udw legislative scorecard 2013

2013 LEGISLATIVESCORECARD

Thank youFor voting 100% with UDW in support of

California’s working families.Assemblymembers

Senators

Luis AlejoTom AmmianoToni AtkinsRichard BloomBob BlumenfieldSusan BonillaRob BontaSteven BradfordCheryl BrownJoan BuchananNora CamposEd Chau

Wesley ChesbroRoger DickinsonSusan EggmanPaul FongJim FrazierCristina GarciaMike GattoJimmy GomezRichard GordonRoger HernándezReginald Jones-SawyerMarc Levine

Bonnie LowenthalHolly MitchellKevin MullinAdrin NazarianRichard PanJohn PérezNancy SkinnerMark StonePhilip TingShirley WeberBob WieckowskiDas Williams

Jim Beall Marty BlockRon CalderonEllen M. CorbettKevin de León Mark DeSaulnier

Noreen EvansCathleen Galgiani Loni Hancock Ed Hernandez Jerry HillBen HuesoHannah Beth JacksonRicardo Lara

Mark LenoCarol LiuBill MonningAlex PadillaDarrell SteinbergRoderick Wright

“Thank you for voting to make life better for hundreds of thousands of homecare workers, senior citizens, and people with disabilities. Your leadership matters.”

Doug Moore UDW Executive Director

Editha AdamsPresident

Lientuong Rose NguyenSecretary-Treasurer

Rosalina FloresExecutive Vice President

Amy DayVice President, El Dorado

Concepcion Gonzales Vice President, Kern

Josefina Ochoa Vice President, Merced

Christine Nguyen Vice President, Orange William Reed Vice President, Placer

Rosa Ramirez Vice President, Riverside Agency Blanca QuinteroVice President, Riverside IP

Brooks Ashby Vice President, San Diego Elva Munoz Vice President, Santa Barbara

Allene VillaVice President, San Luis Obispo

Astrid ZunigaVice President, Stanislaus

Doug MooreUDW Executive Director

We’re all in this together

The baby boomers aren’t babies anymore, and by the time the last ones turn 65, our senior population will have almost doubled. They’re calling it the “silver tsunami” and it’s the reason why homecare—in-home support for the elderly, the sick and people with disabilities—is the fastest growing industry in America.

In California alone there are 372,000 homecare providers taking care of 448,000 people through the state’s In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. Whether you are a provider or consumer or neither, chances are you know someone whose life is impacted by a need for quality, community-based care.

With our community’s growing need comes legislative responsibility to put people first by investing in homecare. As members of United Domestic Workers (UDW)/AFSCME Local 3930, we are committed to taking care of our loved ones and neighbors. We created this document to hold our elected leaders accountable for the decisions they make to improve life for seniors, adults and children with disabilities, and all working families.

In unity,

A Message from UDW Caregivers

2 UDW/AFSCME Local 3930

Who We Are

“This is the job that God gave me to do and I love doing it.”

I named my daughter Rosie after my mom. When she was a toddler she was diagnosed with autism. Throughout her adolescence I have always pushed her to be the best she can be. She goes to a day program where she has the opportunity to earn money, learn life skills like how to ride the bus, and do arts and crafts while socializing with others. I have always been her champion and I always will be. When her services get cut, I fight for them to get restored. She and I have a really wonderful relationship.

Six years ago my husband of 20 years passed away from pancreatic cancer leaving me and Rosie behind. You never think it’s going to be you being a single parent but I’m doing it and IHSS has helped me. I’m also self-employed with Mary Kay as an Independent Sales Director where I help others manage their businesses. I’m really a service person and I love helping people. I used to work with developmentally disabled people at a state hospital as a therapeutic recreational therapist and I also worked with homeless vets at the VA. What I did in those jobs has prepared me for what I’m doing now as Rosie’s caregiver.

“My mom is my princess.”

I was born in Puerto Rico but I have been in California since I was 14 years old. I have been an IHSS care provider for 20 years. I used to care for my sister, then non-family members, and now my mom, Andrea, for the last 10 years. I know that my mom is still alive today because I am able to care for her rather than having her in a facility.

