Act that would convene the body for no more than 30 days in January and 60 days beginning in May and a five-day fall session to consider gubernatorial vetoes.

The issues boiled down to “citizen legislators versus professional politicians,” said Gabriella Holt, the leader of a group responsible for the initiative. “When you have citizen legislators, they’re up there for a finite period of time, so they have to conduct the people’s business. Then they get back to their own lives and work under the rules they make, so they maintain a real-world contact.” Other supporters pointed to Texas as an example of a “functioning part-time legislature.”

Others scoffed at that idea, and Bruce Buchanan, a professor of government at the University of Texas, Austin, said, “It’s nothing we can be terribly proud of and offer as a model for the country.” He cited several reasons that the part-time idea didn’t work well, including increased reliance on lobbyists. Assemblywoman Mary Salas agreed with that point. “I think if you have a part-time Legislature, it’s going to be even more driven by staff and lobbyists.”

So far, the initiative has not reached the ballot.

Critics Seek a Part-Time California Legislature (by John Marelius, San Diego Union-Tribune)

Term-Limits Tweak

Another term-limit bill affecting the Legislature will appear on the June 2012 ballot in California. Currently, if someone served the allowed three terms in the Assembly and two in the Senate, that person would serve 14 years. If passed, Proposition 28 will reduce the number of years a legislator could serve to 12, but the person could serve the time in one house: either three terms in the Senate or six in the Assembly. Supporters believe this would increase a legislator’s effectiveness and make the Legislature more stable.

Proposition 28 (pdf)

California Proposition 28, Change in Term Limits (June 2012) (Ballotpedia)

Have Term Limits Helped or Impeded the Legislature?

Willie Brown served 31 years in the state Assembly, starting in 1964, the last 14 of them as Speaker. That record will probably not be matched for a while, because in 1990 California voters passed Proposition 140, setting term limits for legislators. Today’s Assembly members are limited to serving three two-year terms in their lives. Pete Schabarum, the principle sponsor of Prop. 140, claimed the point was “to scale down . . . an oversized government institution and turn it over to citizen-legislators.” Opponents said the proposition, which also slashed the Legislature’s operating budget and forced staff layoffs, would “leave the lawmakers dependent for information on executive branch bureaucrats and lobbyists for special interests.”

So which is it? After more than 20 years of term limits, has California’s government scaled down and is it filled with citizen-legislators, or have the legislators lost their independence and become reliant on lobbyists?

California Elections / Proposition 140 (by Paul Jacobs, Los Angeles Times)

Term Limits Have Failed to Fix Government’s Problems

If other states follow California’s lead and adopt term limits, writes Peter Schrag in The American Prospect blog, here’s what they can expect: “gridlock, bitter partisan hostility, and greater reliance on special interests for the expertise required to write complex legislation.” He says term limits have sent “a new generation of politicians to Sacramento who are long on partisanship and painfully short on both legislative experience and policy background—and, worse, often seem not to care.”

While “the personal arrogance and indifference of some long-term members may become a thing of the past,” Schrag warns that “anyone looking for a new generation of citizen-legislators will probably look in vain.” He calls the high turnover rate of leaders, combined with many recalls and special elections, “an accelerating game of musical chairs prompted by the search of the nearly termed-out for jobs of longer and more secure tenure: as lobbyists, consultants, or academics, or in other public offices.” 

Former state Senator Quentin L. Kopp agrees. In practice, he writes, “term limits have produced a phenomenon different than the “citizen legislator” I envisioned, the civic-minded individual who volunteers for a few years before returning to a profession or business.” Kopp, who supported term limits 20 years ago, wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle that now, instead of returning to their businesses, “every term-limited legislator looks instantly for the next elective office. . . . That constant turnover causes more time, effort and need for soaring political contributions, and results in inexperienced legislators.”

