Late word tonight that the California Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the fracas over the redistricting initiative, Proposition 77.

You’ll remember opponents of Prop 77 thought they had the initiative licked this summer, after a Superior Court judge kicked it off the ballot and an appeals court upheld that ruling. At issue was whether the wording changes between versions were a no-no. But the Supreme Court later weighed in and said Prop 77 should go to the voters regardless, and to the courts only after the election.

Well, that day has come. And regardless of the fact that Prop 77 lost, the high court will apparently hear the case next month when it convenes in Los Angeles. By the way… a similar ruling was made on the also-defeated Proposition 80 this summer. Might it be next?

“We won. They lost. Could you just write that once?”

That was Democratic/Labor strategist Gale Kaufman’s one request this morning from those of us in the Capitol press corps. The finality of her sentiment– her side as winners, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s camp as the losers on Election Day– is one that seems to contrast with an often repeated thought in recent days: that everyone now simply needs to find a way to get along and get to work on the state’s problems.

Interestingly enough, the need to “get along” is exactly what it sounds like the governor has decided to do, said his deputy chief of staff Rob Stutzman this afternoon.

“The voters of this state want the problems of this state to be resolved here in Sacramento,” said Stutzman. But he nonetheless drew a not too subtle line back to the Legislature itself, saying that the governor will have to “cajole” lawmakers to do their part.

And the “day after” story in much of the media is likely to focus on whether Governor Schwarzenegger is sorry that he dragged the state through an election, and/or whether he regrets it.

Union leaders, in a morning news conference at the California Teachers Association headquarters, clearly said they think an apology is due. They also were pretty proud of their victory over Team Arnold.

But Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman said the governor doesn’t see the need to apologize, and he dismissed the union comments as merely the day’s “talking points.”

The ink isn’t even dry on the election returns (and not all absentee ballots have been counted)… so don’t expect perfect harmony inside the hallways of the Capitol anytime soon. And that fact alone leaves one to imagine what it’ll be like inside the governor’s private office tomorrow, when he’s scheduled to sit down with the four legislative leaders and talk about what’s next.

“We won. They lost. Could you just write that once?”

That was Democratic/Labor strategist Gale Kaufman’s one request this morning from those of us in the Capitol press corps. The finality of her sentiment– her side as winners, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s camp as the losers on Election Day– is one that seems to contrast with an often repeated thought in recent days: that everyone now simply needs to find a way to get along and get to work on the state’s problems.

Interestingly enough, the need to “get along” is exactly what it sounds like the governor has decided to do, said his deputy chief of staff Rob Stutzman this afternoon.

“The voters of this state want the problems of this state to be resolved here in Sacramento,” said Stutzman. But he nonetheless drew a not too subtle line back to the Legislature itself, saying that the governor will have to “cajole” lawmakers to do their part.

And the “day after” story in much of the media is likely to focus on whether Governor Schwarzenegger is sorry that he dragged the state through an election, and/or whether he regrets it.

Union leaders, in a morning news conference at the California Teachers Association headquarters, clearly said they think an apology is due. They also were pretty proud of their victory over Team Arnold.

But Schwarzenegger spokesman Rob Stutzman said the governor doesn’t see the need to apologize, and he dismissed the union comments as merely the day’s “talking points.”

The ink isn’t even dry on the election returns (and not all absentee ballots have been counted)… so don’t expect perfect harmony inside the hallways of the Capitol anytime soon. And that fact alone leaves one to imagine what it’ll be like inside the governor’s private office tomorrow, when he’s scheduled to sit down with the four legislative leaders and talk about what’s next.

On Election Night 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger raised his hands in victory. He did it again in March 2004 when he convinced voters to approve a deficit bond, and again in November 2004 when he beat back ballot initiatives he didn’t like.

But on Tuesday night, a more subdued Schwarzenegger said, “With all my heart, I want to do the right thing for California.”

It was not a long and happy party here in Beverly Hills… the crowd was pretty much gone by around 11:00 p.m. And not a single political reporter seemed to miss another telling bit of news: the governor does not plan to make any public statements on Wednesday. No post-election news conference, as he has done often before. This time, only “private meetings in Los Angeles,” according to the release from his office.

That’s the big news. Meantime, there a few little things to notice on Election Night 2005, as well:

* The Good Life: Team Arnold chose the posh Beverly Hilton for its Election Night soiree, and news organizations found themselves shelling out upwards of $250 for a reporter to stay on site. Of course, several reporters were oohing and ahhing over the accommodations– including plasma TVs in their rooms. There was, however, a minor uprising when the free wireless internet service seemed to fizz out.

* The Anti-Party: The California Nurses Association has hounded the governor now for the better part of a year, so why quit on Election Night? Just down from Schwarzenegger’s event was the CNA’s “Aloha Arnold” Luau at Trader Vic’s restaurant. The menu included “Dimmed Education Sum” and “Clammed Up Nurses Chowder.” The main course: a large roasted pig (eyes staring blankly at passersby), the “Roast Corporate Pork.”

