In the aftermath of Prop. 93’s narrow defeat (and by the way, Arnold, we do have to move on now, because, you know, the voters didn’t vote for it.  Brilliant stuff, Gov), Anthony York reports the first candidate for the new Senate leader:

Now that Proposition 93 has been rejected by voters, the races to replace the two legislative leaders are officially under way.

Sacramento Democrat Darrell Steinberg was the first to publicly announce his candidacy to replace Senate leader Don Perata Wednesday.

“It’s no secret that I’m going to run for the position and I’m going to run hard,” said Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. “Obviously, it’s  a decision for the caucus to make and I know this, whatever happens, the election will be amicable,something that reflects the congeniality of the senate. That is the tradition. I expect it will be that way.”

Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, also is a contender to succeed Perata. Conversations with several senators indicate that Padilla is actively seeking votes. Steinberg has been the prohibitive front-runner for the job since his election in 2006. Padilla, a former president of the Los Angeles City Council, is said to have waiting for a formal OK from Perata to begin seeking votes.

I’m a pretty big fan of Sen. Steinberg, for his engagement with Calitics and his advocacy for the mental health victims that the Governor tried to throw out on the street last year.

Rampant speculation begins in the comments!

UPDATE by Brian: Might as well throw in all the speculation together. Over at Capitol Alert, Shane has a good run down of all the competitors for Speaker. The problem with the Assembly, is that many of the so-called candidates will be termed out in 2010. That being said, I’m not sure I could take a real position on this other than to say that I would really not be comfortable with a Speaker Calderon. Really, really not comfortable. I have a lot of respect for Asm. Fiona Ma for her work on toxics and high speed rail and it might be a good time for a female Speaker, there has never been a female Speaker as far as I can tell. But, there are a number of interesting candidates, and we’ll have to keep our eyes out to ensure we get the most progressive Speaker and Pres Pro Tem as possible.

UPDATE by Dave: From the comments and via email from Anthony York, “Dorris Allen was speaker for about three months, thanks to WIllie Brown, back in 1995 or so.”

Today I’m headed out to the OC for the Democratic Party of Orange County annual convention, where I’m participating on a panel about Prop. 93 (and debating Tim Steed of the California Young Democrats).  I respect the opinion of those on this site and elsewhere who support Prop. 93.  I can’t join them for the following reasons:

I think that it’s important to look at this in three respects: the short-term, the medium-term, and the long-term.  In the short term, the Governor, who is supporting this proposition, has outright said that he endorsed it because “I don’t want these guys to leave.”  The charitable interpretation of that is that he has a good working relationship with Speaker Nuñez and President Pro Tem Perata and doesn’t want to jeopardize that.  The uncharitable interpretation is that he’s already housebroken these two and he doesn’t want to housebreak anyone else.  I am unfamiliar with the rule whereby the Governor gets to pick the leaders of the opposition party he wants to work with, so that disturbs me.  But also it’s important to look at what this good working relationship has yielded: a $14 billion dollar budget deficit, endless borrowing and passing debt onto children and grandchildren, the worst prison system in America with no leadership on how to address it, a failed health care overhaul with no alternative on the horizon, and so on.  The bargains between the governor and the legislative leaders, and the entrenched power of that relationship is not beneficial for the citizens of the state, either, have not proven to be all that salutary.  So before we extend it, we should think about the value of a less accommodationist leadership stance that rewards the fiscal inanity of the Schwarzenegger era.

Of course, that’s a short-term look, the least important, in my view.  But in the medium term, the rule that keeps current legislators in office does impact the real opportunities Democrats have to make meaningful gains in the legislature.  Term limits are certainly not the only reform necessary in Sacramento, or even the most important.  I think eliminating the absurd stranglehold the minority has on budgets and taxes by reducing the 2/3 requirement on those votes is of paramount necessity.  And the only way we’re going to get that is by actually getting a 2/3 Democratic majority in both chambers.  And it’s a realizable goal, considering the excitement in 2008 with our game-changing Presidential candidate who will bring new voters into the process, whoever it is.  I think we can get 54 Assembly members and 27 Senators by 2010.  But it’d be a hell of a lot easier if we can run Democrats in rapidly bluing areas in open seats, instead of against incumbents like Bonnie Garcia and Shirley Horton and Tom McClintock and Abel Maldonado.  We have a much better chance of winning those seats and getting real budget reform and tax fairness if this proposition does not pass, and those lawmakers get termed out of office.

