California Insider

Gray’s been on tv or radio just about every day lately, and most of the interviews have been fairly uneventful. But today he was on KQED radio with his wife, Sharon, and the interview produced a couple of quotable quotes. The best stuff came from Sharon, who, when pressed by host Scott Shafer to tell us about the real Gray, described him as “kind of the average guy” who is unable to “let it all hang out” because he grew up in an era when people didn’t brag on themselves. She continued:

“And so, what Gray has always said is, he has to be himself. The voters want to know who you are, obviously, and for some reason Gray presents himself as who he is, and they go, ‘Well, we don't know if we like that. Be a little bit different.’ But you can't be genuine if you're trying to be a person that you're not.”

Then Gray, summing up what the recall election is all about, said this:

“(The voters) have to ask themselves, when we went to the polls last November, did we mean it, and do we have a right to second guess ourselves every five minutes? That's really what's at stake.”

I imagine most California voters believe they have a right to second-guess themselves. Implying that they don’t might not be a real fruitful way to win them over.

See the entire transcript here.

With inspiration from our admittedly paranoid friend Tony Quinn, we continue now on the theme of what might go wrong with the "if appropriate" lawsuits pending at the Supreme Court. To refresh, these are the suits seeking to block the second part of the recall election, in which the voters choose someone to replace Gray should he be removed. The defendants in those suits are Kevin Shelley and Cruz Bustamante, both of whom are represented by Bill Lockyer. And so we will have people who opposed the recall defending these lawsuits. Perhaps someone else might want to weigh in with an amicus brief. For context, some might remember what happened with the litigation to stop Prop. 187. The original lawsuit against the initiative prevailed at trial court, and Pete Wilson, who was governor at the time, appealed that judgment on behalf of the state's voters. Then Gray Davis, who had opposed 187, took office, and took over as defendant. You then had opponents of 187 on one side and opponents of 187 on the other. Gray soon sent the matter to "mediation" and the parties emerged with a deal that dropped the suit and struck down virtually all of the initiative. And no one could appeal. At the moment there is nothing to stop the "defendants" in this case from doing the same thing. If Cruz loses this suit, he's in line to be governor if Davis is recalled.

UPDATE: A member of the Establishment responds with some counterpoints:

Even if Ron George wants to help the Establishment, it's not clear what he should do. Is helping Cruz get elected helping the poltiical establishment? Further, would dropping the second part of the election help or hurt Gray? Some people think the "if appropriate" suits are a way to screw Gray because removing the conservatives from the ballot would make Democrats more comfortable voting for the recall. Also: It is not in Lockyer's interest to take a dive on this, because he is getting older, and his last best chance to run for governor is in 06. He can only do that if Gray serves out his term or is replaced by a caretaker. Elevating Cruz serves neither purpose.

TWO MORE UPDATES:

First, here is a piece at politicsus.com comparing the "if appropriate" case to the dispute in last year's New Jersey Senate election, and suggesting that the California Supremes might just bend to the political will of the powerful (if we can only figure out what that is).

And, from a reader, this retort to the Ron-George-is-suspect theory:

Ronald George is Chief Justice, but has only one vote out of seven. He does not control the other justices, so he could hardly rescue the political establishment. My experience with the California Supreme Court is that its members decide cases on their merits, and not on what is politically expedient. Of course, I thought the same of the U.S. Supreme Court until Bush v. Gore. I have read the petition filed by Mr. and Mrs. Frankel against Kevin Shelley, and the argument is not quite so far-fetched. Besides, the California Supreme Court is not bold enough to interfere with the political process, Tony Quinn's paranoia notwithstanding.

As for the Ted Costa initiative, Mr. Quinn should remember that under the California Constitution, initiatives can cover only a "single subject." The Costa initiative's primary goal was to reduce the salaries of legislators, and that is how Costa and his supporters marketed it to voters. They did not tell voters that the initiative also would change the reapportionment process. Now, common sense should tell anybody that reapportionment has nothing to do with legislative salaries, even if you stretch the English language to the breaking point. That is why the Court took the initiative off the ballot. If Mr. Costa had been honest and limited his measure just to salaries, the Court would have let it remain on the ballot. He overreached and suffered for it.

Gray's been getting hammered for refusing to say he wouldn't take taxpayer reimbursement for his campaign costs if he beats the recall. He just announced that he won't take the money, and in a clever twist, has challenged his "millionaire" opponents to promise to help pay for the recall if they lose. Of course they won't, but it's a good line that I am sure you will hear again.

It's too bad, because this was a great story line. The special interests could invest in Gray one more time, then, if they saved his rear, not only would he be indebted to them but they'd get a refund! Not to be.

Here's the statement:

"Over the past several weeks, it has become clear just how much this recall effort is costing the state. Estimates range up to $60 million just to hold the election.

The state's constitution allows my campaign to be reimbursed by the state when I defeat this.

I have decided not to seek any reimbursements because I know that taxpayer money would be better spent on our kids' schools, health care and public safety.

In addition, I'm issuing this challenge to the millionaire Republicans - Michael Huffington, Darrell Issa, Richard Riordan, and Arnold Schwarzenegger - who are currently considering a candidacy.

Should they lose, I challenge them to pledge to reimburse the taxpayers an amount equal to the amount they spend on their campaigns.

This will help the taxpayers defray the cost of this extraordinarily expensive recall election."
NOTE. An earlier version of this item said Gray's campaign was the only source for his $60 million estimate. A reader points out that Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has updated his estimate to between $53 million and $66 million. See the new estimate of county costs here. State costs are added on top of that.

Irritated that I keep quoting people who say Arnold is out, George Gorton, the actor's political guru, left a message on my voice mail in the middle of the night insisting that no decision has been made and that no announcements are planned for today. And that, he says, is official.

Here's my column in today's Bee on why Dick Riordan is wasting his time (and ours) if he hasn't learned any lessons from last year's campaign disaster.

Gray has been telling voters that the recall is a cost the state cannot afford. But he hasn't been telling them that if they vote no and keep him in office, the taxpayers might be on the hook for his campaign costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars. The Bee's Sam Stanton has the story here.

Every time you pick up a fiscal rock in the California budget, little deficit bugs scurry out. Here's one that illustrates the point: the state announced Wednesday that CHP officers agreed to take “pay cuts” that are supposed to save about $19 million this year. But it turns out the pay cut is actually a raise -- of 2.7 percent. How can a raise save the taxpayers money? Because without the agreement, the officers would have received a 7.7 percent raise this year. So they took 5 percent less than they were entitled to. In exchange, they get an extra paid day off a month and a cap on the cost of their health benefits. What does a day off per month cost? Well if you work 20 days a month, and you get one extra day off, that’s 5 percent -- exactly the amount they supposedly gave up. That exchange doesn’t cost the state any more money in the short-term, because we pay them the same whether they work or not, but if too many officers take their days off, overtime costs will likely climb. And if too few take them, the credits will accrue until they retire, costing taxpayers more then. And the cost of health care? It’s only going up, so if we are capping it for the officers, the taxpayers are going to pay more. I’d love to be able to follow the costs/savings of this deal in micro-detail over the course of the year. Because I suspect it really won’t save much at all. And over the long term, it is certain to be a loser. Imagine this scenario repeated with 20 different public employee unions, and similar accounting for “cuts” in programs. Now you know why the deficit never goes away.

UPDATE: A reader notes that the CHP example doesn't necessarily apply to all the state employee contracts because while almost all are getting a 5 percent pay raise this year, for most employees that raise will be offset by an increase in their share of their retirement premiums. For those employees in that category, denying them their raise actually would result in a loss of take-home pay, even if their gross salary goes up.

Republican analyst Tony Quinn agrees that the "if appropriate" claim is dubious but suggests we not overlook California Chief Justice Ron George's close ties with the political establishment. George was a Wilson appointee but has been very cozy with the leaders of both parties over the years. Quinn suggests he might be looking for a way to end the recall madness. He says he is convinced that "the political class is circling the wagons and I would not be surprised to see the California Supreme Court do them another favor."

