DOCSLIB.ORG

February 12, 2021 the Honorable Dave Min Member, California State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
February 12, 2021 the Honorable Dave Min Member, California State February 12, 2021 The Honorable Dave Min Member, California State Senate State Capitol, Room 2048 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Senate Bill 286 – OPPOSE As Introduced February 1, 2021 Dear Senator Min: On behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), I regret to inform you of our opposition to your Senate Bill 286, which would require the top-two vote-getters seeking election to a county office to face-off in a General Election. RCRC is an association of thirty-seven rural California counties, and the RCRC Board of Directors is comprised of elected supervisors from each member county. Under current law, statewide election primaries, where county offices are voted upon, are held in March for presidential years and June for gubernatorial years. Subsequently, statewide general elections are held in early November. Successful candidates, regardless of certification in either the Primary Election or the General Election, are traditionally sworn into office in early January. A candidate for a county office (i.e. county supervisor, county sheriff, etc.) who, at a primary election, receives an absolute majority of votes can be certified to win that office and assume the role at the beginning of the term. When there is no candidate that receives a majority of the votes cast in a Primary Election, the top two vote-getters advance to the General Election. SB 286 would change the current election model for elected county offices. First, SB 286 would require the top-two vote-receiving candidates for a county office in a Primary Election to advance to a run-off in the General Election, including candidates who receive more than 50 percent of the vote in the Primary Election. Second, SB 286 would require that any election for an office determined by a plurality be held during the General Election. SB 286 is very similar to legislation – Senate Bill 1450 - introduced nearly a year ago by Senator Tom Umberg. When that legislation was put forth, RCRC conducted a review of supervisorial elections occurring in 2020 within its thirty-seven member counties. 1215 K Street, Suite 1650, Sacramento, CA 95814 | www.rcrcnet.org | 916.447.4806 | Fax: 916.448.3154 ALPINE AMADOR BUTTE CALAVERAS COLUSA DEL NORTE EL DORADO GLENN HUMBOLDT IMPERIAL INYO LAKE LASSEN MADERA MARIPOSA MENDOCINO MERCED MODOC MONO MONTEREY NAPA NEVADA PLACER PLUMAS SAN BENITO SAN LUIS OBISPO SHASTA SIERRA SISKIYOU SONOMA SUTTER TEHAMA TRINITY TULARE TUOLUMNE YOLO YUBA The Honorable Dave Min Senate Bill 286 February 12, 2021 Page 2 Based on our analysis from the 2020 election cycle, a number of supervisorial election races that occurred in RCRC member counties during the March 3rd Primary Election would have been impacted had SB 286 been in place. The impacts include: • 27 incumbents who sought re-election without an opponent, but had an election day write-in opponent would have faced a run-off in the General Election; • 17 incumbents who won re-election with at least 60 percent of the vote in a two- candidate race would have faced a run-off in the General Election; • 8 supervisorial seats whereby there were no incumbents seeking re-election and there were only two candidates would have faced a run-off in the General Election; • 3 supervisorial seats whereby there were no incumbents seeking re-election and there were more than two candidates, and a candidate received more than 50 percent +1 of the vote would have faced a run-off in the General Election; and, • 10 incumbents who lost re-election in a two-candidate race would have faced a run-off in the General Election. For the most part, incumbents are at a disadvantage under the SB 286 dynamic since 32 of the 55 incumbents who faced a contested re-election would have to proceed to a run-off election. In addition, the following were observed in RCRC member counties during the November 3rd General Election: • 5 of the 8 incumbents who were top vote-getters in the Primary Election remained as top vote-getters in the General Election; • 4 incumbents who placed second during the Primary Election failed to obtain 50 percent + 1 of the vote