Back to Departments Back to Legislative Branch

California State Senate

Bookmark and Share
Overview:

The California State Senate is half of the state’s Legislature—the other half is the Assembly—and as such it introduces, analyzes, debates and votes for or against the bills that may become law. The Senate has 40 members, half the number of Assembly members. Senators are elected for four-year terms by the different geographic districts in the state.

more
History:

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 legislators, but 16 senators were selected to sit in the first legislative session on December 15, 1849. Unfortunately, heavy rains and flooding kept all but six away. Only two senators were native Californians; of the rest, nine came from northern states and five from southern states.  They were paid $16 per diem and $16 mileage for every 20 miles traveled to and from the capitol.

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 the 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. Until 1854 the Legislature bounced between Vallejo, Benicia, and Sacramento. They did not meet in their own building until 1869 when the State Capitol was half-built. That building has been home to both houses of California’s Legislature ever since.

From the beginning until 1862, sessions began on the first Monday in January. Senators were elected for two-year terms with half the senators being elected each year. Starting in 1862, sessions changed to the first Monday in December following the election, and the terms of the senators was extended to four years. A new state constitution in 1879 removed a 120-day limit to the length of the session during odd-number years, when general business—not the budget—was before the Legislature. The number of senators had been rising steadily over the years and the new constitution set the number at 40, as it is today.  Starting in 1911, the Legislature 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 new state constitution in 1879, in addition to setting the number of senators at 40 and Assembly members at 80, had required that the districts in the Senate be roughly equivalent in population. (The Assembly had the same requirement.) But in 1926, rural agricultural interests sponsored a constitutional amendment that changed the makeup of the Senate, requiring that territory be considered as well as population in drawing its district lines. California 58 counties would be divided among the 40 senators, with some lawmakers representing more than one county.

The 1926 voter guide clearly stated the expected result: “This measure will preserve to rural California and the great agricultural producing areas which comprise it, the control of one house of the state legislature, namely: the Senate.”

And that it did . . . for nearly 40 years until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds vs. Sims that numerically unequal districts violated the “one person, one vote” principal and declared them unconstitutional. California responded to the Warren Court ruling the same way every other state responded. Instead of dumping one of its redundant bodies, it adjust its district boundaries and continued with two nearly indistinguishable houses.  

The 30-day legislative recess was abolished in 1958. Up until 1966, the Senate met in general session during odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, budget sessions 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!

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.

By issuing a proclamation, the governor may call extraordinary sessions of the Legislature, as well, and at those sessions the governor decides what subjects will be under debate.

The Collier Lobby Control Law of 1949 and the Erwin Act of 1950 required that the secretary of the Senate register lobbyists for that body. 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 senatorial candidates were required to disclose the amount of money raised and spent in campaigns, and their sources.

In 1990, voters chose to limit the number of terms that elected state office holders could serve. State senators are limited to two terms in their lifetimes, but are free to seek other elective office—including that of Assembly member—once they’ve termed out of the Senate.

 

California’s Legislature (California Legislative Information) (pdf)

Ballot Measures on Reapportionment (by Louis Brown, Capital Center for Public Law and Policy)

more
What it Does:

The state Senate is half of California’s bicameral legislature (the other half being the Assembly). The Senate writes, introduces, debates and votes on bills that—if approved by the entire Legislature—become our laws. The Legislature can also levy taxes and appropriate funds, and it has approval over many of the appointments made by the governor.

The 40 members of the California State Senate legislate for more than 38 million Californians, with each senatorial district representing around 950,000 people. Each senator is elected for a four-year term, and can serve no more than two terms. Every two years, half of the senators end their terms.

Members convene on the first Monday in December of even-numbered years and elect a President pro Tempore who will also chair the Rules Committee. Four other senators are selected to serve on the Rules Committee, which conducts the business affairs of the Senate and appoints the chairs of all other committees. A secretary and a Sergeant-at-Arms are also elected, but they are not members of the Legislature. The President of the Senate is an ex officio position held by California’s Lieutenant Governor, who can be called in to break a tie vote. The party caucuses—Democrat and Republican—elect their own floor leaders and whips.

When bills are introduced, they appear in the Senate’s Daily File for four days. The Daily File holds the agenda for business as well public notices of bills that will be discussed in committee. After four days, the Rules Committee decides which policy committee should hear and discuss the bill. Sometimes more than one committee must hear the bill; for example, if the bill has a fiscal impact it will also go to the Appropriations Committee.

Most of the Senate’s work is done by its committees, and all senators serve on several of these. The various committees of the Senate represent the interests of California, from agriculture to the budget, energy, transportation, labor and more. The Senate’s website maintains a list with links to all different types of senatorial committees: standing committees, which meet regularly, sub-committees that focus on issues in greater depth, select committees which study and formulate long-range policies and solutions, and joint committees with members from both houses of the Legislature.

When a bill is approved by committee[s] and returned to the floor, it is read a second time, then a third time on a subsequent day. After the third reading, the bill may be voted on. A simple majority will pass most bills, except for specific tax levies, urgency measures, general fund appropriation bills, or constitutional amendments—these exceptions require a 2/3 majority, which means at least 27 votes in the Senate. Once passed, the bill goes to the Assembly and is assigned to committees there. If changes are made to the bill in the Assembly, it must be approved by the Senate again. When both houses pass the bill, it goes to the governor for a signature. If the governor vetoes the bill, it goes back to the Legislature for further discussion, change or a vote that could override the veto.

The Senate meets in sessions that last two years, beginning in December of even-numbered years and adjourning by November 30 of the next even-numbered year. Recesses and breaks are scheduled. 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 take effect 91 days after the extraordinary session is adjourned.

The Senate tries impeachment cases, but only after the Assembly has voted to impeach.

 

About Legislative Government (Guide to Government for California, League of Women Voters)

Legislative Process (California State Senate Website)

more
Where Does the Money Go:

A proposed $109.3 million is budgeted for the Senate 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 senators a total of $4.8 million a year in salary, $1.3 million session per diem and $11,000 for mileage. Operating expenses gobble up all the rest of the budget.

Staff salaries and benefits cost taxpayers $91.5 million a year. $2.3 million is spent on building expenses and $1.8 million goes for staff travel and per diem. Other expenses include: $750,000 for postage, $690,000 for printing, $375,000 for contracts,  $300,000 for furniture and equipment, $200,000 for the phone bill, $180,000 for office supplies and $45,000 for meals.

The Senate also transfers $3.8 million to an adviser, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Each senator can hire a capitol staff of one professional and three secretaries, and two professionals and three secretaries for their district office. Senators who represent districts that stretch across more than one county are given extra positions. The staff does research, speech writing, press relations, legislation development and constituent casework.

A variety of services, including preparation of legislative proposals, are provided to the Senate by the separately funded Office of Legislative Counsel.

In 2010, 83 Senate candidates sought election to the 20 seats up for grabs that year and raised $28.4 million for their campaigns. Eleven of the top 12 fundraisers were Democrats.

The biggest fundraiser was Democrat Anna Caballero, an Assemblywoman who lost the race to replace termed-out Republican incumbent Jeff Denham in the Salinas area. Her biggest contribution, $1.6 million, came from the California Democratic Party; a year later, Governor Jerry Brown put her in charge of the State and Consumer Services Agency.   

The California Democratic Party was the #1 contributor to Senate candidates ($2.6 million), followed by the state Republican Party ($1.2 million), AT&T ($240,088), “Carol Liu for Senate” ($227,997), California Association of Realtors ($195,600), Merced County Democratic Central Committee ($174,000), Republican Party of Stanislaus County ($174,000), California Dental Association ($171,200), California State Council of Laborers ($166,835) and California Professional Firefighters ($158,898).

Party committees were the overall largest contributors to campaigns ($4.7 million), followed by trade unions ($2 million), public sector unions ($1.4 million), the insurance industry ($1.3 million), health professionals ($1.1 million), candidate committees ($1 million), the real estate industry ($790,707), lawyers & lobbyists ($762,853), tribal governments ($628,773), telecom services & equipment ($600,290), pharmaceuticals & health products ($580,796), beer, wine & liquor ($446,870), TV & movie production/distribution ($356,265), gambling & casinos ($336,112) and electric utilities ($329,191).

