The saga over what kinds of voting machines Californians will use in June continues, as a new lawsuit has been filed challenging the approval from Secretary of State Bruce McPherson of certain electronic touchscreen machines.

Those machines, made by Diebold Elections Systems, could be used in as many as 21 California counties on June 6... either as the main voting machine, or as a supplemental device for disabled voters as required by the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco today by two dozen voters and supported by a nonprofit group known as Voter Action, challenges McPherson's recent approval of the Diebold TSx machine on three separate points.

First, the lawsuit alleges that the machines have security flaws-- an issue debated nationwide, and the very same concern that led McPherson to ask for additional testing on the Diebold TSx machines.

Second, the lawsuit is challenging the notion that the touchscreen machine is accessible to the disabled. There's been much chatter about new voting machines not truly being disabled voter-friendly in recent weeks... but more about other models than this one.

And third, the lawsuit revives the discussion about the Diebold machine and whether it complies with the new state law requiring a paper record that a voter can verify (posted here recently)... and whether a blind voter, for example, can verify his or her vote is accurate in the same way a sighted voter could.

It was a morning of ceremony at the Capitol, with events in both chambers to honor "Woman of the Year" honorees from across the state. But the woman of the moment was undoubtedly California's First Lady Maria Shriver.

Shriver, who was the MC for the events in the Senate and Assembly, quoted a saying she says is taped to her computer, that "well behaved women rarely make history." And, as has become her style over the last couple of years, she took it to heart.

The tone was set early, when Shriver took the Senate podium and noticed the women honorees from all 40 Senate districts lined up in front. Looking out, she said said, "What, no seats for the Women of the Year?"

After a few awkward moments, senators were quickly seen giving up the seats at their desks so the guests could sit down.

Shriver then said hello to Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, and remarked on the 35 pounds he's lost in recent weeks. "I almost didn't recognize you," she said.

And in both chambers, she told the story of her unhappiness at the prospect of being First Lady after the recall election-- angry, as she put it, at eveyone from her husband (for running and winning) to her employer, NBC (where her husband's 2003 election forced her to leave most of her newsgathering duties). She said that's when her mother, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, gave her a stern talking-to. Shriver said her mother's words were, well, a tad more salty than that.

But she said she has come to see her job as first lady as the best one she's ever had. And as for her say-what-she-thinks approach to this morning's ceremonial duties, Shriver explained it best in an aside while in the Senate: "This is an election year, and I might not ever get in here again."

If anyone expected Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to admit defeat after his infrastructure proposal failed to gain approval in time for the June ballot, they left this morning's news conference disappointed.

Schwarzenegger, again displaying his eternal optimism, worked hard to portray last night's missed deadline as a minor-- not major-- setback.

In a joking aside to Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Nicholas, the governor said, "Put a positive spin on your story, okay? I'm counting on you." But in truth, that was exactly what he wanted as the outcome of his 20 minute Q&A with reporters.

The highlights:

* Schwarzenegger claimed that the "issue that we always got hung up on" during his negotiations with the Legislature was surface water storage... also known as new dam construction. Republicans wanted it; Democrats, by and large, did not. He portrayed the disagreement as part of what he called California's long-running "holy war" over water issues.

* The evolution of the politician who once railed against incumbent legislators continues. Schwarzenegger denied that anyone was trying to derail the negotiations for political gain. And he went even further. "Both parties want to make this place a better place," he said.

* Cognizant of the danger than he could now be portrayed in this election year as sitting on a string of defeats, the governor at times sounded as though he was trying out his soon-to-be campaign themes: the cut in the vehicle license fee, or "car tax"... changes in the worker's comp system... open spaces preserved under the Sierra Nevada Conservancy plan... and a rebounding economy. "I am very happy that we were able to do a lot of things that we promised to do," he said.

* And as the headline says, Schwarzenegger promised to have a comprehensive infrastructure plan in place by year's end. "We maybe haven't been able to do it by June, but we will do it by November," he said.

