Mark Takano (D), newly elected representative from the 41st Congressional District in the Inland Empire. (MarkTakano.com)

California’s Congressional delegation will include about a dozen new faces next year. Redistricting and the state’s “Top Two” primary system led to an unusual number of competitive races, as well as a few upsets — and Democrats are the beneficiaries.

Of the state’s 53 Congressional districts, 34 are currently represented by Democrats. With Tuesday’s voting, at least one more seat will turn blue, while three other races still appear too close to call.

For starters, parts of the Inland Empire are looking a lot more purple — with areas once seen as Republican strongholds giving way to a wave of Democratic newcomers.

Early on election night, Mark Takano wasn’t yet ready to claim victory as returns showed him ahead of his Republican opponent in the newly drawn 41st Congressional District. “So let’s be patient,” he said, “luxuriate in the feeling we have now and be hopeful that change has come to Riverside.” But within hours it was clear that Takano, currently a Riverside Community College board trustee, had become the first openly gay Asian American elected to Congress. He believes that his success was partly driven by a wave of younger voters he says are more accepting of gay candidates. Robert Melsh supported Takano in two prior unsuccessful Congressional bids in the early 1990’s — when opponents circulated anti-gay campaign flyers. That didn’t happen this time.

“That shows you that not only is Riverside getting ‘blue’ politically, but it’s growing up. Four years from now it will be more majority Hispanic, it’ll be diversified, and Republicans will be running for cover,” says Melsh.

In what’s shaping up to be one of the biggest upsets, political first-timer Democrat Raul Ruiz appears to have defeated veteran GOP Congresswoman Mary Bono Mack of Palm Springs. The county registrar’s office still has thousands of vote-by-mail ballots to tally. But registered Democrats outnumber Republicans by a narrow majority in the newly drawn 36^th District. It’s the first time Bono Mack sought re-election in a district that was not more heavily weighted toward Republicans.

The congresswoman was also hurt by a comment she made referring to the city of Coachella as a “third world toilet.” The Coachella Valley is home to a large number of Latinos — who make up about a third of the district’s voters. During an election night interview with the Palm Springs Desert Sun, Bono Mack all but conceded the race with thousands of votes left to tally. “Historically the trend would say that the numbers will continue to go the way they are going, and that he [Ruiz] will win,” she said.

Republicans held ground in other parts of the Inland Empire, including the 31^st Congressional District which includes San Bernardino. But by toppling the GOP in several other key races, Democrats might now see the region as a winnable battleground for future state and national candidates.

Getty Images

(AP and KQED) The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed a lawsuit Wednesday challenging California’s new voter-approved law to boost penalties for those convicted of human trafficking and increased monitoring of sex offenders.

Voters approved Proposition 35 on Tuesday with 81 percent of the vote.

In its lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the ACLU and the EFF argue that a provision of the measure restricts the First Amendment rights of registered sex offenders.

The initiative requires all registered sex offenders in California to provide the police with their email addresses, user names and Internet service providers.

ACLU attorney Michael Risher says the measure violates free speech and due process rights of sex offenders.

For example, Risher said, “73,000 Californians [the number of registered sex offenders in California] would have to, before they create a screen name to comment on an article that they read in the paper… inform the police within 24 hours they’d created that new screen name or face arrest or possible prosecution.”

The groups also argue that provision sets a dangerous precedent.

Proposition 35′s author, former Facebook executive Chris Kelly, calls the lawsuit an attack on the very idea of sex offender registration,

A hearing on the lawsuit is set for later this month.

Gov. Jerry Brown, a big winner yesterday, at LA City Hall earlier this year. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

“Everything that the Democrats did is historic,” John Myers told KQED’s Forum with Michael Krasny on Wednesday. “The governor did something that did not happen the last eight times someone [tried] to raise taxes on a statewide ballot. Last night he got a tax increase, almost I would call a general tax increase, though it was supposedly earmarked for schools.

