Lynn Schott Files for CD-46


Irvine Mayor Pro Tem Lynn Schott has formally filed to run for Congress in CD-46.  The move was not altogether unexpected as she opened a committee months ago and has been accepting donations.  Her paperwork was field last week.

When Schott’s name was first bandied about as a candidate, some Irvine Republicans told TheLiberalOC a formal campaign was unlikely.  Schott had apparently decided otherwise and even though she’s running for the seat while not residing in the District, she will be the candidate for choice for Republicans in the district who only vote for R’s.

Earlier this month, two former Democrats announced a run as Republicans for this seat.  Earlier this month, AnaheimBlog and OC Political ran details about party-switching campaigns of Louie Contreras and Rody Gaona.  From Chris Nguyen’s post:

Bizarrely, two recent Democrats have pulled papers to run as Republicans in the 46th Congressional District race to replace Loretta Sanchez, who is running for the United States Senate. No other Republicans have pulled papers, though Irvine Councilwoman Lynn Schott has opened a committee.

One is Louie A. Contreras who was the Democratic nominee for the 41st District attempting to unseat Congressman Jerry Lewis in 2006, winning only 32.7% of the vote. Contreras ran unsuccessfully for La Habra City Council in 2008, winning 3.0% to come in 8th out of 8 candidates.

The other is Rudy Gaona who was the Democrat who won just 16.5% of the vote in 2014 in a head-to-head race against Supervisor Shawn Nelson; Gaona was actually endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County in his race against Nelson. Gaona has run unsuccessfully for Anaheim City Council twice, winning 5.6% of the vote to come in 8th out of 9 candidates in 2012 and 2.2% of the vote to come in 14th out of 14 candidates in 2010.

Another political newcomer, Nancy Trinidad Marin of Santa Ana, has also pulled papers but we’re unsuccessful in determining her party affiliation.   Add former State Senators Lou Correa and Joe Dunn to the mix with Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen, and the race for CD-46 is becoming a crowded field.

Regardless of the two former Democrats in the race as Republicans, Schott has name ID as a result of her position on the Irvine City Council.  While she is carpetbagging into the district, Schott grew up in Santa Ana so she knows her way around the district.  In this case, Schott wants to represent voters in Congress that she doesn’t currently represent on the Irvine City Council.  What will hurt her with voters in the district is her vote to repeal Irvine’s Living Wage ordinance where she re-iterated a number of falsehoods regarding raising a minimum wage does for workers (hint, she thinks it kills jobs).  CD-46 has a number of worker families at the lower end of the socio-economic scale and many will be offended by her vote.

CD-46 is overwhelmingly Democratic in terms of Voter Registration.  It isn’t Liberal or Progressive at all.  Schott could easily finish in the top 2 (look to AD-69 In 2012 as a guideline where Tom Daly’s vote total exceeded all of the Latino Democrats on the ballot combined.  Democratic voter turnout, especially in Santa Ana, will be critical for Correa and Dunn.  Nguyen needs to lock up the youth vote, the LGBTQ crowd and Vietnamese-American voters who live in district.

  38 comments for “Lynn Schott Files for CD-46

  1. Anton Marc
    January 28, 2016 at 1:59 pm

    So the GOP is fielding a “Name” candidate in the CD-46 race. Not a surprise. In all likelihood. this is a race that will be decided in the primary, if a GOP candidate is the second highest vote getter. The question is who will it be. It is going to be an interesting primary at so many levels this year.

    As to the living wage issue, Correa fares no better on the living wage issue than Schott: Correa failed to support SB 935 in 2014, which would have raised the minimum wage from $8.00/hr to $11/hr in 2015, $12/hr in 2016, and $13/hr in 2017, with a subsequent COLA by the Industrial Wage Commission keyed to inflation. He is not a supporter of a living wage, despite the huge impact increasing the minimum wage would have on his constituents in Santa Ana and Anaheim. Maybe he has reconsidered, but given SB 935 was in 2014 (his last year in Sacramento), it is doubtful.

    It is a questionable assertion to say that the 46 CD is “not liberal or progressive” per se, as there is no objective date to support such a conclusion.

    • January 29, 2016 at 4:30 pm

      name a true liberal elected in CD-46

      • Anton Marc
        January 30, 2016 at 10:36 am

        Define your term. The 47th as presently constituted has existed for a single election cycle. When redrawn, the demographics substantially changed.

