64% Say “No!” On Sirhan Parole!

64% say “No!” to California Governor Gavin Newsom approving a parole recommendation to give freedom to Robert F. Kennedy’s assassin Sirhan Sirhan in a new scientific poll of California’s likely voters just released this afternoon. Sirhan has been granted parole by a California board and now the panel’s decision faces a review that will require the Governor’s approval to be official.  However, California voters are overwhelmingly opposed to the Governor approving the parole board’s recommendation, according to the new poll released today.  64% oppose freedom for Sirhan, and less than 20% of likely voters support the parole board’s decision to approve his release.  The complete poll results may be downloaded here.  The methodology of the poll meets peer standards and can be downloaded here

The poll was commissioned by James V. Lacy, President of the U.S. Justice Foundation, and conducted by the respected national polling firm of McLaughlin and Associates, whose survey research clients have included former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The survey research was conducted over August 30-31, in Spanish and English by live interviewers using phone, cell and text formats.  The margin of error is +/- 4%. Another significant finding of the poll is that support for California’s death penalty law has increased since a similar question was asked last June.  At that time a McLaughlin and Associates poll found 47.8% of Californians were against abolishing the death penalty.  See poll results: https://usjf.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CA-Statewide-Executive-Summary-6-8-21-1.pdf. However, according to the new poll released today using the same methodology and sample size, 52.7% of Californians support the death penalty law in California.  

Governor Newsom’s job performance approval stands at 52.7%, with 44.6% disapproving his job performance as Governor.

However, 51.7% of California’s likely voters think the state is headed in the wrong direction.

Commenting on the poll, James V. Lacy, a death penalty advocate said, “It would be political suicide for Gavin Newsom to free Sirhan Sirhan given these numbers.  Not approving the recommendation of the parole board would also be the right thing to do.”

Lacy added that McLaughlin and Associates has now conducted two reliable polls in a row this summer that make it clear there is significant, even majority support among California’s likely voters for the state’s death penalty laws, and this research “is solid and starkly contrasts with a seat-of-the-pants two question poll” released by U.C.Berkeley with the support of the Los Angeles Times last May.

Update: Newsom lawsuit on illegally canceling death penalty to be heard in court August 31.

A civil lawsuit I have filed against Gov. Gavin Newsom for overstepping his authority with a 2019 executive order that created a moratorium on the state’s death penalty, will now be heard by the Superior Court in Sacramento on August 31. The Judge will rule on mutual motions for summary adjudication filed by both myself and Newsom. I am represented in the case by litigator Chad Morgan. Newsom passed on being represented by the state Attorney General’s office and instead has hired the San Francisco-based national law firm of O’Melveny and Myers to represent him. The case has been ignored by almost all of the main-stream news media, including the Los Angeles Times which has written reports about the status of California’s death penalty law without mentioning the case, but the Orange County Register published a fair assessment of the lawsuit here: https://www.ocregister.com/2021/02/03/oc-man-files-lawsuit-against-gov-newsom-over-death-penalty-moratorium/https://www.ocregister.com/2021/02/03/oc-man-files-lawsuit-against-gov-newsom-over-death-penalty-moratorium/. After I filed the case, a retired former member of Ronald Reagan’s White House Counsel’s office sent me an email stating simply “Bravo – You are absolutely correct on the law.”

While the case is still pending, public disclosures and a news report now reveal that the Governor has accepted more than $700,000 from two major law firms to both create and defend his Executive Order.

Rather than relying on the Attorney General’s office, Newsom has received extensive free “behested” legal services, including $405,000 in legal services from the private law firm of Boies Schiller Flexner, to help him craft his “moratorium”, as well as an additional $305,385 from the law firm of O’Melveny and Myers to defend the alleged faulty Order in court, according to public disclosures.  While the Los Angeles-based O’Melveny and Myers has represented Newsom pro bono in the legal challenge to the Executive Order, it has also received at least $600,000 in state funds representing the Newsom Administration in other cases.

My lawsuit argues that Newsom did not have the power in 2019 to issue an Order to “across the board” halt the executions of the 700-plus inmates on California’s death row, or to withdraw the state’s lethal-injection protocol and dismantle the execution chamber at San Quentin State Prison. It requests a Declaratory Judgment that Newsom violated the law by exceeding his authority, that the lethal injection protocols be placed back in the Code of Regulations, and that the death chamber at San Quentin be restored to working condition.

