Special Election 2005

June 13, 2005

The following is the prepared text Governor Schwarzenegger's address to Californian's announcing his decision to call a special statewide election in November 8, 2005:

Good evening.

When you elected me governor, I made a promise. I said I would put California's financial house in order and reform a government that no longer listened to the people.

The most important thing we did last year was to save this state from bankruptcy... and we let the world know that California was once again open for business.

Today, our economy is growing, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

Revenues are up.

We're putting money back into roads and transportation. Most important, we are investing more money in education than ever in our history - three billion dollars more for education this year, fifty billion dollars total. Education spending is up eight percent this year.

But serious problems remain. We cannot continue a budget system that automatically spends a dollar ten for every dollar we take in.

Without reform, we are destined to relive the past all over again- 22 billion dollar deficits, higher car taxes, and the threat of bankruptcy.

Some politicians say the answer is to raise taxes. They say, "Bring back the car tax, Arnold. Raise the income tax. Get rid of Prop 13."

But I say no. I did not come to Sacramento and you did not send me here to repeat the mistakes of the past.

I know some people say, "Arnold, why not wait until next year? Why have a special election now?"

But how can we just stand around while our debt grows each year by billions of dollars? If you break your arm, you don't wait until your next physical.

You get it fixed now.

That's why I say don't wait until next year or the year after because every year we're adding billions of dollars in new debt.

Even if we reach a bipartisan agreement in the Legislature to bring about reform, constitutionally the people must still vote. There must still be an election.

People ask about the cost of the election. Well, do the math: for a buck and a quarter per citizen, you can fix a broken system and save the state billions of dollars. Now remember this is your money. That is a fantastic bargain!

In my state of the state speech in January, I said that if the Legislature did not act on reforms this year, the people of California would.

The people are the ones who wield the power. The people are the ones who can cut through the chains of politics and the past. It is from the people that a democracy gets its strength.

And millions of people have signed the petitions to reform the budget, education and redistricting.

Today was decision day, the deadline for a special election this November.

With those millions of people who signed petitions standing behind me, today I signed an executive order calling for a special election.

I still hope the Legislature will join me, and we can go to the ballot together with a bipartisan plan.

Last year we accomplished so much because we worked together, Republicans and Democrats alike.

But one way or another, with the people's help, there will be action this year.

With the people's help there will be reform.

Our broken state government will be modernized and revitalized.

And you the people will be heard.

Text of Senate Leader Don Perata's Response to the Governor's Address Calling a Special Election to Reform California

June 13, 2005

This special election is not about the Legislature.

It’s about the Governor wanting to star in another war movie.

Only this is a war he alone has started.

Governor, tonight I want to address you on behalf of all Californians.

First, stop using the legislature as your excuse for calling this election. You know better.

While you’ve been distracted, fundraising across the country and pushing your special-interest initiatives, the Legislature has been hard at work.

We’ve proposed health care reform, housing reform and transportation reform – all to make California more secure, prosperous and affordable.

You asked for our proposals and we offered proposals -- for redistricting reform. For pension reform. And ideas for fixing California’s education system that go far beyond anything you’ve just placed on the November ballot. But, apparently, your focus has been on other things.

On Wednesday, after working with your Department of Finance, we will offer a balanced, bipartisan budget -- on time for the first time in years. With no new taxes.

Governor, listen to the people. Californians want us to break from partisan bickering and do the job they sent us here to do. You and us.

They want us to invest in our children’s schools -- and invest wisely.

They want emergency health care when they need it.

They want to get out of traffic and get home to their families.

Most of all, Governor, they want you to use your talents to lead the state, not turn it over to special interests like the pharmaceutical industry, which will spend up to $100 million on your special election.

After all, the true test of leadership is not how many elections you win or votes you get, but what you do with the trust the voters have granted you.

Governor, if you’re willing to strip away all the partisanship and political games, and work with us, we’ll meet you more than halfway.

Text of Assembly Leader Fabian Nunez's Response to the Governor's Address Calling a Special Election to Reform California

June 13, 2005

"Good evening. I'm Fabian Núñez, the Speaker of your California State Assembly. When Governor Schwarzenegger took office, we were promised a new day in California. And, for a while, things were different. Democrats and Republicans laid down their partisan arms. We reached common ground for the common good. Together, we reformed workers comp. We drew the line on future spending and borrowing. And we passed a balanced budget.

"We didn't seek a Republican solution nor a Democrat solution, but the right solution for California.

"But then things changed. Without warning or provocation, this Governor stopped attacking California's problems --- and started attacking Californians. Instead of bringing us together, he drove us apart. Instead of working with us, he demeaned and threatened California's real-life action heroes – our firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, even our nurses. And, now, after months of name-calling, finger-pointing and scapegoating, we have come to this point.

"Tonight, the Governor pulled the trigger on a special election no one needs and few Californians even want. His decision automatically costs the state 80 million taxpayer dollars – your dollars – money we desperately need for schools and roads.

"In the end, this Governor has invested everything in an election about nothing.

"Make no mistake: not one of the Governor's initiatives in this special election will help fix a single school. Or shave a single minute off your commute to work. Or make it easier for you to afford health care or housing or a college education. What this election will do is once again crowd our airwaves with negative, deceptive political ads, pit Californians against one another and create a permanent, divisive distraction from the real issues facing our state.

"Another election is not the solution. It's the problem. As the old saying goes, when you spend all your time slinging mud, you end up losing ground."

Text of State Treasurer Phil Angelides' Response to the Governor's Address Calling a Special Election to Reform California

June 13, 2005

"The Governor's announcement marks a sad day for this state. Instead of fulfilling his promises to balance the budget without borrowing and to protect education, Governor Schwarzenegger has decided to launch a political battle to bring the Bush agenda to California.

"In the same way that President Bush promised to be a 'compassionate conservative' and 'a uniter, not a divider,' Governor Schwarzenegger ran for office speaking the language of moderation and promising to be the people's governor. Like Bush, he has now become the most divisive governor in our history.

"For what great purpose has the Governor called this special election at the cost of $80 million? Not to invest in the transportation networks we need for the 21st century. Not to challenge Californians to provide the funding and the innovations needed to educate our young people to compete in the global economy. Rather, he has called this election and is raising millions of dollars from corporate special interests across the country to impose the Bush-Schwarzenegger policies of division and diminished opportunity on the people of California.

"The Schwarzenegger agenda is the Bush agenda. Bush wants to privatize social security and Schwarzenegger wants to privatize the pensions of teachers, police officers, and firefighters. Both have heaped massive debt on our children and then tell us we must live within our means. Both have promised to protect education and then both have broken their promises. Schwarzenegger now hopes to bring the common Bush-Schwarzenegger agenda to this bluest of blue states.

"I am hopeful that the people of California will see through the Governor's deception and dishonesty. I will fight hard against the Governor's harmful agenda and for a more hopeful vision of our future."

Text of State Superintendent Jack OConnell's Response to the Governor's Address Calling a Special Election to Reform California

June 13, 2005

"At a time when California schools are being shortchanged by $3.1 billion, it is appalling that Governor Schwarzenegger would call for a special election that will cost the taxpayers $80 million – less than a year away from our next statewide general election.

"Calling for a costly special election is needlessly wasteful. We should be using every available penny of state funds to make critical investments that improve our future and move California forward.

"Our schools, for example, could put $80 million to good use by extending our class size reduction program to an additional 82,730 students, by providing 800 additional counselors in our schools, or by providing a 20 percent increase in the funding for instructional materials for our students.

"The Governor says the special election is necessary for passage of his so-called ‘Live Within Our Means Act,’ a measure that would eviscerate the promise of at least a minimum level of funding for public education as a result of the voter-approved Proposition 98. He wants the public to trust that he would put the interests of kids first. But Governor Schwarzenegger has already broken his word to students, teachers, and parents by underfunding public education by $3.1 billion.

"It is a sad irony that we live a state that is the fifth largest economy in the world, but funding for our schools ranks eighth from the bottom of all 50 states. Wasting money on a special election does nothing to improve this sorry statistic."

Text of House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's Response to the Governor's Address Calling a Special Election to Reform California

June 14, 2005

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on Governor Schwarzenegger's call for a special election in November that would cost California more than $80 million:

"Governor Schwarzenegger's special election is unnecessary, fiscally unsound, and unpopular among Californians. The same people who brought you the illegal and unconstitutional redistricting in Texas are moving to California to work on the governor's redistricting initiative.

"It is unfathomable that while the state is in a financial crisis the governor would spend $80 million on a special election to redistrict California, and potentially millions more to redraw congressional district lines in the middle of decade. These critical dollars would be better spent to meet the needs of California’s families by creating jobs, improving education and making college more affordable, increasing access to health care, protecting the environment, and ensuring the state is secure."

CTA Press Release Prior to Announcement

BURLINGAME – The 335,000-member California Teachers Association strongly condemns the $80 million November special election that Governor Schwarzenegger is almost certain to declare later today as a waste of taxpayer dollars.

"The governor is wasting taxpayer money to hold an election that nobody wants and to push an agenda that will hurt our public schools, kids and local communities," said CTA President Barbara E. Kerr. "And the plan announced by his advisors to use the election to create a 'phenomenon of anger' against teachers, nurses, firefighters and other public employees breaks his promise to unite our state for the public good."

Special Election Call to Action: Speak Out, Send a Letter to the Editor

On Monday June 13, the verdict came in: Driven by his own arrogant, special-interest driven agenda, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger made the decision to call a Special Interest statewide election for November 8, 2005.

We need your help to make sure Gov. Schwarzenegger understands that most Californians do not agree with his decision. Visit our advocacy center and send a letter to the editor to one of your local newspapers - it's easy to do, and it will get the message out.

Arnold could have easily chosen the more prudent approach by waiting until the June primary in 2006. But instead, after months of high dollar fundraising events, several out-of-state road trips to wine and dine his special interest partners (they sign the checks, he signs their legislation), Arnold once again picked up the gauntlet, throwing it at the feet of hardworking middle class families, seniors, kids, teachers, nurses, firefighters and others - California's "real people."

Gov. Schwarzenegger and the Republicans will spin this special election as cleaning up Sacramento by clearing out the special interests and putting the power back into the people's hands. But as the last few months have demonstrated, all he has done is handed off his "broom" to his special interest backers, giving them a free hand to do whatever they wanted to further their own agenda.

Arnold's plan all along has been to call the special November 8th election. He drew this battle line not just on June 13, but months ago when he broke his promises on education, started his name-calling rhetoric, and refused to work with the legislature.

Instead he would leave town to be among his fans and backers, and eventually had to start slipping in through back doors to avoid seeing the signs of discontent, because Arnold's real campaign slogan is "my way, or no way."

Reaction to Governor's Announcement - Quotes from Statewide Press Coverage

June 13, 2005

"This governor has invested everything in an election about nothing," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles). "The governor got elected by espousing a populist agenda. There is nothing here that reforms any aspect of California, that improves quality of life in this state for anybody."

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, called the Republican governor's proposals unpopular and the election unnecessary.

"What this election will do is once again crowd our airwaves with negative, deceptive, political ads and pit Californians against one another," he said. "It will create a permanent, divisive distraction from the real solutions facing California."

"After months of name-calling, finger-pointing and scapegoating, we have come to this point,'' Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said in a televised rebuttal. "Tonight, the governor pulled the trigger on a special election no one needs and few Californians even want.''

"Instead of bringing us together, he drove us apart," Nunez said. "Instead of working with us, he insulted and threatened California's real-life action heroes — our firefighters, law enforcement, teachers, and even our nurses."

"In the end, this governor has invested everything in an election about nothing," said Nunez, who delivered his televised rebuttal in front of a school blackboard. "Make no mistake: not one of the governor's initiatives in this special election will help fix a single school. Or shave a single minute off your commute to work. Or make it easier for you to afford health care or housing or a college education."

Dan Schnur, a veteran Republican consultant, said a ballot fight was inevitable because "there's no way the Legislature would ever pass any of these things."

"Arnold's playing for some pretty big stakes," said Bruce Cain, director of the Institute for Governmental Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. "This is about changing the rules so he can govern more easily." "He's going up a very steep hill, but it's clear that his party base won't let him retreat,'' said Cain. "What saves Arnold is that his threshold for winning is so low.''

"The warring parties have really made us a sideshow in Sacramento," said state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, an Oakland Democrat. "They have diminished the Legislature."

Democratic state Treasurer Phil Angelides, who wants to run against Schwarzenegger next year if the governor seeks reelection, accused him of "misleading the people of California into this special election." He predicted that "before this is over, this special election will be Arnold Schwarzenegger's Iraq."

