Guy Houston is a nice guy, at least to the extent that I have had dealings with him.  Frankly, that hasn’t been much.  During his six-year tenure representing the East Bay Area in the State Assembly, Republican Houston (pictured) was more or less a back-bencher.  More moderate than many of his Republican colleagues (he voted for some budgets and voted to place bond measures on the ballot that would make a true-blue conservative roll their eyes), Houston was able to hold onto his office through three elections despite an increase of Democrats in the district.   That said, when he retired due to term limits, the GOP did not retain that district, which is currently represented by liberal Democrat Joan Buchanan (GOPer Abram Wilson is making a spirited run to reclaim that seat this November). 

I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to receive a telephone call from Houston earlier this week, informing me that he had decided to throw his hat in the ring as a candidate for Chairman of the California Republican Party.  The reason for my surprise was that I have never known Houston to have any proclivities towards statewide party politics.  During his tenure in the State Assembly, he may have attended a State GOP Convention (there would have been twelve during his six year stint), but if he did, it was so unremarkable that I simply don’t recall.   So his candidacy comes literally out of left field.

Unfortunately, when Houston called, I did not have time for a lengthy chat, but I did take the time to inquire with him about his position on Proposition 14.  I thought it a pressing question because the measure, despite being overwhelmingly opposed by the members of the GOP State Central Committee, did end up passing.  The party opposed the measure because it’s stated goal, the success of which remains to be seen, is to seek to reduce the influence of political parties (like the CRP).  The measure takes away from the party the ability to use the primary ballot for the state’s registered Republicans to collectively choose our party’s nominees for partisan office.  In fact, in most of the Bay Area that Houston calls home, the measure would likely eliminate the presence of any Republicans on general election ballots at all!

Houston, who gets some brownie points for his candor, shared with me that he did vote for Proposition 14, and told me that he thinks that, "we need to try something new if we are going to become a majority party."   This position places Houston in a very small minority position amongst the delegates from whom he will attempt to seek support. 

It really makes one scratch their head — that Houston would support a destructive ballot measure that is extremely injurious to the party, and to conservatives, and then seek to be the leader of that very party.  That takes some chutzpah!

One of the reasons that the position on Proposition 14 really matters in a candidate for Party Chairman is that the CRP is currently embroiled in the aftermath of the measure, with leaders (
sans Schwarzenegger and Maldonado who supported 14) in a lot of discussions about how to
responsibly deal with its passage.  County Party Committees are also having to deal with the implications of its passage.

It’s worthy of note that a few days ago the Marin County GOP tossed out their County Chairman, Sashi McIntee, for her support of Prop. 14.  I believe there is little interest in the idea of allowing Prop. 14 supporters to hold positions of authority in the party.

It is pretty obvious that the CRP will join with other parties in litigating against Prop. 14.  The party played a major, key role in the suit against the last open-primary measure, Prop. 198, successfully challenging the measure before the United States Supreme Court (and recouping all legal fees, I might add).  Would a new open-primary supporting Chairman continue that litigation?

Equally as pressing is the issue of how the state party is going to work within the framework of Prop. 14 while it is the law of the land.  How will the party protects its interests, and communicate to its members before first the June, and then the November elections?  With the labor unions and other special interests weighing in on those two ballots, the party cannot afford to be silent.  Currently the State GOP has adopted a caucus system so that there is an option for party leaders in every district of a partisan office to be able to confer the CRP’s nomination months before the June vote.   How is it possible for a Chairman who played a participatory role in the ballot box, in terms of putting the party in this bind, going to credibly lead the party through this?  The notion is ludicrous.

It seems to me that Houston’s position on 14, relative to the CRP State Committee, is so extreme and unpopular, that it will largely define his candidacy.  "Oh, he’s the open primary supporter who thinks that Republican voters should not be able to pick nominees on the June ballot, nor be guaranteed a candidate in every general election."

It is also worthy of note, for sure, that Houston is not wading into uncontested waters.  Current California Republican Party Vice Chairman Tom Del Beccaro (pictured), has been (in essence) running for the post of Chairman for over three years now.   He has lined up considerable support (with more coming each day) and most significantly relative to Guy Houston’s interests, Del Beccaro was a key leader in the fight against the passage of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Prop. 14.

While nothing is impossible when it comes to State GOP politics, it is my considered opinion that Houston’s vote and support of Prop. 14 makes his candidacy not viable — the political equivalent of tilting at a windmill.

(It is important to note that I have not personally endorsed a candidate for CRP Chairman.  I should also remind readers that I am currently the elected Vice Chairman, South, of the CRP — a position I have held since 2007.)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010 at 12:00 am and is filed under Blog Posts.