Schwarzenegger

Just got off the phone with Ted Costa, the original proponent of the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis that put Schwarzenegger in the governor's office.

Costa, who runs a small taxpayer group called The People's Advocate, hasn't made any decisions, but he expressed interest in the recall and said he had left a message for prison guards' union official Lance Corcoran offering to meet with CCPOA. When I asked him if he would support the recall of Schwarzenegger, Costa replied: "Anything's possible, including me support a recall. That's all possible. Yes it is."

Costa thinks that if a recall qualified for the ballot, Schwarzenegger could be in real trouble. Costa said he would expect potential successors who are planning runs for 2010 to run to succeed Schwarzenegger if he's recalled. "All they have to do is turn the signatures in, and the governor has to get more than 50 percent of the vote to stay in office. The other candidates only need to beat each other," Costa said. "You could get four or five candidates, you could wear them down."

"By no means do I see this as a slam dunk for the governor," Costa added. "He's pissed off everybody."

Costa said he thought the prison guards' union might have done better to wait a little before making public their interest in a recall. "They should have covered their bases before they went public, and maybe built a coalition," he said.

Recalls are different than initiatives and referenda. You don't simply file the petition itself first. When and if the prison guards' union launches the process Monday morning, they'll file a notice-of-intent-to-recall petition. That document will list the reasons for the recall. It has to have the signature of 65 voters. Gov. Schwarzenegger will then have the right to file a response to the notice. Then the actual recall petition may be filed and circulated.

Recalls require more signatures than initiatives or referenda. The standard is -- an amount equal to 12 percent of the total number of votes in the most recent gubernatorial election, in 2006. That number is currently 1,041,530 signatures about 950,000 signatures -- a very manageable figure. With little competition from other ballot measures (there are currently no statewide initaitves on the street), It's likely that the union could qualify the measure for less than $3 million.

More basics are available via the IGS Library at Berkeley. And at the Secretary of State's web site.

Lance Corcoran, a spokesman for the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, tells a Sacramento TV station that paperwork will be filed Monday.

California's powerful prison guards' union, which has warred with the state over its contract for years, is taking a " very hard look" at the idea of filing a petition to recall Gov. Schwarzenegger, a spokesman tells the San Francisco Chronicle. If the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. were to pursue the idea seriously, they'd likely get it on the ballot. The union has the power to pay signature gatherers. Whether this is a smart political move would be debatable.

There would be reason for Schwarzenegger to worry. He's unpopular with state voters, and the ongoing budget stalemate won't help his ratings. He's been on the wrong side of any number of interest groups who might love to exact some revenge And Schwarzenegger's celebrity -- a major factor in his winning election in the 2003 recall -- could draw support for a recall from folks who simply want attention. Recall the governor who won in a recall. It's irresistible.

The California Teachers Assn. is the 500-pound strongman of the state's politics. Republicans like to criticize the union, and Democrats privately grumble about its power. But whether you like the union's policies or not, it has a better record of delivering politically than any politician or any other interest group in California. In a state full of talkers, CTA is a doer.

I recently mused on Facebook about which might arrive first: Christmas or a new budget agreement for California, which is already more than two months late. A conservative friend quickly responded with his hope that Christmas would come first.

You might call the Republican legislative strategy in California the Doomsday Approach. And it's not a threat. Republicans seem more than happy to usher in the closing of state government. California will run out of cash within a month. It's not at all clear that the governor could keep the state open if that happened. But for Republicans, there might be very little to lose. The party is already terribly unpopular in the state. There's little hope of any change in that. Nearly all of the Republican legislators are insulated from being kicked out of office in November by a gerrymander. And Republicans have little hope of gaining any new seats from Democrats because of the same gerrymander. Republicans already have thrown their best-known, best-liked politician, Arnold Schwarzenegger, under the bus, all but dismissing him as a Democrat. The California GOP is stuck at the bottom of the pit. So why not blow up the state? There's nowhere to go but up.

Shane Goldmacher at the Sacramento Bee has this excellent item about the problems being created for the November election by the legislature and governor's ability to reach a budget deal. Such a deal would likely include a ballot measures, and the deadlines have been blown. State and county officials are worried about the ability to print and ship ballots. A politically important deadline is upon us. Next Friday, Sept. 5, is the day that international ballots go out to troops serving overseas.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, in a bid to pressure the legislature to adopt a budget, has refused to sign any and all legislation that doesn't have to do with the budget. Yesterday, however, he backed off, telling lawmakers in a letter -- here courtesy of the Sacramento Bee --  that he would make an exception for four bills that have to do with ballot measures. One would make changes to a high-speed rail bond that is already on the November ballot. Another is a water bond that he has long sought. In the letter, he also asked legislators to send him measures related to the budget -- on borrowing against future lottery revenues, and on establishing a rainy day fund -- so they could be placed on the November ballot. The ballot deadline passed more than a week ago, but lawmakers and the governor seem to believe they can  suspend some legal requirements and sneak a few things in. I'm not at all sure they're right. At this point, they are banking on the full cooperation of county officials who administer elections, and the state's habit of failing to reimburse them for the full costs of extra elections and last-minute changes means that some county officials will only be as cooperative as the law requires.

Now California's legislative leaders support Gov. Schwarzenegger's call for a special election in 2009, which came after a call by your blogger for just such an election. Memo to the consultants, pollsters, mail firms, etc.  who profit from ballot measures: As you're writing out your thank-you notes, please remember there is only one "t" in Mathews.

There's nothing more fun for blockbuster democracy types than a special election. In such cases, the initiatives are the real stars. And, apparently leaping at a suggestion first offered on this blog, Gov. Schwarzenegger on Thursday put the possibility of a special election on the table, saying he might have to call one if the budget drags on.

Why? Because ballot measures changing the budget process -- and perhaps the state lottery -- likely will be part of any budget compromise. And the deadline for adding measures to the November ballot appears to have passed.

Most political consultants I know think that Schwarzenegger would be crazy to call a special election. It would remind people of the 2005 special he called (For you non-Californians out there, it turned into a debacle: all eight measures on the ballot went down to defeat, including four that Schwarzenegger championed). Measures that otherwise might garner support could have a tough time on an '09 ballot simply because they are associated with a special election.

But I think a special could be a healthy exercise. It would force the state to focus on its budget problems. And it also could provide an opportunity for the public to consider badly needed tax reform measures. If there is to be a special, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass ought to insist that any constitutional changes produced by her tax reform effort be a part of the ballot line-up.