When the Legislature returns next week, they will face a special session called by Governor Schwarzenegger to deal with the problems of an overcrowded California prison system. This afternoon, the state's top prisons official said the governor's proposals to help resolve those problems hinge on a bond measure of some $6 billion.

James Tilton, the interim director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, told reporters this afternoon that the money would be spent both on building new prisons, and on establishing a new program to help some prisoners successfully re-enter the community.

"This is an investment," said Tilton, previewing part of the case he and the governor will have to make to legislators. The lease-revenue bonds, which would be sold later this year and paid back over 30 years, would require a full two-thirds vote of the Legislature but would not require a vote of the people. And $6 billion isn't really the final cost, as the debt service on the bonds would add costs to the state budget.

According to data from the administration, the largest single portion of the bonds would go to the governor's call for a new community re-entry program. The other largest portion would go towards construction of two new prisons, which the administration currently projects would open for business in the 2010-11 fiscal year.

Tilton, who only recently stepped into the top job, was clear to point out that current projections show the prisons will run out of space next year if nothing is done. And Tilton said if that happens, then prisoners will have to remain in county jails. While their costs would be paid by the state, the situation would nonetheless add to the crowded conditions that already exist in many localities.

Staffers say they expect the reform proposals to be submitted as legislative bills when lawmakers return here on Monday. And there won't be much time, with the Legislature expected to adjourn for the year at the end of August.

A long-simmering debate about voting machines and their accessibility to disabled voters has now led to a lawsuit filed in federal court against various elections officials, including Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

At issue are voting machines that were used in several counties this past June, machines that local elections officials still believe meet the requirements of the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA).

One key element of HAVA is that each polling place have at least one voting machine that allows disabled voters to cast their ballot by themselves, just like other voters. Another HAVA requirement is that all voters, regardless of their physical condition, be able to independently verify that their vote is accurate.

But the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed in San Francisco today say that for many disabled voters, both provisions were violated in at least five California counties on June 6. They also claim the state is in violation of the equal protection provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

The case says that in San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma Counties, voters with manual disabilities are unable to use a machine known as the AutoMARK (made by Election Systems & Software) without assistance-- a violation, they argue, of HAVA.

In Alameda County, the lawsuit claims that the touchscreen machines for disabled voters used in June would have been fine, except that they were modified to produce a paper record. And because state law now says the paper printout becomes the official ballot in the case of a recount, a blind voter would not be able to verify his or her vote.

In Yolo County, the lawsuit claims there were no disabled accessible voting machines at all on June 6. Yolo (as mentioned in a blog posting on many of these issues earlier this year), had hoped to use a new device for disabled voters; but the approval of that device never happened in time for the June election. And the attorney for the lawsuit's plaintiffs say the device Yolo was testing still would not have worked for disabled voters who can't use their hands.

The plaintiffs include the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the California Council of the Blind; the American Association of People With Disabilities; and 6 disabled voters.

So, what does all of this mean? At the very least, the lawsuit will force a re-examination of how California is complying with the federal HAVA requirements. It also will force an examination of how the Secretary of State certifies some of these voting machines. Plaintiff's attorney John McDermott says it was McPherson's job, as a condition of certifying machines, "to insure accessibility for all people, to the maximum extent feasible. And that didn't occur."

Secretary McPherson's office had not seen the lawsuit as of early afternoon, and could not comment on its specifics. But spokesperson Ashley Snee Giovannettone said McPherson certified the best systems available, and that there simply is no one voting machine for all disabled voters. "We share their frustration," she said. And she said it's important to remember that all voting machines are federally approved before state officials sign off on their use.

Nonetheless, the lawsuit raises some real questions, if a judge agrees with the plaintiffs, about how the November election will be conducted in parts of the state. Attorney McDermott says if the judge agrees with the plaintiffs, the state will either have to remedy the problem... or face the prospect of the court stepping in to fix the problem.