I have seven children from ages 19-31. My oldest three were in military and I’m a proud military mom. Raising seven children required that I work multiple jobs so I have been a property manager and a certified medical assistant at the hospital while also working as an IHSS care provider. I start working at 3am to dress my mom, feed her and take her to dialysis at 5am. I grocery shop while she’s at dialysis because there is no other time to do it in my week.

If I didn’t have this job I don’t know how we would eat or pay rent. This job not only makes a difference to me financially but also to the quality of life my mom has. I get compliments on how cute she looks everywhere we go. She always matches a flower in her hair to whatever she’s wearing. She’s the princess of the house.

The one-on-one care that IHSS allows is a blessing not just for me, but I’m sure for thousands of people. It allows our loved ones to have dignity. Our elders already did for us and it’s time for us to do for them. Having them in a home environment saves lives. This program is not a luxury, it’s a necessity.

3UDW/AFSCME Local 3930

“Growing up my father provided whatever I needed. Now I try to return the favor.”

I grew up in the projects of Santa Ana as the youngest of 8. I still live there but in a more middle class neighborhood. My whole family lives in the area and it’s really important for us to be close. We try to get together every Sunday for menudo and homemade tortillas. My time is kind of limited but when I have time I like to go to the movies and the park. I also like working out and fishing.

I have been a provider since 2000 when I was taking care of my mom. After my mom passed away I started taking care of my dad who is now 91 years old. He loves reading and listening to classic Spanish music. He also really likes going on trips so we try to do some traveling together. He was a farmworker in Northern California and one time we took a trip up there so he could show us the places he used to work. Soon we’re planning on taking a train trip down the coast because he loves trains. Whatever he wants, I try to get it for him or take him places he wants to go.

I was always really close with my dad and being his caregiver has made us even closer. I get mad that politicians think it’s not a job. It’s a hard job and we are underpaid and don’t get any benefits. We’re always under attack. We’re the first ones the governor wants to cut in half. I would like them to become a provider for a day.

“I love caring for people.”

Taking care of people has always been very important to me. I grew up in Compton and after I graduated from high school, I went to nursing school so that I could continue to care for people as a profession. As a nurse I didn’t feel like I had enough time for my patients and that was really difficult for me. I left nursing for homecare 20 years ago. I cared for my sister who passed away, for a lot of non-family members, and now for my 79-year-old dad. I maintain my nursing certifications so that I can provide the best quality of care to him.

My dad and I have a close relationship and family is very important to us. I’m not happy until my family is happy! Every year we have a 500 person family reunion where we all get together to camp and reconnect. I like to keep him busy because it’s good for him so we take little trips to the mall for exercise and entertainment. Caring for him can be hard sometimes because he has a lot of dietary needs and he requires a lot of help to get around. When things start to feel hard I take a moment and come back to focus on doing what I love: caring for people.


UDW Priority Legislation

Raising Wages for Working FamiliesAssembly Bill 10 (Alejo) – Minimum Wage: annual adjustment

This bill will increase the state minimum wage to $9 per hour on July 1, 2014, and will further increase the minimum wage to $10 per hour on January 1, 2016.

Currently, the state minimum wage stands at $8 per hour. This wage is grossly inadequate to support a family in California. Increasing the minimum wage is an important step toward the goal of reducing poverty and improving the quality of life for working families. This bill will benefit tens of thousands of hardworking IHSS providers who are currently paid less than $10 per hour. It is a positive step towards compensating workers more fairly for the work we do, including those of us who provide compassionate care to people who are sick, elderly, or have disabilities.

Position: Support

Status: Passed and signed into law (Chapter 351, Statutes of 2013)

Andrea Vidales Merced County provider

“Homecare workers are not being paid a fair wage. I care for three clients who are not my family members through IHSS, each one of them with a different disability. One of the biggest challenges I face is not being compensated for mileage as I transport my clients to doctor’s appointments, grocery shopping, and to run errands. I spend an average of $200 per month in gas.

