Patricia McKeon, a Republican running in the 38th Assembly District, is not your typical first-time candidate for the Legislature. For starters, she's 69 years old. She has 31 grandchildren. She says she decided to run for office because she was grocery shopping at a store in unincorporated Los Angeles County and was told that under a new county ordinance it would cost her a dime for a paper bag. And she is the wife of a 10-term United States congressman, Rep. Buck McKeon.

On top of all that, she has a somewhat eccentric personality that sets her apart from the cookie-cutter candidates that seem to emerge every two years. We spoke briefly on the phone this week when she officially announced her candidacy and, charmingly, she twice noted during the conversation that she was looking at a photo of me so that she could have a better feeling of who she was speaking with. Never had a politician tell me that before.

One of her Republican opponents in the primary is Scott Wilk, 52, who comes to the race from a more traditional trail. He has worked as an aide to three area GOP lawmakers, including former Sen. Tom McClintock and Rep. McKeon. He now runs his own business and serves in local government, as a trustee of the Santa Clarita Community College District.

The district includes Santa Clarita, but also takes in all of Simi Valley, a city which will be instrumental in determining the winner, as it is home to nearly a third of district voters.

Wilk, as I noted in my previous post, on Tuesday invited McKeon to participate in 10 "Lincoln-Douglas style" debates between now and the June 5 primary. "I am looking forward to engaging the public in a serious political discourse on those issues they care most about," he wrote.

As I predicted yesterday, it didn't take McKeon long to decline. What I couldn't have predicted was the tone of her response letter, which showed up in my email inbox last night. To wit:

"Let's be honest, your request is really a Campaign 101 tactic for a candidate who needs to raise their profile. As you and I know, the election is nearly a year away and the only people paying attention to this race are you, me, our supporters, and those you carboned on your note to me.

"I think you are getting a little ahead of yourself. It's been just a couple of weeks since your last election and you're already focused on your next campaign. I know that some think that campaigns are about merely reaching for the next rung on the political ladder, but I don't share that view.

"In the meantime, we both have a lot of work and a lot of listening to do before we do anything else."

As I say, she's not your typical candidate. This is going to be a very interesting, and potentially very entertaining, race to watch.

It's clear that candidates for legislative offices in Ventura County districts have been reading their campaign textbooks. In the last couple of weeks they've pulled out a couple of the classics by issuing invitations that they are relatively certain their opponents will decline, but that put them on the high road.

Exhibit A was a letter from former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara to her 19th Senate District Democratic opponent, Jason Hodge, requesting that he join her in signing a pledge in which the candidates mutually agree "not to attack each other during the campaign" and to run only on their own records and positions.

It's an old ploy. Hodge, who did not respond to Jackson's proposal, called it a "silly distraction" and a "Groundhog's Day" example of the rote ritual of "the failed politics I've been talking about."

But in this case, Jackson was provoked. It was Hodge who earlier issued an "open letter" to Jackson supporters alerting them that someone had engaged an opposition research operative in Sacramento to submit public records requests to the Oxnard Harbor District trying to dig up some dirt on him. That was a clever move, but Hodge overstepped by referring to the operative -- basically, a political hack -- as a "private investigator." That's a precise term (actual private investigators must be licensed) for snoops who typically are engaged in tracking down potentially criminal activities.

In response, Jackson sought to regain the high ground by issuing the pledge -- which, she noted, could be jettisoned in the event that an independent expenditure committee launched negative ads. In that case, she noted, all rules would be off and the candidates could respond in kind.

In any event, the pledge was offered and refused and now the candidates might move on to something like...

Exhibit B: 38th Assembly District Republican candidate Scott Wilk today issued a challenge to fellow Republican Patrician McKeon to engage in 10 "Lincoln-Douglas style": debates in the district between now and the June 5 primary.

As with the clean campaign pledge, don't hold your breath waiting for McKeon to respond.

The California Republican Assembly, a group that is so conservative that it makes the state Republican Party appear moderate in comparison, held its presidential straw poll last weekend in Los Angeles.

This was the organization that in 2000 endorsed Gary Bauer, the social conservative with ties to the evangeical political movement and former head of the Family Research Council, over George W. Bush.

So what do these conservative activists make of the 2012 Republican presidential field?

According to a press release from Simi Valley activist Steve Frank, these were the results:

1. Former Speaker New Gingrich, with 26.4 percent.
2. Gov. Rick Perry and Congressman Ron Paul tied at 18.1 percent.
4. Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain tied at 12.5 percent.
6. Former Gov. Mitt Romney and former Sen. Rick Santorum at 5.6 percent.
8. Write-in of Sen. Marco Rubio at 1.4 percent.
9. Former Gov. Jon Huntsman, 0 votes.