"It appears the public doesn't have a full grasp about how their tax dollars are being spent and what the consequences are," he said.

"We didn't want to get into a bloody battle today," said Janis Mickel-Szichak, a coordinator with Service Employees International Union Local 1000. "It's going to get worse over the summer."

Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said in a statement that the business community will aid Schwarzenegger. "We will work hard to educate voters on the true merits of these measures," he said.

Barbara Kerr, president of the teachers association, said in a statement that the governor is holding an election "that nobody wants and to push an agenda that will hurt our public schools, kids and local communities."

Don Nielsen, local representative for the California Nurses Association, called the special election "an incredible waste of money," especially when the regular June 2006 primary is just six months later.

"I think the strategy here is do [the election] at a time when they think turnout will be less. Republicans don't do well in general elections in California," he said.

"The state of California is today strapped for cash, and I think it is a mistake to spend tens of millions of dollars on a special election, just eight months before a scheduled election. These funds could certainly be used for a much better purpose — like improving our schools or closing the state's budget deficit." — U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat.

"One of the things that we do know through our polling is that having a balanced budget is very important to the voters of California. We need to do it sooner, rather than later." — Alan Zaremberg, president, California Chamber of Commerce.

"It's especially outrageous that the idea arises from the man who went to Washington in October 2003 bragging that he would be the 'collectinator,' using his newfound clout to scoop up federal funds for state projects, a promise that turned out to be merely rhetorical. Now that he's ready to be such a spendthrift, he should call himself the 'profligator.'" — U.S. Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Burlingame.

"In January of this year, Gov. Schwarzenegger asked the Legislature to work with him on financial, educational and governmental reforms to move California forward. It is unfortunate that the same majority party that found time to propose nearly $3 billion in tax increases this year refused to work with the governor on his reform agenda. It's time the politicians in Sacramento stop treating taxpayer dollars like their personal piggybanks and start acting in the best interest of California's working families." — Duf Sundheim, California Republican Party chairman.

"Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to call his taxpayer-funded special election is bad for politics and bad for California. Schwarzenegger ran for office as a nonpartisan, nonpolitical reformer. In two years he has devolved into a Bush-lite conservative politician who breaks his promises and sells out working people to satisfy his special-interest corporate donors." — Art Pulaski, California Labor Federation.

"This isn't digging coal. I have no patience for folks who say, 'I have voter-fatigue.' The governor's trying to solve problems. I fully support him." — Alan Autry, Fresno's Republican mayor.

"California has a growing health care emergency. But rather than improve health care access or quality, this governor is promoting a plan that will almost certainly produce severe reductions in vital health programs, while seeking to silence the voice of caregivers to protect the safety of patients and all Californians." — Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association.

“The governor says he wants to listen to the people,” said CSBA President Dr. Kerry Clegg. “Polls show that people don’t want a special election. The voters have shown that they support schools and minimum funding guarantees for education provided by Proposition 98.”

“The centerpiece of this special election is an initiative that would exacerbate an already inadequate education funding problem by eviscerating Proposition 98 and eliminating minimum funding guarantees for schools at a time when schools cannot afford to cut any more,” said Clegg.

"We’re being told by the governor that we must ‘live within our means,’ “said CSBA Executive Director Scott P. Plotkin. “And yet, he’s willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to hold a special election come November. California is in no position to spend millions of dollars in a special election, when vital programs are being cut and so many of our schools are struggling to make ends meet.”

"The governor is wasting taxpayer money to hold an election that nobody wants and to push an agenda that will hurt our public schools, kids and local communities. And the plan announced by his advisers to use the election to create a 'phenomenon of anger' against teachers, nurses, firefighters and other public employees breaks his promise to unite our state for public good." — Barbara Kerr, California Teachers Association.

By Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, June 14, 2005

OK, California. This is where we are supposed to cue the ominous music and run screaming through the streets, fearing for our lives, like the victims in some bad Godzilla movie. Why? Because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called a special election for Nov. 8.

To hear his opponents tell it, the governor's announcement amounts to anything from a tragedy to a calamity for California. We're told that legislators who would otherwise be hard at work solving the state's problems - yeah, right - are going to be hopelessly distracted because Schwarzenegger has asked the voters to weigh in on some important questions.

We heard this same gnashing of teeth from the political class two years ago, when the movement to recall former Gov. Gray Davis qualified for the ballot. The recall, we were told, was direct democracy run amok. It was going to tank the state's bond rating, scare off job-creating businesses, freeze policymakers. None of that happened.

Instead, Davis was sent packing, and Schwarzenegger was elected to replace him. But the Legislature, which remains pretty much the same today as it was back then, has blocked most of what the new governor has tried to do.

After a year of playing nice and getting not much in return, Schwarzenegger decided he actually wanted to accomplish something as governor. So he rolled out a series of policy reforms in January and challenged legislators to join him at the negotiating table in search of middle ground. For his troubles Schwarzenegger was ripped to pieces by millions of dollars worth of television commercials. But nobody ever did take him up on the offer to negotiate.

Now he is doing exactly what he promised to do all along. He is taking the issues to the people.

He's going to ask Californians to take the power to draw political boundary lines - the most basic building block of our political system - out of the hands of the Legislature and give it to an independent commission.

He is going to urge the adoption of a modest spending restraint to prevent the kind of deficits the state has faced for half a decade now, by smoothing out fluctuations in revenue and giving the governor more discretion to cut spending when tax receipts fall short of projections.

And he is proposing a tweak in the tenure laws to require teachers to work for five years rather than two before getting the kind of permanent status that makes it difficult to dismiss them, even if they perform poorly.

Schwarzenegger might also endorse a fourth measure that would get the government out of the business of collecting money from the paychecks of public employees - involuntarily - and giving it to their unions to use in political campaigns.

As he moves forward, Schwarzenegger is definitely the underdog.

The leadership of the California Teachers Association - the state's largest teachers union - voted the other day to levy a surcharge on its members to raise $50 million to fight the governor's proposals. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, which represents the prison guards, hopes to kick in another $18 million. And there will be more.

The unions will use that money to demonize the governor and his plans, and to raise the decibel level of the debate as loudly as possible. They know that voters tend to recoil at political conflict and wish everybody would just get along.

But that is exactly how California got into this mess to begin with. Schwarzenegger was elected to change state government, not get along. He was supposed to make some tough decisions and be willing to take the heat for them. Too often in his first 18 months, he has not shown the courage to do so.

Now he is. By not caving in this time, he is forcing Californians to begin to confront the big problems that plague this state.

It would be better if the governor's measures were bigger and bolder, more revolutionary. But several of them at least would change the political process in ways that would clear the path toward greater change later. Getting fair districts and more rational budgeting and reducing the influence of the public employee unions wouldn't fix all that ails California, but it would be a start.

Schwarzenegger is taking a big political risk, but even if he fails, life will go on. Rather than sitting still, frozen in partisan gridlock, he has thrown some ideas out there and asked the voters to endorse them. If they would rather stick with the status quo, or go in a different direction, that's information that he and everyone else in California need to know.

But let's drop the myth that if only Schwarzenegger had been willing to smoke a few more cigars with the Democrats who control the Legislature, this election would not have been necessary and they could have made wonderful music together. That's a civics book fantasy that nobody in government seriously believes.

It's not the special election that we have to fear. It's more of the same in the Capitol - which is exactly what we would be getting without the coming campaign and vote.

In California politics, there's no biz like show biz

By Peter Schrag, Sacramento Bee, June 15, 2005

"Back to Neverland" said the block capital letters at the top of the front page of Tuesday's San Francisco Chronicle. Everybody knew what that referred to, but the headline could just as well have applied to the other story of the day.

Michael Jackson's face occupied about 49 square inches in the middle of the page. Arnold Schwarzenegger's got 12 square inches down in the corner. He who lives by show biz can also die by show biz. On the programs that TV calls news, and around the office water cooler, it was no contest. Grotesque will top weird any day.

The talismanic quality of all this has already been noted. While Schwarzenegger, in what was designed to be a carefully scripted and timed announcement, struggles to elevate a familiar 30-year-old fiscal and governmental mess into an emergency requiring a special election, the Jackson jury, having decided that the mother of the alleged victim is even more reprehensible than the alleged perp, leaps in to steal the limelight. If the voters can give Schwarzenegger a pass on groping, why couldn't the jury give Jackson one for sleeping with boys? It was no contest. Even in a saner world, Schwarzenegger's announcement deserved its upstaging. What he proposed, a truncated version of his original agenda, which was itself simultaneously excessive and insufficient, will never clean up the mess.

It will just compound it and change its face and the power balance between the contestants - hand more clout to the governor and his corporate backers and take more from the Democrats in the Legislature and from the public employee unions on which so many of them depend.

That doesn't mean that the struggle is of no consequence. The Live Within Our Means Act would add to the state's governmental confusion, make the system more incomprehensible and Sacramento a still nastier place, and further alienate voters.

The initiative requiring public sector unions to get each member's consent to use his or her dues for political purposes is a major item on the right's union busting agenda and is likely to have major consequences in other states.

But neither of those proposals nor the initiative shifting control of the reapportionment process from the Legislature to a panel of judges has the urgency requiring a special election except as an exercise of power and a show of gubernatorial plumage. The teacher tenure initiative is the leavings of an abandoned merit pay idea that never had any substance. It has the urgency of a lizard on a warm rock.

Last year, the shtick was making deals. This year, it's making war. Bill Whalen, the longtime Republican strategist, calls it "the nuclear option." But why the change in tone and strategy, why the gratuitous attacks on teachers, nurses and public sector unions generally? Maybe Schwarzenegger's political consultants, who stand to make millions on the war, win or lose, got to his offended sense of macho and have taken over his body. Last year he was accused either of being taken by his negotiating partners, especially the prison guards, who seem to have gotten more from him than he got from them, or of wimping out. To say that Schwarzenegger, whose pride lies in his own sense of power and shrewdness, tends to be sensitive on both scores is a wild understatement.

But more important, campaigning may just be the thing he likes to do. The Nov. 8 special election that Schwarzenegger called Monday will be the sixth statewide election in three years. The details of governing California are complicated, nuanced and boring. A ballot fight is a matter of slogans, celebrity and money. It's simple - a matter of yes or no, a test of gubernatorial macho. It's what Schwarzenegger knows, his specialty.

The voters seem to sense that there's something wrong with this endless combat. And much as they distrust government, they also want it to work. For better or worse, they don't want to be bothered and assaulted endlessly with political hit pieces, either on TV or in the mail.

Maybe they're also beginning to sense that the initiative process wasn't designed as an instrument of gubernatorial power, much less as a lever for the corporations and millionaires who are funding Schwarzenegger's campaigns or for the unions that oppose him.

Not surprisingly, the special election is being played as the battle of the century - the governor's big test. But the real stakes are school funding; the state's fiscal health and its ability to provide high levels of public services; the balance of power between the branches of government; and the ability of voters to control and understand their government.

The voters who show up for November's special election may or may not fully understand that. They too may see it as a referendum either on Schwarzenegger or on "the system." But even in supporting him, they'll reinforce the system and make it still more impenetrable. Back to Neverland.

Bipartisan 'Reform' Plan Could Hand Victory to Both Sides

By George Skelton, Los Angeles Times, June 16, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's calling of a special election in November on his "reforms" was a sign, first and foremost, of failure.

But secondly, it was a sign of opportunity.

The failure was by the governor and legislators to compromise on issues they deemed important. Rather, the voters are being asked to settle quarrels that the politicians were elected to handle in Sacramento.

Not that this is anything new or the voters actually mind.

A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California found that voters, by 2 to 1, oppose a special election and feel decisions on these "reforms" should be delayed until the next regular election in June 2006.

But, by 3 to 1, they also want to make those decisions themselves — at least on "long-term budget and government reforms" — rather than trust it to the governor and Legislature.

Our system of democracy is set up for voters to have the final say on long-term overhauls of government.

But having the final say is not the same as arbitrating every argument over change, such as extending from two years to five the probationary period before teachers get tenure.

That, pathetically, is the sole contribution to "education reform" that Schwarzenegger is offering voters.

One failure lies with the Legislature behaving like the proverbial deer in the headlights and not responding to the governor's call for negotiation on his proposed "reforms" — most important, a state spending cap.

As his popularity plummeted, Democratic leaders became increasingly confident that they and their patron public employee unions could avoid compromising and steer voters away from the governor's proposals.

