Physician Ami Bera (D) won a hotly contested House seat over incumbent Dan Lungren (R). (Randy Payne/Flickr)

The election blog is coming to an end soon <sniff!> so this is the last update I’ll be posting on those stubbornly close races. Most of them were decided yesterday. There are still 1.7 million votes [PDF] to count statewide.

Jump for joy or read ‘em and weep. Counties have until December 7 to send final counts to the state. The secretary of state must certify the election by December 14.

Many of the close races we have kept an eye on are in Alameda County which finished counting votes yesterday. Here is an update on all the races we’ve been following:

Congressional Races

• Bera v. Lungren (7th Congressional District): Physician Ami Bera (D) defeated incumbent Dan Lungren (R). This was Bera’s second attempt to defeat Lungren; he received 51.5 percent of the vote. This race was considered one of the most critical across the country, and SuperPAC money flowed in.

• Bilbray v. Peters (52nd Congressional District): In this San Diego race, Democrat Scott Peters (D) flipped another Republican seat to the Democrat House tally. Peters beat incumbent Brian Bilbray with 50.7 percent of the vote.

Assembly Races

• Ong v. Quirk (District 20): In this Alameda County Dem-on-Dem race, Bill Quirk squeaked out victory over Filipina-American Jennifer Ong with 50.3 percent of the vote. That’s a 93 vote margin of victory out of more than 133,000 cast.
• Bloom v. Butler (District 50): In another Dem-on-Dem race where LA Weekly says all the rich, white, liberal people in Los Angeles live, Santa Monica Mayor Richard Bloom leads incumbent Betsy Butler with 50.1 percent of the votes. Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters is still counting ballots.
• Norby v. Quirk-Silva (newly drawn District 65): Republican Chris Norby conceded yesterday. Sharon Quirk-Silva (D) won with 51.6 percent of the vote in this Orange County race.

Ballot Measures

• Alameda County Measure B1: This race may have been the tightest of all. The transportation tax needed a two-thirds majority to win — that’s 66.67 percent. “Yes on B1″ earned 66.53 percent of the vote. That’s right — the “yes” vote lost by .14 percent of the vote. There you have it — every vote counts. If you’re wondering about recounts — the Alameda County Registrar of Voters says a party must wait until the vote is certified, request the recount within five days…  and pay for it themselves.

• Berkeley Measures S and T: “S” was known as “sit/lie,” and “T” changed zoning in West Berkeley. Measure S was defeated by 52.3 to 47.7 percent. Measure T was turned back by 50.51 percent of the voters.

Supervisors

• Crowley v. Yee: San Francisco County Supervisors District 7. The San Francisco Chronicle reports that Norman Yee defeated F.X. Crowley by 131 votes.
• Roberts v. Danon: San Diego County Supervisors. Steve Danon conceded the race to Dave Roberts on Thursday.

Ami Bera (D) is holding onto a tight, but growing, lead against Dan Lungren (R) in this Congressional race. (Photos: Republican Conference and Randy Bayne via Flickr)

The vote counting continues on. Latest from the secretary of state’s office is there are still a whopping 1.9 million votes [PDF] left to count. Counties have until December 7 to report their final results. The secretary of state will certify the election by December 14.

In particular, we’re tracking the likely Democratic supermajority in the state legislature.

In the current Congress, the 112th, Democrats hold 34 of 53 House seats. In the new Congress, the 113th, Democrats have definitively picked up two seats, a sure total of 36 seats. There are two other races too-close-to-call, but it’s looking like Democrats will win. That would bring California’s Democratic Congressional delegation to 38 seats out of 53.

Here is an update on the races we’re following:

Congressional Races

• Bera v. Lungren (7th Congressional District): Bera’s (D) lead over Lungren (R) continues to grow. He is now up by 3,824 votes, from 1,779 earlier in the week. (119,726 to 115,902). 

• Bilbray v. Peters (52nd Congressional District): In this San Diego race, Peters (D) also continues to extend his lead over Bilbray (R). On Friday, Peters led by 814 votes, early this week, it was 1,899. Now he leads by 2,660 votes.

Assembly Races

• Ong v. Quirk (District 20): In this Alameda County Dem-on-Dem race, Filipina American Ong trails Quirk by 1,215 votes.
• Bloom v. Butler (District 50): In this Dem-on-Dem race where all the rich, white, liberal people in Los Angeles live, Bloom’s lead has been see-sawing. Last Friday, he led by 218 votes, then it was down to 103 votes, and now it is back up to — remarkably — 218 votes.
• Norby v. Quirk-Silva (newly drawn District 65): Democrat Quirk-Silva is leading Republican Norby by 2,222 votes in this Orange County race.