“Term limits themselves send the message that experience is not as important as ideological purity and faithful representation of the voters of one’s district,” according to Schrag. “Term limits have increased instability and reduced legislative experience. Under the state’s rigid limits, members begin looking for the next slot from the moment they arrive. The Legislature has, in effect, become a bus station where some people have just arrived and others are waiting to leave, and as a result the institution itself does not elicit much loyalty or devotion. ”

To compound the problems, Schrag points out, the proposition that imposed term limits also slashed legislators’ budgets. The law of unintended consequences comes into play. The Legislative Analyst’s Office lost 60% of its staff in the cuts; in addition “the budget reductions also decimated the ranks of policy experts attached to various legislative committees—experts on budgeting, water law, taxation, environmental law, education, transportation, and all the rest—who, for the better part of a generation beginning in the mid-1960s, had made California’s legislature a model of professionalism.”

“Given that structural morass, the governmental inexperience that term limits produce can only exacerbate the difficulties of accomplishing anything.” Schrag advises any states considering term limits to consider California “a cautionary tale that others ignore at their peril.”

A 2004 study by the Public Policy Institute of California quantified the state of affairs, using datasets of legislative performance, voting behavior, committee activity and complexity of bills. Researchers collected data on career histories, staffing patterns and campaign contributions. When done, they found a mixed bag of bad things that hadn’t changed and good things that had disappeared.

“Careerism remains a constant in California politics. . . . Legislative leaders continue to raise and allocate campaign money as they did before, and term limits have had little or no effect on the breadth or complexity of bills.”

“Term limits have not been inconsequential, however. . . . the Legislature now screens fewer bills and is less likely to alter the Governor’s Budget . . . . there is more room for fiscal irresponsibility in the Legislature now and less incentive, experience, and leadership to correct it. Term limits also may be weakening legislative oversight of the executive branch.”

Seven years later, the Center for Governmental Studies said California still had not witnessed the emergence of citizen-legislators who would serve briefly in the state house before returning to the private sector. Instead, “professional legislators pre and post term limits continued to seek careers in other governmental positions—a form of political musical chairs for governmental office.”

During the shortened tenure in the Legislature, and more so in the Assembly where terms are shorter than the Senate, lawmakers have turned to lobbyists for guidance in crafting bills. Special interests sponsored 39% of bills in the Legislature’s 2007-08 session, according to the Mercury News, up from 30% in 1993-94, just before the term limits law took effect. New lawmakers carried the most sponsored bills. In the Assembly, 47% of bills carried by freshman were sponsored. 

The sponsors’ donation of expertise is more likely to be accompanied by campaign contributions. The Mercury News identified nine members of the Assembly who received $20,000 or more from sponsors of their legislation in 2007-08. All the lawmakers had introduced at least five such sponsored bills and three of them had introduced at least 10. Democratic Assemblyman Ed Hernandez led the pack, netting $108,000 from sponsors.

Time to End Term Limits in California (by former judge, state Senator and San Francisco Supervisor Quentin L. Kopp, San Francisco Chronicle)

The Populist Road to Hell: Term Limits in California (by Peter Schrag, The American Prospect)

Adapting to Term Limits: Recent Experiences and New Directions (by Bruce E. Cain and Thad Kousser, Public Policy Institute of California) (pdf)

Study Upends Term-Limit Theory (by George Skelton, Los Angeles Times)

Term Limits Shift Balance of Power to Special Interests (by Karen de Sá, Mercury News)

Citizen Legislators or Political Musical Chairs: Term Limits in California (by Ava Alexander, Center for Governmental Studies) (pdf)

Time’s Up for Term Limits (by John S. Caragozian, Miller-McCune)

Term Limits Put California on the Right Path

California and other states “are setting up boot camps and mentoring programs to ensure it doesn’t take years to understand the legislative process,” posts Elizabeth Stelle on the Commonwealth Foundation. “The inconvenience of term limits is a small price to pay for the absence of entrenched lawmakers that make careers out of political service and forge deep alliances with special interest groups—preventing principled and fiscally responsible decision making.”

