I’ve read some comments on this blog and another conservative blog that State Senator Abel Maldonado "votes with the Democrats most of the time."
I decided to invest 15 minutes of my time to research how Maldonado actually votes in Sacramento. I did not contact Maldonado, or any of his critics, to do this research. I just wanted to see what I could easily find on the internet, and do the work on my own.
Here is what I found on Abel’s voting record:
According to the California Chamber of Commerce, Maldonado votes within their highest range of support for the business community, 80% or more. On 13 bills important to the California Chamber, Maldonado supported 11 and voted against 2. By comparison, conservative State Senator Tony Strickland supported 12 and opposed 1, and liberal Democrat Darrell Steinberg, supported just 3 of the bills and opposed 10. The "median" or average Democrat vote was to support 2 and oppose 11 of the bills.
I also examined the California Chamber’s 13 key bills and determined they were all pro-taxpayer, mostly dealing with taxes, fighting over-regulation, opposing drastic "green" rules. If I was in the Legislature, I would have voted for all of them. If I were to even consider voting against one of the 13, it would have the same one both Strickland and Maldonado voted against, which was a somewhat questionable judicial reform bill. A fair conclusion? On business issues, Maldonado surely votes with Republicans most of the time.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association recently issued a press release giving grades to legislators for the last year. Maldonado was found to have voted with HJTA’s positions most of the time (57.1%), was called out for his "Yes" vote on the tax hike, and given a "D." Tony Strickland received an "A" for his 97% votes. He did not support the tax hike.
According to the California Labor Federation, Maldonado voted with the unions 29% of the time during 2008. On 14 key votes in 2008, he voted against labor-endorsed positions 10 times. His lifetime vote for labor issues in legislative committees is reported at just 4%. Interestingly, conservative Tom McClintock, has a higher lifetime record of voting for labor in committee, at 10%. On the floor, Maldonado is reported as having a lifetime voting record on labor issues of 20%, meaning, most of the time he votes against the labor unions. This compares to Democrat Senate leader Darrell Steinberg, who has a lifetime record of voting 100% for labor union positions in committee, and 99% on the floor, with 14 votes for labor in 2008 and just one against. Conservative Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, during the same period, voted three times for labor, 17 times against, had a 15% record of voting pro-labor union.
On the environment, the Sierra Club reports that in 2008, Maldonado voting in favor of their endorsed bills 4 of 7 times. Steinberg was 8 of 9 bills, and Senator Jeff Denham as 0 of 7. The California League of Environmental Voters said Maldonado voted with them less than half the time in 2008 (44%) compared to Steinberg (94%) and Denham (11%).
The most accurate picture of these and other scorecards on Abel Maldonado is that he definitely votes with Republicans most of the time; votes for pro-business legislation and opposes big labor union issues most of the time; votes for major environmental issues about half the time, and that he made a big political statement — to his detriment with conservatives in 2009 — by voting for the tax hike earlier this year.
The fact is, Abel Maldonado supports a few issues that conservative Republicans like me really don’t like, such as the "open primary," which I feel would be a disaster for conservatives. Besides the tax hike, he has spoken out against the influence of some prominent conservatives, and friends of mine, in our Republican party. Abel’s view of growing the Republican party is likely a little different from these conservatives. Nevertheless, conservatives should care about building the Republican party to include a bigger share of the growing Hispanic vote in this state, which is increasingly a definitive element in winning elections in California. It seems natural, at least to me, that a plan to do that should include encouraging capable Hispanic elected officials in our party. Perhaps too many bridges have been burned for some conservatives to be able to embrace Abel, and/or vice versa. But the facts are, despite a couple of very troubling policy positions, Maldonado is far more a Republican than he is a Democrat.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I was asked by someone I respect to consider social issues scorecarding on Maldonado, namely, the California Republican Assembly’s recent 2009 scorecard. On that scorecard, Maldonado gets just 22%, as compared to 94% for Senator Tony Strickland and 0% for Democrat Darrell Steinberg.
I am a longtime friend of and was an activist in CRA. I respect the organization and its leaders. I will comment however that the CRA scorecard tracks 18 bills, and that their recommendation was for a “no” vote on all of them. Not one of the tracked bills calls for a “yes” vote. I have no reason to think the scorecard inaccurately portrays CRA’s positions, but I would comment that Republicans really need to be in favor of things too, and certainly there must have been a “defining” piece of legislation brought to a vote that called for a “yes” vote by CRA profile Republicans. Republicans need to more successful in this state, and better articulate our ideas, and we must offer at least as many “yes” ideas to the public to positively define ourselves to grow our party and improve our state, not just 100% “no” ideas. Someone who gets 100% on the CRA scorecard, is a legislator who voted “no” on everything considered important. Wouldn’t a visionary bill to call for safe off-shore drilling to help balance the budget and reduce taxes, calling for a “yes” vote, be a good idea for a scorecard of this type? Surely at least one of the CRA’s 100%ers put some good bills in, right? I would hope so, or they are not doing the best job for us! I would like to have seen some of those bills on the CRA scorecard, and I suspect Maldonado probably would have voted in high percentage for CRA 100%er promoted “yes” bills.