It would make a really big difference to my life and the life of my clients if I made a higher wage. The increase in minimum wage will help everyone including the businesses where we

spend money. Homecare providers are being paid poverty-level wages despite providing crucial care to elders and people with disabilities.”


Jenell AllenSan Luis Obispo County provider

“My daughter is mentally impaired; she was born with Down Syndrome and also has autism. I see her as extremely vulnerable; because of her disability she cannot defend herself against physical or mental abuse. We must offer protection to people who cannot care for themselves.”

Ensuring Safety for Homecare ConsumersAssembly Bill 1217 (Lowenthal) – Homecare Services Consumer Protection Act

AB 1217 will require, as of January 1, 2016, private homecare agencies to be licensed and regulated by the State Department of Social Services. At the same time, it will also mandate the online registration of private pay homecare aides employed by homecare agencies. This bill provides, for the first time in California, important consumer protections for seniors and persons with disabilities who use the services of private in-home personal care providers. As a publicly funded program, IHSS has for several years required that all homecare providers pass a criminal background check and meet certain enrollment standards. Increasing standards in the private homecare industry will ensure that all Californians who are sick, elderly, and have disabilities will get safe, quality care.

Position: Support



Carmen ChavezLanguage access advocate

“The issue of language access is a basic human right. It’s a moral issue. Language has so much nuance; it continues to evolve and if you don’t understand even one word, you’ve missed the meaning of the whole thing. Vetoing this bill is an unconscionable decision. You’re talking about people’s lives as they are trying to access basic healthcare.”

Increasing Language Access in Health CareAssembly Bill 1263 (J. Pérez) – Medi-Cal: CommuniCal

This bill would establish the Medi-Cal Patient Centered Communication (CommuniCal) program which would provide certified medical interpretation services to Medi-Cal recipients who have limited English proficiency. It also would create a certification process and registry of CommuniCal medical interpreters and grant these workers the right to collective bargaining which would improve the quality and availability of medical interpretation.

Many individuals in the IHSS community, both providers and consumers, have limited English proficiency. In fact, nearly half of Medi-Cal recipients speak a language other than English as their primary language. These individuals more frequently report problems related to their experience of care due in large part to language barriers. This bill would create a plan for the state to ensure that all Californians are able to communicate with their health care providers, which is the only way we can ensure everyone gets the best possible care.

Position: Support

Status: Vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown on October 13, 2013


Monique Carden Placer County provider “Without Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, my 75-year-old mother wouldn’t be able to survive. Even with that financial support, she struggles financially. These programs are lifelines to older Americans like my mother and I feel that strengthening them is what politicians should be focused on.”

Protecting the Social Safety NetAssembly Joint Resolution 7 (Bonta) – Relative to public social services

AJR 7 urges the President and the United States Congress to prioritize the lives of everyday Americans who rely on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid by protecting these programs when making budget cuts to reduce the federal deficit. It also expresses the California Legislature’s opposition to any reduction in these essential social programs that sustain families. Wages and benefits for IHSS providers are partially funded by Medicaid which makes this resolution vitally important to UDW providers and the sick, elderly, and people with disabilities who rely on our services.

Position: Support

Status: Passed (Resolution Chapter 35, Statutes of 2013)


Richard ScheiberEl Dorado County provider

“I take care of my wife, Marta, who is disabled due to Multiple Sclerosis. We’ve gone from living on very little to living on less than very little. Every hour that caregivers work has to do with quality of life. Every hour you take away reduces the quality of life for consumers. And legislators tell consumers they get to decide what gets cut but the question becomes: Do you want 8% fewer meals or 8% fewer showers or 8% fewer errands run? There is no waste or fat to cut out of this program; it’s all essential. You take those hours away and you take away life.”

Editha AdamsSan Diego County provider and UDW President

“If we did not reach the agreement to have an 8% cut in 2013 and a 7% cut after that, those of us who are providers would have been facing an even more drastic cut of 20%. But any cut to services for the elderly and people with disabilities is unacceptable. Now it’s our job to tell our elected officials who we are and the valuable contributions this program brings to our community. We will keep fighting until the IHSS program is fully funded and we are paid a living wage. We provide our clients dignity, respect, and a safe living environment.”