More: "The fact they took the case on successor elections suggests they plan to do something. Don't forget this is the same court that took Ted Costa's last initiative (Prop 24) off the ballot for spurious reasons -- it would have reformed reapportionment, something the political class didn't want. Ron George cares a lot about keeping the legislature and governor happy for budget purposes -- sooo, don't be surprised if we have no successor election."

Everyone, including me, has pointed out the parallels between the California recall and Florida 2000. It's really starting to look now as if the two are mirror images of each other, with California's run-up to the election a repeat of Florida's post-election madness. One reason for that is that all the players learned in Florida that it's damn hard to change the outcome after the votes have been cast, no matter how righteous you think your position might be. Along those lines, three Democratic heavyweights will announce tomorrow an action they say is aimed at preventing "voter disenfranchisement" in the Oct. 7 election. Donna Brazile, who was the Gore 2000 campaign manager, Alice Huffman, president of the California NAACP, and Art Pulaski of the California Labor Federation have a morning press conference planned. I'm not sure, but I have a hunch it will be about punchcard voting, which lingers in some California precincts, and perhaps plans by some registrars to limit the number of polling places in order to save money and reduce the need for staffing. Don't be surprised if they file some action in the courts or with a civil rights agency seeking to delay the election.

I know most of the people who read this blog know this, but I want to repeat for newcomers that Gray Davis cannot run to succeed himself. Davis and Pete Wilson, who served the maximum two terms from 1991-98, are the only two registered voters ineligible to run in the "race to replace." By the way, this is the number one question I am getting, which suggests that we still have a ways to go before folks understand how all this will go down....

Former state legislator Barry Keene, the author of the infamous words “if appropriate” in Article II of the constitution, has researched his records and refreshed his memory of the 1974 amendment he sponsored that added those words while striking hundreds of others from the recall provision. When I first spoke to him a week ago, Keene said he did not remember why he put the words in there. Now he does. He says they were intended to ensure that the lieutenant governor would become governor in the case of a recall. He said he meant to ensure that Article V, which provides for the succession, applied to all vacancies in the governor's office, and that a recall would create a vacancy, to be filled not by the voters but by the constitutional elevation of the lieutenant governor.

Keene says he is joining a petition to be filed today in the Supreme Court on this matter, “in order to make it clear that the intent of the succession provisions in Article V was to prevail against any and all other law or legislation that might be passed to the contrary, such as a recall-plus election.” He adds: “The words ‘if appropriate’ are quite significant, very significant. They apply not only to judges but charter municipalities and other kinds of situations, to protect those situations from being steamrolled by the recall language in Article II.”

If accepted by the Supreme Court, Keene’s take would cancel the second half of the recall ballot, which is an election to replace the governor if he is recalled in the first half of the election. I am skeptical. Keene was a careful legislator who was not known to sneak things past people. I find it very hard to believe that he would put a constitutional amendment before the people of California taking away their right to elect a governor to replace one being recalled and not bother mentioning it to anyone. The issue doesn’t appear anywhere in Keene’s argument for the constitutional revision he sponsored in 1974, or in the analysis in the ballot pamphlet prepared by the legislative analyst’s office. It is my understanding that those documents, and not the memory of the author, is where the courts normally look to guide them on interpreting the meaning of a ballot measure.

Republican Party spokesman Rob Stutzman, speaking on Eric Hogue's radio show on KTKZ in Sacramento, says it's official: Arnold is out. "I had that confirmed late last night," Stutzman said.

UPDATE: There's been some confusion about the word "official" I used above. Stutzman is the official spokesman for the Republican Party, but he is not an official spokesman for Arnold. We await word from the man himself.

Having trouble keeping up? Don't blame you. These are crazy times in California. Here is some of what happened Tuesday:

The Assembly, after the speaker locked the members in overnight, passed a budget to end a 29-day partisan stalemate.

In San Francisco, top Democrats met to either a) shore up their unity in the fight to save Gray Davis or b) figure out a strategy to offer a replacement candidate while not dooming their man to defeat.

In a related development, two Democratic members of Congress –Cal Dooley and Loretta Sanchez – called on U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein to enter the fray as a back-up option should Davis lose. They were the first elected Democrats to call publicly for a party candidate to replace Gray.

In Los Angeles, top Republicans from opposing campaigns met to plot recall strategy, hoping to increase their chances of dumping Davis while reserving the right to savage each other in the campaign to replace him.

In Brentwood, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan met with strategists to help shape a possible campaign for governor and prepared to accept the baton from his friend, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Down the street, columnist Arianna Huffington met with advisers to consider her own potential as an independent candidate in the replacement election.

In San Diego, a federal court changed the rules of the recall vote, deciding that voters can participate in the replacement election even if they express no opinion on the question of whether Davis should be recalled.

In San Francisco, the state Supreme Court took up the question of whether a replacement election is even necessary. This is the same idea floated briefly and then dropped by Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. Bustamante would become governor if Davis were recalled and there was no election to replace him.

Presumably, the pace of developments will slow once the filing deadline passes Aug. 9 and the courts work their way through the challenges. It better. We cannot keep this up.

Calblogger Justene Adamec, always prescient, has an especially pointed analysis of the Arnold-Riordan dance, suggesting that one of them had better get on this train before it leaves the station.

While everyone is busy adding names to the list of recall candidates, I've taken to crossing some off. The latest: Kathleen Connell. The former state controller seemed to fit the profile of the perfect Democratic ship-jumper: no love for Gray Davis, decent name ID, money in the bank, ambition. But I just spoke with her and she said she wouldn't be running, under any circumstances. "I want to squash that rumor," she said. "It won't be me." She did have a few choice words about the budget passed today, suggesting that it's a house of cards built on a legally and fiscally shaky foundation. "It's a budget of denial," she said.

The Assembly, after what Speaker Herb Wesson described as the longest legislative day in the history of the body, voted 56-22 to pass the budget and send it to Gov. Gray Davis. The vote on the budget was not made immediately official, pending votes on a series of bills needed to implement the spending plan. Once all those are taken, the votes will be made final and the package will be complete. This should happen within minutes.

UPDATE: It's official.

Assembly budget negotiators say they are closing in on a deal, but we will have to see. I think the lock-down by Speaker Wesson was probably a good idea. End the drift, bang some heads and get it done. I think the public will love it. The amusing thing is that all the negotiators have been talking about today is increasing spending to satisfy Republican requests to add or restore things to the budget passed by the Senate. To be fair, the Republicans say they have offered lists of cuts they would like to pass to offset their spending increases. But since the Dems don’t want to talk about cuts, the Republicans say they are willing to take just the spending hikes, or some of them, in return for their votes. Among other things, the Republicans are asking to restore about $150 million in local government redevelopment funds cut by the Senate, about $70 million for local law enforcement, $100 million for the Highway Patrol. Much of this is law enforcement, which is a high priority for everyone, but it would seem that given how tough times are, even law enforcement could absorb part of the blow. The Reeps are also trying to block two fee increases, on pesticides and timber harvests, and replace the revenue with money from the general fund. It sounds as if the final package will cost the treasury about $250 million, which would be deducted from the “reserve” built into the Senate version of the budget. The reserve, however, is probably phony. This budget is almost certainly going to end with a deficit and produce a shortfall in the $10 billion range going into 04-05. So the Assembly deal closers, if they come, will just make that gap a little bit wider.

From the AP, via SF GATE:

Rep. Cal Dooley on Tuesday became the first prominent California Democrat to call on Sen. Dianne Feinstein to run for governor to replace Gov. Gray Davis in the recall election.

"It is no secret that Gov. Davis is in trouble, and I seriously doubt that he can survive the recall effort," Dooley said in a statement.

This could be a sign of things to come.

UPDATE. Rep. Loretta Sanchez of Orange County has joined Dooley in his call for Feinstein to run. Feinstein has no comment, which in itself is ominous. Is this choreographed?

The federal court in San Diego struck down the California requirement that voters must vote on the recall question in order to qualify to vote on the question of who should replace the governor, if he is recalled. At the moment I see this as no big deal. I can't imagine that it gives an advantage to one side or the other. If someone is out there who is dying to skip the recall question but vote on the replacement, please call me. I want to know more about who that would be and why they would want to do it.

