After a brief debate on the Senate floor this afternoon, legislation to move California’s presidential primary from June to February is on its way to the Assembly. And the leader of that chamber said today he expects the bill to be fast-tracked to the governor’s desk, perhaps even before the end of the month.

SB 113 by Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello) passed the Senate on a 31-5 vote. Based on the final tally, there was more disagreement on the GOP side than among Democrats in whether the early primary is a good idea. But legislative leaders and Governor Schwarzenegger all seem behind it, so it’s likely a done deal.

Senate President pro Tempore Don Perata (D-Oakland) told reporters before the vote that he’s confident state leaders will also move to pick up the tab that will be run by local elections officials. An extra 2008 election could cost as much as $90 million.

At a noontime meeting of the Sacramento Press Club, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez (D-LA) said he is confident SB 113 will sail through his house and will be ready for the governor’s signature in as little as 10 days.

The late Rodney Dangerfield was the kind of performer who wasn’t afraid to acknowledge the obvious. When the act was bombing, he’d tug at his collar, wipe the sweat from his brow, and just blurt out the obvious: tough crowd.

The Dangerfield line seems worth noting after two big speeches delivered in less than 24 hours at this weekend’s convention of the California Republican Party.

The party faithful are gathered in Sacramento to elect new leadership and generally kibbitz about all things Republican. But because political conventions are largely attended by the most die hard, the political press corps was closely watching how the conservative base of the GOP reacted to two less-than-conservative Republicans: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and former NYC mayor Rudy Giuliani.

First… the governor, who spoke to convention attendees at last night’s dinner. Just minutes into the speech, the room already felt like the epitome of the Dangerfield experience. After weeks of a Schwarzenegger agenda focused on issues like health care and the environment– and positions that even he describes as “post partisan”– the Republican faithful were not as enthused for the chief executive as they have been in past convention appearances.

Some watchers called the crowd response “polite.” Others, being somewhat more candid, have called it “tepid.”

Either way, there were large passages of the speech where the audience sat on its hands. When the governor touted last fall’s infrastructure bonds, which many conservatives opposed as too much debt: no applause. When he talked about his $12 billion health care reform plan, there was some polite applause. But at the same time, I could see one woman near the back of the ballroom simply shake her head in disagreement.

Of course, there were lines that drew applause– most notably, some ‘red meat’ comments that mocked the notion that prison inmates should give consent before they can be transferred to prisons outside of California. The crowd ate that up.

And Schwarzenegger’s speech acknowledged the obvious. “We may have diverse opinions,” he said, “but we always stand together on our core Republican values.”

That same ‘big tent of a party’ theme also popped up this afternoon as not-quite-yet presidential candidate Giuliani took the podium. While he’s technically still running an “exploratory” campaign, it was obvious: Rudy is in.

But the former Big Apple mayor is also somewhat at odds with social conservatives. His well-known opinions on gay rights and abortion are anathema to many Republicans. Still, he received a noticeably warmer reception than did Governor Schwarzenegger. Of course, that’s probably in part due to his extensive focus on the war on terrorism. “We’re the party of freedom,” Giuliani told the crowd.

He also criticized the recent Capitol Hill debate about a non-binding resolution criticizing an Iraq troop surge. “In the business world, if two weeks were spent on a non-binding resolution, it would be considered non-productive,” he said. The crowd laughed as Giuliani kept going. “What we pay people in Washington for is to make decisions.” And with that, the crowd gave hizzoner a standing ovation.

Neither Arnold Schwarzenegger nor Rudy Giuliani is as conservative as the crowd probably would prefer. So why did America’s Mayor get a warmer reception than the Governator? Perhaps it’s because the governor is such a well-known commodity by this crowd, and the former mayor is not. Perhaps Schwarzenegger’s agenda, seen close up, is easier to poke holes in than Giuliani’s search for a campaign theme beyond his 9/11 resume.

Either way, Giuliani seemed to score some points… while the governor got the Dangerfield treatment.

A couple of stories worth highlighting for the policy and political crowd on our weekending newsmagazine version of The California Report.

Reporter Cy Musiker examines the new push to reduce the carbon content of gasoline and diesel. As he found out, there’s a long road ahead for production to meet the needs of California.

And host Scott Shafer takes a look back the life and times of former Assembly Speaker and Lt. Governor Leo McCarthy, whose funeral was held earlier today.

You can find more about broadcast times here. The stories will also be online later this evening.

“If the job of scheduling the presidential nominating contests were assigned to an insane asylum, this is pretty much what the patients would come up with.”

That’s the opinion of Larry Sabato, the nationally known political scientist from the University of Virginia. In a new analysis, Sabato says voters in as many as 25 states may go the polls and select nominees for President by the first week of February 2008… with a whopping 17 of those states now considering holding a presidential primary on February 5 of next year.

And yes, that’s the day California now appears poised to hold its primary election… a change from June, in order to be relevant in selecting the next occupant of the White House.