“If these numbers hold, it’s a very fascinating dynamic for Democrats in California and for a Democratic governor here in Sacramento.”

Democrats might think the word “fascinating” an understatement. After all, doesn’t a supermajority mean they can push through tax increases without the help of intransigent Republicans? (Proposition 13 requires tax hikes to be passed by a two-thirds majority of both houses, and Republicans have shown no willingness to play ball.)A Forum listener hinted as much when she wrote, “The supermajority is such an amazingly welcome surprise. Now that it’s here, let’s fix things — get the two-thirds rule changed and get taxes increased in a fair way.”

Another listener asked, “Democratic supermajority — can the onerous parts of Prop. 13 be fixed without a ballot vote?”

The short answer from The California Report’s Scott Shafer: No.

“California, with its extremely powerful, initiative direct-democracy system, [ends up] with unintended consequences sometimes,” he said. “Some would say Prop. 13 had all kinds of unintended consequences, originally it was to help homeowners, especially seniors who were at risk of not being able to pay their property taxes.”

But if the voters pass something, only the voters can revise it, said Shafer. And according to him, Californians hold this concept of direct democracy dear: “There are some things that could be done to tweak it, but not get rid of it. Voters would never go for that.”

But that doesn’t mean that a two-thirds majority is powerless in shaping reform.

“The Legislature could do things,” he said. “For example, have an automatic sunset [for initiatives] after five years, or some kind of an opportunity…to adopt the gist of a ballot measure before it goes to the voters. There are all kinds of things that other states do that moderate the power of the ballot.”

Given the last-minute drama related to $11 million dollar in contributions to the  Prop. 30/No on Prop. 32 campaign, said Shafer, reform around campaign finance disclosure could finds its way onto the legislative agenda as well.

Former California Governor Gray Davis told Shafer Wednesday that regarding a supermajority, “If you abuse that authority, you will lose it. So it’s incumbent upon the majority party to act responsibly. If they pass a tax increase every 15 minutes the voters will rebel and they’ll be out of office. Moreover I believe the governor will abide by his promise to the electorate in 2010 [to] not support a tax increase that they have not approved. So I would think if anything comes out of the Legislature that involves raising taxes, the governor will insist that goes to the voters in the form of an an initiative.”

Hetch Hetchy Reservoir occupies Hetch Hetchy Valley behind O'Shaughnessy Dam. (Photo: Andrew Alden)

Voters in San Francisco say they are not ready to consider draining the city’s Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite National Park, for environmental restoration. The idea was rejected last night by more than a three-to-one margin.

Authors of Measure F stressed that a “yes” vote was to order a study of the future of Hetch Hetchy, not a vote to drain it. But San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee opposed it right away.

“I called it stupid,” the Mayor recalled. “I still think it is.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein and business groups also joined the opposition. But supporters say their goal was just to open the debate.

“I do think the voters are open to our message,” said Mike Marshall, director of Restore Hetch Hetchy, the group that put the measure on the ballot. “We’re very excited by the results and that sounds awkward given that we’ve lost but in fact it’s really, really true.” Measure F was defeated 77-23 percent.

In a morning-after statement, the “Yes” campaign called the outcome “a beginning, not an end.” Marshall says they’re looking at other ways to build support for draining the reservoir and restoring the valley, which naturalists and historians say once rivaled Yosemite Valley in its grandeur.

California Gov. Jerry Brown during a rally on Monday in support of Proposition 30. (Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images)

California voters soundly passed Proposition 30, 54 to 46 percent. Many considered it the biggest measure on this California ballot.

Gov. Jerry Brown crisscrossed the state in recent weeks making his pitch, supported by union leaders, teachers and others keen to avoid the “trigger cuts” that would have hit had Prop. 30 failed. But even before the final count was in, the governor was in a buoyant mood at the Yes on 30 election night party in downtown Sacramento.

Gov. Brown had a lot on the line with Prop 30. It imposes a temporary 1/4-cent sales tax and raises income taxes on the wealthy for seven years.