 

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Personal Staff for Members (National Conference of State Legislatures)

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

more
Controversies:

Senate Leader Plays Musical Chairs with Campaign Funds

Don Perata served in the state Senate beginning in 1998, when he won a run-off election to replace a senator who had resigned to run for national office. From 2004 through 2008 he was President pro Tem of the Senate. His lavish spending—$43,600 for one afternoon’s wining and dining in a luxury suite during an Oakland Raiders game, for example, all paid for by a campaign fund—led to investigations on the federal level, although no lawbreaking was ever proved.

“Although politicians commonly use campaign cash to enhance their lifestyles, Perata, who sets the tone for the state legislature, appears to be among the most prodigious spenders in California politics,” wrote the East Bay Express in 2007, and added—after many paragraphs describing the outlays—“It’s nonetheless legal, on paper at least. Although state and federal law bar politicians from enriching themselves with campaign funds, lax reporting rules make it virtually impossible to tell whether expenditures are for legitimate campaign needs or for personal use. . . .

“Plus it’s all tax-free. In practice, the campaign money has allowed him to nearly double his $130,000 annual legislator’s salary with more than $103,000 a year in tax-free income.”

Some of that money went to buy gifts for campaign donors. Developer Ed DeSilva, according to the paper, put more than half a million dollars into Perata’s campaign war chests. Besides gifts and invitations to Perata’s golf tournaments and other events, DeSilva benefitted from a multi-billion dollar transportation bond sponsored by Perata, and was contracted to build a $40 million road between Oakland’s airport and another donor’s business park. 

The FBI began an investigation for corruption. Perata started another campaign fund specifically to pay for his run for a seat on the State Board of Equalization (he was about to term out of the Legislature), and used half of the million dollars raised on his legal defense. The other half, the newspaper reports, “was eaten up by his lifestyle expenses.” The California Democratic Party contributed $450,000 to Perata’s legal defense fund as well. And only one day after the 2008 election, Perata transferred $1.5 million into his legal defense fund from Leadership California—a PAC he’d set up to raise money to defeat Proposition 11, which changed the way the state’s congressional districts were drawn. Prop. 11 won by a narrow margin.

In May 2009, after a five-year investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Sacramento “announced it had no criminal case to make against former Democratic Senator Don Perata. This followed a similar decision by the San Francisco office of the DOJ. Officials in Washington DC were in agreement.” These sentences were written by Bill Cavala in the California Progress Report, a staunch supporter of Perata. Many implications followed: that Perata’s reputation had been slimed, that previous leaks saying Perata would be indicted may have come from Republicans, that the paper reporting those leaks may have made them up. As for the movement of campaign money into Perata’s defense fund, Cavala writes, “Senator Perata had to use over a million dollars he controlled in campaign funds for his legal defense, diverting that money from his opposition to the Republican redistricting scheme. Without this bogus investigation, the redistricting scheme could well have been defeated by paid advertising that told Democrats the truth.”

 

Living Large (by Robert Gammon, East Bay Express)

Don Perata Gives a $1.5 Million Middle Finger to California (by Robert Cruickshank, Calitics)

Perata Investigation Closed—Proving It’s the F.B.I. and Those Who Printed Its “Leaks” That Should be Investigated (by Bill Cavala, California Progress Report)

 

Free Trips and Junkets Lure Legislators

When reports surfaced that 15 lawmakers were flying to Maui for a week-long conference hosted by Independent Voter Project and supported by some of the state’s big businesses and unions, eyebrows and hackles were raised. The big businesses—Southern California Edison, Chevron, and Altria among them—are generous contributors to campaigns.

Lawmakers may not accept gifts worth more than $420, according to state law, but exceptions are made for conference travel and lodging paid for by nonprofit groups—like Independent Voter Project. Still, criticism of the November 2011 trip does not sound any different from criticism raised 20, 30 or 50 years earlier about such junkets:

·    According to CBS, reform groups like Maplight.org worry that “those contributors expect to get a return on their investment.” As a spokesman put it, “they’re not doing it out of a patriotic responsibility.”

·    “At a time when unemployment is high, when people are concerned about insider influence, going to Maui to meet with a bunch of insiders doesn’t look good,” says political science professor Jack Pitney of Claremont McKenna College.

·    “The image of state lawmakers partying down at a luxurious Hawaiian hotel, being wined and dined by lobbyists, shows a certain disconnect with millions of Californians, who are struggling to get through the recession,” wrote CBS.

To be fair, the activities slated for the lawmakers included panels on prison issues and biofuel and pollution at the Salton Sea. But as Pitney says, “If they were really serious about learning the issues and deliberating, they’d meet in a place like Rancho Cucamonga. Instead they’re going to Maui. Nobody goes to Maui to work.”

 

California Legislators Head to Maui for Retreat Funded by Special Interests (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

State Lawmakers’ Interest Group-Funded Hawaiian Trip Raises Controversy (by Dave Bryan, CBS)

 

Do Legislators Enjoy Too Many Perks?

During intense budget negotiations in 2011, members of California’s Assembly paid for their own meals in Sacramento. “But,” the Los Angeles Times reports, “while the state was withholding money from hundreds of small businesses, child-care centers and the disabled because of a budget standoff that dragged on for 115 days, senators charged taxpayers for more than $23,000 worth of food.”

The Times continued: “This year, the Senate has spent at least $111,316 in taxpayer funds on food, an increase of more than 10% over the previous 12 months, while working to cut 6% from the budget for state services.”

Within three days, the Times ran another story announcing that “All members of the upper house will be billed $2,000 a year to pay for stocking the coffee room and to cover their meal expenses when sessions extend into the lunch or dinner hour.” The announcement was made by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and reflected a new system voted on the day before by the Rules Committee. The vote was not unanimous, but at least it proved that the Senate as a body is not deaf to public opinion.

Expansive per diems and free cars from the state, trips, gifts, and shows from lobbyists or nonprofits that front them—how much is too much?

“Hey, California state Senate: You’re kidding, right?” began an editorial that accompanied the Los Angeles Times report on free lunches. “Tell us you were planning to pay it back, seeing as you each already get $95,291 a year in salary (more for those in leadership posts), plus another $143 per day to pay for your expenses, like, well, lunch.”

In fact, the editorial accused, “you’re triple-dipping.” Besides high salaries and per diems, the senators were being wined and dined by donors and lobbyists while in Sacramento.  “It turns out you’re exactly the cartoonish, self-serving pols that angry taxpayers rail against. Senators, please.”

 

State Senate Dines at Taxpayers’ Expense (by Shane Goldmacher and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

No More Free Food for California’s State Senators (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

About that Free Lunch (Los Angeles Times)

 

Should the Senate Show Some Heart?

Bernie Madoff and his pyramid scheme wiped out the savings of thousands of people. Federal law allows victims of investment fraud to carry over or carry back a net operating loss, and some states passed similar bills to change their tax laws as well. But California’s state Senate killed SB 157, which would have modified state income tax and corporation tax laws to given the same relief to taxpaying victims. The nine-member Senate Governance and Finance Committee needed five yes votes to send SB 157 back to the floor, but only got four, with three members abstaining. “It’s a sad day in California when some Senators vote to benefit from crimes committed against Californians,” said Senator Joel Anderson in a press release.

 

SB 157 (Anderson) (AroundtheCapitol.com)

Victims of Madoff Fraud Re-victimized by the California State Senate (Joel Anderson Website)

 

Do We Need a State Senate?

“What does the state Senate do that the Assembly doesn’t, and vice versa?

Harold Myerson asked that question in a 2009 newspaper op-ed and added: “In the name of fostering transparency, ending gridlock, curtailing backroom deals and creating a more responsive government, why doesn't California just abolish the Senate and create a larger Assembly?”

The answer most often given is inertia. It’s the way California has always organized its Legislature. David W. Brady and Brian J. Gaines, in their 1996 essay  “A House Discarded? Evaluating the Case for a Unicameral California Legislature,” noted that California, like just about every other state in the nation, mimicked the federal system, which was the result of “The Great Compromise” of 1787 that sought to assuage the fears small states had of their larger neighbors.

A new California state constitution in 1879, in addition to setting the number of senators at 40 and Assembly members at 80, had required that the districts in the Senate be roughly equivalent in population. (The Assembly had the same requirement.) But in 1926, rural agricultural interests sponsored a constitutional amendment that changed the makeup of the Senate, requiring that territory be considered as well as population in drawing district lines.

The 1926 voter guide clearly stated the expected result: “This measure will preserve to rural California and the great agricultural producing areas which comprise it, the control of one house of the state legislature, namely: the Senate.”

