LOCAL NONPARTISAN RACES FOR PUBLICLY ELECTED OFFICES

COUNTY SUPERVISOR (Novato area). I thought that incumbent Judy Arnold would beat challenger Toni Shroyer much more easily than she did four years ago, which was a very close race, because four years ago was a big “anti-incumbent” year, and it didn’t appear that this year was. But this year was again very close, and in fact Shroyer was leading Arnold at the end of election night, only to see her slim lead shrink and disappear as the final votes were counted in the couple weeks or so after the election, giving Arnold a slightly larger (51.91% - 47.81%) victory than she had four years ago.

DISTRICT ATTORNEY. This very hot race was expected to result in a runoff, and it did, but many thought outsider Anna Pletcher would be the top vote-getter, with insider Lori Frugoli well behind. Instead, it was the opposite, with Frugoli almost winning it outright, with nearly 49% of the vote. So Frugoli is now the frontrunner going into November, although I understand Pletcher (30.56%) continues to think she can win, since third-place finisher A.J. Brady’s votes (20.32%) are up for grabs, and there will be a larger electorate, with many more voters voting beyond those who voted in June. Full disclosure: I’ve endorsed Pletcher.

ASSESSOR-RECORDER. Not surprisingly, Shelly Scott won the race outright with a hair over 70% of the vote. She jumped in early, had name recognition from her earlier run for this seat eight years ago, and has been politically involved as an eight-year Novato school board trustee, and on the Marin Democratic Party’s governing board, among others, not to mention her 30-plus years working in all three divisions of this office. The other two candidates didn’t have very visible campaigns, as far as I could see.

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS. Incumbent Mary Jane Burke also won handily, as expected, with 78.9% of the vote against her first challenger in her entire 24-year tenure.

CORTE MADERA TOWN COUNCIL. This was another nail-biter, with David Kunhardt only narrowly winning the third and final seat by 15 votes two weeks after the election. Also winning were 25-year old Eli Becker, an impressive young newcomer who quickly involved himself in town affairs, and appointed incumbent Bob Ravasio, who had served a full term, lost re-election two years ago, and then was appointed to fill a vacancy when another councilmember retired last year. I expected Kunhardt to bring in more votes -- he is a bright, articulate, knowledgeable former Corte Madera Citizen of the Year, and he is deeply involved in Democratic and environmental organizations, among others. But as an affordable housing advocate, he ended up (rightly or wrongly) getting some blame for the much-hated “WinCup” housing project, so he probably did well to get elected at all.

MARIN’S PARTISAN RACES FOR CONGRESS AND LEGISLATURE

Not surprisingly, all three incumbents in these races won handily (72-80%): Democrats Jared Huffman for Congress, Mike McGuire for State Senate, and Marc Levine for State Assembly. Their four challengers were all relatively unknown and poorly funded, making their campaigns almost invisible, and the three incumbents might not have needed to campaign at all for the primary.

Nonetheless, three of the challengers will go on to face the incumbents again in November (even though two of them are also Democrats), because of our relatively new “top-two" primary system which puts the top two vote-getters on the November ballot, regardless of party. The incumbents are once again the favorites. It will be Huffman versus Dale Mensing, the same unknown Republican from a northern county he soundly defeated four years ago; McGuire versus Democrat Ronnie Jacoby, a frequent candidate (and former one-term Santa Rosa City Councilmember) who ran against Levine two years ago; and Levine versus Democrat Dan Monte, a first-time candidate this year who is a long-time progressive activist who claims, with some justification, that Levine is not progressive enough for many or most in Marin and Sonoma. Monte particularly cites Levine’s failure to support SB562, the most recent single-payer health care bill, and other issues. Full disclosure: I’m Monte’s campaign treasurer.

