PERMANENTLY ABSENT?

When the Legislature created a new class of voter two years ago — permanent absentees — the idea was to drive up turnout by making voting more convenient. Those who request absentee ballots have historically been very reliable voters. So, the thinking went, allowing people to make a single request so they automatically would be sent write-in ballots every election would result in higher voter participation.

So far at least, the results in Ventura County suggest such thinking was flawed.

Assistant Registrar of Voters Bruce Bradley told me that as of this morning only 47 percent of the 91,000 absentee ballots mailed to voters have been returned. Under the old system, in which every voter who received a mailed ballot specifically requested one, the return rate had always been around 85 percent. With only three days left for mail delivery, Bradley said, it is highly unlikely this year's return rate will come anywhere close to that.

It shouldn't come as a big surprise, Bradley suggested. Records show areas that conduct mail-in voting get about the same level of participation as those that conduct polling-place elections. At first blush, it appears the pool of permanent absentee voters will be not much different from the pool of registered voters at large — that is, only about half of them will bother to cast a ballot by Tuesday.

One other interesting twist relating to permanent absentee voters: Those who declined to state a party preference — about 16 percent of all voters — were sent cards a month or so ago asking whether they wanted a particular partisan ballot to cast in the primary. Both major parties and most minor parties allow decline-to-states to participate in their primaries if they specifically request to do so. The obvious question this year is whether the Democratic presidential primary would motivate a disproportionate number of decline-to-states to request Democratic ballots. The answer: Nope.

In fact, Bradley said, the cards that went out to permanent absentee voters who are decline-to-states yielded only about 1,000 requests for partisan ballots — and just as many were for American Independent Party ballots as were for Democratic or Republican ballots. Clearly, there is some confusion among a lot of voters who, just because they classify themselves as independents, think they ought to be voting in the Independent Party primary.

YES ON MARY, NO ON MARIA?

California Republicans who for years have been trying to make headway for their party among Latino voters must be terribly disheartened by the results of a Los Angeles Times poll this week that showed former U.S. Treasurer Rosario Marin in FOURTH place in the four-candidate race for the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate.

It's easy enough to see how former Secretary of State Bill Jones would have a commanding first-place lead: He's the only one in the group who's ever before run on a statewide ticket and he has the backing of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's even reasonable that former Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian would be second. He is the candidate of the party's far-right wing and has been aggressively campaigning on conservative talk radio programs around the state. But how could Marin, a former aide to Gov. Pete Wilson and an appointee of President Bush, come in behind former Los Altos Hills City Councilwoman Toni Casey, a one-time fund-raiser for President Clinton who did not register as a Republican until just a few years ago?

Sadly, there is only one reasonable answer: Her ethnic name.

A Republican political consultant tells me that in blind ballots given to samplings of Republican voters, in which the respondents know nothing of the candidates except their names, women and those with ethnic names inevitably poll worse than men with Anglo last names. The question for Republicans to ponder: Would a Rosario by any other name fare as poorly?

ONE REASON FOR PARTISAN GRIDLOCK

The Republican primary campaign in Ventura County's 37th Assembly District provides a classic illustration as to why there isn't more bipartisan cooperation and compromise in the California Legislature. A fact of life for legislators is that when you give a little you can lose a lot.

In 2002, eager to attract some bipartisan support and to also win the support of a reluctant Gov. Gray Davis, then-Assemblyman Gil Cedillo of Los Angeles agreed to compromise his bill to allow illegal immigrant workers to obtain drivers' licenses. Over the protests of most of his Latino supporters, Cedillo agreed to limit the bill so it applied only to those who were actively in the process of obtaining legal residency, which would have limited the pool of applicants to those who had been in the country a number of years, had a job and, in most cases, were learning English. He also agreed to require that these applications undergo criminal background checks.

Those concessions had half of their desired effect: Five Republicans in the Assembly, including Tony Strickland of Moorpark, joined most of the majority Democrats in support. A nervous Davis, however, vetoed the bill — a move, incidentally, that probably cost him hundreds of thousands of Latino votes in 2002 and helped to create the sense of vulnerability that would lead to his recall a year later.