The failure of Prop. 30 would have triggered $6 billion in education cuts. And the governor staked his reputation on the measure, making it his top priority.

But last night as Prop. 30 was trending well, and exit polls looked promising, Brown was very optimistic.

“[This is] the only place in America where the state said, ‘let’s raise taxes for kids, for our schools, for our California dream,’” Brown said.

Brown took aim at Proposition 30′s opponents for what he called their doctrinaire thinking that government can’t do anything right.

And that was one of the major challenges of the Prop. 30 campaign. For the past five years the state has used education funding to balance the budget, and opponents say they don’t trust lawmakers to spend the money as promised.

Dean Vogel, president of the California Teachers’ Association says he’s optimistic that voters understood Prop. 30 guarantees funding for schools, despite a well funded ‘no’ campaign.

“One of the things voters consistently have said is California is not for sale,” Vogel said. “We want to decide for ourselves what we’re going to do, and I believe they’re doing that tonight.”

The “No on Proposition 30″ campaign was outspent, but still well-funded. A large contribution from out-of-state groups came under scrutiny by state regulators who on Monday said the donation represents the largest case of campaign money laundering in state history.

Proposition 30 also faced a threat from a competing education funding measure, Proposition 38, funded by billionaire Molly Munger. That measure was soundly defeated.

Pedro Rios, Republican candidate for 32nd Assembly District. (Pedro Rios for State Assembly)

Thirty years ago, Pedro Rios was smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico by his uncle. Today he is a citizen and a Republican candidate for the 32nd Assembly District, which includes part of Bakersfield and an area to the north of the Central Valley city.

In between, Rios benefitted from President Reagan’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, a 1986 law which provided a path to citizenship for people who had entered the country illegally. Rios became a citizen in 1996.

But these details were not public until late October. While his Democratic opponent, Bakersfield City Councilman Rudy Salas says he won’t make an issue of Rios’ prior undocumented status, people are taking issue with Rios’ refusal to back President Obama’s DREAM Act, a policy to allow young people who have come to the U.S. illegally to apply for legal residency.

Jose Gaspar, a columnist with the Bakersfield Californian talked to Candi Easter, chair of the Democratic Party of Kern County:

“I think it’s honorable that Rios came here undocumented and became a citizen,” Easter added. “But what I find dishonorable is his opposition to the DREAM Act,” she said. The DREAM Act is proposed federal legislation that would grant a path to citizenship for qualified undocumented youth in this country. And in fact, Rios admits he is against the legislation, saying he wants comprehensive immigration reform instead.

“That is what hurts him the most with the Latino community. His being against the DREAM Act means he has turned his back on helping other undocumented youth which he once was,” said Cal State political science professor Mark Martinez.

Rios said he supports other means that would grant citizenship to the undocumented, although he did not specify anything other than to say “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Then there’s Rep. Kevin McCarthy, the conservative Republican who represents Bakersfield and is House of Representatives majority whip. He leads the list of Rios’ endorsements, but McCarthy himself is strongly opposed to amnesty for illegal immigrants.

An editorial, also from the Bakersfield Californian takes Rios and his backers to task:

What sets Rios apart from the millions of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. today — the ones so often demonized by Republicans for breaking the law when they crossed the border? Rios got lucky. That’s all. He was here at an opportune time, during the Reagan administration, when Congress passed an amnesty plan that gave legal status to 3 million illegal immigrants.

But to hear his political supporters tell it, Rios is somehow different, more virtuous and deserving, than the millions of other undocumented immigrants today who weren’t lucky enough to get amnesty.

Mary Prime-Lawrence canvasses East Oakland voters for GO. (Lillian Mongeau/KQED)

The role of money in politics is a big issue in many elections this year – including the race for four seats on the Oakland Schools Board of Education.

A local non-profit, the teachers’ union, and the board candidates themselves are expected to spend more than $300,000 on seats that have been uncontested in more than half the races since 2004.

