The governor has appointed his legal affairs secretary, Peter Siggins, to a spot on the First District Court of Appeals… an announcement that was only about two hours after the governor created a second vacancy on that court by elevating Carol Corrigan to the state Supreme Court.

Schwarzenegger also tapped Igancio Ruvolo as the appeal court’s presiding justice.

Ending months of speculation, Governor Schwarzenegger today nominated appeals court jurist Carol Corrigan to the California Supreme Court.

Corrigan, 57, has served as a justice on the First District Court of Appeal since 1994. If confirmed by the Council on Judicial Appointments, she will fill the vacancy created when Janice Rogers Brown was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals in Washington, DC.

[The official news release is here]

Corrigan was one of 3 finalists whose names the governor sent to the State Bar several months ago. In fact, the guidelines require a decision within 90 days of that submission, and Schwarzenegger’s time was about to expire.

His list of 3 quickly became a list of 2, when U.S. District Court Judge Morrison England withdrew his name shortly after the announcement. And in October, newspaper reports mentioned concerns raised by Attorney General Bill Lockyer about some of the opinions written by another of the finalists, Third District Court of Appeal Justice Vance Raye.

In a newspaper interview this fall, Justice Corrigan described herself as a “centrist” who most admired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

And in an interesting sidenote, Corrigan’s selection for the California Supreme Court would create a second vacancy on the same appellate court where a longtime Schwarzenegger adviser has applied for appointment: Peter Siggins, the governor’s legal affairs secretary.

Every reporter had the same question today at the end of the closed-door clemency hearing for Stanley Tookie Williams: who said what, and what was the reaction of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to the arguments made by the attorneys?

What happened next was the journalistic equivalent of a lopsided sports contest: a shutout.

Everyone involved– the attorneys representing Williams, the attorneys representing Los Angeles County, and aides to Schwarzenegger– refused to offer even the slightest insight into the arguments made, or the reactions received, in today’s hearing that lasted slightly longer than the allotted hour.

Meantime, a passionate but somewhat disorganized rally played out at the same time on the west steps of the Capitol. Some showed up to specifically argue for clemency in Williams’ conviction for four murders in 1979. Others arrived to condemn the death penalty in general.

And many were focused on the man who gets to make the decision. One group carried a large banner that said, “Only A Girly Man Would Execute Someone Who Gives Children Hope.” Earlier, a number of speakers told the crowd of how Williams’ anti-gang message changed their lives. Some of those who spoke were teenagers.

One of Williams’ attorneys later offered a ray of hope, reading for reporters an e-mail he said he had received from Linda Owens, identified as the ex-wife of Albert Owens. The murder of Owens was the first of four in February 1979 for which Stanley Williams is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection early Tuesday morning.

The e-mail reportedly said that Mrs. Owens wants to “build upon” the efforts towards peace advocated by Williams in recent years. Does that mean she supports clemency? The attorneys wouldn’t say.

And either way… the only opinion that now matters is that of Schwarzenegger. No word on when he’ll reach a decision, though his aides are setting up a system for reporters to check in over the weekend.

Proposition 77 may have been soundly rejected by voters last month, but the legal questions that surfaced over the initiative this past summer are scheduled to be revisited tomorrow by the state’s highest court.

And the issue is pretty simple: once a measure has received its official title and summary, what kinds of changes– if any– are acceptable?

You’ll remember that Prop 77 almost didn’t even make it to the ballot. A trial court and an appeals court both ruled to reject the initiative, because at least two versions had been circulated for voter signatures. Proponents argued the changes were minor and technical in nature; opponents argued that the changes were substantive.

But the Supreme Court placed Prop 77 back on the ballot… not because it agreed with the proponents that the changes were minor, but because the court said that the issue was best decided after the election.

Fast forward to tomorrow, where oral arguments in the Prop 77 case will be heard by the justices in Los Angeles. Interestingly enough, proponents tried last month to get the entire case dropped– arguing that 77’s defeat at the polls had rendered the issue moot.

Legal watchers, like Rick Hasen of Loyola Law School, disagree. “The clearer the rules could be in advance, the better off everyone is,” said Hasen.

One of the proponents of last month’s failed Proposition 73, requiring parental notification before a pregnant teenager’s abortion, is attempting to put the issue back on the ballot– but this time, without one of the November measure’s most controversial provisions.

On Wednesday, the Attorney General’s office received a request for a new initiative from Paul Laubacher, a proponent of Prop 73. The initiative, defeated on November 8 by 52.9% of the voters (results still unofficial), would have required doctors to notify a parent or legal guardian before performing an abortion on a minor teenage girl.

The new proposal does the exact same thing. In fact, the proposed initiative submitted this week is almost word-for-word the same as Prop 73… with one glaring change.

The new proposal no longer defines the abortion procedure.

Pro-choice advocates mounted a campaign against Prop 73 based, in part, on the measure’s definition of an abortion as causing “the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” They argued that the initiative was an attempt to insert a pro-life definition of the procedure into the state Constitution as a foothold for future challenges to existing abortion rights laws.

The new version drops all of the former language defining abortion, now simply saying it is “the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor, except for the purpose of producing a live birth.”

It’s unclear how much the allegations over the old language actually influenced the “no on 73″ vote… and whether the concept of parental notification, in general, would actually win in another statewide campaign.

That’s Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata’s take on how efforts to craft a bond for infrastructure needs will highlight whether Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is serious about working with legislators… and not campaigning against them.

Perata briefed Capitol reporters this afternoon on what he considers the road map for Senate Democrats. And he was emphatic at stressing both the need for long-term thinking, and how Democrats will be watching to see whether the governor lives up to his promises of cooperation in the aftermath of the special election.

“This will be the test,” said the Oakland Democrat, in discussing plans to address the state’s serious infrastructure needs. Perata said his meeting this week with Schwarzenegger was a good one, and that the governor seems “as engaged as I have ever seen him.”

As for the bond, the Pro Tem cautioned that it’s too soon to try and estimate the cost of such an endeavor (with estimates ranging from the $10.3 billion pricetag on Perata’s current plan all the way to $100 billion for a more comprehensive proposal). Instead, Perata suggested that lawmakers take an “inventory” of what the most critical needs are, assess the cost, and then decide whether there’s the political will to pay for it.