Here’s the official list, with ballot numbers, of the November 7 ballot, just released by Secretary of State Bruce McPherson:

Proposition 1A: Modification of 2002’s transportation funding initiative, Proposition 42.

Proposition 1B-1E: The $37 billion in infrastructure bonds placed on the ballot back in April.

Proposition 83: The so-called “Jessica’s Law” initiative requiring, among other things, lifetime GPS devices on sex offenders.

Proposition 84: The $5.4 billion water quality and water supply bond that qualified as a voter-circulated initiative.

Proposition 85: Waiting period and parental notification before a teenage girl can have an abortion, a repeat of 2005’s failed Proposition 73.

Proposition 86: Increased $2.60 tax on a pack of cigarettes, with the money going to health and emergency services programs.

Proposition 87: Tax on oil drilled in California, with proceeds to fund alternative energy sources.

Proposition 88: $50 parcel tax, with proceeds going to education.

Proposition 89: Public financing of campaigns and new campaign contribution limits.

Proposition 90: Reform of the use of eminent domain laws.

It’s a hefty ballot, but by no means a record number of proposals. McPherson’s staff says the biggest ballot in state history was the November 3, 1914 ballot with 48 measures. The largest in modern times: the 29 measures that appeared on the ballot on November 8, 1988.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a new $131.4 billion state budget into law, but not before using the chief executive’s blue pencil to scratch out a few spending items.

First, the headline. The budget is now in place for the new fiscal year that begins in less than 12 hours. That may seem to be cutting it close in the non-political world, but around here that’s a rare amount of lag time. (Trivia: the earliest a new budget has been signed into law in the last 25 years was in 1986, on June 25).

In a signing ceremony under the Capitol rotunda, Schwarzenegger praised the bipartisan effort that led to the on-time spending plan. “The real winners here today are the people of California,” he said. “And this is exactly the kind of government that they want, and they deserve.”

The lovefest continued from there, with congratulatory speeches from all four legislative leaders and the chairmen of each chamber’s budget committee.

Afterwards, the governor’s staff released the list of line-item vetoes. Schwarzenegger rejected 66 different items in General Fund and Special Fund spending, totaling a little more than $112 million.

Some of the interesting vetoes, along with a (hopefully) plain language explanation:

$10 million vetoed from a subsidy to local air quality districts (reason: the money comes from the state’s Motor Vehicles Account, where resources need to go to a CHP radio system upgrade and to implement the federal Real ID security act)… $25 million vetoed for reducing emissions from trains, construction equipment, and dairy equipment (reason: same concerns over using money from the Motor Vehicles Account)… $10 million vetoed from local trauma care services (reason: local governments are being given other money that could pay for these needs)… $10 million vetoed for hiring interpreters in civil court cases (reason: the court system agreed to a “stable funding level” that should pay for these needs without extra cash)… $1 million vetoed for university research on obesity and diabetes.

Some of the clean air vetoes are already stirring criticism in Central Valley air quality circles. And while the governor’s veto message on those issues blames the action, in part, on too many financial burdens for the state’s Motor Vehicles Account (funded through vehicle registration fees, DMV fees, etc.) it should be noted that the same pot of money is where the budget gets $6.5 million for Schwarzenegger’s much-talked about Hydrogen Highway Initiative. The governor’s advisers say as much as $150 million in air quality initiatives were preserved in the new budget.

Maybe it’s the fact that this year’s budget debate was so, well, calm. But this morning’s latest round of a battle over the future of the Los Angeles Unified School District seemed particularly intense– so much so that at one point in the presentation of LAUSD Superintendent Roy Romer, an aide slipped him a note that offered some advice: “Roy– More Charm, Less Angry!”

The crowded hearing of the Senate Education Committee laughed when Romer read the note out loud.

In the end, Romer and other opponents of the bill lost this round, as the committee voted to approve AB 1381, which would hand over a large portion of school district control to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa via some enhanced powers of a new superintendent– who would largely be chosen by the mayor.