during the General Election; and, • 2 of the 14 supervisorial seats whereby there were no incumbents seeking re- election and there were more than two candidates placed 2nd in the Primary Election, but obtained the highest number of votes in the General Election. According to our analysis, top vote-getters in the Primary Election generally remained as top vote-getters in the General Election. Incumbents who were not the top voter-getter in the Primary Election generally do not win in the General Election. Under the SB 286 dynamic, nearly half of all RCRC member counties’ supervisorial elections would no longer be decided in the Primary Election. As such, RCRC believes SB 286 is unnecessary and would prolong an already lengthy and expensive campaign, especially for seats on the Board of Supervisors. Counties, along with other locally-elected offices, have operated under the current election model for several decades, and it is generally agreed that county government has worked well. As such, we do not see the need to alter the elections The Honorable Dave Min Senate Bill 286 February 12, 2021 Page 3 process for county officers and believe the attempt put forth in SB 286 would be counter-effective in seeking functional governance at the county level. For the above reasons, RCRC opposes your SB 286. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (916) 447- 4806. Sincerely, PAUL A. SMITH Senior Vice President Governmental Affairs cc: Members of the Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee Consultant, Senate Elections & Constitutional Amendments Committee Members of the Senate Governance & Finance Committee Consultant, Senate Governance & Finance Committee Cory Botts, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus Ryan Eisberg, Consultant, Senate Republican Caucus Attachment: RCRC Presentation at the December 2020 Board of Directors Meeting on County Elected Officials: Top-Two Advance COUNTY ELECTED OFFICIALS: TOP-TWO ADVANCE Rural County Representatives of California 1215 K Street, Suite 1650 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 447-4806 www.rcrcnet.org Primary Election March 3, 2020 82 out of the 110 rural supervisorial seats were contested with the incumbent seeking re-election. The remaining 28 rural supervisorial seats were “open” and most of these seats had several candidates. 27 incumbents sought re-election without an opponent, although there were several who had a write-in opponent. However, none of these incumbents received less than 74 percent of the vote. 3 non-incumbents sought election without an opponent Nevada County Mariposa County • Hardy Bullock • Tom Sweeney • Wayne Forsythe 17 incumbents won re- election with at least 60 percent of the vote in a two- candidate race Candidate Primary Election 14 incumbents Ron Hames, Alpine County 55.38% Gary Tofanelli, Calaveras County 59.02% won re-election Bob Berkowitz, Del Norte County 57.14% Luis Plancarte, Imperial County 55.37% (received more Alfredo Pedroza, Napa County 54.53% than 50 percent Belia Ramos, Napa County 53.17% Heidi Hall, Nevada County 54.06% +1), but received Jim Holmes, Placer County 53.87% Mark Medina, San Benito County 57.57% less than 60 Adam Hill, San Luis Obispo County 51.36% Debbie Arnold, San Luis Obispo 52.34% County percent of the Leonard Moty, Shasta County 51.27% Amy Shuklian, Tulare County 59.90% vote Gary Bradford, Yuba County 53.16% 8 incumbents were top vote-getters, but Incumbent Percentage of Vote received less than 50 Lori Cowan, Del Norte County 40.59% John Hidahl, El Dorado County 43.04% percent of the vote. Estelle Fennell, Humboldt County 47.57% Chris Gallagher, Lassen County 41.36% Lee Lor, Merced County 37.15% These candidates Kevin Goss, Plumas County 43.61% Mat Conant, Sutter County 47.64% advanced to a run- Jim Provenza, Yolo County 48.43% off at the November 3 rd General Election 4 incumbents placed second and the top Incumbent Percentage of Vote vote-getter received Steve Morgan, Shasta County 22.17% less than 50 percent of Kuyler Crocker, Tulare County 37.09% Sherri Brennan, Tuolumne County* 37.83% the vote. Karl Rodefer, Tuolumne County 34.39% *Supervisor Brennan withdrew her candidacy, but name These candidates remained on the General Election ballot advanced to a run-off at the November 3 rd General Election