And that it did . . . for nearly 40 years. As of the early 1960s, Los Angeles County’s 6 million resident were represented by a single state senator. But in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds vs. Sims that numerically unequal districts violated the “one person, one vote” principal and declared them unconstitutional.

California responded to the Warren Court ruling the same way every other state responded. Instead of dumping one of its redundant bodies, it continued with two nearly indistinguishable houses.

The California Constitution Revision Commission in 1996 considered a unicameral Legislature among other proposed reforms, but eventually discarded it for lack of popular and legislative support. It concluded that people thought the two-house system provided checks and balances, ensured minority rights, prevented abuse of power and allowed time for needed deliberation.    

Mark Paul and Joe Matthews, in their 2010 book California Crackup, argued that a unicameral system would “eliminate the cost of maintaining separate committee and leadership staffs in each chamber, simplify and shorten the legislative process, and make it easier for voters to oversee their representatives and hold them accountable.” Although Paul concluded, “You can’t possibly end up with anything worse than what we have now,” their website of the same name contains a litany of proposed ballot measures and other legislative tweaks that could do just that.

Senate Republican leader Bob Dutton, a native of Nebraska—the only state with a unicameral system—is torn over the issue, but ultimately says, “California is too big to be unicameral, and there’s too much diversity.”

And Claremont McKenna College government professor Jack Pitney says government needs that “second set of eyes. That’s really the whole idea of bicameralism.” 

 

California Constitution Revision Commission (pdf)

Getting the Legislature's Houses in Order (by Harold Myerson, Los Angeles Times)

Do We Need State Senators? (by Brian Joseph and Jim Miller, Orange County Register)

Ballot Measures on Reapportionment (by Louis Brown, Capital Center for Public Law and Policy)

more
Suggested Reforms:

Public Disclosure

Assembly Bill 1129 would amend the California Public Records Act to broaden the definition of an agency so that it includes the state Assembly and Senate. The Legislature would then be required to make public their records and accounts. The bill passed in the Assembly and is currently with the Rules Committee of the Assembly, having been amended by the Senate.

Senate Bill 1001, introduced by Senator Leland Yee, would improve and update the state’s campaign finance and lobbying activity database, Cal-Access. A doubling of the fees—from $50 to $100—that lobbyists pay the state would fund the improvements. Lobbying registration fees have not been raised since 1974.

 

Assembly Bill 1129 (California Legislative Information)

Senate Bill 1101 (California Legislative Information)

 

Term-Limits

California voters first approved term limits for legislators in 1990 with passage of Proposition 140. Among its provisions: state senators could serve no more than two four-year terms. 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.

 

Text of Proposition 28 (pdf)

more
Debate:

Should Lawmakers Get Paid When They Don’t Do Their Work?

California’s constitution says the Legislature must pass a budget bill by June 15 each year with 2/3 approval in both houses. From 1970 to 2010, the budget made the deadline only 5 times. Fed up with legislative dysfunction, voters approved Proposition 25, changing the votes necessary for approval to a simple majority in both houses—and added a proviso that if the budget isn’t passed, legislators would lose their pay and tax-free expense money permanently from June 15 till the budget got passed.

In 2011, the first year after Prop 25, the legislators passed the budget right on time—and Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it the next day. Brown said the budget was not balanced and contained “legally questionable maneuvers.” During the ensuing back-and-forth recriminations, state Controller John Chiang suspended pay to legislators, from June 21 until a corrected budget—one that the governor did sign—was passed on June 27.

To no one’s surprise, legislative leaders sued the controller months later, saying the controller lacked the authority to determine what constituted a balanced budget. The suit, brought by both Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Speaker John Pérez, does not seek to recover the lost pay, but to clarify the constitutional question of when the controller can withhold pay.

 

Proposition 25 Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget (CaVotes Pros & Cons)

California Lawmakers to Sue John Chiang over Their Pay (by  Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee)

 

Yes, It’s About Time the Legislators Were Held Accountable

When Controller Chiang announced that pay would be withheld from lawmakers over the unacceptable budget, bloggers were exultant. “The circus is BACK in TOWN!” wrote Randy Economy. “I love John Chiang, consider him to be a friend, and today he is the BEST FRIEND of TAXPAYERS up and down the once “Golden State.”

The blog acknowledges that, “Nothing in the Constitution or state law gives the State Controller the authority to judge the honesty, legitimacy or viability of a budget. The Controller can only determine whether the expected revenues will equal or exceed planned expenditures in the budget, as required by Article 4, Section 12(g) of the Constitution: “ . . . the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that . . . exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year . . .”” Randy Economy pointed out that Chiang found a gap of $1.85 billion between expected revenues and expenditures.

“A common recommendation to housetrain puppies is to stick their face in their poop. The pups don’t like it, and quickly learn to control themselves,” wrote blogger cehwiedel on Red County, California. “State Controller John Chiang has stuck the lawmakers’ face in the mess that they made.

“I doubt that state lawmakers have as much sense as a six-month-old puppy, so it might take them a while before the legislators learn to control themselves.” The blogger says that everyone else is laughing at the “smug legislators who had clapped themselves on the back for an empty gesture mocking frustrated voters and taxpayers.”

Other pundits offered opinions in the Los Angeles Times. Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson called the lawsuit against Chiang “a public relations disaster for legislators.” She went on, “To sue for their pay when so many of their constituents don’t have a job, don’t have the pay that they get and don’t have much respect for them is not a good move.”

“Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the California Republican Party, blasted Democrats for trying to “clip the wings of the controller’s office. Rather than blame him for calling out their illusory budget from last year, they should look in the mirror and make sure they don’t repeat the same charade this year,” he said in an interview.”

 

Chiang Cuts Off Legislators Pay as California Budget Saga Continues (Economy4abc blog)

California State Controller Sticks Lawmakers’ Face in It (by cehweidel, Red County, California)

Democratic Lawmakers Sue Controller Over His Withholding of Their Pay (by Anthony York and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

 

The Controller Overstepped His Authority

The lawsuit seeks to clarify the limits of the State Controller’s authority for the future, legislators insist. Senator Steinberg posted a press release on his Senate website explaining the reasons for the lawsuit. “Our lawsuit affirmatively and intentionally does not seek back pay. It does, however, ask the court to clarify the complex but vital separation of powers questions raised by the Controller’s actions last June.

“Today’s action should not be mistaken for anything other than what it represents – aside from any Governor’s constitutional authority to sign, veto, or line-item veto budgets - neither the Governor nor any member of the Executive branch may brandish the threat of withholding legislative pay, because they disagree with the decisions made by the Legislative branch. . . .

“The Speaker and I are temporary stewards of these leadership positions. We have an obligation to govern now and we have an obligation to stand and defend the Legislative branch of government and its authority for the years and decades ahead, when others occupy these positions.

“Imagine the mischief five years from now, or 10 years from now, if a controller is from a different political party than the majority party and wants to leverage the budget for his or her own partisan or political purposes. There are many other potential examples.

“We need to settle this issue and put it behind us. That’s why we’re asking the court to make its findings to sort out the respective authorities of the Legislature and the Controller. We have great confidence that the court will clarify and ensure that our system maintains its proper checks and balances.”

 

Steinberg Statement on Legal Challenge to Preserve Constitutional Separation of Powers (State Senate website)

more
Former Directors:

Darrel Steinberg, 2008-2014

Don Perata, 2004-2008. Like the two Senate leaders before him, John Burton and Bill Lockyer, Democrat Perata represented San Francisco.

John L. Burton, 1998-2004. Burton, a Democrat, served in the Senate for eight years, and before that the Assembly for two periods: 1965-1974 and 1988-1996. In between he was elected to the House of Representatives and served alongside his brother, Phillip, for several years. He resigned to seek treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Currently, Burton chairs the California Democratic Party, a post he also held in 1973-1974. A 2011 interview Burton gave on the Daily Show—where he ranted about the dysfunctional California political system and Amazon.com’s attempt to overturn a state tax law—prompted interviewer John Oliver to note, “You curse more than a West Coast rapper.” 

Bill Lockyer, 1994-1998. Lockyer, a Democrat, spent nine years as an assemblymember and 16 as a state senator before being elected twice as the state’s Attorney General. He has been California’s treasurer since 2007. Lockyer is known for “speaking his mind with astonishing frankness,” as the Huffington Post put it, “. . . without regard for political fallout.” Or, to quote one of his campaign slogans: “Straight talk, no Bull #*+!”

