This article says that research by the California State Library shows that the newly-elected legislature has fewer women than any session since the 1991-1992 session. One reason is that it now takes millions of dollars to win a seat in the California legislature, and women are less likely than men to be plugged into the community of very wealthy campaign donors. The top-two system has increased the amount of money needed to win. Thanks to Carla Marinucci for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
“The top-two system has increased the amount of money needed to win.” That makes sense conceptually. Has anybody analyzed the data to document it? The analysis would have to factor out general trends in campaign spending over time.
Under a conventional system, an incumbent is unlikely to face a challenger in a partisan primary, particularly if they have a war chest. And if it is a strongly partisan district, there is no need to spend anything in the general election. Imagine if you are the lobbyist for a trade association. You want Joe Politician to listen to your concerns. So every cycle you contribute $5000 or $10,000 to his campaign.
Now look at Top 2 and Raul Bocanegra. He was in what he thought was a safe seat, and he was making contributions to other candidates, setting himself up for a future run at speaker. In the 2014 primary Bocanegra received 62.5% of the vote, and Patty Lopez qualified for the general because there was only one other candidate. But she won the general, where there are more voters without much political knowledge. Under the old system, they would vote D. But now they had to make a decision based on limited information. Patty sounds like a nicer person than Raul, or other subjective criteria.
In 2016, Bocanegra made a comeback, and you can be sure that he spent money on his own general election.
How many millions in de facto bribes (aka *donations*) for each HACK — esp. each new HACK ???
This trend has been noted elsewhere.
You will notice that there was a sharp rise in the early 1990s, after term limits were implemented. Term limits were approved in 1990, but re-election campaigns were underway, and over 70 Assembly incumbents were re-elected. Term limits were not retroactive, and in theory, long-term incumbents could have been re-elected in 1992 and 1994, with a huge exodus in 1996. But if you had been in office since 1970 and just kept filing for re-election figuring you would serve until you were in a nursing home or dead might have led some to reassess their political career. 11 terms was a good career. Why bother running for a 12th and 13th term simply because it was legal? Besides, redistricting might have made the seat a bit more vulnerable.
Suddenly there were a lot of openings, and a consciousness that women should fill them.
New female Assembly, Senate members:
1990: 3, 0
1992: 11, 2
1994: 6, 1
1996: 8, 3
1998: 8, 5
2000: 11, 1
2002: 9, 1
2004: 4, 3
2006: 9, 3
2008: 8, 6
2010: 7, 2
2012: 6, 2
2014: 6, 4
2016: 8, 2
As the 1990s wore on, the new women members themselves became term-limited. Many jumped to the senate, and later to the US House. 100% (2/2) of US Senators from California; 32% (17 of 53) of US Representatives; 25% (10 of 40) State Senators; and 19% (18 of 80) Assembly Members are women. It is inverted, so that the higher the office, the more likely it is to be held by a woman.
The peak year of female Assembly members was in 2002 and it has slowly declining since, as women have been term-limited or jumped to the senate, or sought other offices, or retired, and not been completely replaced by other women.
The new (2012) term limits are now 100% implemented in the Assembly, except for former members or any who switch from the senate. Those first elected in 2010 were term-limited and could not run in 2016. Those first elected in 2012 are just now starting their 3rd of a potential 6 terms. While no female members will be forced out over the next few years, there may be few open seats. All 80 current members can run for re-election in 2018, 2020, and 2022.
Most senators are still under the old term limits. If first elected in 2010, they will be term limited in 2018. And most of those first elected in 2012-2016 had service in the Assembly so they are still subject to the old term limits. Someone who has six years in the Assembly and an open senate seat, may decide to pass on a single term in the senate, even if they could come back for one final term in the assembly. If someone has completed four years in the Assembly, they might try to move to an open senate seat. If they pass, it won’t be open in another four years. So you may see legislators serving 6 terms in the Assembly or 3 terms in the senate. Open seats may become more infrequent and perhaps less predictable. This may reduce opportunities for women.