But the primary failure was Schwarzenegger's for being too preoccupied with initiative campaign photo-ops and nationwide fundraising to perform his role of governor.

This was the charmer, remember, who promised to "bring everybody together" and "end the politics as usual." He did for a while. Then he got into name-calling and demagoguing, as if looking for a fight — a tuneup for a 2006 reelection campaign.

Like Popeye with spinach, Schwarzenegger thrives on crowd cheers. But lately they've turned to jeers.

His poll numbers have fallen, and voters aren't excited about his "reforms" either. They're particularly not excited about the special election cost — even, presumably, a newly lowered price of roughly $50 million for the state's share.

"You can't keep harping on the cost of a special election after it's been called," asserts Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce and a coauthor of the governor's spending cap proposal.

"It's like harping about a basketball call after the play is over."

Myself, I could see harping on it until November like this: Vote no on everything. Send them a message. Stop wasting our tax money on frivolous elections that can wait.

Responds Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Round Table and principal author of the spending cap: "It's important to start the process of fixing the state's political system — and it's important not to wait. You can always wait."

OK, so here's the opportunity for both sides to settle. A special election is now a certainty, so they should negotiate a bipartisan "reform" package, offer it to the voters as a preferred alternative to the initiatives and avoid a bruising, obnoxious fight.

They have until around mid-August to pass legislation placing compromise measures on the ballot.

Here are some suggestions:

• Negotiate a spending cap that doesn't look so much like a power grab by the governor. But loosen up Proposition 98 to allow more state flexibility over school spending.
• Write a legislative redistricting reform that assures political neutrality, while still eliminating the Legislature's power to draw districts.
• As a sweetener for legislators, toss in "term limit" reform that would allow lawmakers to serve all their allotted years in one house. Also, permit them some type of retirement plan.
• For a Republican sweetener, make the public employees' pension system less generous.
• The governor would need to agree not to support an anti-union initiative aimed at making it more difficult to spend dues on politics.

There's ample incentive to compromise, or there should be. Despite all the bravado, neither Schwarzenegger and his business bankrollers nor Democrats and their union allies really can predict the voters' behavior on this. Both sides are taking a huge risk. And they have much more to lose than to gain.

True, if Schwarzenegger can coax voters into passing his spending cap, he'll be entitled to claim the mantle of "reformer."

But if his pleas are rejected, he'll lose credibility and clout. He'll need to do a mea culpa and promise to try to get along again in Sacramento. His stock won't fall to junk status, but his value will be diminished in the eyes of special-interest investors.

If the governor's initiatives are rejected, Democrats will think they've slain the giant. But that could be an illusion and turn into their worst nightmare. This man does not like to quit a loser. Rather than slink away from the Capitol and crawl back to Hollywood, the best bet is that he'd run for reelection and win.

And if Schwarzenegger's "reforms" are accepted, it could cost Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) their leadership posts in a Capitol purge. Caucus members might well ask, How'd we get led into this mess?

Either both sides compromise and claim victory — or the only sure winners will be the expanding army of campaign consultants raking in millions from special-interest donors.

It's politics, not reform

San Francisco Chronicle Editorial, June 14, 2005

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has not made a persuasive case that California needs to hold a special election on Nov. 8 for his three "reform" initiatives.

Polls show a distinct lack of public clamor to spend tens of millions of dollars for an extra election in a state where government at all levels is struggling to balance the budgets.

But Schwarzenegger bulled ahead, announcing Monday that he would use his executive powers to call an election on initiatives to lengthen the amount of time required for teacher tenure, change the way legislative and congressional districts are drawn, and to limit state spending and give the governor greater authority over the state budget. Voters also will consider two measures that have already qualified for the ballot -- parental consent on abortion and restrictions on the use of public employees' union dues for political purposes. Other measures are awaiting certification.

From the standpoint of public policy, all of these measures could have waited for the next regularly scheduled election in June 2006. It is highly unlikely that the new boundaries resulting from Schwarzenegger's redistricting plan, if approved in November, could go into effect before 2008. There was every reason to believe that he could have worked out a resolution of the teacher-tenure plan in the Legislature -- if his administration had been willing to work on the details with lawmakers. And he would have more credibility on the spending-limit initiative if his own budgets were not so laden with the types of borrowing and deferral schemes that he rails against.

From a crass political standpoint, however, the special election makes perfect sense for Schwarzenegger. He has eagerly exploited a loophole in campaign-finance law that allows him to raise unlimited donations for these measures -- and some of the contributions have been arriving in six-figure increments. Schwarzenegger's star has always shone brightest when he is on the campaign trail, tossing T-shirts and sound bites. The election gives him a chance to dominate the agenda at a time when his poll numbers have been sagging.

This special election represents a trivialization of direct democracy, a top-down effort that was seeded by paid petition-gatherers for a campaign that will be funded largely by special interests.

Californians should consider each of these issues on the merits this November, but there is no escaping an overriding sense of waste in the time, money -- and political distraction -- caused by this contrived emergency.

State of Perpetual Campaigning

Los Angeles Times Editorial, June 14, 2005

California seems intent on trading in representative democracy for a perpetual campaign. Voters facing yet another election (the third of the year in Los Angeles) have every right to be dismayed and disgusted at the prospect of 148 days of all-out fundraising and nonstop television attack ads, all because the governor and the Legislature are unable to govern in the normal way.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulled the pin on his political grenade Monday with his call for a special election coming in time for the evening news. Sadly for the governor, most Californians were too preoccupied with the Michael Jackson trial to pay much attention, but Schwarzenegger still invoked them: "The people are the ones who wield the power. The people are the ones who can cut through the chains of politics and the past."

Public employee unions, which are financing the battle on the other side, accepted the challenge with Churchillian bombast: "We will fight this attack on our real-life action heroes in our streets, on the airwaves and at the ballot box," said Art Pulaski of the California Labor Federation. The state teachers union is assessing members an extra $50 million for the fight. Senate leader Don Perata (D-Oakland) and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) acknowledged Monday that the Legislature had become "a sideshow" at the hands of the opposing forces.

Perhaps it was inevitable that a governor sent to Sacramento in a special recall election, with a mandate to take on the system, would favor another special election to push his prescriptions for the state's ills. But most Californians will be alarmed by the degree to which legislating via initiative has become the new system. On both sides of the aisle, political consultants and power brokers, such as the public employee unions, have a financial and institutional interest in favoring permanent campaigning over governing.

The three initiatives qualified for the ballot through Schwarzenegger's coalition of business groups and anti-tax activists would hand the governor much greater power to determine spending; make it more difficult for teachers to earn job security; and put a commission of retired judges, instead of the Legislature, in charge of drawing legislative districts. Independently qualified measures would restrict minors' access to abortion and rein in public employee unions' political spending.

The state budget may be the first victim of the new all-campaign regime in Sacramento. Republicans indicate they are in no rush to help majority Democrats pass a state budget by July 1, no matter how close it is to the governor's own proposal. Democrats say they'll mount a separate campaign pushing a tax increase for schools, which is like aiming Kryptonite at Republicans.

It's not that Schwarzenegger's proposals are all bad. This editorial board has strongly endorsed having an independent body draw political districts. We have criticized the teachers unions, in part for their outsized job protections. We agree that the state should live within its means, though the governor is putting the issue to a peremptory vote in simplistic form. And Schwarzenegger should be mindful that not all initiatives to rein in spending succeed. In 1973, Gov. Ronald Reagan called a special election to put his own tax and spending limits before voters. The initiative failed, 48% to 52%.

Schwarzenegger has raised tens of millions of dollars for the contest, in which he will be a central figure. And there is, of course, an element of political calculation in his determination to proceed now with the ballot measures. After all, if he'd waited until the scheduled primary in June 2006, when he is likely to be running for reelection, he could not appear in campaign ads for his own ballot measures.

All right, governor, are you feeling lucky?

He might lose his shirt, But don't bet against Schwarzenegger yet

San Jose Mercury Editorial, June 14, 2005

Unless Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger pulls as big a surprise as the ``Tonight Show'' announcement that launched his race for governor, he's going to call a special election today to be held in November.

A threat the governor made in his January State of the State speech has become a test he can hardly back away from, despite critics' harping on the $80 million cost.

The election is a major roll of the dice. If Schwarzenegger doesn't win on at least a few issues, he'll have succeeded only in strengthening the very interests in the Legislature -- particularly public-employee unions -- that he hopes to outflank by going directly to the voters.

The special-election proposal was born of Schwarzenegger's high poll numbers six months ago and the reasonable judgment that the Democratic majority in the Legislature was unlikely to curtail its enthusiasm for spending without a sword over its head. Democrats haven't hustled to enact the governor's agenda.

Schwarzenegger has to forge ahead, even though his sword is dulled by polls that now show him with the support of fewer than half the voters.

Don't count him out. Although he's been running TV ads touting his proposals, and he's been making public appearances, he hasn't started the all-over-the-state effort that his campaign in the recall election showed him capable of.

The governor's best initiative would change the way political districts are drawn, taking the authority from the Legislature and giving it to an independent panel. The current system enables legislators to design safe districts for themselves and their colleagues. It won't change without an initiative.

Schwarzenegger also is backing an initiative that creates a flexible state spending cap and another that lengthens the time before teachers are eligible for tenure.

But those are not the only issues voters will consider. While the governor has the authority to open the door to a special election, he can't stop others from walking through. And they're lining up.

Business-friendly interests have qualified the so-called ``paycheck protection'' initiative, requiring public-employee unions to annually get permission from each member before spending union dues to back political causes or candidates.

If ``paycheck protection'' wins, Schwarzenegger's most fervent opponents are weakened. But the initiative may actually work to the governor's disadvantage. Unions will walk barefoot across broken glass to defeat it, not to mention spending tens of millions of dollars. And when union members turn out to vote against it, they aren't likely to be in a charitable mood toward Schwarzenegger's agenda.

The promise of a special election is that it will break the gridlock in Sacramento, either by enacting reforms directly or forcing Democrats to meet the governor halfway.

Calling an election today wouldn't rule out the possibility of compromise. While any initiatives that qualify will remain on the ballot, their sponsors can ask voters to reject them, if the Legislature and the governor figure out how to work together over the summer.

So far, though, they're still playing a game of chicken.

Real fiscal reform? Not this initiative

The governor has blown a big opportunity to get the state's house in order

By Michael J. New The Cato Institute, Orange County Register, June 14, 2005

With Gov. Schwarzenegger's announcement last night that California will have a special election this fall on several high-profile initiatives, we can expect his controversial proposals on redistricting and changing teacher tenure to continue to get more attention than his fiscal reform plan. This is unfortunate. For while his "Live Within Our Means Act" is a well-intentioned effort to minimize the severity of the next budgetary shortfall, it fails to place effective curbs on spending necessary for long-term fiscal solvency.

After his November 2003 inauguration, Schwarzenegger considered promoting a constitutional expenditure limit to reduce the $38 billion in debt his predecessor, Gray Davis, left behind. However, the governor instead compromised with Democratic legislators to support a measure that would tighten California's balanced budget amendment. Since then, he has kept a tight lid on spending and earned the top grade in a Cato Institute report card on the 50 governors earlier this year.

Still, because California remains over $8 billion in debt, Schwarzenegger embraced an initiative designed to minimize the next budgetary shortfall. Under this proposal, spending increases would be limited to average revenue growth for the previous three years. As such, when revenues are booming, part of the money would have to be diverted to a reserve fund. Then, when the economy slows, money from the reserve fund could be used to maintain expenditures.

This proposal would limit how much government could expand during times of prosperity. However, the sizeable reserve would provide legislators with very little incentive to economize or downsize during recessions. Furthermore, legislators might be even less likely to cut taxes since any revenue declines would directly result in immediate budgetary cuts.

So while this proposal may reduce the size of the next budget shortfall, it fails to remedy the high spending, high taxes and sluggish economic growth that currently plague the Golden State.

These woes stem largely from the use of highly volatile revenue sources combined with the Legislature's inability to limit its spending. When the economy is doing well, soaring revenues are quickly spent by eager legislators, resulting in sharp budgetary increases. Then during economic downturns, revenues crash, creating big shortfalls.

The key reason revenue is so volatile is because California has one of the most progressive state income taxes in the country, with a bottom rate of 1 percent and a top rate of 10.3 percent. If California moved to a flat income tax, like Colorado, Indiana, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan and Pennsylvania, it would not only stabilize government revenue but save state taxpayers countless hours when filling out their tax returns.

Even more importantly, the state's deficits have resulted from sharp spending increases, particularly during the technology boom of the late 1990s.

