Haynes is an Assembly member representing Riverside and Temecula.
He serves on the Appropriations and Budget Committees. [go to
Assembly Member Haynes
website at California Assembly]
To My Fellow Conservatives
[Ray Haynes] 10/2/03
By now you may have heard that I have endorsed
Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor. I have received a variety
of responses to that decision, some good, and some bad. I understand
them all, and I believe each of you need to know the reason
I made this decision. It was not lightly made, and the result
a lot of discussion, thought and prayer. I take my role as
a conservative in the legislature seriously, and my endorsement
means something to me. I don't give it away lightly, and I
so only when I believe it promotes the causes in which we all
believe. I believe this endorsement is true to those principles.
First, let me give you a little history. There were several
people at the first recall rally in February, but only two elected
officials, Tom McClintock and I. I believed then, and I believe
now, that it is critical to get rid of Gray Davis, and change
the direction of this state. I know Cruz Bustamante, we were
elected to the Assembly together in 1992, and his office was
next to mine. I know that Cruz will just be Gray Davis done over.
There will be no change (at least not for the better) in the
direction of this state if he wins as Governor.In fact, as an
ideological true believer (which Davis is not), Cruz could even
be worse in some ways. The prime reason for the recall was to
change the direction of this state, not to change the name of
the person occupying the Governor's office.
Second, I spent considerable time trying to help make the recall
successful. Early on, the recall sputtered. It was moving, but
not nearly fast enough. I knew then, as I know now, that once
the recall qualified, Gray Davis would lose his job. The serious
question was whether the recall would qualify. I talked with
a number of people trying to find the money to get it qualified,
and ultimately, was one of the people who helped persuade Darrell
Issa to put up the money to qualify it (not the only one, and
I didn't have to work real hard, he wanted the recall to succeed,
for the credibility of the party). Tom was not at those meetings,
and Darrell asked me what I thought Tom would do if he financed
the recall. I told him I didn't know, but Darrell would have
a persuading argument to ask him to step aside, since Tom could
not have made it work without Darrell's help. I know Darrell
talked to Tom about not running. Tom ultimately decided not to
reconsider. Issa is a strong conservative, and was, more than
any other, responsible for the success of the recall, but Tom's
believed he should be Governor. That was one of the principal
reasons (though not the only one) Darrell chose not to run. We
lost a solid conservative, who could have financed his own campaign,
and got a solid conservative who could not, because Tom believed
he was entitled to the Governor's office. This is not a battle
over personality; it is a battle over principle. I believe the
principles we believe in lost when Darrell pulled out, and they
lost because Tom would not even consider anything other than
his personal campaign for Governor. We will not advance principle
as long as personality trumps principle in these types of disputes.
It is history now, but it did play a role in my decision, because
I believed I had found the perfect meshing of principle and practicality
in Darrell Issa, and the conservative movement lost.
Third, I have attached to this memo a list of the bills signed
by Davis over the last five years that represent real losses
to the conservative movement. Most of these bills had been on
Pete Wilson's desk, and he vetoed them. Wilson was viciously
attacked by conservatives (including me) for being too moderate,
but he vetoed bills putting sexual orientation in the civil rights
laws, domestic partnership bills, every gun bill put on his desk,
bills designed to push the homosexual agenda in schools, in our
social services, and a variety of other efforts by the left to
undermine our culture. But in the last five years, Davis has
signed all of those bills. We have been losing badly, and we
have to do what it takes to stop it. The attachment is just a
small chronicle of those losses, but, believe me, it has been
ugly, and it must stop now.
Which brings me to Schwarzenegger. I did not need to get involved
in this race, and the easiest, and most political, thing for
me to do would be to endorse Tom. Everyone would have expected
it, and I would get no heat for the decision. But I believe the
essence of leadership is letting your friends know when they
are doing something wrong. It is easy to tell folks who have
never supported you that they are wrong, there is no political
cost to that. Looking your supporters that they are wrong is
hard, because no one likes to hear that. There is a significant
political cost that attaches to that. If I had said or done nothing,
or endorsed Tom, I could have skated through this entire event
without cost to me. But, if Cruz wins because Tom split the vote,
the cost to the conservative movement in California will be immeasurable.
We started the recall, we need to finish it with a victory. If
we lose now, and there is a better than average chance we will
if things stay the same, we will rightly bear the criticism that
we handed this state over to the Democrats for the next 7 years.
Our shortsightedness could cost us the entire war in this state.
That is a risk I will not take. I have worked too hard, fought
too much for the things we believe in to sacrifice them for my
political career, for someone else's ego, or for the shortsightedness
of those who are my allies. If I believe we are doing wrong,
I am going to do what is right first, and let the politics fall
as they may. If that means I must bear the criticism of my friends,
then so be it. I know if Cruz wins, conservatism is California
will be discredited for a long time.
