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.

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.”

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.

We received a note the other day asking us to make sure that voters know to put the correct postage on their absentee ballots. That’s when someone in the office who lives in San Francisco chirped, “What’s she talking about? There’s no postage required.” A brief few moments of uproar ensued as we thought we were onto some strange untold story about insidious and widespread post office bias on an actual individual level.

But duh — the answer is, of course (and it’s “of course” only once you know) that San Francisco doesn’t require postage on its ballots and the other counties do. The California Secretary of State’s office told us it’s up to each county to require postage or not.

So if you live in San Francisco — just drop it in the mail then buy yourself a low-cost croissant with the savings. But if you live in Alameda County — well, someone here said when she mailed her ballot there, she was worried she hadn’t put enough postage on the oversized envelope.

Dave Macdonald, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters, says that the county has required postage on absentee ballots for a long time, and he was surprised that San Francisco County doesn’t require stamps. Macdonald told us it’s a pretty big expense, since about 409,000 people in his bailiwick have requested vote-by-mail ballots this election.

In most of Alameda County, voters have two or three ballots to fill out, Macdonald says. The cost to mail them is 85 cents. (But in Berkeley, beware — there are four ballots and the postage is $1.50.)

So the big question we had was: will ballots reach the Registrar of Voters if people make a mistake and don’t put the correct postage on?

“We talk to the post office before every election so they can alert their carriers to be on the lookout for a bright yellow envelope,” says Macdonald. “The ballots will still be delivered even if there isn’t enough postage on the envelopes. Some people put too much, some people put too little, and the post office does a great job. They still deliver to us.”

James Wigdel, spokesperson for the US Postal Service in the San Francisco Bay Area says, “What we do is we instruct our employees to not return any ballots for any reason and get them on their way to the appropriate Registrar’s address that’s on the envelope.”

Here’s all the info we found on vote-by-mail and postage for each Bay Area county:

Alameda County

Up to three ballots cost 85 cents. Four ballots (Berkeley) cost $1.50. But ballots will still be delivered if there is insufficient postage on them.

Contra Costa County

Steve Weir, County Clerk Recorder for Contra Costa County, told us it costs 65 cents to return ballots. If voters don’t put postage on the absentee ballot, the County has a postage-due account that gets debited. The post office is not supposed to send it back to the voter with a postage-due notice, as that could delay receipt of the ballot. “No voter should have their ballot disqualified for insufficient postage,” he says, while also cautioning that is, indeed, a risk. Weir says, in fact, that every election someone’s ballot has been returned for insufficient postage, sometimes too late for it to be re-sent.

“If we don’t have it in our hands by 8 p.m. Election night, the ballot doesn’t count,” he says.

Contra Costa County recommends people get their ballots in the mail by Wednesday, 10/31. Well that’s yesterday, it’s true. But Weir says voters are probably safe to mail ballots up through Friday. That said, a lot of mail that is postmarked in the days just before the election does get sent back.

So at a certain point you might want to forget the mail and go vote in person.

Marin County

Registrar of Voters Elaine Ginnold told us that postage is gratis for people in vote-by-mail precincts, which are those with less than 250 voters and no polling place. But for everyone else, vote-by-mail ballots need one first-class stamp. Ginnold says the Post Office says that if a voter understamps a ballot, it will get delivered, but sometimes that doesn’t happen. While the Marin County Department of Elections works closely with the Post Office, which is customarily very cooperative, she says, “I would not say that [delivery without postage] is guaranteed… I have also heard of it going back to the voter.”

She reminds voters that they can drop off ballots at any polling place until 8 p.m. on Election Day.

Napa County

Postage for vote-by-mail ballots costs 65 cents. If someone were to put insufficient postage on the envelope, or none at all, it will get to them and the county would pay for it, says Xioneida Ruiz, elections services manager.

