In the last month drug companies have raised $43 million to fight Prop. 79, a union sponsored (Alliance for California) measure that would cut prescription drug prices for a wide range of California residents.

Proposition 79, an Initiative Statute:

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.

Giant pharmaceutical companies including Pfizer, Merck and GlaxoSmithKline have pumped more than $8.5 million each into the industry’s California Initiative Fund, which also is financing Proposition 78, a rival drug cost measure on the special election ballot.

Proposition 78, An Initiative Statute:

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.

Here we have dueling initiative statutes with a costly media campaign that the public employee and private unions cannot win if they are battling the Governor over paycheck protection, teacher tenure and redistricting.

And does anyone continue to wonder why the Democrats want to cut a deal with the Governor and either narrow their election day campaigns or so thoroughly confuse (bore) the voters that all measures fail.

The drug industry has collected a total of more than $53 million thus far for the initiative battle, an indication of how important the fight over prescription drug costs is to the industry.

“Their fund raising is astronomical, and obviously they’re scared,” said Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for a Better California, a union- funded group that put the Proposition 79 drug cost measure on the ballot. “They wouldn’t invest that kind of money if they didn’t have something to lose. ”

The money shows that the pharmaceutical industry will wage an all-out effort to defeat the union initiative and pass its rival measure, said Jan Faiks, a vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

You bet they will and the ads by Merck are already airing on talk radio stations.

Around the Capitol asks:

Maybe the drug companies can give the guv some fundraising pointers…

How about a media campaign too!

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

California Assemby Speaker Fabien Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata will ask a Sacramento area court on Thursday to join the lawsuit filed by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer to remove Prop. 77, the redistricting initiative supported by Republican Governor Schwarzenegger, from the November Special Election ballot.

If Núñez and Perata are denied permission to join as intervenors, which essentially would make them parties to Lockyer’s suit, Olson said they would file their own litigation against Proposition 77.

“What we’re trying to accomplish is to have the matter removed from the ballot,” he said. “We’re talking about the rule of law here – and the rule of law is that this shouldn’t be on the ballot.”

Lockyer’s suit, filed Friday, claims that proponents of the measure to overhaul how California draws legislative, congressional and Board of Equalization seats failed to comply with procedural requirements to qualify a state initiative.

Lockyer contends he has a duty, as the state’s chief law enforcement officer, to seek judicial resolution of the matter.

“It’s not a partisan issue for him, it’s a matter of policy,” said Nathan Barankin, the attorney general’s spokesman.

Right!

Specifically, Lockyer’s suit said wording on the document used to gather signatures was different from the text submitted to Lockyer’s office for a title and summary, which formally launched the initiative’s petition drive.

Attorney Daniel Kolkey, representing leaders of the redistricting campaign, concedes that there were discrepancies and attributes them to human error – someone mistakenly sent the wrong version of the initiative to the printer, he said.

Kolkey argues that wording differences were minor, did not affect the substance of the measure and should not be used to thwart the will of voters.

Kolkey personally notified Secretary of State Bruce McPherson about the problem on June 13, three days after the redistricting measure qualified for the ballot.

McPherson, a Republican and former state legislator, has called the situation unprecedented but said he plans to place the redistricting measure before voters Nov. 8 unless a judge deems otherwise.

McPherson said he has an obligation to place before Californians any issue that 900,000 voters have demanded a right to consider.

“My presumption is that the people who signed the petition knew what they were signing,” he said.

McPherson, a defendant in the suit, opposes the intervenor request by Núñez and Perata.

“Additional involvement could mean additional time – and time is of the essence,” he said. “We need a quick resolution of this issue.”

If this measure is removed from the special election ballot then the rationale for holding an off-year election will disappear. Remember the Governor argued that the redistricting measure is imperative so that new legislative districts would be available to voters in 2006.

Will the Governor trade Prop. 77 for a bipartisan competing measure that also allows a change in term limits (to appease Nunez since he is soon termed out of office)?