In 2004, Audra Strickland, Tony's wife, is engaged in a bitterly contested primary in the fight to win the seat her termed-out husband will vacate. Citing Tony Strickland's vote on that 2002 bill, opponent Mike Robinson this week sent out inflammatory mailers that show a photo of illegal immigrants sprinting across the border, superimposed with a photo of Audra Strickland and the headline, "Audra Strickland favors driver's licenses ... for illegal aliens."

Never mind that Audra and Tony are two different people, presumably capable of thinking independently. Clearly, the intent is to confuse the 2002 bill with a more lenient measure signed by Davis in 2003 — one that Tony Strickland opposed. That bill became a flash point during the recall campaign, generating so much opposition that lawmakers rescinded it at Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's request.

The entire incident is a textbook example of why many lawmakers are fearful of making compromises and striking bipartisan agreements: In all likelihood, someone will find a way to use it against them in a primary election. Or, in this case, to use it against their spouse.

Primary elections in California are quite the opposite of bipartisan. Only voters in one political party can vote, and typically only the most ideologically driven voters participate on each side. That means the most liberal wing of the Democratic Party generally chooses its nominee, and the most conservative wing of the Republican Party chooses its nominee. It's a formula that causes lawmakers to toe the party line and shy away from compromise.

(For further details of the incident, see today's story in The Star.

THE GOP'S PROBLEM WITH INDEPENDENTS

Since the recall campaign, Republicans in California have had reason to be upbeat. Not only did they retake the governor's office in midterm, but they continue to narrow their longstanding voter-registration gap. According to the latest voter registration data released last week by Secretary of State Kevin Shelley, the Democrats' share of all voters has dropped by 5.7 percentage points over the last 10 years and now stands at just 43.2 percent. Although Republicans have seen their share shrink as well, it has not gone down as dramatically — just 3.2 percentage points, to 35.7 percent.

Where have all the voters gone? Increasingly, they are becoming independents — in California, the official term for that is "decline to state." That segment of the voter pool has grown by well more than half over the last 10 years — from 9.4 percent in 1994 to 16.2 percent.

The bad news for state Republicans, as reflected in last week's Public Policy Institute of California poll in advance of the March 2 election, is that California independents strongly side with Democrats, and on many issues almost exactly match the views of Democrats as a whole.

Consider these numbers:

Do you favor gay marriages? Democrats, 57 percent; Republicans, 23 percent; independents, 54 percent.

If the presidential election were held today, would you vote for a Democratic nominee over President Bush? Democrats, 85 percent; Republicans, 11 percent; independents, 61 percent.

Are you concerned that the government will enact anti-terrorism laws that excessively restrict civil liberties? Democrats, 64 percent; Republicans, 34 percent; independents, 61 percent.

Do you believe that the government should not interfere with a woman's access to abortion? Democrats, 82 percent; Republicans, 59 percent; independents, 77 percent.

The poll does show one interesting point of divergence between Democrats and independents, however: in their assessment of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Asked if they approve of the governor's job performance, 58 percent of independents said yes — well above the 44 percent of Democrats.

Taken together, the numbers suggest that if Republicans want to build on the recall success, the route they need to follow is Schwarzenegger's. While no other candidates will be able to match his name-identification and charisma, those who adopt his moderate views on social issues might be able to win the hearts of independents — that is, if they can make it past the Republican primary and get the opportunity to present their views to the entire electorate..

PUTTING IT ON THE LINE
Perhaps the biggest subplot on the March 2 ballot is the determination of which Democratic state officeholder will come out of the election in better position for a run for governor in 2006: Controller Steve Westly or Treasurer Phil Angelides.

Westly has definitely gained name recognition by agreeing to co-chair with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger the committee in support of Propositions 57 and 58. He co-stars with the governor in a television commercial that features the two talking and coming together in a show of bipartisan support. If the measures passes, Westly's star will rise. Although many believe Westly, in his first term as controller, will bide his time and wait until 2010 to make a run for governor, his actions of late suggest he might be looking at 2006 instead.

