Commentary: Proposition 93 Will Have a Huge Impact on Local Races

As difficult as it is to believe, the California Primary Election is only three weeks away. In addition to likely having an impact over who will be the nominee for both parties for the first time probably in my lifetime, there will be several key ballot initiatives on the ballot. Probably the most important of those is the term limits initiative, Proposition 93.

Why is Proposition 93 so important? Legislators intentionally put this on the ballot hoping it would pass and therefore be in effect for the June Primary where all the state legislators who were termed out would get another term in the Senate and three more terms potentially in the Assembly.

Putting this into local terms, that means that Mike Machado, who is currently the State Senator for District 5 and termed out, could decide after February 5 to run for another term. That means that Assembly Lois Wolk would no longer run for the State Senate and would instead run for reelection to the State Assembly. That means that Christopher Cabaldon and Mariko Yamada would no longer run for the State Assembly and they would decide what they were going to do. Supervisor Yamada has indicated that she would not run for the County Supervisor spot, if she had, then that would put the candidacies of Jim Provenza and John Ferrera into doubt. It will likely mean that Mayor Cabaldon would run again for reelection as Mayor of West Sacramento.

In other words, depending on what Senator Machado does, the passage of Proposition 93 would have a huge cascading effect on local races, at least on the Democratic side. It probably would not impact the Republican side and therefore set up a tough race between Senator Machado and Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian for the Senate seat. Senator Machado narrowly defeated Former Stockton Mayor Gary Podesto in 2004. How would he fare in another tough race? Hard to say.

Local impact aside, the Proposition itself deserves scrutiny. The commercials I have seen interestingly enough feature a political scientist from UC San Diego. I happen to know Thad Cousser because he went to Berkeley for Graduate School in Political Science where I took a couple of classes several years ago. More importantly, he makes the argument that this initiative would promote better government by providing better experience for the legislators.

That is actually not entirely true. Overall it reduces the maximum number of years served in the legislature for 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate, to 12 years regardless of the house in the legislature. One of the big problems with the current law is that there is no acquisition of expertise about legislative process. Once legislators learn the ropes in the Assembly, they have to move on. The same thing occurs in the Senate.

However, I would argue that while this might fix that problem in the Assembly by enabling people to serve up to 12 years there, it does not fix the problem in the Senate and in fact, could make it worse. That’s because most people enter the Senate after serving at least four and up to six years in the Assembly. That makes the State Senate a body that has greater expertise in legislative matters. However, by allowing members to serve their entire career in one branch, that means that many will come to the State Senate with no expertise in the legislature at all. Those who have served in the legislature would only be able to serve one or two terms in the Senate. So while it will make the Assembly more experienced, it does so at the expense of the Senate. In other words, instead of helping expertise, it simply shuffles the chairs on the deck.

The biggest problem for me is that instead of fixing the problems of term limits, it has become a way by which incumbent leadership can stay in power another four to six years. So the Speaker of the Assembly can remain the speaker for six additional years and the Senate leader another four years. In fact, it is specifically set up to do that by having the election in February so it will be in effect by June. By allowing current leadership to remain in place.

At the end of the day, I strongly oppose term limits because I think they are anti-Democratic. They prevent the voters from electing whomever they want to represent them. I think the expertise argument is important. California is one of the largest economies in the world and it is run by a bunch of novices at the legislative level and as a result, we get poorly written legislation and have given undue power to the permanent classes of lobbyists and aids in Sacramento.

However, Proposition 93 does little to change that. Any benefit it has for providing more stability and expertise in the Assembly is nullified by taking away that stability and expertise from the Senate. Therefore, it does little to change the way politics works in California. And for me that’s the bottom line. I have nothing invested in seeing the current class of largely ineffectual leadership in both houses of the legislature manipulate the process to remain in power another few years. If we are going to change term limits, let’s either extend the length of time people can serve or end it all together. Otherwise, we’re merely shuffling the chair on the deck without addressing the key problems.

—Doug Paul Davis reporting

Author

  • David Greenwald

    Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Categories:

Elections

80 comments

  1. Off topic, but still *somewhat* relevant:

    BILL CLINTON IS COMING TO THE ARC TONIGHT!!!!

    Fwd’d message:

    Hi Everyone!

