Early summer is deadline season at the state Capitol. Legislation must move out of policy committees, the state budget is supposed to be enacted, and… in an election year… legislators and the governor must act to place proposals on the fall statewide ballot.

As of today, scratch that last deadline off the list.

Using the state’s election laws… and counting backward from election day… today is the deadline for measures to be in place for the November 4 ballot.

11 proposals are already on the weighty November ballot, 10 of them placed there by voter circulated initiatives and one — the previously delayed high-speed rail bond — placed there by the Legislature.

Governor Schwarzenegger has been pushing for three more ballot measures: a budget reform plan, a proposal to modify the California Lottery and borrow money against its future revenues, and a bond measure to solve the state’s water woes.

The budget reform issue and the lottery borrowing plan are both mired down in the seemingly going nowhere negotiations over a new state budget. And while some sort of lottery proposal has support in both parties, Democrats have pretty resoundingly shot down all budget reform ideas placed on the table.

The water bond’s fate is especially murky, even in the midst of drought like conditions across the state, and no new signs of compromise have appeared.

Having said all this, missing today’s deadline doesn’t mean any — or all — of these measures have missed the November ballot. Lawmakers have stretched their time limits on ballot proposals several times in recent years. And the reality is that once they blow past today’s official deadline, it becomes a question of how long do local elections officials need to design and print their ballots… and how much are lawmakers in Sacramento willing to spend to send out an extra ballot pamphlet to millions of voters?

“I love deadlines,” British author Douglas Adams is quoted as once saying. “I especially like the whooshing sound they make as they go flying by.”

A long November ballot for California voters just got longer, as Secretary of State Debra Bowen has certified a proposal to strip legislators of the power to draw their own political districts.

The redistricting proposal was penned by representatives of California Common Cause, AARP, and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce; but it was undoubtedly carried across the goal line by the fundraising prowess of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign operation.

If voters approve the measure, a bipartisan citizens commission would draw legislative districts after the 2010 census, while the Legislature would retain the power to draw congressional districts.

Redistricting reform is a cause celebre among government reform advocates, but has been summarily rejected by California voters several times — most recently in 2005 as Schwarzenegger’s doomed Proposition 77.

As noted here before, this may not be the end of the November 4 ballot. Although it’s doubtful any more initiatives will be certified in time, the governor and legislators are toying with the idea of two budget-related measures (budget reform and lottery revenue borrowing) and a measure to sell bonds to help stabilize California’s ailing water supply.

Some new numbers reinforce the growing influence of independent expenditure committees, those political entities that can raise and spend money in unlimited amounts because they’re not controlled by candidates for office.

Data compiled by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission on yesterday’s legislative races in open seats (no incumbent) concludes that just under $10 million was spent by IE committees either for or against various challengers for the Assembly and Senate.

Most of that money, about $5.9 million, was spent on the 19 open Assembly races. And tops on that list appears to be the Democratic primary in Assembly District 8, where Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada knocked off West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. That race alone attracted more than $1.15 million in IE spending, with big money funneled into IE committees by both the educational non-profit EdVoice (pro-Cabaldon) and the California Teachers Association (pro-Yamada).

Big IE bucks were also spent the Democratic primary in the Bay Area’s Assembly District 19 ($787,310) and in the Democratic primary for Los Angeles County’s Assembly District 40 ($705,408).

On the state Senate side, IE campaigns spent a combined $3.77 million on six open seats. Tops here was the Democratic primary for Los Angeles County’s Senate District 25. Here, former Assemblymember Rod Wright beat three challengers, including incumbent Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally. More than $950,000 of the IE money in this race came from one committee funded largely by business, real estate, and energy interests.

The second largest draw for IE cash on the Senate side was the GOP primary in Riverside County’s Senate District 37, where Assemblymember John Benoit defeated former Assemblymember Russ Bogh.

The FPPC recently released a detailed report on independent expenditure committees, whose appeal can be found in that they are exempt from any of the donation limits under existing state campaign finance laws.

The main story out of today’s news conference from Governor Schwarzenegger is, of course, important news: the governor has officially proclaimed a drought in California but has stopped short of imposing water restrictions, opting instead to first try and get the word out for more water conservation.