Angelides has stepped up as the only prominent Democrat to speak out against the bond measure and is using the campaign against Propositions 57 and 58 to preview themes for his all-but-certain gubernatorial campaign. Listening to him speak to a state PTA gathering in Sacramento on Tuesday, it was clear he had found a message: It's time for California to make the necessary sacrifices to assure a brighter future.

"The measures on the March 2 ballot will say a lot about where we are and what we are as a society," he said. "It's time we sacrifice for our children and not lay debts upon them."

His message is laced with Clintonian Democratic themes: Invest in education, eliminate deficit spending, target tax incentives toward the middle class.

Given that the deficit bond was trailing in the polls from the start, Angelides may find himself in the potentially enviable position of being able to take credit for helping to defeat a measure that was going to lose in any event. And he can say that he was the only one who had the courage to stand up to Schwarzenegger, whose political standing would be damaged by a loss.

Still, it's a high-risk strategy for Angelides. If the bond measure fails, and severe budget cuts to education and health programs are enacted as a result, he will surely take some blame for damaging programs dear to Democratic hearts. And then, Westly will be able to say, "I told you so."

A MATCH MADE IN SPIN HEAVEN

Shortly after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger agreed to a deal late last year with education groups, led by the California Teachers Association, a top official of a leading public employee union shook his head in grudging admiration. "The CTA," he told me, "loves Republican governors."

Just as a Democratic governor cannot afford to be perceived as soft on crime, a Republican governor cannot afford to be perceived as weak on education. And in this state there is only one group with the wealth and political standing that could drive that perception if it chose: the California Teachers Association.

The deal negotiated among Schwarzenegger, the CTA and other education groups was that K-12 education would not get $2 billion in deferred budget increases next year but would otherwise be held harmless in the governor's proposed budget. The net result was a budget request that would increase per-pupil spending — an arrangement that was as good or better than anyone in the education community could have hoped, given California's dire fiscal situation.

Today, as he reviewed his boss' first 100 days in office (today is No. 93, but the big day is coming fast), Communications Director Rob Stutzman cited the deal with the education community as one of Schwarzenegger's top accomplishments.

"The conventional wisdom was that the CTA would be a nemesis for a Republican governor," Stutzman said.

That may have been the conventional wisdom in the general public, but inside the labor community the deal meshed precisely with conventional thinking: that the CTA would get the very best possible deal from a Republican governor who didn't want to be tarnished with criticism that he was shortchanging education.

SHOWDOWN WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES...

It's no secret that ever since they lost their effort to win the coveted perk that would have allowed a deputy as young as 50 to retire and then collect a pension worth 75 percent or more of his or her salary for life, that the Ventura County Deputy Sheriff's Association has been eager to change the makeup of the Board of Supervisors. Two years ago, the union tried to go after incumbent Judy Mikels of Simi Valley, and lost, and also backed an opponent of Linda Parks of Thousand Oaks and lost.

This year the union is putting it all on the line, taking a $200,000 war chest and using it to try to take out incumbents Kathy Long of Camarillo and John Flynn of Oxnard. Mailers from the union went out last week that darkly depict a rising threat of gang violence in Ventura County and blame Long for casting votes that have forced Sheriff Bob Brooks to cut back his department's gang-suppression efforts.

Brooks has jumped into the fray, writing an op-ed piece in the Ventura County Star spelling out his reasons why he wants to see voters dump Long.

Now, in a bold strategy, Long is fighting back by confronting the criticism head on, explaining to voters that she is the target of the sheriff's and the union's attacks merely because she had the courage to say no to the demands of a special-interest group.

In mailers that went out Friday, Long writes: "This election will decide who sets budget policy in Ventura County. Either supervisors will act independently in the interest of residents and taxpayers — or budget decisions will be dictated by the powerful deputy sheriffs' union. I'm a strong supporter of law enforcement. And in the past, I've had the support of the deputy sheriffs. But in recent years I've had to say NO to demands that could bankrupt the county...