    I am very excited to announce that TODAY (Tuesday), Bill Clinton (yes, the former president!) will be speaking at UC Davis in order to rally support for his wife’s presidential campaign. Here are the details:

    8:15 p.m. Doors open at the ARC (NOT the Pavilion)
    9:00 p.m. Presentation Begins

    FREE to Attend
    Park at the West-Entry Parking Structure
    Facebook Event: http://ucdavis.facebook.com/event.php?eid=7381688737
    Aggie Article:http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2008/01/15/Features/Bill-Clinton.To.Speak.At.Arc.Tonight-3152538.shtml

    Sponsored By:
    Davis College Democrats
    Law Students Association
    King Hall Law Students Democratic Association

    Please tell everyone you know!! Anybody you talk to tomorrow, just let them know!

    See you all there!
    -Max Mikalonis

  2. Off topic, but still *somewhat* relevant:

    BILL CLINTON IS COMING TO THE ARC TONIGHT!!!!

    Fwd’d message:

    Hi Everyone!

    I am very excited to announce that TODAY (Tuesday), Bill Clinton (yes, the former president!) will be speaking at UC Davis in order to rally support for his wife’s presidential campaign. Here are the details:

    8:15 p.m. Doors open at the ARC (NOT the Pavilion)
    9:00 p.m. Presentation Begins

    FREE to Attend
    Park at the West-Entry Parking Structure
    Facebook Event: http://ucdavis.facebook.com/event.php?eid=7381688737
    Aggie Article:http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2008/01/15/Features/Bill-Clinton.To.Speak.At.Arc.Tonight-3152538.shtml

    Sponsored By:
    Davis College Democrats
    Law Students Association
    King Hall Law Students Democratic Association

    Please tell everyone you know!! Anybody you talk to tomorrow, just let them know!

    See you all there!
    -Max Mikalonis

  3. Off topic, but still *somewhat* relevant:

    BILL CLINTON IS COMING TO THE ARC TONIGHT!!!!

    Fwd’d message:

    Hi Everyone!

    I am very excited to announce that TODAY (Tuesday), Bill Clinton (yes, the former president!) will be speaking at UC Davis in order to rally support for his wife’s presidential campaign. Here are the details:

    8:15 p.m. Doors open at the ARC (NOT the Pavilion)
    9:00 p.m. Presentation Begins

    FREE to Attend
    Park at the West-Entry Parking Structure
    Facebook Event: http://ucdavis.facebook.com/event.php?eid=7381688737
    Aggie Article:http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2008/01/15/Features/Bill-Clinton.To.Speak.At.Arc.Tonight-3152538.shtml

    Sponsored By:
    Davis College Democrats
    Law Students Association
    King Hall Law Students Democratic Association

    Please tell everyone you know!! Anybody you talk to tomorrow, just let them know!

    See you all there!
    -Max Mikalonis

  4. Off topic, but still *somewhat* relevant:

    BILL CLINTON IS COMING TO THE ARC TONIGHT!!!!

    Fwd’d message:

    Hi Everyone!

    I am very excited to announce that TODAY (Tuesday), Bill Clinton (yes, the former president!) will be speaking at UC Davis in order to rally support for his wife’s presidential campaign. Here are the details:

    8:15 p.m. Doors open at the ARC (NOT the Pavilion)
    9:00 p.m. Presentation Begins

    FREE to Attend
    Park at the West-Entry Parking Structure
    Facebook Event: http://ucdavis.facebook.com/event.php?eid=7381688737
    Aggie Article:http://media.www.californiaaggie.com/media/storage/paper981/news/2008/01/15/Features/Bill-Clinton.To.Speak.At.Arc.Tonight-3152538.shtml

    Sponsored By:
    Davis College Democrats
    Law Students Association
    King Hall Law Students Democratic Association

    Please tell everyone you know!! Anybody you talk to tomorrow, just let them know!

    See you all there!
    -Max Mikalonis

  5. Term limits are a bad idea to begin with. If anything, Prop 93 should have been a repeal of all term limits. If people are good, they get re-elected. If not, they don’t. Speaking of which, how many are breathing easier now that Pombo is gone and Doolittle is resigning? I know my hand is raised.

  6. Term limits are a bad idea to begin with. If anything, Prop 93 should have been a repeal of all term limits. If people are good, they get re-elected. If not, they don’t. Speaking of which, how many are breathing easier now that Pombo is gone and Doolittle is resigning? I know my hand is raised.

  7. Term limits are a bad idea to begin with. If anything, Prop 93 should have been a repeal of all term limits. If people are good, they get re-elected. If not, they don’t. Speaking of which, how many are breathing easier now that Pombo is gone and Doolittle is resigning? I know my hand is raised.