Will the Governor cancel the Special Election entirely if Prop. 77 is removed from the ballot? The rumours around the Capital have legislative legal folks researching legal precedent to cancel the election.

Or will Prop. 77 survive and the Governor makes no deals?

Stay tuned.

Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Is the California Special Election 2005 edition burning out the voters? The Sacramento Union has this story, Special Election Burnout.

Is there such a thing as too much democracy?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s determination to get a tighter grip on the state budget and reshape a Legislature known for its political extremes will send California voters to the polls for the fourth statewide election in two years.

The collateral damage might be voters themselves.

The cavalcade of candidates and ballot propositions—dating to the October 2003 election that put Schwarzenegger in office—has left many weary of all that goes with them.

In short, “People are tired,” said Trudy Schafer, a lobbyist for the League of Women Voters of California.

To many voters, “There is a never-ending campaign,” said Democratic consultant Kam Kuwata, who has advised Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn. “People scratch their heads and say, ‘Why are we doing this?’”

This MSM ASSociated Press piece seems to have a bias against a November vote of the people. However, not everyone is against the election.

“I have no patience for folks who say, ‘I have voter-fatigue,’” Fresno Mayor Alan Autry, a fellow Republican, said after Schwarzenegger called the special election last month. “The governor’s trying to solve problems. I fully support him.”

Eight initiatives have qualified for the November ballot, including the governor’s proposals to give him a stronger hand in state spending, redraw congressional and legislative districts and raise the bar for teachers to obtain tenure. The attorney general has since questioned the validity of the redistricting measure after supporters changed the wording of his summary on petitions circulated to get it on the ballot.

Other measures would require minors seeking abortions to get parental approval, reregulate the state’s energy market and lower prescription drug prices.

But that could be just the start. The ballot could become more crowded _ and confusing _ if Schwarzenegger and legislators reach compromises that could place other measures before voters in November.

In a way, the governor could end up campaigning against himself. If he cuts separate deals with legislators, those too could land on the ballot in November. If that was the case, the governor would have to convince voters to reject his initial offerings in favor of the compromises.

“Confusion about issues on the ballot is a considerable barrier for voters in the state,” said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation, an advocacy group. “My fear is people who are burned out may choose to sit home.”

Duhhhhhhhhh and who does better in elections with lower voter turn-out?

Take a guess…….

It is not Bill Lockyer’s party and that is why the California Attorney General is trying to block one initiative from the ballot and the Democrats are feverishly attempting to negotiate the other initiatives away.

Alexander said some of the arcane subject matter—redistricting, for example—could be a voter turnoff. And Schwarzenegger’s willingness to govern through the ballot box, rather than through the Legislature, has placed voters in the awkward position of settling Sacramento political disputes, she said.

“The voters are frequently being asked to come in and mediate. That can be very taxing on voters,” she said.

But others dismiss the notion of voters overwhelmed by democracy. Low turnout is tied to a lack of motivation, not the number of elections, said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate.

He said that more than 60 percent of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election, the highest rate since 1968.

“People show up when they think there is something important to decide,” Gans said. “I don’t believe voter fatigue.”

Flap agrees that some of the measures contain very arcane material.

However, when the public knows it counts ………………. they show up.

Look at the recall election!

Corss-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Proposition 77 is an Initiative Constituional Amendment slated for the November 2005 Special Election.

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).

The graphic above (HT: The Interociter) illustrates one of the many examples of inequitable and ridiculous California voter apportionment maps currently in place. Proposition 77 with its three judge panel aims to make reapportionment of legilslative and congressional districts less partisan and more equitable.

However, the California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, last Friday sued to remove the measure from the November 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.