What seemed to be a deal between legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger for a multi-billion dollar bond package unraveled late tonight at the Capitol, with the Senate adjourning before 2 bills approved by the Assembly... one for $19.4 billion in education bonds, the second for $4.15 billion in flood protection bonds... could actually make it to their chamber.

Instead, the Senate passed a $1 billion levee immediate appropriation from the General Fund, which was sent to the Assembly but not acted on tonight. Then they went home. And with that, hopes of getting any infrastructure proposals on the June 6 ballot came to an end.

It was not, as you might expect, the way things were supposed to go, with both Democratic and gubernatorial advisers telling reporters a few hours beforehand that the deal was all sewn up.

(More on this tomorrow... unfortunately, the lateness of the hour mandates that on-air reporting for tomorrow morning be filed first!)

UPDATE: The Senate Democratic Caucus has provided audio of some of Senate President Don Perata's comments here.

[UPDATE 4:15 pm-- Speaker Nunez just distributed to reporters a letter from Ron Joseph, director of the state's Department of General Services, which implies that the final printing and mailing deadline for a June bond measure is at the stroke of midnight tonight. I say "implies" because the letter says that calculation is based on the "statutory mailing deadline" for ballot materials... and statutes can be changed by the governor and the Legislature.]

With discussions still, yes still, going on in the Capitol about an infrastructure bond proposal for the June 6 ballot, the decision about exactly who sets the final, drop-dead deadline has turned into a real hot potato.

As we know, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson has long said that the deadline was last Friday, March 10. But the Capitol community largely treated that deadline as a "suggestion," and rumors have circulated that the real deadline is anywhere from this Friday to April 1.

The rumors have been kept alive because there are limited guidelines in state election law, short of a time period that voters can review documents, and procedures for pro and con arguments to be written and submitted for voter guides. And (no surprise here) those timelines can be modified by legislative action.

Yesterday, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) sent McPherson a letter asking him to weigh in on the real deadline. McPherson promptly wrote back and said that given March 10 has now come and gone, lawmakers and Governor Schwarzenegger will "need assurance from the Department of General Services and the state printer" to see if ballot pamphlets can be printed and mailed in time.

So today Nunez did just that, sending those state officials a similar "how long do we have?" letter.

The buzz late yesterday was that things were actually happening on infrastructure issues. And clearly, no one wants to be the one who pulls the proverbial rug out from under the negotiations.

But at some point, there has to be a real deadline... doesn't there?

NOON UPDATE: A spokesperson for Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland) says that Perata told several reporters this morning that intends to "shut down negotiations" this afternoon if a deal still has not been reached. So perhaps the deadline debate is nearing its end.

In his first extensive public comments since questions arose about the intersection of his public official role and his political campaign, actor/director Rob Reiner said today that he does not intend to resign his state commission chairmanship, and that much of the criticism is an effort to "demonize" him.

Reiner traveled to the state capital for a midday luncheon speech to the Sacramento Press Club, a commitment he made weeks before the current controversy began to unfold. And he decided to tackle the questions by first laying out a lengthy and policy-laden description of how his preschool initiative, Proposition 82, was conceived of... and why he believes the issue to be so important. The well-known Hollywood figure described Prop 82's universal preschool plan as a "targeted investment in the future workforce of our state." And he compared the current pay scale of preschool teachers to "the pay grade of a parking lot attendant."

But Reiner knew what the bank of TV cameras and reporters were there to ask. "I'm not under any illusions we're going to talk about preschool policy," he said jokingly.

Reiner was repeatedly asked about his role in the decision to have the California First 5 Commission, which he has chaired since its inception, spend some $23 million in state funds on a TV ad campaign touting preschool... at the same time his political team was circulating a preschool initiative for voter signatures.

He was asked his reaction to a new call for his resignation (from state Senator Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, who helped steer a new state audit of the commission's spending practices). Reiner said he saw no reason to resign, in part, because he has temporarily stepped aside as chairman.

"I had absolutely nothing to do with the [preschool TV] ads," said Reiner. And he said lawyers from the state Attorney General's office had originally concluded that the ad campaign was not "illegal." He also said he had no knowledge of consultants paid by the state commission who, according to documents, may have tried to create a demand among voters for more access to preschool.

