It’s hard to call what happened today in a Senate committee shocking news: legislation to move California’s presidential primary in 2008 to February 5 cleared its first hurdle, with a vote by the full Senate now expected as soon as early next week [early reports had speculated it could be brought up this week].

More interesting than the progress of an early primary in California, though, is a new twist on a familiar debate: who pays for all of these special elections?

SB 113 by Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) was approved by the Senate Elections Committee in a short hearing this morning. Speaking to reporters afterward, Calderon reiterated why California should fast forward the process from June to February. “New Hampshire and Iowa, as they are really wonderful states, they don’t reflect the diversification in this country,” he said.

What will it cost? No one’s numbers are yet definitive, but early estimates range from $56 million up to about $90 million. The potential higher costs of this election, compared to the 2005 special election’s $39 million, are due to the fact that there aren’t any local elections scheduled for that day… in other words, there aren’t any costs that would have already been incurred.

So, who pays? State lawmakers say they agree, in concept, that local governments should be reimbursed. But when representatives of the state’s counties suggested today that SB 113 be amended to make that perfectly clear, some committee members said the bill didn’t need to be amended– because 2004’s Proposition 1A ensures that the state will reimburse the counties.

Prop 1A’s passage by the voters further strengthened the hands of counties for programs that the state mandates but doesn’t fund. However, some legislative analysts say it’s unclear whether an election is the kind of mandated program covered by Prop 1A. It might be, because the primary would be a third (and unexpected) election in 2008… but it might not be.

But even if it were, counties would still have to seek reimbursement through the Commission on State Mandates. That is a lengthy process, which is exactly why local government officials want SB 113 to address the ‘IOU’ question up front… and not on the back end.

[ON A RELATED NOTE… the early presidential primary might even further complicate something else brewing in the word of elections: a new review of every single voting system currently certified for use in California. It’s a priority of new Secretary of State Debra Bowen. This morning, I examined that issue on The California Report. You can click here to listen to the audio.]