Stopping Devastating Cuts to HomecareSenate Bill 67 (Cte. on Budget and Fiscal Review) – In-Home Supportive Services

SB 67 implements the terms of the March 2013 Settlement Agreement between the state and plaintiffs in the Dominguez, Oster I, and Oster II lawsuits affecting the In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) program. The Settlement Agreement required an 8% reduction in IHSS service hours effective July 1, 2013, which becomes a 7% reduction in service hours annually thereaf-ter. While we never advocate for cuts in service provider hours or wages, SB 67 rescinds the far more drastic wage reductions for IHSS providers and service reductions for IHSS consumers that were at issue in the lawsuits (but never took place thanks to temporary injunctions). Finally, the bill also states the Legislature’s intent to authorize an “assessment” on homecare services that would generate new savings for the state that could be used to partially or entirely restore the 7% cut in hours. We are calling on the Legislature to restore hours for people whose lives have been drastically impacted by cuts to homecare.

Position: Support



Fixing Long-Term CareSenate Bill 94 (Cte. on Budget and Fiscal Review)– Medi-Cal: managed care: long term services and supports: in-home supportive services

SB 94 makes important changes to the state’s Coordinated Care Initiative (CCI). Most impactful to IHSS is the “delinking” of the three main pieces of the CCI. Those pieces are: the mandatory enrollment of Medi-Cal-only beneficiaries into managed care for the provision of long term supports and services, including IHSS; the mandatory enrollment of “dual eligibles” (those individuals eligible for both Medi-Cal and Medicare) into Medi-Cal managed care for the provision of health care and long term supports and services, including IHSS; and “Cal MediConnect,” formerly known as the “dual eligible demonstration,” a complex pilot project intended to integrate all services for dual eligibles in eight demonstration counties.

Prior to SB 94, all of the components of the CCI had to implement at the same time. If one piece was stalled for any reason (for example, due to lack of federal approval), then no other piece could move forward. However, as a result of “delinking,” any one component of the CCI can now proceed independent of the others, including the shift to state-level collective bargaining for IHSS providers. SB 94 also gives the Director of Finance discretion to shut down the CCI if the state does not achieve savings from the initiative.

Position: Watch*


* Note that this bill was not used in calculating legislator performance

Expanding Rights for Domestic WorkersAssembly Bill 241 (Ammiano) – Domestic work employees: labor standards

The “Domestic Worker Bill of Rights” is a landmark bill for working families in California that extends overtime pay to certain domestic workers like personal care attendants. These workers have historically been excluded from many of the basic protections mandated by state and federal law including overtime pay. This bill requires overtime compensation for all hours worked over nine hours in any workday and for all hours worked more than 45 hours in the workweek, a common occurrence in the lives of domestic workers. Though the bill does not apply to IHSS providers, UDW recognizes it as a historic step forward in the fight for a living wage for all workers in California.

Position: Support*



Our legislative priorities reflect our values: dignity, fairness, and community

This scorecard records votes on UDW priority legislation by California legislators. Each assemblymember or senator has been scored using votes taken on the Assembly or Senate floor and votes taken in policy or fiscal committees. Abstentions and unexcused absences are scored as a vote in opposition to UDW and count against the legislator’s final score.

The vote records produce a percentage that represents how often the member voted in favor of UDW priority legislation. Higher scores mean that the legislator has voted for the interests of working families. Lower scores, conversely, indicate that the legislator has either not voted for or has voted against the interests of IHSS providers and consumers.

The comprehensive vote lists outline each vote made by an assemblymember or senator on UDW priority legislation on the floor and in various policy committees. Because of different committee memberships, some legislators have voted more times than others. These votes are the basis for generating a legislator’s rating. The codes in these tables are as follows:

Y – “Yes” Vote N – “No” Vote EA – Excused Absence A-N – Was present that day but abstained or was absent from the floor or committee.