Bill Simon plans to pull papers this morning in preparation for a run for governor, his office says.

Here's today's column on why there's so much energy behind the recall, and why the elites should stop whining about the election and get on with it.

The San Jose Mercury reports that Arnold is “preparing to pass up” a shot at the governor’s office. The New York Times says he is “leaning strongly against” it. The Chronicle writes that Arnold had a 2 p.m. press conference planned Monday to announce his withdrawal but called it off to think about it for another day or two. And The LA Times says the news conference was postponed because Dick Riordan wasn’t ready to appear by Arnold’s side to receive the baton. But The Times says Riordan is edging closer. Noelia Rodriguez, press secretary to First Lady Laura Bush and Riordan's former close aide, spent Monday at his house in Brentwood helping him assemble a possible campaign team, the paper reports.

The legal wrangling is far from over. At least two court cases remain alive and viable at the moment. One is in San Diego, where two University of San Diego lawyers are asking a federal court to declare California’s recall provision unconstitutional because it requires voters to vote yes or no on the recall question before being allowed to vote on the candidate replacement question. And in the state Supreme Court, the “if appropriate” question has reared its head again, with a suit asking the court to throw out the candidate election because California’s constitution calls for the lieutenant governor to take the office when there is a vacancy. Here is an AP story in the Bee on the lawsuits.

The Bee reports this morning on the governor’s vow to sign a bill to give driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. Citing security concerns, Davis vetoed the bill a year ago, but the new measure does not include the provisions he said he would demand before changing his position. Namely, the governor wanted background checks done to ensure that immigrants with a criminal past did not get licenses. Also, this bill is broader, removing the provision in last year’s measure that allowed licenses only for those immigrants who had already applied for legal residency. Latino lawmakers are selling this bill to Davis as a way to win favor with Hispanic voters. But it is a huge gamble. Signing this bill could just as easily backfire on Davis, setting off a firestorm of protest from opponents of the bill and getting people to the polls who otherwise would have stayed home. The campaign on behalf of the bill also suffers from the condescending assumption that all Latinos, including those who waited years to enter this country lawfully, support expanding services and privileges to illegal immigrants.

The New York Times on Monday had a big story saying California’s budget crisis – and budget cutting – had, along with similar events in other states, “stripped the nation of a source of economic growth” and begun to “drag down the national economy.” With all due respect, I think this is nonsense. And, because it’s becoming part of the conventional wisdom, it needs to be stopped, now.

First of all, The Times swallows whole the notion that California’s emerging budget deal will cut $8 billion in current spending, and says the state will see $12 billion in cuts over two years. I don’t know where they got the $12 billion – it’s not attributed – but even on paper, state general fund spending will shrink only from a high of $78.1 billion last year to $70.8 billion next year, a drop of $7.3 billion.

And even that is an accounting fiction. Actual spending won’t drop by nearly that much, if at all. More than half of the reported spending reduction is actually a tax increase -- the $4 billion tripling of the car tax. State bookkeepers count that as a cut because the car tax is a local revenue source, and when it was reduced several years ago, the state started reimbursing the cities and counties for their loss of revenue. Now that the tax is going back up, the locals will get their money directly from motorists, so the state reimbursement is no longer needed. The state books that as a budget cut, but the government will still be spending exactly the same amount of money. Other items booked as cuts include a $1 billion accounting shift in Medi-Cal that will have no effect on actual spending, and a $2 billion infusion of federal money that will relieve the state of some of its obligations in health and welfare programs. When you add all these and other measures together, it’s possible that actual government outlays in California will rise, not fall, in the year ahead.

But even if all the assumptions in the Times story were true, I still don’t think state spending cuts would hurt the economy. One could argue that they would actually help it. After all, the states, unlike the federal government, cannot print money. Everything they do is pretty much a zero-sum game. If they spend more, they must tax more. If they spend less, they tax less. This means that the only thing at issue is who spends the money: the government or private individuals and businesses. If the state cuts spending on health care by $1 billion, that’s $1 billion that remains in the private economy.

The net effects of this transfer are open to debate. Some would argue that state spending will produce more bang for the buck because it tends to go to low-income people who then put it all back into the economy, while private holders of wealth might keep it stowed in the bank or in investments. Others would say that leaving the money in private hands is better for the economy because those investments create jobs and boost productivity. I would stake out some middle ground by pointing out that even state spending often winds up in private corporate hands, or in the pockets of wealthy individuals, as when the state pays hospitals or doctors for medical care for the poor. That money can be socked away – or invested – as easily as money that’s simply left in private hands. Which is why the Republican complaint that state tax increases hurt the economy, while logical, is difficult to prove, because all the money the state takes in taxes comes back to the economy anyway, just in different places.

But the Times ignores that debate and all of these subtleties in favor of a simple explanation implying that every dollar the state “cuts” from spending is a dollar somehow removed from the economy. It’s just not so. Every dollar cut from state spending is a dollar left in the economy. There is a huge difference.

Find the Times story here. Signon/password required but use mine: californiainsider/insider

UPDATE: A reader notes that the Times' analysis is more credible if one considers the effects of state deficit spending on the economy. When states borrow, it allows them to spend money that they haven't yet taken from their citizens in taxes, thus stimulating the economy. This is true. But California isn't giving up on deficit spending. The budget deal pending today includes plans for a $10.7 billion bond to pay for services rendered last year. That's the biggest borrowing of its kind in the history of the state.

If Arnold is dropping out, people have been asking, why doesn’t he just get it over with and announce that he won’t run for governor? Why are his advisers issuing statements saying he has not made up his mind? Here’s my theory: He needs a stand-in. It’s clear that Arnold has been under a lot of pressure from Maria not to run. His own campaign advisers have said as much. I expect Arnold himself to acknowledge this at some point, either directly or through the “concern for my family” statement that’s become so familiar in politics. And I think it's sincere. He's got young kids. He probably doesn't want them exposed to the kind of trash that would be thrown his way if he entered the fray. But he doesn’t want Maria to be cited as his sole reason for ducking the race. Manly men respect their wives but don’t let their spouses dictate what they do. And Arnold has an easy out. He has said all along that he will run only if he doesn’t see anybody else out there capable of doing the job. Enter Dick Riordan. I think the reason Arnold hasn’t announced his decision is that Riordan either isn’t committed or doesn’t have the campaign infrastructure in place yet to take the ball and run with it. But if and when Riordan is ready, don’t be surprised to hear Arnold say, “I don’t need to run because we have Dick Riordan and he would do a great job.” Just a theory.

Rick Hasen has an interesting item on a new lawsuit being filed to keep the Connerly initiative and Keith Richman's infrastructure measure off the recall ballot.

The Schwarzenegger campaign-in-waiting says my source is all wet. Arnold, they say, still hasn't made up his mind. Here's the statement, in full:

Statement by Arnold Schwarzenegger political consultant George Gorton:

“There are reports in the media that Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided not to run in the California recall election. These reports are incorrect.

“Arnold spent the weekend continuing his due diligence regarding a possible run. He has made no decision at this time. He will continue to weigh the pros and cons with his family and will continue to seek the council of supporters and colleagues.

“When Arnold has made his decision, we will announce it to the media.”

I'm still hearing otherwise.