San Francisco County

No postage required. “It was confusing for people to figure out how much postage to put on there,” says John Arntz, director of elections. “It makes voting more accessible.”

“We have two-card, three-card ballots, four-card ballots, five-card ballots. They come in these big envelopes, and people aren’t familiar with it.” Arntz says the city has paid for the postage since 2003.

San Mateo County

Elections specialist Narda Barrientos says postage is paid for those voters who live in mail-ballot precincts, but otherwise the county requires 45 cent postage. If someone makes a mistake and puts on insufficient postage or none at all, the ballot will still be delivered, Barrientos says.

Santa Clara County

Elma Rosas, media officer for the county’s registrar of voters, says if your ballot is in a blue vote-by-mail envelope, postage is 65 cents. If it’s a green envelope, it’s free, because it’s a mail-ballot precinct. If a voter is concerned, they should call the office; 408-299-VOTE/8683, or toll free: 866-430-8683.

Solano County

John Gardner, deputy registrar of voters, says postage is a standard first-class stamp. If postage is missing or inadequate, it’s delivered anyway and charged to the county, he says.

Sonoma County

One first-class stamp is required, says Gloria Colter, assistant registrar of voters. “We have in the past received voted ballots without postage on them. The post office charges it to a postage-due account on the county, so it’s not really free,” she says.

Before Assembly District 49 in Los Angeles’ San Gabriel Valley was redrawn, a majority Asian-American state legislative district in California had never existed

Ed Chau (Alice Walton/KPCC)

Now, it’s a busy election season in the 49^th, which is just east of Los Angeles and includes the cities of Alhambra, San Gabriel and Monterey Park, sometimes referred to as “the first suburban Chinatown.” In these communities, more than half of the residents were born outside of the United States, and three-quarters speak a language other than English.

Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause, says the Asian-American community has a long history in the region. “The area has become a gateway for a lot of Asian-American immigrants, and it has been that way for 30, 40 years now, to successive waves….” Majority representation for Asian Americans is a big change for a community that experienced an English-only movement just 25 years ago,  a backlash against the growing number of immigrants. Now the community is tied together by common concerns. Feng lists them off:

“Language issues, the need for bilingual assistance, making sure that access to schools and public services are provided in multiple languages. Protecting a fairly new immigrant population from practices like predatory lending,”

Matthew Lin (Lin campaign)

What makes this race somewhat unpredictable is that most of California’s Asian-American citizens do not identify with a political party, as a recent survey showed. In the San Gabriel Valley’s 49^th District, almost a third of registered voters do not list a political preference. About a quarter of voters are Republican, and about 40 percent are Democrats.

“They’re very guarded about what their political affiliation is, perhaps because of the countries that they’ve come from and their experience in being careful about allowing their political preferences be known to the public,” Feng explains.

That attitude toward political parties may explain why Republican Matthew Lin won the June primary with 52 percent of the vote — even though he ran in a Democratic-leaning district. He beat out Democrat Edwin Chau, who finished with 35 percent. In fact, Lin won more votes than Chau and a second Democratic candidate combined. But that result doesn’t worry Chau. “As far as the primary result was concerned, it was one of the lowest voter turnout races in the history of the district, and we believe that the November electorate is going to be much different and it’s going to be pretty high,” he says.

In Ed Chau’s campaign office, phone-banking comes in a variety of languages that reflect the demographics of the district. Chau is an attorney, engineer and member of the local school board. He’s been endorsed by two prominent fellow Democrats, the district’s current Assemblyman, Mike Eng, and Congresswoman Judy Chu.

On a recent night, volunteers packed the storefront office to call voters and encourage them to support Chau. “We do have volunteers who are bilingual so when they reach out to the voters, they could speak a language of these voters,” he says. “So that way they could feel more comfortable in finding out who I am.”