The best way to handle this problem is plain: through a constitutional revenue or spending limit. During the 1990s, limits in Colorado and Washington state have proven effective at limiting the growth of government.

The governor needs to look no farther than his own state for another example of an effective spending limit. The measure known as the "Gann Limit," approved by 74 percent of voters in 1979, limited how revenue could be appropriated. Indeed, from 1980 to 1991, California's rank in state per-capita expenditures fell from seventh to 16th. Its rank in per-capita revenues showed a similar decline during the same time period. Unfortunately, initiatives in the late 1980s and early 1990s severely weakened the Gann Limit, but it still provides a working model of how a spending restraint could work in California.

Schwarzenegger erred when he failed to aggressively pursue a similar constitutional spending limit after his inauguration. Even though he has done an admirable job limiting spending since then, he - or another fiscal conservative - will not be governor forever.

We can expect the governor to depict his fall initiatives as crucial to "saving California." Two of them may indeed be worthy. Unfortunately, his proposal for fiscal reform focuses on the symptoms of California's fiscal problems, not their causes.

Ballot initiative battle highlights 2005

Jan. 5 - In his State of the State address, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger calls for an overhaul in several areas, including merit pay for teachers; a budget cap that restricts spending increases and overrides spending formulas like the Proposition 98 school funding measure; shifting state worker pensions from defined benefit to 401(k) plans; taking redistricting away from legislators and giving it to a panel of retired judges; and the elimination of nearly 100 regulatory boards and commissions.

Jan. 26 - Schwarzenegger threatens to call a special election in November if legislators fail to act on his overhaul plans by March.

Feb. 11 - Speaking to the state Republican convention, Schwarzenegger characterizes his agenda to seek overhaul measures in a special election as a "great battle" against "evil."

Feb. 17 - The governor abandons his effort to eliminate many of the state's regulatory and policymaking boards and commissions.

Feb. 23 - Except for teacher merit pay, which is supported by 60 per-cent of respondents, a Field Poll shows lukewarm support for Schwarzenegger's reform initiatives.

Feb. 28 - Citizens to Save California, a business-backed campaign committee tied to the governor, announces its support for initiatives to dump the state's defined-benefit pension system and to change from two years to five years the amount of time required for teachers to earn tenure.

March 1 - Schwarzenegger drives to a Natomas restaurant to begin collecting signatures for his pension, redistricting and teacher tenure initiatives.

March 25 - A Sacramento judge strikes down campaign fundraising limits imposed on the governor's political committees by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The ruling allows elected officials to raise unlimited amounts of money to plug ballot measures.

April 7 - Although 400,000 signatures have been collected, Schwarzenegger decides to drop the pension-reform initiative from this year's special election.

April 14 - The labor-backed Alliance for a Better California announces it has gathered enough signatures to qualify its version of a drug discount plan for the statewide ballot.

April 20 - Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said Democrats are willing to discuss a comprehensive compromise on the governor's plans for teacher merit pay and tenure, state budget spending controls and a redistricting overhaul.

May 4 - Enlisting the help of schoolchildren tugging little red wagons, Schwarzenegger turns in signatures for an initiative that makes it harder for teachers to get tenure. His staff confirms he has dropped the merit pay proposal.

May 10 - Meeting the unofficial deadline, Democrats and Republicans submit thousands of signatures for their initiatives, although it is uncertain whether the governor will call a special election for fall.

May 16 - A proposed constitutional amendment requiring parents to be notified before a minor can receive an abortion qualifies for the ballot.

May 19 - The California State Association of Counties asks the state to foot the bill for a special election, which officials now estimate would cost $70 million to $80 million.

May 25 - More than 10,000 teachers, nurses, firefighters, prison guards and other union members come to the Capitol to protest Schwarzenegger's agenda.

June 6 - The teacher tenure initiative and a measure that would restrict political spending by public employee unions qualify for the statewide ballot.

June 10 - Schwarzenegger-backed measures on redistricting and spending controls qualify for the ballot. Monday - Governor calls special election for

Nov. 8. Voters will face at least five measures; three others are pending.

Sources: Bee news reports, Bee research/Pete Basofin

Ballot Watch - Initiatives for November Special Election

• Budget: Would create new spending controls and allow the governor to cut programs unilaterally. Backed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

1973: Voters rejected Proposition 1, a ballot initiative championed by then-Republican Gov. Ronald Reagan. The measure would have cut income taxes by 7.4 percent and placed strict controls on state spending. It was defeated 54 percent to 46 percent. The measure was poorly written and complicated, and Democrats and unions actively opposed it. But it was hailed by conservatives as the first major anti-tax initiative in the country and foreshadowed Proposition 13, California's landmark property-tax-cutting measure that passed in 1978.

• Redistricting: Retired judges would draw legislative and congressional district boundaries. Backed by Schwarzenegger.

1982: Voters rejected a proposal for an independent redistricting commission.

1984: Voters rejected a proposal that would have put the process in the hands of a panel of retired appellate justices.

1990: Voters rejected two initiatives, one for an independent redistricting commission and another to require two-thirds approval of a remapping plan by the Legislature.

• Teacher tenure: Would extend from two to five years the time required for teachers to achieve tenure protections. Backed by Schwarzenegger.
• Abortion: Would require parental notification before a minor receives an abortion.
• Union dues: Public employee unions would need written consent from members to use dues for political purposes.

1998: Voters rejected Proposition 226, a ballot initiative championed by then-Republican Gov. Pete Wilson that would have required unions to seek permission from their members before using dues for political purposes. The measure was opposed by Democrats and union leaders who viewed it as a direct assault on their political power. The measure was defeated 53 percent to 47 percent, after unions spent $30 million to oppose it.

• Energy: Would reregulate electricity.
• Drugs: Democrat-and labor-backed measure could provide cheaper prescription medicine to as many as 10 million uninsured, elderly and low-income Californians, supporters say.
• Drugs II: Drug companies are behind a measure that would make voluntary their participation in a state drug discount plan for the poor.

Estimates for the cost of the special election range from about $45 million (state costs alone) to $80 million (counting the costs in jurisdictions that were already planning to hold elections that day). The governor proposed in his declaration that the additional costs be reimbursed by the state in the 2006-07 budget or by a bill passed earlier.

The Department of Finance reports that the last time a governor called a special election (1993) the state reimbursed the counties through special legislation. The bills submitted and paid for the local governments' costs: $4.8 million.

Humble pie

California Insider Web Blog, Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, June 21, 2005

There was a sudden outbreak of humility in the Capitol today and lots of talk of grand compromise, on the budget and other matters. Who knows if it will last, or how much of it is just posturing, but recent poll numbers appear to be having a sobering effect on all sides.

The governor, of course, is licking his wounds from his 37-53 approval rating in today’s Field Poll. But don’t forget that the Legislature’s rating was even worse, at 24-57.

And while the Field Poll won’t release its numbers on the ballot measures until tomorrow, other recent polls have shown the union dues measure and teacher tenure – the two the unions hate the most – doing fairly well. All of which means everyone has an incentive to at least talk, if not cut a deal.

Schwarzenegger called a press conference ostensibly to hit the Democrats for a budget proposal that he says commits one-time revenue to ongoing programs, worsening the state’s fiscal picture in future years. But in a rare moment of contrition, he also said that he takes some of the responsibility for the public’s disdain for everyone in the Capitol.

“It’s very clear that people are basically saying to us, work together, do what you did so well last year, work together to try to solve the problems,” he told reporters.

“All of us in this building can share blame, all of us, including myself. People make mistakes sometimes and I think we learn. This is a very clear message that we must work together. I am looking forward to that.”

Speaker Fabian Núñez offered a similar olive branch.

“If there’s one thing we all need to do, it’s humble ourselves,” Núñez said. “These numbers weren’t good for the governor. But they weren’t good for the Legislature, either.”

And Senate Leader Don Perata:

“People like us least when we don’t work together. They like us best when we are cooperating and solving problems.”

Of course, sometimes Capitol cooperation just leads to fig leafs -- like last year's Prop. 58 -- that are sold as solutions to problems but really don't accomplish much, if anything. But there was plenty of talk Tuesday – for the first time -- of specific counterproposals from the Democrats to the measures Schwarzenegger rolled out in January or later embraced on their way to the ballot.

Speaker Núñez said Assembly Democrats had offered a Prop 98 fix that significantly slowed down the repayment of the general fund “debt” to the schools.

Perata said he had suggested a teacher tenure reform that would require teachers to work four years, rather than the current two or the governor’s proposed five, before gaining permanent status. And in their third and fourth years, teachers who were falling short would get a road map from their principal suggesting how they could improve.

Perata also said that he will be officially rolling out the Senate’s proposed redistricting reform on Wednesday (this was later pushed back to Thursday), and it will be similar to a plan Sen. Alan Lowenthal has been pushing all year.

Perata also said the governor had suggested a blue ribbon commission on public pensions appointed jointly by the governor and the Legislature.

Finally, Perata mentioned that term limits reform remains an active topic of discussion, although he said the Senate's redistricting measure would not be explictly linked to changes in the term limits law.

Who knows? Maybe there will be a unity slate on the November ballot after all.

A sudden comity in heated Sacramento battles

By Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee Columnist, June 23, 2005

A series of poll results released this week look bad for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose personal standing with the voters has dropped to a new low while two of his three proposed ballot measures are getting a tepid early read from the electorate.

But at a time when you would expect the Democrats to be going in for the kill, figuring they can finish off the governor's agenda with a scorched earth campaign through the November special election, the Capitol is suddenly buzzing with talk of cooperation instead of confrontation.

Democratic legislative leaders, after months of nothing but criticism of the governor's proposals, are now rolling out alternatives. They say they would love to negotiate a deal that would allow them to march arm in arm with the governor toward the Nov. 8 election behind a unity slate of policy changes on which they all agree.

What's going on?

There are a couple of plausible explanations. One is that the Democrats are simply posturing because they know the voters want them to try to work with the governor. As they prepare to head into battle, this theory would suggest, the Democrats want to look like the nice guys who did everything they could to find a solution before going on the attack.

But what if they are serious? Why would the Democrats, just when the governor appears to be sinking, throw him a life raft?

The answer can be found by taking a closer look at those poll numbers, released this week by the nonpartisan Field Poll. The survey of 905 California adults occurred June 13-19 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

There is no doubt that Schwarzenegger's performance rating has taken a beating, dropping from 55 percent approval in February to just 37 percent today. And two of his ballot measures - on the budget process and the system for drawing political boundaries - start the campaign in disfavor, which in California initiative politics typically signifies imminent death. The budget measure is trailing 35 percent to 42 percent, while the proposal on redistricting is behind 35 percent to 46 percent.

But two other initiatives, one that is officially part of the governor's package and one that he likes but has not yet endorsed, are doing very well. And they happen to be the two initiatives that the Democrats' allies among organized labor probably are most concerned about.

One is a proposal backed by the governor to change the way public schoolteachers are hired and fired in California. It would require teachers to work five years rather than just two before gaining permanent status, and it would make it easier for school districts to dismiss even permanent teachers who are found to be performing unsatisfactorily. That measure is leading, 62 percent to 31 percent.

Schwarzenegger seeks to retain his prized asset _ his own image

By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Political Writer, San Francisco Chronicle, June 23, 2005

Arnold Schwarzenegger has stared down adversaries before — from bodybuilding rivals in his Mr. Olympia days to the menacing fake enemies of his action films.

But after months of trying to stare down Democrats over a package of government reform measures, a new poll shows the posture may not be playing as well in the political arena. And it's costing him the currency he's long valued most — his own popularity.

A statewide Field Poll shows Schwarzenegger's job approval has skidded to just 37 percent, down from a stratospheric 65 percent last year. And only 37 percent support a special election to consider his reform measures, which include setting a state spending cap, redrawing legislative districts and increasing from two to five years the time it takes teachers to get tenure. The poll showed voters support the tenure measure, but the other two are running well behind.

What this means for the governor depends on who's answering the question. His opponents see weakness in the numbers and viewed him as humbled and conciliatory during his Tuesday news conference to respond to the poll. Others closer to him say the governor is aware of public sentiment but isn't letting the poll sway him from his special election message.

Indeed, members of Schwarzenegger's political team have publicly challenged the poll's credibility and insisted the special election campaign was moving forward as planned.

His chief political strategist, Mike Murphy, issued a statement calling the poll results "balderdash." And fundraising consultant Marty Wilson said the poll would have little impact on the team's strategy going forward.