David A. Roberti, 1981-1994. Roberti, a Democrat, was the subject of a recall campaign initiated by the National Rifle Association over his staunch support for gun control legislation. Roberti handily won the election in 1994 but spent $800,000 in the effort. Roberti had already been forced to switch districts in 1992 because of redistricting, was about to be termed-out of his new seat and had been wounded by the corruption convictions of three former lieutenants—state Senators Joseph B. Montoya, Alan Robbins, and Paul Carpenter—so when he decided to run for state Treasurer in 1994, he faced an uphill struggle. He lost the Democratic primary to Phil Angelides.

James R. Mills, 1971-1980

Jack Schrade, 1970

Howard Way, 1969-1970

Hugh M. Burns, 1957-1969

Ben Hulse, 1955-1956

Clarence C. Ward, 1954-1955. Died in office.

Harold J. Powers, 1947-1953. Resigned to become Lieutenant Governor in October 1953.

Jerrold L. Seawell, 1943, 1945

William P. Rich, 1941

Jerrold L. Seawell, 1939

William P. Rich, 1935, 1937

Arthur H. Breed, 1917-1933 (odd-numbered years only)

N. W. Thompson, 1915

A. E. Boynton, 1911, 1913

Edward I. Wolfe, 1905, 1907, 1909

Thomas Flint, Jr., 1895-1903 (odd-numbered years only)

R. B. Carpenter, 1893

Thomas Fraser, 1891

Stephen M. White, 1887, 1889

Benjamin Knight, Jr., 1885

R. F. Del Valle, 1883

William Johnston, 1881

George F. Baker, 1880

Edward J. Lewis, 1878

Benjamin F. Tuttle, 1876

William Irwin, 1874

James T. Farley, 1872

Edward J. Lewis, 1870

Lansing B. Mizner, 1868

S. P. Wright, 1866

R. Burnell, 1864

A. M. Crane, 1863

James Shafter, 1862

Richard Irwin, 1861

Charles J. Lansing, 1860

Isaac N. Quinn, 1860. Became Acting Lieutenant Governor.

W. B. Dickinson, 1859

Samuel A. Merritt, 1858

Samuel H. Dosh, 1857

Delos R. Ashley, 1856

Royal T. Sprague, 1855

Benjamin F. Keene, 1853-1854

Elcan Heydenfeldt, 1851

E. Kirby Chamberlain, 1849

 

Appendix E, California Legislature Elected Officers (California’s Legislature) (pdf)

more
Leave a comment
Founded: 1849
Annual Budget: $109.3 million (Proposed FY 2012-2013)
Employees: 40
Official Website: http://senate.ca.gov/
California State Senate
De León, Kevin
President Pro Tempore

The first Latino elected leader of the California state Senate since Reginaldo Francisco Del Valle in 1883, Democrat Kevin de León took over for the job of Senate Pro Tempore from Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) in October 2014.

De León, 47, grew up in the Logan Heights barrio of San Diego and was the first member of his family to graduate from high school. His mom, the single mother of three children, originally entered the country illegally and worked cleaning upscale homes for a living.

De León attended the University of California, Santa Barbara, for two years before bad grades cost him the financial aid that paid for his schooling. He took a job teaching English as a Second Language and U.S. Citizenship for the non-profit One-Stop Immigration and Education Center in Santa Barbara.

De León says it was his experience at One-Stop that led to his involvement in social causes and in 1994 he helped organize a huge march of 80,000 people in Los Angeles against Proposition 187, a ballot initiative meant to bar undocumented immigrants from using health care, public education and other social services. The law passed but was later challenged in federal court and found unconstitutional.

After his work at the center, de León became a political organizer at the California Teachers Association for five years, opposing school-voucher programs and advocating for schools in low-income neighborhoods, more school construction and health insurance for children. He also worked as a senior associate for the National Education Association in Washington, D.C.

De León returned to school and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in politics of education from Pitzer College at the Claremont Colleges in 2003. 

He served as campaign manager for Fabian Nuñez, a childhood friend who was elected to the state Assembly in 2002. Nuñez, who went to high school and Pitzer with de León and worked with him at One-Stop, was elected speaker of the Assembly in 2004 and was instrumental in getting de León elected to public office.

He encouraged de León to run for the Assembly in 2006, where the underdog defeated the daughter of legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez. De León represented the 45th state Assembly District that included Hollywood, Thai Town, Little Armenia, Historic Filipinotown, Echo Park, Chinatown, El Sereno, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, Mount Washington, Montecito Heights, Highland Park, Glassell Park and East Los Angeles.

He served four years, and was assistant majority leader.

De León lost a bitter battle for the Assembly speakership to John Pérez in 2009, which resulted in him being booted from the powerful position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and landed him a tiny office tucked away near the cafeteria.

The next year, he was elected to the state Senate in the 22nd District, representing Los Angeles, Alhambra, Maywood, San Marino, South Pasadena, Vernon and parts of unincorporated Los Angeles County. 

De León has been instrumental in passing legislation concerning the environment, the working poor, immigration and public safety. He is opposed in November’s top-two election by fellow Democrat Peter Choi, a businessman, who has focused on de León’s link to a scandal involving Senator Ronald Calderon (D-Montebello).

Calderon was charged with accepting bribes in a wide-ranging FBI sting operation that threatens to involve other politicians. De León was named 56 times in an FBI affidavit, but has not been accused of any crimes. The FBI has officially said their interest in him is as a witness.                     

De León, who has never been married, has one daughter, a college sophomore at St. Mary's College in Moraga.

 

To Learn More:

De León Rose Out of the Barrio to Lead the California Senate (by Timm Herdt, Ventura County Star)

Senate Elects Los Angeles Democrat Kevin De Leon as Next Leader (by Judy Lin, Associated Press)

Kevin De León Formally Voted In as the Next Senate Leader (by Laurel Rosenhall, Sacramento Bee)

As Senate Head, Kevin De León Hopes to Wed Agenda with Leadership (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

Full Biography for Kevin de Leon (Smartvoter)

more
Steinberg, Darrell
Former President Pro Tempore

A San Francisco-born lawyer, Democrat Darrell Steinberg was elected president pro tempore of the Senate in August 2008. He was termed out of the Senate in 2014.

Steinberg earned his bachelor’s degree in economics from UCLA in 1981 before getting his juris doctor at University of California, Davis Law School in 1984. Steinberg went to work for the California State Employees Association as an employee rights attorney after law school and stayed with them for 10 years. He was as an administrative law judge and mediator from 1994-1998 while also practicing law at Mackenroth, Ryan and Fong in Sacramento from 1996-1998.

Steinberg’s first exposure to politics was on the local level, when he served on the Sacramento City Council from 1992 to 1998. There, he helped launch START, one of the most successful after-school programs in the country. During that period he also sat on the boards of the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District, and Regional Transit.

Steinberg was elected to the Assembly in 1998 and represented the 9th District for three terms, co-authoring Proposition 63, the Mental Health Initiative. Prop. 63 now generates more than $1 billion a year in state and federal funds for California’s mental health programs by imposing a 1% tax on millionaires. He sponsored other legislation that focused on improving California’s foster care system and public schools in areas blighted by poverty.

He joined a law firm, Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos and Rudy (now Hanson Bridgett LLP), when term limits forced him out of the Assembly in 2004, but resigned from that partnership after being elected to the Senate in 2006. Steinberg represents the 6th District, which includes the state capital, Sacramento.

During his first term, he chaired the Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Select Committee on High School Graduation. His legislation there includes SB 375, which links land use decisions in transportation and housing to greenhouse gas reduction goals. He serves on the Public Safety and the Appropriations Committees, as well as chairing the Rules Committee, the Select Committee on Autism and Related Disorders, and the Protection of Lake Tahoe Joint Committee.

Apart from the Legislature, Steinberg is an appointee to the Mental Health Services Act Oversight and Accountability Commission formed by Prop. 63. He is a member of the Jewish Community Relations Council and board president of the Capital Unity Council. Steinberg and his wife, Julie, have a daughter, Jordana, and a son, Ari.

 

Biography (Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg)

Biography, Senator Darrell S. Steinberg (VoteSmart.org)

more

Table of Contents
Bookmark and Share
Overview:

The California State Senate is half of the state’s Legislature—the other half is the Assembly—and as such it introduces, analyzes, debates and votes for or against the bills that may become law. The Senate has 40 members, half the number of Assembly members. Senators are elected for four-year terms by the different geographic districts in the state.

more
History:

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 legislators, but 16 senators were selected to sit in the first legislative session on December 15, 1849. Unfortunately, heavy rains and flooding kept all but six away. Only two senators were native Californians; of the rest, nine came from northern states and five from southern states.  They were paid $16 per diem and $16 mileage for every 20 miles traveled to and from the capitol.

