Dem
51
GOP
49
Readers may recall the jungle-style primary in California's 16th district, where several Democrats were jockeying to replace Rep. Anna Eshoo (D), who is retiring. Former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo (D) finished in first place, but in second place it was a tie between Assemblyman Evan Low (D) and Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian (D). California law does not anticipate this scenario, and for a short while, there was talk of allowing both Low and Simitian to advance to the general, for a three-way race with Liccardo. Eventually, however, it was determined this was unfair to the voters, as well as to the candidates, so a recount was initiated. And this week, after just shy of 2 months, CA-16 finally has a second-place finisher.
We know that readers sometimes like to see how the sausage is made, and reader S.C. in Mountain View, CA, was following the story closely, and was kind enough to send us regular updates. So, if you really want to get weedy, and also to find out who will face Liccardo, read on:
April 10: In "Fong Can Double Dip," you wrote: "We don't know the exact politics of the three [CD-16] candidates..." Allow me to assist. (Please note that I am not unbiased here, and my bias will probably leak through.) I apologize in advance for the length.
This was "supposed" to be Joe Simitian's seat. Joe (age 71) has had a long and distinguished career in politics, starting with the Palo Alto School Board (1983-91), then moving to the Palo Alto City Council (1992-96), Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (1996-2000), California State Assembly (2000-04), California State Senate (2004-12), and back to the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors (2012-present). (The Assembly and State Senate have term limits. The Board of Supervisors didn't for his first stint, but does now, and his final term is up at the end of this year.) He's been planning (and raising money) for years to run for this seat when Anna Eshoo (age 81) eventually retired, and when she did she endorsed him. He is well-loved by the people he has represented over the years, and of the three is the only candidate who has represented people in San Mateo County, which is why he led Evan Low in that county. If he loses, this is probably his Last Hurrah. If he wins, Evan or Sam (or both) can run to replace him when he retires.
Sam Liccardo (age 53) is, frankly, a carpetbagger. While San Jose does comprise 46% of the district by population, he does not live in that portion of San Jose that is in the district. He served on the San Jose City Council from 2007-14, and as elected Mayor of San Jose from 2015-22. He was strongly opposed by labor in his first election as Mayor, and I think also in his first election to the City Council. (San Jose has a two-term limit, so it isn't worth challenging an incumbent, and he had no serious challengers in his re-election campaigns.) He was expected to run for Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren's seat (CD-18) when she eventually retires (she's 76), as that is the district in which he lives, but he opportunistically jumped into the CD-16 race when Eshoo announced her retirement. He is the favorite, having garnered the endorsement of both the San Jose Mercury News and the San Francisco Chronicle. He is backed by Neighbors for Results, a SuperPAC that got a $500,000 contribution from Michael Bloomberg. (I received four mailings from them. To be fair, the other two candidates also have SuperPACs supporting them.) He will probably win, but if he loses he'll probably go back to whatever he was doing before he ran.
Evan Low (age 40) is the youngster of the three. He served on the Campbell City Council from 2006-14, and was elected to the California State Assembly in 2014. He could have run for re-election, but due to term limits it would have been for his last term, so he really had nothing to lose by jumping into the CD-16 contest. He is openly gay and is appealing (in both senses of the word) to the LGBTQ+ community, the East Asian-American community, and the youth vote. He has labor's strong endorsement. I don't know what his plans are if he loses the congressional race, but he has a bright political future ahead of him.
All three are staunch Democrats, so the seat will remain Democratic no matter what. Because Eshoo announced her retirement after the California Democratic Party held its endorsing convention in November 2023 (the CDP endorsed Eshoo, of course), none of the three had the CDP's pre-primary endorsement. A post-primary endorsing caucus is scheduled for this weekend.
As for the recount, there were two requested. The first was by Dan Stegink, who doesn't really have the money, but wanted to make a statement. The second is by Jonathan Padilla, who was finance director for Liccardo's San Jose mayoral campaign and is CEO and Co-Founder of Snickerdoodle Labs. Presumably he does have the money to pay for the recount.