"I've been running campaigns in the state for 25 years as have a number of our colleagues in the governor's high command," Wilson said. "Not once have we made a decision based on what the Field Poll says. And we're not going to now."

The poll seemed to have a different effect on the governor, however. He appeared subdued Tuesday compared to his usual playful swagger. He told reporters he would step up his efforts to reach a compromise agreement with the Legislature.

"People make mistakes sometimes, and I think that we learn," Schwarzenegger said when asked about the lessons of the poll. "These are very clear messages that we must work together, and so I am looking forward to that."

Schwarzenegger biographer Laurence Leamer said that while the governor has a knack for remaining positive in the face of adversity, nothing has prepared him for the hit to his image indicated by this week's poll.

"Here's this guy who promised things would be great again, and the people of California bought into it. Boy, it's fallen apart," said Leamer, whose biography "Fantastic" was released recently and who remains in touch with the governor and his team. "He has gotten a lot of bad reviews for his movies, but this is something else. He is troubled. He is a troubled man at this point."

Lost in the focus on Schwarzenegger's poll numbers are the companion figures for the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Democrats so far have successfully steered the campaign away from the Legislature, but the Field Poll indicated those lawmakers also have reason to seek a compromise with the governor. Just 24 percent of voters approve of the job the Legislature is doing, a 10-point drop since February.

Should Schwarzenegger reach an agreement with legislators over the budget and some or all of his special election measures, the Nov. 8 election may turn into a simple ratification of several reform measures.

"The truth is, he really cares about California and he really wants to reform it," Leamer said. "But he needs to reach out with authenticity — sound bites aren't going to do it. And if he doesn't win, I think he'll go away. Because this just can't feel good."

If negotiations with Democrats break down, Schwarzenegger may have little choice but to proceed with the special election as planned. That move probably would require changes to the strategy he's followed thus far.

The governor's team has gambled that his enduring celebrity would persuade voters to accept his plans to revamp state government. They believed that in a contest pitting the world-famous Schwarzenegger against the unpopular Legislature, the odds were on the governor's side.

Instead, Schwarzenegger's credibility has been hammered, thanks to his own mistakes and to a coalition of Democrat-leaning interest groups that have painted him as a bully and his reforms as a Republican power grab. The groups have staged regular protests outside his fundraisers and public events and waged a pricey television ad campaign casting the governor as an enemy of ordinary working Californians.

"It's Schwarzenegger and his celebrity versus cops and teacher and firefighters and nurses," said Phil Trounstine, a former communications director for Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. "They can't cast this as the good governor versus the bad Legislature. That's the morality play the Schwarzenegger team wants, and it isn't happening."

Arnold's top 10 mistakes

By Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee Columnist, July 3, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's recent transformation from fan favorite to public punching bag is all the more remarkable because the policies he has advocated are pretty much in the mainstream of California politics. He's tried to balance the budget without raising taxes, while growing spending for education, health care and transportation at modest rates. He has tried to reform government by giving local agencies and schools more control over their own resources and by reexamining old assumptions about such massive programs as prisons and Medi-Cal, the health care program for the poor. And he has advocated progressive environmental policies while supporting abortion and gay rights.

What went wrong? Would Schwarzenegger be more popular today, for instance, if he had reneged on his biggest campaign promise and raised taxes? Perhaps with the Democrats in the Legislature and their allies among the public employee unions. But not with the general public. Schwarzenegger has been bled by a thousand cuts, most of them self-inflicted. To be sure, his foes have capitalized on his mistakes. But the mistakes were his to begin with. Without them, or perhaps with just half of them, he almost certainly would be a much more popular governor today, while still pursuing the same set of policies.

Here are is a list of what I consider to be Schwarzenegger's 10 biggest mistakes, more or less in chronological order:

1. On the first day of his campaign, he gave voters the impression that he wasn't going to take money from private interests, then set about raising more money than any first-year governor in history, seriously eroding his credibility. He never should have said he didn't "need" that money, but if he was going to say it, he should have also made clear he was going to take the money even if he didn't need it. And once having made that mistake, he still could have cut his losses by establishing a very aggressive, very public campaign to raise money from small donors via the Internet. That not only would have raised a few bucks, it would have helped him connect and stay connected with a broader base of supporters.
2. He gave away too much in his first big confrontation with the Legislature, in late 2003. He needed the measure that eventually became Proposition 57 to restructure the debt he inherited and ease his way back to a balanced budget. But the Democrats wanted that too, and he should have stuck with his demand to couple the debt measure with a real spending limit and balanced budget requirement. Instead, he let the Democrats write his budget reform, and they gave him nothing more than a fig leaf. Now he is back at the table, asking for more.
3. He has failed to explain his ideas and plans in sophisticated terms. Relying on one-liners, insults and platitudes, he has time and again fallen back on his Hollywood persona. Had he gone against type and spoken to Californians as adults, people would have listened and might have even understood what he was trying to do.
4. He has ignored Mexico and Latino Californians. Schwarzenegger as an actor was hugely popular among Latinos and did pretty well with them in the recall. But he has appointed hardly any Latinos to his administration or to judgeships and has yet to make an official visit to Mexico. He could be an honest and civil opponent of illegal immigration while promoting legal immigration and close economic ties to Mexico. Failing to do so has not only degraded his position among Latino voters but has probably lost some moderate white voters who are turned off by his lack of sensitivity on this issue.
5. He made a disastrous budget deal with the teachers union in his first weeks in office. The concept was great, but the final deal was poorly drafted. It's clear he did not understand what he was getting himself into. There was almost no way he was ever going to be able to keep his end of that deal without either raising taxes or savaging the rest of the state budget. When he reneged, it was another massive blow to his credibility and gave his opponents the opening they needed to bring him down.
6. He lost his focus on reforming state government. Trying to do too much, too soon, he ended up doing almost nothing. Instead of commissioning a massive plan that was a mile wide and an inch deep, he should have declared his intention to go agency by agency and look for opportunities to modernize government one department at a time. He could have started with the Department of Motor Vehicles - an agency that deals with millions of citizens every year but still doesn't accept credit or bank debit cards in its offices. A highly visible success in that one department would have given him the public support he needed to move through the rest of state government.
7. He missed a golden opportunity to reform state and local finance. When the cities and counties came forward with an initiative last year to protect their tax sources from state raids, he should have seized the chance to bring about long-needed reforms in the distribution of property tax and sales tax revenue. Instead, he agreed to a deal that locked in tax-sharing formulas written in 1979, in a crisis atmosphere after the passage of Proposition 13. True reform would have been good government and good politics, winning plaudits from opinion leaders who were looking to him for real results on real problems.
8. He's suffered from attention deficit disorder on education reform. In his first year he pressed to cut many of the strings on the money that flows to the schools from Sacramento, a smart and serious reform. The Legislature gave him about a tenth of the loaf he was seeking. But rather than pressing for more, Schwarzenegger all but abandoned that policy initiative and changed his focus to the way teachers are hired and fired - a fringe issue that doesn't go to the heart of what ails the schools.
9. He declared 2005 his "Year of Reform" and then bungled the details because he rushed forward without carefully considering what he was doing. He endorsed a pension reform measure and later abandoned it because it left him open to charges that he was cutting death benefits for the families of fallen cops and firefighters. He switched from one budget reform to another and still doesn't have a proposal that is very saleable. And he has never explained how his puny education reform is going to make much difference in the schools. He picked the right topics but his execution has been terrible.
10. He did not make enough of a public effort to work with the Legislature this year. It's unlikely they would have given him anything. But for a man who has lived his life in drama, Schwarzenegger seems oblivious to political perception. Had he insisted on meeting with legislative leaders in marathon sessions for weeks in search of common ground, even if it yielded nothing, the public would have been more satisfied that he was using the ballot only as a last resort. Instead, people are convinced that he never really tried.

It's not too late for Schwarzenegger to recover. While it's highly unlikely that he will prevail on all the measures he has proposed, he still might persuade the public to pass some or even most of his agenda. Or he might compromise with the Legislature and achieve some incremental progress while saving face.

The governor, thanks to his mistakes, finds himself in the strange position of having the voters like his policies more than they like his performance as governor. The good news is that by improving his performance, he can improve the chances of the public more fully embracing those policies.

Poll Shows Gov. Needs to Make a Conciliatory Leap on Reforms, and Fast

By George Skelton, Los Angeeles Columnist, July 7, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger took a small step toward political rehabilitation by compromising with Democrats on a new state budget. Now he needs to take a very big step and negotiate a bipartisan agreement on a reform package for the November special election.

A poll being released today at San Jose State shows why such a broad agreement is crucial for Schwarzenegger's political future. And, conversely, it illustrates why Democrats are increasingly cool toward compromise: They think the Republican governor has trapped himself in a special election he's unlikely to win.

The statewide poll, by the nonpartisan Survey and Policy Research Institute at SJS, demonstrates why Schwarzenegger seems beatable on his "reforms." His main adversaries in the ballot brawl — labor unions generally and teachers especially — are much more popular than he is.

This governor has been violating a basic rule of life, let alone politics: Never pick a fight with someone who is bigger and stronger.

Some numbers:

• Schwarzenegger's job approval rating continues in free fall. Only 41% of voters approve of how he's handling his job; 50% disapprove. In late March, 49% approved and 38% disapproved. Among adults generally, current approval is only 34%, a steep plunge from 59% in January.
• But 57% of voters approve of labor unions; only 32% disapprove.
• And most voters — 62% — don't distinguish between public employee unions, like teachers, and their private-sector brothers, like Teamsters. They have a positive view of the whole lot. In fact, 56% say California unions should wield at least as much influence, if not more, than they do currently.

"Unions aren't the bugaboo among the public that the governor thinks they are," says the institute's director, Phil Trounstine. "That should be a warning for him."

The March SJS poll found that voters wanted Schwarzenegger to focus more on working with the Legislature and less on PR gimmicks.

By agreeing to a budget compromise Tuesday, Schwarzenegger did show he still can deal with lawmakers, despite his irritating them with bombastic rhetoric over the past year.

Now he needs to use all his negotiating talent to forge an agreement on long-term reforms, especially a spending cap. His ballot initiative — which would limit spending based on average tax revenue, transfer more budgeting power to the governor and reduce the schools' funding guarantee — is strongly opposed by public employee unions, especially the California Teachers Assn.

The new SJS poll shows why Schwarzenegger should worry about teachers union opposition.

Asked whom they would support if there were a battle over school funding between Schwarzenegger on one side and teachers and school administrators on the other, voters said by 2 to 1 that they'd line up with the ed folks (60% to 31%).

Schwarzenegger has insisted he's not attacking teachers — or nurses, cops or firefighters — only their "special interest" unions. But it doesn't sell. When most voters think of teachers, nurses and cops, they think of — what else? — teachers, nurses and cops.

Asked by the poll whether they think of teachers more as union members or classroom instructors, the reply was instructors by 3 to 1 (62% to 20%).

Moreover, the term "special interests" seemed to have little meaning for those interviewed.

"His whole rhetoric about 'special interests' as an evil force in California politics just hasn't gained traction," says Terry Christensen, a San Jose State political science professor and author of a textbook on California government. "People certainly don't identify teachers as special interests."

Notes Jack Pitney, a Claremont McKenna political scientist and former Republican official: "By taking on so many groups at once — teachers, other public employees — the governor got a stronger reaction than he expected.

"You have to pick your targets carefully. Too many at one time, you won't be able to hit all your targets and they'll shoot back."

Schwarzenegger blew his anti-union campaign early when he botched a proposed pension "reform." Some public pensions negotiated by unions have been too generous, but he overreached by attempting to switch all new retirement plans to 401(k)s. Then he endorsed — and later abandoned — a flawed proposal that failed to explicitly protect death and disability benefits for police and firefighters.

The main anti-labor initiative on the November ballot would require public employee unions to obtain permission from each member before using dues for political purposes.

"Make no mistake, this is a dagger in the heart of the Democratic Party," asserts Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles).

Before Democrats ever agree to a grand compromise on reforms, they'll require Schwarzenegger to promise not to support the anti-union initiative.

Legislators also will ask the governor to back a term limit reform. Nuñez has suggested reducing the total number of years that lawmakers can serve from 14 to 12, but allowing all the years to be spent in one house to retain experience.

The dilemma for Democrats is that Schwarzenegger has been demanding more flexibility on school financing. Democrats aren't in a giving mood on this. And teachers unions — buoyed by poll numbers — get downright enraged at the notion.

Schwarzenegger and Democrats have only one week left before the Legislature's summer recess to write a bipartisan reform package. That's an awfully big step for a weakened governor.

