In 1986 California voters supported Proposition 49 by a 56% to 44% margin. Both the state senate and assembly had approved the idea behind the proposition by more than a two-thirds majority. Prop 49 amended the state constitution by prohibiting political parties or party central committees from endorsing candidates for nonpartisan elected positions. Thus Prop 49 became part of the Constitution of the State of California within Article II, section 6(b).
In 1991 ten California voters sued to overturn Prop 49, claiming it violated the First and Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit agreed. The case was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, where the Ninth Circuit's ruling was reversed.
Five years later, in 1996, in a case brought by the California Democratic Party, the U.S. District Court for Northern California ruled that Prop 49 violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Within the ruling, the key statement proved to be, “California's desire to 'level the playing field' for potential candidates by suppressing political parties' speech is not a compelling interest because it is entirely at odds with the First Amendment.”
The U.S. District Court ordered the state to stop enforcing Prop 49. The prelude to the District Court ruling stems from the California Democratic Party's support for Delaine Eastin for Superintendent of Public Instruction, a nonpartisan office, in the June 1994 primary election. Anticipating a challenge the CA Dem. Party filed suit in mid-May 1994 while the Party sent out an endorsement mailer with Eastin's name on it. The California Republican Party responded twelve days later with a request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) from Sacramento Superior Court. Two days hence, the Democratic Party applied to the U.S. District Court for a TRO of their own. By August the U.S. District Court granted the Democratic Party a preliminary injunction, thus allowing them to openly endorse Eastin in the run-up to that year's November election. This set the groundwork for the U.S. District Court to cite the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” as well as the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The opposition argument, and the core idea behind Prop 49, is that nonpartisan elected offices were created to avoid the potential corrupt processes caused by the influence of major political parties. The reasonableness of the District Court's rebuke of this argument might best be interpreted individually in the context of political party influence in the most local of nonpartisan elections.
This brings us to the Mendocino Coast Health Care District and the two seats on its board that are up for election this fall. Four candidates have filed for those two seats. Paul Katzeff is one of them, having already served nearly two years on the MCHCD board. In early September Mr. Katzeff was interviewed by a panel of three members of the Central Committee of the Mendocino County Democratic Party.
At this point perhaps it is best to simply quote from Katzeff's September 12th email to Lynn Atkins, Chair of the Mendocino County Democratic Party:
“I humbly ask the Mendocino Democratic Club [sic] to reconsider my request for an endorsement for the 4-year term on the Mendocino Coast Health Care District. I believe my interview was proper but I feel my ideas were misrepresented by the team who interviewed me.
“I did speak to Ms. [Susan] Savage who informed me of the reasons for the rejection. When asked whether I would campaign for the seat I did say I would count on my reputation mostly, having been a Progressive community activist since 1972 when I arrived in Caspar from Aspen, Colorado, having just managed Hunter S. Thompson’s campaign for sheriff. I have been a Democrat for 64 years. I organized what became known as “The Circle” which in 1978 helped Norman deVall beat Ted Galletti in the 5th District race for County Supervisor. I wrote a weekly column for the Mendocino Grapevine for a decade. I have supported local issues and worked to stop off shore oil, Whaling off our Coast, Clearcutting, and many other local issues while building a nationally recognized coffee company which became the second B Corporation in our County. How can this record of merit and hard work be turned down? Why slap me in the face after 52 years of fighting with other Democrats to defend our community from Corporate abuse?
“The answer became clear when Susan [Savage] told me my candidacy was considered not beneficial to The Democratic Party because I said I would base my campaign on my reputation which meant to her that I would not promote my Democratic Party affiliation. This is crazy thinking. The job is to elect people who have done a good job representing the community, all the community, not just Democrats. The position is nonpartisan and I have put hundreds of hours in to my health care work in 2023 &24.
“I was a shoe-in until The Party supported my opponent and not me as well. You chose an unknown democrat instead of a tireless fighter because my interviewers misinterpreted my answer to the question of how I would campaign for the position.
“It was hurtful to learn that my people and my 50 years of work as a Progressive Democrat led to a rejection by my peers and I respectfully ask for reconsideration. At least level the playing field so I can campaign without having to explain to the coastal electorate why my opponent was supported and I was not. I would like to have an opportunity to explain my record to your Nominating Committee. I will travel anywhere and at any convenient time for your people to question me. I believe I am in the middle of my work and need more time to finish.”
The next day Atkins replied, “I am very proud of our endorsement process. Over the years we have reviewed, enhanced and improved it. Our goal is to invite the candidates through the process in a smooth, timely and deliberative manner. The process involves the written and aural [sic] questioning, additionally our Central Committee members are very active in their communities and often have experiences that are added to the information collected to complete recommendations and/or decision making. This is especially true of incumbents, as they have an audit trail within the position for which they are seeking endorsement. All of this is considered when making a decision.
“You have listed your many activities over the years, thank you for your service. However, please know that these activities do not guarantee you an endorsement for the Adventist Hospital Board. Our endorsements are not quid pro quo.
“Our Central Committee considered the endorsements. I trust and support the members of my committee. They have voted to endorse two candidates for the two openings for Adventist Hospital Board Member. You were not one of those candidates endorsed.
“Because of the above, I am unable to support your request for reconsideration.”
Readers should note that the chair of the “Mendocino County Democratic Party” did not know the name of the board upon which Katzeff currently sits. She called it the “Adventist Hospital Board,” not once but twice.
The three members of the “Central Committee” who interviewed Katzeff are a Philo resident who I've never seen at a Mendocino Coast Health Care District board meeting; a Fort Bragg resident who attended a handful of MCHCD meetings in the beginning of 2023 but has not been seen there since nor was this person at any MCHCD meetings prior to that short period in early 2023; and Susan Savage, who is a current MCHCD board member. Savage has voted with fellow Democratic Party members of that board at all turns over the past two years.
That's what this comes down to: the loyalists to the Democratic Party don't want anyone who might think even slightly independently on this health care board.
In a list of current Mendocino County Democratic Party Central Committee members only Savage has attended meetings of the MCHCD board in the last year and a half. The vast majority live outside the health care district's boundaries. The two candidates endorsed by the Mendocino County Democratic Party are Lynn Finley, who was let go from her job as chief nursing officer at the coast hospital months before MCHCD affiliated with Adventist Health in July 2020, and Mikael Blaisdell, a five year coastal resident who is a strident supporter of the “Change Our Name – Fort Bragg” group.
Interestingly, though the Coast Democratic Club includes the chair of the Mendocino Coast Health Care District Board of Directors and Ms. Savage among its membership, the Coast Dem Club refrained from endorsing any candidates in the MCHCD race this autumn.
Adventist Health has been moving many “procedures” formerly done at the Coast Hospital inland. There may be up to a six month wait for such procedures. This movement has allowed AH to claim that there is not enough income from the Coast Hospital to justify the current lease. Paul Katzeff and others, not Democratic party backed, are vehemently opposed to this prevarication. AH does not operate like a non-profit seeking to provide comprehensive health care to the Mendocino coast; they have dropped in home hospice care (much done by volunteers) in favor of in hospital hospice (more money). As much as one may find Paul abrasive, he has the welfare of the community as a goal, and is not afraid to be confrontational.
The current MCDH board has, to my knowledge, done NOTHING to pressure the County and its attorneys, to collect/force all parcel owner’s (MRC in particular) to pay the $144/parcel assessment that all of us are required to pay. They are all “nice” people,not wanting to stir up problems. We need a hospital board willing to call Adventist’s gutting of coastal income for what it is, a bargaining tactic, and to pressure the Board of Supervisors to do its job.