Nearby, at Matthew Lin’s headquarters, a similar scene plays out. Volunteers spend their evenings making 3,000 calls in English, Spanish and Mandarin. Lin’s message to voters in the district is that he has an immigration story similar to their own. He moved to America from Taiwan in 1973, became a doctor and founded an orthopedic medical center. “They feel that, like I do, everybody should have the…same opportunity that we do to succeed at the American dream,” he says.

The San Gabriel Valley Tribune endorsed Lin in the race. Though he’s running as a Republican, the newspaper called him a “rare bird, a party moderate with some even liberal moments.” On Election Day, both Lin and Chau will find out how much labels matter in this first-of-a-kind district.

Construction companies are pumping tens of thousands of dollars into the race for the Bay Area Rapid Transit board in an effort to unseat incumbent Director Lynette Sweet.

Photo by Thor Swift for The Bay Citizen

The construction firms accuse Sweet of meddling in bids for BART construction work and are backing 25-year-old Zakhary Mallett, who until recently was a UC Berkeley graduate student. Sweet’s backers counter that she is being punished for standing up to BART contractors who shortchange and discriminate against minority subcontractors.

The heated contest underscores a fact that often goes unnoticed by the 400,000 daily BART riders: One of the transit agency’s main functions is handing out billions of dollars in contracts for construction, track repair and new BART cars. This year alone, the transit agency has awarded $2 billion in contracts. The board’s elections and policies often are shaped by contractors who have a financial interest in the outcome. In the upcoming election, 44 percent of the money donated to the 13 candidates vying for five open seats on the BART board has come from companies or employees of companies that have done – or want to do – business with BART, according to an analysis by The Bay Citizen. Another 14 percent of all donations are coming from unions, including some that soon will be negotiating new contracts with BART management.

When companies have bids pending with BART, they are limited to $1,000 campaign donations. But the transit agency imposes no other limits on fundraising. The setup has led to accusations that BART directors favor their donors. BART Director James Fang recently was accused of a conflict of interest for advocating a development deal at the Millbrae station for a friend and campaign contributor who gave him $3,500.

In District 7, which stretches from San Francisco to Contra Costa County, Sweet is facing a challenge from Maria Alegria, a recalled Pinole City Council member; Margaret Gordon, a former Port of Oakland commissioner; and Mallett.

Even though Mallett is making his first run for office, he has raised the most money of the four, with $32,000. Most of that has come from contractors who disagree with Sweet over her support for some minority-owned businesses. Three Taber Construction employees donated a total of $9,500, and United Contractors, an association of union-affiliated contractors headquartered in San Ramon, donated $13,000.

This year, Sweet, who is African American, voted against giving contracts to Taber and other companies that she said were not complying with BART requirements that a certain percentage of some projects go to minority- and women-owned firms. Most of the $16,000 that Sweet has raised has come from BART minority contractors, including $5,000 from executives at Tom’s Metal Specialists, who said Sweet stood up for them when they were treated unfairly by Taber Construction.

In May, the owners of several Asian-owned companies attended a BART board meeting to complain that Taber was shortchanging them on projects and that Taber employees hurled racial epithets at them. At the time, Taber owner Bret Taber denied the allegations and said an investigation found no merit to claims of discrimination.

Emily Cohen, director of government relations for United Contractors, said many contractors would like to see Sweet off the board.

“We’ve had some pretty major issues with Lynette Sweet,” Cohen said. “She’s just been very, very hostile to the industry. She believes in promoting certain minority businesses over others as opposed to a fair bid environment.”

Mallet said in an interview that he sympathized with his financial backers’ concerns.

“Lynette Sweet has intruded into procurement processes in order to support minority- and woman-owned businesses,” said Mallett, who also is African American. “I am not against minority-owned businesses – I am a minority myself – but not at the expense of providing local jobs to impoverished workers.”

For example, Mallett said, Sweet was wrong to vote against a $23 million contract for Lathrop Construction Associates to work on the eBART extension to Brentwood. At the June meeting, Sweet said she was upset that Lathrop had not reached the goal that BART had set of 23 percent minority-owned subcontractors. Lathrop instead had 1.9 percent.