As I told the Register, “The case is largely about violation of process, about violation of the constitutional separation of powers. (The governor) does not have the power to erase the death penalty, he does not have the power to dismantle the death chamber. He does have the power to grant reprieves, pardons or commutations,” Lacy said, “but he does not have the power to do that across the board.”

Instead, what he must do is examine each and every case he issuing a reprieve under, and take into consideration what happened to the victims, and the victims’ families, and be able to look at the survivors in the eye and justify in writing why their loved one’s murderer should be granted a reprieve from an impartial jury’s decision to sentence death.

When I think of the applicability of the death penalty in California, I think of 14 workers at the Department of Public Health in San Bernardino County who were murdered at a Christmas party in cold-blood by Farook and Malik, the terrorists. I also think of that little boy, Anthony Avalos, who was abused for years, tortured, and killed by his mother and her boyfriend. If Newsom is to have his way, the perpetrators of these crimes would never be sentenced to death, even after a fair trial and unanimous determination by an impartial jury that the death sentence under California law should be imposed. These sadnesses keep me focused on the real problem – Newsom imposing his own flawed value system to undermine and try to erase California’s long-standing and legal death penalty law. I am looking forward to a judicial resolution of my case late this summer.

Californian’s remain generally supportive of the death penalty law according to the most probative recent polling of the issue.  Early in June, the national polling firm of McLaughlin and Associates found 49% of Californians would vote No if a constitutional amendment to abolish the death penalty is placed on the ballot in 2022 by the Legislature, while 43.8% would vote Yes.  When voters are informed of issues that would be raised during a campaign to repeal the death penalty, opposition to repeal increases to a majority of 53.3% of voters saying No to abolishing California’s death penalty law, and support drops to just 40.5%.  See poll results: https://usjf.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CA-Statewide-Executive-Summary-6-8-21-1.pdf.

Farook and Malik, who killed 14 San Bernardino County workers. Would Gavin Newsom pardon them too?

10 million views?! Happy New Year from California Political Review!!

As 2020 closes the editors at California Political Review wish all our readers a Happy New Year! We are so pleased to report that early this December our service at CPR achieved a major milestone and surpassed 10 million total Page views all time since we started publication in late 2011! We have also published over 81,000 comments by our readers, and have achieved a steady monthly readership in excess of 100,000 Page views per month, establishing CPR as a meaningful contributor to the distribution of commentary and news about California public policy. We thank you for your support and once again wish you health and prosperity in the New Year.

Berkeley IGS Poll on California Propositions were all wrong and biased in favor of Democrats, like flawed national polls, and Here is the Run-Down.

The results of California’s vote on statewide ballot propositions reveals a much more conservative voter when engaging in “direct democracy” then when voting for partisan candidate races. Joe Biden won more than 65% of the vote in the Golden State on election night, showing it to be among the “bluest” of “blue states.” Every one of California’s statewide elected officials are liberal Democrats. However, in this election, California voters stunningly rejected the recommendations of the state’s Democratic Party and its leaders, and big-spending labor unions, again and again. In one crushing blow, 58.4% to 41.5%, Californians voted in favor of Uber and Lyft and their drivers, by voting Yes on Proposition 22. The successful ballot measure will cut against the so-called “Assembly Bill 5,” an iconic labor union driven law in the state, and free drivers and the companies from the most onerous of California’s regulations and allow drivers to continue to consider themselves as “independent contractors.” The result is more flexibility for employment opportunities for Californians, and a blow for freedom and the so-called “gig” economy that will simply allow people who own cars and have free time to continue to make money on the side. It is a big loss for the labor unions and their allies in the State Legislature, whose game-plan is to expand as much as possible the state’s regulatory and taxing authority well beyond traditional labor relations and into other private and innovative enterprises. And it is a huge loss for the California Democratic Party.

