Don Perata has no ability to end the recall, mind you, but in his mind he’s done it.

First off, let’s say that I’m happy to have been on the right side of Prop. 93, the outcome of which will send Don Perata into the sunset.  What a laughable bit of incompetence this is.

Let’s start with the fact that he doesn’t get to say what’s on the ballot and what’s not.  The authoritarian style of “what I say goes” is the only thing that would’ve doomed this otherwise perfectly justifiable recall of a legislator who forgot his district and went along with an obstructionist GOP that is harming the state to a severe degree.  A real Senate leader would have broadened the race into a referendum on state Republicans and would have done very well.  You either do something like this full-speed or you never start it in the first place.  This half-step just furthers the narrative of Democratic weakness.

Combined with the stab in the back on SD-15, where Perata demanded that nobody contest Abel Maldonado in another winnable seat, the Senate Pro Tem has assured that there is no way we reach a 2/3 majority in 2008.  It’s still possible by 2010, but this is a wave election, a realignment year and we’re waving the white flag in two prime Senate races.  That’s just stupid politics.  I appreciate the need to speed along the budget; the state is broke.  But this recall is over by June 3, and it’s not like everything’s going to be wrapped up by then.  And the stupidest part is that Perata RECOGNIZES that the threat of the recall was helping provide leverage for the Republicans.

In a statement, Perata credited the recall for recent legislation that passed out of the Senate:

“The vote we couldn’t get last year to close the tax loophole for yacht owners — we got that vote,” he said. “The vote we couldn’t get to help homeowners facing foreclosure – we got that vote. You put everyone here on notice — and I don’t think people are going to forget that anytime soon.”

No, you now let everyone off the hook because you’ve proven you can be bullied by a Republican hissy fit and tut-tuts from the conventional wisdom crowd in the media.  No Republican will EVER take a Democratic threat seriously in the near future, crippling the leadership of Darrell Steinberg.  And all the leverage on getting legislation passed in the Senate just ended.

Great friggin’ job, Don.  If you want to just go ahead and quit now and let any stray cat from Berkeley finish out your term, that’d be just fine with me.

…the thought has crossed my mind that Perata is just taking his name and aura off the recall because it’d be easier to pass without him, but if any organization associated with him donated a dime there’d be an even bigger hissy fit cry of “hypocrite,” so his dropping the recall really signals a drop of any financial infusion, and I’m not seeing how Simon Salinas or the Dump Denham group will raise the necessary funds (especially considering that Denham is not restricted by any fundraising limits in a recall).

You know that recall Denham thing? Never mind. I just got an update from the Capitol morning report saying the following:

Pro Tem Don Perata announces end to recall campaign for Sen. Jeff Denham at 5 p.m. on North Steps.

More will surely follow.

Update by Lucas: Full Transcript of the statement(s) on the flip.

Perata:

“Like all of you, I’ve been worried a lot about the economy – falling home prices, rising gas prices – and how hard it’s getting for people to find a job.

I’ve talked with both Treasurer Lockyer and Controller Chiang about the state’s cash situation – and the need to do everything we can to reach an agreement on the budget.

A long stalemate is the last thing we need. Without a budget – we run out of cash – the richest state in America gone broke!

We won’t be paying our bills – and we won’t be giving our schools, our emergency rooms and our police the resources they need.

So I met with Republican Leader Dave Cogdill – and I asked him how we could clear the decks and start making some progress.One issue kept coming up. The Denham recall.

So today – in the spirit of putting politics aside to solve problems – I’m ending the recall campaign.

You’re bound to ask, so let me tell you – there was no deal, no quid pro quo.

This is my call – and my best judgment about how to stop the long, slow slide into another long stalemate.

I hope it pays off. Because the same old rhetoric won’t get the job done.

Let me also say this to the people who have devoted so much time and effort on the recall: thank you. You’ve already changed things for the better.

The vote we couldn’t get last year to close the tax loophole for yacht owners -we got that vote.

The vote we couldn’t get to help homeowners facing foreclosure – we got that vote.

You put everyone here on notice – and I don’t think people are going to forget that anytime soon.”