"I want our county to avoid the mistakes that created the mess in Sacramento."

Much rides on the outcome. If Long wins, the sheriff will have spent a huge amount of political capital and be left vulnerable — not only in his future dealings with the Board of Supervisors, but even to what has long been the unthinkable: a political challenge to his own job in two years. If Long wins, it will mean that in the eyes of many voters the deputy sheriffs' association has become just another special-interest union.

One footnote: The association's hit pieces against Long speak of a "rising crime rate." The latest figures from the Attorney General's Office show that crime did indeed go up in 2003 in the three large cities that have their own police departments -- Oxnard, Simi Valley and Ventura. But in the one large city that is patrolled by the Sheriff's Department, Thousand Oaks, the California Crime Index fell 1.2 percent. It continues to have the fewest crimes of any city in California with a population of more than 100,000. In second place: Simi Valley.

SEAMS IN THE ASTROTURF...

In the world of politics, "Astroturf" is the word used to describe efforts that appear to show grassroots support but are actually synthetic. When done right, it can be quite effective. When a mistake is made, however, the result can be embarrassingly phony. At least some residents in Thousand Oaks recently got a homespun letter from "Audra's local team; Friends - Neighbors - Republicans," urging them to support Audra Strickland in the 37th Assembly District GOP primary. Unfortunately for the local team, the seams in the Astroturf were showing.

The letter talks about how "Thousand Oaks is a very special place" and says that "Thousand Oaks Boulevard isn't just any street in California. It's Main Street." Homespun, right? Well, it seems that way until two paragraphs later when, instead of whatever paragraphs were supposed to be included in the form letter, the letter continues: "Section D Issue swap," followed by "Section E Issue swap."

In other words, this was a boilerplate letter written not by "neighbors and friends" but by a sophisticated political consultant, intended to have precisely tailored messages to specific voters depending on such issues as their ZIP code and gender. Maybe someone should ask Audra where she really stands on Section D and Section E issues...

... AND AN UNSEEMLY SIGN

Those who walked in the State Capitol this week were taken aback by the sign above the governor's office. Until last weekend, it had always read simply "GOVERNOR" above the door, in letters engraved into the marble wall. It had an elegant dignity about it that suggested the permanency of institution mattered more than the transience of the office-holders who came and went. But the new occupants of the office apparently believe the individual inside merits top billing. In gold letters that match those engraved below, the name "ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER" has been mounted above "GOVERNOR."

Before, it was only in Hollywood that top-drawer actors got their names listed above movie titles.

On Thursday, in a speech to high school students attending the YMCA Model Legislature, Schwarzenegger gave remarks that might help explain the new sign above the governor's office:

"I was always thinking about how I could be the most muscular man? How can I be the richest guy? How can I get into the movies? How can I become a star? It was all I, I, I."

It was a change in that attitude, he said, that compelled him to run for governor. The evidence posted on the wall above his office suggests that the transformation is not quite complete.

AMERICA IS SAFER BECAUSE...

From the presidential campaign down to every contest for Congress, one of the hottest political questions this fall will be: Is America safer because of its decision to go to war with Iraq?

I put the question this week to former Assemblyman Howard Kaloogian, the conservative candidate in the primary campaign to determine which Republican will oppose Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer in the fall. Kaloogian answered resoundingly in the affirmative, but not for some of the reasons you might imagine. His rationale had nothing to do with the existence or absence of weapons of mass destruction, whether Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat, or whether his regime had been harboring terrorist cells. Kaloogian's response was much more direct:

"I'd rather have the terrorists going to Iraq in order to fight our Army rather than coming to America to kill our citizens... They're going to do one or the other."

In light of the guerilla-style attacks on American troops and car bombings directed at Iraqis supportive of the U.S.-backed coalition government, I asked whether that view might be construed as less than sympathetic to the American troops in Iraq.

"God bless 'em. They volunteered for service and they do a phenomenal job and they ought to be supported and provided with the training and the machinery and the technology to do the job that they have volunteered to do."

