CA120: Laphonza Butler – Will she or won’t she?

Now that newly appointed Senator Laphonza Butler has been sworn in, the question on the lips of all political insiders is “will she, or won’t she?”

The Governor has said that his appointment was no-strings attached – she could run for the full six-year term in 2024, or she could decline and simply serve the remainder of the Feinstein term. Thus far she has not stated what she will do.

But the question isn’t really that simple.

For starters, there isn’t just one election. There are two. In California, a gubernatorial appointment to the US Senate is put before the voters at the next statewide election, which also happens to be when the the election for the full-term is held. That contest already has three Democratic incumbent members of Congress running at full speed: Adam Schiff, Katie Porter and Barbara Lee – and two potentially impactful Republican candidates that have been sniffing around, Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former Dodger/Padre Steve Garvey.

Voters have seen concurrent special replacement and full elections before, as recently as last election cycle when appointed Senator Alex Padilla was running both on the replacement special election, and the full-term election.

Here are the big issues/concerns that will face all involved in this Senate Election that just got a whole lot more complicated.

Run for none, run for one, or run for both? Those are the choices facing Senator Laphonza Butler.

If she has zero interest in the full senate term, she still needs to consider if she will run in the special election for the replacement term, one which will require time, energy, fundraising and a real campaign. If she were to lose it, and none of the other major candidates run on the special election ballot, then some random celebrity or former elected official who punches above their weight could become the next US Senator from the time the election is certified, likely at the end of November, until the swearing in of the full-term Senator in January of 2025.

Maybe a month of being a Senator doesn’t sound appealing to everyone, but in a state where we have seen ballots filled with dozens of candidates, including names like Stormy Daniels and Caitlin Jenner, someone would do it. And it would be an embarrassment to both Butler and Governor Newsom if her appointment wasn’t ratified by voters.

However, if she is going to run in the replacement election that means really running. She would need to raise a few million dollars to campaign statewide, get the Democratic Party endorsement for the Special Election ballot, go to a ton of events in California and DC, and really make sure she is building that necessary name recognition. It’s not something she can simply coast through.

If she is going to run for the full term, that’s another, even more daunting task. Throughout history, few appointed Senators have not run and won the full terms, but none of those were just months from Election Day, and in a state as large and costly as California.

A run for the full seat would likely start with earning the endorsement of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, who as a rule always support incumbent Senators, then going on to big statewide organizations and elected officials, pulling endorsements or getting dual endorsements, then trying to raise at least $10 million to compete with the cumulative $50 million in play among Schiff, Porter and Lee. Even with that, Butler may not feel confident in a contest where the other candidates best her in money, name recognition, established political careers and bases of support. Could it happen? Maybe, but it would be a real “swing for the fences” play. (One that could pay off with a likely 30-40 year Senate career if she makes it.)

This question of running in one or both elections is facing not just Butler, but also the frontrunning candidates, Porter, Lee and Schiff, and any Republicans that might jump in. In their case, they are already set on running for the full election, yet they might not know if they should also be running in the partial election, or leave that one to the appointed incumbent.

In an interview, reporter Cassie Seymon asked Schiff if he would be running in the special election, but his answer was more of a generic full election soundbite. And it belied the actual complexity of this question.

One appealing aspect of running in both would be the ability to double fundraising from maxed-out donors. The special election for the remainder of the term is an actual full election, giving candidates the ability to fundraise for both if they file to run in each contest. That means a max out contribution of $3,300 for March instantly jumps to $6,600 with the justification that you’re now running in two separate contests.

But being on the ballot in two separate contest has a potential negative impact. Voters, in all their wisdom, have a tendency to split their votes when they see two of the same elections on their ballot.

This surprised observers when, in 2018 two concurrent elections for the 32^nd State Senate District, Democrat Vanessa Delgado won the special election to fulfill the vacancy, then on the same ballot, elected Democrat Bob Archuleta for the full term. Observers were stunned that voters would split their votes. Questions were raised about possible problems with the ballots, looking to see if some precincts had ballots without Delgado listed on them, or questioning if the tally was done correctly. But the fact was that in the span of one ballot voters cast one vote for Delgado then moments later voted for her opponent, Archuleta.

Going into the March 2022 US Senate primary, we tested this question when then appointed-Senator Padilla was running on both a special election to complete the remainder of the Kamala Harris term, and the concurrent election to succeed her in the full term. Just like Delgado/Archuleta, this was two ballots that Padilla would be on, and presumably a rational voter would cast their votes for the same candidates on each. However, in Capitol Weekly polling, 18% of voters said they switched their votes between candidates in those two elections.

Why would voters split their votes in these elections on the same ballot? One theory is that voters simply don’t feel comfortable voting for the same candidate twice in a row. Another concern is that voters sometimes have a “heart pick” and a “head pick” and so they can, when they get to vote twice, satisfy both of these desires. Of course, it may all come down to voter confusion.

In a crowded field of contenders, each with their own appeal, being on both ballots could potentially pose some risk. What if, as an example, Congresswoman Barbara Lee was the heart pick for many voters, with some percentage of voters splitting votes for her and one of the other main contenders. Even a small splitting of votes because of this ballot oddity could cause a candidate to make the runoff in the special election for the remainder term, and not make the runoff in the election for the full term.

If all candidates are running on both ballots, then maybe the small shifting because of vote splitting would wash itself out. However, this creates a bit of a prisoner’s dilemma.

Going back to the Barbara Lee example, what if she played a little game theory? If Schiff and Porter both announced they would run in the Special and Full elections, she could balk at the special, and only run for the full. Then, any vote splitting would only benefit Lee in that full election since anyone who wanted to give her one of their two votes would only be able to cast that in the full seat – the election that actually matters.

Of course, fearing that this might happen, it is just as likely that all candidates decide to not run for the partial, out of fear that they will be gamed into being the only candidate suffering from this potential vote splitting issue.

And this is just the conundrum Democrats are considering right now. What if Republican Steve Garvey was to run, and only run in the Full election? He would be setting up a scenario where some independent voters who are die-hard 1980s Dodgers fans who are deciding between Schiff and Garvey could end up only voting for Schiff in the partial, then Garvey in the full election, giving greater likelihood of having a Republican in the runoff.

Finally, all this doesn’t even touch the General Election, which could be strange if we have different heads-up matches in the two contests. We could again see the same impact if, say, there is one Democrat who won both the Special and the Full elections, but their opponent in each of the two elections is different. That candidate on both ballots would be able to double-fundraise, but also could suffer from vote splitting – something that could be critical in a close contest.