Things are changing by the minute, and will continue to do so. But as of this morning, Gray Davis has the momentum in his fight to beat the recall. One house of the Legislature has passed a budget, and the other will probably do so soon. The public will see this as progress, even if the toughest part of the job was left for the future. The recall is being portrayed in the media as a circus or a zoo, take your pick. It looks as if Arnold is out, and with him the recall's best chance of energizing independents and occasional voters. Riordan still isn’t in and might never be. That leaves the most likely Republican candidates as Issa, who has been and will be easy to demonize; Simon, who will be portrayed as either the sore loser or the “I told you so” candidate; and McClintock, the sincere but under-funded state senator who will want to talk about fiscal reform but will be marginalized by his conservative take on social issues. Assemblyman Keith Richman will run as the Republican moderate if both Arnold and Riordan bow out, but he is little known statewide and will have a hard time breaking out of a crowded field. Gray will ignore Richman and wrap the other three neatly with a bow and say the whole thing is a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” The entire political establishment is against it and, even if they don’t help Gray, they won’t be of much help to his opponents. The New York Times has started a full-court press against the recall on the editorial and op-ed pages, following the lead of the home-state LA Times. Even former Gov. Pete Wilson was quoted in the Bee this morning saying he hates the recall. Bottom line: It’s starting to look as if the recall drive is back to where it started: a guerrilla war. It might be well financed by Issa and a handful of others, but remember, Issa is himself an outsider. If this thing wins, it is going to be on the strength of a populist revolt, not celebrity star power.

Arnold Schwarzenegger will not run for governor, a very knowledgeable source close to actor has told me. I am told to expect the official announcement as soon as today. Look for Dick Riordan to start revving up his campaign in turn.

The state Senate, as expected, passed a budget tonight, with the minimum 27 votes required for a two-thirds majority. The measure includes no new taxes beyond the tripling of the car tax already accomplished by administrative order of the governor. It does include several hundred million dollars in new fees on college students and business. And it relies on an $11 billion deficit bond to be financed over five years. Both sides of the aisle agree that it is balanced for one year only, and current revenue and expenditure projections show a new, $8 billion gap opening up next year. Some will point to the size of the remaining gap as an accomplishment, the year having begun with estimates of a $30-some billion shortfall. But remember this: the Legislature has been at war since May over what was essentially a $1.7 billion difference between the two parties. A real gap four times that large will be no easy task to close. And the chasm will grow much larger if the car tax, the deficit bond or a legally questionable pension bond are thrown out by the courts. Or if the economy fails to live up to expectations. As Sen. Tom McClintock said tonight, the next budget crisis starts the day this one is signed.

On the bright side, this budget deal does, for the first time in memory, actually get rid of some government, starting with the Trade, Technology and Commerce agency. It also establishes a commission to study other possible reductions. And it gives the governor limited authority to cut spending if the budget starts to get out of balance. The action now moves to the Assembly, which, after some grumbling, is expected to pass the budget later this week.

PS. In my April 27 column, I laid out a roadmap for a budget plan remarkably similar to the one adopted tonight. To see it, go here.

Maureen Dowd has weighed in on the recall, dismissing it, of course, as the work of California kooks. That’s almost comforting, as I would have been worried had she endorsed it. The one useful item in the piece is a quote from a Davis aide describing the recall as unlocking "all the cages in the zoo." This is the perfect metaphor with which to capture the governor's attitude toward voters. Former congressman and onetime Clinton chief of staff Leon Panetta chimes in with his own more sophisticated but essentially parallel take: the recall is democracy run amok.

Calm down, people. You would think folks were killing each other in the streets here, or burning down the Capitol. We are talking about holding an election, OK? The petitions represent a massive vote of no confidence in the governor's ability to lead. Now, in a few weeks, all of the people will have their say on that question. Britain has been doing something similar for hundreds of years now and seems to have managed to survive.

A year ago the state’s editorial boards were all but unanimous in their condemnation of the choice offered Californians. Some recommended Davis, some Simon, but almost all conceded that their choice was the lesser of evils. Now we get another bite at the apple. Is that so bad?

You can also expect a flood of criticism and mockery from the pundit booth about the growing list of candidates. As if this, too, were some sort of terrible development. Are all the candidates serious? No. But many of them will be, and the numbers are in part a reflection of the intense interest in this election. We don’t know what the turnout will be. But we do know that right now, people on the street are paying attention to California politics. They’re expressing opinions and getting involved. They are taking ownership, because they, and not the governing class, called this election. This is not bad news. Unless, of course, you are among those who have a stake in the people tuning out instead of turning out, in not caring, in not following the pea under the shell.

Here is the Dowd column, and here is Panetta. Both require registration, but use mine: californiainsider/insider

I just heard that the budget deal will include the creation of a commission to examine the state bureuacracy and eliminate unnecessary agencies and offices. This is an idea that Sen. (and candidate for gov) Tom McClintock has been pushing for some time. Things are now so bad fiscally that the libs are picking up on his idea because they see it as a way to preserve services they value -- by killing off stuff that's obsolete or unnecessary. McClintock touts this as similar to the military base reduction process that the feds went through a few years back. He wants a list of agencies that should be eliminated and an up or down vote in the Legislature, to avoid nickel and diming the thing to death with amendments. Probably a good idea. How much will this process save the taxpayers? Not much, unfortunately, in the great scheme of things. Maybe a few hundred million dollars. But that is a start, and more importantly, it's a step toward adopting the psychology that we don't have to keep doing everything we are doing now forever. We can re-examine priorities and stop doing some things.

Back from the recall rally. Perhaps not the 2,000 people the organizers were hoping for, but quite a crowd that I would estimate around 1,000 or so. Very spirited. There is definitely something about this campaign that is different from any I’ve been around recently. It is more chaotic, more spontaneous, less predictable. Whatever you say about Issa’s money making it happen, this thing is being driven by a grass-roots energy. And I think that energy is going to carry through to Election Day. There is something about the people demanding the election, rather than the government calling the election, that gives the campaign a revolutionary fervor. These people feel as if they are taking their government back. Look at all the folks lining up to run. Everybody has been talking about how cheap and easy it is to get on the ballot. But those are the same rules that have applied to party primaries for years. And we don’t see 100 people running in those. Is the difference that this is a one-shot deal, that there is no run-off or general election? Or is that the Democrats have promised not to field a major candidate? I am sure those factors are contributing. But I think underneath it all is the feeling that this is a populist revolt, and people feel empowered. They feel as if they are part of something. They are making politics a participatory sport instead of a spectator sport.

I'll be heading out to what's been advertised as a huge recall rally (and anti-recall counter rally) at the Capitol later this morning. I'll report back here this afternoon. The list of speakers includes not only Darrell Issa, Bill Simon and Tom McClintock but some others who might spice up the affair. They've got the Libertarian Party, the Reform Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the American Independent Party, and they have folks like Republican Danny Ball, who ran for gov last year, and someone named John Estrada, who is identified as a Democratic candidate for president. Should be fun. Recall supporters say the thing will be broadcast live on CSPAN.

Arnold has a history of making people wait. In Hollywood, he is known as a big tease. A revealing story here by the LA Times' entertainment staff, with contributions from the political beat. Registration required, but use my sign-on and password: californiainsider/insider

I will be discussing the recall with "The Beltway Boys" on Fox News at 3 pm PST Saturday....

UPDATE: I'm now also scheduled to appear on KNBC in LA at 9 am Sunday.

I talked to Dick Riordan today as he was careening through traffic in LA, and he said he still thinks Arnold is very much interested in running. And if Arnold does run, Riordan said, he will work "full time" to help him win. The way he described it I imagined Riordan going up and down the state, or at least the greater Los Angeles area, campaigning as a surrogate almost as if he himself were running. If Arnold doesn't run, Riordan said, he would "seriously consider" jumping in himself. Of course we knew that already. I am wondering if the potential circus-like ballot would help or hurt an Arnold candidacy. A ballot with 100 names, including 10 or 12 fairly well known and several semi-celebrities, such as Arianna Huffington, might make Arnold seem like one player in a freak show. Then again it could give him the chance to rise above it and stand out in the crowd. I have the same ambivalence about how a crowded field affects the recall question. If it gets too crazy, the voters might just throw up their hands and say this is insane, and vote no. Or, if several Dems jump in, the voters could decide that Davis is done, tune him out and turn to the task of figuring out who should replace him. This is the magic of the recall. We have never been down this road so no one knows what to expect. And again, that's why the elites of both parties hate it.

Audie Bock, who was the only Green Party member ever elected to the Legislature, plans to run for governor as a Democrat. That makes her the party's first semi-mainstream, politically experienced member to break ranks and join the recall fray. And she's not just doing it out of fear that Davis will lose. She wants Davis to lose. Here's the story from Bay City News in the Chronicle. Hat tip to Pathetic Earthlings. I don't think Bock's entry will spark the stampede some have been waiting for. But keep your eye on Kathleen Connell. She is still my bet to be the highest-ranking, or most recent high ranking, Democrat to jump in.