Mallett, who earned his master’s degree in city planning from UC Berkeley this year, said he was surprised by how much money he had raised for his first run for public office.

“I do make clear to each of these contractors, ‘I am not going to give you any special favors,’ ” Mallett said.

Sweet accused the construction companies of going out and “buying a candidate.”

“They can’t be accused of racism if they also go and find someone who’s also African American,” Sweet said. “They own him, and if he wins, that spotlight that I put on them will go away.”

In District 5, BART board President John McPartland, who represents the southern part of Alameda County, is running against John Maher, a former BART employee and union leader. McPartland is winning the fundraising race with nearly 60 percent of his donations this year coming from BART contractors and another 25 percent coming from the unions.

Three candidates are vying for the District 3 spot left vacant by Bob Franklin that covers parts of Oakland, Berkeley and other cities in Alameda County. Rebecca Saltzman, who works as a policy manager for the California League of Conservation Voters, is facing off against BART employee Anthony Pegram and attorney Fred Wright Lopez.

Saltzman has raised the most money, though a very low percentage is coming from BART contractors.

In San Francisco’s District 9, longtime incumbent Tom Radulovich, first elected in 1996, is facing off with attorney Peter Klivans and Luke Lucas, a mobility manager. No one in the race has raised much money, and Klivans is funding his own campaign.

Radulovich, who has raised $1,500 from unions but nothing from BART contractors, said he understands why his fellow directors turn to contractors for money.

“It’s hard to raise money for a BART race,” Radulovich said. “People, broadly speaking, aren’t that interested.”

Senator Dianne Feinstein has held her seat for 20 years, and this fall, she’s running for another six-year term. Feinstein’s got a huge lead in the polls, and she’s a Democrat in a largely Democratic state. But there is a Republican hopeful vying for her seat.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein official photo

It’s dusk in Anaheim, and Elizabeth Emken is at a gala charity event for injured veterans. She’s talking politics, but the conversation also turns to her autistic son Alex. It’s his condition that got her involved in politics.

Emken launched the lobbying arm of the national organization Autism Speaks and helped pass bills that improved insurance coverage for autism. As a candidate for Senate, she supports a small government and low taxes, Arctic drilling and repealing Obamacare.

She doesn’t apologize for her lack of experience in elected office. “We have got to get back to sending people to Washington who understand what families are going through. My husband and I have a mortgage. I’ve got three kids in school. We work for a living.”Emken says for all of Feinstein’s seniority, she hasn’t done enough for California — and she contends Feinstein’s refusal to debate shows that she’s not accountable. “When you have leaders who are so entrenched, who are so arrogant and feel so entitled to their seat that they’re unwilling to even debate a challenger, it really feeds into the cynicism I think we have right now,” she says.

Senator Feinstein disagrees. “Clearly I’m not out of touch with California, and clearly I’m not afraid to debate.” Senator Feinstein says she’s debated opponents in the past but won’t go head to head with Emken. “Here we have a young person who has no positive thoughts, it’s all just attack,” says Feinstein. “‘Oh, she’s out of it,’ using, I think, all kinds of spurious things,” says the senator.

Feinstein likely doesn’t see the need to debate. Republicans chose not to put up a well-funded or well-known candidate, and she enjoys a 17-point lead in the polls. She argues that re-electing her is a vote for ending gridlock. “What I hope is to go back with a strong vote and end this polarizing partisanship which has so characterized the senate as of late,” says Feinstein.

Feinstein holds powerful appointments on the Appropriations and Judiciary committees. As chair of the Intelligence committee, she’s become a leader on national security issues. Whalen says she’s a person you go to to get things done — less likely to make an impassioned speech than to put riders in bills to benefit the state.