STATEWIDE RACES

U.S. SENATE: Running against an incumbent U.S. Senator in your own party is always tough, especially when the incumbent has served 26 years, is widely respected (even among many Republicans), and can raise substantial money. Challenger Kevin de Leon (who just stepped down as State Senate President Pro Tem, and will be termed out of the Legislature at the end of the year) knew this going in, but he also knew that many in the Democratic Party preferred him because Feinstein doesn’t oppose Trump forcefully enough or vote often enough against his nominees. De Leon was nearly endorsed by the California Democratic Party at their convention in February (I was there as delegate, as I’ve been for over 30 state conventions, supporting him), but was in fact endorsed by the party at its Executive Board meeting in July by a surprisingly large margin. But he did not do well in the June election, losing 44.2% - 12.1% to Feinstein, and may well lose by a similar margin in November. The moral of the story is that the State Democratic Party Convention delegates are considerably more progressive than the rank-and-file Democratic voters, and the party’s Executive Board members are more progressive still.

GOVERNOR: Gavin Newsom (33.7%) has been the frontrunner wire to wire – first to enter the race, first in fundraising, and first, consistently, in the polls. However, his lead in June was narrower than predicted, and although many thought he'd face former Assembly Speaker, former L.A. Mayor, and fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa (13.3%) in November, Villaraigosa faded down the stretch. Instead, Newsom (whom I’ve always supported) will face Republican John Cox (25.4%), who came on strong at the end, was endorsed by Trump, and looks and sounds good (for an unknown Republican), even though he’s never held elected office, despite several attempts (including the presidency), mostly from other states. Although Newsom’s lead was narrower than expected in June, he is expected to get most of the votes from the other three major Democratic candidates and win handily in November.

LT. GOVERNOR: The top two vote-getters in June, as expected, were former Ambassador (to Hungary) Eleni Kounalakis (24.2%) and State Senator Ed Hernandez (20.6%). Hernandez is the “traditional” candidate, being termed out of the Legislature after 12 years, which is where most statewide office candidates come from, but he doesn’t seem to be very well-known and/or very well-liked. Kounalakis is something of an indefatigable campaigner, and I support her, even though it isn’t very clear who is the most progressive. They both campaign as progressives.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: One of the great surprises in the June election for many of us was how poorly Dave Jones did in this race (15.4%), considering that he is a two-term Insurance Commissioner who jumped into the race nearly two years before appointed incumbent Xavier Becerra was even appointed (to fill the rest of Kamala Harris’ term after she was elected to the U.S. Senate), locked up most of the local activists’ support, and raised considerable money early. But he came in third (after a relatively unknown Republican, Steven C. Bailey with 24.5%), and out of the November runoff, with Becerra having the advantage of incumbency (albeit appointed), and the high profile of his many legal battles (mostly winning ones) with the Trump administration, and having quickly closed the gap from Jones’ initial fundraising advantage, despite Jones’ accusations that Becerra hasn't fought Trump aggressively enough.

STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION: Although Marshall Tuck is a Democrat (technically, this is the only statewide nonpartisan position), the State Democratic Party is quite cool to him, since he ran against incumbent Tom Torlakson (who is now terming out) four years ago, and is primarily known as a strong supporter of charter schools, something an increasing number of Democrats are growing suspicious of (especially the for-profit variety). But Tuck (37.0%) successfully portrayed himself as a successful school reformer against his Democratic Party-endorsed opponent Tony Thurmond (35.6%), a relatively new (and, like Tuck, young) Richmond Assemblyman. The two will face off again in November, and it could be close.

STATE TREASURER: State Board of Equalization member (and former S.F. Supervisor) Fiona Ma (44.5%) was relatively unopposed for this open seat, and will face Republican Greg Conlon (20.8%) in November, and presumably beat him handily.

STATE INSURANCE COMMISSIONER: This is the only statewide race where a non-Democrat was the top vote-getter in June. Steve Poizner (41.1%) held the seat as a Republican for one term until he ran for Governor eight years ago, taking hard right positions as a gubernatorial candidate which damaged his centrist reputation. He’s now an “independent,” more recently called “Decline to State,” and properly now called “No Party Preference,” and could win in November, given his lead in June against relatively unknown Democratic State Senator Ricardo Lara (40.5%), but the remaining two candidates were another Democrat and a Peace and Freedom Party member.