  8. Term limits are a bad idea to begin with. If anything, Prop 93 should have been a repeal of all term limits. If people are good, they get re-elected. If not, they don’t. Speaking of which, how many are breathing easier now that Pombo is gone and Doolittle is resigning? I know my hand is raised.

  9. “Supervisor Yamada has indicated that she would not run for the County Supervisor spot, if she had, then that would put the candidacies of Jim Provenza and John Ferrera into doubt.”

    I think if Yamada had decided in the first place to run for re-election, she would not have drawn such quality opposition. However, if she had to run against Provenza (I don’t know so much about Ferrera), she would be the underdog, in my opinion. Yamada has only won one election, and that was against weak competition. I don’t see her as being all that popular here. By contrast, just about everyone has positive feelings about Provenza. It would be a surprise to me if Yamada beat him heads up.

  10. Under prop 93, we will see those who have risen to prominence in the Assembly give up their seats to run for the Senate if they see a real opportunity to win.. so for those who are and will continue to be our legislative leaders, the extension of the Assembly seat limit probably is not significant. Prop 93 is all that we are being offered and, while not ideal, does work to retain expertise in our legislature. Our current system breeds legislative ignorance. As lame-ducks,knowing that they will be out of power soon, unresponsiveness to their constituents becomes a problem(e.g. Helen Thomson). Knowing that they will be out of a job soon, they are more vulnerable to lobbyists and promises of power/profit in their next career outside of politics.

  11. “Supervisor Yamada has indicated that she would not run for the County Supervisor spot, if she had, then that would put the candidacies of Jim Provenza and John Ferrera into doubt.”

    I think if Yamada had decided in the first place to run for re-election, she would not have drawn such quality opposition. However, if she had to run against Provenza (I don’t know so much about Ferrera), she would be the underdog, in my opinion. Yamada has only won one election, and that was against weak competition. I don’t see her as being all that popular here. By contrast, just about everyone has positive feelings about Provenza. It would be a surprise to me if Yamada beat him heads up.

  12. Under prop 93, we will see those who have risen to prominence in the Assembly give up their seats to run for the Senate if they see a real opportunity to win.. so for those who are and will continue to be our legislative leaders, the extension of the Assembly seat limit probably is not significant. Prop 93 is all that we are being offered and, while not ideal, does work to retain expertise in our legislature. Our current system breeds legislative ignorance. As lame-ducks,knowing that they will be out of power soon, unresponsiveness to their constituents becomes a problem(e.g. Helen Thomson). Knowing that they will be out of a job soon, they are more vulnerable to lobbyists and promises of power/profit in their next career outside of politics.

  13. “Supervisor Yamada has indicated that she would not run for the County Supervisor spot, if she had, then that would put the candidacies of Jim Provenza and John Ferrera into doubt.”

    I think if Yamada had decided in the first place to run for re-election, she would not have drawn such quality opposition. However, if she had to run against Provenza (I don’t know so much about Ferrera), she would be the underdog, in my opinion. Yamada has only won one election, and that was against weak competition. I don’t see her as being all that popular here. By contrast, just about everyone has positive feelings about Provenza. It would be a surprise to me if Yamada beat him heads up.

  14. Under prop 93, we will see those who have risen to prominence in the Assembly give up their seats to run for the Senate if they see a real opportunity to win.. so for those who are and will continue to be our legislative leaders, the extension of the Assembly seat limit probably is not significant. Prop 93 is all that we are being offered and, while not ideal, does work to retain expertise in our legislature. Our current system breeds legislative ignorance. As lame-ducks,knowing that they will be out of power soon, unresponsiveness to their constituents becomes a problem(e.g. Helen Thomson). Knowing that they will be out of a job soon, they are more vulnerable to lobbyists and promises of power/profit in their next career outside of politics.

  15. “Supervisor Yamada has indicated that she would not run for the County Supervisor spot, if she had, then that would put the candidacies of Jim Provenza and John Ferrera into doubt.”

    I think if Yamada had decided in the first place to run for re-election, she would not have drawn such quality opposition. However, if she had to run against Provenza (I don’t know so much about Ferrera), she would be the underdog, in my opinion. Yamada has only won one election, and that was against weak competition. I don’t see her as being all that popular here. By contrast, just about everyone has positive feelings about Provenza. It would be a surprise to me if Yamada beat him heads up.