        A single election of Loretta Sanchez for the district does not define the district as “not liberal or progressive.” Which begs the question, does Loretta, a 100% Pro-Choice, Pro LGBT and Marriage Equality, 85% rating by ACLU, 100% rating by NAACP, 100% Pro-Labor record consider herself a conservative. Which begs the question of how you define “liberal” and how you define “progressive.”

        Which will be really interesting, as it will certainly provide insight to what you intend to communicate by your title’s name “Liberal” OC, which has certainly changed since Chris Prevatt’s departure.

        • January 30, 2016 at 4:07 pm

          It’s the 46h and not the 47th. The addition of a huge chunk of conservative Orange adds to moderate Anaheim and parts of “liberal Santa Ana.” If you want Liberal, try Laguna Beach which is stuck with Newport and HB.

          As far a “liberal” goes, we’re on the left side of all progressive and social issues. I make zero apologies for being a business Democrat and try to look to electability in addition to political positions. In OC, Democrats with a more moderate position are likely to be elected over someone way to the left. Once in office, Democratic majorities, like the one we had in Irvine for 12 years, can mean progressive policies in transportation, the environment, healthcare, education and development. Hillary is far more electable than Bernie for example. Loretta is more electable than Kamala. Based on today’s DPOC meeting, Bao does not have a chance. Not a single vote for an endorsement.

          • anton marc
            January 31, 2016 at 2:28 am

            Right. 46th, not 47th. It was a typo. You know, like “Irbine,” “can mole meant,” and “Bao has a chance. Not a single vote for an endorsement.” As for electability, being a narcissistic, immature fool doesn’t help, either. That has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. It has to do with being a narcissistic, immature fool. As for Hillary, her lapses in judgment, private unsecured email server, inability to admit when she makes a mistake, and thin skin don’t help either. That also has nothing to do with liberal or conservative.

            • January 31, 2016 at 6:52 am

              In my case, I need to stop replying on the iPad which sometimes does weird autocorrects. Thanks for the heads up.

              The private email server route was used by Colin Powell and the Bush Administration who routed messages through an unsecure RNC server. That sets a very high bar and Clinton’s 22 messages don’t come close.

              Bernie’s plans lack detail and in often cases ignore the fact he’d have to work with at best a divided Congress to try and make them work. His health are plan is 4 pages long. Lastly, he’s not a Democrat. I want a Democrat leading our party in November.

              • anton marc
                January 31, 2016 at 10:07 am

                Yes, avoiding disingenuous, gratuitous digs between posters would go far in raising the level of discourse.

                As for Hillary’s email, certainly there should a lot of misinformation being bandied about by right, and she had led the issue quite well in the hearings, and certainly the Benghazi Committee was exposed for what it is. However, the case is far more complicated than Hillary is acknowledging it to be. Comparing her judgement on the issue to that of Colin Powell and the Bush Administration is not a winner, as she also voted to put us in Iraq, which also raises questions of judgment, as does her manufactured narrative of running for cover on the tarmac.

                If you think Hillary, who is far more divisive a character amongst conservatives than Obama, and for a lot longer period of time, is capable of working with a divided GOP dominated Congress, I think you are foolish yourself. Her running as Obama administration part 3 is particularly harmful in a general.

                Finally, Sanders plan has been endorsed by none other than Robert Reich, former CLINTON cabinet member and key Clinton Administration economist is vociferous in his support of Sanders economic plan. He has somewhat more credibility than you on this front, I would suggest.

                As for “labels,” Sanders is simply a Roosevelt New Deal democrat. The parallel in our country’s history between the pre New Deal days and our current socio-economic profile are stunning. From deteriorating infrastructure, incredible wealth disparity, consolidation of wealth in the upper one-tenth of 1% to 1%, struggling economy, the time is right for revisiting Roosevelt’s New Deal for the 21st century. Sanders message is absolutely spot on. It requires major revisions to the tax code to restore common sense taxation for businesses and the upper 1% to one tenth of a percent of the country. All these details are spelled out very clearly in his plan.

