State voters show conservative bent on propositions, but strengthen Democrat supermajority

California voters showed a conservative bent on several state ballot measures while leaving the Legislature even more firmly in the hands of Democrats.

Voters rejected measures to restart affirmative action, allow 17-year-olds to vote and raise property taxes on businesses, according to results that were not final by press time Wednesday.

These results mean that several dynamics from the past legislative session will continue. Much of the policy debate will likely happen within the Democratic supermajorities, with a more moderate caucus in the Assembly serving as the main brake on progressive ambitions.

Lawmakers will confront many issues left on the table after a legislative year hamstrung by shutdowns and the coronavirus pandemic. Gov. Gavin Newsom signed just 372 bills in 2020. According to Senate researchers, this was the fewest since the 1960s.

If the Wednesday percentages hold, Democrats will have won at least 17 of the 20 state Senate seats up for election this year, including three that pitted two Democrats against each other. Republicans have taken at least one, with two races still too close to call.

Including the legislators not facing election this year, Democrats will enter the new legislative year holding between 30 and 33 seats in the 40-member upper chamber. This is far more than the 27 votes required to pass new taxes or urgency bills that go into effect immediately. Democrats held 29 seats before the election.

Democrats stand to lose one seat in the Assembly. They will likely hold 60 seats compared to 19 for Republicans and one independent. Former Republican leader Chad Mayes, I-Yucca Valley, held his seat easily against a Republican challenger after leaving the party at the end of last year. Unlike the Senate, the Assembly had few close races, with two candidates from each party running unopposed.

Policing and criminal justice will likely be major topics in the new session. While lawmakers passed a law calling on the attorney general's office to investigate police shootings, several other proposed bills stalled. These included a ban on the use of tear gas and rubber bullets and a bill to make police misconduct records available to the public.

Law enforcement groups plan to spend big on lobbying. After being relatively quiet in some previous elections, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association spent nearly $4 million. In a change from the period in the 1990s and early 2000s, when the prison guards' union was a major force in state politics, this money generally went to help Democrats.

The group spent about $1.4 million to support Democratic challenger David Min against incumbent John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa. Moorlach is a fiscal conservative who voted against a pay increase for guards. Min led by nearly three percentage points as of Wednesday morning.

One prominent voice in the policing debate won't be around. Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, won a seat on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors and will leave her safe Democratic seat two years early. Mitchell has authored several bills on police transparency and juvenile justice.

Several prominent lawyer-legislators will be returning. These include Assembly members Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, chair of the Judiciary Committee; AB 5 author Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, and Republican-turned Democrat Brian Maienschein, D-San Diego. Two Republican assemblymen who won a tentative court ruling against Newsom's vote by mail executive orders -- Kevin P. Kiley, R-Rocklin, and James Gallagher, R-Yuba City -- also easily won reelection.

If current results hold, attorneys will occupy 11 seats in the Senate and 17 in the Assembly. All but three are Democrats.

On a generally disappointing night for liberal-leaning groups around the country, the Consumer Attorneys of California did fairly well in legislative races. Their endorsed candidates won in six of eight races in both the Assembly and Senate; two of the Senate races remained too close to call.

Continuing a trend from recent years, the majority of the candidates the group endorsed were not attorneys. The consumer attorneys did endorse Min, a UC Irvine School of Law professor who teaches business and regulatory law. Two years ago, Min came in third in a congressional primary against fellow Irvine law professor Katie Porter, D-Irvine. Porter quickly became one of the most prominent California Democrats in Congress. She easily won reelection this year.

But the consumer attorneys -- and Democrats in general -- had a brutal night when it came to initiatives. The group lost on three of five initiatives where it took a position: yes on Proposition 16 (reinstating affirmative action), yes on Proposition 18 (allowing 17-year-olds to vote), and no on Proposition 22 (rideshare drivers as independent contractors).

The group supported Proposition 24 (online consumer privacy), which passed. Proposition 24 proved particularly divisive among liberal groups. Wealthy real estate investor Alastair Mactaggart took a similar measure off the ballot in 2018 in a deal that led to the passage of AB 375, the state's main online privacy law. But the founder of Californians for Consumer Privacy pushed a new measure after the Legislature passed several bills he saw as weakening that law.

"Proposition 24 contains language that will make it difficult to rein in its pay for privacy provisions, its reduction of biometric privacy protections, and its elimination of privacy for Californians when they travel out of state," said Consumer Federation of California President Richard Holober in an email on Wednesday.

Voters also soundly rejected Proposition 21, which would have expanded the authority of local governments to enact rent control laws. Opponents said its passage would have worsened the housing crisis by leading landlords to take units off of the rental market.

The Yes on 21 campaign sued the no side several weeks ago, saying they hid the origin of millions in campaign contributions from the real estate industry in violation of campaign finance laws. A hearing is scheduled for April 1 next year in Yes on 21 v. No on Prop. 21, 20STCV37190 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Sept. 29, 2020).