Michael Salerno, a professor at UC-Hastings, thinks that the Democrats do not need a 2/3 vote of the Legislature to get the tax extensions on the ballot:

While the state constitution requires a two-thirds vote to raise taxes, a proposal to extend taxes by placing the question on the ballot would not raise taxes – it would leave that question to the voters. Because the constitution is silent, it does not limit the ability of the Legislature to place a measure on the ballot effective only if approved by the voters. The Legislature has that power.

However, if the Legislature passed a resolution to place the extensions on the ballot without further action, the question would appear on the next regularly scheduled election in 2012. Obviously, this would not address the current crisis, which needs near immediate action. The Legislature may pass a bill by a majority vote to call a special election at the earliest time that is logistically feasible. If signed by the governor, that bill would take effect immediately. Why would it take effect immediately? Again, the answer is in the constitution – a bill calling an election is one of the few instances the constitution specifies that goes into immediate effect with a majority vote.(SacBee)

At which point do we give up looking for political cover to get a sane budget through?  I understand the political reasons for the Governor’s caution.  Democrats, taxes, yeah, I get it.  But there has to be a time where we just ask the people of California what kind of state that they really want to live in.  A state for the super rich? Or one for all Californians to succeed and thrive?

Salerno’s legal take on the issue is sound, though sure to be quickly tested in the courts.  To be honest, we really can’t wait much longer.  Brown and the Democratic leaders in the Legislature need to make up their minds as to whether they think getting Republican votes is a viable option within the next couple of weeks.  If not, we need to adopt some more creative solutions, whether Prof. Salerno’s plan or otherwise.

Update: And now it is done, the package has now passed

The reworked, gimmicked-up budget appears set for the Governor’s desk, after the Assembly passed the bill cutting the Redevelopment agencies.  But John Myers tweeted a rousing finale on those redevelopment arguments:

:

That looks 2 be it. Legislature, mostly but not all on Dem votes, approves #cabudget bills on time & off they go 2 Guv.

36 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply

#Redevelopment nix bills pass Assembly. Running 2 rework NPR national story & do KQED work.. #cabudget

42 minutes ago

Furutani & Wagner go face 2 face. Wow..everyone rushes in. #cabudget Photo: http://ow.ly/i/d07r

1 hour ago

#Redevelopment debate in Assembly turns volatile. Wagner (R) seems 2 makes some sort of Mafia reference..Gatto (D) & Furutani (D) explode

1 hour ago

KQED_CapNotes John Myers, KQED

Hard 2 see full #cabudget not going 2 Guv at this point. Assembly Dems can afford more defections on #redevelopment nix. But…

1 hour ago

Nothing like a good mafia reference to get everybody’s blood boiling, but it looks like everybody settled down and remebered that they are aging, out of shape dudes that weren’t going to look anything but foolish.  Incidentally, my money would have been on Gatto in that little dispute.  He’s young and agile.

I imagine that Brown is going to let the bills sit on his desk as he tries to play Houdini and cobble something together to get the budget he really wants.

I’ve mentioned the so-called “Amazon tax” a couple of times recently, and now it looks like it has passed the second big hurdle by clearing the Senate.  It was actually packaged up into a bill by Sen. Hancock with two other bills:

Hancock added, “Out-of-state online merchants are able to underprice local stores and California-based online businesses by as much as 10% by simply refusing to collect state sales tax.  We’re finally on our way to changing that in a way that will help small business and brings in more revenue.  It’s only fair.”

The three bills that are part of today’s legislative package include:

* Senator Hancock’s SB 234, which insures that the state tax board (Board of Equalization) has the authority to enforce collection of state sales tax by out-of-state retailers.

* Assemblyman Calderon’s AB 158, which specifies that retailers have a business “nexus” or connection with the state if any member of their corporate family is located in the state.

* Assemblyman Skinner’s AB 153, which obligates Amazon and others that use in-state affiliates to promote their sales to collect state sales tax immediately.

The measure incorporating the three bills now goes to the State Assembly, where a vote is also expected later today.

Hancock’s bill should pass the Assembly on a majority vote basis today, and head to the Governor’s desk.

Once upon a time, there was a place so magical, that there were places that anybody could go.  Rich and poor could, heaven forbid, mingle in the glory of nature.  These places were even free to enter.  It was a magical place.

Of course, the days of free state parks has long since passed by the wayside. While we all would have loved to see Prop 21 pass, thereby ensuring a steady revenue stream for the parks system, it did not.  And so we are back to fighting about which parks to close.