Mary Prime-Lawrence is a dozen doors into her list of registered voters on 88th Avenue in East Oakland. She’s standing in the dark hallway of a rundown fourplex. Most people haven’t been home, so she smiles when the deadbolt slides open.

“Hi there. Is Michelle Logan in? Are you Michelle? She’s not here right now? Can I leave some information for her? If you can give her that. James Harris is running for school board. We hope she can give him her support November 6,” Prime-Lawrence asks.

After 40 minutes, Prime-Lawrence has met only two of the voters she’s looking for. The low numbers haven’t dampened her conviction that this is the right way to spend her Saturday morning.

“In Oakland if you are un- or under-educated, you are more likely to get pregnant, get someone pregnant. Be involved in gangs, in drugs, in violence. It’s a life and death issue for some people, for some children,” she says.

Prime-Lawrence, a mother of three, lives nearby and teaches afterschool math at a charter school. She’s working with “Great Oakland Public Schools,” known around town as “GO.” The group is campaigning for big changes in Oakland’s schools. They want schools to have more autonomy and a better teacher evaluation system, and they want bond measures that support both traditional and charter schools.

And they want school board members who will make all that come to pass.

“The school board is really important in Oakland,” says GO’s Managing Director Jessica Stewart. “They control a $600 million budget. They choose the superintendent. They just make really important policy decisions for our kids.”

This is GO’s first political campaign and its political action committee has raised $184,000 to spend on supporting the three candidates and two ballot initiatives they’ve endorsed. In addition to dozens of small donations, GO has received three checks for $50,000 each. Two came from individuals: conservative philanthropist Gary Rogers of Oakland and moderate venture capitalist Arthur Rock of San Francisco. The third is from the California Charter Schools Association.

The city’s teachers’ union is backing different school board candidates. The union says it’s concerned about the motives of GO’s big donors.

“It’s just not healthy for democracy when two people can come in and just flood an election with huge amounts of money,” says Steve Neat, vice president of the Oakland Education Association, the city’s teachers’ union. “I’m sure they’re expecting to get something for that kind of investment. Nobody puts $50,000 into a campaign unless they expect something back in my opinion.”

Both Neat and Stewart say they welcome the competition.

The groups also agree on several other points. Both want the state to spend more money on K-12 education, smaller class sizes in schools and for more Oakland grads to go to college. But they often disagree, sometimes profoundly, on how to get there. GO’s heavy duty fundraising illustrates that point, and Stewart makes no apologies.

“We’re just doing whatever it takes because this really matters. This is a one in four years opportunity to have four seats up on the school board,” she says.  “And we’re in this to win it.”

Whoever wins will have to take on budget challenges, the new union contract, controversies over charter schools and how to tackle the job of educating all of Oakland’s kids.

GMO soybeans. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

by Will Evans, California Watch

The companies that make those candy bars leftover from Halloween don’t want Californians to be spooked by scary tales of “Frankenfoods.”

The Hershey Co., Nestlé USA and Mars Inc. – makers of such trick-or-treat favorites as Butterfinger, Kit Kat and Snickers bars – gave a combined $367,000 last month to oppose Proposition 37, which would require labeling of genetically modified foods. They are just a few of the major food and biotechnology companies that have poured more than $44 million into the fight against Prop. 37, Proponents of the measure, who have raised $7.3 million from donors – including a controversial alternative health website and organic food companies – argue that consumers have a right to know what’s in their food and point out that some countries already require such labels. Opponents of the measure, with six times more money, are funding an ad blitz arguing that the measure is too complex, could raise food prices and will hurt farmers. 

Foods made with genetically modified ingredients are extremely prevalent [PDF] in the grocery aisle. Seed companies use genetic engineering to make plants more resistant to pests and pesticides, and most corn in the United States is grown from such seeds.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes the journal Science, says the technology is perfectly safe [PDF] and opposes labeling. Label supporters, including Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, say more safety studies must be done.