Sabato offers some interesting context in his new look at the ‘08 primaries. “In 1980,” he writes, “only one state had a primary or caucus by the end of February. By 2000 nine states did so, and in 2004, nineteen. Next year, an incredible thirty states are on track to push into January or February.”

“The system is out of control, and no entity with a national perspective is in charge,” Sabato writes. “Not the Congress, not the political parties. Individual states are ruling the roost, doing what they think is in their interests.”

You can read his full analysis here.

“If the job of scheduling the presidential nominating contests were assigned to an insane asylum, this is pretty much what the patients would come up with.”

That’s the opinion of Larry Sabato, the nationally known political scientist from the University of Virginia. In a new analysis, Sabato says voters in as many as 25 states may go the polls and select nominees for President by the first week of February 2008… with a whopping 17 of those states now considering holding a presidential primary on February 5 of next year.

And yes, that’s the day California now appears poised to hold its primary election… a change from June, in order to be relevant in selecting the next occupant of the White House.

Sabato offers some interesting context in his new look at the ‘08 primaries. “In 1980,” he writes, “only one state had a primary or caucus by the end of February. By 2000 nine states did so, and in 2004, nineteen. Next year, an incredible thirty states are on track to push into January or February.”

“The system is out of control, and no entity with a national perspective is in charge,” Sabato writes. “Not the Congress, not the political parties. Individual states are ruling the roost, doing what they think is in their interests.”

You can read his full analysis here.

Two things became clear in this afternoon’s hearing on the budget needs for prison health care in California: the total cost is still unclear and even then, it’s going to be high.

In the most interesting moments of today’s Senate budget subcommittee hearing, legislators tried to pin down the federal court-appointed receiver, Robert Sillen, on what his reform of the prison medical care system will cost.

Governor Schwarzenegger set aside $150 million in his proposed 2007-2008 budget, but Sillen’s comments made that number seem, at best, optimistic. In fact, Sillen openly speculated that the fixes could be as much as double that amount.

One exchange, in particular, drove the point home.

It began when the subcommittee chair, Sen. Mike Machado (D-Linden), asked if the costs might level off in the near future after the changes have been made.

“Every aspect of the prison medical system is broken,” said Sillen. “It is very, very difficult to project and predict,” he said.

Undaunted, Machado tried again.

“But in your past, you’ve been a very successful administrator of a health care system,” said the senator. “And I can’t imagine you going to that board of directors, and not knowing what you’re going to be spending money on. I would think that you would have some cursory spreadsheet that would give, if nothing else, a number in a ballpark.”

Sillen: “I have never, in my 40 years in health care experience, ever seen anything like this.”

And then, the federal receiver dropped the bomb.

“It is going to cost what it is going to cost,” Sillen said. “And it is going to cost more than the body politic is going to want to spend.”

You can hear the full (longer) exchange here.

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.]

It wasn’t quite tea and crumpets, but rather (from my vantage point) cookies, iced tea and almonds this afternoon for a rare Sacramento social event in the governor’s cabinet room: the eight constitutional officers coming together to say hello, and talk about the year ahead.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger played hosts to the other statewide elected officers– Lt. Governor John Garamendi, Controller John Chiang, Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, and Secretary of State Debra Bowen.

Schwarzenegger proudly called the group a great team, and had them all go around the room to talk about their individual priorities. Four journalists, myself included, had been shuffled into the room after a private start to the meeting; we were the “pool” reporters designated to share with others what went on inside. [Opening remarks can be heard here.]

The media’s presence probably was the reason each elected official’s comments turned into a mini-stump speech. From health care to environmental protection to safe elections, they each got their 3-5 minutes.

No real news (though I did ask the governor, as you can see below, about the idea of an all-mail ballot); however, there were a few interesting moments.

Attorney General Brown, who used to sit where Schwarzenegger sat, remarked that he had trimmed down his legislative agenda for 2007. “I think we need fewer laws,” said Brown. he then said he estimates there have been 25,000 laws enacted since he was governor. To which Treasurer (and former AG) Lockyer quickly jabbed: “Mostly cleaning up the laws you signed.” The room erupted in laughter. [You can hear that exchange, with an additional story from Lockyer, here.]

Later, Governor Schwarzenegger began heaping praise on Lt. Governor Garamendi– “my partner,” he called him. One wonders whether the previous lieutenant governor, Cruz Bustamante, ever even got inside the front door. [You can hear Schwarzenegger’s comments here.]

[UPDATE: During a meeting with all of the state’s constitutional officers this afternoon, I asked Governor Schwarzenegger what he thinks about the idea. “We have to talk about that,” he said. But he added: “If it’s less expensive, maybe it’s a better way of going.” Audio is here. –JM]

As talk heats up of a February 2008 presidential primary here in California, local elections officials from around the state say they will ask that all the ballots be cast by mail.