SECRETARY OF STATE: Incumbent Alex Padilla (52.6%) will face relatively unknown Republican Mark Meuser (31.0%), and should cruise easily to a second term.

STATE CONTROLLER: Incumbent Betty Yee (62.1%) also won handily in June, and will face Republican Konstantinos Roditis (33.9%) in November. Yee is heavily favored for a second term as well.

STATE BALLOT MEASURES

As a result of a relatively new law, only statewide ballot measures (“propositions”) put on the ballot by the Legislature appear on the June ballot in even-numbered years, and the more contentious and hard-fought campaigns, put on by citizen signatures, appear in November. There were five in June, a few more than usual, and the results were about as expected, and as urged by the California League of Women Voters and the State Democratic Party, among many others. Four of them won handily, all relatively uncontroversial, and the only loser was Prop. 70, the “Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund,” which I theorize was put on the ballot with Democratic support as part of a budget deal to maybe give Republicans a little more say in the disposition of those special funds if it passed, but which the Democrats knew would lose when put to the voters.

In November, as “usual,” we’ll have a dozen or so (although the headline-grabbing advisory measure on splitting California into three separate states was recently removed from the ballot by court decision), many of them quite interesting and significant, and may give many voters (including me) a need to think and study them long and hard, and not just jump to knee-jerk positions based on endorsements by favored groups like the State Democratic Party. It’s a little early, and would take up too much space here now, to go into detail on all of them, but I’ll try to do so in my next article a couple months from now, in late September, when more is known, and major endorsements are in.

But one which may be the most controversial (and both sides have already raised millions of dollars) is Prop 10, to allow cities more latitude in enacting rent control. It would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Act of about 20 years ago, which limited rent control to buildings built before about 1995 (earlier in cities that already had rent control), and which prohibited rent control for single-family homes and for newly vacant units, all of which would be allowed if Prop. 10 passes. The Democratic Party supports it, and the Republican Party opposes it, and I just read that virtually all economists oppose rent control generally on the grounds that it inhibits the construction of new housing units (a contention hotly disputed by proponents), which we desperately need statewide.

NATIONAL ELECTIONS

U.S. SENATE: (Repeated from my early June article) Everyone wants to know if the Democrats can take back the Senate in November in what is expected to be a blue wave (size not yet known), but the road to success is narrow. Of the 33 Senatorial seats up nationwide this year, only ten of them are held by Republicans, and except in Nevada (the only state Trump lost among those ten; the others are deep red), most of the incumbent Republicans look pretty secure – although there is a chance for a few upsets. Meanwhile, there are ten incumbent Democrats running for re-election in states won by Trump, and five of them are currently trailing in the polls. But they say a month is an eternity in politics, so three months (until the November election) is more than enough time for the polls to reflect a reversal of fortune for the currently trailing Democrats if that blue wave indeed appears nationwide in November, and is big enough, and holds. So the Democrats do have a chance to take control, but they would have to keep all their seats and take Nevada (50/50 at present) and at least one other state (e.g., Arizona, Tennessee, or Mississippi – all possible).

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The party in the White House nearly always loses seats in the mid-term elections, and the less popular the President is, the more seats are likely to be lost. Donald Trump’s approval ratings have set record lows for a first-year President (starting in the high 40s), and dropped throughout last year (to the low 30s), although recent polls show he’s bounced back to the low 40s, perhaps due to the December tax bill which is somehow still viewed positively, surprisingly, by too many people. The Democrats need to flip 24 seats to take control, which is doable with presidential approval ratings around 40, but in a big wave year, they could take at least twice that number. Several could come from California, as we have 14 Republican Congress members (out of 53), seven of whom are in districts won by Hillary Clinton. There are huge mobilizations from Democrats in those districts (with help from neighboring districts) to flip those seats.