Before Proposition 140, 90% of Assembly incumbents were re-elected. When they finally left office, their own staff members often replaced them. Their longevity, critics say, not only led to bad policy by insulated politicians and special interests, it threatened the integrity of elections themselves. There have been no more Willie Browns, whose 31 years in the Assembly and 14 years as Speaker were practically reason enough for some to vote for term limits. Nobody has served more than four years in the post since. 

Term limits have garnered support from frustrated voters who want to change the face of state politics, literally. And in California that face has a slightly pinkish hue. “Californians passed term limits because they believe that most politicians in the state are self-serving and have pursued an ultra-liberal policy agenda for California that does not enjoy the support of most California voters.” So says Jon Fleischman in Capitol Weekly. “Politicians and the people engaged directly with them find term limits to be an inconvenient insertion of the people's will into what they prefer to be a Patrician process.”

But even “patricians” saw value in term limits; President George H.W. Bush, the son of a senator and a professional politician for 24 years, endorsed Prop. 140 in 1990, saying that term limits are “one way to correct the abuse of power,” he said.

Fleischman acknowledges that having term limits has not solved the problems. “We still have a plethora of self-serving politicians in the Legislature.” Citing their use of “not one but two government-funded vehicles,” the “buckets of taxpayer money to blanket voters with propaganda,” and “the tax-and-redistributive policies in the state Capitol” which damage the state's economy, he says the reason that voters support term limits is that “they are in no hurry to ‘reward’ a political class that they believe is doing a poor job.”

“As to the criticism of the experience level of legislators, somehow this is always measured in terms of ‘experience at legislating’—which is not the metric in question. The goal is having a regular stream of people going into the Legislature bringing real world experience—from the private sector, ideally.”

Bush Backs Prop. 140 on Term Limits (by David Lauter and Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times)

Are Freshmen Lawmakers Bad for State Legislatures? (by Elizabeth Stelle, Commonwealth Foundation)

Opinion: People Support Term Limits Because They Distrust Politicians (by Jon Fleischman, Capitol Weekly)

John Pérez, 2010-2014

Karen Bass, 2008-2010

Fabian Nuñez, 2004-2008

Herb Wesson, Jr., 2002-2004

Robert Hertzberg, 2000-2002

Antonio Villaraigosa, 1998-2000. Villaraigosa, cousin to the current Speaker, is now mayor of Los Angeles.

Cruz Bustamante, 1997-1998. Bustamante served  as lieutenant governor for eight years after leaving the Assembly, and ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2003’s recall election.

Curt Pringle, 1996     

Brian Setencich, 1995-1996. Setencich and his predecessor, Doris Allen, were both Republicans who held the speakership with the support of a Democratic minority. However, Willie Brown was believed to be the real Speaker during their tenure. Setencich was a former pro basketball player in Europe who had been a city councilman in Fresno, and served in the Assembly only eight months before becoming Speaker.

Doris Allen, 1995. The first female Speaker, Allen was nearly tossed out when she refused to support a Republican colleague as Speaker, allied with Willie Brown, and took the position herself—briefly. Just before resigning in the face of a recall election against her, she famously described the Assembly as “power-mongering males with short penises.”

Willie Brown, 1981-1995. Brown became the first African-American elected Speaker in 1980, and served even during times when his Democratic Party lost control of the Assembly to become the longest-serving Speaker in California’s history. Thanks to term limits, his record will likely remain unchallenged for now. An Assemblyman since 1964, in 1975 he wrote the Consenting Adult Sex Bill that essentially legalized homosexuality in California. His power and longevity as a legislator—The Black Collegian called him “California’s Democratic Party’s chief fundraiser, power mogul and political strategist”—was one of the driving forces behind Proposition 140, which imposed term limits on state officers and forced Brown out of the Assembly. He was quickly elected mayor of San Franciso and served there until 2004. Since then, he has written his autobiography, hosted a radio talk show, established his own nonprofit Willie L. Brown, Jr. Institute on Politics & Public Service to train college students for careers in local governments, and as a lawyer, defended the controversial (and now bankrupt) Monica Ung against charges of violating labor laws and defrauding immigrant workers as well as the state of millions of dollars.