                Labels are a funny thing. There are a lot of socially liberal yet fiscally conservative Republicans out there. They could just as easily the relabeled ” Blue Dog Democrats.” That’s the funny thing about labels. Oftimes, politicians who philosophically align with, for example, Republican ideology and values run as Democrats because there district and potential for supporters do not fit the profile of Republican candidate. Then, in Sacramento or Washington, they end up aligning closer to a Republican voting record then a Democratic voting record.

                In other words, labels can be deceiving. Look to the voting record, including committee work, to evaluate the true beliefs and values of candidates.

                • January 31, 2016 at 3:14 pm

                  It wasn’t a dig. The district used to be the 47th, now it’s the 46th. Easy mistake. I also thanked you for catching my autocorrect mistakes. Hard to tell inflection in text. But no snark intended

  2. junior
    January 28, 2016 at 2:15 pm

    Depends on how many Republicans file for this district. How many Republicans have filed for this district thus far?

  3. January 28, 2016 at 8:46 pm

    Contreras is Republican

    • January 29, 2016 at 8:14 am

      was a Democrat…now a Republican.

      • Junior
        January 29, 2016 at 4:48 pm

        Likely a Dunn plant to split the Republican vote.

        • January 29, 2016 at 4:49 pm

          That theory is out there. Oh the rumors I hear…..

  4. Ltpar
    January 29, 2016 at 9:33 am

    Nice to see Lynn Schott, who finally got elected to the Irvine City Council, takes her job so seriously that after only one year on the job, is now playing musical chairs. Schott has proven to be a big disappointment to many of us who worked in her campaign(s) in hope of putting a conservative team in place to repair the damage done by the Agranistas. Instead, Schott has turned her back on the people who worked to get her elected, refused to be a team player and joined with rabble rouser Jeff Lalloway creating havoc on the Council. Don’t know who is pushing Schotts buttons but , if voters look at her record of non accomplishments on the City Council, she won’t get many votes in district or out.

    • Christina Shea
      January 29, 2016 at 10:43 am

      I worked on three campaigns to support Lynn Schott, for local service. After being seated for a few months, she was seeking support for this seat. I am sorry that her interests in Irvine isn’t as she suggested to voters. Apparently, that wasn’t her objective. I am sure many candidates that ran for City Council, who desired to serve Irvine, would be as troubled, as I am, by her decision.

      • don
        January 29, 2016 at 10:57 am

        You should be ashamed. Under investigation by the FPPC. Taking money from Irvine businesses to influence decisions for your employer. Those of us that voted for you are ashamed of you. Resign please.

        • Chrisitna Shea
          January 29, 2016 at 11:19 am

          I have two legal opinions that state otherwise.
          The FPPC will follow thru to investigate Mr Chemenski’s complaint and any complaint filed, as is their practice.

          • January 29, 2016 at 12:50 pm

            learn to spell the last name please; and while I filed a complaint, there was already an ongoing investigation. My complaint was added to the first one and it sure looks like you violated state law. Release your two legal opinions to the public then so everyone can see what they say. Or is transparency only something talk the talk without walking the walk?

            • Ltpar
              January 29, 2016 at 1:47 pm

              Well Dan the man, you should be an expert on “not walking the talk” after ten years of serving as the mouthpiece for Larry Agran and the gang.

              • January 29, 2016 at 2:56 pm

                Every action at the Great Park was done with an open vote. Shea was mayor before Agran was; if we left things to her, they’d be landing Jets at El Toro International now. You can thank Agran and Krom for stopping the airport and increasing the value of your home.

            • Christina Shea
              January 29, 2016 at 7:02 pm

              If you understand local law, at all Dan, I can’t indepdendently release Attorney/ Client communications. I asked if I could, he said no. I didn’t desire to hide this communication but I wanted it distributed. So try to get your facts straight. There was no ongoing investigation at the FPPC. Someone called the FPPC, a few days prior to your official complaint came in, I was told. Your complaint was received with a reference to Adam E from OCVoice, being a suggested witness to your complaint. I was sent a copy of this rather sloppy complaint you submitted to the FPPC. I was asked to respond, by the FPPC representative, which we did this week. Anyone can file a complaint or call the FPPC and they will investigate complaints. Generally during election cycles, we see increases of these complaints, nothing is new,
              so I will wait for their determination.