  16. Under prop 93, we will see those who have risen to prominence in the Assembly give up their seats to run for the Senate if they see a real opportunity to win.. so for those who are and will continue to be our legislative leaders, the extension of the Assembly seat limit probably is not significant. Prop 93 is all that we are being offered and, while not ideal, does work to retain expertise in our legislature. Our current system breeds legislative ignorance. As lame-ducks,knowing that they will be out of power soon, unresponsiveness to their constituents becomes a problem(e.g. Helen Thomson). Knowing that they will be out of a job soon, they are more vulnerable to lobbyists and promises of power/profit in their next career outside of politics.

  17. “… most people enter the Senate after serving at least four and up to six years in the Assembly. … However, by allowing members to serve their entire career in one branch, that means that many will come to the State Senate with no expertise in the legislature at all. … So while it will make the Assembly more experienced, it does so at the expense of the Senate.”

    If state senators serve 12 years, all of the people who rise to leadership positions in that body — as well as in the assembly — will have 8 or more years of experience. It may reduce the average experience of entering senators, but those greenhorns won’t be running things (in either house). By contrast, most of the leadership today in the assembly is from people who have only 3-4 years of experience in Sacramento.

    If there are poorly written bills due to inexperience, the inexperience problem is mostly with the committee and party leadership. That would be solved by Prop 93.

    “So the Speaker of the Assembly can remain the speaker for six additional years and the Senate leader another four years.”

    This is really only a one-time problem. After the current crop in each body terms out, a cycle of leadership change will take place, where members who’ve served 8 years in each body will rise to the leadership and last 4 years, there.

    “At the end of the day, I strongly oppose term limits because I think they are anti-Democratic.”

    I assume you mean anti-democratic, not anti-Democratic: those are two very different things.

    While I agree that term limits are anti-democratic, having the ability to return the same person to office year after year is not the only value to consider. Other values include effective choice and competitive districts.

    Because of the power of incumbency, where an officeholder can use the perks of his position (paid for by the taxpayers) to win the favor of key constituency groups, who then repay him with campaign money and organization, voters in districts with entrenched incumbents have no effective choice. This is why the voters democratically passed the term limits proposition: they wanted an effective choice.

    Also, because entrenched incumbents draw the district map lines to advantage themselves, we have no effective inter-party competition in most districts, today. (I realize that term limits does not solve this problem. But this problem sheds light on the fact that our system is not as democratic as it could be for reasons beyond term limits.)

    Further, without term limits, every district has an incentive to keep in office a Robert Byrd or a Strom Thurmond, because those long-lived super-incumbents build up so much institutional power the district they represent benefits inordinately by their remaining in office. That remains the case even when the guy in power has lost touch with his district (or his faculties).

    “If we are going to change term limits, let’s either extend the length of time people can serve or end it all together.”

    I don’t have a particularly strong feeling about Prop 93. I don’t agree that it makes anything worse. It does, as David says, shuffles the deck chairs. (I voted for it, but without much enthusiasm.)

    Because I do see entrenched incumbency as a problem, I favor term limits in general. However, I agree that the current system is too restrictive. I would prefer doubling the current limts: 12 years in the assembly and 16 in the senate. And I would see no problem with allowing someone who has served in one body from trying for election to the other body.

  18. “… most people enter the Senate after serving at least four and up to six years in the Assembly. … However, by allowing members to serve their entire career in one branch, that means that many will come to the State Senate with no expertise in the legislature at all. … So while it will make the Assembly more experienced, it does so at the expense of the Senate.”

    If state senators serve 12 years, all of the people who rise to leadership positions in that body — as well as in the assembly — will have 8 or more years of experience. It may reduce the average experience of entering senators, but those greenhorns won’t be running things (in either house). By contrast, most of the leadership today in the assembly is from people who have only 3-4 years of experience in Sacramento.

    If there are poorly written bills due to inexperience, the inexperience problem is mostly with the committee and party leadership. That would be solved by Prop 93.

    “So the Speaker of the Assembly can remain the speaker for six additional years and the Senate leader another four years.”

    This is really only a one-time problem. After the current crop in each body terms out, a cycle of leadership change will take place, where members who’ve served 8 years in each body will rise to the leadership and last 4 years, there.

    “At the end of the day, I strongly oppose term limits because I think they are anti-Democratic.”

    I assume you mean anti-democratic, not anti-Democratic: those are two very different things.