Incumbent Percentage of Vote Dennis Mills, Calaveras County 46.07% 10 incumbents David Teeter, Lassen County 47.43% Kirk Uhler, Placer County 48.27% lost re-election Jamie De La Cruz, San Benito County 47.68% Jim Bread, Sierra County 44.96% in a two- Shirlee Zane, Sonoma County 47.61% Ron Sullenger, Sutter County 30.35% Bobbi Chadwick, Trinity County 46.88% candidate race Duane Chamberlain, Yolo County 47.63% Doug Lofton, Yuba County 46.76% Nancy Ogren – 61.67% Catherine Gilbert – 38.33% Tod Kimmelshue – 64.09% Darrin Short – 61.15% Sue Hilderbrand – 35.91% 8 supervisorial seats John Pritchett – 38.85% Wendy Thomas – 60.30% whereby there were Brian DeBerry – 39.70% Irvin Jim, Jr. – 48.08% no incumbents Stacey James – 44.23 % Thomas Arnold – 57.56% Marlene Silveira – 42.44% seeking re-election, Ken Hahn – 56.29% Gee Singh – 43.71% and there were only two candidates Greg Hagwood – 78.90% Melissa Bishop – 21.10% 3 supervisorial seats Jill Cox – 71.65% Melanie Miller – 19.21% whereby there were Thomas Fox – 9.18% no incumbents seeking re-election Leticia Gonzalez – 60.55% Ricardo Arredondo – 30.63% and there were more Eddie Block – 8.81% than two candidates, and a candidate Kathleen Haff - 62.54% Dameion Renault – 32.10% received more than Mike Suess – 16.66% 50 percent +1 of the vote 14 supervisorial seats Supervisorial Seat # of Candidates whereby there were no Colusa County 4 incumbents seeking re- El Dorado County 7 Glenn County 3 election and there were Inyo County 3 more than two candidates, Lake County 4 and none of the candidates Mendocino County (District 1) 4 received 50 percent + 1 of Mendocino County (District 2) 3 the vote.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • New Member Pictorial Directory
    NEW MEMBER PICTORIAL DIRECTORY PREPARED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION Candice S. Miller, Chairman | Robert A. Brady, Ranking Minority Member NEW MEMBER PICTORIAL DIRECTORY As of November 7, 2014, the Clerk of the House had not received certificates of election for any of the individuals listed in this directory. At the time this publication was sent to press, the following races had not been finally determined: Arizona 2nd California 7th California 9th California 16th California 17th California 26th California 52nd Louisiana 5th Louisiana 6th New York 25th Washington 4th Profiles of candidates from these districts begin on page 33. PREpaRED BY THE COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION Candice S. Miller, Chairman | Robert A. Brady, Ranking Minority Member TABLE OF CONTENTS Adams, Alma .........................23 Katko, John...........................21 Abraham, Ralph .......................36 Khanna, Ro...........................35 Aguilar, Pete ...........................4 Knight, Steve ..........................4 Allen, Rick ............................9 Lawrence, Brenda......................15 Amador, Tony.........................34 Lieu, Ted..............................5 Ashford, Brad .........................17 Loudermilk, Barry ......................9 Assini, Mark ..........................38 Love, Mia ............................26 Babin, Brian ..........................26 MacArthur, Tom.......................19 Beyer, Don ........................... 27 Mayo, Jamie ..........................37 Bishop, Mike .........................14
    [Show full text]
  • The Following Candidates, State and Local Ballot Measures, Political
    2011 Corporate Political Contributions The following candidates, state and local ballot measures, political parties and other committees received corporate campaign contributions from Sempra Energy in 2011: Candidate/ Committee/ Organization Party Office Sought Total Abed, Sam N/A Mayor, City of Escondido $530.00 Achadjian, Katcho REP California State Assembly $3,000.00 Adams, Steve N/A City Council, City of Riverside $500.00 Aguinaga, Louie N/A Mayor, City of South El Monte $300.00 Alejo, Luis DEM California State Assembly $1,000.00 Allen, Michael DEM California State Assembly $1,000.00 Anderson, Joel REP California State Senate $1,500.00 Arakawa, Alan N/A Mayor, County of Maui $1,000.00 Atkins, Toni DEM California State Assembly $3,000.00 Azevedo, Kathy N/A Mayor Pro Tem, City of Norco $300.00 Bates, Pat N/A County Supervisor, County of Orange $500.00 Berryhill, Bill