On abortion, Maldonado voted for three of four bills endorsed by NARAL which makes him considered “pro-choice.” I disagree with that position, I am pro-life. This position does distinguish him from almost all other Republicans in the state senate on this issue.
On the other hand, Gun Owners of California had Maldonado as a 100% voter in favor of gun rights in Sacramento on their most recent scorecards. This position distinguishes Maldonado from most all Democrats in the legislature.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Selling out to the Dems on the budget is reason alone to never vote for the man ever again.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
This blog post strikes me as rather bizarre. I am reminded of the old saying that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. Anyone who observes the Legislature and follows its votes would surely agree that Senator Maldonado has the worst voting record in the entire Legislature, from a Republican perspective. In fact, he is a contender for the Hall of Fame for the worst Republican legislators in California history.
Notice that Mr. Lacy compares Senator Maldonado to Senator Strickland with respect to one group of votes, then compares him to Assemblyman DeVore with respect to another group of votes, and then compares him with Tom McClintock for votes that McClintock cast on a Committee on which Maldonado did not even serve. Why not compare Senator Maldonado to Senator Aanestad, an outstanding and universally-respected legislator who just happens to be running against Maldonado for Lieutenant Governor?
It is statistically accurate to say that Senator Maldonado votes with Republicans most of the time, but it is also accurate to say that he votes with Democrats most of the time, too. What do those two truthful statistics tell you? Nothing!
As the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the California Republican Assembly rankings illustrate, WHEN IT MATTERS, Senator Maldonado votes with the Democrats to help them destroy our state.
As to the CRA Scorecard, it contains almost no social issues this year, unless banning water softeners or establishing a Blueberry Commission are somehow considered social issues.
Mr. Lacy’s thoughtful comments indicate that he may not understand why the CRA Scorecard is compiled. The goal has never been to find “good ideas” to highlight. The goal is to show contrasts on Floor votes within the Republican Caucus and within the Democrat Caucus. Since the Democrats control every committee in each house, good bills rarely reach the Floor and when they do, Republicans all tend to support them. No purpose is served by producing a Scorecard where all Republicans scored 100% and all Democrats scored 0%. That provides no useful information. Thus, the CRA Scorecard has been designed to highlight bills where there was not unanimous agreement. It should come as no surprise that those bills are normally bad bills from a Republican perspective, since Democrats control every committee that sends bills to the Floor.
Having said that, I want to issue a challenge to Republicans who think Senator Maldonado’s voting record might somehow be less than terrible: Find ANY group of 18 non-unanimous bills that reached the Floor in both houses in 2009 in the same form where Abel Maldonado voted the right way as often as any of his Republican colleagues. It cannot be done. I helped review dozens and dozens of bills for the California Republican Assembly, most of which did not appear in the final Scorecard. It would have been easy to find a group of bills where Senator Maldonado scored 0%, if that was the goal.
Needless to say, I agree with Jim Lacy that Republicans need to be in favor of things, too. However, the CRA Scorecard serves to reflect actual votes cast on the Floor in the Legislature, not good ideas that either died in committee or swept through with no opposition (giving every legislator a 100% score).
December 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
There is norhing bizarre about my post. I am not trying to manipulate statistics. Tony Stickland and Tom McClincktock are excellent guideposts, but the timing doesn’t quite work out on every different scorecard, so that explains the need to change names. That doesn’t diminish the credibility of the posts. It is clear that Abel is not as conservative as either Tony or Tom, but he is not as liberal as the average Democrat, which is my point. He is actually very much more conservative than the average Democrat, when one carefully looks at the data. That is my point.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Tom,
it would be helpful here if you could explain, given your strong views, to our readers why you accepted Mike Villines money for state Insurance Commissioner on your slate card and whether you intend to accept a check from Dave Cogdill for Stanislaus Assessor.
That said, I believe your objections to my post stem from the fact that you helped CRA with their voter guide, which I criticized, and which judged legislators entirely on 18 “no” votes. My position remains, we Republicans need to do better than that.
December 11th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Jim – what floor votes were there that should have been scored as a YES vote being a plus where most Republicans voted YES? Anything that passed on the consent calendar doesn’t count.
When Democrats stack committees with numbers like 10-2, good ideas fail in committee.