Budget good will is fleeting

Governor's call for a deal on his spending initiative is resisted

By Alexa H. Bluth , Sacramento Bee, July 7, 2005

Now that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sealed a budget deal with top lawmakers, he is turning his attention to what could be another sticky negotiation: finding an alternative to the spending control initiative slated for November's special election.

But Democratic leaders Wednesday were not enthusiastic about striking a deal on a spending measure that is lagging in the polls and that they believe will give more power to the Republican governor and harm schools.

After he announced an accord on a more than $117 billion budget that still will leave the state with at least a $6 billion deficit by next year, Schwarzenegger said he wants to work with the Legislature to find a way to permanently repair the ongoing fiscal imbalance. After tallying the totals for the budget agreement, the governor's Finance Department said Wednesday the plan will equal more than $117 billion.

The governor said he's eager for a compromise on the centerpiece of his fall "reform" agenda - the measure he calls the Live Within Our Means Act.

"We still have to negotiate our budget structure that still has a big problem, because we are still ending up spending more money than we are taking in," he said after announcing the 2005-06 budget deal Tuesday.

Lawmakers are scheduled to vote on the budget today, and the governor is expected to sign it next week.

But Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, said he is not planning to negotiate a spending measure by itself.

Instead, he wants a universal accord on the spending measure, an initiative to change the way the state draws its legislative boundaries and an initiative to force public employee unions to obtain individual members' annual written consent before spending dues money on politics. Schwarzenegger has not endorsed the union dues measure but could use his potential support as leverage in negotiations with Democrats.

"All of those things have to be dealt with in one general agreement," Núñez said. "I hope that the same political will that was demonstrated toward finalizing the budget is there to bring some peace to what otherwise will be a very divisive special election in November."

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, however, said he doubts a global agreement can be reached before the deadline for lawmakers to put alternative measures on the Nov. 8 ballot.

"We will make mistake after mistake in my judgment if in fact we try to do something hastily," said Perata, D-Oakland. "I will always sit down and talk with him ... (but) it would take a lot of convincing for me to focus my attention over the next six weeks on the initiatives that he has placed on the ballot."

During the standoff that preceded Tuesday's budget handshake, the governor indicated he wanted to tie a compromise on his ballot measure in with an overall budget agreement.

Democrats threatened to walk away from budget talks unless the two were negotiated separately.

Democrats had dropped calls for tax increases for education spending to instead focus on landing a budget deal quickly and then focusing on defeating the spending control measure, which was trailing 42 percent to 35 percent in a recent Field Poll.

The ballot measure as it stands now would restrict state spending based on an average revenue growth from the previous three-year period.

It also would allow the governor to declare a fiscal emergency up to four times a year if state revenues dip 1.5 percent below the estimates of the governor's Department of Finance. If the Legislature does not act within 45 days to cut spending or raise revenues, the governor would have unilateral power to make spending cuts.

The measure also would change some of the components of the state's Proposition 98 education spending minimum guarantees - including subjecting schools to midyear cuts when revenues fall out of balance with spending.

Barbara Kerr, president of the California Teachers Association, said the group is not eager to embrace any sort of compromise.

"Any provision that would cut schools budgets three times a year and give the governor almost dictatorship-like powers, that's not acceptable," Kerr said.

Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Roundtable, said he and California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg, co-authors of the spending control measure, would back a compromise.

"If he (the governor) comes to an agreement with the Legislature on a modified proposition, we'll be supportive of it," he said. "Overall, however the objectives are achieved is really not important. What's important is to achieve the objectives that are in Live Within Our Means."

Budget unity: Is it for real?

BALLOT FIGHT TO TEST BIPARTISAN SPIRIT OF GOVERNOR, LEADERS

By Kate Folmar and Mark Gladstone, San Jose Mercury, July 7, 2005

In the often polarized state Capitol, the governor and Democratic leaders this week made a rare display of bipartisan unity as they stood side by side and announced a deal on the state budget.

As lawmakers prepare to vote today on the compromise $117.5 billion spending plan, this question remains: Will the spirit of bipartisanship, compromise and shared sacrifice last?

Or is it only a cease-fire in the sniping over the coming Nov. 8 special election prompted by the need to secure a two-thirds vote to pass a budget?

The answer will be determined in coming weeks as lawmakers and the governor decide whether to stitch together alternative initiatives for the ballot or continue to duke it out over three controversial Schwarzenegger measures that have already qualified.

The most contentious initiative is a budget spending limit the governor calls the Live Within Our Means act. Others would allow retired judges, not lawmakers, to draw the state's political boundaries and make teachers wait five years, instead of two, to receive tenure.

Another -- which Schwarzenegger likes, but has not endorsed -- would curtail political spending by public employee unions, among Democrats' biggest donors and the governor's most noisy opponents.

Neither side is completely happy with the budget. Likewise, they are divided over what to do about the fall election.

Some Democrats are urging Schwarzenegger to simply call it off -- postponing the fight until the next regular election in June 2006. Other Democrats see a weakened Schwarzenegger and want to take him on. Still others want lawmakers and the governor to write compromise measures that would replace the governor's suite of initiatives.

``Arnold Schwarzenegger declared war,'' said Democratic campaign consultant Richie Ross. ``Well, they are lot easier to start than they are to end. My counsel is give them the election they want.''

But Kam Kuwata, another veteran Democratic political strategist, said that with Schwarzenegger's poll numbers plummeting, he might be wise to compromise. ``If he's smart, he'll try to find an escape hatch,'' Kuwata said.

Some Republicans, too, were urging the governor to pursue a bipartisan path.

``I just hope that we continue this dance that we started yesterday,'' said Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-San Luis Obispo, whose district covers parts of Santa Clara County.

That was the stance this week by Schwarzenegger and the legislative leaders from both parties after they sealed the bipartisan budget deal Tuesday. The $117.5 billion package gives schools $3 billion more than they receive now, but that's $3 billion less than school groups say the governor had promised. It also directs $1.3 billion to road and highway projects and fends off some of the deepest cuts to social services. It does not raise taxes or rely on new borrowing.

After agreeing to the pact, the governor said Wednesday that he spoke to the legislative leaders "and they said as soon as we sign the budget, we should start immediately with our talks and negotiations, sitting down and trying to come up with ways of how we can go to the ballot together.

``And so we are going to have an open mind on that, and we're going to work with them together on this."

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, sounded a similar note on Tuesday: ``We've got some distance to go, but it would be a real shame, and unnecessary, if we could not quantify and package what we've done today on other issues facing the state. There clearly is a willingness here.''

But, having spent the first six months of the year preparing for a ballot brawl, it's not clear if lawmakers are willing to put down their weapons and begin peace talks.

``Success breeds success,'' said GOP consultant Dan Schnur. That said, finishing a budget was ``the easier one for a compromise. From here on in, it's all uphill.''

One possible incentive for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to compromise would be if Schwarzenegger were to agree to change term limits that restrict legislators to six years in the Assembly and eight in the Senate.

Otherwise, it is not apparent what Democrats stand to gain by bargaining. The best scenario for them would be clearing up Schwarzenegger's measures with compromises, but that would still leave them spending millions to defeat the union dues proposition.

Consultant Gale Kaufman, who advises the anti-Schwarzenegger Alliance for a Better California, just can't see how it would work.

``A deal means both sides win, or else there is no deal,'' Kaufman said.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D- Los Angeles, thinks the best strategy is for the governor to call off the special election -- which she suggested is possible.

``My strategy as a Democrat will be encourage him to take back the proclamation for the special election and let the people decide all these issues at a regular election just seven months later,'' Kuehl said.``You really can't improve on something that was a bad idea to begin with.''

Election Strategy Drove Budget Accord

Taking the governor by surprise, Democrats surrendered on the state spending plan to better position themselves for fall ballot initiatives

By Evan Halper, Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2005

Schwarzenegger signs budget

but confusion still grips Capitol

By Dan Walters, Sacramento Bee Columnist, July 12, 2005

Arnold Schwarzenegger's signature on a new state budget Monday presumably removed one source of political friction in the Capitol, but it did nothing to relieve the anxiety among its denizens about Republican Schwarzenegger's confrontation with Democratic legislators and their labor union allies over his "year of reform" ballot measures.

If anything, the Capitol's confusion is increasing with Attorney General Bill Lockyer's decision to challenge the legality of one of Schwarzenegger's three measures, dealing with drawing new legislative districts, and with some behind-the-scenes legal and political maneuvering over whether the governor could cancel the Nov. 8 special election.

The biggest uncertainty of them all is whether, now that the budget has been taken off the table, Schwarzenegger will do a deal with Democrats on compromise versions of his ballot measures. As he signed the budget in a relatively elaborate ceremony in the Capitol rotunda, Schwarzenegger hinted anew that he's open to such a deal if it includes new controls to prevent future budget deficits, saying: "We can fix it once and for all." But with the governor's once-soaring popularity having plummeted to the sub-40 percent level and his two major ballot measures faring poorly in the polls, are Democrats also interested in making a deal? They appear to be, if for no other reason than it might include two provisions they appear to want - Schwarzenegger's continued neutrality on another ballot measure that would require public worker unions to get permission to extract political funds from members, and a loosening of legislative term limits.

Even were they to persuade voters to reject the Schwarzenegger-backed measures that would create an independent redistricting commission (Proposition 77), give the governor more unilateral power to reduce spending (Proposition 76), and modify teacher tenure (Proposition 74), Democrats and their union allies would still count the election a failure were the so-called "paycheck protection" initiative (Proposition 75) to gain voter approval.

Lockyer, a former Democratic leader of the state Senate, indirectly knocked one of Schwarzenegger's measures, dealing with public worker pensions, off the ballot when he wrote an official summary that stressed its effects on the pensions of survivors of police and firefighters. The subsequent uproar forced Schwarzenegger to drop the pension measure.

Lockyer delivered a body blow to Proposition 76, Schwarzenegger's budget measure, by stressing its potential effect on state support of schools in his official summary. And then last week he alleged that Proposition 77 is illegal because the version of the initiative that was used to gather signatures was slightly different from the one his office approved.

Were Proposition 77 to be canceled by the courts, it would remove, ironically enough, the original rationale for the special election, which was to get new legislative districts in place for the 2006 elections. That goal has since been abandoned but were it to be erased completely, the notion of having a special off-year election - which voters appear to question anyway - would also suffer. And that's why some legal beagles are sniffing around Schwarzenegger's power, if he has it, to cancel the election as part of a deal with Democratic lawmakers.

Confused enough? Well, there's more. While Lockyer's Proposition 77 lawsuit seemingly would weaken Schwarzenegger's hand further, it also might make it more difficult for Democratic leaders to do an all-encompassing deal with the governor because it would weaken a bargaining chip for gaining modification of legislative term limits. Schwarzenegger has already dropped hints that he would entertain some modification of term limits - such as allowing a legislator to serve his entire legal stint in one house - were lawmakers to accept an independent redistricting commission.

One may be tempted to compare the current situation to a game of chess, which happens to be Schwarzenegger's favorite competitive sport these days. But given the confusion attached to this game, its more accurate analogue may be pinball. The ball is bouncing around and no one - including the governor - knows where it will land.

Lockyer Describes Ballot Initiatives With Summary Justice

Nobody except Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has had a bigger impact on the current initiative wars than Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer

By George Skelton, Los Angeles Times Columnist, July 14, 2005

He has scared off a proposed public pension overhaul. He has titled a spending cap proposal with words that strategically help opponents, led by teachers unions.

Now he is asking a court to remove from the ballot a political redistricting measure.

The Democrat is widely accused by conservatives of playing politics.

Lockyer emphatically denies it. "Just doing my job," he insists.

None of this should come as a surprise to people who have followed Lockyer's 32-year career in elective office, 25 of it in the Legislature. The Alameda County pol is never far from controversy.

Back in the '80s, there was some bizarre behavior and temper fits. He reformed and served four effective years as state Senate leader in the '90s, at the center of every policy fight.

As attorney general, he surprised people by announcing after the Gray Davis recall that he had voted for Schwarzenegger (and against the recall). Lockyer said he liked Schwarzenegger's message of "hope [and] upbeat problem-solving."

But Schwarzenegger quickly tired of his new pal when the AG publicly urged him to submit to an investigation of alleged sexual misconduct.

Lockyer began gearing for a gubernatorial race in 2006 and was the Democratic front-runner. But in April he stunned everybody by withdrawing, saying he didn't want to spend the next 10 years "in partisan hand-to-hand combat."