Ballot Measures

• Alameda County Measure B1: This race is perhaps the tightest of all. The transportation tax needs 2/3 majority to win — that’s 66.67 percent. Right now, “yes on B1″ has 66.34 of the vote. That’s right — the “yes” vote trails by one-third of one percentage point. The counting continues. The Contra Costa Times is reporting that about 8,000 provisional ballots remain to be counted, and it will likely take through Friday to finish.
• Berkeley Measures S and T: “S” is “sit/lie” and “T” changes zoning in West Berkeley. “Yes on T” has been up and then down. It currently trails by 467 votes. “Yes on S” is trailing by 2.113 votes.

Supervisors

• Crowley v. Yee: San Francisco County Supervisors District 7. Yee has extended his lead to 1,387 votes.
• Roberts v. Danon: San Diego County Supervisors. Roberts also extended his lead over Danon to 2,688 votes.

Dan Lungren and Ami Bera are locked in a tighter than tight race. (Photos: Republican Conference and Randy Bayne via Flickr)

The number of too-close-to-call races is shrinking. Many counties continued to count votes over the holiday weekend. They have until December 7 to report their final results.The secretary of state will certify the election by December 14.

Of special note in these races is the make up of the California Congressional delegation. You’ve heard all about the Democratic supermajority in the state legislature.

At the national level, California Democrats have also gained ground. In the current Congress, the 112th, Democrats hold 34 of 53 House seats. In the new Congress, the 113th, Democrats have definitively picked up two seats, a sure total of 36 seats. There are two other races too-close-to-call, but it’s looking like Democrats will win. That would bring California’s Democratic Congressional delegation to 38 seats out of 53.

Here is an update on the races we’ve been following:

Congressional Races

• Bera v. Lungren (7th Congressional District): This race was not updated over the weekend. Bera (D) leads Lungren (R) by 1,779 votes. (105,245 to 103,466)

• Bilbray v. Peters (52nd Congressional District): Peters (D) has extended his lead over Bilbray (R) in this San Diego race. On Friday, Peters led by 814 votes; now he’s up by 1,899.
• Ruiz v. Bono Mack (36th Congressional District): ICYMI: Bono Mack conceded this race last Friday.

Assembly Races

• Bloom v. Butler (District 50): In this Dem-on-Dem race in Los Angeles County, Bloom has seen his narrow lead over Butler shrink from 218 votes on Friday to 103 votes early this morning.
• Norby v. Quirk-Silva (District 65): Democrat Quirk-Silva was leading Republican Norby by 607 votes on Friday. Official reports early this morning show Quirk-Silva now up by 2,222 votes.

Ballot Measures

• Alameda County Measure B1: The transportation tax is trailing by more than 4,000 votes. The Oakland Tribune reports the county counted 93,000 ballots — nearly all precinct and mail ballots — over the weekend. B1 has gained 65.79 percent of the vote; it needs two-thirds to pass. Thousands of provisional ballots have yet to be counted, but 4,200 votes is a lot of ground to make up.
• Berkeley Measures S and T: “S” is “sit/lie” and “T” changes zoning in West Berkeley. “Yes on T” had been picking up votes until Friday. But official reports last night show it behind by 472 votes. “Yes on S” is trailing by 1,417 votes.

Supervisors

• Crowley v. Yee: San Francisco County Supervisors District 7. Yee has extended his lead from 1,156 to 1,315 votes, as reported late yesterday afternoon.
• Roberts v. Danon: San Diego County Supervisors. Roberts also extended his lead over Danon from 1,898 votes to 2,641 votes.

San Francisco State University history lecturer Steve Leikin, left, talks with a student at a university election rally in October. Leikin was working with the campaign against Proposition 32. Photo by Ian Hill/KQED.

Leading California pollsters are raising questions about the accuracy of the Edison Research exit poll (viewable on the CNN website) in terms of how big a share young voters — and non-white voters — comprised of all those casting ballots in California in last Tuesday’s election.

What’s not in dispute: Young voters and “ethnic voters” (which is to say Latinos, Asian-Americans and African-Americans) played an influential role in California’s big Democratic turnout… helping to pass Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax hike measure, and giving President Obama a 21 percentage point edge in the already-blue state.