Monsanto, a major manufacturer of genetically engineered seeds and the popular Roundup weed killer, is the top donor to the anti-Prop. 37 effort, with $8.1 million. Chemical company DuPont gave $5.4 million, according to MapLight. Last month, the campaign took in contributions from food giants like Kraft and PepsiCo, as well as Syngenta, which makes seeds and pesticides. Each has contributed about $2 million so far.

“They’ve been carpet-bombing the state with a million dollars a day in deceptive ads,” said Stacy Malkan, spokeswoman for the Prop. 37 campaign. “We haven’t been able to counter this stuff because they’re on the air every hour, sometimes four times an hour, on every station across the state.”

The opposition campaign says it’s not just big corporate conglomerates trying to kill the initiative. Farmers fear costly regulations, and grocery retailers large and small worry they’ll be the target of frivolous lawsuits, said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for No on 37.

“There’s no question that this measure makes it easy for lawyers to file baseless shakedown lawsuits,” she said. “It creates a very rich, lucrative target for them.”

The top donor supporting Prop. 37, with $1.1 million, is Illinois-based Mercola.com, which sells nutritional supplements and skin products marketed with videos of Dr. Joseph Mercola dispensing sometimes controversial health advice. Mercola has drawn warning letters from the Food and Drug Administration for unsubstantiated health claims and believes child vaccinations are tied to autism, a position refuted by the mainstream medical community.

On his website, Mercola writes: “The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans.”

“He’s made a lot of strange health claims,” Fairbanks said. “Do we want him dictating policy in California?”

Malkan said the Prop. 37 campaign doesn’t endorse Mercola’s stances. She counters that Henry Miller, the expert appearing in No on 37 campaign ads, advocates the use of DDT, a banned pesticide that is classified as a probable carcinogen.

Other donors to the pro-labeling effort include Kent Whealy, who co-founded an Iowa group to preserve heirloom seeds, and Mark Squire, who owns Good Earth Natural Foods in Marin County. Companies with recognizable brands like Dr. Bronner’s Magic Soaps, Amy’s Kitchen and Clif Bar also contributed.

But the labeling proponents have been far outspent, and that appears to have hurt them. Support for the measure, which had been high in September, plummeted to 44 percent of California voters in October, according to a USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times poll.

“There’s no question that the money has had a tremendous impact,” said Dan Schnur, director of the poll. “On the other hand, they’ve spent it very effectively.”

Will Evans is an investigative journalist for California Watch.

Photo by Eva Hambach/AFP/Getty Images

The California Report host Rachael Myrow speaks with Jenny Wagner, President of the League of Women Voters for California, a non-partisan, non-profit group that works to encourage civic participation. Ms. Wagner discusses research the League has done on voter participation or lack-thereof.

Edited transcript…

Rachael Myrow: So, what about people who don’t vote, or don’t even register to vote? Studies consistently show that public radio listeners are more likely as a group to vote, so I know my question is rhetorical. You found many excuses serve as a kind of cover for substantive concerns about the process, or their participation in it. Let’s run down some of the concerns, and you can translate for us as we go.

Rachael Myrow: If someone says, “I don’t like the choices,” how do you interpret that?

Jenny Wagner: Well, when people say they don’t like their choices, they often don’t understand what their choices are. They need more information about their options.

Rachael Myrow: How about when someone says, “My vote won’t count”?

Jenny Wagner: That’s a common one. It’s really that they feel that their opinion doesn’t matter, that they aren’t empowered.

Rachael Myrow: What about the old excuse, “It just takes too much time”?

Jenny Wagner: I have that problem too, actually. It’s that you don’t feel like you’re ready to vote. You’re worried that you’ll make a mistake, and you need more time, you need more information.

Rachael Myrow: And then there’s, “It’s really inconvenient.”

Jenny Wagner: That often is to cover up that they are intimidated. Nobody likes to feel stupid, or that they can’t figure it out. So, they really just need a little bit more help.

Rachael Myrow: I was stunned by this particular finding: the most important predictor of whether 18 to 30 year olds vote is if they grew up in a household with voters.