Now 64, Lockyer has lowered his sights to a race for state treasurer.

But Schwarzenegger is looking beatable, I noted.

"I'm kind of a contrarian," Lockyer replied. "I think he's in trouble, but I don't think that's the final word…. If he doesn't change his substance and style, he's still in trouble."

What would he advise?

"Settle those matters on the November ballot. We don't need to have a special election. All those issues could be and should be resolved with legislators.

"Second thing, don't act like a bully."

Lockyer seldom minces words or pulls punches. Lately, he has been in "hand-to-hand combat" with initiative sponsors.

His power over the ballot comes from the attorney general's duty to write a title and 100-word summary for each proposed initiative. The title and summary then are attached to the initiative petition as it is circulated for voter signatures, and later printed on the ballot itself.

"We write titles that describe the initiative — not just repeat the [sponsor's] propaganda," Lockyer says.

In February, Lockyer wrote a devastating summary for a Schwarzenegger-endorsed initiative that would have eliminated traditional pension benefits for new state and local government workers and replaced them with 401(k)s.

High up in the summary was this sentence: "Eliminates death, disability benefits for such employees." Initiative sponsors heatedly denied it. But Lockyer insists it's true.

Faced with angry opposition from police and firefighters, Schwarzenegger abandoned the initiative and postponed further attempts at pension "reform" until next year.

The governor's top priority in his "reform agenda" is Proposition 76, which he calls the "Live within our means act." Not Lockyer. He titles it merely: "School funding. State Spending." And the summary's first sentence begins: "Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98)…."

That hoists a red flag for millions of voters, whose top priority for the tax dollar is school funding. It gives the education lobby potent ammunition to attack the governor for trying to loosen school spending guarantees. Which he is.

Prop. 76 also does other things: imposes a spending cap and transfers more budgeting power to the governor. Lead coauthor Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Roundtable, complains that Lockyer's summary overemphasizes school funding. He also contends it includes some factual errors. The AG's office is expected to make some corrections — but not change the emphasis.

Actually, Lockyer reports, he doesn't personally write the titles or summaries. They're written by teams of lawyers. "In my nearly seven years as AG, I've probably had 600 to 700 of these," he says, "and I have yet to change a single word when they come out of the professional staff."

Then there must be some telepathy going on — some lawyers who can read their boss' mind and politics. Just a hunch.

Now there's the Lockyer-instigated court fight over Proposition 77, which would strip the Legislature of its power to redistrict legislative and congressional seats and give it to a panel of retired judges.

As a legislator, Lockyer tried four times to take away the Legislature's redistricting power and shift it to an independent panel.

"I've always felt there was an inherent conflict of interest with members of the Legislature drawing their own districts," he says. "And that conflict undermines the public's confidence in their government."

But he calls Prop. 77 "kooky."

Regardless, he adds, he'd still try to throw it off the ballot because sponsors didn't play by the rules. They submitted a different version of the initiative to him for title and summary than they circulated to voters for signatures.

Sponsors contend it was all a mistake and the differences are trivial.

Lockyer counters that such sloppy rule-breaking "cannot be condoned" because it "would open the door to 'bait and switch' tactics."

That's how he's supposed to react. It's why we have an attorney general. To enforce the law. Blow the whistle. Not just wink at rule-breakers or close his eyes. Call up a judge and let her decide.

Núñez: Ballot accord doubtful

Democrats, governor still haggling over budget measure

By Gary Delsohn , Sacramento Bee, July 20, 2005

Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez said Tuesday he's "very, very skeptical" that Democrats can reach a compromise with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on a package of ballot measures for the November election. The Los Angeles Democrat, who last month said he was optimistic "a deal on the whole enchilada can still be worked out," told reporters that negotiations are deadlocked over Schwarzenegger's so-called "Live Within Our Means" budget proposal.

"We are seas apart of where we need to be on Live Within Our Means," Núñez said at a Capitol press conference. "The type of power the governor is looking for here is the power that no democratic leader in any democratic society currently has, and it's too difficult to get there."

Among other things, the measure would allow California governors to make unilateral budget cuts in times of economic crisis. Democrats have said they fear Schwarzenegger would cripple social programs, health care and other services if the measure passed. They also oppose provisions they believe would erode the Proposition 98 funding guarantee for schools. Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, who later in the day joined Núñez for a meeting on the issue in Schwarzenegger's office, agreed that there appears to be little hope for a deal.

"I told the governor I would like to continue working on this ... but there's no way we could do this fast enough," Perata said after the meeting in Schwarzenegger's office.

Eight initiatives are on the Nov. 8 ballot, and Democrats and Schwarzenegger have been saying for weeks they hoped to agree on a set of alternative measures that had bipartisan support. The deadline for such a compromise is mid-August.

Talks have centered on Schwarzenegger's budget proposal because that has been the most contentious. Negotiators have been taking the approach that if agreement could be reached on that measure, a compromise on Schwarzenegger's other proposals would likely follow.

In addition to the budget proposal, the Republican governor backs an initiative that would make it harder for public school teachers to get tenure protection and another that would change the way legislative boundaries are drawn.

State Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat, has sued to get the redistricting measure disqualified from the ballot because when backers were gathering signatures, their petitions included some language different from the actual measure that was submitted to the attorney general's office. A hearing on the case is scheduled for Thursday in Sacramento Superior Court.

Margita Thompson, Schwarzenegger's press secretary, agreed with the two Democrats that talks have stalled. But she said it's up to the legislators to decide whether the budget needs reform.

"There's a sticking point," Thompson said. "They need to decide if they want to move forward. The governor always remains helpful, and the governor remains at the table and will provide the leadership for whatever is necessary to forge a bipartisan solution."

Perata said he agrees the budget needs structural reform, but that he doesn't agree with Schwarzenegger's approach.

"There is a problem," Perata said. "The best way to do it is working together. We are simply working against the clock."

Counsel: Governor can kill special vote

STAGE SET FOR LONG PERIOD OF NEGOTIATIONS

By Andrew LaMar, San Jose Mercury News, August 2, 2005

SACRAMENTO - A controversial special election set for fall could be canceled by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger anytime before the polls open, according to a legal opinion issued Monday.

The conclusion, reached in an analysis written by the California legislative counsel, sets the stage for a potentially long summer and autumn of negotiations between the GOP governor and Democratic leaders.

Until now, lawmakers have considered Aug. 18 the deadline for reaching a compromise with Schwarzenegger over two of his ``reform'' measures on the ballot and opposed by Democrats. That's the last day for the Legislature to add initiatives -- compromise measures both sides would support -- to the Nov. 8 election.

Though that deadline remains in effect, the opinion means compromise could be reached without such initiatives and instead spur a legislative compromise that could happen anytime before the election date.

``In many ways, this keeps everyone off balance,'' said Barbara O'Connor, the director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and Media at California State University-Sacramento.

``It may induce legislators to the bargaining table.''

It was unclear, though, if Schwarzenegger and his lawyers would accept the legislative counsel's view.

A spokesman for the governor declined to comment. And, even if the governor could call off the election hours before Californians go to the polls, he would run the risk of alienating voters and supporters campaigning on his behalf.

Schwarzenegger called the election in mid-June and has vowed to go through with his plan.

Polling indicates the public is cool to a special election that is expected to cost the state $45 million.

The analysis says the governor is entitled to cancel the election as long as no ``vested rights'' are violated, and until the voting starts, the opinion says, there are no such rights to interfere with.

The fall election was originally scheduled to include eight measures.

The big guns

By Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee Webblog, September 2, 2005

I guess the campaign has officially kicked into high gear. The California Teachers Assn. contributed $21 million yesterday to three campaigns opposing the governor's teacher tenure and budget proposals and the paycheck protection measure. The CTA gave $5 million to the campaign against Prop. 74 and $8 million each to oppose Props. 75 and 76.

Vetoes: 'Great ammo' for special election?

By Gary Delshohn, Sacramento Bee, September 10, 2005

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may not like the policy implications of some of the high-profile bills Democrats sent him as the legislative session wound down, but his chief political strategist is thrilled. "It's great ammo for him," Mike Murphy said in an interview. "What the Dems have done in the last 48 hours is worth a couple of points for us."

Murphy's spin on the legislative session is arguable. Many Democrats obviously disagree. But there's no question Schwarzenegger plans to trumpet his message while campaigning for his Nov. 8 ballot measures that some of the bills underscore the need for reform.

He has already said he'll veto the bills to sanction gay marriage, raise the minimum wage and provide driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. Schwarzenegger and his aides maintain the bills go too far and prove his point that the Legislature is out of touch with mainstream California.

"The Dems are sending messages that are going to energize Arnold's supporters and make the case for reform," Murphy said. "Driver's licenses, gay marriage, minimum wage, stuff like that."

For their part, Democrats say the measures passed this week in the Legislature they control, such as the historic gay marriage bill, reflect their core beliefs and will strengthen their standing with their own constituents. Both houses of the Legislature adjourned late Thursday.

While Schwarzenegger seeks to portray them as out of step with mainstream voters, Democrats say his actions will motivate their supporters to go to the polls in what is expected to be a low-turnout election.

They also say his promised actions will suggest to voters statewide that Schwarzenegger - looking over his shoulder at his Republican base - isn't the bold, nontraditional leader he said he would be while running for the job.

"I think it will potentially energize the Democratic base that wants to see Democrats stand for something - and standing for progressive causes," said Sally Lieber of Mountain View, a Democratic leader in the Assembly.

"I don't think it hurts Democrats because the communities that are not supportive of this type of legislation aren't with Democrats anyway."

Schwarzenegger also has promised to veto legislation that would have added $1 to the state's minimum wage over two years - even though he was willing to accept the increase.

He offered to accept it, however, only if Democrats weakened state labor rules requiring employers to pay overtime to workers on the job more than eight hours a day. He also wanted Democrats to drop their demand for automatic adjustments for inflation.

Even some Democrats concede that sending Schwarzenegger the highly contentious driver's license bill plays into his hands for November. But Gale Kaufman, chief political strategist for the overall campaign against Schwarzenegger's initiatives, takes vehement exception to Murphy's view.

"I think it shows how out of touch they are," she said of Schwarzenegger and his political team. "Look at the polls on gay marriage and minimum wage. The two are absolute vote-getters for not just our base but well beyond our base as well.

"Minimum wage is a bill that cuts across party lines, and for him to veto it really works to our advantage. It makes it really hard for him to push a message that he needs these (ballot initiatives) because he can't get things done in the Legislature. We are getting things done. They are just things he continues to veto."

The initiatives the governor is pushing in November appear to have little to do with the high-profile Democratic bills he has promised to veto. His top-priority measure, Proposition 76, would restrict state spending and give the governor new budget-cutting power. Proposition 77 would give retired judges the power to draw legislative boundaries, something now done by legislators.

His third initiative, Proposition 74, would make it easier to fire bad teachers by extending from two years to five the time it takes to get tenure job protection.

Schwarzenegger strongly favors a fourth initiative, Proposition 75, though he has not yet endorsed it, that would make it harder for public employee labor unions to raise money for political campaigns.

"People can try to paint us however they can paint us," Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles, told reporters Friday. "... But there's no question, with those bills or without those bills, we're going to be the target of the governor's campaign."

Todd Harris, a spokesman for Schwarzenegger's campaign, said that the governor intends to focus on his initiatives instead of attacking the Legislature, and that no one should expect to see him call Democrats names like "girlie men," as he has in the past.

Voters already know the system is broken, Harris said, and some of the big Democratic bills Schwarzenegger said he'll veto only serve to reinforce that.

"It's a huge, scary in-your-face reminder of how out of touch the Legislature is," Harris said.

How much difference all this makes in November is impossible to guess.

"There is some resonance to be able to say that the Democratic Legislature has passed bills that are not supported by a majority of Californians," said Tim Hodson, director of the Center for California Studies at California State University, Sacramento.

"I am not sure that statement is entirely accurate when it comes to minimum wage or the gay marriage bill. It may be accurate in terms of the driver's license bill. But there are no Democrats to run against in the special election. This is a referendum on Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Interestingly, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, said he thinks it was the special election that influenced Schwarzenegger's thinking on some of the big bills, rather than the other way around.

"Left to the governor's own instincts and political devices, I'm not so sure that gay marriage and driver's licenses would not have had another outcome, were it not for the special election," Perata said.

"But now that he's in an election, all his advisers are telling him the hope he has to be successful is to keep the red meat out there for the right wing so that they come out and vote."

