The New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg penned a column about the California Republican Party’s attempt to siphon off what could be roughly twenty of California’s fifty four consistently Democratic electoral votes.  Naturally, they are using the initiative process to try and do this.

Two weeks ago, one of the most important Republican lawyers in Sacramento quietly filed a ballot initiative that would end the practice of granting all fifty-five of California’s electoral votes to the statewide winner. Instead, it would award two of them to the statewide winner and the rest, one by one, to the winner in each congressional district. Nineteen of the fifty-three districts are represented by Republicans, but Bush carried twenty-two districts in 2004. The bottom line is that the initiative, if passed, would spot the Republican ticket something in the neighborhood of twenty electoral votes-votes that it wouldn’t get under the rules prevailing in every other sizable state in the Union.

The Republican lawyers behind this convoluted effort, Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, were deeply involved in the 2003 recall campaign against Democratic Governor Gray Davis that propelled current Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger into power.

It is no surprise that the law firm created a ficticious front group, Californians for Equal Representation, to do their bidding because they have a history of it.

• Dave Johnson reported in his September 15, 2006 The Huffington Post article on new MB&H client Economic Freedom Fund that other Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk’s clients include:
• California Tribal Business Alliance-“an ‘Indian Gaming’ organization” whose “mission statement is ‘to safeguard and enhance the success of the business enterprises of our tribal government members’ ……. and ‘will foster business development and coalition building with like minded government and business leaders in California.'” (Also see this.)
• “Californians for Paycheck Protection-yet another front group-this one sponsoring a California anti-union ballot initiative (Prop. 75). (Their major funders in 2005 (go see how much) included the Chamber of Commerce and the California Republican Party.)” (Also see this.)
• “notorious anti-environmental Congressman Richard Pombo.” (See here.)
• “big tobacco“, with BM&H as “Philip Morris Outside Counsel” (See this.)
• “A different partner at this firm, Thomas Hiltachk, filed the ‘Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act of 2006’-a stealth attempt to get rid of California’s overtime rules.”

Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk also represents the Blue Cross of California front group — a coalition of one — aimed at derailing movement on California’s top legislative priority: healthcare.

Two organizations. One address. Zero concern for the average Californian.

Now, just because they filed this initiative does not mean it will make it on the ballot.  They have no shot at making the Feb 5th date.  They could, if they raised the $1 million+ to pay for signature gatherers have a shot at making it on the June ballot.  That will be a very low turnout election.  We don’t have any major races occurring on that date.  Yeah, I know the Migden-Leno race will be big an all, but there is no major mayor’s race in LA or SF.  No constitutional officers up for election.  No Senate race.  If they do make it on the ballot, then a relatively small number of Californians could have a big impact on the presidential election.

This type of arcane rule initiative is among the hardest to pass.  It is not exactly something that grabs people.  There would be a very heavy push back from the Democrats if it looked like this was particularly viable.  I would not be surprised to see a competing ballot measure put up to try and confuse votes.  It worked wonderfully when big PhRMA put up Prop 78 to defeat Prop 79.

This will need to be something we track and see if it gets any traction.

[UPDATE by Julia] Here is an AP article on the initiative.  Arnold says that his is not involved and the CRP says the same.  I find that highly unbelievable, especially on the party’s end.  Notice what Nehring has to say about it.

“We’ll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot,” state Republican Party Chairman Ron Nehring said.

Not if it makes it on the ballot, but when.  This could be all a ruse to get Democrats to drop a bunch of cash to defeat it, when those dollars/resources could be used elsewhere. 

As the race in California’s 37th District showed (to a certain extent), wealthy Indian tribes are no match in the electoral arena for the boots on the ground and organization provided by labor.  With this in mind, the February Presidential primary just got a whole lot more interesting:

A coalition of labor and horse racing interests announced Friday that it will ask voters to pull the plug on a huge tribal gambling expansion negotiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The owner of two racetracks and the hotel workers’ union will team up on a campaign that could put four new initiatives on the February ballot and cost tens of millions of dollars. Some tribes with casinos that are not part of the expansion said they might join the effort.

The tracks and union seek to undo legislation Schwarzenegger signed into law July 10 to allow four tribes in Riverside and San Diego counties to more than double or triple the number of slot machines in their casinos.