    While I agree that term limits are anti-democratic, having the ability to return the same person to office year after year is not the only value to consider. Other values include effective choice and competitive districts.

    Because of the power of incumbency, where an officeholder can use the perks of his position (paid for by the taxpayers) to win the favor of key constituency groups, who then repay him with campaign money and organization, voters in districts with entrenched incumbents have no effective choice. This is why the voters democratically passed the term limits proposition: they wanted an effective choice.

    Also, because entrenched incumbents draw the district map lines to advantage themselves, we have no effective inter-party competition in most districts, today. (I realize that term limits does not solve this problem. But this problem sheds light on the fact that our system is not as democratic as it could be for reasons beyond term limits.)

    Further, without term limits, every district has an incentive to keep in office a Robert Byrd or a Strom Thurmond, because those long-lived super-incumbents build up so much institutional power the district they represent benefits inordinately by their remaining in office. That remains the case even when the guy in power has lost touch with his district (or his faculties).

    “If we are going to change term limits, let’s either extend the length of time people can serve or end it all together.”

    I don’t have a particularly strong feeling about Prop 93. I don’t agree that it makes anything worse. It does, as David says, shuffles the deck chairs. (I voted for it, but without much enthusiasm.)

    Because I do see entrenched incumbency as a problem, I favor term limits in general. However, I agree that the current system is too restrictive. I would prefer doubling the current limts: 12 years in the assembly and 16 in the senate. And I would see no problem with allowing someone who has served in one body from trying for election to the other body.

  19. “… most people enter the Senate after serving at least four and up to six years in the Assembly. … However, by allowing members to serve their entire career in one branch, that means that many will come to the State Senate with no expertise in the legislature at all. … So while it will make the Assembly more experienced, it does so at the expense of the Senate.”

    If state senators serve 12 years, all of the people who rise to leadership positions in that body — as well as in the assembly — will have 8 or more years of experience. It may reduce the average experience of entering senators, but those greenhorns won’t be running things (in either house). By contrast, most of the leadership today in the assembly is from people who have only 3-4 years of experience in Sacramento.

    If there are poorly written bills due to inexperience, the inexperience problem is mostly with the committee and party leadership. That would be solved by Prop 93.

    “So the Speaker of the Assembly can remain the speaker for six additional years and the Senate leader another four years.”

    This is really only a one-time problem. After the current crop in each body terms out, a cycle of leadership change will take place, where members who’ve served 8 years in each body will rise to the leadership and last 4 years, there.

    “At the end of the day, I strongly oppose term limits because I think they are anti-Democratic.”

    I assume you mean anti-democratic, not anti-Democratic: those are two very different things.

    While I agree that term limits are anti-democratic, having the ability to return the same person to office year after year is not the only value to consider. Other values include effective choice and competitive districts.

    Because of the power of incumbency, where an officeholder can use the perks of his position (paid for by the taxpayers) to win the favor of key constituency groups, who then repay him with campaign money and organization, voters in districts with entrenched incumbents have no effective choice. This is why the voters democratically passed the term limits proposition: they wanted an effective choice.

    Also, because entrenched incumbents draw the district map lines to advantage themselves, we have no effective inter-party competition in most districts, today. (I realize that term limits does not solve this problem. But this problem sheds light on the fact that our system is not as democratic as it could be for reasons beyond term limits.)

    Further, without term limits, every district has an incentive to keep in office a Robert Byrd or a Strom Thurmond, because those long-lived super-incumbents build up so much institutional power the district they represent benefits inordinately by their remaining in office. That remains the case even when the guy in power has lost touch with his district (or his faculties).

    “If we are going to change term limits, let’s either extend the length of time people can serve or end it all together.”

    I don’t have a particularly strong feeling about Prop 93. I don’t agree that it makes anything worse. It does, as David says, shuffles the deck chairs. (I voted for it, but without much enthusiasm.)

    Because I do see entrenched incumbency as a problem, I favor term limits in general. However, I agree that the current system is too restrictive. I would prefer doubling the current limts: 12 years in the assembly and 16 in the senate. And I would see no problem with allowing someone who has served in one body from trying for election to the other body.

  20. “… most people enter the Senate after serving at least four and up to six years in the Assembly. … However, by allowing members to serve their entire career in one branch, that means that many will come to the State Senate with no expertise in the legislature at all. … So while it will make the Assembly more experienced, it does so at the expense of the Senate.”