Election Results Offer Some Old Lessons for Gov. Schwarzenegger

By Greg Skelton, Los Angeles Times, November 10, 2005

Many lessons flow from Tuesday's special flogging of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, most of them very old. But they're lessons that apparently must be relearned every generation or two.

Lesson No. 1: If you're going to proclaim yourself to be "the people's governor" and embark on a crusade, you'd better be sure that the people are following you as support troops or you'll march right off a cliff.

Schwarzenegger tumbled over the edge with his "reform" agenda in flames. He can change directions and crawl back up. But it's not likely much of his package will survive, except for political redistricting, which Democratic legislative leaders have promised — and did so again Wednesday — to cede to independent citizens.

Let's reflect on some of these lessons based on the chronology of events starting from when he took office two years ago:

Lesson No. 2: The time to make big changes is right after you're first elected, when you've got a public mandate and trust. Schwarzenegger, with bipartisan support, sold voters on a $15-billion deficit reduction bond and a minor balanced-budget requirement. Big borrowing, little spending control. That was the moment to have negotiated a real spending cap — a moderate version of the rejected Proposition 76 — and sell it to voters.

Lesson No. 3: Don't make deals you can't keep. The new governor promised schools money that he couldn't deliver a year later, turning former allies into dangerous enemies.

Lesson No. 4: Don't mess with schools — whether it's breaking your word or trying to cut back on funding guarantees. Of Schwarzenegger's four measures Tuesday, Prop. 76 suffered the worst drubbing. Education has become a third rail of California politics, like Proposition 13's property tax cuts.

Lesson No. 5: Every politician is human, vulnerable to the natural laws of political gravity. Policy usually outpoints personality. A good salesman can be ruined — a popular politician sent into a free-fall — by a bad product. The governor's policy products were boring to most voters, and incendiary for a crucial number. Schwarzenegger and his strategists mistakenly believed he could sell anything.

"It was a lethal combo: his arrogance and inexperience," says Ray McNally, a Republican strategist and consultant for the prison guards union, who with his partner Richard Temple created some of the most devastating anti-Schwarzenegger TV ads. "He didn't know a good idea from a bad idea….

"He's going to be the new Jesse Ventura for the blab set."

Lesson No. 6: Don't put a product on the market until it's tested. First, the governor pushed initiatives to ban traditional pensions for new public employees and to require merit pay for teachers that were so flawed he had to junk them. Then his two remaining major proposals — the spending cap and political redistricting — were not written by his own shop, but by outsiders, and were defective.

"When you put your brand name on a product, you'd better be darn sure it has quality control," says Democratic consultant Garry South, who was Gov. Gray Davis' chief strategist. "If you try to force-feed half-baked, unappetizing measures down people's throats, they're just likely to upchuck all over you. That's what voters did Tuesday."

Lesson No. 7: Don't daydream about being leader of the free world. Several California governors have learned that lesson when their dreams turned into nightmares. One insider remembers "the presidential chatter" of mid-2004 when strategists made Schwarzenegger more partisan in anticipation of the Constitution being amended to allow immigrants to run for president.

"Lunacy," says the insider. "Someone was blowing smoke at him."

Lesson No. 8: When politicking statewide in California, run in the middle. Particularly avoid the right. Schwarzenegger's agenda tilted right and that's where he mostly stumped for votes, although the GOP represents only 35% of the electorate.

"The governor's reform package emphasized only half of his political persona," says GOP consultant Dan Schnur. "He got elected as a centrist. He governed as a centrist. But his initiative package emphasized only the more conservative aspects of his agenda."

Lesson No. 9: You cannot pass complex, eye-glazing government process propositions without strong bipartisan support, especially if it's the minority party advocating them. Schwarzenegger tried to negotiate bipartisan proposals with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles), and almost succeeded, but each man was pulled to the right and left respectively by his political constituencies.

Lesson No. 10: The main reason Schwarzenegger lost big in the election was that he called the election. The public didn't want to spend the $54 million in tax money. Voters had OD'd on six statewide elections in four years. They didn't believe there was a special reason for the election.

Voters want the governor and the Legislature to do their job in Sacramento, Schwarzenegger acknowledged Wednesday through his spokesman, Rob Stutzman. The governor had been "impatient" for reform, Stutzman said. Now he'll move more slowly, more conventionally.

And presumably more cooperatively. "The governor wants to make Sacramento work. It's going to take some cajoling."

That, at least, is one lesson learned — a very elementary and necessary one if Schwarzenegger is to crawl back up the cliff.

The saga of the special election

By Daniel Weintraub, Sacramento Bee, November 13, 2005

Nearing the end of his first year in office shortly after the November 2004 elections, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger gathered a large group of his political and policy advisers in a conference room at the Sheraton Hotel a few blocks from the state Capitol. Over the course of an afternoon, the governor and his team dissected the pros and cons of an emerging strategy: a plan to confront the powers that be in Sacramento with an ambitious agenda for change and to threaten to call a special election if the Legislature refused to go along. While those in the room expressed varying levels of enthusiasm for the idea, the consensus was that the plan was a dangerous gamble. Schwarzenegger had just completed a pretty good first year as governor, in the public's eyes. He was riding high in the polls and could probably have stayed there using the same collaborative, incremental approach that served him well his first 12 months in office.

"It was fully debated -- do you have a special election (or) don't you?" said Bonnie Reiss, a self-described liberal Democrat who is Schwarzenegger's longtime friend and senior adviser. "(He was) taking a giant risk, taking on the unions like that that have a tremendous amount of power. He had a decision to make. There were people in the room saying, 'You know what, maybe you shouldn't have a special election, (you're) extremely popular, play it safe, don't take it on, they're going to attack you.'"

But the governor was the biggest cheerleader for shaking things up. He recognized that while his approval ratings were high, his accomplishments were few, and he was willing to spend down his political capital to get some things done. And the governor, who had picked the winning side on almost every ballot measure in the just-completed election, believed, probably erroneously, that his backing or opposition was decisive on many of them, proving his prowess as a populist leader.

Going for it

By the end of the day, it was decided. The governor would go for it. As Schwarzenegger jetted off to Japan on an Asian trade mission, staff members were dispatched to pull together the specifics of a broad policy agenda he had endorsed to roll back public pensions, take redistricting out of the Legislature's hands, overhaul the budget process and reform the public schools. So began a year in which California's movie-star governor would suffer a fall almost as dramatic as his recalled predecessor - from being one of the most popular chief executives in state history to one of the most despised. It was a year in which almost everything the governor touched seemed to go wrong, and every decision seemed to backfire. Most importantly, it was a year when a man touted as a marketing genius lost his touch - and his ability to communicate with the voters.

The push-back that Schwarzenegger and his people anticipated began even before the governor officially revealed his plans. It started in, of all places, Miami Beach. There, between Christmas and New Year's, Gale Kaufman was at her parents' home, on a conference call with leaders of California's public employee unions, for whom she served as a political consultant. The strategist and her clients already were hearing two things: that Schwarzenegger planned to take them on, and that, in the budget he was about to release, he planned to go back on a promise he had made to the education lobby a year earlier on future funding for the schools.

"What does he think he's doing?" Kaufman remembers asking the others on the call.

A week later, she had her answer. The governor's budget, while it eventually provided a $3 billion increase to the schools, fell another $3 billion short of what education leaders thought they were due. And his policy agenda seemed designed to poke a finger in the eye of every part of the Democrats' interest-group constituency.

"If we here in this chamber don't work together to reform the government, the people will rise up and reform it themselves," Schwarzenegger said in an address to a joint session of the Legislature. "And I will join them. And I will fight with them." It would be 11 months before Schwarzenegger's words - "I will fight with them" - would prove to have a very different meaning than he first intended. But it was only days before problems started appearing in what would have to be a flawlessly executed campaign if the governor was to prevail.

Widows and orphans

Schwarzenegger's pension reform proposal was the first to be exposed, taking flak from public safety groups who suggested that it would leave the widows and orphans of slain police officers without death benefits. His budget proposal, which would have triggered across-the-board cuts in state spending whenever a deficit emerged, was an immediate bomb with opinion leaders and even many Republicans. His redistricting proposal was self-contradictory, requiring that new districts be drawn to be as competitive as possible while outlawing the use of the very political data needed to make them so. And a merit pay plan for teachers was polling so badly that it would have to be withdrawn halfway through the signature-gathering process.

The governor's staff has blamed some of those problems on an obscure state political regulation, later overturned, that would have strictly limited his fundraising if he controlled the committee that managed the initiative drive. Because of this rule, they said, his staff could not exercise quality control over the ballot measure drafting. But this is not really true. His staff drafted his original budget reform measure and could have taken the reins on the others as well. Nevertheless, it is true that for whatever reasons, the governor outsourced most of the writing to Republican legislators and his allies in the business community, with results that would later become woefully apparent.

Nurses' protests

As the initiative battle was still just heating up, meanwhile, members of the California Nurses Association were following Schwarzenegger every time he appeared in public. Enraged by his suspension of a law the nurses union had sponsored to set patient-nurse ratios for every hospital ward in the state, they dogged him every time he appeared in public. The nurses crashed his events whenever they could, and when they couldn't, they hired small planes to tow anti-Schwarzenegger advertising banners overhead. Their protests got attention on the streets and massive coverage in the media, adding to a growing buzz that would convince Democrats and independents that the governor had suddenly veered to the right.

Schwarzenegger's approval rating soon began to plummet. From a high of 65 percent in the nonpartisan Field Poll in August 2004, it would eventually hit only 36 percent.

The governor had said all along that he was willing to negotiate with the Democrats. But now he was forced to negotiate from a position of weakness, rather than strength, and for months the opposition stonewalled him. Left to negotiate with himself, he dropped the merit pay measure and the pension proposal, embraced a different budget reform and switched horses on redistricting. And while his team gathered signatures, he tried to coax the Democrats back to the table.

Schwarzenegger thought all along that the legislative leaders would bargain with him once he proved he could put his measures on the ballot, just as they negotiated after he collected signatures in 2004 to overhaul the workers' compensation system for people injured on the job.

"He had the model in his mind of the workers' comp deal," said Joel Fox, a part-time Schwarzenegger adviser who worked on the ballot drive. "To move the Legislature through the next session and try to get some deals done, he was following the workers' comp model. I think he was prepared to go to the special election if need be. But he would have preferred a deal out of the Legislature."

If so, that was a major miscalculation. This time, the governor's opponents would not deal. They called his bluff instead. The biggest reason: union dues.

All bets were off

Everything else the governor was proposing was, in one way or another, negotiable. But then anti-tax activist Lewis Uhler qualified his measure to require public employee unions to get annual permission from their members before deducting political money from their paychecks. Any chance for a settlement ended. For many months, Schwarzenegger held off endorsing the initiative, which would become Proposition 75, thinking that as part of a grand deal with lawmakers he might oppose it. But that didn't matter. Kaufman, the unions' consultant, said Schwarzenegger adviser Michael Murphy seemed to believe that the union dues measure could be used as leverage to force the unions and the Democrats to the table. But once the signatures for the measure were submitted, election law required that it appear on the ballot, either in a special election called by the governor or at the next regularly scheduled vote. And the unionists knew that once it was on the ballot, they were going to have to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat it - whatever the governor did.

"He never understood that once you got the signatures on 75, saying to us that there was a compromise was ridiculous," Kaufman said. "All bets were off."

Allowing Proposition 75 to get into the mix might have been, in retrospect, the governor's fatal error. It killed any chance he had for a deal, even a face-saving one. And it prompted Kaufman and the unions' advertising team to turn to a strategy that ultimately did the governor in: real people.

Schwarzenegger was trying to run against institutions - the Legislature, the unions, what he liked to call "special interests." But his opponents shrewdly made working nurses, firefighters and teachers the faces and voices of their campaign, bringing them to rallies and putting them front and center in their television advertising. They completely reversed the dynamic of the debate. Now he was the bad guy - the power-hungry politician - and they were his victims, seeking protection from a sympathetic public.

"They hit a responsive chord with voters," Kaufman said.

The move threw Schwarzenegger off balance, and he never recovered. He tried putting "real people" in ads of his own, but they weren't credible. He tried putting the focus on the union money used against him. Nobody cared. He even tried admitting that he was flawed, saying he had made mistakes and would do better if voters gave him the tools he needed to do his job. They refused.

In the end, it was an election that a majority of voters did not want on issues about which the governor could not get them to care. Now many of them are angry with him for putting them through the ordeal. A year from now, the same voters will decide whether to grant him another term. Winning back their affection - and trust - will be the biggest challenge of Schwarzenegger's short political career.