Davis says he will fight like a "Bengal tiger" to keep his job. Here is the take of my colleague, cartoonist Rex Babin, on that comment.

I just heard and then confirmed a rumor that Democrats in the Assembly are devising a plan that would involve returning after the budget deal is done and passing a new tax plan that would reduce the vehicle license fee back to its earlier levels while raising the income tax and various sin taxes to bring in the same amount of revenue. This could be done by majority vote, rather than two-thirds, because it would not be a net tax increase but just a revenue-neutral swap. It would be far more progressive than the car tax because only the upper income folks would get hit with the personal income tax hike. And it would help reduce the furor over the increase in the highly unpopular car tax. I don't think this is going to happen. But it is percolating among at least a few influential Democrats over there.

Former Congressman Michael Huffington just took out papers to run for governor. Huffington, of course, represented Santa Barbara as a Republican in Congress in the early 1990s before challenging Dianne Feinstein for the US Senate. He lost narrowly and then went through a personal transformation, coming out as a homosexual and divorcing his wife, Arianna, who at the time was a popular conservative commentator. Arianna has since become a populist/leftist commentator and is now being urged by many on the left to run for governor herself.

Senator John Burton, on the Wall Street bond underwriters who will arrange financing for California's debt:

"If we said to them 'we have an idea where we can go rob a bank and get the money to pay off these bonds,' they’d say, 'don’t tell -- we’ll buy them.' The money will be there to pay off the bonds – I mean, it’s that simple. They have said traditionally since Day One they couldn’t care if you cut all the programs in the world and could give them a lump sum, or if you passed $2 trillion worth of taxes, as long as they knew the money was there to pay off the bondholders, they were happy. And I might say this: Wall Street and the bond counsel and all those people – they are doing better most everyone else is doing through this budget."

For more on this and other nuggets of wisdom from Sens. Burton and Brulte, see the transcript here of their press briefing on their budget deal. With no details yet released on their plan, this is the only place to go for hints about what they are up to.

Jonathan Adler is reporting at The Corner that President Bush has nominated California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown to the US Court of Appeals in the DC Circuit. The post is widely seen as a stop on the path to a potential US Supreme Court appointment for Brown.

UPDATE: Here is the White House press release.

UPDATE 2: Rick Hasen blogs on potential impact on recall litigation if Brown leaves.

UPDATE 3: An alert reader says Rick and I have both missed the best angle on the Brown story, and I agree. It's that the pending vacancy on the Cal Supreme Court will give Gray an issue with which to motivate his base. The governor will replace Brown if she is confirmed to the new post, but that appointment almost certainly won't come until after the Oct. 7 recall election. Davis will ask: Do you want a pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-worker nominee to the court, or do you want a Republican nominee who might not be sympathetic to those constituencies? The message, of course, will be more subtle: "Do you want a justice who follows the constitution on a woman's right to choose, or one who tries to legislate his or her views from the bench?" But the point is the same.

Grown-ups know that almost nothing you see in politics is spontaneous. But the degree to which Gray Davis’ actions and statements are dialed in by polling is extraordinary, and here’s a great example.

Wednesday night at 7 p.m., minutes after the recall was certified, Republican pollster Frank Luntz predicted to me that Davis would make some acknowledgement of mistakes he’s made as governor. This would be difficult for a governor who’s maintained all along that there was nothing he’d do different. But Luntz insisted his polling showed that such a gesture of contrition was the only chance Davis had to survive. Eighteen hours later, here is what Davis said in Los Angeles:

“While they (voters) have problems with me, while I've made mistakes, while we have a tough economy all across the country, at the end of the day, I believe they will acknowledge we have been making progress in a tough economy."

"Not everything that I've done has worked out as well as I thought it could," Davis said. "I'm human, like everyone else."

The story on Davis’ comments is in the Los Angeles Times. The headline: “Davis admits mistakes but says he remains confident” Read it here.

Estimated, one-time cost of recall election: $30 million.
Estimated 30-year cost of Thursday's state credit rating downgrade: $1 billion.
Annualized cost of credit downgrade: $33 million.

The Senate hasn’t yet released all the details of the budget deal reached Thursday, but I can tell you this: something does not compute. Somehow they closed the gap while also agreeing to pay raises for state employees and cost of living increases to the welfare program for the disabled and aged. Cuts planned earlier for Med-Cal benefits were also set aside. And school officials, while claiming they are taking the biggest cuts in history (at least on paper) seem thrilled with the outcome. Teachers are pleased that the deal restores a teacher tax credit that was suspended last year. With all that rejoicing, John Burton and Jim Brulte have either performed a fiscal miracle or more budget sleight-of-hand. You decide.

You will be hearing a lot from legislative leaders and, especially, the governor, that they have whittled the deficit down from $38 billion to $8 billion, which sounds like substantial progress. But here’s another way of looking at it:

First, the shortfall was never $38 billion. At least $5 billion of that was future spending projected by the governor and no one else and then taken away, to produce phantom cuts. So let’s say it was $33 billion.

The biggest piece of that -- $11 billion – was erased with borrowing, an $11 billion deficit bond that will be repaid over at least five years, with the first payment not even beginning until the fiscal year that begins July 1, 2004. That gets you down to $22 billion.

Another $4.2 billion comes from tripling the car tax, a move Davis engineered by administrative fiat and which is now the subject of a lawsuit. At least $500 million comes from new fees. So let’s round up and count these items as $5 billion, which reduces your number to $17 billion.

I haven’t seen the final list, but I think they’ve got at least $5 billion in other gimmicks in there, the biggest of which is the $2 billion bond to pay this year’s pension obligations.

That brings the subtotal down to about $12 billion. I’m still looking for the detail on how they closed the rest of that gap. But based on the lack of howling from interest groups, very little of it is coming in real cuts. Besides, the leaders acknowledge that an $8 billion gap remains to be addressed next year. So they really haven’t erased the problem.

In fact, the $8 billion (I think it will be more like $10 billion) gap is really the same gap they have had all along. The big number bandied about this year was largely the result of failing to deal with that $10 billion hole three years running. So this year they borrowed to finance the accumulated deficit and raised the car tax to make a dent in the structural problem. Not a whole lot more.

The irony is that Democrats accused Republicans of holding out to help the recall, but Brulte here has cut a deal that seems designed to save Davis from the recall by papering over the problem and allowing the governor to take credit for reducing the deficit.

UPDATE: Sen. Brulte protests. His budget deal was not designed to save Davis, he says. OK. I should not have tried to read his mind. I should have said instead that Davis will use the Brulte-Burton budget deal to try save himself. And I predict the governor will get at least a small bump in the polls in the days ahead.

Matt Drudge has a "world exclusive" reporting that former Rep. Jack Kemp is thinking of running for governor. Here's my take, admittedly based on at least as much fact as Drudge's report: It's not going to happen. Kemp is a huge Bill Simon fan and was a major player in Team Simon last year. All indications are that Simon is running again. And you can expect to see Kemp by his side again.

Kevin Shelley has posted the candidate qualification rules on his website. The filing deadline is Aug. 9. The signature requirements are also there, but they are too complicated to go into here. See them for yourself here.

As John Burton and Jim Brulte formally roll out their budget deal this afternoon, this might be a good time to remark on the one part of the budget that Capitol journos have been writing for weeks now was a certainty: the $11 billion bond to finance the state’s accumulated deficit. If you recall, the only debate was about how to repay the debt. Democrats wanted to raise the sales tax to do it. Republicans wanted to do it out of current revenues. The Republicans, at least in the Senate, have prevailed. But…

Is the scheme legal? The state constitution prohibits borrowing more than $300,000 without a vote of the people. While court decisions have permitted short-term “revenue anticipation” bonds for cash flow or to tide the state over in tough times, the breadth and scope of this bond would be unprecedented. Now the Pacific Legal Foundation has threatened to sue if the bonds go forward without a public vote.

