(A repost to fix some formatting. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I’ll start with the good news.  Prop 87, the alternative energy and oil tax initiative, is way ahead right now.  It leads 52-31 right now, including 58% support from decline to state voters.  If that number remains in that ballpark, 87 has a great shot at passing. 

Prop 87 is an interesting initiative.  I’ll be doing a longer post on it in the near future, but as a former Texan, it boggles my mind that the state keeps so little of its mineral revenues.  The entire University system in Texas was built off those revenues, but somehow California didn’t jump on that train.  Personally, I would prefer that those revenues be given to the general fund rather than a specific purpose.  Alternative energy is great (and I just posted on that last week), but the state needs all the revenue it can get.  It would be the best to let that money into the general fund and then hash out details in the normal budget process (if it really can ever be called normal).

The cigarette tax initiave, Prop 86, is up 63-32.  I’m not sure how I feel about this one.  I like the purposes it goes to, but I’m just concerned over whether this law would violate the terms of the tobacco settlement. I would prefer that the state avoid another bout of massive litigation if possible.  The no voters on this ballot seem to be smokers, as they are the only demographic rejecting it right now (72-31).

Unsuprisingly, Jessica’s law, Prop 83, is passing overwhelmingly, 76-11.  I’m not sure that we really need a ballot initiative on this, mainly because most of the issues in the law were already addressed by Jackie Speier’s law on sex offenders.  But, you can see why Angelides was almost forced by popular will to support this bill.

The Anti-choice initiative, Prop 85, is currently trailing, but just barely.  It looks like there will be another battle.  These people will never give up, no matter how many times the people of this state say that we don’t want these anti-choice laws here. Phil Angelides has denounced the initiative. I haven’t seen anything official from Schwarzenegger, but he supported last year’s nearly identical Prop 73.

And finally, Prop 90 has a plurality of support as well. It currently leads 46-31, but right now it has a 42-32 lead amongst Democrats.  Once the message goes out about how bad Prop 90 is, the No tally will increase quickly.

Incidentally, it’s important to note that the no tally generally increases as the election draws near.  Voters are usually drawn towards the status quo (typically No), so expect to see some drift there.  Last June’s Prop 82 was a good example of this, it started off quite strong, but inertia (and a blitz of advertising) overcame its initial approval. 

These numbers will soon appear on the flip and in the Poll HQ.

John Myers points out a lawsuit against Bruce McPhereson in his capacity as Secretary of State.  The case deals primarily with disabled voters and a provision of HAVA (Help America Vote Act of 2002) which calls for at least one accessible voting machine at each precinct.  The suit alleges that several counties’ voting machines were not accessible without assistance, infringing the voters’ interest in a secret ballot.

At the very least, the lawsuit will force a re-examination of how California is complying with the federal HAVA requirements. It also will force an examination of how the Secretary of State certifies some of these voting machines. Plaintiff’s attorney John McDermott says it was McPherson’s job, as a condition of certifying machines, “to insure accessibility for all people, to the maximum extent feasible. And that didn’t occur.” Capitol Notes

Do I think McPherson is actually trying to make it harder for disabled voters to vote? Honestly, no.  But the process itself is messed up.  We need a whole new system of certification for our voting machines, and a whole new viewpoint on how to do that.  Debra Bowen understands these issues better than any other major political figure in the state.

One of the things that mystifies me about the CTA’s endorsement of McPherson is the sentiment that I have heard expressed that CTA just wanted to endorse a Republican, and this was the only position where they felt they wouldn’t get hurt too badly.  But, as we can see from this story, there can be GOP malfeasance and incompetence in every position.  And, does the CTA have such a short memory that they forgot the names Ken Blackwell and Katherine Harris, two secretaries of state who, in Ohio in 2004 and Florida in 2000, respectively, helped plot Bush’s victory.  Now, it’s doubtful that California will be in play in 2008, but do we really want to risk having a GOP Secretary of State if that is the case?  The role is vitally important, whether or not the CTA understands that.

Phil Angelides is genuinely a nice guy, well, at least that’s what I’ve gotten from him in my rather limited interactions with the current state Treasurer.  But, he’s a politician, so you stick a lectern in front of him, and he’ll lecture you.

But he’s more than a one trick pony: he plays a mean air hockey.

After a speech at a Central Valley youth center last week, Phil Angelides headed to the air hockey table for an intense, shout-his-heart-out match against a 12-year-old Merced boy.

Minutes later, the Democratic nominee for governor raised his arms in triumph. “Arnold Schwarzenegger, take notice,” Angelides told about two dozen children. “I was down 2-to-nothing, and I won 3-2.”