              • Dan Chmielewski
                January 29, 2016 at 7:48 pm

                Public records are public records and your communications to staff on behalf of a client who pays you looks like a violation of state law. As Adam has the records, I added him as a “witness” but my complaint was added to an existing investigation. The evidence provided are your own emails. The FPPC will sort it out. But opinions from your lawyers aren’t as valid as you think.

              • Dan Chmielewski
                January 29, 2016 at 8:49 pm

                Actually, without credible evidence, the FPPC will not investigate. If your case, there’s a lot.

                • Ltpar
                  January 29, 2016 at 10:28 pm

                  You are dead wrong on the FPPC and they will open a case on a telephone allegation. Hence the reply you received from the FPPC on your written complaint informing you an investigation was already underway.

                • January 30, 2016 at 7:27 am

                  Only in extreme circumstances This isn’t one. I have done this sort of thing before. I know what they are looking for. Evidence is needed and public records had plenty.

              • January 30, 2016 at 4:12 pm

                If you understand local law, you know the city council can vote to release the letters you claim absolve you. So can we count on you making a motion to release your proof of exoneration? I’m sure you will have no trouble getting a second or a 5-0 vote for transparency. A lesson for you. Don’t come here saying you have a get out of jail free card unless you’re prepared to prove it. It might be cheaper for you to pay the FPPC fine than a lawyer.

          • don
            January 29, 2016 at 2:15 pm

            Legal opinions from your lawyers are not get out of jail cards. You should hire a lawyer and pray that you’re not spending your evenings with an ankle bracelet on. Taking money from a local business and pressuring your city to do something for them is a crime.

      • Pinky
        January 29, 2016 at 11:00 am

        You ought to be troubled about the crimes your son-in-law was charged with.

  5. January 29, 2016 at 11:21 am

    I ran for Irvine Council in 2012 & 2014 knocking on well over 15,000 doors. I ran because I wanted to represent our city and make positive change. For example, I was the only candidate who had a viable and detailed traffic plan to ease traffic concerns which including syncing the lights. No other candidate talked about that.

    It’s a shame Lynn decided almost immediately after getting elected, she didn’t want to be a Councilmember and instead run for another office. Wish the voters knew earlier. They could have elected a councilmember, such as myself who would have worked hard for the city. We could have had the most advanced traffic control system in the country by now!

    • Ltpar
      January 29, 2016 at 1:50 pm

      Evan, you were always a dead beat and couldn’t even manage your own finances much less those of the City. We always suspected that you, like Kathryn Daigle were plants by the Agranistas to draw votes from the conservatives. Sorry, it didn’t work.

      • January 29, 2016 at 2:55 pm

        That old carnard Pat? Daigle hired Shea to be her campaiogn person and someone put an IE out backing Daigle that Moxley said came from Agran supporters. Katherine’s Republican credentials surpass yours. Chemers can speak for himself about being an Agran plant and I can predict he’ll tell you its hogwash.

          January 31, 2016 at 12:34 am

          Well we have a lively debate.

          Congratulations to Lynn.

          As I see it, the common goal of the team is no longer viable, with Lynn looking to remove herself from the conflict and rise above the fray. Jeff withdrawing support from the remaining two in order to protect himself from future condemnations brought on by Shea. The constant battling between the factions on camera – every Council meeting is deplorable. Shea has always had her own interests – agenda and the alleged FPPC investigation on her violation of state law will be ignited in the coming months, along with the various other fraudulent activity “Pinky” has eluded to in the comments above.

          For Shea its always been about “her” power not the city, not the people. If she can control the message by using the council, she will do it by any means possible. Transparency – You are kidding, Right?

  6. January 31, 2016 at 10:46 am

    Wow, Irvine Republicans really hate each other! That’s nice to see.

    • junior
      January 31, 2016 at 1:43 pm

      I need a scorecard Vern – who hates who now – R’s & D’s both?

      • January 31, 2016 at 4:03 pm

        Based on the folks at DPOC who I hadn’t met before that were very complimentary of this blog, I’d say both.

        • junior
          January 31, 2016 at 4:11 pm

          I mean – who among the R’s hate each other – and who among the D’s hate each other. I need a score card for that.

          • February 1, 2016 at 8:18 am

            I think a lot of money could be made by coming up with that list for both parties. The real answer is: it depends on who you talk to.

Comments are closed.