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.

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

Flap has found a few great summary pages of the Ballot Measures which will comprise the majority of the November Special Election called by Governor Schwarzenegger. Around the Capital has California Ballot Measures November 8, 2005 Election and Bruce McPherson, California Secretary of State has 2005 Initiative Update.

So, let’s do a series of round-up posts on the measures:

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.

The text of the measure is found here.

Latest California Field Poll June 23, 2005:

Voters are narrowly supportive on this issue – 48% in favor and 42% opposed among all voters, and 48% Yes and 43% No among likely voters.

“Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy; Waiting Period and Parental Notification” initiative Republicans, conservatives, Christians and voters who are not college graduates are very much infavor of the parental notification of the teen abortion initiative. On the other hand, Democrats, liberals, moderates, college graduates, those under age 50 and voters affiliated with non-Christianreligions or with no religious preference are opposed.

Flap handicaps a close race on this initiative.

The Pro-Abortion groups will demagogue on an infringment of a women’s “Right to Choose” because they do not want to experience any decline in surgical abortion or adjunct services revenues.

If the Christian Right and Pro-Life Catholic voters turn-out they may be able to tip the balance in favor. If they stay home, it loses.

Has the Governor taken a position on this one?

Flap’s guess is he will stay away from it due to his Pro-Choice leanings and Squishy nature.

Cross-Posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

With the death of Democrat Assemblyman (53rd) Mike Gordon, former Mayor of El Segundo, a big-money race is shaping up to replace him.

Gordon, a first-term lawmaker and a former mayor of El Segundo, died Saturday while undergoing treatment for a brain tumor.

Last year, Gordon, his Republican opponent and special interest groups spent more than $3 million in the fight over the Los Angeles County coastal district, one of a handful of legislative races that were considered competitive.

El Segundo, Flap’s hometown, is a small conservative community that often is gerrymandered and swallowed up by more leftie communities to the north or south. However, this time, the legislative districts are more favorable for a Republican pick-up.

But the special statewide election Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger scheduled on Nov. 8 could make it difficult for candidates trying to succeed Gordon to compete for campaign cash.

“This is a very unusual special election because of all the initiatives on the ballot and because of the exorbitant amount of money that will be spent supporting and opposing those initiatives,” said Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for the California Republican Party.

Indeed the cash will be tight for the union sponsored Democrats, defending against the Paycheck Protection Initiative and the Teacher Tenure Initiative.

This is one of many reasons why Scharzenegger has already won by calling the November Special Election.

Schwarzenegger has to issue a proclamation within the next two weeks scheduling a special election to replace Gordon. If no candidate gets more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary, there will be a runoff between the top vote-getters in each party.

Schwarzenegger can time the runoff to coincide with the Nov. 8 statewide election. If he does that, the primary would be on Sept. 13, said Caren Daniels-Meade, a spokeswoman for the secretary of state’s office.

The race for Assembly District 53 could attract several candidates. Two Republicans formed campaign committees before Gordon’s death to run for the seat next year: Gordon’s opponent from 2004, former Redondo Beach Mayor Greg Hill; and Torrance Councilman Paul Nowatka.

Two Democrats also are considering running, Torrance Councilman Ted Lieu and Manhattan Beach Councilman Jim Aldinger.

Although district registration favors Democrats by 6 points and Mike Gordon won by 8 points this special election favors the Republicans. Republicans will be able to raise the campaign cash while the Democrats will be hard pressed.

Flap handicaps a close race.

Stay Tuned.

Cross-Posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

The Latest California Field Poll has been released:

Public Employee Union Dues, Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions (Paycheck Protection)

It prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees from its members for political contributions unless the employee provides prior written consent.

57% majority of both registered voters and likely voters are inclined to vote Yes on the initiative, if the election on this proposal were heldtoday. This compares to 32% of registered voters and 34% of likely voters who are inclined to vote No.

Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy, Waiting Period and Parental Notification initiative.

It would require parental notification before abortion for a minor under age 18, except in cases of a medical emergency or with a parental orjudicial waiver.

Voters are narrowly supportive on this issue – 48% in favor and 42% opposed among all voters, and 48% Yes and 43% No among likely voters.