As we reported last week, Field Poll director Mark DiCamillo cast doubt on the share of last Tuesday’s voters who were under 30. The Edison exit poll put 18-29 year olds at 27 percent of Californians who voted in this election. But 18-29 year olds make up just 16 percent of all registered voters in the state, said DiCamillo. And in 2008 exit polling showed this age group was 20 percent of California voters.

“I certainly believe that the story line of this elections the power of ethnic voters, and that younger voters turned out in high numbers,” DiCamillo said. “It has to do with the governor [specifically Gov. Brown's campaign for Prop. 30] and online registration [which went into effect in September and has so far been used mostly by young Californians]…. But I can’t believe the 27 percent. That’s a huge number. To move the needle one full percentage point is a big thing, to move it seven or eight points is beyond credibility.”

And the incredulity extends to the Edison exit poll’s reported share of voters who are not white.

• DiCamillo and others note that of all the registered voters in California, 5.5 percent are black, and they typically turn out roughly in their population proportion. But according to the exit poll, they are 8 percent of Tuesday’s voters.
• Asian Americans make up an estimated 10 percent of the state’s registered voters. The exit poll put their share of the turnout at 11 percent.
• And Latinos are 23 percent of registered voters in California. are Latino. The exit poll showed them making up 22 percent of Californians who voted this election. But Latinos are younger and are less likely to have gone to college, on average, than the overall population, while older, better educated people historically vote at higher rates. “So even with good turnout, I would expect they would be a couple of points below their total registration,” observed Di Camillo.

Other political observers concur that the exit poll may not have gotten a perfectly accurate picture of who voted in California. “Because of early voting, exit polls no longer quantify the electorate accurately,” said Democratic pollster Ben Tulchin. “I would use exit polling for how people voted, not quantifying what the electorate looks like.”

Sacramento blogger Scott Lay has come up with his own “blending” of pre-election Field Poll turnout predictions and Edison exit polling to estimate actual turnout as somewhere in between the two.

Over the next couple of months, pollsters, scholars and political analysts will be digging in deeper: looking at turnout information from the Census Bureau’s November Current Population Survey, as well as the number crunching of private campaign consulting firms such as Political Data Inc. — to get a more accurate sense of the shape of the electorate: who turned out and in what proportion.

In the absence of precise figures, plain old political common sense prevailed.

“It was a very good night for Democrats,” said Mark Baldassare, president and chief pollster at the Public Policy Institute of California. “It just suggests to me that you must have had this high turnout of Latinos and younger voters, and a very poor showing among Republicans.”

“How did California Democrats win a supermajority in the legislature?” Tulchin asked. “The Obama coalition of young voters, Latinos, Asian Americans, African Americans, and throw in some white liberals: It gave Obama a big margin. His win exceeded what polling showed would happen. It’s the same with Prop. 30…. And in California, a young voter is overwhelmingly Latino or Asian.”

UC Irvine Political Science Professor Louis DeSipio wondered why the turnout of young people in the state did appear to get a substantial boost, while in the country as a whole it did not.

“Was there something unique in California?” asked De Sipio. “There’s no particular reason that the presidential race would mobilize more young people in a noncompetitive state like California. Maybe people turned out for some tight Congressional races, but the unique issue in California was the mobilization around Prop. 30. One big effect [if the measure failed] was to diminish funding for community colleges, the UCs and the CSUs. There was a message coming from college administrations and unions organizing, and young people felt it.”

DiCamillo was startled to see that white voters in California dropped to just 55 percent of all who voted, according to the Edison exit poll. “I’ve never seen an election in California below 60 percent white,” he said. “It jumps out at me. Wow. I don’t think we’re that far down the road yet. I think it’s coming, but I don’t think we’re there yet.”

Whether young people and non-white voters exceeded turnout expectations in California this year, the Golden State is pointing the direction for where the rest of the country is headed, observers say.

And Di Camillo gets the last word: “The main message of this election is that the ethnic vote really powered the Obama victory in California, it really powered the Prop 30 vote on the yes side. And the same thing goes with the youth vote. It was the youth vote that turned out in force that probably made the difference on Prop. 30.”

Dan Lungren and Ami Bera are locked in a tighter than tight race. (Photos: Republican Conference and Randy Bayne via Flickr)

Sit down and take a deep breath. The updated Secretary of State’s numbers show more than three million votes left to count.

If you’ve been following the handful of too-close-to-call races across the state, you’ll likely be waiting for a few days.

Counties have until December 7 to report their final results.The secretary of state will certify the election by December 14.

