There has been a lot of buzz in the Capitol today about a possible last-minute bill that would move all ballot propositions to November general-election ballots, rather than both general and primary elections.

It may be a new idea in the Legislature, but it's hardly the first time the issue has been raised. In May, the Public Policy Institute of California asked the question in its statewide survey (Page 15). The proposed reform drew broad support -- 59 percent of all likely voters, 60 percent of Democrats, 56 percent of Republicans.

Here is the text of the question: "Reforms have been suggested to address issues that arise in the initiative process. Please say whether you would favor or oppose each of the following reform proposals. [rotate questions 42 to 45] How about only allowing initiatives in November general elections, instead of in any statewide election, such as primaries or special elections?"

The same survey found, as have several previous PPIC surveys, that large majorities of voters believe the initiative process is in need of either major (37 percent) or minor (40 percent) changes.

This was the only time the PPIC poll asked specifically about allowing initiatives only on general-election ballots.

Given the first-blush response of voters, it would seem they would be very receptive to the idea. That hardly squares with the assertions of Republicans, including strategist Rob Stutzman, who made this statement to the Los Angeles Times: "This is an egregious, self-interested move by Democrats and the unions who support them to try to alter the Constitution to give themselves a political advantage."

Perhaps that would be the motivation of the moment, but just four months ago even 56 percent of Republicans thought it was a fine idea.

Before leaving this spring for a 12-month military deployment in Afghanistan, Assemblyman Jeff Gorell told me he had put together a "three-part plan" to make it possible for him to become a candidate for re-election next year.

Option A -- the one that creates the least stress and hassle for Gorell -- is now available, thanks to an act of the Legislature.

Here was the problem: Gorell will not return from active duty until after the early March deadline for candidates to file for office in 2012 has passed. Under current law, only the candidate can submit the completed paperwork to county elections officials. Had that law not changed, Gorell would have been forced to either use his one personal leave to return to California to file the paperwork, or would have had to fly a notary public notarized in California to Afghanistan to he could have his signature on the papers notarized.

Effective Jan. 1, there will be an easier option, thanks to a new law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this summer. The law allows perspective candidates who are are deployed on active military service outside the state to grant limited power of attorney to another party to file their candidate papers.

The law (AB 754) was authored by Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, R-San Diego, who is a friend of Gorell's from their days working in former Gov. Pete Wilson's administration and a former reservist himself. The law is narrowly crafted and is modeled on earlier legislation which granted military personnel serving outside the state to grant a limited power of attorney to someone else to sign a marriage certificate. It passed both houses of the Legislaure without a dissenting vote.

Gorell has announced plans to seek re-election in the new 44th Assembly District, which includes Oxnard, Camarillo and Thousand Oaks

In opening his remarks at Saturday's 80th birthday event for Hank Lacayo, Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Simi Valley, looked out upon the room and noted that it was obvious this was not "a Republican convention."

Indeed, it was a fairly Democratic crowd, and Gallegly deserves credit for showing the grace to not only attend but also sit at the head table, along with his wife, Janice, for the entire, three-hour affair.

But it did make for some fairly unusual political pairings.

For instance, sitting about 20 feet from Gallegly, one of the state's most outspoken proponents of tough policies on illegal immigration, was Assemblyman Gil Cedillo, D-Los Angeles, the author of California Dream Act legislation and the man who wrote the short-lived state law giving illegal immigrants the ability to obtain driver's licenses. There may be no two elected officials in all of California who are further apart on the question of how to deal with illegal immigrants.

Also in the room -- and one of the speakers -- was Anita Perez Ferguson, the Santa Barbara native who went on to become president of the National Women's Political Caucus. Gallegly knows her better as the Democrat who ran a tough campaign against him in 1992. Perez Ferguson told me that she and Gallegly exchanged brief, cordial remarks.

And, finally, there were six elected officials in the room who have publicly said they are at least interested in exploring the idea of replacing Gallegly in Congress -- five of them, regardless of whether Gallegly decides to run for a 14th term next year.

