.

.

.

[To be returned to May 14 at 9:00 by June 14.]

PREFACE (no longer relevant)

On Sunday, June 7, 2020, registered Democratic voters from all eight of OC’s Congressional Districts (and all 45 non-OC California districts) will “gather together”* to choose their delegates for the national convention.  That convention will nominate Joe Biden (or whomever) as the party’s Presidential nominee, as well as voting on a party platform, a Vice-Presidential nominee, and who knows what else.

That convention has been scheduled to take place in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from August 17-20.  One problem: the convention seems unlikely to be able to take place there and then — which probably was just made more likely by the Wisconsin Supreme Court striking down the Governor’s stay-at-home order —  as it would constitute a major flouting of social distancing.  It could be replaced by the largest Zoom meeting ever at one time, or a virtual convention of some other sort — or, again, who knows what.

Still, at a minimum, we need to assign real people to the unoccupied pledged delegate slots.  Four campaigns — Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Mike Bloomberg — won delegates from California, though Warren did not win any from OC and Bloomberg won only one, in CD-48.  [Harley Rouda’s doing? – V] [Heh-heh … read on below! – G]  Bernie Sanders won the county pretty emphatically, so his and Biden’s campaign are supposed to call separate meetings in less than four weeks where Democratic voters in the each district are supposed to physically gather together to cast ballots for delegates.

The problem, again, is that nobody with any sense wants to attend such a cattle call in quarantine time.  (There can literally be hundreds of people at one of these.)  So discussion is proceeding about the possibility of virtual meetings, or mail-in ballots, ideally preceded by some event (or series of events) that would give attendees the chance to question prospective delegates about their positions.  But these plans have not yet come to fruition.

Why is the state party letting this happen?  The state party says that it is not in charge of it — the campaigns are. [Note: this changed while this post was queued for publication.  See note below.]  So far as I can tell, and I may not have the best vantage point, the Sanders campaign seems not to fully grasp what needs to happen very soon. (That’s probably just fine with the Biden-supporter-dominated state party.)  The obvious flaws with every plan — such as having people drive to a mostly empty Wal-Mart parking lot and communicate with bullhorns — have been clearly noted by critics: it will be hard to make meetings open to people without private transportation, or to fulfill the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, let alone both, while at the same time ensuring that nobody gets infected.  Meanwhile the deadline for notifying citizens of the meetings (or mail-in balloting, or whatever) keep getting closer.

[Note from the CDP, evening of May 13: “As many “stay at home” orders have been extended throughout the state, the California Democratic Party is working with the Presidential campaigns on a “virtual” solution to conduct the Congressional District Caucuses in a matter that is safe, accessible and secure for all. We are working on a schedule to conduct the virtual elections by June 7 and a virtual convention delegate meeting on June 28, 2020. Over the next few days, we will share more details as plans are being developed collaboratively with the campaigns.”]

[Great!  They found out who was in charge — and it was themselves all along!  Seriously, this is what had to happen, so one point for CDP.  ]

I’m a Sanders-approved candidate for delegate in CD-39 — one of three males running for one spot — and I do not know what to expect.  (I also like both of the people I’m running against, so I’m sort of wondering how much to worry about it.)  But still, in the expectation that choices will, somehow, be made in time by both the Sanders and Biden campaigns, here’s my list of the OC-district candidates (remembering that four of the districts are only partly in OC) —  along with my recommendations as to who would make the best delegates.  For Sanders delegates, I’m judging candidates on who can most effectively carry the Sanders message (and speak to the presence of any shenanigans); for Biden delegates. I’m mostly going by who seems to have the most integrity, most ability to cooperate, and least insanity and inanity.

And now it’s time for …

THE ACTUAL INTRODUCTION!

OK: each campaign is color-coded: teal, blue, and faded wine-stain purple.  Or, to put it more vividly:

POTENTIAL SANDERS DELEGATES

Candidates listed in TEAL have been screened and approved by the Bernie Sanders campaign:

POTENTIAL BIDEN DELEGATES

Candidates listed in BLUE have been screened and approved by the Joe Biden campaign:

POTENTIAL BLOOMBERG DELEGATES

Candidates in DULL PURPLISH have been screened and approved by the Michael Bloomberg campaign:

Each district is assigned a number of delegates, a division of delegates between the two or more campaigns, and a starting gender, which then alternates across picks.  The campaign that won the district — in all cases, Sanders — gets to choose their allotted delegates starting with the assigned starting gender, then the next candidate chooses theirs, starting with the gender opposite of the last pick of the previous campaign.  So you’ll see a list of codes including “SM” (Sanders Male), “SF” (Sanders Female), BM (Biden Male), and BF (Biden Female), with Bloomberg designated with an M for “Mike.”

