By Howard Fine
After weeks of gathering hundreds of thousands of signatures, proponents of all the initiatives vying for qualification on a statewide special election ballot are wondering whether there will be a special election after all.
Driving the uncertainty is a provision in the state constitution that makes a decision to pursue a statewide initiative irrevocable once signatures are submitted to county registrars. The generally agreed upon last day to submit signatures to qualify initiatives for a presumed Nov. 8 special election is May 6.
Before that date, initiative backers can choose not to submit signatures if they can strike a deal with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature.
For example, proponents of an initiative to cut the prices of prescription drugs and industry backers of a counter-initiative to bar unions from using dues for political purposes are now in discussions to try to reach a compromise.
The initiative to bar union dues could also figure in another fight between business and labor over a labor and education initiative to allow commercial properties to be taxed at market value instead of reduced rates under Proposition 13,a hit on business estimated at nearly $3 billion.
“All these initiative backers are running up against a very tight timetable and they are realizing that a special election could be risky as well as expensive,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies.
Schwarzenegger already has pulled back support from an initiative to convert public pensions to 401(k) defined contribution plans. There’s also been speculation that he may be willing to deal on his remaining three initiatives, including a redistricting overhaul, merit pay and tenure changes for teachers and stricter state spending limits.
Discussions on a redistricting compromise between Schwarzenegger and Senate president pro-tempore Don Perata, D-Oakland, have been taking place for weeks.
Schwarzenegger has until mid-June to decide whether to call a special election. If he decided against it, then any initiatives that qualify would appear on the next regularly scheduled ballot in June 2006.
High-Speed Rail Halted?
The $10 billion high-speed rail bond measure that’s already been postponed once could be postponed again.
Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Fremont, has a bill to postpone the bond to the November 2008 ballot from the November 2006 ballot.
The rail bond measure to build the Los Angeles-to-San Francisco backbone of a high-speed rail network was supposed to have been on the November 2004 ballot. But that summer, as the state was borrowing nearly $15 billion in bonds to help close a budget deficit, backers believed voters would reject the high-speed rail bond, so they got Sen. Kevin Murray, D-West Hollywood, to author a bill to push the measure back to 2006, when they hoped the state’s budget picture would be brighter.
Torrico now is using the same argument,that voters are unlikely to pass the measure with the state still mired in multibillion dollar deficits. And he has the support of Murray, who sits on the Senate Transportation Committee.
Proponents of the bond measure say that the delay would only push up the cost to build the rail network should voters ultimately approve it.
Fine is a staff reporter with the Los Angeles Business Journal.