Cogdill:

“I applaud the wisdom of Senator Perata in making this decision. This eliminates an unnecessary distraction in an already contentious budget year. This will allow us to focus on doing what voters expect from us: achieving a balanced, responsible budget.”

Yesterday I noted that even Dan Walters was coming around on budget solutions that addressed the revenue problem.  Today there’s news that Republicans in the State Senate crossed party lines to pass a mortgage relief bill.

SB 1137 would give notice to property residents that the foreclosure process has begun, provide tenants additional time to move from a foreclosed property, and mandate maintenance of foreclosed properties to diminish the impact on the value of neighboring homes.

A previous version of this bill, SB 926, failed on the Senate floor in January when it fell one vote short of passage and faced opposition from the financial services industry. Since then, Senator Perata has addressed industry concerns and produced a more workable bill that has broad support and no known opposition.

One of those Senator who voted for the bill?  Senator Scared as a Chicken in a Fox Cage Jeff Denham.  He actually spoke on the Senate floor in favor of the bill.  That’s no accident: two of the worst-hit counties in terms of foreclosures are in his district (Stanislaus and Merced).  Cox, Maldonado and Wyland joined the majority as well.  The final vote was 28-10.

This is a compromise bill, to be sure (only loans from January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2007 are included), but would provide more transparency and the ability for homeowners to get help before foreclosure, as well as increased notification for renters whose property heads into foreclosure, which is an increasing problem.

What’s notable here is the Republican support, which suggests that they’re starting to feel pressure on issues like the mortgage crisis from their constituents.  The old saw in California politics is that these Republicans are so gerrymandered into their seats that they can’t be moved by public outcry.  I’m not sure that’s true anymore, and it’s something to be recognized as we head into the budget fight.

As for Denham, I think he’s got a bigger problem with his racist campaign manager, but clearly he’s trying to radically backtrack his Senate history and come off as a nice moderate.  Since this week is the deadline for bills to move from the Senate to the Assembly, we’re going to see him tested on a lot of votes in the coming days.

Given that George Skelton has written the opposing view in today’s L.A. Times, I thought readers would enjoy my opinion about California’s early primary.

Remember when California moved up its presidential primary from June to February – so that we’d have a “bigger impact”? We ended up sharing February 5th with 21 other states – and so had almost no effect on the nomination.  Barack Obama lost to Hillary Clinton because he didn’t have enough time to introduce himself to voters in such a large state, but made up for that loss by racking up huge victories elsewhere.  Now California has a state primary on June 3rd – where turnout is expected to be very low, so the right-wing Proposition 98 to end rent control could pass.  If we had kept the primary at a later date, we would have affected the nomination – and Prop 98 would have gone down in flames.  But the Democratic leaders in Sacramento pushed a February primary to extend their term limits – in a gambit that failed.

The case for moving up California’s primary had its valid points – such as why does Iowa get to hog so much attention from presidential candidates every four years, who then are forced to take a position on ethanol?  As the largest and most diverse state in the nation, California deserves its place in the spotlight.  Candidates must be held accountable on issues that matter greatly to us like immigration, suburban sprawl, education funding, affordable housing, public transportation and levee repairs.  But despite moving up our primary, these issues did not play a prominent role in the campaign.

That’s because California didn’t act within a vacuum.  The Democratic National Committee said that states could move up their primaries to February 5th without losing delegates, so a lot of states had the same idea.  We ended up sharing Super Duper Tuesday with Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Illinois, Minnesota, Arkansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Kansas, North Dakota, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Idaho and Alaska.  Presidential candidates didn’t spend much time in California – because they were too busy elsewhere.

California got some attention on Super Tuesday, but we were competing with 21 states just ten days after the candidates had duked it out in South Carolina.  With the cost of running a statewide campaign here, Clinton and Obama spared their resources – and devoted more attention to states on the East Coast, Midwest and in the South where a little money could go a long way.  Obama lost California, but his campaign also figured out the math on winning delegates – focus on the small states and rack up huge victories.

Could Obama have won California if he had spent more time here?  Maybe.  Clinton still won by a nine-point margin, but she was ahead by over 20 points a few weeks earlier.  Obama needed time to get acquainted with California voters – especially Latinos – and a more systematic effort in the Golden State could have been successful.  Bear in mind that he practically tied Clinton among voters who went to the polls on Election Day.  But with California’s early absentee balloting, Clinton blunted his momentum.