People who know him best say this was more like the real Phil Angelides, who during town-hall-style gatherings in the valley emerged as a problem-solving, humorous, compassionate and easygoing politician… (S.J. Mercury News 7/31/06)

Now, the media likes its sport stars, its celebrities, its charismatic young leaders.  It’s why the media loves Newsom and Villaraigosa.  But Phil, he doesn’t really fit their categories, so they label him boring.  I suppose you could call him a bit wonkish, but, um, we are electing a leader for our state, not the Homecoming King, right?  If the election was about who looks cooler with a bazooka under his arms, Arnold should win hands down.  But, since when is it a bad thing for our governor to be smart?  To truly understand the issues like Phil?

And besides, Phil can play a mean game of air hockey.  What more do you need to know?

It’s really that simple.  Prop 89, the California Nurses Association’s “Clean Money” initiatitive, is really, really bad to their power in state politics.  They frame it this way:

Hoffenblum has an alternative proposal: No contribution or spending limits, require full and immediate online disclosure and let the voters make what they will of the information.
“If Philip Morris, Standard Oil or the California Labor Federation want to give $100,000 to a candidate, that’s fine as long as the voters and the candidate’s opponent know it,” he said. (San Diego Union-Trib 7/30/06)

See, the problem that Mr. Hoffenblum, the publisher of the California Target Book, overlooks is the numerical discrepancy between big business and labor.  How many California Labor Federations are there? Uh, one.  Well, even if the separate powerful unions each decide to really push at a race, how many of these massive checks can they write to candidates?  Well, I grant you that in a strong union state, there would be quite a few organizations to represent the interests of labor.

However, let’s compare that to how many organizations represent the interests of big business.  Well, I guess we can start with Philip Morris (aka Altria) and Standard Oil (umm…now better known as Big Oil companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP…), and then continue on to other major employers who would have very different interests from that of labor. 

Suffice it to say that Big Business draws on a much larger monetary cesspool than unions could ever hope to reach.  And how many people does this Big Business Buck represent compared to your typical Union Buck?  The trade associations and big companies represent a small slice of California, the super rich, while the unions represent a much larger percentage of the state’s population.

A disclosure system would be nice…if the voters were able to take the time to review the information.  But even the most well-informed voter can’t be expected to keep track of that information, and the effects of the massive doses of cash obfuscate all but the most egregious monetary plays.  The influence of big monetary donors has gotten out of control in our nation in general and until the Buckley case is overturned, it will remain so.  But Prop 89 steers clear of these restrictions and is the best chance for the people of California to regain some power over our elections.

The Field Poll released their survey on the infrastructure bonds propositions. With the exception of the affordable housing bond, the Yes’s lead No’s for all of the bonds.  However, only the Transportation Package (1B) currently has more than 50%.  So, in theory it’s touch and go on all of the propositions.  It’s rather funny that Arnold can’t get his own party behind these

Of course, the housing bond package was really more of a Dem proposition, and Arnold included it to encourage Democratic participation.  But to be truthful the man primarily responsible for the bonds is not Schwarzenegger, it’s Don Perata, who proposed a very similar bond package a year before Arnold.  I guess Arnold’s bully pulpit was just a lot bigger than Perata’s.

One thing that should also be pointed out here is the complete reluctance of Republicans in the state to spend money on anything.  They favor the transportation bonds, but that’s within the margin, and that benefits Republican voters immensely.  Other than that, GOP voters are against all of the bonds.  A majority of the roads that would get built would be within “red” areas of the state because of the tremendous growth in regions like the Central Valley.  The infrastucture of cities like Fresno and Bakersfield is just not even close to being acceptable for cities of their respective sizes.  Yet the average GOP voter refuses to pay.

I’m not really sure what the Republicans want.  They don’t want to finance debt to pay for infrastructure and they don’t want to raise taxes to pay for it, yet they have no problems wailing on the state government for the way it throws around money.  No, I think what this poll shows is the absolute intractability of the GOP.  They want it all, but want to not pay for it.  Listen, if that’s the way it worked, we’d all be running around throwing away gold and platinum like garbage.  But we’re not, are we?  The bills have to be paid somehow, and the GOP needs to figure out the rules of basic finance.  You pay for what you get, and righ now, it looks like what the GOP wants is some sort of third world infrastructure.  (I know, I know, I’m not supposed to use “third world” anymore…)

On the flip you will see (shortly) the beginnings of a Poll HQ for the Bond Package Props.