California voters went even further in rejecting Democrat policy programs. They overwhelmingly rejected a measure, Proposition 21, that would diminish property rights and impose “rent control” on property owners, by 60% to 40%. Proposition 21 was vigorously supported by a “Who’s Who” of the state Democratic and liberal establishment including not only the official the Democratic Party, but also the ACLU, the United Auto Workers, Black Lives Matters Los Angeles, the SEIU, and the Los Angeles Times. Their collective strength could not convince voters to curtail property rights. Another measure, Proposition 23, to further regulate smaller dialysis clinics in a way that favored health care unions went down in total flames, losing 64% to 36%. An additional measure that would eliminate bail in California, favored once again by the Democratic Party and its’ criminal defense lawyer allies, and opposed by law enforcement organizations and the state Republican Party, lost 55.4% to 44.6%. And the Democrats biggest prize on the ballot, Proposition 15, a property tax hike focused on commercial real estate, was failing this morning with only 48.3% of the vote compared to 51.7% “no.”

California’s votes on ballot propositions included other cheer for positions taken by the state Republican Party. Voters rejected by a wide measure Proposition 16, which would have reinstated racial preferences in the state Constitution.

But what is really remarkable was how wrong the polling was on these measures and how those inaccurate polls may have been influenced by what I term “systemic liberal bias” in California’s institutions. These public polls offered no clues at all to the wholesale rejection of the Democrat’s ballot propositions in this election. For example, in late September the UC Berkeley Institute of Government Studies issued a press release on four of the statewide ballot measures, namely Props. 15, 16, 21 and 22. The Berkeley poll had the Proposition 15 tax hike leading by 15 points (it is losing by 3), Proposition 16 losing by 8 points (it won by 12 points), Proposition 21 “has voters split evenly” in the poll when it lost by almost 20 points on election day, and the big one, Proposition 22, favored by 3 points when it won on election day by about 17 points.

How could the Berkeley poll be so wildly wrong? Not just closely wrong, but unequivocally wrong! The pollsters might argue that it was predictive but “only at the time”. But the counter to that is the poll and press was released just a week and a half before active “early voting” started in the state. Logically, the polling clearly was NOT predictive, it was wrong. To what extent does the error factor evidence a bias? Pollsters will say the poll was not biased, or that perhaps there were technically adjustments that should have been made in the samples of voters. Yet if you look at the actual results of the four measures polled for the September 22 press release, the common denominator is a deep under count of the side of the initiative endorsed by the Republican party.

Berkeley did announce poll results again closer to the election for the period October 16-23 and they did adjust their numbers slightly in favor of what became the winning side, but they were still way off of the actual result and appear to again poll in bias in favor of the Democratic Party position. In this subsequent poll on Proposition 22, 46% were reported as “Yes”, 42% was reported as “No,” and 12% were “Undecided.” If one is to believe in the validity of this allegedly “unbiased” academic poll, one has to believe that 100% of the “Undecided” vote ended up voting “Yes” on Proposition 22, since on election day the Yes side grew by slightly more than the entire 12% “undecided” tally reported in the poll. No way that happened. The poll was wrong in the voting result. And again, being so wrong, I believe as a free American that the poll reveals what I call a “systemic liberal bias” in the polling.

The national polls were all wrong, the most notable being the NBC poll released just the Sunday before the election showing that Joe Biden held a 10 point lead over President Trump, and that Trump was receiving just 5% of the black vote. It is axiomatic that NBC’s polls, and most all other national polls, were like fairy tales – wishful thinking intended to influence the outcome. Even counting California’s huge vote for Joe Biden, his national margin over Trump is actually a couple hundred thousand votes less than Hillary Clinton’s total in 2016. In other words, Biden appears to have under-performed Hillary Clinton, and certainly did not beat Trump by ten points. ABC News counts 68,976,189 national votes for Biden this morning, compared to 66,260,459 for Trump. That is not a landslide for Biden at all. Rather than a 10 point lead as NBC broadcasted with corporate funds a few days before the election, the result is just a 2 point lead. And the anecdotal evidence is, win or lose, Trump will have won far more of the black vote than 5%. NBC, like Berkeley IGS, was way off. Perhaps intentionally so, because of “systemic liberal bias.”

The polling industry in the 2020 election in general has proven itself to not only be unreliable, but especially when it comes to California ballot measures, heavily biased in favor of the Democratic party – there can be no other conclusion.

Biggest Threat to Taxpayers in 2020: $16.6 Billion in Local Taxes & Bonds

California taxpayers, who already pay the highest state income tax in the nation, could soon pay billions of dollars in higher taxes – after voters cast their ballots this November.  

And the biggest tax increase on the November ballot might surprise you.  