Now a new piece, Size matters in remapping state legislative boundaries It’s not a district’s shape but how many people it has by Heather Barbour of the New America Foundation examines whether it is the SIZE of the legislative rather than the shape that should be considered. (Note: although Prop. 77 includes congressional districts, the size of those districts could not be changed unless there was an amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

If we really want to do something about our electile dysfunction, we’re going to have to do a lot more than pop a redistricting pill.

Thanks in large part to Dr. Schwarzenegger, Californians will be voting on a prescription for redistricting reform this November. But while a more neutral drawing of legislative district boundaries may lessen the symptoms of California’s political disorder, it won’t cure the disease. The real problem in California politics is the size of legislative districts — as measured by population, not their shape.

In 1879, when Californians set the 120-seat ceiling on our state Legislature, just under a million people lived here. That’s the same number of people living in just one of our state Senate districts today. California’s state senators now serve more people than do the governors of Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Vermont and Wyoming.

California’s Assembly districts are also abnormally large. Our lower- house districts dwarf those of other states by a long shot. Second-ranked Texas, for example, has big oil, big cattle and big hats, but their lower- house districts are pint-sized compared with ours. You could fit three of their puny provinces in one of our approximately 423,000-person Assembly legispheres.

Of course, there has been some discussion of dividing California into two states, but Southern California would have a problem with water, now, wouldn’t they?

Apparently everything isn’t bigger in Texas.

To understand what it means for California voters, consider this: In 1883, a California Assembly member answered to about 10,000 people. Now, it takes 42 people to equal the political power a single voter had in 1883. Put another way, if a single vote was worth a dollar then, it would be worth only 2.4 cents now. No wonder more than a third of California’s nonvoters think voting doesn’t make a difference in elections.

One representative for half a million or more people is simply not acceptable. Campaigns in large districts are incredibly costly, which invites corruption and limits potential candidates to an elite few. They also force citizens with conflicting needs to compete for a single vote in the Legislature, which means that all but the most powerful voices lose out completely.

Large districts are hard on legislators and even harder on constituents. Keeping up with mail, casework, phone calls, speeches and meetings, in addition to complex policy issues and bill drafting, keeps legislators working hours that would likely violate every labor law in the country. And even then they must cut corners. How many of us have contacted a legislator and — if we got response at all — received a form letter not really addressing our concerns, months after the fact? Is this what the great American experiment promised?

And having more legislators is going to improve constituent, customer service?

Hummmmmm, perhaps.

Unfortunately, there’s no simple solution to our problem. If we cut districts to the scale our forefathers enjoyed, we’d have more than 3,000 legislators. That’s simply not realistic. But increasing the number of seats by even a moderate amount would change California politics considerably.

A state Legislature with 80 more representatives — a total of 150 Assembly members and 50 senators — would improve accountability and better reflect California’s diverse political and cultural climate. With smaller districts, San Francisco might even add a Republican to its delegation.

OK, maybe not. But the Green Party might have a chance.

Political Correctness for the San Francisco leftie crowd rears its head here.

But, a 150 seat member California Assembly gerrymandered in a partsian manner does the voter little good.

A switch to smaller legislative districts might also mean more seats for women and ethnic minorities, without having to sacrifice other groups. This could help ease tensions over demographic change, growth and the distribution of political power in the state. And California would benefit from having new voices and fresh perspectives in the Legislature.

Reducing the size of over-populated districts is a much more effective way to achieve the goals of redistricting reform proponents. Any discussion of redistricting will be incomplete if this issue is not on the table. We have already allowed our state to grow from 1 million people to nearly 37 million without change. How much bigger do we have to get?

So, to answer that age-old question: Yes, size matters. And if Californians are serious about curing what ails their beleaguered political process, they’ll reduce the size of legislative districts, not just reshape them.

An interesting argument which falls flat without redistricting boundary reform. Also, a harder sell to the voters than Prop.77 type measures – it increases the amount and cost of government.

Nice try but no cigar.

Cross-posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Bill Mundell, Chairman, Californians for Fair Redistricting

Is the Governator getting SQUISHY?