Jenny Wagner: That’s correct. You know, a lot of people assume, if they’re voters, that other people have that same kind of experience growing up, that they were surrounded with people talking about voting, so you know how it works, so that you know how you should do it. Basic things about how you research what you should vote for were never taught to them. So, they don’t learn, ‘Okay, this is how you register to vote. This is what happens the first time that you go to vote.’ No one took them to do that. And so there is a really basic level of explanation that needs to be happening in California right now.

Rachael Myrow: And I suppose, too, that there are households where people regularly talk about politics of all kinds, local, regional, national, all of it.

Jenny Wagner: Exactly, that kind of personal relationship is the most influential way to get someone to vote. If someone you care about talks to you about voting, you’re going to do it. You want to please them, you admire them, you’re going to get out and participate. And, it’s kind of unfortunate that California isn’t more of a swing state, because often there’s more energy and attention placed on local and regional elections in that case. And so, if you have a hotbed of activity, you’re more likely to have people participating. So, if you live in a community that has discussion groups and parades, and people are talking about it, and it’s on the local news, then they’re just more likely to feel excited and participate.

Rachael Myrow: Well, it’s interesting that you mention local news, because I happen to know that journalists who are focused on local and regional news spend an awful lot of time and effort trying to interest potential voters in races and measures on the ballot. What are we doing wrong, if we’re not reaching so many people?

Jenny Wagner: Well, I don’t think it’s necessarily that you’re doing it wrong, but you’re really focusing on the third of voters who are going to participate, no matter what. They will hear absolutely nothing, and they will still seek it out and they will go vote. But, there’s another two-thirds of voters that either never vote, they’re not even registered, or they’re registered, but they’re not always participating. That two-thirds really needs to have more basic information. They need to hear in particular from people that they know and trust why they should get engaged.

Rachael Myrow: So, you’re saying it’s not entirely our fault; people need to help out their friends and family members?

Jenny Wagner: Yeah, you need to make voting personal. It shouldn’t sound like something that only people dressed up in suits with higher education degrees can understand. And so, finding ways that people can both feel comfortable with the voting process, so that it’s not like taking a test, so that they’re not going to do it ‘wrong’ and fail, so that they know that they can do it multiple times, that you can, you know, turn in your ballot and they’ll give you another one if you make a mistake. Or, that you can bring notes and get help from friends. But, that it’s an accessible thing that they can figure out. So that they can feel comfortable talking to their neighbors, to people that they’re in book groups with, really making it not just an intellectual process, but kind of a fun, personal one.

Rachael Myrow: You say that, but I find it a massive homework assignment that is kind of complicated and scary. And that’s because a lot of the issues are complicated, if not necessarily scary. I’m wondering if maybe in this day and age, when so many things are made palatable, and we have so many forms of entertainment, that folks just have an unreasonable expectation that participatory democracy should be easy.

Jenny Wagner: Well, let me give you a couple of examples of how you can make it much more fun and accessible. People picture elections as being people in suits and talking to each other. And certainly there’s a place for that, or reading a formal newspaper. But the League has been working to partner with local community groups. So, for example, we’ve been working with a non-profit called Yoga Votes. They found that within the yoga community, there’s a lot of people who’ve distanced themselves from politics. They say, “I like how peaceful and centered I feel on the mat,” and they didn’t make the connection that if they’re going to be thoughtful and trying to bring about change in themselves, they can also do that within their community.

Listen to the story:

For the first time, supporters of Proposition 34 outnumber opponents, 45 percent to 38 percent.

But a fairly large portion, 17 percent, are undecided.

Field Poll Director Mark DiCamillo says voters seem persuaded by the argument that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

“Back in 1989, voters by a 2-1 margin felt that it was cheaper to implement the death penalty than to house somebody in prison for life,” he said. “Now, more voters — by a 5-3 margin — think its actually cheaper to house prisoners for life.”

The Field Poll shows support is strongest in the Bay Area.

More coverage on Proposition 34 here.