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 the 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. Until 1854 the Legislature bounced between Vallejo, Benicia, and Sacramento. They did not meet in their own building until 1869 when the State Capitol was half-built. That building has been home to both houses of California’s Legislature ever since.

From the beginning until 1862, sessions began on the first Monday in January. Senators were elected for two-year terms with half the senators being elected each year. Starting in 1862, sessions changed to the first Monday in December following the election, and the terms of the senators was extended to four years. A new state constitution in 1879 removed a 120-day limit to the length of the session during odd-number years, when general business—not the budget—was before the Legislature. The number of senators had been rising steadily over the years and the new constitution set the number at 40, as it is today.  Starting in 1911, the Legislature 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 new state constitution in 1879, in addition to setting the number of senators at 40 and Assembly members at 80, had required that the districts in the Senate be roughly equivalent in population. (The Assembly had the same requirement.) But in 1926, rural agricultural interests sponsored a constitutional amendment that changed the makeup of the Senate, requiring that territory be considered as well as population in drawing its district lines. California 58 counties would be divided among the 40 senators, with some lawmakers representing more than one county.

The 1926 voter guide clearly stated the expected result: “This measure will preserve to rural California and the great agricultural producing areas which comprise it, the control of one house of the state legislature, namely: the Senate.”

And that it did . . . for nearly 40 years until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds vs. Sims that numerically unequal districts violated the “one person, one vote” principal and declared them unconstitutional. California responded to the Warren Court ruling the same way every other state responded. Instead of dumping one of its redundant bodies, it adjust its district boundaries and continued with two nearly indistinguishable houses.  

The 30-day legislative recess was abolished in 1958. Up until 1966, the Senate met in general session during odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, budget sessions 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!

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.

By issuing a proclamation, the governor may call extraordinary sessions of the Legislature, as well, and at those sessions the governor decides what subjects will be under debate.

The Collier Lobby Control Law of 1949 and the Erwin Act of 1950 required that the secretary of the Senate register lobbyists for that body. 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 senatorial candidates were required to disclose the amount of money raised and spent in campaigns, and their sources.

In 1990, voters chose to limit the number of terms that elected state office holders could serve. State senators are limited to two terms in their lifetimes, but are free to seek other elective office—including that of Assembly member—once they’ve termed out of the Senate.

 

California’s Legislature (California Legislative Information) (pdf)

Ballot Measures on Reapportionment (by Louis Brown, Capital Center for Public Law and Policy)

more
What it Does:

The state Senate is half of California’s bicameral legislature (the other half being the Assembly). The Senate writes, introduces, debates and votes on bills that—if approved by the entire Legislature—become our laws. The Legislature can also levy taxes and appropriate funds, and it has approval over many of the appointments made by the governor.

The 40 members of the California State Senate legislate for more than 38 million Californians, with each senatorial district representing around 950,000 people. Each senator is elected for a four-year term, and can serve no more than two terms. Every two years, half of the senators end their terms.

Members convene on the first Monday in December of even-numbered years and elect a President pro Tempore who will also chair the Rules Committee. Four other senators are selected to serve on the Rules Committee, which conducts the business affairs of the Senate and appoints the chairs of all other committees. A secretary and a Sergeant-at-Arms are also elected, but they are not members of the Legislature. The President of the Senate is an ex officio position held by California’s Lieutenant Governor, who can be called in to break a tie vote. The party caucuses—Democrat and Republican—elect their own floor leaders and whips.

When bills are introduced, they appear in the Senate’s Daily File for four days. The Daily File holds the agenda for business as well public notices of bills that will be discussed in committee. After four days, the Rules Committee decides which policy committee should hear and discuss the bill. Sometimes more than one committee must hear the bill; for example, if the bill has a fiscal impact it will also go to the Appropriations Committee.

Most of the Senate’s work is done by its committees, and all senators serve on several of these. The various committees of the Senate represent the interests of California, from agriculture to the budget, energy, transportation, labor and more. The Senate’s website maintains a list with links to all different types of senatorial committees: standing committees, which meet regularly, sub-committees that focus on issues in greater depth, select committees which study and formulate long-range policies and solutions, and joint committees with members from both houses of the Legislature.

When a bill is approved by committee[s] and returned to the floor, it is read a second time, then a third time on a subsequent day. After the third reading, the bill may be voted on. A simple majority will pass most bills, except for specific tax levies, urgency measures, general fund appropriation bills, or constitutional amendments—these exceptions require a 2/3 majority, which means at least 27 votes in the Senate. Once passed, the bill goes to the Assembly and is assigned to committees there. If changes are made to the bill in the Assembly, it must be approved by the Senate again. When both houses pass the bill, it goes to the governor for a signature. If the governor vetoes the bill, it goes back to the Legislature for further discussion, change or a vote that could override the veto.

The Senate meets in sessions that last two years, beginning in December of even-numbered years and adjourning by November 30 of the next even-numbered year. Recesses and breaks are scheduled. 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 take effect 91 days after the extraordinary session is adjourned.

The Senate tries impeachment cases, but only after the Assembly has voted to impeach.

 

About Legislative Government (Guide to Government for California, League of Women Voters)

Legislative Process (California State Senate Website)

more
Where Does the Money Go:

A proposed $109.3 million is budgeted for the Senate 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 senators a total of $4.8 million a year in salary, $1.3 million session per diem and $11,000 for mileage. Operating expenses gobble up all the rest of the budget.

Staff salaries and benefits cost taxpayers $91.5 million a year. $2.3 million is spent on building expenses and $1.8 million goes for staff travel and per diem. Other expenses include: $750,000 for postage, $690,000 for printing, $375,000 for contracts,  $300,000 for furniture and equipment, $200,000 for the phone bill, $180,000 for office supplies and $45,000 for meals.

The Senate also transfers $3.8 million to an adviser, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Each senator can hire a capitol staff of one professional and three secretaries, and two professionals and three secretaries for their district office. Senators who represent districts that stretch across more than one county are given extra positions. The staff does research, speech writing, press relations, legislation development and constituent casework.

A variety of services, including preparation of legislative proposals, are provided to the Senate by the separately funded Office of Legislative Counsel.

In 2010, 83 Senate candidates sought election to the 20 seats up for grabs that year and raised $28.4 million for their campaigns. Eleven of the top 12 fundraisers were Democrats.

The biggest fundraiser was Democrat Anna Caballero, an Assemblywoman who lost the race to replace termed-out Republican incumbent Jeff Denham in the Salinas area. Her biggest contribution, $1.6 million, came from the California Democratic Party; a year later, Governor Jerry Brown put her in charge of the State and Consumer Services Agency.   

The California Democratic Party was the #1 contributor to Senate candidates ($2.6 million), followed by the state Republican Party ($1.2 million), AT&T ($240,088), “Carol Liu for Senate” ($227,997), California Association of Realtors ($195,600), Merced County Democratic Central Committee ($174,000), Republican Party of Stanislaus County ($174,000), California Dental Association ($171,200), California State Council of Laborers ($166,835) and California Professional Firefighters ($158,898).

Party committees were the overall largest contributors to campaigns ($4.7 million), followed by trade unions ($2 million), public sector unions ($1.4 million), the insurance industry ($1.3 million), health professionals ($1.1 million), candidate committees ($1 million), the real estate industry ($790,707), lawyers & lobbyists ($762,853), tribal governments ($628,773), telecom services & equipment ($600,290), pharmaceuticals & health products ($580,796), beer, wine & liquor ($446,870), TV & movie production/distribution ($356,265), gambling & casinos ($336,112) and electric utilities ($329,191).

 

3-Year Budget (pdf)

Personal Staff for Members (National Conference of State Legislatures)

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

more
Controversies:

Senate Leader Plays Musical Chairs with Campaign Funds

Don Perata served in the state Senate beginning in 1998, when he won a run-off election to replace a senator who had resigned to run for national office. From 2004 through 2008 he was President pro Tem of the Senate. His lavish spending—$43,600 for one afternoon’s wining and dining in a luxury suite during an Oakland Raiders game, for example, all paid for by a campaign fund—led to investigations on the federal level, although no lawbreaking was ever proved.