REP California State Senate $2,000.00 Berryhill, Tom REP California State Senate $3,000.00 Block, Marty DEM California State Assembly $3,900.00 Block, Marty DEM California State Senate $1,000.00 Blumenfield, Bob DEM California State Assembly $2,000.00 Bocanegra, Raul DEM California State Assembly $1,950.00 Bonilla, Susan DEM California State Assembly $2,600.00 Botts, Bob N/A City Council, City of Banning $99.00 Bradford, Steven DEM California State Assembly $7,800.00 Brandman, Jordan N/A City Council, City of Anaheim $250.00 Bric, Gary N/A City Council, City of Burbank $250.00 Broome, Sharon DEM Louisiana State Senate $500.00 Buchanan, Joan DEM California State Assembly
    [Show full text]
  • September 14, 2016 To: Senator Kevin De Leon, President Pro
    September 14, 2016 To: Senator Kevin De Leon, President pro Tempore, California State Senate Senator Jean Fuller, Republican Leader, California State Senate Assembly Member Anthony Rendon, Speaker, California State Assembly Assembly Member Chad Mayes, Republican Leader, California State Assembly cc: Governor Jerry Brown The 2015-16 Biennial Session of the Legislature has come and gone. This past year, legislators have acted on health reform, addressed issues of poverty and assistance for the developmentally disabled community and moved forward to increase the state’s minimum wage. A balanced budget was approved and substantial dollars set aside for a rainy day fund. Greenhouse Gas Emission targets and overtime pay for farmworkers were the latest issues that were tackled. We appreciate these significant 2016 accomplishments. However, the Legislature has yet to respond to one of our state’s most important issues, California’s transportation fiscal crisis. Every year for the past two legislative sessions, transportation advocates, stakeholders and the general public have worked to find a solution to this crisis and each year the problem has gone unresolved. Just before the Legislature adjourned, business leaders from across the state joined other transportation stakeholders in Sacramento to hear from Legislators and Administration officials regarding the status of legislation on transportation funding and reform. What we were told was not good news. While there are some leaders willing to talk about the crisis and even offer solutions, consensus has been stymied by differences of opinion and no real engagement among the principal parties. Everyone in California seems to recognize that our transportation system is in terrible shape and the cost of repairs are going up each year.
    [Show full text]
  • The Essential Guide to California Legislation
    THE ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA LEGISLATION politicopro.com/california TABLE OF CONTENTS 03 Introduction 04 How Legislation is Passed 08 Legislative Glossary 2 Over the course of a year, hundreds of bills are enacted into California state law⁠— but initial legislation proposed by lawmakers in the Assembly and Senate can number in the thousands. With California’s bicameral legislative process consisting of two houses, bills can originate from either the Assembly or Senate. With so much proposed legislation flowing through the standard processes in both houses, tracking bills can become difficult and time-consuming. Our guide breaks down each step of the legislation proposal process in the Assembly and Senate, the steps that can result in changes to the legislation before it becomes law, as well as how the two houses resolve legislative differences. WHO MAKES UP THE CALIFORNIA ASSEMBLY AND SENATE? The California State Assembly is comprised of 80 members, each elected to serve two-year terms. Assembly members are only allowed to serve a lifetime maximum of six years or three terms. The California State Senate has 40 members, each elected to serve a four-year term. A senator can serve a maximum of two terms or eight years. 3 HOW LEGISLATION IS PASSED In California, the process by which bills are considered, passed and enacted into law is commonly referred to as the legislative pro- cess. California legislature can originate in either the Assembly or the Senate, and a legislative calendar tracks the introduction and processing of measures during a regular two-year session. AN IDEA IS BORN All legislation starts with a concept or idea.