So the question
is--Can conservatives credibly support Schwarzenegger? I think
I put the following evidence to you for your consideration.
is not afraid to call himself a conservative. Many of my
friends refuse to even use the word, because they
think it damages them. Schwarzenegger used it at the convention,
and used it proudly.That
is a good thing.
(2) Anyone who says that "Milton Friedman is right, and Karl Marx is wrong" has
the makings of a good conservative, even if he doesn't
understand all of the nuances of the political debate. When
you begin with
the right base, the rest is simply good education. I know,
because that is how I began my journey from the left to my
of conservatism. I started with the right base, and built
on it like building on a rock.
(3) On the social issues on which
we can have an effect, Schwarzenegger is with us. He is for parental
notification in abortion, and against partial birth abortion.
In the abortion debate in California, that is all we can affect
at this time, without a major change in the law, the legislature,
and public opinion. He is with us. He is against gay marriage.
Domestic partnerships are already in law, and we can't change
it until we change the legislature. By that time, we will have
the chance to work on him, and show him the wisdom of our position.
The same with guns. There is nothing he would do to make things
worse than they already are, and nothing he could do to make
things any better in our current environment. His base is correct,
that is something to build on.
(4) On education, he thinks Milton
Friedman is right--that being so--he will come to see the wisdom
of parental choice.
(5) On fiscal and business issues, we have
a clear and outspoken friend. Despite what you‚ve
read in the papers, he has been quite clear in what he
to turn the business climate around and he has pledged
to end the
car tax (See www.joinarnold.com for
more specifics.) Comparing all of this with Davis and Bustamante,
the question of who to support answers itself. At worst, Schwarzenegger
will be benign on the issues we hold dear, and at best, he
will be helpful. I think there is sufficient evidence that
be helpful that I am willing to put my personal reputation
on the line in his support. If I am wrong, I will apologize,
do my political penance. I do not think I am wrong here.
were a primary, there would be no debate. I would support Tom.
Winning or losing the primary, however, would not decide
the election. I have never bought into my moderate friends
arguments that we "nominated" someone too conservative.
It always sounded as a convenient excuse for them to support
in the general election. The conservative would lose because
my moderate friends wanted him or her to lose. That, however,
is not at issue here. This is a winner take all situation.
Wisdom here dictates a different conclusion than the typical
You have to make your own analysis, but I know that more than
one of my solid conservative allies has come to the same conclusion
I have. It wasn't easy. I expect to be called all sorts of
names by people who I call friends, and should know better.
however, my best judgment, exercised on behalf of the principles
I hold dear. The only reason I fight the fight I fight in politics
is to advance the principles of family, freedom, and free enterprise
which we all share. I will continue that fight as best I can
with the tools available to me, regardless of the outcome of
the recall. I will stand with you again on all those fights,
no matter who is Governor, and if Schwarzenegger wishes to
fight us on those principles I will stand with you. No matter
happens, let us pray that God will take mercy on this state,
and help us change its direction. We cannot go much further
down the road on which we are traveling.
AB 1001 grants homosexual “protected status” under
the civil rights laws. This means that legal protections,
including preferences, quotas, and set asides granted to racial minorities,
would be granted to those practicing, or “perceived
to be” practicing homosexual behavior. CHAPTERED
AB 26 awards official government status to “homosexual
grants authority to public agencies to cover these “partners” the
same way they cover spouses in health insurance. CHAPTERED
AB 25 Among the rights, privileges, and standing this bill
would provide domestic partners consistent with the rights,
privileges and standing
of spouses are:
the right to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional
distress; the right to assert a cause of action for wrongful
death; the right of
a domestic partner to adopt a child of his or her partner as a stepparent;
the right to
receive continued health care coverage (including the right of his
or her child to receive coverage) because he or she is
a surviving beneficiary
employee or annuitant; the right to make health care decisions for
partner; the right to nominate a conservator, be nominated as conservator,
oppose, participate, file various petitions in the conservatorship,
and to receive all notices relevant to conservatorship
conservatorships, involving his or her domestic partner; the right
to receive an allowance from the estate of a conservatee
who is his or her
partner, to pay for basic living expenses during the conservatorship,
in the same manner
as a spouse and the minor children of a conservatee are entitled; the
right to jointly purchase real property with a conservatee who is his
partner and to receive gifts from the conservator upon court approval;
and priority of his or her nominee to be appointed conservator equal
to the right
and priority of a nominee of a spouse; the right to be treated the
same as a spouse in a statutory will; the right to inherit
property from a
deceased partner in the
same manner as a spouse inheriting under the intestate succession laws
of the state; the right to be appointed as administrator of decedent's
the same manner and priority as a spouse; if he or she predeceased
the decedent, the right of his or her children, parents, brothers and
to be appointed
as administrator of decedent's estate, in the same manner and priority
as the children, parents, brothers and sisters of a predeceased spouse;
to be treated as the spouse of a taxpayer for purposes of determining
personal state income tax liability; the right to use employee sick
leave to attend
to an illness of his or her partner or his or her partner's child and
the right not to be discriminated against for the use of sick leave
to an illness
of his or her partner or partner's child; the right to unemployment
insurance benefits for leaving employment to join his or her domestic
a remote location to which commuting to work is impractical and a transfer
is not available; the right to file a claim for disability benefits
or her partner, in the same manner as a spouse may file such a claim.
domestic partners rights to intestate succession CHAPTERED
AB 2216 (Keeley). Intestate succession: domestic partners.