Such a suit would place into doubt the two biggest pieces of the budget deal: the $4.2 billion tripling of the car tax engineered by Davis earlier this month, and the $10.7 billion deficit bond. Court decisions nullifying either one of them would be a devastating blow to the state’s fiscal condition, perhaps even enough to send California into insolvency. As painful as it would be, it just might be prudent for the governor and state lawmakers to put the bond bill to a vote of the people. Properly packaged, it might well pass. But if they fail to do so, the consequences could cripple state finances.

For your reading pleasure, here is an excerpt, per the Pacific Legal Foundation, of an 1857 state Supreme Court decision (Nogues v. Douglass) on this issue:

"...the framers of that instrument [the California Constitution, with its debt limit] knew that it was not the practice of governments, well conducted, to borrow money for the ordinary expenses of government. These expenses are regular and certain, and can easily be provided for by taxation. In reference to such expenses, there is no cause for surprise upon the Legislature. It is easy to anticipate their amount with a reasonable degree of certainty, and the framers of the Constitution knew that if they permitted the Legislature to borrow money to defray the ordinary expenses of the government, it would not be long before the State must be brought practically to rely upon the yearly revenue; for the reason, that a yearly deficit of the revenue would soon destroy the credit of the State, so that she could not borrow for any such purpose. A family, or State, that borrows to pay ordinary expenses, must soon have no power to borrow; and as the State, from the very nature of the case, must sooner or later come to the point of "paying as you go," it was wise in the framers of our Constitution, to bring her to it at an early period. There was time gained and money saved...Besides this, the Convention doubtless thought it unjust to throw the burden of paying the present expenses of the government upon posterity, who would be compelled, in addition, to pay their own expenses, or resort to the same method of postponement."

I started out writing a column for today that was highly critical of Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante for his suggestion that the recall election need not include a vote on candidates to replace Davis. In fact, I had that column written and ready to run. But by the end of the day, Bustamante had backed away from that position and was insisting to me that he would only set the date for the vote, while Secretary of State Shelley would decide the questions to appear on that ballot. Bustamante maintained that this was his position all along, but he refused to say that stories in the Bee and elsewhere Tuesday reporting otherwise were inaccurate. I got the feeling that he was trying to somehow engineer the "Cruz for governor" strategy without leaving his fingerprints, but if that was his goal, he was doing a lousy job at it. In the end I decided to simply let events play out and see what Bustamante does today. We should know within a few hours.

So instead of ripping Cruz, I wrote a new column late last night laying out all the questions that still remain as the recall moves forward. You can read it here.

For more on the possibility that the "Commission on the Governship" will intervene, see the Bee's story here.

Republican pollster Frank Luntz, on retainer to the Rescue California recall committee, will brief reporters today on a survey he completed recently for the forces seeking to remove Gray Davis from office. Luntz is clearly a hired gun, but he is not painting a one-sided picture. The election, he says, is still very much up for grabs.

"It is simply too soon to call the outcome of the recall," Luntz says in a summary. "A low turnout (less than a third of the electorate) will almost surely lead to the governor's removal, but a high turnout (more than half the electorate) and several important strategic decisions by the governor could still keep him in office."

Luntz says half of those who voted for Davis a year ago disapprove of his performance and 23 percent say they will definitely or probably vote to remove him. The recall does better among those under 30 (60-36 in favor) and support declines with age, with seniors evenly split at 47-46. People without college degrees are overwhelminly supportive (60-35) while college grads are split (48-47). Overall Luntz found a 53-41 edge for the recall but noted that ballot measures starting out with a bare majority rarely pass, because opponents are able to raise questions that give voters pause.

Luntz tried to measure voter passion and says he found, not surprisingly, that recall supporters are much more dedicated to their cause than those who back Davis. He said 87 percent of those who favor the recall say they will "definitely, positively, absolutely vote," while just 53 percent of those who oppose the recall are equally emphatic about their participation.

Luntz predicts that Davis will issue some sort of mea culpa along the way and ask the voters to forgive his mistakes. This would be out of character for the gov, who has said in many interviews that if he could live the past four years over again he wouldn't do anything different. But Luntz says his polling and focus groups detected that such an apology might work in the governor's favor. Alas, he says the time for Davis to do it might have been before the recall qualified, as now it would appear to be a desperate move. Too little, too late, Luntz said.

As the recall story played out at the Secretary of State's office Wednesday, Senate leaders were finishing up talks on another "get-out-of-town" budget, the details of which should begin to emerge today. The outline: no new taxes beyond the governor's tripling of the car tax. Lots of debt. A few cuts. And a big problem left over for next year. The budget deal will openly finance about $11 billion of the deficit while using tricks, gimmicks and shifts to delay the most serious pain. It appears as if the state will be facing a new, $10 billion shortfall by January.

The recall is certified. Shelley says 1.3 million valid signatures have been verified by the counties. He also says the election must include a question about the successor should Davis be recalled. Bustamante now seems willing to go along with that, though some mystery remains. We might yet hear from the Commission on the Governorship. Bustamante plans a press conference Thursday to announce the election date. Most likely: Oct. 7.

I am blogging live from the secretary of state's office, where Kevin Shelley is expected to announce the official Davis recall signature count sometime after the close of business today. It's a media zoo outside with the mob awaiting his word.Latest news--Cruz Buztamante might be backing off his position that voters will get a recall election only with no chance to choose a successor. He just told me via telephone that his job is only to pick a date, and it's up to others to decide what form the election will take. More on that later tonight.

Opponents of holding an election to replace Davis should he be recalled have sent Sen. Burton a letter asking him to submit the question to the state Supreme Court. I find the letter's argument against the election unpersuasive, but it does contain some interesting historical details. You can see the text here. Hat tip to Election Law Blogger Rick Hasen.

You have to wonder when UC Berkeley tries to delve into the origins of conservative thought. But you wouldn’t expect even Berkeley to link Hitler, Mussolini and Ronald Reagan in one sentence. And then throw in Rush Limbaugh for good measure. But that’s exactly what four researchers – two from Berkeley, one from Stanford and one from the University of Maryland -- have concluded after reviewing 50 years of research on the “psychology of conservatism.”

According to a Berkeley press release trumpeting the findings:

“Disparate conservatives share a resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, the authors said. Hitler, Mussolini and former President Ronald Reagan were individuals, but all were right-wing conservatives because they preached a return to an idealized past and condoned inequality in some form. Talk host Rush Limbaugh can be described in the same way.”

The common psychological denominators?

Fear and aggression; dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity; uncertainty avoidance; need for cognitive closure; and terror management.

Read the entire press release here.

UPDATE: Angry Clam had this yesterday. Go here to see more, including the full study.

California now has a potential constitutional crisis on its hands:

An unofficial survey of counties by the Bee suggests that Secretary of State Kevin Shelley will get the word by today that more than enough signatures have been collected and verified to qualify the recall for the ballot. Shelley and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who will set the election date, have said they will act quickly. Bustamante also said he will likely set the election at the far end of the 60-to-80-day window, making Oct. 7 the most likely date. But…

In a stunning development, Bustamante also told the Bee here that he will not call an election for a successor to Davis. The election, he said, will be on the recall only. And he will leave up to a commission dominated by Democrats the decision about whether to ask the California Supreme court if a replacement election must also be held. If there is no replacement election and Davis is recalled, Bustamante would succeed him as governor.

This is a scenario first floated last Friday by my colleague Dan Walters. While at first I thought it had credence, further research suggests to me that it does not. The theory rests on the words “if appropriate” in the following language from the constitution:

SEC. 15. (a) An election to determine whether to recall an officer and, if appropriate, to elect a successor shall be called by the Governor and held not less than 60 days nor more than 80 days from the date of certification of sufficient signatures.

Bustamante is suggesting that those words mean there should not be an election for a successor because the constitution already lays out a method for filling a vacancy in the governor’s office, namely promoting the lieutenant governor, Bustamante.