However, the proposal may be destined for a lot more tinkering. Several members of the committee said they were voting ‘aye’ mainly to keep the discussion going, and that they still may not support the LAUSD takeover in the end.

Romer, the schools chief who’s scheduled to leave his post in September, came out swinging. In large posterboards held up during his feverish rebuttal to Villaraigosa, Romer said that it’s untrue that LAUSD is not making progress with its problems, where the dropout rate is somewhere near 50%. His many graphs showed improvements at many grade levels over the last few years.

“There is no need for this bill,” said Romer, who is also the former governor of Colorado. “Send us back home. We’re on a roll. Watch us each year. If we don’t continue to progress, come back and take [control] away from us totally.”

Mayor Villaraigosa, as well as the legislation’s authors– Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) and Sen. Gloria Romero (D-LA)– defended the proposal, with Villaraigosa continuing to emphasize that the bill would create a new partnership. “What this legislation provides is a historic opportunity to build consensus, to collaborate together, to work together on behalf of our kids,” he said.

AB 1381 will next be heard in Senate Appropriations.

A number of newsworthy items bubbling up today at the Capitol.

* Budget Yes, Prop 36 Reform Maybe?: An interesting subplot in tonight’s $130.9 billion budget vote could be the fate of drug treatment programs first approved by voters in 2000 as Proposition 36. The original money for Prop 36 runs out this week, and the budget includes $145 million to keep Prop 36 programs running.

But Governor Schwarzenegger and some lawmakers want reforms to the ‘treatment-not-jail’ principle behind Prop 36. Those reforms would include giving a judge the option of a quick incarceration in some instances. That has some drug treatment supporters angry, claiming that the provisions of the bill run counter to the original spirit of Prop 36.

All of this will be settled tonight in what’s known as a ‘trailer’ bill, a separate piece of legislation that relates to, or help implements part of, the budget itself. If that bill, SB 1137 by Sen. Denise Ducheny (D-San Diego), fails, then there is talk the governor will line-item veto the entire $145 million in Prop 36 money out of the newly agreed-to budget. And that would mean county governments would still have to offer the drug treatment programs, but pay for those programs themselves. The governor’s budget director, Mike Genest, would only say that “the governor has made it clear he wants those reforms.”

* The March Of Bills: Another hectic day as hundreds of bills are debated and moved through committee hearings in anticipation of a July recess. A much debated bill to allow phone companies to offer cable TV and internet access, AB 2987 by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA), remained in limbo, after debate on issues like consumer protections and government oversight. Another controversial bill, AB 651 by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka) and Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), would allow terminally ill patients access to life-ending drugs prescribed by a doctor. After a long and emotional hearing, the bill failed by a single vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

* Crime Victims Advocate: In day 2 of Governor Schwarzenegger’s week of events focusing on crime and punishment, he proposed a new victims’ bill of rights and announced the appointment of former Parole Board chair Susan Fisher as the crime victims’ advocate in the Office of the Governor. The legislation, a proposed constitutional amendment which would have to be approved by the Legislature in the next few weeks to make the ballot, would strengthen the rights of victims, including access to documents, hearings, and legal representation in cases of serious, violent crimes.

* Levee Repairs: The state Department of Water Resources says it has now received all of the 200+ federal permits needed to begin repairs on 29 levee sites. Those sites, scattered through the Central Valley levee system, are the most critical erosion sites. Construction is expected to begin next month, and be complete in November.

* The Big Bucks Of Lobbying: A new report finds that a whopping $228 million was spent in 2005 to lobby at the Capitol. The report, compiled by the Secretary of State’s office, lists the 5 interest groups that spent the most on lobbying last year as: the California Teachers Association ($9,456,813), AT&T ($4,065,146), the Western States Petroleum Association ($3,130,034), the California Chamber of Commerce ($2,570,516), and the California State Council of Service Employees ($2,014,715). There were more than 2600 entities that used lobbyists. You can read the entire report here.