This is the season, about a year before the next statewide general election, when Californians file initiatives. Many are fairly bizarre, and some simply defy description. Here's one that was cleared for signature-gathering today. The title and summary provided by the attorney general say everything that needs to be said about it:

ELIMINATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LAWS AND AGENCIES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE. Repeals the California Environmental Quality Act, California Coastal Act, California Endangered Species Act, California Global Warming Solutions Act, and California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act. Abolishes the California Environmental Protection Agency and Air Resources Board. Establishes new inalienable rights to produce, distribute, use, and consume air, carbon dioxide, water, food, habitat for humanity, universal heal thyself care, and energy generating natural resources. Grants Californians the individual right to nullify all federal powers not specifically delegated to the United States by the federal constitution. Fiscal Impact: It is the opinion of the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance that the measure likely would result in a substantial net change in state or local finances if adopted.

Notably, the secretary of state reports, proponent Oscar Alejandro Braun provided no public contact information.

Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, raised some eyebrows four years ago when he chose to identify himself on the ballot as an "alternative energy executive." The reference was to a newly formed company called GreenWave Energy Solutions, in which Strickland had become a partner after investing $5,000 in its startup.

The company's objective was to develop energy from wave power, and it had applied for permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to expore projects off the coasts of Mendocino and Humboldt counties in Northern California. Preliminary permits were issued in May 2009.

The company's aspirations, however, were cut off in September 2010 when the commission revoked the permits, citing a lack of progress by the company in demonstrating efforts to pursue a project.

This fall, however, on Sept. 23, the Thousand Oaks-based company submitted a new application for permits at the same two sites.

Strickland did not repond to a message placed to his office inquiring about his current status with the company, but on his annual statement of economic interest filed in March of this year, he listed himself as vice president and estimated the value of his interest in the company at between $10,000 and $100,000. He noted that he received either no or very little income from the company, between $0 and $499.

It is worth noting the company's resubmission of permit applications means that, once again, heading into another election cycle, Strickland will be able to accurately assert that he is involved in a business that is, at a very preliminary level, officially pursuing a government permit to develop a source of renewable energy.

Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, deployed since March with the Navy in Afghanistan, made a quick trip home last month during his one alloted R&R leave. Appropriately, he kept the trip very much under the radar. In fact, the only reason I'm able to report this is that he was spotted by happenstance at the Santa Barbara Zoo by an acquaintance in Ventura County who passed the information along to me.

I asked Gorell about the trip by email, and he confirmed the visit. "I spent the time with my family and avoided business/work because of the prohibitions place upon me from personally participating in any political and official legislative actiities, and because that seemed like the right thing to do," he wrote.

Exactly, A serviceman separated from his wife and young children for a year ought to spend all his few days of leave with his family.

His Assembly staff reports that they were aware of the visit, but that they had almost no communication with him while he was home.

Gorell, R-Camarillo, expressed some concern that, now that his visit home is publicly reported, some friends and supporters might have hurt feelings that he didn't get in touch. If so, they should get over it. He'll be home, he noted in the email dated last night, "exactly four months from today."

From a political viewpoint, Gorell's absence has made it impossible for him to become involved in all the political speculation that is still swirling over the new 26th District congressional seat (who, ultimately, will run?) and the slight uncertainty over the fate of the new Senate districts (now the subject of a referendum that has been submitted with a whisker-thin margin for error, given the relatively few number of signatures). That hasn't kept others from speculating that Gorell might decide to run for Congress next year if Rep. Elton Gallegly does not, or for state Senate if Sen. Tony Strickland ends up running for Congress.

The bet here is that Gorell will run for re-election to the Assembly. After all, because of circumstances, he has to date served only three months in that job. And he is still a young man of 41 who will likely have other political opportunities in the future.

The speculation about Rep. Elton Gallegly's intentions for next year just got a little more intense. The Antelope Valley Press, in an interview with Rep. Buck McKeon of Santa Clarita, reports McKeon expressing the belief that Gallegly intends to run in the safely Republican 25th Congressional District, which includes most of the city of Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley.

"As near as I can pin him, down, he's running against me," the paper quotes McKeon as saying. It further reports that the Santa Clarita congressman said he met with Gallegly last week.

The remarks are consistent -- but more precise -- with what McKeon said in a visit with the Ventura County Star editorial board last week.

