With all of the complex issues surrounding federal and state laws regulating voting machines, one factoid stood out in a hearing this morning in the state Senate: only 5 California counties have systems in place that are fully compliant with all new laws, and the June primary is a little more than 4 months away.

That assessment is based mostly on a chart compiled with information from local elections officials in each of California’s 58 counties. The issue at hand is not only having a voting system that’s compliant with state laws, but also one that is compliant with the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

As of last week, only Contra Costa, Stanislaus, Sacramento, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara counties had voting systems that were fully compliant and ready to roll. Every other county faces some sort of hurdles that have to be jumped– from machines that will have to produce a paper record in accordance with a new California law, to machines that don’t meet HAVA requirements about being fully accessible to some disabled voters.

The issues are pretty complex, and this morning’s hearing was dominated by a discussion of timelines– timelines influenced by the manufacturers of some machines getting federal approval of their devices, and then also getting state approval of those devices.

And the debate was sharp between Senator Debra Bowen (D-Marina del Rey), chair of the committee, and Undersecretary of State Bill Wood (appearing on behalf of his boss, Secretary Bruce McPherson).

Bowen (a candidate, it should be noted, for McPherson’s job) seemed pessimistic that state elections officials would be able to sign off in time on machines made by 5 different manufacturers.

“I see absolutely no way that you could possibly get your part of the work done in time for the [local county] registrars to have any ability to even make a decision about what they are going to use in the June election,” said Bowen.

Wood, and others from the Secretary of State’s office, said they believed it was possible, but stressed that the manufacturers of these machines needed to make deadlines of applications and documentation that are at the end of this month.

It should be noted that not all of the machines in question are the loved-or-hated electronic touch screen machines. Those machines have been at the epicenter of the rumblings about voting issues in recent years. And none have been given the OK for the upcoming elections.

Many local elections officials are, to say the least, worried. In fact, two counties… Alameda and San Mateo… are now seeking approval from the Legislature to conduct the June election as a “mail-in ballot only” election, rather than purchase the wrong equipment.

Members of various Indian gaming tribes across California often remind reporters not to lump all tribes into any one opinion or sentiment. Tribes are sovereign nations, goes the often repeated advice, and do not speak with one voice.

Today, new proof of how true that is: a group of powerful gaming tribes has sent a letter to Governor Schwarzenegger that basically calls out some of their fellow tribes for operating unauthorized gaming machines.

The letter from the California Tribal Business Alliance says that the organization is aware of “several thousand” machines in operation around the state that may not be what they claim to be. The machines in question are classified as electronic bingo games (known as Class II gaming), but may operate very much like traditional slot machines (known as Class III gaming).

Class III machines can only be used if they are spelled out in a tribe’s formal compact with the state. Class II machines do not require California approval.

The alliance letter to Schwarzenegger says that tribes operating questionable Class II machines should essentially prove the machines are what they say– otherwise, they should be considered Class III.

The issue is important because several powerful tribes have already maxxed out on slot machines… but also have not struck new gaming deals with the governor. And some of those same tribes have turned to Class II machines to help improve their bottom line, regardless of accusations that the new machines are really slot machines.

That, as you might imagine, appears to have angered tribes that have struck new gaming deals… deals that often have included more concessions on issues like working conditions, and mitigation of gaming’s impact on local communities.

Just a note to say that the audio for this weekend’s newsmagazine edition of The California Report is now online here.

In addition to my story on budget firewalls, you might also be intetested in a couple of other stories on this week’s program: one on the apparent contradictions for some in the state’s medical marijuana ID program (from my colleague Sarah Varney), and the second part of a series on the financial woes of one of California’s most well-known timber companies (from my colleague Jason Margolis).

Enjoy your weekend.

If you remember the scene from Star Wars where Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewbacca felt the walls of the Death Star’s trash compactor closing in on them, then you might have a sense of how some advocates for social service programs feel these days.

In this case, those walls are the increasingly powerful “firewalls” being built around more and more of the state budget– walls that seem to continually be squeezing benefits and programs from those who rely on the social safety net.

On today’s newsmagazine version of The California Report, we take a look at how budget items protected by voter-approved initiatives often lead lawmakers to make ends meet in the social services sector. That trend continues this year, with the budget proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger calling for cuts in the welfare-to-work program CalWORKS and more diversions of federal money for the disabled to other state programs.