Legislative Scorecard


Assemblymember Votes Cast with UDW % Votes Cast with UDW

Alejo, Luis (D-30) 9 out of 9 100%

Ammiano, Tom (D-17) 13 out of 13 100%

Atkins, Toni (D-78)* 9 out of 9 100%

Bloom, Richard (D-50) 8 out of 8 100%

Blumenfield, Bob (D-45) 5 out of 5 100%

Bonilla, Susan (D-14) 9 out of 9 100%

Bonta, Rob (D-18) 10 out of 10 100%

Bradford, Steven (D-62) 11 out of 11 100%

Brown, Cheryl (D-47) 9 out of 9 100%

Buchanan, Joan (D-16) 8 out of 8 100%

Campos, Nora (D-27) 11 out of 11 100%

Chau, Ed (D-49) 9 out of 9 100%

Chesbro, Wesley (D-2) 9 out of 9 100%

Dickinson, Roger (D-7) 8 out of 8 100%

Eggman, Susan (D-13) 11 out of 11 100%

Fong, Paul (D-28) 8 out of 8 100%

Frazier, Jim (D-11) 8 out of 8 100%

Garcia, Cristina (D-58) 9 out of 9 100%

Gatto, Mike (D-43) 11 out of 11 100%

Gomez, Jimmy (D-51) 12 out of 12 100%

Gonzalez, Lorena (D-80) 6 out of 6 100%

Gordon, Richard (D-24) 9 out of 9 100%

Hernández, Roger (D-48) 10 out of 10 100%

Jones-Sawyer, Reginald (D-59) 8 out of 8 100%

Levine, Marc (D-10) 9 out of 9 100%

Lowenthal, Bonnie (D-70) 7 out of 7 100%

Mitchell, Holly (D-54) 9 out of 9 100%

Mullin, Kevin (D-22) 9 out of 9 100%

Nazarian, Adrin (D-46) 9 out of 9 100%

Pan, Richard (D-9) 12 out of 12 100%

Pérez, John (D-53) 8 out of 8 100%

Skinner, Nancy (D-15) 8 out of 8 100%

Stone, Mark (D-29) 9 out of 9 100%

Ting, Philip (D-19) 8 out of 8 100%

Weber, Shirley (D-79) 11 out of 11 100%

Wieckowski, Bob (D-25) 10 out of 10 100%

Williams, Das (D-37) 8 out of 8 100%

Calderon, Ian (D-57) 11 out of 12 92%

Bocanegra, Raul (D-39) 10 out of 11 91%

ASSEMBLY SCORECARD

*Bolded names indicate assemblymembers in UDW counties


Quirk, Bill (D-20) 10 out of 11 91%

Gray, Adam (D-21) 8 out of 9 89%

Pérez, V. Manuel (D-56) 8 out of 9 89%

Rendon, Anthony (D-63) 8 out of 9 89%

Medina, Jose (D-61) 7 out of 8 88%

Perea, Henry (D-31) 7 out of 8 88%

Quirk-Silva, Sharon (D-65) 7 out of 8 88%

Hall, Isadore (D-64) 10 out of 12 83%

Holden, Chris (D-41) 4 out of 5 80%

Daly, Tom (D-69) 7 out of 9 78%

Yamada, Mariko (D-4) 7 out of 9 78%

Cooley, Ken (D-8) 6 out of 8 75%

Muratsuchi, Al (D-66) 6 out of 8 75%

Salas, Rudy (D-32) 6 out of 8 75%

Fox, Steve (D-36) 5 out of 8 63%

Achadjian, Katcho (R-35) 3 out of 8 38%

Nestande, Brian (R-42) 2 out of 9 22%

Hagman, Curt (R-55) 1 out of 7 14%

Grove, Shannon (R-34) 1 out of 10 10%

Allen, Travis (R-72) 0 out of 9 0%

Bigelow, Franklin (R-5) 0 out of 11 0%

Chávez, Rocky (R-76) 0 out of 8 0%

Conway, Connie (R-26) 0 out of 8 0%

Dahle, Brian (R-1) 0 out of 8 0%

Donnelly, Tim (R-33) 0 out of 11 0%

Gaines, Beth (R-6) 0 out of 8 0%

Gorell, Jeff (R-44) 0 out of 8 0%

Harkey, Diane (R-73) 0 out of 12 0%

Jones, Brian (R-71) 0 out of 8 0%

Linder, Eric (R-60) 0 out of 11 0%

Logue, Dan (R-3) 0 out of 8 0%

Maienschein, Brian (R-77) 0 out of 10 0%

Mansoor, Allan (R-74) 0 out of 9 0%

Melendez, Melissa (R-67) 0 out of 8 0%

Morrell, Mike (R-40) 0 out of 9 0%

Olsen, Kristin (R-12) 0 out of 8 0%

Patterson, Jim (R-23) 0 out of 8 0%

Wagner, Donald (R-68) 0 out of 13 0%

Waldron, Marie (R-75) 0 out of 8 0%

Wilk, Scott (R-38) 0 out of 9 0%

Assemblymember Votes Cast with UDW % Votes Cast with UDW

ASSEMBLY SCORECARD


AB 10 AB 1217 AB 1263 AJR 7 SB 67Member Cmte1 Cmte2 Floor3 Cmte4 Cmte5 Floor6 Cmte7 Cmte8 Cmte9 Floor10 Cmte11 Floor12 Floor13 %

Achadjian - - N N - - N N - - - Y Y - N Y 38

Alejo Y - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Allen - - N N - - N N - N - N N - N N 0

Ammiano - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Atkins - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Bigelow - N N N - N N N - - N N N - N N 0