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, hoping to revive his image as a bipartisan problem-solver, might try to capitalize on this week’s budget deal by working out a series of compromises to avert an ugly and expensive election battle.

But coming to terms with Democratic legislators on several of Schwarzenegger’s proposals will be complicated. And interests on both sides, in the end, might prefer a November war.

“I wouldn’t go to Vegas and bet on (a deal),” noted Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata on Friday.

Flap handicaps it at 50-50 that Arnold goes for the compromise, is picked to death by the public employee unions and then loses in 2006.

How Arnold can even consider compromise is beyond belief.

But, perhaps it is his left-wing family value system?

A group of Democratic staffers and administration officials have been meeting for about five weeks to discuss the Schwarzenegger proposals and areas of compromise.

The relationship between Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, which has been rocky, has warmed up in recent weeks. The governor’s wife, Maria Shriver, took Núñez’s 14-year-old daughter to lunch last Saturday, and Núñez and Schwarzenegger met privately Thursday night to discuss the proposals. Veterans of Sacramento note that personal relationships can play a major role in policy outcomes.

“Right now, we’re all in a good mood,” Núñez said this week after the Legislature overwhelmingly approved the budget. “This is the time to do it.”

“The budget agreement was a big step in the right direction,” said Margita Thompson, the governor’s press secretary.

California conservatives are nervous with the Governor.

Is he a true RINO?

Is he a one half term expedient replacement for the failed Gray Davis?

Flap bets that all of the initiative measure sponsors are equally nervous.

These more conservative Republicans are worried that Schwarzenegger, concerned with his sinking poll numbers, is too willing to make a deal with Democrats.

“There’s no question that concern is out there,” said Joel Fox, a former Schwarzenegger campaign aide who helped run the effort to put the governor’s initiatives on the ballot. “People worry that one day he wants to compromise and one day he wants to fight.”

But, compromise deals are possible.

Lawmakers could agree on some form of redistricting that would allow judges, instead of lawmakers, to create voting districts if Schwarzenegger agreed to loosen the state’s term-limits law, for example.

And with polls showing voter support for the anti-union initiative and disapproval for the governor’s budget reform, a deal is possible in which Democrats agree to some version of budget reform if Schwarzenegger agrees not to campaign for the union initiative.

Perata and Núñez have said in the past few weeks that they would be willing to consider one aspect of the governor’s proposal to curb state spending — a provision to allow for midyear budget adjustments if the economy is hit with a dramatic downturn.

The state’s term-limit law should not be changed under any circumstance.

Are you kidding me? Give those Leftie Democrat legislators more time? No way!

And trading some budget restraint for Paycheck protection?

An equally bad move.

California voters are in the mood for budgetary reform and will support it at the polls. The Governor does not need to trade anything.

Paycheck Protection is about the unions robbing their captive members to support their left wing causes. It is leading in the polls and will pass – thereby preventing millions of dollars in union dues to be used against non-union endorsed candidates (meaning most all Republicans).

Why would a Republican Governor campaign against such a measure?

The trick in reaching compromise will be in persuading all of the interests that a deal is a good thing.

Elements on both sides appear to be intent on fighting. A coalition of labor unions that has been attacking Schwarzenegger released a new television ad Friday featuring a teacher criticizing the governor.

And Bill Mundell, a Southern California millionaire who is helping bankroll the redistricting initiative, sent out an e-mail to 1 million supporters this week urging them to call the governor’s office and demand that he not negotiate on the initiative.

Still, agreement and bipartisanship, political analysts agree, is what voters want. That could be enough to drive a compromise.

“The problem for both sides is this doesn’t work like a seesaw,” said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic strategist. “It’s not like if Arnold goes down, Democrats go up. If there’s divisiveness and partisanship, everyone goes down.”

So, Arnold the ball is in your court.

Make the RIGHT choice!

Cross-posted to the Bear Flag League Special Election Page

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