Those words were added to the constitution in 1974, with no suggestion at the time that they meant to stop an election of a governor’s successor in the event of a recall. It makes more sense to conclude that they apply to the case of appellate court justices, who can be recalled but are never elected. If one of them were recalled, the governor would have to appoint a successor.

The original language in the 1911 amendment with which the voters created the recall included extensive provisions for a successor election and no suggestion that it was optional.

Bustamante is making mischief here, at some peril to the state and, I would suggest, at great peril to his own political career.

UPDATE: Election Law blogger Rick Hasen says here that it would be best for California if the state Supreme Court stepped in to settle all the questions about the election promptly and cleanly. While I agree this might be necessary, I note that Bustamante isn't calling on the court for a ruling; he is invoking the Democrat-dominated Commission on the Governorship. That's where the mischief lies.

State elections officials, speaking with reporters on background this afternoon, raised questions about the ability of the state and the county registrars to hold an orderly recall election if they get just 60 days notice, the minimum required by state Constitution. But the officials, from the office of Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, said the maximum time allowed —80 days-– wouldn’t be much better. One official warned that a Florida-style “disaster” might be in the offing, saying he feared that California might see a “failure” of its electoral system.

The comments sounded a bit on the panicky side to me, but the task ahead of elections officials is undeniably large.

Among the challenges:
--The counties must print 15 million ballots and 15 million sample ballots and deliver them to voters, and then process absentee ballot requests for millions of those voters.
--The state must print 12 million ballot pamphlets.
--The counties must arrange for 25,000 polling places and 100,000 poll volunteers, and make sure they are all trained.
--Several counties have junked their old punchcard voting systems and have just taken delivery of new voting systems, which they hadn’t planned to activate until March, 2004. They will need to get those up and running, test them, and train staff, volunteers and voters on how to use them.

Various problems in any of these areas could leave voters not knowing where to vote, not knowing what they are voting on, or not knowing how to use the voting equipment.

For the last statewide special election, in 1993, the counties had about 130 days to prepare.

An alert reader with a devilish mind prompts me to examine the legislative calendar for the rest of 2003 and consider how the recall might interact with the deadlines to produce some bizzare scenarios. Namely, the session ends Sept. 12, and the governor, whoever he may be, has until Oct. 12 to sign or veto hundreds of bills that come to his desk at the end of the session. Suppose the election, as appears quite likely, is Sept. 30 or Oct. 7, or, as is possible, even Sept. 23. That means that Davis will be in the middle of the bill-signing period when Election Day arrives. Forget the fact that this is a task that has been known to absorb 14 to 18 hours a day of the governor's time at its peak. Consider the potential effect on the campaign if he signs or vetoes a controversial bill in the days before the election (drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants, anyone?) And if he loses, and is forced out of office, will he remain in power long enough to act on bills after he has been ousted? Or would the new governor step into the job with 500 bills on his desk and 10 days to act on them? Oh what tangled webs....

UPDATE: Another reader points out that Kevin Shelley would have 28 days to certify the election results, and Davis would remain in office during that time. Which means, under that scenario, he would be free to decide the life or death of hundreds of bills after the voters have said they wanted him out. But he could do so at his leisure.

Garry South on the recall prize:

"Let's say you run and you win: what have you won? You get no transition period. You take over a staff appointed by Gray Davis. There are seven constitutional officers who are Democratic -- all of whom can investigate you, audit you and have press conferences on the steps of the Capitol against you. The budget deficit doesn't go away. Not one more job is created. It doesn't bring the economy back. It doesn't pay back the millions you've lost in homeland security. Except now the gum isn't on Gray Davis' shoes -- it's on yours. The highlight of your career will be the day you are elected. It will be all downhill from there."

From the San Francisco Chronicle. Here.

The story of the Democrats' taped strategy session is all over the papers this morning, and you can expect Republicans to try to pound home the story in a news conference scheduled for later today. While I think the conversation is revealing, I wouldn't make too much of it. The tape simply confirms that Democrats are politicians too. (They sometimes try to create another impression). Look, politics at its best is a tool for making public policy. As long as they're not breaking any laws, I'm not bothered by politicians trying to shape events to help further their beliefs. But let's be straight about this. We do know that if Republicans were caught on tape talking about delaying the budget to help the recall, there would be hell to pay.

The Bee's story on the flap is here.

One of the hidden benefits of term limits is that all the new legislators don’t always realize that the Capitol intercom system that normally broadcasts committee hearings is left on at odd times, and meetings they think are private end up being quite public. That’s apparently what happened this afternoon to a bunch of Assembly Democrats plotting budget strategy in a closed hearing room. Some alert Republican staffers, hearing the meeting on the Capitol squawk box system, taped a portion of it and have distributed a transcript. I haven’t heard the tape myself, so I can’t vouch for the precision of the transcription, so I am not going to quote it directly. But you will likely be hearing a lot about this tomorrow, and the gist is this: the Dems were speculating that a delay in adopting the budget would both hurt the Davis recall and help their effort to pass a ballot measure next year lowering the vote requirement for a budget from two-thirds to 55 percent. They mentioned polling and advice from the California Teachers Assn. along these lines. There were hints that it might be in the Dems best interest to drag out approval of the budget this summer, even as they speculated that the Senate would soon reach a deal and send a budget to the Assembly. Scandal? No. But more than a bit ironic, given that the Democrats have been accusing the Republicans of delaying the budget for partisan motives. Look for more on this in the morning papers.

Davis adviser Garry South and I appear on the Warren Olney radio show on KCRW in LA tonight at 7 p.m., discussing Arnold's viability as a candidate. Our discussion follows Olney's brief interview with California First Lady Sharon Davis. You can hear the program here now.

Sharon Davis did her usual fine job defending her husband, but she also let slip this line, which I can't believe was in her talking points:

"The governor's office is a buck-stops-here job. You are responsible. And so we expect our governor to make tough decisions."

It seems to me that she has zeroed in on exactly the weakness most likely to cost her husband his job.

Maybe California's crisis is about over: The national news magazines have discovered it. Newsweek does California on this week's cover, along with a q and a with the defiant gov.

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley says county officials are working "around the clock" to try to meet the Wednesday, 5 p.m. deadline for verifying all the Davis recall signatures they received by July 16.

"I have directed my staff to work closely with them to ensure they are proceeding in a timely and accurate fashion,” Shelley said in a statement just released to the media. “Each county will be assigned an individual elections expert who will assist them throughout the remainder of this process.”

It's not clear to me whether Shelley is sincere here or is merely trying to create the impression of urgency so that he can escape the wrath of the recall supporters if the job isn't done by Wednesday. We'll just have to see whether all his leaf-beating produces results, or not.

Shelley's office is posting updated totals of raw and verified signatures on the Secretary of State's website. See them here.

Election law expert Fred Woocher explains here why the $3,500 filing fee and 65 signatures that the Secretary of State has said will qualify anyone for the recall election might not apply. If Woocher is correct, the upcoming filing period might be a legal donnybrook. Hat tip to Election Law blogger Rick Hasen.

The LA Times has a solid, and sensitive, story on a touchy topic: the rising cost of wheelchairs that the state buys through the Medi-Cal program for the poor. Turns out there’s evidence that California, unlike other big buyers, doesn’t use its clout to negotiate lower prices on high-tech chairs that can cost tens of thousands of dollars each. We’re basically paying retail. Last year’s tab: $66 million. It’s stories like this that leave you wondering. Maybe there is a way to cut costs without eliminating services. But as long as the debate centers on programs and not efficiencies, we’ll never get there. The story is here. Registration required, but use mine: californiainsider/insider

The gov kicked off his anti-recall campaign in San Francisco with familiar themes Saturday, telling 225 supporters that the drive to remove him from office is a contest between the future and the past. "This election is not about changing governors,” Davis said. “This is about changing direction. We want to go forward. They want to go backward." You will be hearing that line a lot in the coming days, along with the complaint that the special recall election will cost $30 million or more. Recall supporters will counter that the chronic budget shortfall is costing the state that much -- and more -- every day. And then there’s this: the law allows a governor who survives a recall to be reimbursed by the taxpayers for the expense of defending himself. So it could actually be cheaper to remove Davis than to keep him. The Bee’s story on the SF rally is here.