“Although politicians commonly use campaign cash to enhance their lifestyles, Perata, who sets the tone for the state legislature, appears to be among the most prodigious spenders in California politics,” wrote the East Bay Express in 2007, and added—after many paragraphs describing the outlays—“It’s nonetheless legal, on paper at least. Although state and federal law bar politicians from enriching themselves with campaign funds, lax reporting rules make it virtually impossible to tell whether expenditures are for legitimate campaign needs or for personal use. . . .

“Plus it’s all tax-free. In practice, the campaign money has allowed him to nearly double his $130,000 annual legislator’s salary with more than $103,000 a year in tax-free income.”

Some of that money went to buy gifts for campaign donors. Developer Ed DeSilva, according to the paper, put more than half a million dollars into Perata’s campaign war chests. Besides gifts and invitations to Perata’s golf tournaments and other events, DeSilva benefitted from a multi-billion dollar transportation bond sponsored by Perata, and was contracted to build a $40 million road between Oakland’s airport and another donor’s business park. 

The FBI began an investigation for corruption. Perata started another campaign fund specifically to pay for his run for a seat on the State Board of Equalization (he was about to term out of the Legislature), and used half of the million dollars raised on his legal defense. The other half, the newspaper reports, “was eaten up by his lifestyle expenses.” The California Democratic Party contributed $450,000 to Perata’s legal defense fund as well. And only one day after the 2008 election, Perata transferred $1.5 million into his legal defense fund from Leadership California—a PAC he’d set up to raise money to defeat Proposition 11, which changed the way the state’s congressional districts were drawn. Prop. 11 won by a narrow margin.

In May 2009, after a five-year investigation, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Sacramento “announced it had no criminal case to make against former Democratic Senator Don Perata. This followed a similar decision by the San Francisco office of the DOJ. Officials in Washington DC were in agreement.” These sentences were written by Bill Cavala in the California Progress Report, a staunch supporter of Perata. Many implications followed: that Perata’s reputation had been slimed, that previous leaks saying Perata would be indicted may have come from Republicans, that the paper reporting those leaks may have made them up. As for the movement of campaign money into Perata’s defense fund, Cavala writes, “Senator Perata had to use over a million dollars he controlled in campaign funds for his legal defense, diverting that money from his opposition to the Republican redistricting scheme. Without this bogus investigation, the redistricting scheme could well have been defeated by paid advertising that told Democrats the truth.”

 

Living Large (by Robert Gammon, East Bay Express)

Don Perata Gives a $1.5 Million Middle Finger to California (by Robert Cruickshank, Calitics)

Perata Investigation Closed—Proving It’s the F.B.I. and Those Who Printed Its “Leaks” That Should be Investigated (by Bill Cavala, California Progress Report)

 

Free Trips and Junkets Lure Legislators

When reports surfaced that 15 lawmakers were flying to Maui for a week-long conference hosted by Independent Voter Project and supported by some of the state’s big businesses and unions, eyebrows and hackles were raised. The big businesses—Southern California Edison, Chevron, and Altria among them—are generous contributors to campaigns.

Lawmakers may not accept gifts worth more than $420, according to state law, but exceptions are made for conference travel and lodging paid for by nonprofit groups—like Independent Voter Project. Still, criticism of the November 2011 trip does not sound any different from criticism raised 20, 30 or 50 years earlier about such junkets:

·    According to CBS, reform groups like Maplight.org worry that “those contributors expect to get a return on their investment.” As a spokesman put it, “they’re not doing it out of a patriotic responsibility.”

·    “At a time when unemployment is high, when people are concerned about insider influence, going to Maui to meet with a bunch of insiders doesn’t look good,” says political science professor Jack Pitney of Claremont McKenna College.

·    “The image of state lawmakers partying down at a luxurious Hawaiian hotel, being wined and dined by lobbyists, shows a certain disconnect with millions of Californians, who are struggling to get through the recession,” wrote CBS.

To be fair, the activities slated for the lawmakers included panels on prison issues and biofuel and pollution at the Salton Sea. But as Pitney says, “If they were really serious about learning the issues and deliberating, they’d meet in a place like Rancho Cucamonga. Instead they’re going to Maui. Nobody goes to Maui to work.”

 

California Legislators Head to Maui for Retreat Funded by Special Interests (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

State Lawmakers’ Interest Group-Funded Hawaiian Trip Raises Controversy (by Dave Bryan, CBS)

 

Do Legislators Enjoy Too Many Perks?

During intense budget negotiations in 2011, members of California’s Assembly paid for their own meals in Sacramento. “But,” the Los Angeles Times reports, “while the state was withholding money from hundreds of small businesses, child-care centers and the disabled because of a budget standoff that dragged on for 115 days, senators charged taxpayers for more than $23,000 worth of food.”

The Times continued: “This year, the Senate has spent at least $111,316 in taxpayer funds on food, an increase of more than 10% over the previous 12 months, while working to cut 6% from the budget for state services.”

Within three days, the Times ran another story announcing that “All members of the upper house will be billed $2,000 a year to pay for stocking the coffee room and to cover their meal expenses when sessions extend into the lunch or dinner hour.” The announcement was made by Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, and reflected a new system voted on the day before by the Rules Committee. The vote was not unanimous, but at least it proved that the Senate as a body is not deaf to public opinion.

Expansive per diems and free cars from the state, trips, gifts, and shows from lobbyists or nonprofits that front them—how much is too much?

“Hey, California state Senate: You’re kidding, right?” began an editorial that accompanied the Los Angeles Times report on free lunches. “Tell us you were planning to pay it back, seeing as you each already get $95,291 a year in salary (more for those in leadership posts), plus another $143 per day to pay for your expenses, like, well, lunch.”

In fact, the editorial accused, “you’re triple-dipping.” Besides high salaries and per diems, the senators were being wined and dined by donors and lobbyists while in Sacramento.  “It turns out you’re exactly the cartoonish, self-serving pols that angry taxpayers rail against. Senators, please.”

 

State Senate Dines at Taxpayers’ Expense (by Shane Goldmacher and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

No More Free Food for California’s State Senators (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

About that Free Lunch (Los Angeles Times)

 

Should the Senate Show Some Heart?

Bernie Madoff and his pyramid scheme wiped out the savings of thousands of people. Federal law allows victims of investment fraud to carry over or carry back a net operating loss, and some states passed similar bills to change their tax laws as well. But California’s state Senate killed SB 157, which would have modified state income tax and corporation tax laws to given the same relief to taxpaying victims. The nine-member Senate Governance and Finance Committee needed five yes votes to send SB 157 back to the floor, but only got four, with three members abstaining. “It’s a sad day in California when some Senators vote to benefit from crimes committed against Californians,” said Senator Joel Anderson in a press release.

 

SB 157 (Anderson) (AroundtheCapitol.com)

Victims of Madoff Fraud Re-victimized by the California State Senate (Joel Anderson Website)

 

Do We Need a State Senate?

“What does the state Senate do that the Assembly doesn’t, and vice versa?

Harold Myerson asked that question in a 2009 newspaper op-ed and added: “In the name of fostering transparency, ending gridlock, curtailing backroom deals and creating a more responsive government, why doesn't California just abolish the Senate and create a larger Assembly?”

The answer most often given is inertia. It’s the way California has always organized its Legislature. David W. Brady and Brian J. Gaines, in their 1996 essay  “A House Discarded? Evaluating the Case for a Unicameral California Legislature,” noted that California, like just about every other state in the nation, mimicked the federal system, which was the result of “The Great Compromise” of 1787 that sought to assuage the fears small states had of their larger neighbors.

A new California state constitution in 1879, in addition to setting the number of senators at 40 and Assembly members at 80, had required that the districts in the Senate be roughly equivalent in population. (The Assembly had the same requirement.) But in 1926, rural agricultural interests sponsored a constitutional amendment that changed the makeup of the Senate, requiring that territory be considered as well as population in drawing district lines.

The 1926 voter guide clearly stated the expected result: “This measure will preserve to rural California and the great agricultural producing areas which comprise it, the control of one house of the state legislature, namely: the Senate.”

And that it did . . . for nearly 40 years. As of the early 1960s, Los Angeles County’s 6 million resident were represented by a single state senator. But in 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Reynolds vs. Sims that numerically unequal districts violated the “one person, one vote” principal and declared them unconstitutional.

California responded to the Warren Court ruling the same way every other state responded. Instead of dumping one of its redundant bodies, it continued with two nearly indistinguishable houses.