“It’s the folks who have the least amount of [political] power who don’t benefit,” said Teresa Favuzzi, executive director of the California Foundation for Independent Living Centers.

That trend may increase if laws like Proposition 98 (education) and Proposition 42 (transportation) are amended to prohibit any temporary suspensions. Supporters are now working on such a plan for Prop 42, either at the Capitol or on the ballot.

Even the governor’s own initiative, Proposition 49 (after-school programs), appears to be forcing spending reductions elsewhere. This week, Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill again called for lawmakers to ask the voters for a modification of Prop 49 that would delay its implementation until the state’s fiscal house is in order.

And more “formula” spending plans may be on the way. In a news conference this week, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata included the upcoming universal preschool initiative on that list. The measure, appearing on the June 6 ballot thanks in part to actor/director Rob Reiner, would raise taxes on the most wealthy with the money being earmarked for early education

“It’s virtually making it impossible to have a thoughtful, intelligent budget discussion in this building,” said Perata.

That’s the initial assessment of Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill, in a report just released this morning. In many ways, the non-partisan analyst’s assessment mirrors the concerns of partisan critics of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006-2007 budget– concerns based mainly on the high level of spending he has proposed.

[Hill’s report can be found here]

Hill and her staff of budget experts pretty much say it all on the very first page of the report: “The overall plan moves the state in the wrong direction in terms of reaching its longer-term goal of getting its fiscal house in order.”

On the positive side, the LAO report agrees with the governor’s advisers on estimates for the level of state revenues in the near future, calling the administration’s projections “justified” in light of recent economic trends.

But that’s about the end of the good news. The LAO says the governor’s budget not only fails to address the long-term imbalance between revenues and expenditures, but it makes the problem even worse by increasing year-after-year spending levels by about $2 billion.

And something not talked about so far this week: the LAO says the governor may end up with $1 billion less to spend than he thinks. Hill’s report attributes this to what she calls “unfunded costs and risks” including $460 million the governor hopes to save by winning a court battle involving the welfare-to-work program CalWORKs; more money that may have to be paid to local governments to compensate for policy mandates handed down by the state; and the likely higher cost of state employee contracts that will soon have to be renegotiated.

It’s no secret that the state’s official political watchdog, the Fair Political Practices Commission, has had budget woes in recent times. Now, the FPPC has found a creative way to solve the problem: the commission has hired a temp.

More precisely, it’s an attorney on loan from the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office.

The FPPC has struggled to keep up with its ever increasing workload, especially during the state budget’s lean years (the governor’s proposed 2006-07 budget, by the way, calls for an increase in FPPC funding by a little more than 10%).

Everyone involved says the agreement to loan out an attorney is a win-win. “The FPPC will gain additional assistance in handling its heavy enforcement workload,” said San Diego DA Bonnie Dumanis, “while our deputy will return with hands-on experience with political ethics cases.”

Deputy DA Leon Schorr unpacked his bags in the FPPC’s Sacramento offices last week. His temporary assignment is expected to last between six and eight months.

The odds don’t look good for the first phase of infrastructure and public works bonds being placed on the June 6 statewide ballot… that, according to Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland).

In a Q&A with reporters this morning, Perata said the timeline for getting a bond package together makes the November ballot seem much more reasonable.

“It’s too tall of an order,” said Perata.

At the same time, the Senate’s top Democrat said the work on the package of proposals (from both Governor Schwarzenegger and various legislators) must begin now, or else fall victim to the “inertia” that often creeps in at the Capitol.

Also still under review, he said, was the structure of how to put all of this on the ballot. The current discussions are focused on a bond package that will fund multiple projects. But there’s still the issue of the so-called “single subject” rule to deal with, the constitutional provision that says intiatives (bonds included) that cover more than one subject are a no-no.

That was Governor Schwarzenegger’s comment today about all of the work that goes into a budget proposal. But it also seems to be a pretty good summary of the work that lies ahead for him– after a day in which Democrats were optimistic but wanting more, and several Republicans seemed dumbfounded at the large amount of spending the governor has proposed.