Two recent UCLA grads have started an "Arnold for Governor" site that appears to be more than just a fanzine. Looks as if it could be the start of a trend that I've predicted will sweep Arnold in if he runs: young voters and voters who have generally tuned out of the political process will get behind him. They won't be the only ones, but they will give him a ton of energy and volunteers. If he runs, it will be as a Republican. But the campaign would look a lot like a third-party insurgency.

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley just announced that he has ordered the 58 counties to verify all Davis Recall signatures submitted by July 16 and report the valid total to him by Wednesday, July 23. If the counties comply, this will almost certainly result in sufficient signatures being reported by Wednesday to qualify the recall for the ballot. Once Shelley determines that the counties have verified a sufficient number of signatures, he will certify the count and the election clock will start ticking. The election will be 60 to 80 days after Shelley issues that certification. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante will officially set the date, but his discretion will be limited. Unless further court action interrupts the process, the election will likely be on either Sept. 30 or Oct. 7. If Shelley and Bustamante were to act immediately on Wednesday or Thursday, the election could be as early as Sept. 23, but that's unlikely. Shelley said he was issuing the order in reaction to the appellate court action Friday in Sacramento.

Read Shelley's directive here. A one-page PDF file.

REMINDER: The filing deadline for candidates who decide to run in the race to replace Davis is 59 days before the election. So y'all get ready to sign up, ya hear?

Green Party leader Peter Camejo, in this Sacramento Bee story, defends his decision to run in the recall, saying top Democrats have entered a "suicide pact" by agreeing not to have a candidate in the race. Combined with the Arianna boomlet, which doesn't look too serious at this point but is at least an outlet for frustration, I think it is becoming clear that the left will not sit idly through this election. Somebody is going to run and shatter the Davis message that the recall is a right-wing coup.

Arianna v. Arnold? The Hybrid v. the Hummer? Dion Nissenbaum waxes speculative in this morning's San Jose Mercury News.

Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has released Davis recall numbers he says reflect what the county clerks and registrars have reported to him as of 4 p.m. this afternoon.

Raw signature count: 575,926
Verified signatures: 33,504

Both the raw and verified count are quite a bit lower than you might expect if you have been following the story. The recall proponents say they have submitted 1.7 million signatures. Based on spot checks I did of their numbers earlier in the process, there is no reason to doubt them now. The best explanation for the lower figures Shelley is reporting is that these are unofficial numbers, and the checks are not foolproof. Also, don’t interpret the gap to suggest that the vast majority of the signatures are invalid. It simply reflects the fact that the counties haven’t gotten very far in verifying the signatures they have received.

Shelley plans to update the numbers regularly until the measure qualifies for the ballot or is otherwise disposed of. Check his website here.

Mickey Kaus might have nominated me for governor, but perhaps I'll begin my government career as a justice instead. The 3rd District Appellate Court has issued a ruling suggesting that Secretary of State Kevin Shelley was wrong when he told the counties that they need not verify the recall signatures as they come in but could wait a month to do so. Shelley and his bipartisan team of lawyers pounded me a couple of weeks back when I wrote that I believed he had misread the law. Now the court says it's inclined to rule against Shelley and is prepared to consider the matter in full on July 31. The issue might be moot by then, however, since almost all of the counties are verifying the signatures on schedule. But this ruling increases the likelihood that the election will be early, rather than late, perhaps as soon as the end of September.

Read the entire opinion here.

NOTE: This post was updated to reflect that the court action was a tentative opinion pending further hearing.

If the question over succession to the governor’s office in the event of a recall has legs, the debate will soon turn to sections of the state Constitution and Government Code that describe that process. And we find some interesting nuggets there.

Article V, Section 10 of the Constitution says the lieutenant governor becomes governor in the event of a vacancy. It also provides that the Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction “to determine all questions” regarding succession. And intriguingly, it calls for “a body” to be created by the Legislature to consider such questions, and gives that body exclusive standing to raise questions about vacancies.

The make-up of that Commission on the Governorship is described in section 12070 of the government code: President pro Tempore of the Senate, the Speaker of the Assembly, the President of the University of California, the Chancellor of the California State Colleges, and the
Director of Finance. That is, at the moment, three Democrats and two educational bureaucrats appointed by boards now controlled by Democrats.

The law gives the commission “exclusive authority” to petition the Supreme Court regarding vacancies in and succession to the office of Governor.

That seems to suggest that the question over the meaning of “if appropriate” in the recall section of the Constitution, if pressed, would be decided by the Supreme Court, and the only body with standing to press it is a commission dominated by Democrats.

I thought Dan Walters might be on to something with his theory that Bustamante could call a recall election that would include no successor election, allowing him to move up if Davis were ousted. But now I don't think so. It turns out the "if appropriate" phrase cited by Walters was added in a 1974 clean-up of the constitution that was written by a Constitutional Revision commission and approved by the voters. It was described as non-substantive, but in fact did change some important points. For instance, it eliminated the six-month grace period at the start of an officer's term, a factor that would have come into play in the Davis Recall.

There is no explanation in the ballot pamphlet for why those words were added. But looking back on the original provision, it's clear that the framers intended successor elections. It would be difficult to argue that such a fundamental change would have been contemplated in 1974 with no discussion or debate.

The original Constitutional provision, adopted in 1911, was quite lengthy and wordy, but it definitely called for a successor election along with the recall. In fact, the emphasis of the language was on the election of a successor, rather than on the recall itself. Part of the original language says this:

“The procedure hereunder to effect the removal of an incumbent of an elective public office shall be as follows: A petition signed by electors entitled to vote for a successor of the incumbent sought to be removed, equal in number to at least 12 percent of the entire vote cast at the last preceding election of all candidates for the office which the incumbent sought to be removed occupies…demanding an election of a successor to the officer named in said petition, shall be addressed to the secretary of state…”

The original amendment goes on to specify in some detail exactly how the ballot should look, including the listing of two questions, one on whether to recall the officer, the other on who should succeed him. All of this detail was removed from the Constitution in 1974 and moved to the elections code.

If you want to see it, Hastings College of Law has a database here. Warning, the pdf file is very large and extremely hard to read. The amendment is on page 10 of 37.

Alternatively, you can read the 1974 amendment, which has the original language stricken out but legible. That one is here.

Lots of juicy recall news this morning:

The Contra Costa Times has surveyed the counties and says they are well on their way to verifying enough signatures for an early election, perhaps as soon as the end of September.

My colleague Dan Walters spills out an intriguing scenario under which Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante could call the recall election but limit it to and up or down vote on Davis with no decision on a successor. Who would become governor if Davis were ousted? Bustamante. Read it here.

UPDATE. Read Election Law blogger Rick Hasen's take here, in which he casts doubts on the Walters' scenario.

The Bee also reports on a recall campaign strategy memo that lays out how the governor’s opponents should kill Davis softly.

Copley News Service has the latest on the FEC case involving an Arizona congressman that might foreshadow a ruling finding that Darrell Issa ran afoul of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law in his early financing of the recall campaign. If that happens, look for the Davis forces to label the entire effort illegitimate and sue (again) to halt the election.

Finally, did anyone notice DNC Chair Terry McAuliffe’s nod to democracy when he came to LA to defend Davis yesterday?

"I want the folks here in California to know that we are not going to have another Democrat on the ballot. I think that is the single biggest message I can give today," McAuliffe said. “If you are a California voter and you want to vote to recall Gray Davis, you are not going to have an option but a bunch of right-wing conservatives on the ballot."

Some of the San Francisco peace activists who protested to save Saddam before the war have now gone to Baghdad to keep a close eye on the U.S. military occupation forces and the private companies working on the reconstruction, reports the SF Chronicle. “This is a test of our rights – of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly – and we will press those to the full extent,” San Francisco activist Medea Benjamin tells the Chronicle. Among other things, the activists hope to establish Iraqi labor unions and an organization to work for human rights. Strange. I wonder why they waited until after the fall of Saddam to set up their human rights shop in downtown Baghdad.