Under the existing law of intestate succession, the surviving
to the decedent's
separate property that is not effectively disposed of by will.
This bill would extend this entitlement to a decedent's
AB 2777 (Nation) County employees' retirement: death Benefits
to a domestic partner. Any death benefits, optional retirement
allowances accorded to a spouse, may be accorded to a domestic
partner in certain counties. CHAPTERED.
SB 1575 (Sher) Probate Exemptions. Existing law invalidates a
donative transfer to the person who drafted the instrument except
is related by blood or marriage to the transferee. This bill would
partners as well. CHAPTERED.
SB 1661 (Kuehl) Disability compensation for family
or domestic partner. This bill would establish a family temporary
State Disability) to provide up to 6 weeks of wage replacement
benefits to workers who take time off work to care for a seriously
spouse, parent, domestic partner, or to bond with a new child..
AB 17 (Kehoe) Domestic partnerships and State contracts.
This bill would prohibit a state agency from entering
into a contract for
of goods or
services with a vendor or contractor who does not offer benefits
to registered domestic partner employees equal to benefits offered
Passed Asm floor on 6-5-03 on a 42-32 on strict party-line vote.
Passed Sen on a 22-15 vote on 9-12-03. ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE
AB 205 (Goldberg) Domestic Partners. Extends all rights reserved
for married couples to domestic partners. Passed Asm floor on
vote. Passed Sen on. 23-14 vote on 8-28-03. Asm concurred in
Sen Amendments on 41-33 vote on 9-3-03. CHAPTERED
SB 85 (Torlakson) Death benefits. Would allow all counties to
afford death benefits, optional retirement allowances, or survivor's
to a spouse, to give same benefit to a domestic partner. Passed
Sen 4-7-03. Passed aSMon. 44-27 vote on 8-28-03. Sen concurred
Amendments on 22-15 vote on 9-2-03. ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE
AB 1082 (Laird) PERS health care benefits: domestic partners.
Would authorize a contracting agency with PERS to provide retirement
health care benefits
to domestic partners. Passed Asm floor5-15-03. Passed Sen on
vote on 8-27-03.
ENROLLED AND SENT TO THE GOVERNOR.
SB 71 (Kuehl) Education. Changes the Education Code to mandate
that students in grades K-12 be provided with the knowledge and
protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted
and to encourage students to develop healthy attitudes and values
growth and development, body image, gender roles, sexual orientation,
romantic involvement, marriage, and family. Also allows anonymous,
confidential evaluation tools to including tests, questionnaires,
and surveys containing
questions about the pupil's attitudes concerning or practices
relating to sex. Reduces the parent notification requirements.
to opt out of the training, but the bottom line is that this
type of “training” should
be relegated to home and family, not the education establishment. Passed
Sen Floor on 23-13 party-line vote on 6-4-03. Passed Asm on 47-32 vote
Sen concurred in Asm amendments on 24-14 vote on 9-11-03. ENROLLED AND
SENT TO THE GOVERNOR.
AB 1250 (Laird) Teacher development. Would allow the staff development
allowance to be used for training designed to improve intolerance
and hatred prevention.
Passed the Asm floor on a 53-2r vote on 6-2-03. Passed Sen on
22-14 vote on 8-25-03. CHAPTERED
AB 196 (Leno) Redefines the term “gender” to include “perceived
gender” Allowing fines up to $150,000 against employers (religious businesses,
Boy Scout councils would be effected) that refuse to hire individuals on the
basis of gender as perceived from the “victim’s point of view,” which
could include cross-dressers and transsexuals. Passed Asm floor on 42-34
vote on April 21st. Passed Sen floor on 7-24-03. CHAPTERED.
AB 458 (Chu) Foster parents. Would create new training requirements
for foster care parents, including sensitivity training to homosexuality
as an acceptable
lifestyle. Last year a similar bill would have forced foster
care parents to support, and even promote, homosexuality as an
(Similar to AB 2651 last year.) Passed Asm floor 46-31 party-line
vote on 5-12-03.
Sen floor on 23-11 vote on 7-24-03. Asm concurred in Sen Amendments
48-22 vote on 8-21-03. CHAPTERED.