Recommendations are in orange.  Sometimes I have no recommendation, either because I don’t know them, can’t decide between Biden delegates (with whom I disagree), or am legitimately torn between Sanders candidates.

If you want to get into the math of this — and I’m sure you do! — look down to Appendix A, which contains everything needed to calculate who got how many delegates in each district.  If you want to get into the rules — and I’m sure you don’t! — you can find the relevant ones in Appendix B.  (Even in a quarantine, I can’t recommend them.)  I’m not crystal clear on all of them — and I don’t even know whom to ask for clarification — so I’ve made some assumptions about things like who appoints the alternates that may not end up being correct.  Not much rides on them, though.

Bernie, Biden, and Bloomberg, sized roughly in proportion to California delegate counts.

Enjoy your look through the lists: I think that it’s notable, to the point of being stunning, how different the people in the Sanders and Biden lists are.

Congressional District 38

5 delegates: 3 Sanders, 2 Biden; 3 Male, 2 Female.
By seat: #1 SM, #2 SF, #3 SM, #4 BF #5 BM

OJB Recommends: Seat #1 Henry Huerta (SM), #2 Zenaida Huerta (SF), #3 Ali Taj (SM), #4 & #5: no recommendation, fight it out!

Congressional District 39

5 delegates: 3 Sanders, 2 Biden; 3 Male, 2 Female;
By seat: #1 SF, #2 SM, #3 SF, #4 BM #5 BF

OJB Recommends: Seat #1 Stephanie Terrazos (SF), #2 Any are OK — even me! (SM), #3 No recommendation #4 Andrew Rodriguez (BM), #5 Lourdes Cruz (BF)

Congressional District 45

5 delegates +1 alt: 3+1 Sanders, 2 Biden; 2 Male, 3+1 Female;
By seat: #1 SF, #2 SM, #3 SF, #4 BM, #5 BF, Alternate SF

Congressional District 47

5 delegates + 1 alt: 3+1 Sanders, 2 Biden; 2+1 Male, 3 Female
By seat: #1 SF, #2 SM, #3 SF, #4 BM, #5 BF, (Alternate) SM

Seat #1 Andrew Swetland, #2 Vanndearlyn Vong, #3 Vincent Vo, #4 Connor Lock, #5 Sharon Weissman, Alt: No recommendation, but leaning Cesar Armendariz Lopez (M)

Congressional District 48

5 delegates: 2 Sanders, 2 Biden, 1 Mike Bloomberg; 3 Male, 2 Female
By seat: #1 SM, #2 SF, #3 BM, #4 BF, #5 MM

Richard Rowe (M)

Kaira Rouda (F)

OJB Recommends: Seat #1 Tim Johnson dropped out in favor of William Summerville — so we endorse Summerville, and I hope Johnson gets an at-large seat, #2 Jaci Ianello, #3 Jamison Power, #4 Laura Oatman, #5 Given the error made in determining delegate apportionment, Mike Bloomberg’s sole delegate from OC has to be female — so that means that Harley Rouda’s wife Kaira gets the seat.  (I won’t speculate about Rouda’s clout….)

Congressional District 49

5 delegates: 2 M, 3 F; 3 BS, 2 JB
= (1) SF (2) SM (3) SF (4) BM (5) BF 

[Before going to the choices: Emma Jenson is the only candidate (at least among those who survived screening) who registered and “non-binary” gender.  (I’m not sure whether that’s a statement about herself or a protest against binary conceptions of gender.)  Even after reading the instructions, I’m not sure how they handle this, but I suspect that because two of the three open Sanders spots are for women, Emma will be considered within that category.  Note that four of the Bernie candidates — two men, two women — are running on a slate for three open seats; maybe that surfeit is also because of Emma.]

OJB Recommends: Seat #1 Emma Jenson, #2 Zaccary Bradt (though Alireza Mosallaie also looks pretty good), #3 Madge Torres, #4 Luke Tesluk, #5 Anne Cameron

All of the above are subject to change as people argue with me over them.

HAPPY VOTING, EVERYONE!

