I will start by saying that the warnings about the pitfalls of the party endorsing in contested partisan races continues to play out day by day, month by month and so on down the line.

Ground Zero

I have talked to a lot of stakeholders in the California AD03 Race in the last week. As such, I am following up on the Yuba / Butte GOP endorsement drama in AD03.

So let’s summarize what your intrepid blogger has learned:

Nevada County GOP Chairman John Mac Young was present at the Yuba GOP endorsement meeting and was functioning as the parliamentarian.

I have written about County Party endorsement debacles several times in the past, let’s do it again. There was a member of the Yuba GOP dismissed for absences at the endorsement meeting. This was the incorrect thing to do – state law says 4 unexcused absences and the seat is vacant. No vote is needed, No notice is needed. It is my understanding that the person in question never requested an excusal for an absence and never showed up to Yuba GOP meetings, having accumulated at least 6 absences, maybe as much as 8. Johanna messed up by letting her go past 4 and then establishing the vacancy at a meeting with a razor thin margin for vote total. The way this was done makes it look a million times worse than it should have.

3 of the 10 votes to endorse Dom Belza were Johanna and two members of her family. Show me a central committee without nepotism and I will show you the Alpine GOP. (They have not had a cent com in the 30 years I have been around CAGOP Politics) I was allowed to vote on endorsing my own mother (and so was my brother) for School Board because I was not paid by her campaign. That is the measure. If you don’t like a committee full of family, go recruit an array of candidates in the next election and/or modify the by-laws to limit the membership distribution. Making an issue of it after a vote is the wrong time.

The California GOP and each county party are SEPARATE entities. The CAGOP can’t tell Yuba how on not how to do an endorsement. All the CAGOP can do is decide weather or not to recognize it for purposes of a state party endorsement. People often blur the lines.

There has been a lot of talk about “Notice”. I don’t have the YUBA GOP’s By-Laws. But it appears that the meeting itself was noticed at least 7 days before it happened (so Robert’s Rules is satisfied at least). The issue I see here is that I have seen several email threads and it appears that list of endorsements being considered at the 9-3-2026 Yuba GOP meeting was distributed about 3-4 hours before the meeting itself. Unless the Yuba GOP by-laws allow for this kind of notice (or specify no notice is necessary) this is a problem. 

But that said, I have written this several times as well: CENTRAL COMMITTEES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE BROWN ACT. Please stop. I see this every election cycle, just stop.

Absent the notice issue, not having an agenda for a meeting is actually not a violation of any sort of law or rule. It is just bad management practice, it is usual and customary to have an agenda at a meeting that gets voted on and adopted at the beginning of the meeting. If the leadership of the Yuba GOP did not produce an agenda for the 9-3 endorsement meeting that is just another issue that raises suspicion but not a rules violation.

My fact gathering has revealed that Johanna Lassaga, the Chair of the Yuba GOP has continued her pattern of aggressive and sometimes downright confrontational communication. Given how I communicate, it would be hypocritical to criticize that, but suffice to say when a County Party Chair communicates in that manner it creates suspicion.

I was also told about Lassaga having landed a cool political gig based in a nearby county. As long as that PAC does not spend money in Yuba County Lassaga owes no one an explanation. Welcome to the paid consultant club Johanna.

Here’s my conclusion about Yuba’s endorsement of Dom Belza. The behavior of the Chair of the Yuba GOP made it look smelly. Absent seeing Yuba’s rules about notice (thusly assuming whatever notice provision was followed), it looks like it was a legitimate endorsement tainted by the Chair’s behavior.

In Butte, the vote effectively deadlocked 10-10. There was no real issue or drama about by-laws or rules. Suffice to say, that was a pretty bad loss for Jaime Johansson, I’d have figured he’d have been closer to 2/3 if not there. 7 votes voted for no endorsement only 3 for Belza outright. Why didn’t Johansson lobby people? Or did he?

The fact that Butte deadlocked ends the possibility of either candidate reaching 80% to be eligible for a state party endorsement – hence my comments previously to the Belza camp, you have all the apparent advantages, take them to the bank.

Lastly, I did confirm multiple times that Dom Belza did indeed change consultants. Amongst others, I talked to Belza’s new General Consultant. I respect the man and remember meeting him for the first time when he was a teenager working for Carly Fiorina’s Senate Campaign and as the President of the College Republicans. The former consultant is aging and has moved out of the State of CA and may well be riding off into the sunset.

I took a look at the campaign money reports and something I wrote in my prior piece has to be changed. Dom Belza is starting to roll in donations at a rapid clip. The best I can tell, Jamie Johansson is still in debt (on paper). His reported contributions are lagging mightily. I had written that Belza’s fundraising had stopped, this is proven false by looking at the Secretary of State’s Website.

As I look at the reports, It looks like Belza has raised another $250K since 6-30. On 6-30, Johansson was showing $125,000 in debt and looks to have only raised about $25K since then.

Interestingly, Johansson had an event recently with 125 people in attendance. So he has support… but from my artillery nest 400 miles away (and don’t think I can’t hit targets down there), might makes right. Jamie could have the most wonderful grassroots and be able to pack rooms… but $500,000 spent + outside money coming in on educating low-information voters is pretty hard to overcome when you are broke.

AND – my prediction is that the “Third House” is going to spend money on Mr. Belza as well. Given who the players are and where they are in proximity to this race, I am convinced of it. (No one gave me any indication this was happening, this is my opinion)

So here’s where it sits in summary:

This is a classic case of activists not knowing the rules (on both sides of the fight)

This is a classic case of personality clashes

This is also going to be a test case of grassroots versus overwhelming resources

Jamie has a nice hat, Dom is presented to me as socially awkward at events. Which matters more the Hat or $1Million+? We’re going to find out…

P.S. I could not pick either one of these guys out of a police lineup, but I feel like I know both of them, LOL. I am still not endorsing in AD03, but facts are stubborn things.