Bloom - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Blumenfield(Resigned) - - Y - - - Y - - - - Y - - Y Y 100

Bocanegra - Y A-N Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y 91

Bonilla - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Bonta - - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y 100

Bradford - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Brown - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y Y Y Y 100

Buchanan - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Calderon - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y A-N 92

Campos - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Chau Y - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Chávez - - N N - - N N - - - N N - A-N N 0

Chesbro - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Conway - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Cooley - - N Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - A-N Y 75

Dahle - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Daly - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y Y A-N Y 78

Dickinson - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Donnelly - N N N - N N N - - N N N - N N 0

Eggman - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Fong - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Fox - - A-N A-N - - Y Y - - - Y Y - A-N Y 63

Frazier - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Gaines - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Garcia - - Y Y Y - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Gatto - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Gomez Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y - EA Y 100

Gonzalez - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - - - 100

Gordon - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Gorell N - N N - - N N - - - N N - EA N 0

Gray - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y Y Y Y 89

Grove - - N N N - N N - - - N N N N Y 10

Hagman - - N N - - N N - - - N N - EA Y 14

ASSEMBLY COMPREHENSIVE VOTE LIST

1 Assembly Committee on Labor and Employment, 4/24/132 Assembly Appropriations, 5/24/133 Assembly Floor, 5/30/13, 9/12/134 Assembly Human Services, 4/30/135 Assembly Appropriations, 5/24/13

6 Assembly Floor, 5/30/13, 9/12/137 Assembly Health, 4/2/138 Assembly Public Employees, Retirement, and Social Security, 4/10/139 Assembly Appropriations, 5/24/13

10 Assembly Floor, 5/29/13, 9/11/1311 Assembly Aging and Long Term Care Committee, 3/19/1312 Assembly Floor, 4/1/1313 Assembly Floor, 5/20/13


Hall - Y Y Y A-N Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y A-N 83

Harkey - N N N - N N N - N N N N - N N 0

Hernández Y - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Holden Y - EA Y - - EA Y - - - EA Y - A-N EA 80

Jones - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Jones-Sawyer - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - Y Y - Y EA 100

Levine - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y Y Y Y 100

Linder - N N N - N N N - - N N N - A-N N 0

Logue - - N N - - N N N - - N N - A-N EA 0

Lowenthal - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - EA Y 100

Maienschein - - N N N - N N N - - N N - N N 0

Mansoor - - N N - - N N N - - N N - N N 0

Medina - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - A-N Y 88

Melendez - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Mitchell - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Morrell N - N N - - N N - - - N N - A-N N 0