If Gallegly were to run in the 25th, of course, it could set off a free-for-all among Republicans to run in the 26th District, which includes all of Ventura County except for most of the city of Simi Valley. Potential GOP candidates have been holding off in the 26th, deferring to Gallegly because he is the incumbent who now represents most of the area inside the new district.

It would be foolish to take McKeon's "as near as I can tell" remark as the definitive word about Gallegly's plans, of course. That word will come only from Gallegly's lips, and he's made it very plain that he will deliver that word on his own timetable.

Shotgun weddings aren't such terrific things, but it turns out that a six-gun wedding can be a lot of fun.

In a most unusual wedding ceremony, Oxnard Harbor District Commissioner Jason Hodge and Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Fiona Ma of San Francisco were married Saturday in a tiny chapel at the end of a faux Old West Main Street at Long Branch Farms in Half Moon Bay. The 5:30 ceremony capped a party that began at 3 for more than 500 guests, nearly all of whom abided by the wedding invitation's advisory that "Western wear will be required."

A contingent of political activists from Ventura County was on hand, including Hank and Leah Lacayo (Hank wore a full-length black duster coat, a horse-head bolo tie with rhinestones and generally was more resplendent than Bat Masterson in his prime), Leo and Marilyn Valenzuela, Tom Mullens and Tim Allison.

The political wedding was conveniently timed to fit between the San Francisco mayoral election four days earlier and Labor Federation endorsement interviews in Ventura County, which will take place Wednesday. Hodge is running for the Senate in the new 19th District, where he faces an uphill battle against fellow Democrat Hannah-Beth Jackson.

Democrats in Ventura County have been wondering for weeks what Supervisor Steve Bennett is up to. He has been courted by some to run for Congress in the new, highly competitive 26th District, and has said since August that he hasn't ruled out the idea. It's now November, and the question is: Will he or won't he?

There was hint that he might be on the verge of saying yes earlier this week when the Patagonia public releations department on Wednesday afternoon sent a tantalizing email to Ventura County Star senior editor Jim Medina advising of a planned event at noon on Thursday at the company's Ventura headquarters.

"I wanted to let you know that tomorrow, Thurs Nov 11 (CQ), Supervisor Steve Bennett will be coming to the Patagonia campus at noon for an intimate gathering with the Patagonia employees - a chance to talk, and have a Q&A.

"I am writing to invite you to attend and listen in to what he has to say!
I am guessing it will be an event not to miss, and I am just inviting a few of the key local media to listen in."

Was this intended to be the platform for a congressional announcement? I asked Bennett, that afternoon, but he wouldn't say.

On Thursday morning, Patagonia spokesman Jess Clayton followed up with the following email to Medina:

"Sincere apologies - We have just found out that Steve has canceled the event for now due to a conflict.I will let you know when/if it is rescheduled."

So, the mystery continues. If he ultimately does announce, Bennett may have to answer some questions about his apparent lack of decisiveness. Is he just being prudent and analyzing all the factors before making an informed decision -- a quality that would serve someone well in Congress? Or is he being wishy-washy and indecisive -- qualities that have contributed to the do-nothing reputation of Congress?

Although polls show that California voters continue to view most proposed tax increases at the state level with disapproval, ballotting around the state on Tuesday indicated that they remain fairly supportive of tax increases at the local level -- where they have a greater appreciation for the need and a higher level of comfort that the money will be appropriately spent.

City finance guru Mike Coleman, who clearly stayed up with the nearly full moon last night, posted a comprehensive report time-stamped at 2:36 this morning. It shows that of the 53 non-school local fiscal measures on ballots around the state yesterday, 40 passed, for a 75 percent success. That's slightly higher than the 65 percent pass rate over the last decade.

Of the majority-vote proposals, 82 percent passed. Of the two-thirds majority proposals, 69 percent were approved (one of the losers, of course, was Fillmore's proposed sales tax increase).

Not surprisingly, some of the biggest winners were measures to tax out-of-towners: Five out of five increases in hotel occupancy tax rates were approved, two with support from more than 80 percent of voters.

Five out of seven school district parcel taxes (two-thirds majority needed) were approved -- and here again one of the losers was the only district that included voters in Ventura County, Las Virgenes.

There may be an instructive lesson here for Gov. Jerry Brown and legislative leaders who are searching for ways to increase revenues at the state level:
The most promising pathway to secure voter approval is to continue moving forward with Brown's realignment plans to shift state responsibilities back to local governments, and to come up with a tax proposal on the ballot that would direct all the revenue to the locals. That's largely what Brown was asking for last year, when he failed to come up with any Republican support for a plan to put a tax extension proposal before voters that would have dedicated the money to local governments.