And he suggested that the criticism was based, in part, on a strategy by Prop 82 opponents, whose website is called Stop Reiner.

"At the end of the day, this isn't about me," said Reiner. And he said that if the debate were only on the policy, the opposition would "lose big."

And in what might be some insight about his old friend Arnold Schwarzenegger (the two live near each other, and their children once went to preschool together), Reiner told me before the speech that the governor has pledged to him to remain "neutral" in the coming political campaign over Prop 82 on the June 6 ballot.

If the promise was made, it'll be interesting to see whether it stays in place through Election Day.

The Assembly has gone home after a day of closed-door deliberations, apparent new disagreements among Democrats, and one fewer day for Governor Schwarzenegger to get an infrastructure bond proposal on the June ballot.

The latest deal on the table pegged total bond spending at around $50 billion with, as in the past, the lion's share devoted toward transportation and education issues. But the proposal floated by Assembly Democrats apparently ran afoul of the top Democrat on the other side of the Capitol, Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland).

Perata released an analysis of the proposal late Monday afternoon that was critical of what appeared to be a number of concessions to entice skeptical Republicans. While the actual proposal was never provided to reporters, Perata said it included more possibilities for a new dam in northern California and more exemptions from environmental review for certain infrastrucuture projects.

The evening saw a number of attempts at shuttle diplomacy between the two parties, and ended with a meeting between the governor and legislative leaders in his private cigar tent. But none of that proved to be enough to get a bipartisan agreement, though Republicans like Assembly GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) said they are hopeful that a deal is near.

Now the question becomes... how much time is left to get this on the June ballot? Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) said he believes Tuesday is not too late. However, he also told the lawmakers in his chamber to not expect another floor session until Thursday morning.

The only sure thing when waiting for any Capitol negotiation to be complete seems to be this: be wary of anyone who says "it's a done deal" or who says "talks are going nowhere."

Both things have been heard today in regards to efforts to strike a deal on a major infrastructure plan, and the truth is likely somewhere in the middle.

The Assembly is now scheduled for a 4:00 pm floor session. But no one knows if there will be an infrastructure proposal to vote on by then. Most of this morning's chatter has centered on an effort by members of the Assembly to make modifications to the proposal that was defeated on a party-line vote in the Senate early Saurday morning.

And as the chatter goes back and forth, one interest group is already calling for its members to urge a "no" vote. The Planning and Conservation League sent an e-mail to its members just before 1:30pm, which you can read here.

They claim the deal now on the table would expand the demand for more dams, and would allow certain projects to be exempt from some of the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Several sources have acknowledged the existence of similar proposals all morning, but only as topics that were being discussed. And for now, it seems the most skeptical group continues to be legislative Republicans-- the same group for which such provisions would ostensibly be included.

UPDATE: The closed-door talks continue, with the Assembly floor session now pushed back to 6:00pm.

Senate Democrats made good on their pledge to put an infrastructure bond up for a vote, but it failed to win the needed two-thirds vote for passage following a somewhat testy debate just after midnight.

AB 134 contained a bond package totaling just under $50 billion, and focused mainly on transportation/housing ($18.875 billion), water/flood protection ($10.3 billion), and education (about $20 billion).

But while Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland) called it a "great compromise" measure, it was not a proposal that Republicans said they could vote for. Some said the bill's bond priorities were in the wrong places. Others complained about how late they actually saw the details.

And with that, AB 134 went down on a party-line vote.

In a brief Q&A with reporters, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) said that "language is being reviewed" for a proposed infrastructure bond, but that there's no deal as of late afternoon. And he declined to offer any specifics, though he reiterated that Governor Schwarzenegger has agreed to include affordable housing needs in the plan.

Meantime, Senate GOP Leader Dick Ackerman informed his caucus in a late afternoon memo that he was presented with a new $45 billion bond proposal this morning, but that the proposal was "prepared solely by Democrats."

And while Ackerman asked his caucus to get back to the Capitol ASAP for tonight's scheduled 9:00 pm Senate floor session, he was critical of the lack of time for senators to fully analyze the proposal.