“There are show horses and there are plow horses, and not to disparage Dianne Feinstein, but she has, on more than one occasion, been a plow horse for California, and that’s a good thing,” he says.

Early in her Senate career Feinstein pushed through two landmark bills — the California Desert Protection Act that preserved 7 million acres and the federal assault weapons ban. That ban expired in 2004, and Feinstein says she’s made reinstating it a priority at a time when few politicians are pushing for gun restrictions.

But Feinstein has angered many on the left. She voted for the Bush tax cuts and the Iraq War. And environmentalists say she’s helped Central Valley farmers get more water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta at the expense of collapsing fish populations. Adam Keats, with the Center for Biological Diversity, says Feinstein has used her clout to reward her powerful supporters. “What that means is more water for large corporate agribusiness companies,” says Keats, “and less water and less concern, less interest — for the environment, and for fish, fisherman and for all the rest of the economy in a state that depend[s] on a healthy environment.”

For recent achievements, Feinstein touts a bipartisan effort with Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine requiring that new cars average 54 miles a gallon by 2025. It’s the kind of across-the-aisle effort that Feinstein takes pride in. But Sen. Snowe is leaving office, the kind of moderate Republican that is fast becoming an endangered species. Harold Meyerson, editor of The American Prospect magazine, says forging alliances with the other side may be a relic of an earlier Senate, when the partisan divide wasn’t quite as wide. “Working across the aisle requires more than simply a Democrat’s intention. It requires a Republican willingness, and that simply isn’t there. So if that’s Feinstein’s calling card and in the past, to a certain degree, it has been, it isn’t really now,” he says.

So what would Dianne Feinstein’s role be in the new Senate? That’s a question her opponent Elizabeth Emken wants voters to ask. Emken has called Feinstein’s career ‘illustrious,’ but accuses her of getting nothing done in the past six years and says the state needs new energy.

The 49-year-old may be hinting at Feinstein’s age. She’s 79, and at the end of the term she’d be 85. Feinstein says she can go the course with anyone. “My health is good, my mind is strong. I’ve got a streak of stubbornness,” she says. “I don’t quit once I start. I see no reason why this next term should be any different.”

And any senator heading back to Washington will need all the energy and fortitude she can muster for what likely will be another contentious, deeply divided term.

If you want to sport this sticker, you'll have to decipher the state ballot and then vote. (EVA HAMBACH/AFP/Getty Images)

by Lisa Aliferis and Jon Brooks

It’s getting down to the wire — just seven days to make up your mind on a plethora of issues and races … and then ya gotta vote.

Lucky you: We’re here to help.

Our reports about Props. 30 and 38 (education and taxes); the nine-item Prop. 31 (governance) and Prop. 37 (labeling GMO foods) are attracting a lot of attention online. So either we’ve really figured out this SEO thing, or you’re genuinely interested in those initiatives in particular.

Thus, we’re compiling the best-of-the-best of our coverage on these props so that you don’t have to stand in the voting booth pondering whether numerological concerns aren’t going to be the one determining factor after all in how you vote on these things, complex as they are, yet sold, packaged and soundbited by opponents and proponents alike direct to your Id.

So read up!

-Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 both promise to fund schools, but in different ways.

• Explaining the Difference Between Props 30 and 38
• Gov’s Prop. 30 Tax Hike: More for Schools … or More Money Misspent?
• Video: This Week in Northern California recently devoted its full program to the dueling propositions

-Proposition 31 will do nine (yes, 9) different things, attempting to overhaul state governance. God knows California governance needs overhaul, but is Prop. 31 the right approach?

• Making Sense of the Very, Very Complicated Prop. 31
• Supporter and Opponent Explain Prop. 31′s ‘Community Strategic Action Plans’

-Proposition 37 requires the labeling of genetically modified ingredients in foods.

• California’s Prop. 37: Are GMO Labels a Scarlet Letter?
• Fact-Checking the Arguments on Prop. 37