Oxnard Harbor District Commissioner Jason Hodge today sent out "an open letter to Hannah-Beth and her supporters" in response to a public records request about him that has been received by the district. The request seeks information regarding benefits and compensation Hodge may be receiving as a commissioner.

In the letter, Hodge notes that complying with a private investigator's public records request "is costly to the taxpayers" and that he is happy to provide the information being sought for free. He then notes that he has declined all health and insurance benefits, has received no travel expenses and has paid out of his own pocket various reimbursable expenses relating to harbor business activities.

Finally, he suggests that the private investigator may be working for an interest group backing former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson in her emerging campaign against Hodge as two Democrats competing for the 19th Senate District seat.

"One can only assume that this dirt digging is a preamble for a negative campaign. That is regrettable," Hodge writes.

Steve Barkan, consultant to the Jackson campaign, would neither confirm nor deny that the investigator in question was hired by the campaign. He noted only that all of the campaign's expenses would be disclosed in campaign finance reports, the next one of which will become public at the end of January.

In going public with this rather routine bit of opposition research being conducted by someone with political motivation, Hodge appears to be stealing a page from Supervisor Linda Parks, who last month made a little news by sending to the press copies of a laundry list of public records requests seeking information about her that was sent to the county by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee -- presumably in anticipation of Parks potentially becoming a Republican candidate in the 26th Congressional District.

It is an interesting and, it seems to me, effective strategy. By publicly making a big deal out of the fact that these requests have been made, Parks and now Hodge openly proclaim that their activities as elected representatives are an open book and that they have nothing to hide. At the same time, they portray their opponents as practitioners of the dark art of negative campaigning.

On the more positive side, the Jackson campaign announced last week that it has received the endorsement of the California Nurses Association, a significant labor backing that counters some of Hodge's early union support.

One year before Election Day 2012, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee launched radio ads in the districts of 25 targeted Republicans nationwide, including Rep. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley.

The extent of the buy was not divulged, but Republican operatives told the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call that they believed the buy was very minimal -- an attempt to gain some news coverage, rather than actually make impressions on voters with repetitive ads on multiple stations.

Gallegly -- who has not yet announced whether he intends to run for re-election -- would most likely run in the new 26th Congressional District, which includes all of Ventura County except for most of the city of Simi Valley and small coastal strip in the city of Ventura. The voting makeup and history of that district suggest it is one that Democrats can classify as a "pickup" -- one in which most the territory is now represented by Gallegly and could be won by a Democrat in the fall. If Democrats win 25 such districts nationally next year and hold onto the seats they now hold, they will regain majority control of the House of Representatives.

The inclusion of Gallegly in the 25 selected targets is the latest evidence that the new district will put Ventura County squarely on the map in national congressional campaign politics next fall.

First, a confession: When Proposition 11, the intitiative to create an independent, citizens' redistricting commission in California, was placed on the ballot in 2008 I openly questioned the complex, Rube Golberg process it proposed for selecting commissioners. It ispelled out detailed conflict-of-interest provisions, created an open applications process, put the state auditor in charge of screening candidates and selecting a pool of finalists, gave legislative leaders the power to veto a handful of finalists, and ended with a lottery.

It was convoluted, but it accomplished something essential to protect the panel's independence: Other than giving legislative leaders the ability to blackball a few finalists, it completely shut elected officials out of the process.

As the redistricting process unfolded this spring and summer it was more than a little amusing to watch as frustrated politicians slowly began to realize that they were absolutely powerless to control, or even influence the process. The result, for better or worse, was a set of new maps that were exclusively the creation of an independent panel isolated from traditional partisan influence.

The importance of that was underscored this week in Arizona, where Gov. Jan Brewer took advantage of a loophole in the law that created Arizona's independent redistricting panel to oust the chairwoman after Republicans in Congress objected to the draft Arizona maps. The state law there included a "gross misconduct" provision that allowed the governor and a two-thirds majority of the state senate to oust a commissioner. Proponents say it was put in as a safety valve to allow for the replacement of a commissioner in an extreme circumstance, such as clear ethical or legal misconduct.

But because one party controls both the governorship and a two-thirds majority of the Senate, the gross misconduct provision in Arizona created a loophole for partisans to take back the process from the independent commission.

My belated apologies to the drafters of Proposition 11. While their process for selecting commissioners was complicated and their rules for adopting maps were strict (approval by at least 3 of 5 Republican members, 3 of 5 Democratic members and 3 of 4 nonpartisan members), they did succeed in creating a process that completely excluded the professional politicians.

As the experience in Arizona demonstrates, the redistricting process is so important to the political class that if you give politicians a loophoile, they will exploit it.