THE SPILLING OF MODERATE BLOOD

When new Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez of Los Angeles was competing for the job with three other contenders in the fall, he made an effort to court all factions of the diverse Assembly Democratic Caucus. Those moderates who are members of a bipartisan working group believe Nunez made, if not specific promises, at least assurances that their members would be represented in leadership positions under a Nunez speakership. And in the weeks leading up to his ascension to the job, Nunez talked a great deal about bipartisanship and the importance of finding "common ground."

This week, moderate lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are feeling betrayed. Lynn Daucher, the Orange County moderate who had been the only Republican to chair an Assembly committee, was stripped of that position in new committee assignments made by Nunez minutes after being sworn in. Democratic moderate Joe Canciamilla, who has made a name for himself as a leading budget wonk, did not get the Budget Committee chairmanship he was led to believe might be coming his way. Joe Nation, a pragmatic Democrat from Marin County, was relieved of his duties as chairman of the powerful Rules Committee. John Dutra of Fremont, the Assembly's most prominent pro-business Democrat, was replaced as chairman of the Transportation Committee.

Another member of the bipartisan working group, Democrat Lois Wolk of Davis, was included in Nunez' prepared swearing-in speech among a short list of members who were singled out for their commitment to specific issues. But when he delivered the remarks, Nunez skipped over the sentence about Wolk.

The assignments Nunez made rewarded some of the Assembly's most liberal members, including Sacramento's Darrell Steinberg, who will become Budget Committee chairman; Monterey Park's Judy Chu, who will take over the Appropriations Committee; and Cindy Montanez of San Fernando, who will be chairwoman of the Rules Committee.

THE SKY IS FALLING, PART II

The state Democratic Party — in the persons of Chairman Art Torres, Senate President Pro Tem John Burton and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez — added its official blessing to the Proposition 57 campaign this morning, backing the $15 billion bond that would pay off the state's accumulated debt and help plug a hole in balancing next year's budget. Television commercials in support of the measure already are on the air, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is plugging what he calls his "California Recovery Bond" at every opportunity.

To those who were around to watch the Proposition 13 campaign in 1978, there is a gathering sense of deja vu: The entire political, labor and business establishment is trying to lead voters in a direction they're not predisposed to go. On top of that, we're beginning to hear the same sort of Doomsday arguments that were made against Proposition 13 -- that unless Proposition 57 passes, police officers will be laid off, fire stations will close and schoolchildren will be stuffed into classrooms like sardines.

Back then, the public didn't buy those arguments and passed Proposition 13 anyway — and the sky didn't fall. Of course, back then, the state had multibillion-dollar surplus and was able to bail out the local governments, which lost their property tax revenues. In this case, there isn't any sugar daddy around to step in and pay California's bills if voters say no to borrowing the money.

The bond's establishment supporters must perform a delicate dance over the next three weeks — somehow persuading voters that the borrowing is a necessary step toward moving California forward, without overplaying their hand by threatening and trying to frighten voters with a vision of doom. California voters have shown they don't like being bullied, and they aren't inclined to believe claims that the sky will fall.

THE OTHER SHOE ON TAX REFUND CHECKS

As I've discovered this year, parents of children attending college are forced to get a bit of a jump on the rest of America when it comes to filing income-tax returns. Because the universal application for college financial aid is due to the U.S. Department of Education by March 2, that date becomes the de facto filing deadline in households that include collegians. So over the weekend I got an early reminder of what millions of American parents are going to rediscover — or discover for the first time, if they weren't paying attention before — before April 15:

That check the IRS sent them last year was an advance, not a bonus.

To be sure, economists are crediting tax cuts and those tax-credit advance checks to parents as a key contributing factor to the healthy growth in the gross national product in the third and fourth quarters of last year. But it's not likely too many middle-class parents will remember that when they see that the dependent credits they can subtract from the bottom line of their total tax liability have now shrunk from $1,000 per child to $600.