APPENDIX A — FINAL RESULTS

Copied from the TheGreenPapers.com, which I presume does not object. (But if I really have to retype the damned thing by hand, I will.)

In green: The left column gives you the congressional district number (plus) Party Leaders/Elected Officials and At-Large delegates), followed by the overall vote for President in the district.  The third column provides the “qualified” voted — that is the number of votes that went to candidates who won at least 15% of the vote in that district (or statewide for the last two rows.)  The final green column provides the number of delegates assigned to each district or statewide category.)  The light blue next to the green one provides the statistics for Bernie Sanders: raw votes, then “delegate -equivalents.” and then the number of delegates won in that district or category.  The next columns are for Biden; then the last two in order are for Warren (blue) and Bloomberg (pinkish).

As you’ll see, Sanders barely got an extra delegate in CD-49 and Biden barely got one in CD-29 — with the person whose delegate was over .50 rounding up in the case of an odd number of delegates.  In CD-53, with an even number of delegates, Biden split the 6 delegates equally, barely escaping Sanders getting 4 out of 6.  Sanders did, in contrast, narrowly get a 4-2 split in CD-19.)

Among the two others, Warren managed 11 delegates (none in OC), and Bloomberg 7 delegates (one in OC.)

APPENDIX B —

PARTY RULES FOR DELEGATE SELECTION

Section III
Selection of Delegates and Alternates
A. District-Level Delegates and Alternates
1. California is allocated 271 district-level delegates and 26 district-level alternates.  (Rule 8.C, Call I.B, I.I, & Appendix B)

2. District-level delegates and alternates shall be elected by a presidential preference primary followed by a post-primary caucus, with the first determining step on March 3, 2020.

a. A presidential preference primary will be held on Tuesday, March 3, 2020,
followed by District-level delegates and alternates caucuses on Sunday, June 7, 2020 to elect delegates.

b. District-level delegates and alternates will be selected at post-primary
caucuses that will be scheduled on Sunday, June 7, 2020 to elect delegates.
Voting will be by ballot, with space for each eligible voter to vote for just one
candidate or all the candidates’ positions allocated per the CD they are voting
in. After all ballots are received, the votes for each candidate will be tallied.
Delegate candidates will then be ranked by gender from first to last. Each CD is allocated from 4-11 delegate slots total. The number of men and women shall not vary by more than one. In the case of a non-binary gender individual, they shall not be counted in either the male or female category. 26 CDs are allocated an alternate slot. The number of delegates awarded to a presidential candidate is dependent on the share of the Democratic vote received by the candidate within the CD based on the March 3, 2020 Presidential Primary.

c. As in past years, it will be the responsibility of each of the individual qualified presidential campaigns to organize the June Caucuses including selecting locations (accessible to persons with disabilities) and be the point of contact for all convenor questions or issues that arise at the caucus. Locations must be secure and transmitted to the State Party at least 20 days in advance of June 7, 2020 (May 18, 2020) so there will be ample time to publicize locations. The California Democratic Party will provide assistance, such as local contact names to be possible convenors, provide a listing of past sites used, provide a training manual and “convenor guide,” will manage the delegate filing process, provide materials including ballots, sign-in sheets, return envelopes, and general guidance both on the day of and throughout the process, as well as other specific needs which may arise. As locations are confirmed, they will be listed on the www.Cadem.org website.

3. Apportionment of District-Level Delegates and Alternates

a. California ’s district-level delegates and alternates are apportioned among the districts based on a formula giving equal weight to total population and to the average vote for the Democratic Candidates in the 2012 and 2016 presidential elections. This method was chosen to ensure the widest representation of delegates from all fifty-three (53) congressional districts. (Rule 8.A, Reg. 4.12, Reg. 4.11 & Appendix A)

b. The number of men and the number of women in the state’s total number of district-level delegates and alternates will not vary by more than one. (Rule
6.C.1 & Reg. 4.9)

c. The district-level delegates and alternates are apportioned to districts as
indicated in the following table [I’ve added in the gender of the alternates for OC, where they exist, by referring to a separate document not included here]:

District | Delegates | [Alternates]
Males* | Females* | Total | [Males* | Females* | Total]
#1 2 2 4
#2 3 3 6 [1 1]
#3 3 2 5
#4 2 3 5
#5 3 3 6 [1 1]
#6 3 2 5 [1 1]
#7 2 3 5 [1 1]
#8 2 2 4
#9 3 2 5
#10 2 2 4
#11 3 3 6 [1 1]
#12 3 4 7 [1 1]
#13 4 3 7 [1 1]
#14 3 3 6 [1 1]
#15 3 3 6 [1 1]
#16 2 2 4
#17 2 3 5 [1 1]
#18 3 3 6 [1 1]
#19 3 3 6 [1 1]
#20 3 2 5 [1 1]
#21 2 2 4
#22 2 2 4
#23 2 2 4
#24 2 3 5 [1 1]
#25 3 2 5
#26 2 3 5 [1 1]
#27 3 2 5 [1 1]
#28 3 3 6 [1 1]
#29 2 3 5
#30 3 3 6 [1 1]
#31 3 2 5
#32 2 3 5
#33 3 3 6 [1 1]
#34 3 2 5
#35 2 2 4
#36 2 2 4
#37 3 3 6 [1 1]
#38 3 2 5
#39 2 3 5
#40 3 2 5
#41 2 3 5
#42 3 2 5
#43 2 3 5 [1 1]
#44 3 2 5 [1 1]
#45 2 3 5 [1 F]
#46 2 2 4
#47 3 2 5 [1 M]
#48 2 3 5
#49 3 2 5
#50 2 2 4
#51 2 3 5
#52 3 3 6 [1 1]
#53 3 3 6 [1 1]
*(Assuming no gender non-binary delegates are elected.)

4. District-Level Delegate and Alternate Filing Requirements
a. A district-level delegate and alternate candidate may run for election only
within the district in which they are registered to vote (Rule 13.H)
b. An individual can qualify as a candidate for district-level delegate or alternate to the 2020 Democratic National Convention by filing a statement of candidacy designating their singular presidential (or uncommitted) preference and a signed pledge of support for the presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) with the State Party by Friday, March 3, 2020 8:00PM. A delegate or alternate candidate may modify their singular presidential preference by submitting an updated pledge of support no later than the filing deadline. The statement of candidacy can be filed by mail to 1830 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, 95811, by electronic mail to Delegate2020@cadem.org, or by fax to 916-442-5715 (Rule 13.B, Rule 15.F & Reg. 4.23)

