• Special Election 2005

    California Attorney General Sues to Remove Proposition 77 from California Special Election Ballot

    California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed suit Friday to remove Proposition 77, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s redistricting initiative, from the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

    He said the text of the initiative on petitions circulated for voter signatures was rewritten after he had approved a summary of the measure.

    Under state law, initiative proponents can make non-substantive edits to their measures — such as correcting typos — any time before the summary process is completed. That process usually takes about 45 days.

    Substantive changes, such as adding or deleting words or provisions, can be made only within the first 15 days after the initiative is submitted for review, Lockyer’s office said. After that, initiative proponents who want to make substantive changes must start over and submit a new measure for review.

    If the Attorney General is successful in this suit, and the Proposition is disqualified from the ballot, it may help the Governor’s reform agenda. Redrawing district boundaries for poliitcal hacks are of little interest to anyone other than the politicians themselves. And of course, there would be a constitutional challenge to delay implementation until after the next census, in any case. The Special Election ballot is not harmed with the removal of this measure.

    The Governor could then concentrate on Prop. 76, the California School and State Spending Initiative and Prop. 75 Paycheck Protection – Public Employee Union Dues Initiative both anathemas of the Governor’s adversaries the Labor Unions.

    A spokeswoman for Schwarzenegger, Margita Thompson, said the measure should remain on the ballot.

    “The discrepancies are minimal, and the governor believes the people should be allowed to vote on the initiative,” she said. “We believe the courts will uphold the rights of the over 900,000 people who signed the petition to have the initiative placed on the ballot.”

    The redistricting measure is one of eight on the Nov. 8 special election ballot and one of three being pushed by Schwarzenegger. His others would cap state spending and extend the time it takes teachers to get tenure.

    Lockyer said in a statement: “By opting to collect signatures on a ballot measure different from the text reviewed and approved by the attorney general, the proponents violated state law and deceived voters.”

    Lockyer said there were numerous substantive changes, including “language emphasizing the unique ability of judges to draw competitive districts, altering the method used to identify line-drawers and modifying assorted deadlines.”

    The Governor and Attorney General can fight it out in court. The decision makes no difference. The measure can always be recirculated for the June or November 2006 ballot where the Governor can run on the issue – providing he runs for re-election.

    Besides Schwarzenegger has already won this round.

    Flap handicaps this a certainty.

    Cross-posted to The Bear Flag Special Election Page

    Update #1

    For another view on the importance of Prop 77 go and see The Interociter

  • Special Election 2005

    California Democrats to the Governor: Let’s Make a Deal

    Democrats who control California’s legislature said on Friday they may allow Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to make mid-year budget cuts if he drops his support for a ballot measure headed for the November special election that would cap state spending, Proposition 76.

    Democratic lawmakers oppose the measure and believe a better way to keep the state’s books balanced is for the governor to be able to make so-called “mid-year corrections” in spending.

    “That’s a good starting point,” said John Laird, the Democratic chairman of the Assembly budget committee.

    “I think there is a real desire to reach some kind of global settlement,” Laird said. “It’s clearly among lawmakers, but I think the governor is interested.”

    California governors had authority to rewrite spending plans during the course of the state’s year until the early 1980s, when it was bargained away in a budget deal.

    Spokeswoman Margita Thompson said Schwarzenegger would be interested in talks with Democrats on budget-related reforms, but noted the measure he is backing also would give him the ability to make mid-year budget adjustments.

    “The governor would love it if the legislature would truly engage and come up with some solutions,” Thompson said.

    The Governor needs to stay the course and not be SQUISHY.

    Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page.

  • Supreme Court

    Rehnquist Stepping down? YES – Bush Has TWO Choices for Supreme Court

    Matt Drudge has a “Media on standby after growing reports Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist is handing in his resignation… DEVELOPING… ”

    Stay tuned.

    In the meantime read this piece about two possible Supreme Court vacancies, GOP Plots Court Strategy With Rehnquist in Mind.

    Flap handicapped these possibilities here.

    Update #1

    Reporter Bob Novak declares on CNN that Rehnquist will announce retirement today after Bush’s plane touches down at Andrews AFB approx. 4:50 PM EDT… DEVELOPING.

    Update #2

    Michelle Malkin has this piece, SCOTUS WATCH: THE GONZALES PROBLEM:

    There is one fundamental issue that matters more than any other in choosing the next Supreme Court justice–a wartime Supreme Court justice. More than abortion. More than affirmative action. More than the Ten Commandments in courtrooms. The issue is national security.

    Will the next high court nominee, for example, side with the Johnnie Cochran-for-Jihadists model of extending the entire panoply of U.S. civilian due process rights to illegal foreign enemy combatants?

    Huffington has this earlier piece from Novak.

    Update #3

    Air Force One has touched down and the President is on his way to the White House.

    Redstate.org has this:

    First, this story is draining and I’m burning out.

    Second, I have every reason to believe both Robert Novak and Matt Drudge are correct, though I still suspect the Chief Justice could wait until Monday.

    Third, I am reliably informed that certain Senate staffers have been told that the next few weeks stand to be very historic.