What would have happened to the nomination fight if California had not moved up its primary to February 5th?  Obama would have emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear winner – but Clinton still won enough states (New York, New Jersey, Arizona) to keep the race going.  Obama would have racked up a wider lead in the delegate count earlier, but Clinton would have refused to back out – insisting that the race must be decided in California.  By June, California would have been viewed as her “make-or-break” state.

It’s interesting to see how much attention Pennsylvania got in this race – because they weren’t greedy like the other states that moved up their primary.  California could have had that same privilege if we had just been patient – allowing each candidate to come here, address our issues and earn our support.  Obama will be the Democratic nominee, and it will be no thanks to California voters.  By trying to have a bigger impact, we ended up making ourselves practically irrelevant.

Some argue that a February primary was good – because it boasted a high turnout.  That’s good for democracy, but the unintended consequences may devastate our state’s future.  A subsequent statewide primary on June 3rd will see a very low turnout – where the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association is pushing Proposition 98 to abolish rent control.  Polls show Prop 98 trailing, but we still don’t know exactly who will vote.  If renters and Democrats don’t turn out, the right-wing agenda will prevail.

In fact, the President of the Jarvis Association has admitted that a very low (and conservative) turnout will help them on the June ballot.  They started planning over a year ago to gather signatures for Prop 98.  When it looked like they were going to qualify for the February ballot, they actually stopped gathering signatures – and then resumed after it was too late.  Make no mistake about it: they put it on the June ballot for a reason.

Of course, having more of an impact in the nomination process was not the real agenda for a February primary – it was just the “official” reason to get Californians to support it.  Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Don Perata – who were about to step down because of term limits – wanted to pass Proposition 93 to allow them to stay in power for another term.  They could have planned ahead and put it on an earlier statewide ballot, but instead wasted our money with a February initiative.  The voters ended up rejecting Prop 93 – so Perata and Nunez will have to step down anyway.

In order to prove that the February primary was not a waste of time and resources, Perata and Nunez must now make the defeat of Prop 98 a top priority.  Defeating Prop 98 won’t take back the money that the state spent on another election (which could go towards education, housing and transportation), won’t bring back California’s relevance in the presidential nomination process – but at least it will help save rent control.  And right now, it’s the only thing that Perata and Nunez can do about it.

EDITOR’S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama’s field operation in San Francisco. He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.

The recall war is continuing to deliver drama, with Senator Denham dropping a radio ad a few days ago which implicitly suggests that he shouldn’t even be eligible for recall.  As Capitol Alert recounts, “The ad…says: ‘When a public official is guilty of malfeasance or criminal conduct in office, the California Constitution provides for the right to recall.'”

But as Capitol alert and Don Perata’s spokesman both note, that’s just one reason for someone to be recalled.  CapAlert was good enough to track down the applicable portion of the law, which says: “Recall of a state officer is initiated by delivering to the Secretary of State a petition alleging reason for recall. Sufficiency of reason is not reviewable.”

I don’t recall any conduct by Gray Davis that was either criminal or contrary to law, but I guess that could be in the eye of the beholder. You may recall (ha!) that the petitions circulated back in 2003 said in part:

[Governor Davis’s actions were a] “gross mismanagement of California Finances by overspending taxpayers’ money, threatening public safety by cutting funds to local governments, failing to account for the exorbitant cost of the energy, and failing in general to deal with the state’s major problems until they get to the crisis stage.”

Now, Senator Denham may not personally or at least exclusively be responsible for “gross mismanagement” of anything, but last I checked, our current budget crisis (which is based on the budget that Denham’s obstinacy helped create) is cutting funds to local governments (which threatens local education if not safety), has failed to account for the exorbitant cost of energy, and rather obviously failed in general to deal with the state’s major problems before they got to the crisis stage.  So basically, the one example of a major and modern recall election fits exactly with the premise driving the Denham recall attempt.  But rather than actually defend himself, Denham has decided to to whine about being picked on.

It might be that there’s a reasonable case for Denham to make on this, but he sure isn’t making it with this “why is everybody always picking on me?” silliness.