The California Constitution Revision Commission in 1996 considered a unicameral Legislature among other proposed reforms, but eventually discarded it for lack of popular and legislative support. It concluded that people thought the two-house system provided checks and balances, ensured minority rights, prevented abuse of power and allowed time for needed deliberation.    

Mark Paul and Joe Matthews, in their 2010 book California Crackup, argued that a unicameral system would “eliminate the cost of maintaining separate committee and leadership staffs in each chamber, simplify and shorten the legislative process, and make it easier for voters to oversee their representatives and hold them accountable.” Although Paul concluded, “You can’t possibly end up with anything worse than what we have now,” their website of the same name contains a litany of proposed ballot measures and other legislative tweaks that could do just that.

Senate Republican leader Bob Dutton, a native of Nebraska—the only state with a unicameral system—is torn over the issue, but ultimately says, “California is too big to be unicameral, and there’s too much diversity.”

And Claremont McKenna College government professor Jack Pitney says government needs that “second set of eyes. That’s really the whole idea of bicameralism.” 

 

California Constitution Revision Commission (pdf)

Getting the Legislature's Houses in Order (by Harold Myerson, Los Angeles Times)

Do We Need State Senators? (by Brian Joseph and Jim Miller, Orange County Register)

Ballot Measures on Reapportionment (by Louis Brown, Capital Center for Public Law and Policy)

more
Suggested Reforms:

Public Disclosure

Assembly Bill 1129 would amend the California Public Records Act to broaden the definition of an agency so that it includes the state Assembly and Senate. The Legislature would then be required to make public their records and accounts. The bill passed in the Assembly and is currently with the Rules Committee of the Assembly, having been amended by the Senate.

Senate Bill 1001, introduced by Senator Leland Yee, would improve and update the state’s campaign finance and lobbying activity database, Cal-Access. A doubling of the fees—from $50 to $100—that lobbyists pay the state would fund the improvements. Lobbying registration fees have not been raised since 1974.

 

Assembly Bill 1129 (California Legislative Information)

Senate Bill 1101 (California Legislative Information)

 

Term-Limits

California voters first approved term limits for legislators in 1990 with passage of Proposition 140. Among its provisions: state senators could serve no more than two four-year terms. 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.

 

Text of Proposition 28 (pdf)

more
Debate:

Should Lawmakers Get Paid When They Don’t Do Their Work?

California’s constitution says the Legislature must pass a budget bill by June 15 each year with 2/3 approval in both houses. From 1970 to 2010, the budget made the deadline only 5 times. Fed up with legislative dysfunction, voters approved Proposition 25, changing the votes necessary for approval to a simple majority in both houses—and added a proviso that if the budget isn’t passed, legislators would lose their pay and tax-free expense money permanently from June 15 till the budget got passed.

In 2011, the first year after Prop 25, the legislators passed the budget right on time—and Governor Jerry Brown vetoed it the next day. Brown said the budget was not balanced and contained “legally questionable maneuvers.” During the ensuing back-and-forth recriminations, state Controller John Chiang suspended pay to legislators, from June 21 until a corrected budget—one that the governor did sign—was passed on June 27.

To no one’s surprise, legislative leaders sued the controller months later, saying the controller lacked the authority to determine what constituted a balanced budget. The suit, brought by both Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Speaker John Pérez, does not seek to recover the lost pay, but to clarify the constitutional question of when the controller can withhold pay.

 

Proposition 25 Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget (CaVotes Pros & Cons)

California Lawmakers to Sue John Chiang over Their Pay (by  Kevin Yamamura, Sacramento Bee)

 

Yes, It’s About Time the Legislators Were Held Accountable

When Controller Chiang announced that pay would be withheld from lawmakers over the unacceptable budget, bloggers were exultant. “The circus is BACK in TOWN!” wrote Randy Economy. “I love John Chiang, consider him to be a friend, and today he is the BEST FRIEND of TAXPAYERS up and down the once “Golden State.”

The blog acknowledges that, “Nothing in the Constitution or state law gives the State Controller the authority to judge the honesty, legitimacy or viability of a budget. The Controller can only determine whether the expected revenues will equal or exceed planned expenditures in the budget, as required by Article 4, Section 12(g) of the Constitution: “ . . . the Legislature may not send to the Governor for consideration, nor may the Governor sign into law, a budget bill that would appropriate from the General Fund, for that fiscal year, a total amount that . . . exceeds General Fund revenues for that fiscal year . . .”” Randy Economy pointed out that Chiang found a gap of $1.85 billion between expected revenues and expenditures.

“A common recommendation to housetrain puppies is to stick their face in their poop. The pups don’t like it, and quickly learn to control themselves,” wrote blogger cehwiedel on Red County, California. “State Controller John Chiang has stuck the lawmakers’ face in the mess that they made.

“I doubt that state lawmakers have as much sense as a six-month-old puppy, so it might take them a while before the legislators learn to control themselves.” The blogger says that everyone else is laughing at the “smug legislators who had clapped themselves on the back for an empty gesture mocking frustrated voters and taxpayers.”

Other pundits offered opinions in the Los Angeles Times. Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson called the lawsuit against Chiang “a public relations disaster for legislators.” She went on, “To sue for their pay when so many of their constituents don’t have a job, don’t have the pay that they get and don’t have much respect for them is not a good move.”

“Tom Del Beccaro, chairman of the California Republican Party, blasted Democrats for trying to “clip the wings of the controller’s office. Rather than blame him for calling out their illusory budget from last year, they should look in the mirror and make sure they don’t repeat the same charade this year,” he said in an interview.”

 

Chiang Cuts Off Legislators Pay as California Budget Saga Continues (Economy4abc blog)

California State Controller Sticks Lawmakers’ Face in It (by cehweidel, Red County, California)

Democratic Lawmakers Sue Controller Over His Withholding of Their Pay (by Anthony York and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

 

The Controller Overstepped His Authority

The lawsuit seeks to clarify the limits of the State Controller’s authority for the future, legislators insist. Senator Steinberg posted a press release on his Senate website explaining the reasons for the lawsuit. “Our lawsuit affirmatively and intentionally does not seek back pay. It does, however, ask the court to clarify the complex but vital separation of powers questions raised by the Controller’s actions last June.

“Today’s action should not be mistaken for anything other than what it represents – aside from any Governor’s constitutional authority to sign, veto, or line-item veto budgets - neither the Governor nor any member of the Executive branch may brandish the threat of withholding legislative pay, because they disagree with the decisions made by the Legislative branch. . . .

“The Speaker and I are temporary stewards of these leadership positions. We have an obligation to govern now and we have an obligation to stand and defend the Legislative branch of government and its authority for the years and decades ahead, when others occupy these positions.

“Imagine the mischief five years from now, or 10 years from now, if a controller is from a different political party than the majority party and wants to leverage the budget for his or her own partisan or political purposes. There are many other potential examples.

“We need to settle this issue and put it behind us. That’s why we’re asking the court to make its findings to sort out the respective authorities of the Legislature and the Controller. We have great confidence that the court will clarify and ensure that our system maintains its proper checks and balances.”

 

Steinberg Statement on Legal Challenge to Preserve Constitutional Separation of Powers (State Senate website)

more
Former Directors:

Darrel Steinberg, 2008-2014

Don Perata, 2004-2008. Like the two Senate leaders before him, John Burton and Bill Lockyer, Democrat Perata represented San Francisco.

John L. Burton, 1998-2004. Burton, a Democrat, served in the Senate for eight years, and before that the Assembly for two periods: 1965-1974 and 1988-1996. In between he was elected to the House of Representatives and served alongside his brother, Phillip, for several years. He resigned to seek treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. Currently, Burton chairs the California Democratic Party, a post he also held in 1973-1974. A 2011 interview Burton gave on the Daily Show—where he ranted about the dysfunctional California political system and Amazon.com’s attempt to overturn a state tax law—prompted interviewer John Oliver to note, “You curse more than a West Coast rapper.” 

Bill Lockyer, 1994-1998. Lockyer, a Democrat, spent nine years as an assemblymember and 16 as a state senator before being elected twice as the state’s Attorney General. He has been California’s treasurer since 2007. Lockyer is known for “speaking his mind with astonishing frankness,” as the Huffington Post put it, “. . . without regard for political fallout.” Or, to quote one of his campaign slogans: “Straight talk, no Bull #*+!”