It may take a little education on the part of President Bush and others in his administration to remind these parents that they got a $400 advance last year. Without such education, it may create a more receptive audience for those Democratic detractors who say the Bush tax cuts are too heavily weighted toward the rich.

It could be a challenge getting American taxpayers to listen to reason when they discover that the checks they send to the IRS in April are $400 higher than the ones they sent last year, or their refund check is for $400 less.

WHO'S A FRIEND OF ARNOLD?

Conservative Republicans statewide have been put in something of a bind by Proposition 57, the $15 billion debt-payoff bond on the March 2 ballot. Most of them don't like the idea, talk radio hosts and listeners castigate it, Sen. Tom McClintock signed the ballot argument against it — yet Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is putting his considerable reputation on the line by staging a full-court public relations blitz to try to get it passed.

It has made for some interesting and uncomfortable situations. There is, for instance, the case of Orange County Assemblyman John Campbell, who voted against placing the bond on the ballot but now supports it. Interestingly enough, just about the time Campbell changed his mind, Schwarzenegger endorsed him in his tough primary campaign for the state Senate. And then there's McClintock, the governor's foe in the recall election who resisted many entreaties to drop out of that race for the sake of Republican unity. In a show of concilliation, Schwarzenegger pledged that he would appear at a fund-raiser to help McClintock in this year's campaign for re-election to the state Senate. Their disagreement over the bond made things a little awkward, however, and now that fund-raiser has been put off until at least after the March 2 vote.

And then there's the interesting situation in Ventura County's contested primary campaign for the Republican nomination in the 37th Assembly District. The two candidates who are openly opposed to the bond — Audra Strickland and Mike Robinson — have each sent out mailers that prominently feature a photo of Schwarzenegger.

I'm told that the mailers have caught the attention of Schwarzenegger's political advisers, who are none too happy that two GOP candidates who argue against the linchpin of his fiscal recovery plan are at the same time also seeking to associate themselves with the governor's image and popularity with Republican voters. The third major candidate in the race, Jeff Gorell is a strong supporter of Schwarzenegger's plan. It remains to be seen whether that dynamic will be enough to prompt Schwarzenegger to make an endorsement in the race.

It is enough of a concern to Robinson, however, that he recently told me that if Schwarzenegger backed another candidate in the primary, "It would certainly strain the relationship" if Robinson were to ultimately be elected to the Assembly.

COMING TO A MAILBOX NEAR YOU?

While average voters generally grumble about how "partisan" bickering and backstabbing has soured them on politics, if the truth be told there is nothing nastier in politics than an intraparty battle.

There are myriad examples on both sides: Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn's sleazy 2001 campaign mailer against fellow Democrat Antonio Villaraigosa that featured a picture of a crack cocaine pipe and intimated dark ties to the drug-trafficking underworld. Or Sen. Richard Alarcon's infamous 1998 mailer that falsely intimated that his Democratic primary opponent, former Assemblyman Richard Katz had been involved in a 1988 scheme in Orange County in which armed guards were stationed near polling places in an effort to intimidate Latino voters.

In a couple of this year's hottest Republican primaries, similar racially charged dirty tricks are beginning to unfold. In a Sacramento-area congressional primary, Sen. Rico Oller has sent out mailers with a photo of a turban-wearing terrorist. On the turban are images of Latino immigrants. The piece assails one of Oller's opponents, former congressman and state Attorney General Dan Lungren, for his 1986 support in Congress for an immigration reform bill that was ultimately signed into law by President Ronald Reagan. Also, in a Republican primary for a state Senate seat in Orange County, Assemblyman Ken Maddox this week sent a hit piece against fellow Assemblyman John Campbell that features a photo of Osama bin Laden.

That brought this quip from Campbell campaign strategist Dave Gilliard: "The over-under on when we would see the first photo of Osama bin Laden surface in the primaries was Feb. 24. Ken really surprised us, using an Osama photo this early."

It probably won't be long before similarly hard-hitting, emotional — and, yes, just plain sleazy — campaign mail begins showing up in Ventura County households in the 37th Assembly District, home of the hottest GOP Assembly primary in the state. It's a fairly safe bet that at least one of the candidates will find a way to accuse another of being soft on illegal immigration.