The Democrats in the crowd who have at least entertained the idea were Moorpark Councilman David Pollock, who has already declared his candidacy;
and Sen. Fran Pavley of Agoura Hills, Assemblywoman Julia Brownley of Santa Monica, Supervisor Steve Bennett of Ventura, and Oxnard Harbor District Commissioner Mary Anne Rooney of Oxnard, all of whom are at least giving the idea some thought.

And then there was Supervisor Linda Parks of Thousand Oaks, who is also giving consideration to a campaign for Congress next year, but only if Gallegly, a fellow Republican, either retires or decides to run in a different district.

A significant, and familiar, bill is moving along in the Legislature that would require health insurance policies sold in California to include maternity care. Its prospects for passage appear good because, as Sen. Noreen Evans, D-Santa Rosa, noted before the Assembly Appropriations Commitee today, the insurance industry has removed its opposition to SB 155.

In her testimony, Shannon Crowley-Smith of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists noted that this is the fifth time similar legislation has moved through the Legislature. The previous four times, she said, it was vetoed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger because "why should men have to pay for paternity?"

Ouch.

Many political analysts around the state count Sen. Tony Strickland of Moorpark among the Republican incumbents whose careers will be imperiled if the 2012 elections are conducted under the maps certified this week by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

There is particular concern among Republicans about the Senate maps, which most analysts believe would give Democrats a legitimate shot at attaining a two-thirds majority in the upper house, an advantage that would essentially render GOP senators irrelevant. Republican analyst Tony Quinn, in a recent blog post at Fox & Hounds Daily, writes that the new maps spell doom for Strickland: "The seat of Ventura County Republican Sen. Tony Strickland was moved far into Los Angeles County where he cannot win."

Immediately after the commission certified the maps, the Senate Republican Caucus announced it will back a referendum to try to overturn the new Senate maps. Strickland told me that he supports the effort and will contribute money to help make the referendum happen. But he insisted he was doing so for the team -- specifically, to try to rescue colleage Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo, who was placed in such a Democratic-dominated district that he indicated he won't even try to seek re-election.

As for the map's impact on him, Strickland was upbeat. "I'm happy with the district I have," he said. "I get to keep my base in eastern Ventura County."

Former state superintendent of public instruction and longtime Ventura County lawmaker Jack O'Connell seems to be settling into life after politics. I visited him yesterday in his Sacramento office at School Innovations & Advocacy, the national education consulting firm where he serves as "chief education officer."

Earlier this year he also joined the board of directors of ECMC, a Minneapolis-based guarantor of student loans that insures a $35 billion loan portfolio.

I asked him whether he missed politics after having served nearly 30 years as an elected official in Sacramento. He said that his predecessor as superintendent, Delaine Eastin, who was also a former legislator, best summed up his feelings when she was asked the same question: "I miss some of the animals, but I don't miss the zoo."

Republican redistricting gadfly Tony Quinn, in a post today on Fox & Hounds Daily, argues that the Senate district maps approved by the Citizens Redistricting Commission last week are the ones most vulnerable to court challenges and a referendum.

He argues that the commission, in essence, mangled the Central Coast from southern Santa Clara County to the San Fernando Valley in a manner that will have the effect of knocking out two Republican senators, Sam Blakeslee of San Luis Obispo and Tony Strickland of Moorpark, and creating a new Democratic seat in the middle -- giving Democrats a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Quinn, whose conspiratorial criticism of the commission grew somewhat tiresome during the map-drawing process, makes some solid points. But it should be noted that the proposed new maps along the Central Coast would essentially undo two deliberate, partisan decisions made by the Legislature in creating the existing districts. At the time, Senate Democratic leader John Burton assented to blowing up the district held by Democrat Jack O'Connell, who was being termed out, and Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte used part of the pieces to create a failsafe Republican district for Tom McClintock.

The proposed new district along the Central Coast would largely recreate the district that O'Connell held for eight years during the 1990s.