    If state senators serve 12 years, all of the people who rise to leadership positions in that body — as well as in the assembly — will have 8 or more years of experience. It may reduce the average experience of entering senators, but those greenhorns won’t be running things (in either house). By contrast, most of the leadership today in the assembly is from people who have only 3-4 years of experience in Sacramento.

    If there are poorly written bills due to inexperience, the inexperience problem is mostly with the committee and party leadership. That would be solved by Prop 93.

    “So the Speaker of the Assembly can remain the speaker for six additional years and the Senate leader another four years.”

    This is really only a one-time problem. After the current crop in each body terms out, a cycle of leadership change will take place, where members who’ve served 8 years in each body will rise to the leadership and last 4 years, there.

    “At the end of the day, I strongly oppose term limits because I think they are anti-Democratic.”

    I assume you mean anti-democratic, not anti-Democratic: those are two very different things.

    While I agree that term limits are anti-democratic, having the ability to return the same person to office year after year is not the only value to consider. Other values include effective choice and competitive districts.

    Because of the power of incumbency, where an officeholder can use the perks of his position (paid for by the taxpayers) to win the favor of key constituency groups, who then repay him with campaign money and organization, voters in districts with entrenched incumbents have no effective choice. This is why the voters democratically passed the term limits proposition: they wanted an effective choice.

    Also, because entrenched incumbents draw the district map lines to advantage themselves, we have no effective inter-party competition in most districts, today. (I realize that term limits does not solve this problem. But this problem sheds light on the fact that our system is not as democratic as it could be for reasons beyond term limits.)

    Further, without term limits, every district has an incentive to keep in office a Robert Byrd or a Strom Thurmond, because those long-lived super-incumbents build up so much institutional power the district they represent benefits inordinately by their remaining in office. That remains the case even when the guy in power has lost touch with his district (or his faculties).

    “If we are going to change term limits, let’s either extend the length of time people can serve or end it all together.”

    I don’t have a particularly strong feeling about Prop 93. I don’t agree that it makes anything worse. It does, as David says, shuffles the deck chairs. (I voted for it, but without much enthusiasm.)

    Because I do see entrenched incumbency as a problem, I favor term limits in general. However, I agree that the current system is too restrictive. I would prefer doubling the current limts: 12 years in the assembly and 16 in the senate. And I would see no problem with allowing someone who has served in one body from trying for election to the other body.

  21. “It is further stipulated and agreed that Respondents Duane Chamberlain, Duane Chamberlain for Supervisor and Shirley Stover violated the Political Reform Act by failing to deposit contributions made by Respondent Chamberlain’s sole proprietorship, into a single, designated campaign bank account prior to expenditure, in violation of Section 85201, subdivisions (c) and (e) of the Government Code (1 count) and by making cash expenditures of $100 or more, in violation of Section 84300, subdivision (b) of the Government Code.”

    This doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. How does it affect Davis?

  22. “It is further stipulated and agreed that Respondents Duane Chamberlain, Duane Chamberlain for Supervisor and Shirley Stover violated the Political Reform Act by failing to deposit contributions made by Respondent Chamberlain’s sole proprietorship, into a single, designated campaign bank account prior to expenditure, in violation of Section 85201, subdivisions (c) and (e) of the Government Code (1 count) and by making cash expenditures of $100 or more, in violation of Section 84300, subdivision (b) of the Government Code.”

    This doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. How does it affect Davis?

  23. “It is further stipulated and agreed that Respondents Duane Chamberlain, Duane Chamberlain for Supervisor and Shirley Stover violated the Political Reform Act by failing to deposit contributions made by Respondent Chamberlain’s sole proprietorship, into a single, designated campaign bank account prior to expenditure, in violation of Section 85201, subdivisions (c) and (e) of the Government Code (1 count) and by making cash expenditures of $100 or more, in violation of Section 84300, subdivision (b) of the Government Code.”

    This doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. How does it affect Davis?

  24. “It is further stipulated and agreed that Respondents Duane Chamberlain, Duane Chamberlain for Supervisor and Shirley Stover violated the Political Reform Act by failing to deposit contributions made by Respondent Chamberlain’s sole proprietorship, into a single, designated campaign bank account prior to expenditure, in violation of Section 85201, subdivisions (c) and (e) of the Government Code (1 count) and by making cash expenditures of $100 or more, in violation of Section 84300, subdivision (b) of the Government Code.”

    This doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. How does it affect Davis?