Republicans have previously floated the idea of park sponsorships, but today, in an email from the Senate Republican caucus, they outright call for privatization of our parks system.

Privatizing park operations can provide significant benefits to taxpayers. When a contractor agrees to run a park or group of parks on behalf of a public agency, that agency removes the subsidized units from its ledger. On top of that, the state can receive lease payments in return. It is common for contractors to pay 10% or more of gate receipts, similar to what is charged for many concessions.

Park goers also benefit from private operations, as the operators have a financial incentive to enhance the visitor experience. Though they are limited by contract parameters, contractors can create a host of added benefits for visitors such as: Improved maintenance,Potential expanded facilities, Reduced risk of park closures or service cutbacks.  …

As the budget ax falls on state parks, multiple measures are making their way through the process to look at new ways of managing them. SB 356 (Blakeslee) requires DPR to allow cities and counties the first shot at operating a state park proposed for closure, while SB 386 (Harman) requires the posting of any proposed park closure, and the posting of contact information for potential vendors interested in bidding on the park. AB 42 (Huffman) authorizes the use of nonprofit entities to manage parks that would otherwise be closed.

In fact, state law already allows DPR to lease state parks and facilities to private vendors, but the department has been reluctant to use it. In a March response to a letter from Sen. Tom Harman, the department claimed it is “considering the option” of leases. Still the department has not issued any contracts for bid for an entire park, and has reported only one new concessions agreement in the past year.

Ultimately the Legislature must force the bureaucracy’s hand. There may be better ways to manage our parks, and keep them open during difficult fiscal times, but it will not be charted by the current management.

Wow, just wow.  This whole premise is still based on one, supremely messed up, underlying notion: parks are something that should be monetized.  But what if you view parks as something else entirely?  The birthright of all Californians that should be free for them to enjoy as nature intended.  In other words, they should be free.  

Now, this isn’t to blame those that care for our parks when the state can’t.  In Sonoma County, I’m a big fan of LandPaths.  They run and maintain, through donations and people-power, several large parks in Sonoma County, including the Willow Creek Extension to Sonoma Coast State Park.  These are some damned dedicated people who are extremely worthy of our support.

But yet I return to the central premise of how treat each other in California.  Do we care for each other enough to invest in our society, or are we really okay with the Social Darwinism?  We own these parks, and why exactly can we not afford to maintain them without bringing in a for-profit company to manage them?

Oh that’s right, the rich don’t want to pay taxes anymore.

In a ruling that will surprise exactly nobody, the Prop 8 legal team’s hail mary pass fell incomplete nowhere near the closest receiver:

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to invalidate last year’s ruling against Proposition 8, deciding the gay jurist who overturned the same-sex marriage ban had no obligation to step aside because of a possible conflict of interest.

The decision by Chief Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco left the ruling by retired Judge Vaughn R. Walker in place. Walker’s decision remains on hold pending a separate appeal to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. (LA Times)

I suppose this means that we’ll not need to probe the minds of every individual judge on every civil rights case to determine who is the most “unbiased.”  I’m thinking they could have hired Spock to mind meld with every judge upon confirmation.

UPDATE: Check the full decision here: Denial of Motion to Vacate 06-14-2011, but suffice it to say that Judge Ware didn’t find too much of the proponents argument convincing.

With the Republicans continuing their obstinacy, Democrats in the Legislature are looking for some way, any way, to make sure they don’t lose their pay after tomorrow’s Constitutional deadline.

The alternative plan would keep paychecks coming even though talks between Gov. Jerry Brown and Republicans have snagged on the issue of taxes.

“We will have a budget,” said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento).

Barankin and others close to the process declined to provide details. But a fallback blueprint would almost certainly rely on accounting moves and other measures that would merely paper over the state’s remaining $10-billion shortfall: Democrats, who have sharply cut back many programs already, have little appetite for further reductions.

Barankin acknowledged that any plan written without a renewal of some tax increases or more drastic cuts would not fully restore the state’s financial health.

“There’s no way to solve our long-term fiscal problems without taxes],” Barankin said, and “Republicans are simply unwilling or incapable of supporting a budget that includes [more] revenue.” ([LA Times)

The Governor has already walked back from his hard-line “No Gimmicks” stance from the election.  Certainly that would appear to be what he wants, but he is trying to make some accommodation to get something, anything passed.  Most likely, some of that will be borrowing and a bunch of accounting tricks.

They have about 36 hours to pass something, who knows what we’ll get.