Mullin - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - Y Y - Y Y 100

Muratsuchi - - N Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - A-N Y 75

Nazarian - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Nestande - - N N - - N N A-N - - Y N - A-N Y 22

Olsen - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Pan - Y Y Y - Y Y Y Y - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Patterson - - N N - - N N - - - N N - N N 0

Perea - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 88

Pérez, J - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Pérez, V. M. - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - Y Y - A-N Y 89

Quirk - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - A-N Y 91

Quirk-Silva - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - A-N Y 88

Rendon - - Y Y - - Y Y - Y - Y A-N - Y Y 89

Salas - - A-N Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - A-N Y 75

Skinner - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Stone - - Y Y Y - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Ting - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Torres (Moved to Senate 5/20/13. See score in Senate section.) Y - n/a

Wagner - N N N - N N N N - N N N N N N 0

Waldron - - N N - - N N - - - N N - A-N A-N 0

Weber - Y Y Y - Y Y Y - - Y Y Y - Y Y 100

Wieckowski - - Y Y - - Y Y Y Y - Y Y - Y Y 100

Wilk - - N N - - N N N - - N N - N N 0

Williams - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - Y Y - Y Y 100

Yamada - - Y Y - - N A-N - - - Y Y Y Y Y 78

AB 10 AB 1217 AB 1263 AJR 7 SB 67Member Cmte1 Cmte2 Floor3 Cmte4 Cmte5 Floor6 Cmte7 Cmte8 Cmte9 Floor10 Cmte11 Floor12 Floor13 %

ASSEMBLY COMPREHENSIVE VOTE LIST


Senator Votes Cast with UDW % Votes Cast with UDW

Beall, Jim (D-15) 8 out of 8 100%

Block, Marty (D-39)* 7 out of 7 100%

Calderon, Ron (D-30) 4 out of 4 100%

Corbett, Ellen M. (D-10) 5 out of 5 100%

de León, Kevin (D-22) 12 out of 12 100%

DeSaulnier, Mark (D-7) 7 out of 7 100%

Evans, Noreen (D-2) 8 out of 8 100%

Galgiani, Cathleen (D-5) 5 out of 5 100%

Hancock, Loni (D-9) 6 out of 6 100%

Hernandez, Ed (D-24) 6 out of 6 100%

Hill, Jerry (D-13) 11 out of 11 100%

Hueso, Ben (D-40) 5 out of 5 100%

Jackson, Hannah-Beth (D-19) 6 out of 6 100%

Lara, Ricardo (D-33) 11 out of 11 100%

Leno, Mark (D-11) 7 out of 7 100%

Liu, Carol (D-25) 8 out of 8 100%

Monning, Bill (D-17) 8 out of 8 100%

Padilla, Alex (D-20) 8 out of 8 100%

Steinberg, Darrell (D-6) 11 out of 11 100%

Wright, Roderick D. (D-35) 9 out of 9 100%

Yee, Leland Y. (D-8) 9 out of 10 90%

Wolk, Lois (D-3) 6 out of 7 86%

Roth, Richard D. (D-31) 5 out of 6 83%

Correa, Lou (D-34) 4 out of 5 80%

Lieu, Ted W. (D-28) 4 out of 5 80%

Pavley, Fran (D-27) 4 out of 5 80%

Torres, Norma J. (D-32) 3 out of 4 75%

Gaines, Ted (R-1) 3 out of 11 27%

Walters, Mimi (R-37) 3 out of 11 27%

Nielsen, Jim (R-4) 0 out of 7 0%

Anderson, Joel (R-36) 0 out of 7 0%

Berryhill, Tom (R-14) 0 out of 7 0%

Cannella, Anthony (R-12) 0 out of 5 0%

Emmerson, Bill (R-23) 0 out of 9 0%

Fuller, Jean (R-18) 0 out of 5 0%

Huff, Bob (R-29) 0 out of 5 0%

Knight, Steve (R-21) 0 out of 5 0%

Vidak, Andy (R-16) 0 out of 3 0%

Wyland, Mark (R-38) 0 out of 7 0%

SENATE SCORECARD

*Bolded names indicate senators in UDW counties


AB 10 AB 1217 AB 1263 AJR 7 SB 67

Senator Cmte14 Cmte15 Cmte16 Floor17 Cmte18 Cmte19 Cmte20 Cmte21 Floor22 Cmte23 Cmte24 Cmte25 Cmte26 Floor27 Cmte28 Floor29 Cmte30 Floor31 %

