7 questions, only 1 potentially fatal

Proponents of Proposition 70, the Indian-sponsored initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot which would allow unlimited slot machines at casinos on reservations in exchange for tribes paying the equivalent of the state corporate income tax on their profits, held a news conference this morning to unveil what they called "the 7 deadly questions" to ask Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding what they called "the cash register chaos" of the new deals he's been negotiating with selected Indian tribes.

In fact, six of the questions were somewhat arcane, legalistic or just plain confusing to anyone except the most passionate followers of the complicated gaming issue.

But there is one element of the issue that nearly everyone understands: Will tribal gaming eventually lead to the development of casinos in the state's major urban areas? A clear majority of Californians wants the answer to that question to be "No!"

Given the governor's popularity and opinion polls that show the two gaming initiatives on the November ballot losing badly, what Prop. 70 advocates need is one truly deadly question that will raise doubts about Schwarzenegger's credibility on the issue.

This could be it: "Why do you continue to say that you oppose urban casinos and then do everything you can to make San Pablo the biggest casino in the Western United States?"

San Pablo is an existing card club just east of San Francisco, a stone's throw from the Bay and just minutes away from downtown Oakland and the San Francisco Peninsula. In August, Schwarzenegger negotiated a deal that would have allowed 5,000 slot machines there � more than any of the glitzy gambling halls on the Las Vegas Strip. In the face of fierce and instant opposition in the Bay area and from legislators, the Lytton tribe quickly agreed to cut that number in half, with the proviso that it could be renegotiated in a couple years.

Even at that, legislators refused to ratify the proposed deal, and Schwarzenegger had to withdraw the proposal in the closing days of the legislative session.

Proposition 70 would limit Indian gaming to existing reservations. "It's transparent. It's out there. There's no question about it," said Gene Raper, spokesman for the Prop. 70 campaign.

And what's Schwarzenegger's position on urban gaming? "The governor seems to be fickle on it," Raper said. "We're not."

Said Jesse Huff, the former state finance director who is a consultant to the campaign: "When the backroom deal came to light, the administration said it didn't want to do it but it was forced to do it. But when it came to light, everybody backed down. It was clear they were never forced."

Prop. 70 faces a very difficult battle, given the confusion over the competing ballot initiatives and the governor's opposition. But there is one deadly question that could resuscitate an initiative that now appears to be on life support.

Expect this question to be asked of voters in coming TV commercials:
"Do you favor large-scale urban casinos in California? Neither do we. Prop. 70 prohibits them. Gov. Schwarzenegger, in his zeal to generate revenues for the state budget, has already shown he's in favor of them if the price is right."

Blowing up (ballot) boxes

There are competing measures on the Nov. 2 ballot addressing California's system of electing state constitutional officers, members of Congress and legislators. Proposition 60 simply asserts the status quo � primary elections that pick a candidate from each qualified party, and a general election in which every qualified party is assured a spot on the ballot. Proposition 62 proposes fundamental � some would say radical � reform. The function of primaries would become, rather than a process of picking partisan nominees, a first-round of the general election. Every voter could select one candidate of any party for each office on the ballot; the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to the general election.

A Public Policy Institute of California poll released today shows that voters generally like the idea (49 percent yes, 33 percent no, 18 percent undecided). Democrats like it slightly more than Republicans, but the biggest boosters are the growing bloc of independent voters who favor it by a margin of 2-to-1 (58 percent to 29 percent).

There was something else in the poll that ought to be even more disconcerting to the Democratic and Republican party establishments that are working so feverishly to defeat Proposition 62: California voters just aren't satisfied with what they're getting. A remarkable 43 percent of Democrats and 37 percent of Republicans said they believe the two parties do such a poor job of representing the people that a third major party is needed. Among independents, 62 percent think a third party is needed.

"Is it the major parties or just the current crop of candidates that these voters find so lacking?" mused the poll's director, Mark Baldassare.

The survey does help explain why the parties, in their campaign to defeat Proposition 62, are shedding such huge crocodile tears over what they assert would be the initiative's deleterious effect on minor parties.

At a legislative hearing on the initiative yesterday, Republican operative Chris Wysocki asserted that the measure would "disenfranchise" all those who vote for minor party candidates in the general election. Democrats make the same argument. It's the first time I've ever seen the major parties show any affection for the minor-party candidates who can become such a nuisance to them in a close race.

A case can be made that the restructured primary might actually empower third parties, especially in districts that are that so homogenous that the major parties take them for granted. What might happen, for instance, if a Libertarian finished second in an Assembly primary race in northern San Diego County, or a Green finished second in a congressional primary in Berkeley? It could make for a very interesting general election. From the sentiments expressed in the poll, that might be just the kind of shake-things-up development that Californians disillusioned with the political status quo would love to see.

Pick an office, any office

When you search the name of Sen. Tom McClintock on the state's campaign finance web site, four candidate committees appear: McClintock for Senate, McClintock for controller, McClintock for governor and, the latest, McClintock for lieutenant governor.

Since election law limits a candidate to seeking only one office at a time, a review is in order: McClintock ran for controller in 2002, governor in 2003, is running for re-election to the Senate in 2004 and is exploring the idea of running for lieutenant governor in 2006.

I asked McClintock yesterday if that might be some sort of record, having four committees for four separate offices. His response: Only the Senate committee is active; the others are either old accounts yet to be finally settled or, in the case of the newest committee, a paperwork necessity in the event he does decide to run in 2006.

Maybe. But as McClintock himself acknowledges, no one yet knows Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plans for 2006. Nor Controller Steve Westly's. If either should decide to not run for re-election, McClintock may yet revive that committee for governor or controller.

McClintock's Democratic opponent, schoolteacher Paul Graber, in a recent interview said he believes the Republican senator forming a committee to run for an election that will fall in the middle of the four-year term he is now seeking "shows contempt for voters in the district."

"I understand the concern," McClintock said. He explained that the rules of fund-raising make it essential for potential candidates to act early. "If I did not take preliminary actions (to run for lieutenant governor in 2006), it would foreclose that as a possibility."

As for the possibility of his leaving his Senate office in midterm, McClintock said he has always been forthright about his political philosophy: "I will do whatever I can to increase the freedom of people and reduce government restrictions on that freedom, and I will do that from whatever office I can be most effective."

IT REALLY IS A TREND

In the last post here on Aug. 25 (I've been out of town attending to family issues since), it was noted that voter registration in Ventura County since the March primary has heavily favored Democrats. It turns out that trend is being repeated around the state, in large part as the result of an aggressive voter registration program run by Assembly Democrats in key districts.

In a news release today, spokesman Steve Maviglio, who was press secretary to former Gov. Gray Davis, details voter registration numbers in 8 important Assembly districts, including the 35th, which includes Ventura and much of Oxnard. In each district, Democratic registration grew as a percentage of the whole and Republican registration declined.

In the 35th, Democrats gained .98 percent, to 44.32 percent of all voters. Republicans fell 1.07 percent, to 32.59 percent � a gain of more than 2 percentage points in the Democratic margin.

Most impressive, however, was the shift in the 80th Assembly District, expected to be the most contentious campaign in the state as Democrats attempt to take out Republican freshman Bonnie Garcia, who Democrats feel won by a fluke in 2002. In that district, which includes Imperial County and portions of Riverside County, Democrats gained 2.32 percent and Republicans fell 2.19 percent � a 4.5 percentage point swing.