Here are the races still too close to call:

Congressional Races

• Bera v. Lungren (7th Congressional District): Bera’s (D) lead is slim, but keeps edging up. Yesterday, he led Lungren (R) by 182 votes. Today, with an additional 40,000 votes counted, he’s up by 1,779. (105,245 to 103,466)

• Bilbray v. Peters (52nd Congressional District): Peters (D) leads Bilbray (R) by 814 votes in this San Diego race.
• Ruiz v. Bono Mack (36th Congressional District): Ruiz (D) leads by 4,679, and local media in the Inland Empire have called the race for him. But Bono Mack (R) has yet to concede. UPDATE: Bono Mack conceded the race on Friday.

Assembly Races

• Bloom v. Butler (District 50): In this Dem-on-Dem race in Los Angeles County, Bloom leads Butler by 218 votes.
• Norby v. Quirk-Silva (District 65): Democrat Quirk-Silva is leading Republican Norby by 607 votes.

Ballot Measures

• Alameda County Measure B1 (Transportation): About one percentage point shy of the two-thirds needed for passage, with roughly 100,000 mail/provisional ballots still to count. Could be “several days” before we know the results, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters told the Chronicle.
• Berkeley Measures S and T: “S” is “sit/lie” and “T” changes zoning in West Berkeley. “Yes on T” has slowly been gaining ground since election night and now leads by five votes (four more votes since yesterday). “Yes on S” is trailing by two percentage points, but has also been gaining since election night. The counting continues.

Supervisors

• Crowley v. Yee: San Francisco County Supervisors District 7. Counting votes could take until next week. Yee leads Crowley 1,156.
• Roberts v. Danon: San Diego County Supervisors. Roberts leads Danon by 1,898 votes.

Other too-close-to-call races or measures we should know about? Tell us in the comments section!

Willie Brown served in the California Legislature for more than 30 years. (Steve Rhodes/Flickr)

This week’s buzzword in California politics: supermajority.

Democrats in California have a supermajority in the State Senate and are simply waiting for confirmation from two yet-to-be-fully-counted-but-leaning Democrat races in southern California to achieve a supermajority in the Assembly.

In case you missed it, in California politics a “supermajority” is a two-thirds majority. Most people know that any local measures to raise property taxes in California must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the people. That’s thanks to 1978′s Proposition 13. But Prop. 13 also requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature to raise taxes. While Republicans have long been the minority party in Sacramento, they wielded influence by blocking votes needed to pass a tax increase.

To find out what lies ahead in the state legislature, beyond one less road block to tax increases, KQED Forum guest host Scott Shafer spoke with Willie Brown, who served over 30 years in the state Legislature, to describe how a supermajority can change Sacramento.

Here is an edited transcript of Shafer’s interview with Brown on Friday morning’s show:

Scott Shafer: The Democrats have had majorities up in Sacramento for a long time. Other than the ability to raise revenue without any Republican votes, what else changes in terms of the dynamics at the State Capitol?

Willie Brown: Anytime you are at the point where you in one party have total dominance, you are in a position where — if you are smart — you’ll move programs, both those that require appropriations and those that do not. You don’t get this opportunity too often and you have to be just smart enough to do it.

Shafer: Give us some examples. When you say programs that require revenue…

Brown: I said, “may or may not” require revenue.

Shafer: But what about the ones that may?

Brown: Right out of the box, if you knew that Governor Schwarzenegger some years ago unilaterally wiped out the car tax, and that’s what created the problem in the state of California for the disappearing of revenues, maybe you should go back and re-do the car tax immediately. Take the heat for it, but do it.

Shafer: And can you do that without a vote of the people?

Brown: You can do that without a vote of the people. Jerry Brown would have to acquiesce but you could do it.

Shafer: But isn’t that one of the things that got Gray Davis in trouble?

Brown: No, it is not. Because at that time, Mr. Davis did not let the people know what the downsides would be if that source of revenue disappeared. You can’t have sources of revenue disappearing without adverse impacts on the programs. The people are now more sophisticated. The bankruptcies in the local governments that have occurred, the burden that’s being placed upon local government by the return of prisoners from the state system to local governments. There are so many more things now that are clearly evidence [that there is a] need for revenue. No, I don’t think you would have a problem.

Shafer: What about the idea of reaching out to Republicans? Would you advise the governor to do that to reach across the aisle? Or [is it ] just, “They’ve got the power now. Just do what they want to do?”

Brown: I think that most of them up there who read anything about my tenure would find my advice not as easily accepted as would be the case if I was advocating some change in my own attitude.

Shafer: They called you the Ayatollah of Sacramento, didn’t they?