But we’re told in all of the advertising and literature that we should really focus on the long term.  Never mind the back door for sitting lawmakers, this is about a better and more well-prepared legislature for our future.  Well, I hate to break this to everyone, but that statistically doesn’t add up. Prop. 140, which set current term limits, passed in 1990.  Before that there were no term limits at all.  Yet the average length of legislative experience was 10 years.  That’s actually pretty much what it is today.  And the reason is that California has a lot of structural churn in their legislature, and for good reason.  You may have noticed that politicians are ambitious folks, and in this state there are simply a great deal more desirable political offices than in any other state.  We have the biggest Congressional delegation, we have enormous cities with city and county boards of supervisors that wield tremendous power, and politicians desire those positions.  The idea that suddenly all the ambition is going to be boiled out of lawmakers and we’re going to be able to bolt them into their seats for 12 years is frankly not borne out by historical precedent.  The case of Richard Alarcon is instructive.  He was a state Senator who ran for mayor and lost in 2005, then he ran for Assembly in 2006, and after just getting there he ran for LA City Council in 2007.  The mayor’s office, and LA City Council are very desirable posts, and they drew him out of the legislature.  And that’s not because of restrictive term limits.  I hear a lot of talk about how we are possibly going to lose Sheila Kuehl, my state Senator, from the legislature, and who is going to carry the banner of universal health care, and this is why we need to change term limits.  Sheila Kuehl is leaving whether Prop. 93 passes or not.  She wants to be on the LA County Board of Supervisors because she wants to be closer to home.  Nicole Parra of Bakersfield just announced that she won’t run again despite being eligible if Prop. 93 passes.

Another part of this is the fact that this only extends time in office if you make the decision, at the beginning of your career, to run for either Senate or Assembly, and then stay there.  Right now, 85% of all State Senators have at least 2 terms of Assembly experience and only 2 have none.  That’s simply not likely to change, or else you’re going to have a far MORE inexperienced State Senate than you do right now.

What term limits did accomplish is it got rid of the longtime Willie Brown types, the old hands who steered the legislature in their direction and maintained all the committee chairs through seniority.  I don’t see how giving Senators one extra term, or 3 in the case of the Assembly, is going to fix that.  You’re going to have the same legislative churn as ambitious pols seek better positions of prestige, and none of the benefits of a relaxed term limit structure, which is increasing institutional memory.

Now, personally I don’t think there should be any term limits.  Ultimately, the only limit should be we the people.  But that has to be coupled with an overhaul in our campaign finance system, so that challengers have the opportunity to compete on a level playing field.  I simply think there are better ways to reform the system than with something that fails what I believe should be the short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals of the California Democratic Party.  So I can’t support Proposition 93.

I just saw the first ad for Yes on 93 on cable; you can view it here.  The No on 93 folks also have a couple ads cut; they’re available here.

Unfortunately, it’s going to be very hard for both sides to get their message out.  Not only are we going to start seeing at least some resources from the Presidential candidates at some point, but the tribal gaming initiatives are due to swamp every other ballot measure and take all of the oxygen out of the room.  I’m already sick of their ads.

On Friday, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, one of the big four tribes who stand to gain from passage of Propositions 94 to 97 and 17,000 new slot machines, contributed $30.8 million in support of these propositions. This brings the total to the yes on 94-97 campaign to $68 million dollars, dwarfing not only the amount raised by opponents who seek to overturn the legislature’s approval of the slot machine compacts. But all contributions made on the other ballot measures being considered February 5, 2008-including term limits.  

This may be only the beginning of money spent, almost exclusively by the tribes on the yes side.

The second largest amount of money on ballot propositions in this cycle is on the “no” side of the Prop 94-97 gambling propositions, and most of it also comes from tribes-those who are not part of the arrangement with the four tribes. At least $11.5 million of the opposition funding comes from “Tribes for Fair Play” out of what appears to be $28 million raised in opposition. There is substantial money- millions each from race tracks and labor that make up the balance. A significant portion of the money raised by opponents was spent on qualifying the four referenda for the ballot.

Russo moved the number down to $54.5 million after further study.  But that’s still at least five times of what any other proposition has.

So it’s unclear who this helps, but to the extent that people are thinking about the ballot initiatives at the polls, it won’t be Props. 92 or 93, it seems.