    Fourth, I am reliably informed that the John Paul Stevens rumor that all of a sudden got stirred up today is both completely and totally unexpected as of even the first of this week and also accurate. I cannot get my hands around the cause, but several have hinted that Justice Stevens’s health is not good. One said it is believed that Justice Stevens’s health has suddenly begun to deteriorate. The cause is speculation, but this bolt out of the blue does appear to have some substance behind it.

    Update [2005-7-8 16:29:33 by Erick]:A reliable third party source just called to say that “it is done.” William Rehnquist has retired from the United States Supreme Court.

    I feel like we need that Rumsfeld quote back. Could it be that Novak is playing a dirty joke on all of us? I’m tired of waiting. Get on with it. If not, the Chief should send us all home. Retire already! My gut tells me it is BS. My IM’s, emails, and phone calls all say he is retiring and Novak is right.

    Update [2005-7-8 17:4:24 by Erick]: A second third party source tells me that Rehnquist has resigned. Unfortunately, my White House sources are MIA, which does indicate to me that something is going on. This source is adamanat saying “It is a done deal.”

    My gut still says SCOTUSBlog is right, nothing will happen. Everyone else says Rehnquist has already retired. Could this be a cannabalistic feeding frenzy — everyone feeding off each other while the Chief Justice and Robert Novak laugh?

    Update #4

    Drudge is reporting: Rehnquist to Retire

    On Fox News (a few minutes ago) when asked by a reporter earlier today about his status on the SCOTUS. Rehnquist replied, “That is for me to know and for you to find out.”

  • Special Election 2005

    Initiatives Qualified for the November California Special Election Ballot: But Will There Be an Election?

    Secretary of State Bruce McPherson on Wednesday assigned numbers to all of the measures that have qualified for the November California Special Election Ballot:

    Proposition 73: An initiative Constitutional amendment, 1067. (SA04RF0030, Amdt. #1-S) [REVISED]. Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

    Proponents: Paul E. Laubacher and Barbara R. Laubacher (916) 381-5222

    Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or minor’s best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent to abortion is coerced. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: The net costs of this measure to Medi-Cal and other programs are unknown, but are probably not significant in the context of the total expenditures for these programs.

    Proposition 74: Initiative statute, 1088. (SA05RF0019). Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.

    Proponent: Bonnie Garcia (760) 202-7714

    Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Unknown impact on school district teacher salary costs as a result of changes in teacher tenure and dismissal practices. Fiscal impacts could vary significantly district by district.

    Proposition 75: Initiative Statute, 1084. (SA05RF0009). Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute.

    Proponent: Lewis K. Uhler (916) 786-9400

    Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees’ and organizations’ political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees.

    Proposition 76: Initiative Constituional Amendment, 1131. (SA05RF0067, Amdt.#1-NS). School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

    Proponents: William Hauck and Allan Zaremberg (916) 444-6670

    Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools’ funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Spending limit could constrain state expenditures over time. Other provisions would have major impacts on state budget decision making, which could lead to varying outcomes regarding the level of state spending and on the composition of that spending among education, transportation, and other state programs. Provisions allowing Governor to reduce appropriations could result in lower state spending in certain years when the state was facing unresolved budget shortfalls.

    Proposition 77: Initiative Constitutional amendment, 1072. (SA04RF0037, Amdt. #1-NS). Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

    Proponents: Edward J. (Ted) Costa, Dr. Arthur Laffer, Major General Sidney S. Novaresi (USAF) Ret., Jimmie Johnson (916) 482-6175

    Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: This measure would have the following major fiscal impact: One-time state redistricting costs, probably totaling a few million dollars. Comparable savings for each redistricting effort after 2010 (once every ten years).

    Proposition 78: Initiative statute, 1129. (SA05RF0065). Prescription Drugs. Discounts. Initiative Statute.

    Proponent: Ashlee N. Brown (916) 442-7757

    Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low – and moderate – income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities to implement the new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug manufacturers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts.

    Proposition 79: Initiative statute, 1106. (SA05RF0037). Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.

    Proponent: Anthony Wright (916) 442-2308

    Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: One-time and ongoing state costs, potentially in the millions to low tens of millions of dollars annually, for administration and outreach activities for a new drug discount program. A significant share of these costs would probably be borne by the state General Fund. A largely one-time state cost, potentially in the low tens of millions of dollars, to cover the funding gap between the time when drug rebates are collected by the state and when the state pays funds to pharmacies for drug discounts provided to consumers. Any such costs not covered through advance rebate payments from drug makers would be borne by the state General Fund. Unknown costs and savings as a result of provisions linking drug prices for the new drug discount program to Medi-Cal prices, including the potential effect on the state’s receipt of supplemental rebates; unknown savings on state and county health program costs due to the availability of drug discounts; and unknown costs and offsetting revenues from the anti-profiteering provisions.

    Proposition 80: Initiative statute, 1114. (SA05RF0053 Amdt. #1-NS). Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute.

    Proponents: Robert Finkelstein and Michel Peter Florio (415) 929-8876

    Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues. Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure’s impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.

    Now, with the rumours around the Capital that the special election will either be cancelled by the Governor or with legislation, these measures may either be decided, modified or competed against by other sponsored measures.

    With the Governor sinking in the polls, appearing to be squishy and losing favor with his own party over the recently adopted budget, Flap handicaps a 50-50 chance of special election machinations over the next month.

    Will the Governator stay the course?

    Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page