California Democratic Party Endorsement Follies
This past weekend the California Democratic Party held endorsement meetings throughout the state. The meetings were contentious, with voters having to declare under penalty of perjury that they live in the district they vote for. In the uber-close race for the 42nd Assembly District, Abbe Land came one vote short of reaching 50%. Unsatisfied with this result, her consultant, Parke Skeleton of MAV fame, decided to go after Mike Feuer's voters.Turns out that Laurette Healey, the Republican who lost to LA City Controller Laura Chick by 45 points in 2001, is now a Democrat and voted for Mike Feuer this weekend. The only problem with that is that she doesn't live in the 42nd District and that her one vote gives Abbe Land 50%. Of course, Park's meddling also turned up the fact that Abbe's Campaign Manager, Daniel Tamm voted in the 20th Senate Race when he lives in the 21st District. The Regional Director for the Party was fuming and promised to prosecute any offender to the full extent of the law. It appears both camps now have egg on their face.
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 4/05/2006 12:05:00 AM
33 Comments:
So what's the impact of this? Is the 50% for Abbe Land official, and does that mean the endorsement goes to a caucus at the state party convention?
With the CDP convention only two weeks away, this issue needs resolution ASAP.
BTW, immediately after the exchange between Heaner and Tamm, Stuart Waldman was also asked the same question, in a less challenging fashion, as to which SD he resided in. Stuart responded that he didn't live in the 20th and was ineligible to vote.
What was that about?
Daniel was pretty adamant that he believed he lived in the 20th (not that it mattered, the vote wasn't close).
The Abbe Land thing was 1 vote off but she would have to get more than 50%, not just 50%... or do I have that wrong?
Oh and Sammy, last time I checked the Democratic Party doesn't have the jurisdictional authority to administer an oath under the penalty of perjury.
Oh and Sammy, last time I checked the Democratic Party doesn't have the jurisdictional authority to administer an oath under the penalty of perjury.
Oh that was Stuart? I should have paid attention.
Delegates to the endorsement meeting each got an envelope with the districts in which they could cast a vote, and Daniel's checked out. If anyone in that story has egg on their face, it's the state party for either miscredentialing, or for using voter reg data older than the last redistricting. It was a very analog process, in any case.
I think challenges needed to be taken care of before the meeting adjourned, but I certainly don't get to decide on Land v. Feurer. I would have voted for Cynthia. Anyway, what's the deal with that race? It was pretty tense in there.
laborthug - I was surprised to see LACYD's recommendations.
The impressive showing was Julia Brownley over in AD41 -- 80.5% of the vote in the Democratic caucus in a five way race.
Brownley is kicking butt out there.
I'm glad I voted by mail and avoided all the fun.
Daniel told me that he had moved a few blocks and was formerly in the 20th but ended up in the 21st after he moved but didn't realize it. If you look at the southern border of the 20th in North Hollywood it's a pretty jagged border so it's not surprising that you could move a couple blocks and end up in a different district. The information he got from the CDP said he lived in the 20th so that's where he voted.
Being a political operative should he have checked his districts when he moved? Yeah, that's what I would have done. (It was so much easier when each SD overlayed exactly 2 ADs.) You can question his moves as a campaign manager all you want but I know Daniel and I don't question his motives or integrity for a minute.
1:07 am: The vote-by-mail ballots required that you sign under the penalty of perjury.
There's some weird shit in the elections code that's been put there by the same politicians who need that code to stay in power in their party so it wouldn't surprise me if there's a perjury provision in the code.
Land still did not get more than 50% and neither candidate will be able to get 60% in Sacramento either. They should drop it and move on, this is a waste of time.
Wasn't Laurette Healy telling everyone she was running for the 40th? Then why would she vote in the 42nd?
Maybe she was going to move? Valley district lines are all screwy anyway.
There was also an additional provisional ballot for Feuer, so if that is valid this is all moot anyway.
There is another issue here as well.
While rushing around to get the meeting running smoothly (which - except for this incident - it did), Regional Director John Heaner forgot to sign in and get credentialled before credentials were closed.
He moved that credentials be re-opened. The room agreed, and - to be fair - he asked if there were any others, aside from himself, that needed to sign in at that time.
Aside from the irony of the R.D. not being credentialed (and the laughter and ribbing that brought with it), Heaner's vote for "No Endorsment" also served to change the math; adding a vote to the total and thus raising the 50%+1 threshold.
The mini-speech that accompanied his vote also drew the ire of some in the room.
Subtract the A.H. vote, the Tamm vote (does that one matter on the Land/Feuer race?), the provisional ballot and the re-opened credential vote by Heaner and the total probably drops enough to carry this forward to the SacTo convention...
Just what we need, right? To go thru all this again?
Does anybody have any word on how the endorsement vote went in the 45th AD?
To be fair to Heaner, the credentialling thing is meaningless. No one objected. There was some eye-rolling and laughter, but he was a good sport and it was no big deal. It's not uncommon for credentialling to be reopened.
Much weirder is the whole Daniel Tamm thing. How did he get on the list? And why did he go ahead and try to vote?
Did Parke Skelton tell him to vote, no matter what? He consults for both Abbe and Cindy Montanez, so it would definitely be in his interest.
Daniel's a pretty straight-up guy, so this just makes no sense whatsoever -- unless he was following instructions.
And Laurette Healy? A former Republican? Appointed by Koretz, but already announcing that she intends to run in the 40th?
You have to wonder how these people got on the list for these very hot races.
ANONYMOUS WRITES...
"Subtract the A.H. vote,. . ., the provisional ballot and the re-opened credential vote by Heaner and the total probably drops enough to carry this forward to the SacTo convention..."