Details are still a little sketchy on the new state budget agreed to by legislative Democrats and Republicans today. Closed-door caucus meetings laid out the overview for rank and file members late today, and we’re told the actual bill will be in print tomorrow with a vote in the evening.

But here’s what’s been described so far, with more tomorrow morning on The California Report:

* Full funding for K-12 education under Proposition 98 was never really at issue. What was debated was money Governor Schwarzenegger had wanted earmarked for arts, music, and other programs. Long story short: some money will be designated for these kinds of programs, but some of the money will be given to schools with fewer strings attached, as Democrats had demanded. Also included are new education monies for English language learners and research into “best practices” for teaching non-English speaking students. On this subject, check out a special series of stories we’ve been running the last few weeks from my colleague Kathryn Baron.

* In higher education, the cost per course unit will go down by $6 at community colleges. An interesting but small component of the deal is full and reportedly permanent funding for two UC institutes that study labor issues. The governor line-item vetoed funding for the departments last year, angering labor organizations.

* In social services, some of last year’s delays in cost-of-living increases for aid recipients appear to have been retroactively reinstated. And all sides seem to have good things to say about money for foster care programs, including more money for foster care caseworkers.

* Transportation funding continues to be in vogue in the new budget, with full funding for 2002’s gas sales tax-related Proposition 42 and more repayment of previous borrowing from Prop 42 accounts.

* On public safety, many of Governor Schwarzenegger’s proposals appear to remain intact, something Democrats had removed from budget talks earlier.

* And on the hot button issue of illegal immigration, it appears Republicans have won… for now. GOP legislators had threatened to hold up the budget over both a Democratic plan for health coverage of uninsured children, and a more modest plan on the issue from the governor. Both proposals would have allowed coverage of children who are not legal immigrants. As a result, neither plan is reportedly in the budget; however, Democrats say they will send the issue in a bill to the governor later this summer (such a bill only takes 41 votes, i.e. only Democrats) and, given his support for some kind of program, the governor may sign it.

In a broad sense, however, what might be really notable about this budget deal was the lack of fabled “Big Five” meetings. In fact, Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland) told reporters today that the governor-plus-legislative-leader-meetings may soon be a “footnote” in Capitol history if the Legislature can continue to do the job it’s supposed to do.

A much discussed proposal to publicly fund campaigns for state office has qualified for the November 7 ballot.

The proposal, sponsored by the California Nurses Association, mirrors similar efforts that failed in the Legislature this year. The campaign cash would come from higher taxes on corporations and financial institutions, and the initiative also creates new restrictions on contributions made by lobbyists and corporations.

Seven initiatives have now qualified, with at least one more appearing to be on the way. Add that to the six ballot measures relating to infrastructure bonds, and it’s going to be one whopper of a ballot (as mentioned in this post last month).

“We have reached a tentative agreement on a balanced, responsible budget today after several months of productive discussion. It reflects the values of both parties and moves our state forward. We hope to have a vote prior to July 1.”

That statement, from the four legislative leaders, was just released to reporters. We’re all still scrambling for details, but the Assembly is now scheduled to convene at 5:00 pm.

That was the assessment of Governor Schwarzenegger today in a speech in which he announced a special session of the Legislature to deal with California’s problem-plagued prison system, and propsoals ranging from new prison construction to counseling for prisoners about to be released.

The announcement of a special session was made by Schwarzenegger this morning in Irvine, in a speech to the California District Attorneys Association. The governor said he will ask legislators to focus on four proposals: the selling of “lease revenue” bonds to finance new prison construction; expedited purchasing and spending when it comes to prisons; the transfer of 4500 low-risk women prisoners to community facilities in order to free up space; and new “re-entry” psychological counseling before inmates are released.

The special session begins tomorrow, and would allow his proposals to be signed into law before the Legislature wraps up its work in August. Special sessions, by the way, often run concurrently with regular sessions of the Legislature. It may sound as though everyone will drop what they’re doing, but it’s more about expediting work on a certain issue.