Leo T. McCarthy, 1974-1980

Bob Moretti, 1971-1974 Moretti resigned in mid-session to run for the Democratic nomination for governor. He lost to Jerry Brown, who went on to win the general election.

Robert T. Monagan, 1969-1970

Jesse Unruh, 1961-1968. “Big Daddy Unruh” won an Assembly seat on his third try in the 1950s. He held the Speakership longer than anyone before him and championed reform legislation. After unsuccessful campaigns for governor (Unruh lost to Ronald Reagan) and mayor of Los Angeles, he was elected three times as state treasurer, serving in that office until his death.

Ralph M. Brown, 1959-1961. Resigned in mid-session.

L. H. Lincoln, 1955-1958

James W. Silliman, 1953-1954

Sam L. Collins, 1947-1952

Charles W. Lyon, 1943, 1945

Gordon Hickman Garland, 1940 (Extraordinary Session), 1941

Paul Peek, 1939

William Moseley Jones, 1937

Edward Craig, 1935

F. C. Clowdsley, 1934 (Extraordinary Session)

Walter J. Little, 1933

Edgar C. Levey, 1927, 1929, 1931

Frank F. Merriam, 1923, 1925

Henry W. Wright, 1919, 1921

C. C. Young, 1913-1917

Arthur H. Hewitt, 1911

Philip A. Stanton, 1909

Robert L. Beardslee, Sr. , 1907

Frank C. Prescott, 1905. Prescott resigned before an Extraordinary Session was called; Speaker Pro Tem T. E. Atkinson served as Speaker during that session.

Arthur G. Fisk, 1903

Cornelius W. Pendleton, 1901

Alden Anderson, 1899

Howard E. Wright, 1899. Wright resigned after an Assembly investigation substantiated  accusations that he had accepted money in exchange for a pledge to support election of a U.S. senator by the Legislature. U.S. senators were not popularly elected until 1913. After his resignation, Wright sued a San Francisco newspaper, The Call, for libel and sought $250,000. Headlines like “Howard E. Wright Branded Knave and Scoundrel” highlighted the newspaper’s campaign which included an accusation that Wright was dishonest in business transactions. Wright did not win the suit. 

Frank L. Coombs, 1897

John C. Lynch, 1895

F. H. Gould, 1893

Frank Leslie Coombs, 1891

Robert Howe, 1889

William H. Jordan, 1887

William H. Parks, 1885

Hugh M. La Rue, 1883

William H. Parks, 1881

Jabez F. Cowdery, 1880

Campbell Polson Berry, 1878

Gideon J. Carpenter, 1876

Morris M. Estee 1874

Thomas Bowles Shannon, 1872

George H. Rogers, 1870. California was still a wild place during the 1870 session; hotel brawls led to one Assembly member (John Odell) shooting another in the hand, and Assemblyman McMillen attacking fellow member Michael Hayes with a bowie knife. (Hayes was unharmed, but a bartender was cut.)

Caius T. Ryland, 1868

John Yule, 1866

William H. Sears, 1864

Tim N. Machin, 1863

George Barstow, 1862

R. Burnell, 1861. During this session, two members of the Assembly dueled at former Speaker Fairfax’s house, and one was killed.

Phillip Moore, 1860

William C. Stratton, 1859

N. E. Whiteside, 1858

Elwood T. Beatty, 1857

James T. Farley, 1856

William W. Stow, 1855

Charles S. Fairfax, 1854

Isaac B. Wall, 1853. Speaker Wall was killed in the bloody Roach-Belcher feud in 1855.

Richard P. Hammond, 1852

John Bigler, 1850-1851

Thomas J. White, 1849-1850

Appendix E, California Legislature Elected Officers (California Legislative Information)  (pdf)