And in alternating months on Fridays, only voting delegates can vote while hopping on their left provided they have signed the credentials roll with their right hand..... C'mon quit wasting our time here with speculation.
I think Daniel probably made an honest mistake. He showed me his credential sheet and it did say SD 20 on it.
Candidates needed 70% to get on the State Convention consent calendar.
One candidate needed to get at least 50% in the pre-endorsement conference for there to be a an endorsing caucus at the convention.
At the convention a different set of voters (only State Central Committee members) will vote on the endorsement. Non-incumbents need 60% of voting delegates to secure the caucus recommendation for endorsement.
Submitted under penalty of perjury.
Parke up to his old tricks...
LACYD is pathetic.
Money Match-up
It’s been a rough week all around for Feuer – not only did Land out-raise him by more than $55k in the most recent reporting period, ending 3/22, but she also had $65k more cash-on-hand than he in the same period. Looks like Feuer fundraising is drying up.
10:15
You should add another 20 grand more to Feuer's campaign since the last reporting period. He's made 30k, Abbe has made 10k.
Also...do you really think that Koretz isn't going to tap into his donors? One fundraiser with Koretz' friends and Feuer takes the money lead.
Consultant Match up
Ok, so Levine is doing Feuer and Skelton is doing Land. Levine is deeply plugged into the Sacto establishment and likely to orchestrate several IEs. Parke is better at polling, messaging, use of endorsements and direct mail. So, who wins?
My guess is this is Feuer’s campaign to lose; bearing in mind that he is his own biggest obstacle. Anyone familiar with Feuer’s career, political or otherwise, will agree that his proclivity for self-righteous demagoguery is, at the same time, both appealing and repulsive. It’ll be interesting to see if he has refined himself in the years since his last embarrassing defeat.
"Levine is deeply plugged into the Sacto establishment and likely to orchestrate several IEs."
Wouldn't that be a crime?
12:48am --
Yes, moron...Duh... Welcome to real life!!!
I heard it from Alex's people.
Parke and Hacopian are a tag time, they have pretty much destroyed LA city politics on their own.
-- Posted on 2006-03-20 by Rob Ramos -- Credibility rating: 2.9 out of 5 (From ratings of 28 unique users.)
Rate this commenter5: Great4: Good3: So-so2: Poor1: Awful | Flag this comment as inappropriate
{Ignore this user}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have not heard of eric being on Cindys race, where do you know that from?
-- Posted on 2006-03-16 by Valley Glen Voter -- Credibility rating: 2.6 out of 5 (From ratings of 27 unique users.)
Rate this commenter5: Great4: Good3: So-so2: Poor1: Awful | Flag this comment as inappropriate
{Ignore this user}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it looks like Hacopian is working for Cindy.
-- Posted on 2006-03-16 by Rob Ramos -- Credibility rating: 2.9 out of 5 (From ratings of 28 unique users.)
Rate this commenter5: Great4: Good3: So-so2: Poor1: Awful | Flag this comment as inappropriate
{Ignore this user}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another good race, with 2 good candidates... why do we get into the world of wars over consultants? the IDIOTS that look at a race and see only the consultants are naive and ignorant, I think Cindy has a good chance of winning if that’s all Alex has to hit her with..Lol...
This race is close and I see the mayor’s endorsement as the one that will declare the winner. not who crummy or not the consultants are. Angry do you have a personal grudge agents Eric? With all your comments I see you as some consultant or candidate that Eric worked on that gave you a beating? Let us know where you built your anger from?
-- Posted on 2006-03-15 by Valley Glen Voter -- Credibility rating: 2.6 out of 5 (From ratings of 27 unique users.)
Rate this commenter5: Great4: Good3: So-so2: Poor1: Awful | Flag this comment as inappropriate
{Ignore this user}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob:
If Cindy is endorsed by Antonio, then Hacopian is certainly working for him. He along with Parke are Antonio's thug enforcers.
Just wait and watch the ugliness flow.
-- Posted on 2006-03-11 by Angry In Glendale -- Credibility rating: 2.5 out of 5 (From ratings of 30 unique users.)
Rate this commenter5: Great4: Good3: So-so2: Poor1: Awful | Flag this comment as inappropriate
{Ignore this user}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Eric Hacopian working for Cindy M.?
-- Posted on 2006-03-02 by Rob Ramos -- Credibility rating: 2.9 out of 5 (From ratings of 28 unique users.)
Rate this commenter5: Great4: Good3: So-so2: Poor1: Awful | Flag this comment as inappropriate
{Ignore this user}
looks like that thug gangster Hacopian is working with Cindy.
The record needs to be corrected as follows:
1. Laurette Healey was NEVER a Republican. Check your facts.
2. The guidelines governing delegate qualtifications are cloudy and not well known. Delegates may rent property in one district and own property in another and may be qualified to serve as a delegagte in either district.
Oh you're just blowing smoke. She was a Republican in 2001 when she ran for Controller. She was on every Republican slate card. She didn't become a Dem until 6 months later. As for owning property and voting where you want? That may work in the Republican Party, but not in the Democratic Party. You can only vote in the district you are registered to vote in. LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR. LAURETTE HEALY COMMITTED FRAUD. She perjured herself.
I have to agree with the previous poster, she perjured herself. The regional director made it very clear that you must live in the district you vote. Laurette Healy is in big trouble.
I remember 2001, Laurette Healey was a Republican when she started to run for Controller but she became a Decline to State before election day. Right? When did she become a democrat?
Healey, attracted an endorsement from the gay Republican group, Log Cabin Los Angeles (which also endorsed Soboroff for mayor).
From the Advocate
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home