    [Show full text]
  • California Legislature 2011-12
    “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” I EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA III GAVIN NEWSOM LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IV DARRELL STEINBERG PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE V JOHN A. PÉREZ SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY VI FIONA MA SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE OF THE ASSEMBLY VII Memoranda VIII CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AT SACRAMENTO Biographies and Photographs of SENATE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS List of SENATE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, OFFICERS, ATTACHES, COMMITTEES and RULES OF THE TWO HOUSES and Standards of Conduct of the Senate Together With a List of the Members of Congress, State Officers, Etc. 2011–12 REGULAR SESSION (2011 Edition) Convened December 6, 2010 Published August 2011 GREGORY SCHMIDT Secretary of the Senate E. DOTSON WILSON Chief Clerk of the Assembly IX SENATE LEADERSHIP President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D) Majority Leader Ellen M. Corbett (D) Democratic Caucus Chair Kevin de León Republican Leader Bob Dutton Republican Caucus Chair Bob Huff Republican Whip Doug La Malfa Senate Rules Committee: Darrell Steinberg (D) (Chair); Tom Harman (R) (Vice Chair); Elaine Alquist (D); Kevin de León (D); Jean Fuller (R). X CONTENTS PAGE California Representatives in Congress ................. 13 Directory of State Officers ..................................... 16 Constitutional Officers ....................................... 16 Legislative Department ...................................... 20 SENATE ................................................................ 21 Biographies and Photographs of Senators ......... 23 Biographies and Photographs of Officers .......... 49 Senatorial Districts............................................. 51 Senators—Occupations, District Addresses ....... 53 Senate Chamber Seating Chart .......................... 64 Standing Committees ......................................... 65 Senators and Committees of Which They Are Members........................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2013–14 California Legislature
    Table of Contents California Legislature 2013-14 Table of Contents “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” I Table of Contents Table of Contents EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR OF CALIFORNIA III Table of Contents GAVIN NEWSOM LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IV Table of Contents DARRELL STEINbeRG PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE OF THE SENATE V Table of Contents TONI G. ATKINS SPEAKER OF THE ASSEMBLY VI Table of Contents NORA CAMPOS SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE OF THE ASSEMBLY VII Table of Contents Memoranda VIII Table of Contents CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE AT SACRAMENTO Biographies and Photographs of SENATE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS List of SENATE AND ASSEMBLY MEMBERS, OFFICERS, ATTACHES, COMMITTEES and RULES OF THE TWO HOUSES and Standards of Conduct of the Senate Together With a List of the Members of Congress, State Officers, Etc. 2013–14 REGULAR SESSION (2014 Edition) Convened December 3, 2012 Published July 2014 GREGORY SCHMIDT Secretary of the Senate E. DOTSON WILSON Chief Clerk of the Assembly IX Table of Contents SENATE LEADERSHIP President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg (D) Majority Leader Ellen M. Corbett (D) Democratic Caucus Chair Jerry Hill Republican Leader Bob Huff Republican Caucus Chair Ted Gaines Senate Rules Committee: Darrell Steinberg (D) (Chair); Jean Fuller (R) (Vice Chair); Steve Knight (R); Ricardo Lara (D); Holly Mitchell (D). X Click on the description to direct you to the corresponding page you to the corresponding page CONTENTS PAge California Representatives in Congress........................ 13 Directory of State Officers...........................................