That proposal will be floated at a legislative hearing at the Capitol on Wednesday by Steve Weir, the registrar of voters in Contra Costa County and the president of the California Association of Clerks and Elected Officials. Weir says he will travel to Sacramento to make the pitch, though he has not been asked to testify at tomorrow’s Senate hearing on issue.

The early primary presents a number of problems for county elections officials, not the least of which is that they had planned to have virtually all of 2007 to regroup after five straight years of elections in California. Until now, they had assumed the next statewide election would be in June 2008. An all-mail election would also likely be cheaper than the current figure being shopped around the Capitol: as much as $90 million.

Virtually all players here in Sacramento now say the notion of an early presidential primary… on February 5, 2008… seems to be a done deal. In fact, most of the talk has centered around what else would be on that ballot, including proposals to change the redistricting process and the state’s term limits law.

Registrar Weir says he will ask legislators on Wednesday to allow every county to conduct the election by mail, given how many California voters already participate through absentee ballots. “The time has come,” said Weir in an interview on Monday, “to see if there’s any legitimacy to doing some of our major elections as they do in Oregon and Washington.” Those two states have successfully conducted several all-mail elections.

But when told of the idea late Monday, legislative leaders were critical. “An all mail election may reduce costs for county officials,” said Senate President pro Tem Don Perata in an emailed statement. “However, this may also disenfranchise voters who have never voted by mail and may thereby limit turnout. This makes no sense.”

And it’s easy to guess how the political parties would react. One can imagine the reaction nationwide, say, to a close California primary between candidates like Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama– one that might not be decided for several days as the votes are tallied.

Well, it’s not surprising that the other shoe finally dropped on the infamous Arnold Schwarzenegger “Tapegate” story, those private audiotapes that leaked out during the final days of the 2006 gubernatorial campaign.

The Los Angeles Times, and several other newspapers, reported some of the contents of the six-hour tapes this morning. And the “yes you did/no I didn’t” over the role of the Phil Angelides campaign in the new leaking of the tapes is the stuff of numerous e-mails today.

But the tapes themselves seem to be the real story. Yes, the governor can be heard making disparaging remarks about Democratic leaders– accusing Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez of being only interested in the “political” calculus of last year’s bond negotiations, and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata being an “obstructionist” and “a very sick man”. And yes, as the governor’s aides are trying to point out today, he also talks passionately about various issues.

That’s all sexy enough. But once you dig a little further into the transcripts (willingly provided today by the governor’s press office), you will find an Arnold Schwarzenegger who at times seems optimistic, at other times frustrated, and at still other times more candid than he ever is in public.

I’ve uploaded the full transcripts for those who are curious.

(Transcript 1, Transcript 2, Transcript 3, and Transcript 4)

Even so, here’s what caught my eye:

* Who’s to blame for the way the media covers the governor? In a March 1, 2006 staff meeting, Schwarzenegger pushes his team for more lively PR events. When talking about a speech that focuses on policy, he calls it “a dead speech.” Later, Schwarzenegger begins describing what kind of speeches he should be making. In referring to events to help promote his ideas on after-school programs: “I’d rather just tell them they’re great, and this is terrific, and this is my experience with this, and just tell them some stories and pump them up, and then find a great ending.”

Later in the same conversation, Schwarzenegger describes his ideal speech this way: “we have to make sure that we make the human connections and dramatize that.”

But on March 13, 2006 Governor Schwarzenegger seems to contradict that sentiment. This time, he was complaining about the superficial nature of the press’ coverage of the infrastructure bond discussion: “The media has no interest in the substance [of the infrastructure proposal]. None.” He goes on to mention other policy issues where news coverage has not gotten into the specifics.

“No substance,” the governor says, “because they [the press] feel like the people will not care about it.”

* Other conversations reveal that the governor is keenly aware of things he would never admit in public. For example, on March 7, 2006 the governor notes that critics had said that the implementation of his 2002 after-school initiative, Proposition 49, would force the state to spend money it didn’t have.

Isn’t it interesting, said Schwarzenegger, that every time a ballot initiative passes, “Sacramento right away jumps on it and tries to undo it, or change it, and always go against the will of the people.”

But then, he admits that sometimes he, too, has wanted to tinker with the will of the voters. “I have to be careful because I was trying to undo Proposition 98 last year with the budget,” said the governor. “So we have to be careful that we don’t go overboard with that complaint.” The proposal to modify Prop 98 (the school funding law) was part of his budget reform plan in 2005, and was one of the rallying cries of the group that sunk his 2005 special election campaign.

* And finally, something totally off the wall. In a March 1, 2006 discussion about traffic woes in California, the governor seems to long for the German Autobahn.

“On a freeway in Germany, there is no road rage, because people go 180 miles an hour… And this is why no one ever falls asleep [on the road] in Germany, because you drive too fast and that raises the blood pressure and you can’t fall asleep this way.”