In the aftermath of Prop. 93's narrow defeat (and by the way, Arnold, we do have to move on now, because, you know, the voters didn't vote for it. Brilliant stuff, Gov), Anthony York reports the first candidate for the new Senate leader:
Now that Proposition 93 has been rejected by voters, the races to replace the two legislative leaders are officially under way.
Sacramento Democrat Darrell Steinberg was the first to publicly announce his candidacy to replace Senate leader Don Perata Wednesday.
"It's no secret that I'm going to run for the position and I'm going to run hard," said Sen. Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento. "Obviously, it's a decision for the caucus to make and I know this, whatever happens, the election will be amicable,something that reflects the congeniality of the senate. That is the tradition. I expect it will be that way."
Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Los Angeles, also is a contender to succeed Perata. Conversations with several senators indicate that Padilla is actively seeking votes. Steinberg has been the prohibitive front-runner for the job since his election in 2006. Padilla, a former president of the Los Angeles City Council, is said to have waiting for a formal OK from Perata to begin seeking votes.
I'm a pretty big fan of Sen. Steinberg, for his engagement with Calitics and his advocacy for the mental health victims that the Governor tried to throw out on the street last year.
Rampant speculation begins in the comments!
UPDATE by Brian: Might as well throw in all the speculation together. Over at Capitol Alert, Shane has a good run down of all the competitors for Speaker. The problem with the Assembly, is that many of the so-called candidates will be termed out in 2010. That being said, I'm not sure I could take a real position on this other than to say that I would really not be comfortable with a Speaker Calderon. Really, really not comfortable. I have a lot of respect for Asm. Fiona Ma for her work on toxics and high speed rail and it might be a good time for a female Speaker, there has never been a female Speaker as far as I can tell. But, there are a number of interesting candidates, and we'll have to keep our eyes out to ensure we get the most progressive Speaker and Pres Pro Tem as possible.
UPDATE by Dave: From the comments and via email from Anthony York, "Dorris Allen was speaker for about three months, thanks to WIllie Brown, back in 1995 or so."
Today I'm headed out to the OC for the Democratic Party of Orange County annual convention, where I'm participating on a panel about Prop. 93 (and debating Tim Steed of the California Young Democrats). I respect the opinion of those on this site and elsewhere who support Prop. 93. I can't join them for the following reasons:
When Arnold Schwarzenegger endorsed Prop. 93, some considered it the result of some deal on health care or some other quid pro quo. I thought it was much simpler than that.
Schwarzenegger has a good working relationship with Fabian Nuñez and Don Perata. He for the most part gets what he wants out of that relationship. Why would he want to change it for his last two years in office? The pessimist's view would be "Why would he want to housebreak someone else when these two are already housebroken?" The optimist's view is "He's moving forward on his agenda, why rock the boat?"
Schwarzenegger said he has developed a "trust" with sitting legislative leaders and hopes to continue to work with them. The governor said he felt a loss when former Senate leader John Burton was termed out of the Legislature.
"I just got this groove going with this guy and we got to understanding each other and all of a sudden he's being ripped away," Schwarzenegger said.
The governor said he and current lawmakers would be better able to tackle major issues facing the state, from the budget crisis to the state's need for $500 billion worth of infrastructure improvements.
Besides, he said, "I really want some of those guys to stay."
It's a selfish view from the standpoint of Schwarzenegger (should the governor really be picking the majority leaders in the opposite party?), but perfectly coherent. He wants to continue the working relationship. In the short term, it's up to the voters to decide if that working relationship is good for California. I think the sum total of this site could be "Exhibit A," but your mileage may vary.
(As a side note, interesting how this experience vs. change question continues at the state level, no? Of course, we must wonder about the right kind or the wrong kind of experience.)
oftening his past opposition to changes to California's term-limits law, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is endorsing a February ballot measure that would allow many sitting lawmakers to run for office again this year rather than be forced to leave the Legislature.
Schwarzenegger, who as a candidate in 2003 supported California's existing term-limits law as a shield against "special interests" obtaining too much power, reversed himself in an essay released today that said the original law "went too far."
"Under the current system, our elected officials are not given the time they need to reach their full potential as public servants," Schwarzenegger wrote in an essay to be published in The Times on Tuesday. "Imagine what would happen if we told a big-city police chief or a sheriff he could stay in the job just long enough to start mastering it and then had to move on."
The op-ed announcing the endorsement is here, and it amusingly includes the line "It takes time to learn how to govern effectively." You said it, Arnold, not me. Also, considering you're in your fifth year, what's your excuse?
The No on 93 campaign is kind of freaking out about this, calling it the result of a "deal on healthcare."
I just saw the first ad for Yes on 93 on cable; you can view it here. The No on 93 folks also have a couple ads cut; they're available here.
Unfortunately, it's going to be very hard for both sides to get their message out. Not only are we going to start seeing at least some resources from the Presidential candidates at some point, but the tribal gaming initiatives are due to swamp every other ballot measure and take all of the oxygen out of the room. I'm already sick of their ads.
On Friday, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, one of the big four tribes who stand to gain from passage of Propositions 94 to 97 and 17,000 new slot machines, contributed $30.8 million in support of these propositions. This brings the total to the yes on 94-97 campaign to $68 million dollars, dwarfing not only the amount raised by opponents who seek to overturn the legislature's approval of the slot machine compacts. But all contributions made on the other ballot measures being considered February 5, 2008-including term limits.
This may be only the beginning of money spent, almost exclusively by the tribes on the yes side.
The second largest amount of money on ballot propositions in this cycle is on the "no" side of the Prop 94-97 gambling propositions, and most of it also comes from tribes-those who are not part of the arrangement with the four tribes. At least $11.5 million of the opposition funding comes from "Tribes for Fair Play" out of what appears to be $28 million raised in opposition. There is substantial money- millions each from race tracks and labor that make up the balance. A significant portion of the money raised by opponents was spent on qualifying the four referenda for the ballot.
Russo moved the number down to $54.5 million after further study. But that's still at least five times of what any other proposition has.
So it's unclear who this helps, but to the extent that people are thinking about the ballot initiatives at the polls, it won't be Props. 92 or 93, it seems.
Boy, if you managed to stumble upon pages M8 and M9 of Sunday's LA Times yesterday, you sure picked up a great deal of information. On M8 was our buddy Robert's excellent critique of the Times' coverage of tax policy. And on M9 was a column by Anthony York of Capitol Weekly, which seeks to explain why legislative Democrats appear to be negotiating with themselves on health care reform. We learn that the Governor is basically holding his endorsement of Prop. 93 hostage in exchange for getting his way on health care.
Nuñez is scheduled to be termed out of the Assembly in November. If Proposition 93 passes, however, he could serve in the Assembly -- and presumably as speaker -- for six more years. If the measure fails, Nuñez would immediately become a lame-duck speaker, and talk of a successor would begin Feb. 6.
That's why he desperately needs Schwarzenegger's endorsement of Proposition 93. Most observers believe that voters will defeat the measure if it lacks the governor's seal of approval.
But Schwarzenegger's support comes at a price. The governor has consistently used Nuñez's desire to change the term-limits law as leverage in his negotiations with the speaker about healthcare reform, and it seems to be paying off.