Anderson - - - N - - - - N - N - - N - N N N 0

Beall - - - Y - - - - Y Y Y - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Berryhill - - - N N - - N N - - - - A-N A-N EA EA N 0

Block - - - Y - - - - Y Y - - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Calderon - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - EA 100

Cannella - - - A-N - - - - A-N - - - - N - N - N 0

Corbett - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - Y 100

Correa - - - Y - - - - A-N - - - - Y - Y - Y 80

de León - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y - Y Y Y Y - Y - Y 100

DeSaulnier - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Emmerson - - - N N - - N N - - - - A-N A-N N N N 0

Evans - - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - - Y Y Y - Y 100

Fuller - - - N - - - - N - - - - N - N - N 0

Gaines - Y N N - Y N - N N - Y N N - N - EA 27

Galgiani - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - Y 100

Hancock - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Hernandez - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - - Y - Y - Y 100

Hill - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y Y Y - Y - Y 100

Hueso - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - Y 100

Huff - - - N - - - - N - - - - N - N - N 0

Jackson - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Knight - - - N - - - - N - - - - N - N - N 0

Lara - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y Y Y - Y - Y 100

Leno Y - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Lieu - - - Y - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - A-N 80

Liu - - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - - Y Y Y - Y 100

Monning Y - - Y - - - - Y - Y - - Y - Y Y Y 100

Nielsen - - - N - - - - N - N - - A-N - N N N 0

Padilla EA EA Y Y - EA Y - Y - - EA Y Y - Y - Y 100

Pavley - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - - A-N - EA - Y 80

Roth - - - A-N - - - - Y - - - - Y - Y Y Y 83

Steinberg - Y Y Y - Y Y - Y - - Y Y Y - Y - Y 100

Torres - - - Y - - - - A-N - - - - Y - - - - 75*

Vidak - - - N - - - - N - - - - N - - - - 0

Walters - Y N N - Y N - N N - Y N N - N - EA 27

Wolk - - - Y - - - - Y - Y - - Y - A-N Y Y 86

Wright - - - Y Y - - Y Y - - - - Y Y Y Y Y 100

Wyland N - - N - - - - N - - - - N - N N N 0

Yee Y - - Y Y - - Y Y Y - - - A-N Y Y - Y 90

SENATE COMPREHENSIVE VOTE LIST

14 Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee, 6/26/1315 Senate Appropriations Committee, 8/12/1316 Senate Appropriations Committee, 8/30/1317 Senate Floor, 9/12/1318 Senate Human Services Committee, 6/25/1319 Senate Appropriations Committee, 8/12/13

20 Senate Appropriations Committee, 8/30/1321 Senate Human Services Committee, 9/11/1322 Senate Floor, 9/12/1323 Senate Public Employment and Retirement Committee, 6/24/1324 Senate Health Committee, 7/3/1325 Senate Appropriations Committee, 8/12/13

26 Senate Appropriations Committee, 8/30/1327 Senate Floor, 9/11/1328 Senate Human Services Committee, 4/23/1329 Senate Floor, 5/9/1330 Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review, 5/9/1331 Senate Floor, 5/13/13

* Note: Senator Torres’ score was calculated using her Senate votes, plus her votes while still serving in the Assembly.

Our Values:DignityFairnessCommunity

Connect with us:facebook.com/UDWwww.udwa.org

Headquarters4855 Seminole DriveSan Diego, CA 92115Phone: 619-263-7254

Political and Legislative Office1201 K Street, Suite 1960Sacramento, CA 95814Phone: 916-554-0931

udw legislative scorecard 2013

Documents

homecare workers

life skills

working families

homecare providers

communitybased care

support of californias

senior citizens

senior population