Brown: All of my career, I have been about serving 79 other members, Republicans and Democrats alike. All the rules that I put in for equal access to resources, or proportional representation on committees, or for all kinds of things that would lead to a sharing of responsibilities beyond the campaign activities is what made the House strong and what kept me in charge for half of the time that I spent in the Legislature. The supermajority should not be used to just roll over all the persons there, including the Republicans. The supermajority ought to be about building the strengths of the system to a consensus process that includes the Republicans and the governor should lead that.

Shafer: And where would he lead them? What are some of the things that he can build consensus on — or just decide to do with Democratic votes if that’s the way it turns out? What should the priorities be?

Brown: First, I’d urge him not do anything with just Democratic votes, just because it is a Democratic strength. I would urge him to do the things that need to be done for the state, whatever they are, without reference to whether it’s Democrats or Republicans.

For example, what happens with the university system, the state university system, the community college system? Those are things that do not have Democrat or Republican stamped on them. I would urge them to address issues of the realignment process and go back to considering how do you get that economic development going in local communities, similar to what we did with redevelopment.

Mission Bay, for example, comes right out of the heart of the redevelopment operations. Base closures that occurred where land previously devoted to military purposes has now been given back to local governments in Orange County, Alameda County, San Francisco County and other places. [This] is a golden opportunity without reference to Republicans or Democrats or the governor.

Shafer: One of the things the supermajority could do is put things before the voters. Is there any sort of reform of the initiative system — or anything else — that some feel have made California difficult to govern over the past several decades?

Brown: My attitude about the whole initiative process is that it’s warped; it shouldn’t even be there. If the public wishes to do something about what the legislature has done, then we ought to liberalize the referendum process. But the initiative process ought to be severely restricted so that these political consultants who are now the driving force behind initiating such items won’t be able to do so for their own economic gain.

In this 2008 photo, workers sort California mail in ballots. (Justin Sullivan: Getty Images)

With estimates that for the first time vote-by-mail will exceed in-person voting in California, county voting officials are presumably working hard to get all votes counted. Counties are required to report their final results by December 7, and the secretary of state will certify the election by December 14.

In the meantime well over a million mail and provisional ballots are still being counted statewide.

Here are the races still too close to call:

Congressional Races

• Bera v. Lungren (7th Congressional District): The political newsletter The Nooner reports that Bera is ahead by 182 votes with 193,000 uncounted ballots. Next update is Friday, 3pm.
• Bilbray v. Peters (52nd Congressional District): Only a few hundred votes separate the San Diego candidates.
• Ruiz v. Bono Mack (36th Congressional District): Ruiz is ahead, and local media have called the race for him. But Bono Mack has yet to concede.

Assembly Races

• Bloom v. Butler (District 50): In Los Angeles County, only a few hundred votes separate the two.
• Norby v. Quirk-Silva (District 65): Several hundred votes separate the candidates in Orange County.

Ballot Measures

• Alameda County Measure B1 (Transportation): About one percentage point shy of the two-thirds needed for passage, with roughly 100,000 mail/provisional ballots still to count. Could be “several days” before we know the results, the Alameda County Registrar of Voters told the Chronicle.
• Berkeley Measures S and T: “S” is “sit/lie” and “T” changes zoning in West Berkeley. The most-recent numbers show yes on T trailing by only 26 votes. S is not quite as close. UPDATE, 7am, Friday, November 9: “Yes on T” has pulled ahead by one vote. The counting continues.

Supervisors

• Crowley v. Yee: San Francisco County Supervisors District Seven. Counting votes could take until next week.
• Roberts v. Danon: San Diego County Supervisors

Other too-close-to-call races or measures we should know about? Tell us in the comments section!

Molly Munger donated $44.1 million to pass Proposition 38, a measure to raise taxes for public education. The initiative failed.

Multimillionaire activists, big labor unions and major corporations combined to pump more than $363 million into political fights over 11 propositions on Tuesday’s state ballot, a California Watch analysis shows.

Prop. 38 backer Molly Munger. (neontommy/flickr)

That’s about $20 in political spending for each of California’s 18.2 million registered voters.By law, state ballot initiatives are exempt from the tough donation limits that otherwise apply in California elections.

In contests over proposed tax increases, car insurance rates, criminal justice reforms and political spending by labor unions, donors with deep pockets took full advantage.

Forty-seven donors – individuals, companies and political committees – donated more than $1 million apiece on initiative campaigns, a review of campaign finance data provided by MapLight.org shows.