In November, voters will consider local tax and bond measures with a staggering annual price tag of more than $16.6 billion, according to an analysis by California Political Review of more than 240 local tax and bond measures on the November ballot compiled by the California Taxpayers Association. That staggering figure exceeds Democrats’ high-profile efforts to undermine California’s landmark Proposition 13 by imposing a split-roll property tax.  

The biggest threat to taxpayers on the November ballot is at the local level, but as I caution in my book “Taxifornia,” most voters overlook the impact of local tax and bond measures. 

Local tax measures range in size from Measure O, an 8 percent hotel tax to generate between $2,000 to $10,000 for the city of Tulelake, to Measure RR, a $7 billion general obligation bond proposed by the Los Angeles Unified School District. Local governments say that higher taxes are needed as a one-time offset to avoid cuts to government services. More often than not, they go to pay for raises for high-paid government employees.  

In 2016, the city of Westminster demanded voters approve a one-cent sales tax increase to avoid drastic budget cuts. The following year, the City Council went on a spending spree: granting a half-million dollars in raises for management employees and giving a $3,000-cash bonus to every member of the city’s union workforce. Meanwhile, the city’s highest paid employee collected $392,794.95 in pay and benefits in 2019, according to Transparent California.  

Across the state, local taxpayer advocates are fighting back.  

“Just like the roads tax, library tax, fire tax and parks tax before it, Measure O reminds us once again that the Board of Supervisors cannot live within its means,” argues Daniel A. Drummond, executive director of the Sonoma County Taxpayers’ Association, who is fighting a quarter-cent sales tax increase in Sonoma County. 

“Either we continue to approve new sales tax increases every election cycle or we finally say enough is enough,” he concluded. 

Bad Apples or “Systemic Racism” in Police Departments? Well, the facts are it’s bad apples.

The main stream media has been quick to find divides and controversy about the roots of racism in statements by Trump Administration and other officials in addressing the widespread looting and violence that has sprung out of the otherwise rightful and legal public protests of the killing of George Floyd by a policeman in Minneapolis. Liberal officials and the media focus on what they call “systemic racism” as causing the death of Floyd and other people of color at the hands of scoflaw police officers; while National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien has referenced “bad apples” in police departments being the culprits.

The distinction is important because it goes to the response. If there are bad apples in police departments (and the evidence shows there are bad apples in police departments), as in all walks of life, you need to root them out, especially in police departments, and not hire them in the first place.

Yet extending the question to “systemic racism” takes us to another place. Systemic racism implies that there is much more than just “bad apples” as a root cause of George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis. It means, essentially, that nearly everyone not of color is racist, and that the racist majority in control are making racist decisions routinely in managing police departments and everything else, and people are being killed because of it.

Jeri Williams Police Chief

It is hard to believe that a nation that was 72% white as a result of the 2010 Census would have elected a black president in 2008 and 2012 and still be systemically racist or driven by “white supremacy.” It also seems an incredible charge that major cities and police departments in our nation foment or tolerate “systemic racism.” These cities are almost entirely controlled by liberals, with people of color in prominent positions of leadership and power. It is hard to believe a claim by politicians and the media that a city led by a strong black Mayor, such as Chicago, where African-American David Brown also serves in the top job of Superintendent of Police, allows for “systemic racism.”

A survey of the 20 biggest cities in America reveals people of color populate most of the positions of power. If there is “systemic racism” in these cities, it would be because people of color who control these cities are enabling it. Among the biggest 20 cities, the top police officials of Chicago, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Fort Worth, Charlotte, San Francisco, Indianapolis and Seattle are African-Americans. Of these, the black chiefs of Phoenix, Dallas and Seattle are also women. Add that the top police officials of Houston, San Jose, Jacksonville, and El Paso are Latino. Over half the leaders of police departments in our nation’s largest cities are people of color.

People of color not only lead the majority of the nation’s largest cities police forces; 80% of these cities top political leadership are also Democrats. Of the top 20, 16 are led by Democratic Mayors, many of them quite liberal, and only 4 are managed by Republican Mayors, (San Diego, Jacksonville, Fort Worth and El Paso).

It defies credulity that the leadership of America’s top 20 cities, led by Democrats and people of color, many of which have seen police departments essentially hand-cuffed while horrible looting and property destruction of small business at the hands of rioting on the back of the George Floyd protests, are engaging in systemic racism. If systemic racism is indeed being either embraced or enabled in these cities, it would logically have to be empowered by liberals and people of color; and not Republicans, hardly “White Supremacists” and surely not President Trump.