The last few days have been tough ones for the Schwarzenegger administration on this subject. Last week, a new scathing report accused the governor of “a retreat from prison reform” and suggested too much new influence by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA). That report was written by the watchdog appointed by a federal judge who continues his inquiry into problems in the state prison system.

This morning, the governor suggested that if the courts were to completely take over the system, that would also force the early release of “tens of thousands” of prisoners. “I know you will agree that this is something we cannot tolerate,” Schwarzenegger told the audience of prosecutors.

And in what sounded like a defense of his administration, he said: “California prisons were a mess when I took office, and we have worked on prison reform since day one.”

Dems Respond: Senate President Don Perata (D-Oakland) says a “real dialogue” is needed on prison problems, one not just limited to the governor’s four proposals. In a written statement this afternoon, he suggested that the system needs long-term leadership in the wake of top-level resignations earlier this year. “How can the Department of Corrections achieve fundamental change with no permanent leaders at the helm?” he asked.

In case anyone’s keeping tabs, the new fiscal year for the state begins just 10 days from today. And a budget deal remains elusive, tied up largely over issues ranging from debt repayment to state subsidized health care for children.

Usually at this time of year, Capitol reporters pull out their most comfortable shoes and take watch in the hallway outside the governor’s office for sign of a deal.

There, behind those massive doors, is where state budgets have been hammered out in recent times. The governor and the four leaders of the Legislature have been nicknamed the “Big Five” as they convene for these top-level, closed door negotiations.

But this year, the first floor Capitol hallway has been pretty quiet. In fact, the process of reconciling differences over the 2006-07 budget is largely being carried out by the four legislative leaders sans Governor Schwarzenegger.

The reasons why aren’t so clear. Schwarzenegger staffers are clearly engaged on the issue. But the same dynamic– legislators on their own– is what sealed the deal on the $37 billion infrastructure bond package.

Schwarzenegger has apparently not been a fan of the “Big Five” approach, which was originally a high-level budget meeting that took shape under former Governor George Deukmejian. In recent years, it’s been used for all kinds of large issues where policy and politics become entangled.

“I have never reached any kind of an agreement or have accomplished anything in a Big Five meeting,” Schwarzenegger said in response to a question from a reporter on June 21, 2005. “I think they are a lot of times photo-ops, and people are positioning themselves, and it becomes very adversarial, the atmosphere there.”

And so today, as the four legislative leaders meet (we’re all still struggling what to call that group: “Gang of Four?”… “Little Four?”), the governor is in Hemet talking about the upcoming fire season, and later in Fresno speaking to the American Legion.

Under the headline “interesting but largely unnoticed news” this week, Senate Democrats balked at a plan to reimburse counties for the cost of the 2005 special election called by Governor Schwarzenegger.

AB 1634, by Assemblymember Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) would allow the counties to recoup a combined $38.8 million in costs they racked up to conduct the October 2005 election that saw all 8 initiatives on the ballot, including the governor’s 4 pet measures, go down to defeat. Back in April, legislators approved and Schwarzenegger signed a $9 million reimbursement plan.

But that was for state elections costs, not local costs. The California Association of Counties (CSAC) estimates costs for the 58 counties ranging from $3300 in rural Alpine County to a whopping $17.6 million in Los Angeles County.

On Monday, the proposal was placed in the Legislative limbo status of the “suspense file” by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Those who were in attendance say Democrats left the impression that they want to force the governor to deal with the IOU as part of the ongoing budget negotiations. Perhaps that would force Schwarzenegger to publicly acknowledge that it was his special election that cost taxpayers almost $39 million.

But top-level Senate staffers say the committee action was merely protocol, and that all legislation costing a significant amount of money goes to the suspense file until the state’s fiscal abilities and priorities are sorted out.

Meantime, local government officials say they are still waiting.