David A. Roberti, 1981-1994. Roberti, a Democrat, was the subject of a recall campaign initiated by the National Rifle Association over his staunch support for gun control legislation. Roberti handily won the election in 1994 but spent $800,000 in the effort. Roberti had already been forced to switch districts in 1992 because of redistricting, was about to be termed-out of his new seat and had been wounded by the corruption convictions of three former lieutenants—state Senators Joseph B. Montoya, Alan Robbins, and Paul Carpenter—so when he decided to run for state Treasurer in 1994, he faced an uphill struggle. He lost the Democratic primary to Phil Angelides.

James R. Mills, 1971-1980

Jack Schrade, 1970

Howard Way, 1969-1970

Hugh M. Burns, 1957-1969

Ben Hulse, 1955-1956

Clarence C. Ward, 1954-1955. Died in office.

Harold J. Powers, 1947-1953. Resigned to become Lieutenant Governor in October 1953.

Jerrold L. Seawell, 1943, 1945

William P. Rich, 1941

Jerrold L. Seawell, 1939

William P. Rich, 1935, 1937

Arthur H. Breed, 1917-1933 (odd-numbered years only)

N. W. Thompson, 1915

A. E. Boynton, 1911, 1913

Edward I. Wolfe, 1905, 1907, 1909

Thomas Flint, Jr., 1895-1903 (odd-numbered years only)

R. B. Carpenter, 1893

Thomas Fraser, 1891

Stephen M. White, 1887, 1889

Benjamin Knight, Jr., 1885

R. F. Del Valle, 1883

William Johnston, 1881

George F. Baker, 1880

Edward J. Lewis, 1878

Benjamin F. Tuttle, 1876

William Irwin, 1874

James T. Farley, 1872

Edward J. Lewis, 1870

Lansing B. Mizner, 1868

S. P. Wright, 1866

R. Burnell, 1864

A. M. Crane, 1863

James Shafter, 1862

Richard Irwin, 1861

Charles J. Lansing, 1860

Isaac N. Quinn, 1860. Became Acting Lieutenant Governor.

W. B. Dickinson, 1859

Samuel A. Merritt, 1858

Samuel H. Dosh, 1857

Delos R. Ashley, 1856

Royal T. Sprague, 1855

Benjamin F. Keene, 1853-1854

Elcan Heydenfeldt, 1851

E. Kirby Chamberlain, 1849

 

Appendix E, California Legislature Elected Officers (California’s Legislature) (pdf)

more
Leave a comment
Founded: 1849
Annual Budget: $109.3 million (Proposed FY 2012-2013)
Employees: 40
Official Website: http://senate.ca.gov/
California State Senate
De León, Kevin
President Pro Tempore

The first Latino elected leader of the California state Senate since Reginaldo Francisco Del Valle in 1883, Democrat Kevin de León took over for the job of Senate Pro Tempore from Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) in October 2014.

De León, 47, grew up in the Logan Heights barrio of San Diego and was the first member of his family to graduate from high school. His mom, the single mother of three children, originally entered the country illegally and worked cleaning upscale homes for a living.

De León attended the University of California, Santa Barbara, for two years before bad grades cost him the financial aid that paid for his schooling. He took a job teaching English as a Second Language and U.S. Citizenship for the non-profit One-Stop Immigration and Education Center in Santa Barbara.

De León says it was his experience at One-Stop that led to his involvement in social causes and in 1994 he helped organize a huge march of 80,000 people in Los Angeles against Proposition 187, a ballot initiative meant to bar undocumented immigrants from using health care, public education and other social services. The law passed but was later challenged in federal court and found unconstitutional.

After his work at the center, de León became a political organizer at the California Teachers Association for five years, opposing school-voucher programs and advocating for schools in low-income neighborhoods, more school construction and health insurance for children. He also worked as a senior associate for the National Education Association in Washington, D.C.

De León returned to school and received a Bachelor of Arts degree in politics of education from Pitzer College at the Claremont Colleges in 2003. 

He served as campaign manager for Fabian Nuñez, a childhood friend who was elected to the state Assembly in 2002. Nuñez, who went to high school and Pitzer with de León and worked with him at One-Stop, was elected speaker of the Assembly in 2004 and was instrumental in getting de León elected to public office.

He encouraged de León to run for the Assembly in 2006, where the underdog defeated the daughter of legendary labor leader Cesar Chavez. De León represented the 45th state Assembly District that included Hollywood, Thai Town, Little Armenia, Historic Filipinotown, Echo Park, Chinatown, El Sereno, Silver Lake, Atwater Village, Mount Washington, Montecito Heights, Highland Park, Glassell Park and East Los Angeles.

He served four years, and was assistant majority leader.

De León lost a bitter battle for the Assembly speakership to John Pérez in 2009, which resulted in him being booted from the powerful position as chairman of the Appropriations Committee and landed him a tiny office tucked away near the cafeteria.

The next year, he was elected to the state Senate in the 22nd District, representing Los Angeles, Alhambra, Maywood, San Marino, South Pasadena, Vernon and parts of unincorporated Los Angeles County. 

De León has been instrumental in passing legislation concerning the environment, the working poor, immigration and public safety. He is opposed in November’s top-two election by fellow Democrat Peter Choi, a businessman, who has focused on de León’s link to a scandal involving Senator Ronald Calderon (D-Montebello).

Calderon was charged with accepting bribes in a wide-ranging FBI sting operation that threatens to involve other politicians. De León was named 56 times in an FBI affidavit, but has not been accused of any crimes. The FBI has officially said their interest in him is as a witness.                     

De León, who has never been married, has one daughter, a college sophomore at St. Mary's College in Moraga.

 

To Learn More:

De León Rose Out of the Barrio to Lead the California Senate (by Timm Herdt, Ventura County Star)

Senate Elects Los Angeles Democrat Kevin De Leon as Next Leader (by Judy Lin, Associated Press)

Kevin De León Formally Voted In as the Next Senate Leader (by Laurel Rosenhall, Sacramento Bee)

As Senate Head, Kevin De León Hopes to Wed Agenda with Leadership (by Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times)

Full Biography for Kevin de Leon (Smartvoter)

more
Steinberg, Darrell
Former President Pro Tempore

A San Francisco-born lawyer, Democrat Darrell Steinberg was elected president pro tempore of the Senate in August 2008. He was termed out of the Senate in 2014.

Steinberg earned his bachelor’s degree in economics from UCLA in 1981 before getting his juris doctor at University of California, Davis Law School in 1984. Steinberg went to work for the California State Employees Association as an employee rights attorney after law school and stayed with them for 10 years. He was as an administrative law judge and mediator from 1994-1998 while also practicing law at Mackenroth, Ryan and Fong in Sacramento from 1996-1998.

Steinberg’s first exposure to politics was on the local level, when he served on the Sacramento City Council from 1992 to 1998. There, he helped launch START, one of the most successful after-school programs in the country. During that period he also sat on the boards of the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, the Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District, and Regional Transit.

Steinberg was elected to the Assembly in 1998 and represented the 9th District for three terms, co-authoring Proposition 63, the Mental Health Initiative. Prop. 63 now generates more than $1 billion a year in state and federal funds for California’s mental health programs by imposing a 1% tax on millionaires. He sponsored other legislation that focused on improving California’s foster care system and public schools in areas blighted by poverty.

He joined a law firm, Hanson, Bridgett, Marcus, Vlahos and Rudy (now Hanson Bridgett LLP), when term limits forced him out of the Assembly in 2004, but resigned from that partnership after being elected to the Senate in 2006. Steinberg represents the 6th District, which includes the state capital, Sacramento.

During his first term, he chaired the Natural Resources and Water Committee and the Select Committee on High School Graduation. His legislation there includes SB 375, which links land use decisions in transportation and housing to greenhouse gas reduction goals. He serves on the Public Safety and the Appropriations Committees, as well as chairing the Rules Committee, the Select Committee on Autism and Related Disorders, and the Protection of Lake Tahoe Joint Committee.

Apart from the Legislature, Steinberg is an appointee to the Mental Health Services Act Oversight and Accountability Commission formed by Prop. 63. He is a member of the Jewish Community Relations Council and board president of the Capital Unity Council. Steinberg and his wife, Julie, have a daughter, Jordana, and a son, Ari.

 

Biography (Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg)

Biography, Senator Darrell S. Steinberg (VoteSmart.org)

more

Footer Menu
Copyright © 2016 AllGov.com. All rights reserved
Created by David Wallechinsky
Developed by IT Labs