THE AUSTRIAN SCHMOOZER

He may have come into office decrying "politics as usual," but Arnold Schwarzenegger showed again this afternoon that he is a natural born politician, someone who understands the importance of graciousness and charm in building the kind of personal relationships that are essential to success.

Speaker Herb Wesson hosted an informal lunch with members of the Capitol press corps, an event to say goodbye before incoming Speaker Fabian Nunez is sworn in on Monday. Wesson had just begun to entertain some questions when, unannounced, Schwarzenegger strolled into the room, put his arm around Wesson's shoulders and spoke glowingly of the outgoing speaker as a man who always keeps his word.

When a reporter started to ask a question of the governor, he turned briefly, said that Wesson, not he, was the man of the hour and quickly departed. All told, it probably took Schwarzenegger less than 10 minutes to leave his office, ride the elevator up two floors and pay his respects. The payoff in good will is immeasurable.

THE CALIFORNIA CLOUT SCENARIO

It is perhaps a moment that former Secretary of State Bill Jones, a candidate for the Republican U.S. Senate nomination, would like to forget, but it was four years ago this month that Arizona Sen. John McCain brought his "Straight Talk Express" bus to California to give the state its first taste of presidential primary excitement in many years. Jones, caught up in the momentary momentum of McCain's campaign, took back his endorsement of George W. Bush, and threw in his lot with McCain.

Although the Bush White House may not ever agree, perhaps Jones could be excused for getting caught up in the excitement of the moment — the one and only stirring moment in California during the 2000 presidential primary. I attended that McCain rally at Sacramento State University and it was electric with a kind of political energy I've never before or since seen in California politics. Subsequently, I've witnessed a raucous and adoring crowd at one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's shopping center rallies, but the energy there was much different — more like the manufactured hype of a rock concert. The McCain event had the feel of, say, the crowd energy that builds and then climaxes at the end of a really good, really close college basketball game.

That's the kind of enthusiasm presidential primary politics can generate. As the 2004 version unfolds, there is still a scenario under which Californians may be able to witness some of this political drama.

Here's the scenario: North Carolina Sen. John Edwards wins in South Carolina tonight, and retired Gen. Wesley Clark keeps Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's juggernaut at bay by winning in Oklahoma. Thus, Kerry's momentum stays strong, but is not yet decisive. Then, next week Edwards wins in two more Southern states – Tennessee and Virginia. That would set the table for Super Tuesday on March 2. One of the big prizes is Massachusetts, where Kerry has favorite-son status. California could become the key to Edwards' survival and the only state that stands between Kerry and the nomination.

If that comes to pass, it could be just the tonic that dispirited California Democrats need to help recover from the post-recall blahs.

GETTING A SPOT IN THE BALLOT, IN SCRIPT

After the Ventura County Democratic Central Committee had recruited a candidate last fall to carry the party's banner in the 37th Assembly District, the plan fell through after he failed to deliver the completed forms and required signatures to the County Clerk's Office. So the Democrats will be without a candidate in the fall, right?

Maybe not. State elections law allows a write-in candidate in the primary to win a place on the general election ballot if the candidate can get write-in votes equal to 1 percent of the total ballots cast in the last election for the office being sought. In the case of the 37th Assembly District, that amounts to 1,187 votes.

That, then, is the target for Ferial Masry of Newbury Park, who has filed papers to become a qualified write-in on Democratic ballots on March 2.

Ventura County Assistant Registrar of Voters Bruce Bradley says he knows of only one case statewide in which a write-in candidate has been able to get enough votes to qualify for the general election ballot.

Masy -- no relation to Thousand Oaks City Councilman Ed Masry, -- has her work cut out for her, but if county Democrats can spread the word sufficiently to absentee voters, they might be able to generate 1,200 write-in votes. If she were to qualify, Masry would make an interesting candidate in the fall election. Born in Mecca, she is a Saudi Arabian immigrant whose son is serving with U.S. forces in Iraq.