[Page 16]
c. Candidates may obtain the statement of candidacy and pledge of support
forms and filing instructions from the California Democratic Party
Headquarters, in person, by mail, or from its website at
(https://cadem.org/our-party/national-convention ) beginning Monday,
January 6, 2020
d. All candidates considered for district-level alternate positions must meet the
same requirements as candidates for district-level delegate position. Any
candidate not chosen at the district-level is allowed to be considered at the
alternate-level (Rule 13.C)
5. Presidential Candidate Right of Review for District-Level Delegates and Alternates
a. The State Democratic Chair shall convey to the presidential candidate, or that
candidate’s authorized representative(s), not later than Monday, March 9,
2020 at 5:00pm a list of all persons who have filed for delegate or alternate
pledged to that presidential candidate. (Rule 13.D & Rule 13.F)
b. Each presidential candidate, or that candidate’s authorized representative(s),
must then file with the State Democratic Chair by Thursday, April 16, 2020 at
5:00pm a list of all such candidates they have approved, provided that
approval be given to at least three (3) separate individuals for each position for
delegate that has been allocated to that candidate and three (3) separate
individuals for each alternate position that has been allocated to that
candidate. (Rule 13.E.1, Reg. 4.24 & Reg. 4.25)
c. Failure to respond will be deemed approval of all delegate and alternate
candidates submitted to the presidential candidate unless the presidential
candidate, or the authorized representative(s), signifies otherwise in writing to
the State Democratic Chair not later than Thursday April 16, 2020 at 5:00pm.
d. National convention delegate and alternate candidates removed from the list
of bona fide supporters by a presidential candidate, or that candidate’s
authorized representative(s), may not be elected as a delegate or alternate at
that level pledged to that presidential candidate. (Rule 13.E & Reg. 4.24)
e. The State Democratic Chair shall certify in writing to the Co-Chairs of the DNC
Rules and Bylaws Committee whether each presidential candidate has used
their best efforts to ensure that their respective district-level delegate
candidates and district-level alternate candidates meet the affirmative action
and outreach and inclusion considerations and goals detailed in the Affirmative
Action section of this Plan within three (3) business days of returning the list of
approved district-level delegate candidates and district-level alternate
candidates as indicated in Section III.A.5.b of this Plan. (Rule 6.I & Reg.4.10.C)
State 2020 Delegate Selection Plan
17
6. Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference
a. Presidential Primary – Proportional Representation Plan (Rule 14.A, Rule 14.B &
Rule 14.D) The California presidential primary election is a “binding” primary.
Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly
reflect the expressed presidential (or uncommitted) preference of the primary
voters in each district. The National Convention delegates and alternates
selected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage
of the primary vote won in that district by each preference, except that
preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates
or alternates.
b. Within a district, if no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the
threshold shall be half the percentage of the vote received in that district by
the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)
c. In order to ensure that district-level delegates and alternates pledged to a
presidential candidate (Including uncommitted status) are selected or
nominated by a caucus of persons from the unit electing the delegate or
alternate who signs statements of support for that presidential candidate, the
California Democratic Party will adequately publicize the explanation of that
process (Rule 13.G)
d. Caucus elections will take place on Sunday, June 7, 2020. Only those
participants who sign pledges of support to a particular candidate may run in
that candidate’s caucus election. Presidential candidates will be informed by
the California Democratic Party of DNC rules governing such elections. In
addition, guidelines prepared by the California Democratic Party will be
provided to each candidate. Such guidelines will be available at the office of
the California Democratic Party. The rules of procedure for the District-Level
Caucuses have been included in a memo as an attachment to the Plan. (Rule
13.C)
7. Equal Division of District-Level Delegates and Alternates
a. To ensure the district-level delegates are equally divided between men and
women (determined by gender self-identification) delegate positions within
each district will be designated by presidential preference beginning with the
highest vote-getting presidential preference. This assignment of delegate
positions, will continue with the next highest vote-getting preferences in
descending order, with positions assigned to either male and female
alternating by gender as mathematically practicable, until the gender of each
position has been assigned. In the case of non-binary gender delegates, they
State 2020 Delegate Selection Plan
shall not be counted in either the male or female category. (Rule 6.C., Rule
6.C.1 & Reg. 4.10)
The delegate positions shall be pre-designated so that the gender of the first
Position to be filled by the winning presidential candidate is pre-determined.
Once the allocation of district delegates among presidential preference(s) has
been calculated, the remaining delegate positions can be assigned to the
presidential preference(s), in order of vote won, alternating by gender.
b. After the delegates are selected, the alternates will be awarded, using the
same process described above.
8. Supplemental District-Level Delegate Selection Process.
A presidential candidate or his/her authorized representative(s) should act in good faith to slate delegate and alternate candidates, however, in any event, if a presidential candidate (including uncommitted status) has qualified to receive delegates and alternates but has failed to slate a sufficient number of delegate and alternate candidates in a district and of the gender to which their awarded delegate positions are assigned, then additional delegate and alternate candidates may shall be selected in the following manner:
a. Filing requirements: Candidates must meet the same requirements as set out in paragraph 4 above except that the date when filing with the State Democratic Party is open shall be Wednesday, April 1, 2020 and the filing deadline shall be Friday, April 24, 2020.
b. Presidential Candidate Right of Review:
i. The State Democratic Chair shall convey to the presidential candidate, or
that candidate’s authorized representative(s), not later than Sunday,
April 26, 2020 at 5:00 pm a list of all persons who have filed for the
delegate or alternate positions identified in this paragraph and pledged
to that presidential candidate.
ii. Each presidential candidate, or that candidate’s authorized representative(s), must then file with the State Democratic Chair by Thursday, April 30, 2020 at 5:00pm a list of all such candidates they have approved, provided that approval be given to at least three (3) separate individuals for each position for delegate that has been allocated to that candidate and three (3) separate individuals for each alternate position that has been allocated to that candidate.
iii. Failure to respond will be deemed approval of all delegate and alternate
candidates submitted to the presidential candidate unless the presidential candidate, or the authorized representative(s), signifies otherwise in writing to the State Democratic Chair not later than Thursday April 30, 2020 at 5:00pm.
9. The State Democratic Chair shall certify in writing to the Secretary of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) the election of the state’s district-level delegates and alternates to the Democratic National Convention within 10 days after their election. The California Secretary of State will certify the final results on Friday, April 10, 2020 and the State Democratic Chair will amend any preliminary submissions if needed. (Rule 8.C & Call IV.A)