It is possible that the recount confirms the tie for second place rather than breaks it. In any event, no matter how it comes out, whoever is paying for the recount probably won't get their money back. According to Elections Code Section 15634, "The money deposited shall be returned to the depositor if, upon completion of the recount... in an election where there are two or more candidates, the recount results in the candidate for whom the recount was requested appearing on the ballot in a subsequent runoff election or general election who would not have so appeared in the absence of the recount." [Emphasis added.]
If Padilla's paperwork names Liccardo, well, Liccardo is on the November ballot no matter what. And if his paperwork names either Low or Simitian, either that one stays on the November ballot or is removed, but both would have appeared on the November ballot "in the absence of the recount." The only way he gets his money back is if one or both counties makes an exception and returns it. (This has happened in the past, when a recount for a Sunnyvale City Council election resulted in a one-vote deficit becoming a tie. The recount requester ended up losing the drawing of lots that resolved the tie, so lost anyway, but the County decided that since he could have won the lot-draw it would be unfair not to refund his money.)
April 14: Padilla's paperwork named Evan Low, who immediately disavowed the recount request. The general impression is that Padilla requested the recount so that Liccardo would only have one opponent in November instead of two, making it easier for Liccardo to win. And he presumably named Low because he thought the recount would likely result in Low coming in second, kicking Simitian off the November ballot, and since this could be construed as favoring Low, he (incorrectly) assumed he would get his money back.
Padilla initially requested a hand-recount, which was estimated to cost $320K just for the Santa Clara County portion of the district, but changed it to a machine recount (estimated to cost $84K for the Santa Clara County portion), presumably because he realized he wouldn't be getting his money back. A machine recount is less likely to change the result. However, the recount will include examining the signatures of unopened vote-by-mail envelopes, unopened because the Registrar of Voters' office decided the signature didn't match and the voter didn't send in an updated signature form. If any challenges to that decision result in opening and counting those ballots, that could change the result.
People are curious as to whether Padilla is paying for this out of his own pocket or if he's being reimbursed by Liccardo or his campaign or by Neighbors for Results. One could interpret Padilla's payment of the recount as an independent expenditure to ostensibly help Low's campaign (since Low is named on the paperwork), but since a recount request isn't a communication urging someone to vote for or against a candidate, it appears to fall through the cracks in the regulations of the Federal Elections Commission. And if Padilla is reimbursed directly by Bloomberg or contributors to Liccardo's campaign or Liccardo himself, and not out of a campaign committee's treasury, we may never know who actually paid for the recount.
April 15: My wife, L.C. in Mountain View, CA, went down to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters' office to observe the recount. She was interviewed by a reporter and you can read about it here.
April 17: It appears that the recount is being paid for by a newly established SuperPAC, Count The Vote. This SuperPAC just happens to have the same address as the Neighbors for Results SuperPAC that is supporting Sam Liccardo. What a coincidence! Even more of a coincidence is that the treasurer of Count The Vote, James Sutton, works for the same law firm as the treasurer of Neighbors for Results, Matthew Alvarez. And they just happen to use the same bank in San Francisco; it's a small world.
April 28: The recount will go into a third week. The lawyer for Padilla is arguing that sixteen conditional ballots that weren't counted because a box on the envelope wasn't checked should be counted. I expect the lawyer to ask a court to order the county to count those ballots. Also, San Mateo County has 16 ballots that haven't been counted yet as they are waiting for the post office to let them know if they were mailed on or before Election Day, as the postmark dates are either missing or illegible.
There are some who believe that the Count the Vote SuperPAC that is paying for the recount is illegally coordinating with the Liccardo campaign, and a complaint has been filed with the Federal Election Commission alleging such.
April 30: This afternoon the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters announced that Evan Low gained eleven additional votes in the recount while Joe Simitian gained seven votes, putting Low four votes ahead of Simitian. The press release explains it all. We still have to wait and see what happens with the 16 outstanding San Mateo County ballots.
May 1: Our long CD-16 nightmare is finally over. This afternoon, the San Mateo County Chief Elections Officer & Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder announced that Evan Low gained one vote in the San Mateo recount and there was no change in Joe Simitian's vote total. That means Low has five more votes than Simitian and will face Sam Liccardo in the November general election. We will have to wait until July to find out who actually paid for the recount.
So there you have it: Liccardo vs. Low in November for all the marbles. Thanks for the reporting, S.C. and L.C.!