    [Show full text]
  • A Citizen's Guide to Participation
    A Citizen’s Guide to PARTICIPATION The law does not permit the committee or individual legislators to use public funds to keep constituents updated on items of interest unless specifically requested to do so. For additional copies please fax your request to: Senate Publications 1020 N Street, B-53 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 327-8753 fax For further information please call (916) 651-1538 How the Legislative Process Applies to You Laws passed by the Legislature have a direct impact on your life. aws passed by the Legislature have a direct impact on your life. They can affect the taxes you pay, the number of students in your child’s classroom, and the penalty for drunken driving. You are important. You have knowledge that can help your legislator. For instance, as a nurse, you would know what happens to people who are turned away from emergency rooms. As a police officer, you would know the toll taken by gang violence. As the parent of a developmentally disabled child, you would know that your child suffers when services aren’t available. 1 How to Work the Process GET INVOLVED Your legislator needs to hear from you. 1) Get to know your legislator. Get to know your legislator’s staff. If you establish a relationship with your legislator, Your your letter or visit will have more impact than if you are a stranger. legislator 2) Do your homework. You will be working with needs to people who are experts. If you are proposing legislation, know hear from what your problem you. is and how you might resolve it.
    [Show full text]
  • The California Senate Welcome to the California State Senate
    The California Senate Welcome to the California State Senate The forty Members of the Senate of California welcome you to the State Capitol, and hope that your trip will include an opportunity to view the Legislature in session. If so, you will have an opportunity to observe the formal debate and voting which constitutes the popular notion of what the lawmaking process is all about. It is important to realize that only a part of the Legislature’s work takes place in the Senate and Assembly Chambers. Most of the real negotiation and discussion occur in the meetings of the standing committees. Try to spend a few minutes in a committee room watching these public hearings. It is there the public participates, and our laws are actually drafted. Senators are also kept busy the year round with continual study of new ideas for improving the laws by which all of us are governed. As California’s population and wealth have grown, so has the complexity of its problems. Good government today requires much more information and analysis than in the past. A good law is born in a hard-fought atmo- sphere of give and take, after long weeks, months, or even years of detailed scrutiny, close debate, and painful redrafting. While it is important that government be efficient, it is paramount that the laws of the state be fair and effective. And that takes careful work. Understanding the legislative process is important to every person in California. For that reason, this pamphlet has been prepared in an effort to make your visit more meaningful.
    [Show full text]
  • Adapting to Term Limits in California: Recent Experiences and New Directions
    Adapting to Term Limits in California: Recent Experiences and New Directions By Bruce E. Cain, University of California, Berkeley Thad Kousser, University of California, San Diego Joint Project on Term Limits 2004 National Conference of State Legislatures Council of State Governments State Legislative Leaders’ Foundation 7700 East First Place Denver, CO 80230-7143 (303) 364-7700 • fax (303) 364-7800 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 • fax (202) 737-1069 http://www.ncsl.org © 2005 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. Summary Passed in 1990, Proposition 140 changed Sacramento by setting term limits for legislators, but exactly how has it affected the Legislature, and what can the institution do to respond? This study moves beyond the stale debate over whether term limits made California politics better or worse and instead develops concrete measures of their effects and identifies ways to adapt to changes. Guided by the testimony and advice of informed observers, it offers quantitative analyses using bill histories, voting behavior, the content of bills, budget figures, and other archival records to explore how term limits have shaped the way the Legislature deals with major issues. We find that term limits altered – but did not revolutionize – the type of legislator who comes to Sacramento. In particular, Proposition 140 helped to accelerate trends of increasing female and minority representation that were already underway in California. Instead of being a new breed of “citizen legislator,” however, new members after term limits are more likely to have local government experience and to run for another office—for Assemblymembers, often a State Senate seat—when their terms expire.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legislative Administrator