Prescription Drugs; Discounts initiative

It would establish a discountdrug program overseen by the Department of Health Services and enable certain low and moderateincome residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. It also imposes an annual 15dollar application fee and authorizes the Department to contract with pharmacies to sellprescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts and negotiate rebates with drug manufacturers. The initiative is sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.

The poll finds it leading in the early going, with registered voters supporting it by a 60% to 23%
margin, while likely voters favor it 57% to 26%.

Prescription Drug Discounts: State Negotiated Rebates initiative

It would provide prescription drug discounts to low income Californians funded through rebates
from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by the California Department of Health Services.
The initiative is sponsored by Health Access.

The poll finds it also leading by a somewhat smaller margin – 54% to 28% among all registered
voters and 48% to 33% among all likely voters.

Virtually all of the voter subgroups examined favor each of the two prescription drug discount
proposals.

Again, these are early polls, but, finally some encouraging news for the Governor.

The Public Employees will be turning up the heat and watch for even more demonstrations.

Cross-Posted to The Bear Flag League Special Election Page

Update #1

Dan Weintraub has a correct analysis of the new polls: A sudden comity in heated Sacramento battles

This supports Flap’s contention that the Governor has already won.

With the release of the latest California Field Poll, California Governor Arnold Swarzenegger said Tuesday that he wants to seek compromise with Democrats on the state budget and on issues he has placed before voters for a November special election. The Poll conducted between June 13-19, following the Governator’s call for a special election in November:

1. The Field Poll finds the Governor’s approval rating sliding to 37% among registered voters statewide, while 53% disapprove of how Schwarzenegger is handling his job.

2. More voters oppose (52%) than favor (37%) the Governor’s call for a November special election,
even when the additional costs of holding the election are not listed in the question.

3. There has also been a big decline in the public’s appraisal of the job that the state legislature is
doing over the past four months. Last February 36% of adults and 34% of registered voters
approved of the state legislature. Now, the approval figure among adults is 26% and just 24%
among registered voters.

4. Voters believe that neither Schwarzenegger nor the legislature is negotiating with the other in
good faith. Rather, pluralities see their actions as being characterized more by confrontation and
posturing, with little room for compromise. Currently, 52% see Schwarzenegger’s actions as being mainly confrontational, compared to 32% who believe he is negotiating with the legislature in good faith.

5. In three separate Field Poll surveys conducted last year, a sizeable plurality of voters said they
would be more inclined to support the Governor over leaders in the legislature if the two sides
disagreed on an important policy matter. However, in two surveys completed this year, voters
have been turning away from their earlier support of the Governor. Currently, 44% say they are
now more inclined to support the positions of legislative leaders, compared to 33% who would
tend to side with the Governor.

6. Voters express little confidence in either the Governor or state legislature to do what’s right in
resolving the state’s budget deficit. Just one in six voters (17%) say they hold a great deal of
confidence in Schwarzenegger to do what is right in dealing with budget deficit, while 49% have
not much confidence. Another 32% report having some confidence in him.
Opinions of the legislature are even more critical. Only 5% report a great deal of confidence in
state lawmakers to do what’s right to resolve the budget situation, with 54% expressing little
confidence in that body. Another 40% have some confidence in the legislature to do what is right.

Today at a Capitol News Conference the Governor said:

“I feel that there is an agreement to be had. We can resolve this, and then we can go together to the special election — Democrats and Republicans alike — and also that we can solve this budget. It’s all about the will. Do we have the will to represent the people of California?”

Schwarzenegger did not directly offer an olive branch to Democrats on Tuesday but said voters delivered a message in the poll.

“It is a very clear message from the California people to all of us at the Capitol _ work together,” he said.

Schwarzenegger said he also wanted the two sides to pass a state budget “as quickly as possible,” preferably before the state’s fiscal year begins July 1.

The special election will go forward even if the two sides compromise on some of the ballot measures. If they do, the Legislature by two-thirds vote could place a set of compromise proposals on the ballot. That could create a scenario in which Schwarzenegger would campaign against the initiatives he initially placed on the ballot.

So, is the Governator being a Girlie-Man for negotiating with the Girlie-Men of the California Legislature?

Or facing the realities of an unfavorable poll?

Stay tuned.

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