BTW, Maldonado isn’t the most liberal Republican in the CA State Legislature in the past 2 decades; just the most dishonest. I was at the 1998 CRA local endorsing convention in Santa Barbara when Abel Maldonado stood up before the crowd and, among other short-lived pledges, proudly proclaimed himself to be pro-life.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Nick, you are a true conservative. I hear you. But let me repeat, Abel is far more conservative than the average Democrat, and the data clearly proves that.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Flash Report Junkies: Abel is not worth the cyberspace….forget him. His political future is lobbying for handouts for the welfare industrial complex. His electability is worse than a H1N1 nurse poking two year olds.
December 12th, 2009 at 12:00 am
My main problem with Maldonado is his top two primary, which is called an open primary but it is not. It will destroy the party system in California and to a great extent end real political debate. We (Republicans) will be at a huge disadvantage for decades, if not for ever.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Dear Jim,
It is a matter of public record that the California Taxpayer Protection Committee VOTER GUIDE and the California Taxpayer Protection Committee POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE are different organizations, they have different leadership, different Treasurers, and different practices. They file separate campaign disclosure statements and have separate ID numbers.
I do not know anything at all about whatever money Mike Villines may, or may not have, contributed to the VOTER GUIDE. If you read about that on the Internet somewhere, then you know more than I do. I am not sure why you are seeking to link me, of all people, with Mike Villines and his campaign for Insurance Commissioner. I have never spoken to him or anyone connected to his campaign about that. I am posting this statement on the Internet so that anyone who knows otherwise can contradict me in public.
Similarly, I have never spoken to Dave Cogdill or anyone associated with him about his campaign for Stanislaus Assessor. However, I know enough about him to say that I think he would be an excellent assessor. I work with the assessors in my job as a Tax Counsel at the Board of Equalization, so I feel qualified to comment about that stuff. I am not expecting a check from Senator Cogdill, but I hope your comments will encourage him to send something. Just kidding! :-)
As to the CRA Scorecard, I really like your idea of featuring some good bills that deserved a YES vote. Please send me at least ONE! It has to be a bill that received votes in 2009 on Assembly Floor and the Senate Floor in the same form — and it cannot have passed by unanimous consent. Remember, for decades, the goal of the CRA Scorecard is to show contrasts between legislators, not to give everyone a 100% score or a score based on Party. And, needless to say, any bill you find has to be a non-unanimous bill where CRA members would have supported a YES vote. If you can find a bill like that, I think our friends in CRA would really want to hear about it.
December 13th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Tom,
You took the first lick at me, in extreme manner, by characterizing my post as “bizarre.” It was hardly “bizarre,” rather, it was filled entirely with facts, and addressed a fair question of interest to our readers: “does Maldonado vote mostly with the Democrats.” I showed through a number of interest group scorecards that Maldonado votes more with Republicans than Democrats. That is not “bizarre,” it is the truth. I will now add that Maldonado does this as a representative of a Democrat-leaning state senate district. In really, he votes far more conservatively that the demographic makeup of his district. That is a fact. I also stated I disagree with Abel on at least three issues.
As to the scorecard research, that is not my job. I will add, however, that the Republican leadership in the legislature is not doing it’s job very well if they cannot negotiate at least a few symbolic floor votes on Republican issues with the Democrat leadership. The leverage is there to get some votes. Further, to rebuild this party and get to a point where many more of our ideas even get to floor vote, and are adopted, we need to win more elections. Given the current party registration disadvantage statewide, this logically means both of two things, neither of which is a “bizarre” idea: 1) we must vigorously promote compelling ideas to voter groups where we are weak, to earnestly convince the people to become Republicans, and 2) we need to understand that because of the demographics of our state, we will never have dominant influence in Sacramento again unless we embrace capable Hispanic elected officials.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I was wondering when you were going to mention that Senator Maldonado is Hispanic. That seems to be the hallmark of his campaigns. He and his supporters love to say, “He may disagree with Republicans on every issue, but Republicans need to support him because his Dad came from Mexico.”
That kind of logic might appeal to newspaper editorial writers, but in the real world, no one cares where Senator Maldonado’s parents came from.
Republicans need to embrace freedom, hard work, and the American Dream. We do not need to follow Democrats into the fever swamp of racial identity politics.
If Senator Maldonado supports the Democrats every time they need his vote, it makes no difference to voters whether his parents came from Mexico, Canada, or Alabama.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Tom, you offer a rather simplistic observation to a much more serious question I am posing: how is the California GOP to lift itself out of permanent super-minority status? While I agree that “Republicans need to embrace freedom, hard work, and the American Dream. We do not need to follow Democrats into the fever swamp of racial identity politics,” I also understand polling, and that our party cannot be worth much politically in this state in future if voters in general continue to believe the California GOP is just the voice of angry white men that call-in to KFI-AM.