    The Legislative Administrator The Official Newsletter of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries Winter 2007 ASLCS President’s Message Dear Friends, It is truly an honor to be serving as your president this year and I look forward to working with each and every one of you. My goal is to involve as many members of the Society as possible as we strive to preserve our institution and its legacy. At the Table of Contents same time, I know we must also change to meet the new and challenging demands of our jobs. The confidence you have placed in me as your President is President’s Message ..............................1 humbling, and I thank you. Executive Committee Minutes ................3 I am humbled because of the many talented leaders who have preceded me. I am humbled Annual Business Minutes .......................5 because close to 300 colleagues are a part of the greatest staff section of NCSL and their Retirements: expectations are high. And I am humbled because I consider you my friends and family and Linda Hawker .........................................7 along with that comes a great deal of responsibility. David Kneale ........................................10 First, I want to extend a huge thank you to Patsy Spaw, Robert Haney and their staff for a Committee Membership and Minutes fantastic time in Austin. Working with George Bishop and the Program Committee they Bylaws and Standing Orders ...........14 planned an incredible professional development seminar. The social events were very Canadian-American Relations ..........15 entertaining, from Esther’s Follies to the wildlife refuge. They provided a necessary balance Inside the Legislative Process ..........17 International Communication to the plenary and concurrent sessions and hopefully everyone left with some ideas they can and Development .............................18 implement back home.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of the California Health Benefits Review Program Thomas R
    r Health Research and Educational Trust DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00523.x Health Services Research as a Source of Legislative Analysis and Input: The Role of the California Health Benefits Review Program Thomas R. Oliver and Rachel Friedman Singer This article examines the role of the California Health Benefits Review Program (CHBRP) as a source of information in state health policy making. It explains why the California benefits review process relies heavily on univer- sity-based researchers and employs a broad set of criteria for review, which set it apart from similar programs in other states. It then analyzes the politics of health insurance mandates and how independent research and analysis might alter the perceived benefits and costs of health insurance mandates and thus political outcomes. It considers how research and analysis is typically used by policy makers, and illustrates how participants inside and outside of state government have used the reports prepared by CHBRP as both guidance in policy design and as political ammunition. Although there is consensus that the review process has reduced the number of mandate bills that are passed out of the legislature, both supporters and opponents favor the new process and generally believe the reports strengthen their case in legislative debates over health insurance mandates. The role of the CHBRP is narrowly defined by statute at the present time, but the program may well face pressure to evolve from its current academic orientation into a more interactive, advisory role for legislators in the future. Key Words. State health policy, health insurance, politics, legislative decision making 1124 Health Services Research as a Source of Legislative Analysis and Input 1125 The great significance of the growing role of experts in the democratic process is not, as is often feared, their ability to manipulate elected representatives and gain irresponsible control over the routine operations of public bureaucracies, but rather their ability to provide the intellectual underpinnings of public policy (Walker 1981, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Download File
    January 21, 2020 The Honorable Holly J. Mitchell The Honorable Phil Ting Chair, Senate Budget Cmte Chair, Assembly Budget Cmte California State Senate California State Assembly Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 The Honorable Richard Pan The Honorable Dr. Joaquin Arambula Chair, Senate Budget Cmte Sub 3 Chair, Assembly Budget Cmte Sub 1 California State Senate California State Assembly Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Budget Request on Child Support Pass-through, Payments and Collections Dear Budget Leaders, Our organizations are writing in response to the Governor’s January Child Support System Budget Proposals and to request consideration of the following Budget Act of 2020-21 investments. Through these requests, we seek to change State policy on child support pass-through, payments and collections to better support low-income children and their families and reduce child poverty in California. We hope you will consider our responses to the Governor’s proposals and our additional requests in your deliberation of this year’s budget priorities and, if appropriate, offer an opportunity to discuss them in committee. We have broken these issues up by department to facilitate your review. Department of Social Services (DSS) DSS Request One: Pass-through all child support payments made to the child. Governor’s January Budget Proposal: Increase child support passed through to the family from $50 to $100 for the first child and $200 for two or more children. Continue redirecting the rest of each month’s child support payment to the state, county and federal government. Background: Last year, more than 260,000 children living in poverty in California – the large majority of whom are children of color - had part of the child support payment made for their child intercepted by the government.
    [Show full text]