Trump is much more favorable than Pelosi, new national poll averages.

According to the most recent Real Clear Politics average of major polls, President Donald Trump is far more popular than Speaker Nancy Pelosi. This highly unreported development is rather significant. According to Real Clear Politics, as of the end of March, Nancy Pelosi’s favorable rating stood at 37.7%, in comparison to Trump’s much higher favorability of 44.5%. That is a big difference in voter sentiment! Even worse for Pelosi, Real Clear Politics averages show that Pelosi has a HIGHER unfavorability rating than Trump, at 52.3%, compared to 51.3%. And on top of this, the gap between Pelosi’s favorability and unfavorability, a key indicator for political pros, is 14.6 points – more than twice that of Trump.

What accounts for Pelosi’s drop in favor? Well, a failed and reckless impeachment, which dominated her legislative agenda for the last year, must have played a role; in addition, her foot-dragging on getting the House of Representatives to approve the Coronavirus response and stimulus package, and then trying to stack the legislation with earmarks and irrelevant “Green New Deal” bells and whistles, while people are suffering, may also have had a negative affect on her popularity. However you attribute it, Nancy Pelosi is one of the most unpopular Speakers in history and currently one of the most unpopular politicians in Washington, D.C.

“Angry Nancy Pelosi” by Edalisse Hirst, courtesy elalisse, Flickr

Brian Jones spending taxpayer funds for ads during election campaign

State Senator Brian Jones is spending taxpayer funds on ads and promotional events of himself during an election campaign.

State Senator Brian Jones, a Republican candidate for Congress in San Diego County’s hotly contested 50th District, has used taxpayer funds to distribute announcements, host promotional events, and blitz social media with targeted advertisements in the middle of his congressional campaign and just weeks before voters cast ballots, a California Political Review investigation has revealed.

The California government-funded communications – ostensibly to promote more than a half-dozen events – displayed Jones’ name prominently and repeatedly, giving the state lawmaker a critical, and controversial, tax-payer backed advantage in his congressional campaign.

It is unclear how much money in taxpayer funds Jones has spent on self-promotion. California Political Review has filed a Legislative Open Records Act request to identify all taxpayer-funded expenditures by Jones’ State Senate office on promotional activities, social media ads and campaign-style mailers.

State Law Bans Campaigning with Taxpayer Funds

Jones’ actions are raising serious legal and ethical questions at a time when state officials have stepped up enforcement of illegal campaigning with public resources.

Under state law, it is illegal for elected officials “to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity.” In addition to a ban on direct spending for advertisements and mailers, the provision includes a ban on government employees’ work hours and the use of other government assets, such as computers, video cameras, and office buildings.

Over the past year, Jones’ Senate office has purchased Facebook advertisements that have resulted in as many as 137,000 impressions with Jones’ name, likeness and image.

Last fall, after he had formally announced his campaign for Congress, Jones spent between $100 and $199 of government funds on sophisticated Facebook advertisements to promote a November “legislative open house” event, The ads, which ran for a full month, included 10 references to Jones and garnered as many as 6,000 impressions.

According to publicly-available records posted on Facebook’s Transparency page, Jones has used at least $500 in government funds to sponsor social media advertisements, a figure that does not include the production cost, staff time, venue fees, or amount of money spent other forms of voter contact.

“We need to get our spending under control,” Jones promises on his campaign website under a heading on his Fiscal Responsibility.

Brian Jones Copies Tax Hike Playbook

Jones’ actions echo recent scandals in which government officials in Los Angeles and San Francisco have been caught using government resources to promote tax increases.

In 2018, the Fair Political Practices Commission found that Bay Area Rapid Transit officials had violated state law by using government resources to campaign for Measure RR, a $3.5 billion bond measure and property tax hike on the 2016 General Election ballot.  The FPPC asked the state attorney general and local prosecutors in Alameda, Contra Costa and San Francisco to bring criminal charges against BART officials.

“BART used YouTube videos, social media posts, and text messages to promote Measure RR,” the FPPC wrote in its December enforcement action.

In 2017, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a complaint with the Fair Political Practices Commission against the County of Los Angeles for spending more than $1 million to promote Measure H, a half-cent sales tax increase.

“While public funds can be used for informational material that is balanced, it cannot engage in electioneering,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told the Los Angeles Times.