A few points:

• Unite Here has a lot of organizational muscle and will have enough money to get out the message of how these rich tribes will be expanding their gaming operations at the expense of workers.  The Bay Meadows racetrack concern is on board because they believe this expansion will hurt their gambling business.

• This will be an EXPENSIVE referendum if it gets on the ballot.  Labor and the richer tribes can raise gobs of cash.  This will suck up all of the oxygen on initiatives as much as the alternative energy proposition did last year.  This will impact…

• The term limits initiative, which will suddenly have less of an impression on voters.  Considering that it’s written as a limiting rather than a relaxation, that may bode well for it.  But the ballot could be extremely crowded.

People are gathering signatures for 17 other measures, and backers of 11 others are waiting for the approval to begin signature-gathering to try to get their measures on a ballot next year. Those potential initiatives include measures to ban gay marriage, overhaul the state’s tax structure, ban cruelty to farm animals and curb government employee pensions.

My calculus is that the more that’s on the ballot, the less people want to support them.  And the long ballots of the past couple years have been exercises in futility.  The direct democracy bug everyone caught with the recall in 2003 has turned into a flu.

Stay tuned…

I am perplexed when it comes to the newest Jarvis initiative on eminent domain reform. http://lao.ca.gov/ba…

Here’s the summary of the parts I support:

*Requires government to specify the public use it is taking property for

*Prohibits eminent domain for private use (except to reduce public nuisances or criminal activity).

*Private use includes not only transferring it to another private entity, but also taking it for a similar use to how it was used under the previous ownership

*If the public agency wishes to use it for a use other than the stated public use, it must give the original owner first refusal

*Rent controls cease to exist after whenever the current tenant has moved out. It also prohibits mandatory inclusionary housing that is found to “transfer an economic benefit” at the expense of the property owner. Though I don’t believe these two provisions belong in an eminent domain reform,  I still support them

*In any property owner challenge regarding the validity of a taking or reductions in value concerning his or her property, courts cannot grant deference to a public agency’s findings or limit its review to the information in the administrative record

*Entitles the owner to attorney fees if he/she sues and wins

Now here’s the part I’m perplexed about:
*In background “Other government policies—such as land use or certain business regulations—also could be viewed as potentially transferring economic benefits among private parties.”

*In proposal “Beyond [rent control and inclusionary housing], the extent to which this measure would constrain government’s authority is not clear. The range of policies that would be affected would depend on court interpretation of many of its provisions.”

To make it easier to understand, private use in this measure includes, “regulation of the ownership, occupancy, or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.”

Another thing: unlike Prop 90, for the fiscal impact, the LAO says, “Increased costs to many governments due to the measure’s restrictions. The fiscal effect on most governments probably would NOT be significant.”

I am perplexed on whether I will support this. What is your position? Again, respond to the proposal and issue, NOT the group

A proposal to increase funding for community colleges has qualified for the February ballot. Here is the title and summary:

  Establishes in state constitution a system of independent public community college districts and Board of Governors. Generally, requires minimum levels of state funding for school districts and community college districts to be calculated separately, using different criteria and separately appropriated. Allocates 10.46 percent of current Proposition 98 school funding maintenance factor to community colleges. Sets community college fees at $15/unit per semester; limits future fee increases. Provides formula for allocation by Legislature to community college districts that would not otherwise receive general fund revenues through community college apportionment. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Potential increases in state spending on K-14 education of about $135 million in 2007-08, $275 million in 2008-09, and $470 million in 2009-2010, with unknown impact annually thereafter. Annual loss of fee revenues to community colleges of about $71 million in 2007-08, with unknown impacts annually thereafter. (06-0030.)

I’m not sure where I stand on this. I have a big objection to ballot-box budgeting. It is that which has straitjacketed the legislature to the point where little of the budget is discretionary.

This further straitjackets and makes a smaller % of the budget discretionary.

At the same time, due to a decrease in K-12 school enrollment combined with Prop 98, community college funding will automatically take a dive. Community college funding should be based on community college enrollment, not K-12 enrollment. Plus, increasing community college funding would not automatically decrease K-12 funding anymore. I support pay as you go, but the legislature shouldn’t be told where to subsidize an increase in funding. So in a way, it increases straitjacketing but also decreases it

So this one is tough. What do you think?