[You can find the governor’s entire budget here. A word to the wise for those not versed in budget-ese: start here instead, at the big-picture summary of the document.]

In all, there appear to be deep divisions about the governor’s proposal, which calls for more 2006-07 spending than 2006-07 revenues… in all, about $6.5 billion more.

By day’s end, the view from the governor’s perspective would probably see the Capitol community in (at least) three camps:

* The Good: Some of the governor’s longtime allies, mainly in the business community, seemed pleased with the budget plan. Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, called it “great news” in a prepared statement. And Jim Earp of the California Alliance For Jobs praised the governor’s commitment to transportation funding under Proposition 42, saying Schwarzenegger had “kept faith” with the voters.

* The Bad: Democrats, while less angry than in years past, made it clear they are unhappy about some of the proposed social services cuts– some of the only areas of state spending that were targeted this time around. One such proposal would extend last year’s deal to not pass along federal cost-of-living increases originally earmarked for citizens who receive SSI (supplemental security income). The new proposal would extend the COLA freeze beyond April 2007, funneling $48 million in federal money to state coffers.

“The poorest Californians are once again taking it in the shorts in this budget,” said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA).

*The Ugly: This category may be reserved for a number of unhappy Republicans in the Legislature. Many seemed flabbergasted by the decision to spend what is likely one-time-only revenues on expenditures that appear to go on year after year.

One GOP lawmaker, who would only speak on background, said the spending plan was “unforgivable.” He even referred to the governor, after seeing the budget, as “[Gray] Davis with muscles.” And others wondered whether the Capitol would see a return to budget deals of the past… years where the bare minimum of GOP lawmakers were picked off one by one, cajoled into voting for the spending plan in exchange for their own pet legislative projects.

Love or hate Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, but it’s hard to deny that he’s pretty good at telling a joke. Before he got to the details of the budget (more to come on that this afternoon), he offered this quip to reporters about his motorcycle accident on Sunday:

“A car pulled out in front of me. It was right there in front, and I just couldn’t make a decision which way to go. I knew if I would turn left, that the Republicans would get mad. And if I turn right, my wife would get mad. So I just crashed right into the car and said, this is the safer thing to do.”

The public works proposal unveiled last week by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is sure to trigger a number of discussions in the weeks to come about where the money should be spent, how soon, and who should ultimately pay. And among policy wonks, you can expect another debate: about how much debt the state should take on.

One of the men hoping to challenge Schwarzenegger in November’s election, Treasurer Phil Angelides, took a stab at the debt debate this afternoon. His assertion: the governor is purposely miscalculating the state’s debt load under his proposal.

Last week, Schwarzenegger and his advisers took great pains to point out that the agenda for $68 billion in bond offerings (over 10 years) wouldn’t raise the annual amount of the state’s General Fund devoted to debt service above 6%– a number often referred to as the high point of what Wall Street analysts and others consider prudent. Or put in a slightly less wonkish way: that the proposal wouldn’t force more than 6 cents of every dollar from the state’s General Fund to be spent on paying back borrowing.

But Angelides, in strident language that hardly masked the political campaign he hopes to wage against Schwarzenegger, today called that assertion a “political gimmick.” The state treasurer claimed the governor’s team was fudging the debt projections by not accurately including the cost of the deficit bonds issued under 2004’s Proposition 57. Add those bonds into the calculations, said Angelides, and the state’s debt ratio would be more than 8% of the General Fund by July 2008.

In a particularly pointed remark, Angelides said the entire Schwarzenegger infrastructure proposal was mainly hype. “I question the credibility and the competence of the governor and his advisers. I wonder if they really know what they are doing,” said Angelides.

The governor’s budget advisers dispute that assessment, saying that the Prop 57 bonds should be treated differently because they’re being paid back with a formula that includes a guaranteed source of revenue– sales taxes. Budget spokesman H.D. Palmer said that makes the Prop 57 bonds different than other bonds, and says it’s a distinction being ignored by “others with different motivations.”

Looking at the big picture, of course, the issue of debt is politically tricky. Democrats could just as easily demand some new revenues (tax increases) to help pay for these kinds of proposals. Republicans, on the other hand, often loathe borrowing, and could reject the proposal based on the fact that it’ll end up costing more money in the long-run.