Seven donors each gave $11 million or more.

The unprecedented spending spree was a sign of just how far the 101-year-old California initiative process has strayed from its origins. In the beginning, initiatives were a Progressive-era reform devised to allow ordinary citizens to sidestep a legislative process controlled by monied special interests.

This year, combined spending over the two most hotly contested ballot measures – Gov. Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which sought a tax increase to fund public education, and Proposition 32, a conservative attempt to bar unions from making political donations – topped $195 million, with special interest donors paying much of the freight.

Here, from campaign finance data, are some winners and losers in California’s initiative battles:

The Winners

Big labor

The state’s unions went all in for their successful effort to stop Prop. 32, the anti-union measure pushed by the Lincoln Club of Orange County and other conservative groups. Unions spent more than $60 million to block it. Much of the union money went to committees also pushing Prop. 30, the successful Brown tax measure. In addition to the California Teachers Association ($32.5 million), big donations came from the Service Employees International Union ($21.6 million) and the California Labor Federation ($6 million).

A Facebook tycoon

Chris Kelly, former chief privacy officer of Facebook and an unsuccessful candidate for state attorney general in 2010, gave $2.3 million to Proposition 35, which would toughen prison sentences for human trafficking. Kelly’s donation was more than 60 percent of the measure’s total budget. It had no formal opposition and won easily.

Agroscience

Proposition 37 would have required special labels on genetically engineered food. The unsuccessful measure, pushed by the organic food industry, drew multimillion-dollar opposition from Monsanto Co. ($8.1 million) and DuPont ($5.4 million), in addition to Bayer CropScience, BASF Plant Science and Dow AgroSciences ($2 million apiece).

The police lobby

The Peace Officers Research Association of California was on the winning side of four measures Tuesday and had only one loss. The association spent $192,000 to oppose the repeal of the death penalty, Proposition 34. Proponents countered with about $8 million, but the measure failed. The group also put $1.5 million into opposing the anti-union Prop. 32, which lost; more than $150,000 to back Prop. 35, the human trafficking measure, which won; and $150,000 to support Prop. 30, Brown’s successful tax measure. The cops’ only bad bet: $100,000 to oppose Proposition 36, the measure to reform California’s three strikes law, which was enacted.

The Losers

The Mungers: The adult children of billionaire Charlie Munger, vice chairman of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, emerged as California’s biggest donors – and losers – of all.

Molly Munger, a Los Angeles lawyer and liberal crusader, donated $44.1 million to her Proposition 38, to raise taxes for public education. The measure lost, while Prop. 30, Brown’s competing tax measure, was enacted.

Meanwhile, Charles Munger Jr., a Stanford physics professor, donated about $36 million, most of it to defeat Brown’s Prop. 30 tax increase and to boost Prop. 32, which sought to bar labor unions from making political donations. Prop. 32 also lost.

By way of contrast, each of the Mungers outspent one of California’s best-funded political operations, the California Teachers Association. It donated $32.5 million to support Brown’s Prop. 30 and defeat Prop. 32.

Out-of-state corporations

Thomas F. Steyer, a liberal activist and managing partner of San Francisco’s Farallon Capital Management, was a big winner with his Proposition 39, the measure to collect more income taxes from multistate corporations that do business in California. Steyer donated $29.5 million of the measure’s $31.4 million budget. General Motors, Kimberly-Clark and International Paper put up $45,000 before opposition to the measure collapsed. The state will collect an estimated $1 billion more in taxes as a result.

An insurance billionaire

Mercury Insurance founder George Joseph spent more than $16 million on Proposition 33, his latest attempt to reframe the state’s auto insurance laws to allow discounts for motorists changing insurance carriers. Opponents, including the Consumer Watchdog Campaign, said the measure would weaken consumer protections in present insurance law. Opponents spent only about $276,000 on their successful campaign.

Americans for Responsible Leadership

The Arizona political committee donated $11 million to boost the failed anti-union Prop. 32 and to oppose the governor’s successful tax measure, but those might not be the only losses for the group amid allegations that it illegally laundered the money to conceal its source.

Now, investigators are probing how the campaign cash moved to California from a Virginia-based nonprofit, Americans for Job Security, via a third political committee, the Center to Protect Patient Rights. An official with that committee, Sean Noble, is a Republican strategist with reported ties to Charles and David Koch, Kansas-based GOP megadonors.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has vowed to continue investigating the affair.

Lance Williams is a senior investigative reporter focusing on money and politics for California Watch and the Center for Investigative Reporting.

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.”