Maldonado does not support Democrats everytime they need a vote. He is pretty reliably a Republican vote on business, anti-big labor, and especially Second Amendment rights. He often, but not all the time, votes with the Democrats on abortion and the environment. Maldonado is sufficiently conservative that Robert Cruickshank, a member of the Democrat Central Committee in Abel’s Senate District, discusses his party’s “rail(ing) against him and his right-wing views.”
Again, I disagree with Abel’s vote on the tax hike, and support for open primary. I think Republicans should indeed take Abel strongly to task on those points. But I don’t think they disqualify him to be a Republican, and I for one hold out the hope that Maldonado and all the “six” have learned something about the core principles of the Republican party this year.
That said, Tom, we are both on the state GOP central committee, and you are a county Chairman in a strong Republican county. What is your plan to grow this party statewide? Is it your plan that we purge out every single elected official who doesn’t agree with you on 100% of the issues? How will that get us a majority in the Legislature someday?
Or, should we consider leading with our strongest issues, a la Newt Gingrich, and finding ways to reach out beyond the “you and me” core to build a really strong and credible political force? There are DOZENS of real issues that a majority of the people of California and the Republican party agree on. They include many intersections with the Hispanic community. To gain support for the GOP, rather than thoughtlessly throwing out, as you do here, the standard Ann Randianisms to a bewildered general public, why not try to approach the rebuilding of our party by appealing to the people who actually make-up the demographic that is California? It is called coalition building and it is the foundation upon which success is built in politics. In taking such an approach, it is inevitable that you will notice that the Hispanic population in this state is of vital importance to our future. Part of a successful plan to convince voters in this important block to vote Republican, is not only to demonsrate how our ideas and issues match interests, but also to show that our party also embraces people who are indeed, Hispanic (as well as people who are white and angry like you and me.) Everybody has a better chance of winning following that equation, and it doesn’t involve compromising values, it involves communicating them more effectively, in a trageted manner, and including people in the process, instead of pushing them out.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
I meant “AYN Randianisms” above, to those philosophers who will soon correct me.
December 14th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Jim, It is one thing to review someone’s voting record after-the-fact, but it is an altogether different thing to watch that record being created, one bill at a time. Senator Maurice Johannessen was known in Sacramento as a disloyal Quisling who the Democrats could always rely upon when they needed a vote. He was so bad that the Senate Republican Caucus formally expelled him from the Caucus; it was the first time in a century that had happened. Yet, if you casually reviewed his record on scorecards and such, you might think he was moderate or even conservative. If you heard his conservative speeches in his own district, you would never have suspected that his record in Sacramento was so shameful.
In fairness, Senator Johanessen’s voting record was never as bad as Senator Maldonado’s has become, so that comparison might be a bit unfair to “MoJo.” My point is that sometimes it is not obvious to a casual observer that a legislator is working for the other side whenever his vote is actually needed to pass a bad bill.
Some of your comments about Senator Maldonado lead me to believe that he has fooled you into thinking that he sides with Republicans on critical issues, even when they need his vote. For example, you said that he is a reliable Republican vote on Second Amendment rights. That statement is demonstrably false. He actually voted to outlaw mere possession of single-shot, bolt-action 50-caliber firearms, even after law enforcement officials confirmed that no one in the history of California had ever been arrested for a crime involving a 50-caliber gun! He was willing to see honest, law-abiding gun collectors rot in prison just to appease liberal gun grabbers. His record demonstrates that he has nothing but contempt for Second Amendment rights.
I think you and I would agree on the need to build coalitions with people who do not agree with Republicans on every issue. Clearly, success in politics is based on addition rather than subtraction. However, we should never fool ourselves into believing that majority status is an end in itself. It is a means to an end. The failures of the Republican Congress should have taught us that lesson, just as we should have learned from the failure of the Assembly majority in 1996. Those majorities failed to achieve Republican success and they ultimately lost the support of the voters because, on every issue, there were too many sell-out politicians fighting for the other side.
As to racial identity politics, I think we should leave that to the Democrats. We do not need to defend RINOs because of their ethnic background. We do not need quotas or special dispensation to attract minorities to the banner of freedom.
December 15th, 2009 at 12:00 am
Conservative Republicans aren’t opposed to Abel Maldonado because he disagrees with us on “one” issue. If he were more liberal than most of us would like on immigration, for instance, and voted with us on pretty much everything else of substance, there wouldn’t be this kind of virulent opposition to him.
And yes, I agree that the Senator likes to milk the fact that he his Hispanic. He casts a vote that is completely at odds with conservative principles and covers for himself by saying that we shouldn’t be beating up on “one of the few Latino Republicans” in the state. What we really need are Hispanic Republicans who are as conservative as Tom, Tony, and Chuck to show that reaching out to the Latino community doesn’t necessarily involve compromising on core policy positions.