The left doesn't like Prop 1A, which sets up a strong rainy day fund and limits spending. The right doesn't like Prop 1A either, because its passage would extend temporary taxes. So the coalition forming to fight the measure, one of six measures that came out of the budget deal and are on the May 19 special election ballot, has plenty of "strange bedfellows," the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

If anyone needs further proof that California is not quite a republic, look at the budget deal that appears to have saved the state from a fiscal disaster. (At least for now -- we could be at the brink again if the economy continues its downward march and state tax revenues slip even further below the current estimates).

The deal requires citizens to pass judgment on seven related ballot measures (At one point, a possible deal looked like there might be eight ballot measures, but in last-minute negotiations, it was decided that one measure--that would have involved docking the pay of lawmakers when they don't pass a budget on time -- was unconstitutional).

The LA Times (full disclosure: I'm a former staffer and still contribute pieces) has an excellent blog post, asking the public to help it decide what position to take on city Charter Amendment E, a ballot measure that would allow the city council and mayor to offer cash, tax reduction, or other incentives to businesses to come here. (It's not clear where such inducments are an illegal gift of public funds under current law). It's a new editorial method for the Times, and a good one. The post lets the public listen to audio of the editorial board's meetings with supporters and opponents of the amendment. And it gives the public a deadline -- the endorsement is scheduled for Feb. 22 -- to contribute. Times staffer and friend of the blog Robert Greene reports the paper is going to try something similar with two other charter amendments that appear on the March city ballot.

I think it's safe to call this a trend: there is momentum, across the country, for putting new restrictions on the ballot initiative process. In Oregon, top state officials are trying to clamp down on the number of initiatives. The same is true in Arizona.

Now comes the Missouri legislature, where bills have been introduced to require a 60 percent vote to pass an initiative -- and to raise signature requirements for qualifying measures. The super-majority requirement, if adopted (and Missouri came close to adoping limits on the process last year), would almost certainly to reduce the number of initiaties on the ballot. The signature requirement's impact would be different: it probably would merely add to the costs of qualifying initiatives, ensuring that only the  wealthiest people and interest groups can sponsor measures. In California, I've supported raising initiative signature requirements -- but only as part of an effort to reduce signature requirements for referenda. The Missouri bills seem directed at denying the public access to the ballot. More details on the Missouri legislation via Ballot Access News.

A solar energy measure is put on the ballot -- quickly, with no public debate, and with important public information kept secret. The LA Weekly tells the story.

It appears that even those who believe in space aliens are optimistic about President Obama.

Readers of this blog know your blogger has been closely monitoring the effort to qualify a ballot initiative in the city of Denver to establish an extraterrestial commission. It's being pitched as a sort of civil defense thing--preparation for attack (and Denver is at some altitude, so the aliens would probably go their first).

Now the initiative's sponsor, Jeff Peckman, says he's putting the measure on hold. He tells the Rocky Mountain News that the initiative isn't needed because he's confident Obama will take the ET threat seriously. Perhaps this is part of the new Obama diplomatic strategy of engaging our adversaries.

Add State Controller John Chiang to the list of California officials who believe that the way out of the budget stalemate may involve kicking difficult questions of taxation to voters. He told the San Francisco Chronicle in an interview that if Republican and Democratic legislators can't agree on budget cuts and tax increases, "they may at least be able to agree to let voters make a choice." The full story is here.

I have begun to wonder whether the folks who persist in these idiotic, counter-productive protests against the victorious Prop 8 are more interested in self-righteousness than in marriage equality. Police in riot gear had to be called to the El Coyote Mexican Cafe on Beverly Boulevard in Los Angeles last night, where a restaurant manager, a Mormon, committed the grievous sin of expressing her religious views and giving $100 to Yes on 8.

The manager in question was wrong to vote the way she did, but I don't think targeting her is going to change any minds. If anything, it's likely hardening attitudes against same-sex marriage. And there's anecdotal evidence that it's turning off even those who folks who support same-sex marriage and voted No on 8. (As she peered into my eyes yesterday, my optometrist said that she and her husband had voted No on 8 but were upset by the targeting of El Coyote, a favorite eatery of theirs).. Could these protests, rather than producing shame in Yes on 8 supporters, produce embarassment in those on the side of the protestors? More protests are expected tomorrow in California, including a major event in downtown Los Angeles.

Why are Oakland teachers opposing Measure N, a parcel tax to raise their pay? The answer is complicated, and revolves around the fact that the state government has taken over the schools and is calling the shots. A full description is here.

It's hard to make an argument against California's Proposition 12, a $900 million bond ot provide housing aid to California veterans. But there's one aspect of the campaign that makes me nervous. It's being led by a state agency.

State agencies should not be involved in any way, shape or form in the campaigns for or against a ballot measure.  That goes double when the state agency in question offers the program being funded. But in looking for information on Prop 12, the official state ballot guide directs you to the California Department of Veterans Affairs. (www.cdva.ca.gov).

The state government needs to fix this and make clear it's not taking sides in the matter. It's bad precedent. In the case of Prop 12, the measure is uncontroversial. But we should make clear this sort of thing doesn't happen again, when the issue is tougher.