* Nurses For Clean Campaigns? CNA executive director Rose Ann DeMoro seemed to lay out an even more visible path for nurses, now that the governor’s proposals seemed to be squashed. She spent a lot of time Tuesday night talking about the evils of money in politics, and hinted that both Republicans and Democrats need to clean up their act. Perhaps another group joins the chorus for government reform?

* The Main Party: Meantime, the governor’s pals milled about munching on appetizers from waiter-lugged trays and bellying up to the full service bar (no host, perhaps a way to save money after an expensive campaign). An announcement was made before the guests came in that, sorry media types, the food is not for you. And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the music selection… mostly a lot of R&B/funk tunes, including songs from Rick James and Parliament P-Funk. And the governor’s theme song for the night? “The Age of Aquarius” from the musical Hair… with the song cued to the memorable chorus, “Let the sun shine.” A little optimism, even on a tough night for the governor.

No rest for the weary… see you back online from Sacramento tomorrow.

“And now, the end is near; and so I face the final curtain. My friend, I’ll say it clear, I’ll state my case, of which I’m certain.” –Frank Sinatra, “My Way”

Some 10 months after Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger threw down the proverbial gauntlet in his State of the State speech, the voters are poised to give him either a pat on the back or a blow to the midsection. And you could argue the same fate awaits the Democratic union consortium lined up against him.

The stakes are high for both sides in the election returns. And with that, here are just a few of the questions that will no doubt be on the minds of political reporters, pundits, and campaign operatives as the daytime hours drag by on Tuesday (Election Day itself is a maddening day full of nothing to do for those in the business):

* The Message: Watch for everyone to try and interpret the results as a “victory.” Two weeks ago, the governor’s chief political consigliere told me that winning just one initiative would be enough (of course, which one?). If Schwarzenegger goes 0-4 on his slate of measures, that would be pretty hard to spin as a “win.” Conversely, the Democratic union consortium may have trouble spinning their own “win” if the governor should manage to eek out a victory on all of the close races (conventional wisdom says essentially every initiative except for the budget proposal Proposition 76 could be tight, though some think the redistricting plan Proposition 77 is also not as close as supporters hope).

* The “Marriage”: What happens to the relationship between the governor and the Democratically controlled Legislature? There’s been chatter that everyone’s already looking beyond Election Day by huddling on items like a massive new transportation bond proposal. But some wounds will strike deeper than others… namely, the union dues initiative Proposition 75. If it happens to pass, wouldn’t the nuclear meltdown from angry Dems be hard to get around… especially in a re-election year?

* The Morass: Even an initiative that passes on Election Night might not be safe from being challenged in court. Legal battles over two of the initiatives (Prop 77 and Prop 80) were effectively postponed by the state Supreme Court, not necessarily ended. And several Capitol sources say should Proposition 76 pass, there is already a legal challenge written and waiting to be filed.

* The Money: $250 million? More? Do you count just what the campaigns spent, or the cost to local governments to conduct the election? Campaign finance aficionados will long talk about this election, and whether it again points out the need for real finance reform. And what has the heavy-duty check writing done to election/re-election efforts for everyone in 2006?

The election results may come in Tuesday night (or Wednesday morning, if the absentees slow things down), but the real results of November 8th are not going to be clear until some time later.

See you online Tuesday night… from Team Arnold’s HQ in Beverly Hills.

The real hand-wringing on both sides of next week’s special election is about voter turnout… how many, which ones, and for what issues?

He doesn’t have official predictions as to the last two questions, but Secretary of State Bruce McPherson does have a guess about total turnout on November 8: he’s pegging it at about 6.6 million voters. That would actually be the highest percentage turnout in any special election, other than the 2003 recall, since 1973.

You can ask five different people in political circles what that number will mean for the eight initiatives, and you’re likely to get five different answers.

The historic argument goes like this: low voter turnout is the norm in special elections, and low voter turnout probably skews GOP because Republicans show up to vote more often.

But even McPherson says that may not hold true this year. This time around, the real unknown is likely to be absentee voters. McPherson says more than 4.5 million absentee ballots have been requested, and about 1.8 million have already been received by registrars. If nothing else, that seems to indicate that for some voters, the 11th hour appeal by the various campaigns is too late.

Want some historical context of special election turnout by registered voters, given the 2005 prediction?

From the beginning of 2005 until now, there has been one underlying theme in the effort to wrestle political map drawing powers away from the Legislature: redistricting reform will lead to more competitive political races.

But will it?

On this afternoon’s newsmagazine version of The California Report, we take an in-depth look at the issue of electoral competitiveness, and how Proposition 77 may– or may not– make it a reality.

