With each post-election tally in the race to represent the 10th District in the California State Assembly, San Rafael City Councilman Marc Levine has extended his lead over Michael Allen.
That trend continued this week. With another nearly 26,000 votes tallied in Marin and Sonoma counties, Levine distanced himself yet again from his feisty challenger, who outraised and outspent him by nearly a 3-to-1 margin. Levine has garnered 81,680 of the 160,630 total votes cast, good for 51 percent of the vote to Allen's 49 percent.
"Every time they've released a new count, I've increased my lead," Levine said Saturday. "It's just a privilege to be chosen by the voters."
Levine is saying all the right things, acknowledging that there are still some 54,000 ballots yet to be counted in Marin and Sonoma counties. Those counts could extends past Thanksgiving.
"All of the outstanding ballots will and must be counted," Levine said. "But when the count is finished, we're confident that we'll have the votes we need to win."
Levine has already made an appearance before the Marin County Board of Supervisors to be celebrated as Marin's "assemblyman-elect," even though all five supervisors endorsed Allen in the race. He also has already been invited to and attended five days of training in Sacramento for new state Assembly members.
On the heels of a heated battle, the two candidates squared off late into the night on Nov. 6, with Levine garnering 50.6 of the 134,715 votes cast in Marin and portions of Sonoma County. That lead grew to 50.8 percent to 48.2 percent as of Nov. 9.
The results of the latest count, released late Friday afternoon, has Levine with an even more commanding lead in Marin. Levine has received 50,120 votes in Marin to Allen's 46,562, good for a 51.8 percent to 48.2 percent lead.
Allen, who moved to San Rafael after the 7th Assembly District he represented that included Napa County and parts of Sonoma and Solano counties was splintered by redistricting, could not be reached for comment.
In the immediate aftermath of election day, Allen declined to concede the race, saying it was "disrespectful to concede or declare victory at this point. We just need to count the votes."
Levine holds his lead despite being outspent by a considerable margin. Allen received more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions, including $700,000 from independent expenditure committees, while Levine only raised $253,000 in contributions and over $250,000 from independent expenditure committees.
In 2011, Allen passed a bill that prevents the impounding of unregistered cars driven by unlicensed drivers when discovered at DUI checkpoints. It also requires a 24 hour warning of an impending DUI checkpoint. Those against the law were MADD, Sherrif and Police. The only way to get experience is to get the job. If Levine represents our district by making laws that make sense then he is already light years ahead of Allen. There have been too may alcohol related deaths in Novato. I will not support any candidate that is willing to risk my life and the lives of the people around me by allowing unlicensed drivers to remain on the roads. I will not support any candidate that protects potentially intoxicated drivers by warning them of DUI checkpoints. There is no excuse. We all must follow the same laws with respect to driving motor vehicles on public roadways and any use of any substance that could impair drivers. Allen's law was meant to protect people without a license and with an unregistered vehicle from getting their cars towed. This is a bad law. If you are unlicensed and unregistered then you also don't have a reason to purchase insurance on your vehicle. Yet another law that is not respected. Allen only cares about the group he represents. He has gotten so deep into the pockets of the Sacramento elite that he didn't believe anyone could successfully run against him. Levine had every right to run. Now he has a chance to prove himself.
If you feel DUI checkpoints represent unreasonable search and seizure then you haven't ever lost a loved one to a drunk driver.
Allen was not defending 4th amendment rights with this legislation. He was protecting his Napa constituency by creating a law that allows unlicensed individuals with unregistered and uninsured cars to have friends and family come pick up the car rather than having it impounded at DUI stops. Allen was not focused on getting dangerous drivers off the road. He found a loophole that protected people who were breaking the law and that made it more difficult for police and sheriff to create DUI checkpoints. I am more than willing to submit to DUI checkpoints because they provide additional safety protections for everyone. If the original law violated reasonable search and seizure then let it to go before the CA Supreme Court. That is there role. Allen's law pandered to his voting block at that time. We have teens for whom driving restrictions in the past eight years have been made more severe in order protect the public. Once licensed they must wait 6 months before carrying passengers that are minors. These laws are intended to protect public safety. DUI checkpoints are necessary when deaths due to drunk driving repeatedly occur. Novato has had its share of drunk drivers killing and maiming people. Taking measures to make certain that drivers are sober, licensed, registered and insured seems like common sense. Do you believe it is appropriate for unlicensed drivers of unregistered cars to keep their cars at DUI stops?
Advance notice of checkpoints is a CA Supreme Court ruling believed to aid in the prevention of drunk driving by inspiring fear of being caught at a stop while driving under the influence. In the case of impoundment, we will probably just have to agree to disagree, but I will present my viewpoint just the same.
So in answer to your question, Yes! I do believe it is appropriate for individuals to not have their cars immediately impounded at sobriety checkpoints if they fail to show a license or valid registration. The clause in the 14th Amendment that guarantees due process of law before depriving individuals of property in conjunction with our 4th Amendment protections from unlawful search and seizures makes impounding vehicles at sobriety checkpoints a very dubious and pre-emptively punitive practise.
Allen's law doesn't allow them to announce where the checkpoints will be held. The warning of checkpoints may deter drunk drivers but it is the enforcement of the law that protects everyone from the danger they represent. If more vehicles are impounded then fewer law breakers are on the road. Some drivers have multiple arrests for DUI's and continue to drive even while on probation. Think of Melody Osheroff. Allen's law says you can only have checkpoints on roads where a significant number of drunk drivers have been previously arrested. It precludes you from having checkpoints throughout an area which would then allow sophisticated drunk drivers to avoid check points all together. Unless the checkpoints are random they serve no purpose in protecting the public. I have no problem with police impounding and charging fees to people driving illegally. Breaking the law should have a significant consequence. How can you say it is safe to have people drive who by virtue of being unlicensed, unregistered and uninsured don't know the rules of the road and have no way of being financially accountable should they cause an accident. Your issue isn't with search and seizure, you have an issue with the police who are trying to keep us safe. Announcing a DUI checkpoint is not the same as controlling where they are set up. Allen's law makes it harder for police to do their job while protecting law breakers. The law says no license, no insurance, no driving.
Are you an attorney or in some way associated with the ACLU?
I am warming up to the idea that politicians should be professionals, like doctors, policemen, auto mechanics, etc. But we need to reduce them to a single income and get rid of this legalized bribery system called "Campaign contributions".