Home→General→California Special U.S. House Election, May 17

California Special U.S. House Election, May 17

Posted on May 17, 2011 by admin

California voters choose a replacement for Congresswoman Jane Harman on May 17. Harman had been representing the voters of the 36th U.S. House district in western Los Angeles County, but she resigned. Most observers believe that none of the 16 candidates will poll as much as 50%, so there will be a run-off on July 12.

Jon Fleischman has this commentary about the election.

Comments

California Special U.S. House Election, May 17 — 9 Comments

Casual Bystander on May 17, 2011 at 11:01 am said:

I guess I must have missed it. Why did Rep. Harman resign?
Richard Winger on May 17, 2011 at 12:26 pm said:

She got a better job.
Demo Rep on May 17, 2011 at 1:12 pm said:

P.R. for legislative bodies — replacement lists for vacancies — NO moron special elections.
Casual Bystander on May 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm said:

What better job, Richard? A political appointment or did she actually go into the private sector?
Jim Riley on May 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm said:

#2 I think she didn’t like being the ranking minority member.

There are 17 candidates, 5 Democrats, 6 Republicans, 1 Libertarian, 1 Peace&Freedom, and 4 NPP (including a write-in).

If Bowen wins, is there any chance that Steve Peace or Abel Maldonado will be appointed Secretary of State? I think California needs a strong advocate of the Top 2 Open Primary like Washington has in Sam Reed and Rob McKenna.

In California, does “voter registration card” refer to a card sent to you by the county registrar, or is it the application a registrant fills out? In Texas, voters are sent a voter registration card at the start of each biennium.
Mike on May 17, 2011 at 5:31 pm said:

Jane Harman became the Head of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. I understand that CA Prop. 14 has not been precleared by the Justice Dept. yet. How does this affect any current and future elections?
Casual Bystander on May 18, 2011 at 4:43 am said:

Thanks, Mike.
Bob Richard on May 18, 2011 at 1:35 pm said:

#6, lack of Section 5 preclearance becomes a problem when (1) a special election needs to be held in a district that includes at least a portion of one of the four covered counties (Merced, Kings, Monterey, Yuba), or (2) 2012 rolls around — whichever happens first.

This raises a fairly technical, but potentially interesting, question. Under SB 6, special election rules are not the same as general election rules because 50% plus 1 vote in the first round wins outright. It is theoretically possible that the Justice Department could that find one set of rules is OK under Section 5 but the other set of rules isn’t.
Jim Riley on May 19, 2011 at 9:50 am said:

The counties involved have to get pre-clearance for any special election, because it involves some change in election procedure. California had to get pre-clearance for the 2003 recall election, as well as the 2010 special election in SD 15 which includes parts of Monterey County. If there is a special election, California c(w(ould request expedited consideration.