[You can find statewide listings for the program here]

Although the language of the initiative doesn’t actually list “competition” as one of the criteria for the retired judges who would draw new maps, the idea has been a key theme of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign events… as he often mentions that none of the 153 congressional and legislative seats up for grabs in 2004 changed party.

But competitiveness is not easy to define. Some academics I spoke with pointed to the fact that competition is a frequent factor in races without an incumbent, because it’s the visibility and financial resources of incumbents that can make even a competitive district’s election a foregone conclusion. Some also suggest that even if an incumbent does beats back a challenger, if the race is close… then wasn’t it also, by definition, competitive?

For me, the most interesting… and exhausting… part of my reporting was a trip to the Institute for Governmental Studies at UC-Berkeley, the official repository of the state’s redistricting data. As you’ll hear in the report, I spent about 90 minutes trying my own hand at drawing competitive districts in the Los Angeles area. And I found that, in many cases, the only way to balance the D’s with the R’s was to draw what some call “bacon strip” districts… ones that stretched from region to region. That, by the way, would conflict with Prop 77’s requirement that the judges should strive to draw districts that are compact, and ones that split cities and counties as rarely as possible.

In the end, just about every analysis seems to show that new political maps will create some level of new competition. But will it be as much competition as the “Yes on 77″ folks and the governor are selling? Most academics… and redistricting veterans… said that’s doubtful.

The debate over a community’s powers to impose spay and neuter restrictions on specific breeds of dogs could be headed to the ballot.

The Attorney General’s office has now given the green light for gathering signatures to overturn SB 861. The law would authorize local governments to enact ordinances specific to certain breeds of dogs– including mandatory spay/neutering and breeding requirements.

The bill, written by Senator Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo) and signed into law by the governor last month, sparked a pretty heated debate between owners of breeds like pit bulls and those who were ready to take action following some well publicized dog attacks.

If enough signatures are gathered, this would be the second referendum measure in less than two years; SB 2, a bill signed by former Governor Gray Davis to require more health care coverage on the job, was overturned by voters last fall as Proposition 72.

If you left the TV set for a quick snack Wednesday night, you would’ve missed what sounded like the only kind of new nugget of information in the latest televised forum with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor was at the Sacramento studios of KCRA-TV, fielding questions about his four ballot initiatives, when he happened to mention how he might use the powers contained in the budget initiative– Proposition 76.

An audience member asked Schwarzenegger how he might use the often-debated exclusive power of cutting spending contained in Prop 76. And the answer included a slightly new message: he would likely solve a budget deficit by simply spreading out the impact.

“You cut across the board, in order to be really fiscally responsible,” the governor said.

An across the board cut is not a new idea; in fact, it was the mechanism contained in the legislative version of Prop 76 that failed to pass this year. But the initiative version was modified, probably to mollify some critics, so that a governor had discretion over how to dole out budget cuts.

Across the board cuts would treat every state program the same. Some budget watchers say it’s only fair, because then nothing gets preferential treatment. Others, however, say it’s the worst kind of fiscal strategy, because it doesn’t distinguish between programs that are working and ones that are frivolous.

Schwarzenegger didn’t go into any more detail about what he meant. But the comments may give some insight into how he would wield those new powers, should Prop 76 be approved next week.

After checking out the latest “Yes on Proposition 76” a few days ago, it’s only fair to examine the latest ad from the other side.

And this one isn’t much better at avoiding the hype.

The new anti-76 ad essentially plays the “what if” game over how Governor Schwarzenegger would react if the Legislature fails to resolve a budget deficit. Prop 76 says that a deficit which remains unresolved for more than 45 days can then be erased solely by the governor, pretty much with any spending cuts of his choosing.

The ad, with ominous music in the background, features a teacher identified as Shannan Brown who rattles off the things that will supposedly happen under Prop 76.

“Minimum school funding guarantees are wiped out,” she says. “Child immunization programs are threatened.”

Wow. Pretty dire, huh? Trouble is, both statements are a stretch. It’s true that the minimum school funding guarantee (approved by voters in 1998 as Proposition 98) would be modified. But it wouldn’t be “wiped out.” Prop 98 would still provide a mandatory base level of funding every year. It would only be tinkered with if the governor chose to cut school funding to resolve a deficit… again, after the Legislature failed to approve any solutions.

The accusation that “child immunization programs” would be threatened is probably the wildest idea thrown out there by this ad. Seeing as there’s no such language in Prop 76, you have to assume that the ad is (again) trying to come up with the kinds of programs that would be subject to spending cuts if the governor had to erase a deficit without input from a deadlocked Legislature.

Sure, childhood immunization programs could be on the chopping block… but so, too, could be welfare programs, prison spending, or transportation projects. None of these are any less– or any more– threatened by the provisions in Prop 76.

You can watch the ad, called “Teacher”, here.