Last year, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a similar complaint challenging Los Angeles Unified School District’s use of public resources to support passage of Measure EE, a school parcel tax.

Prop 73: Voters Ban Newsletters and Mass Mailings

It is not known whether Jones also distributed physical mailers as part of his taxpayer-funded promotional campaign. However, Jones’ state office distributed a flyer for an East County Town Hall event in August. Buried in fine print at the bottom of the flyer was an important disclaimer: “Printing and/or redistribution of this flyer, other than by email, is prohibited.”

By including the disclaimer and transmitting the flyer electronically, Jones’ office had exploited a loophole in state law. Proposition 73, a 1988 voter-approved ballot measure, explicitly bans state and local officials from sending newsletters and mass mailings at public expense.

Although the social media advertisements and promotional flyers do not directly reference his congressional campaign or the March 3rd primary, campaign experts say that the taxpayer-funded advertisements provide little-known candidates, such as Jones, with an unfair, government-funded advantage by boosting name identification.

“Your name is the name of the game,” State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, a co-author of Prop. 73 famously quipped.

Hypocrisy: Jones Claims to Be Taxpayer Watchdog

This isn’t the first time the state lawmaker has been accused of abusing taxpayer funds for his own personal benefit.

In 2016, an Associated Press investigation revealed that, while serving in the State Assembly, Jones had collected $840 in per diem payments for days when he didn’t show up for work. Under state law, per diem payments are intended to compensate lawmakers for living expense while performing official duties in Sacramento, such as attending a floor session or committee hearing.

While spending government funds on self-promotion, Jones has sold himself to voters as a fiscal conservative and taxpayer watchdog. He has frequently published YouTube videos criticizing government spending with the tagline, “Are you kidding me!”

“Taxpayer dollars being spent throwing big parties during working hours,” Jones says in one such video. “Are you kidding me!”

Homelessness Epidemic – New Poll Reveals Rising Public Anger of L.A. Residents

Sixty-three percent of Los Angeles County residents believe “homeless” people should not be allowed to degrade residential and business property and sleep in streets.

Sixty-five percent believe police should be more involved with “homeless” in cleaning up streets and addressing broader health crisis.

FINALLY a relevant poll from LA Times.

California’s “homeless” crisis will not be abated until we are able to use words like “vagrancy,” “panhandling,” and “trespasser” again to more realistically describe what is going on and the proper legal tool to address it. Truly homeless, especially women and children, should be sheltered immediately. But studies overwhelmingly reveal it is not as much a “homeless” crisis as an addiction epidemic, largely among working age men, many of whom also have petty crime rap sheets. Sexual offenders are among them.

When the general population starts getting “woke” to this reality, government can start using the proper tools to fix it. It will take much effort given court rulings that have denigrated property rights and anti-vagrancy laws that once kept the streets more sanitary. But the health crisis, such as the medieval plague surging in downtown LA and potentially residential communities, has started to change attitudes on tolerating “the homeless” and given more focus to exactly who and what we are talking about.

Newsom disapproval rating at 44% now higher than approval of 43%

Here is what the respected PPIC poll has to say about recent polling on Gavin Newsom and California Democrats: “Closer to home, Governor Newsom and the legislature are getting mixed reviews in their first year of making policy together. Among likely voters, 43% approve and 44% disapprove of the governor, while 38% approve and 51% disapprove of the legislature. Since the beginning of the year, disapproval has increased significantly for the governor (+15 points) and the legislature (+8 points). Today, more than six in ten Democrats approve of the job that the governor and legislature are doing, compared to fewer than four in ten independents, and less than two in ten Republicans. If their ratings remain in the doldrums, the governor and legislators will have little sway over Californians’ ballot choices next year.“

California Democratic Senator Kamala Harris, in the same Public Policy Institute of California poll, had a high 48% disapproval, and according to one report is currently estimated to gain not one delegate from California to the Democratic National Convention, because of single digit poor polling in her home state for President.

Something is going on in California when the Democratic Governor has a higher negative than positive rating, the Democratic U.S. Senator is getting no serious traction in her race for President in her home state, and the Democratic controlled state legislature is disapproved by a majority of voters. Is it sky-high gas prices? Power black outs? Rampant, disease spreading vagrancy masked as “homelessness”? Whatever it is, things are not looking good for Newsom and Harris and their friends in Sacramento.