Schwarzenegger is using the proclamation to renew his push for borrowing $11.9 billion to create long-term solutions to California’s water woes. Water bond negotiations broke down here in Sacramento months ago and have been in limbo ever since.

And so now to our minor but noteworthy point: the governor hopes to add the water bond to the ever-growing ballot that voters will be handed at the polling place on November 4.

“Put it on the ballot this November [and] pass it,” he said at today’s Capitol news conference, “so that we can start building, and so that we can secure the water for the future.”

For those not keeping score at home: the November ballot already consists of eight measures– seven voter-circulated initiatives, one measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature. That includes the proposition that’s likely to crowd out all others for attention, an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

Add #9 if Schwarzenegger’s political team successfully gathered enough voter signatures to qualify a redistricting reform measure. And most politicos think that they did.

Add #10 if you think the victim’s rights intiative known as “Marsy’s Law” will qualify. And that, too, seems likely.

Add #11 for a $5 billion bond encouraging fuel-efficient vehicles and energy research.

Add #12, #13, and #14 if the governor gets his trifecta of budget reform, authorization to sell $15 billion in bonds against future California Lottery revenues, and now… water bonds.

14 ballot measures is a heck of a hefty ballot. Not that there haven’t been hefty ballots in years past in California. But it certainly would seem that this particular myriad of complicated subjects, layered on top of an historic presidential campaign, could saddle the voters with quite a challenge.

Needless to say, Schwarzenegger thinks they’re up to the task. “I think that the people enjoy participating in the political process,” he said.

His complete answer, which focuses more on the policy issue at hand, can be heard here.

Having lined all of these proposals up, perhaps it’s time for a reality check. The budget reform and lottery ballot measure plans are the stickiest of wickets, so much so that the odds of both of these making the November ballot currently seem a little long.

Reality check #2: the Legislature and governor are technically supposed to submit any ballot measures for November by June 26. Ummm… okay. That formal deadline has been stretched to the point of breaking in the past, and would apparently have to be stretched again this time.

Reality check #3: negotiating multiple complicated things at the same time is a tough act to pull off at the Capitol, even though Schwarzenegger today (as you can hear below) urged legislators to give it a shot.

But were it all to come true… 14 ballot measures, four of which would be near and dear to Schwarzenegger’s heart… then consider this: which one(s) would he campaign for? Which would he raise money for?

In other words, how many ways can you slice the time… and spread the influence… of the state’s most recognizable politician?

The year was 1940, a year when war was on the horizon and the big political chatter centered on whether Franklin D. Roosevelt would run for an unprecedented third term in the White House.

That was the last time California held two separate primary elections in the same year.

Wait a minute. There’s an election tomorrow?

Tuesday’s primary still seems overshadowed by the presidential contest; on February 5, it was how California and the rest of the Super Tuesday states would vote. Tomorrow, the national media will be oblivious to the state’s issues… likely focused only on whether the Democratic presidential race will come to a close.

Meantime, dozens of local, legislative, and congressional races will lock in candidates from all political parties. And while some think voter turnout will be dismally small, that might not be the case everywhere considering the intensity of some of these intra-party races.

“There are some hot contests,” says Secretary of State Debra Bowen. “I think we’ll see some pretty big variations from region to region.”

Bowen dismisses any notion that moving the presidential primary from June to February was a bad idea, saying that it may be the reason behind a recent surge in voter registration — particularly among young voters.

Unlike her predecessors, Bowen has not made an official prediction of statewide voter turnout. And if she’s right about differences in voter participation by community, then one wonders whether some of these heated races for elective office could impact the only statewide contest — the battle over changes to the government power of eminent domain.

Dueling initiatives Proposition 98 and Proposition 99 both aim to change eminent domain rules, albeit in different ways. Prop 98 is a far broader attempt to rein in the possibility of seizing property for redevelopment purposes; Prop 99 chooses instead to focus on limiting the taking of someone’s home. If both initiatives should pass, only the one with the highest vote total will take effect.

The folks at the non-partisan California Voter Foundation have an online guide on what you need to know before you head to the polls.

We’ll be doing live updates of The California Report through the night on public radio stations across the state. And we’ve got election resources on our site at KQED.

Every good pollster will tell you that a poll is merely a snapshot in time. That may mean no one should read too much into today’s Field Poll showing a slim majority of Californians now support same sex marriages. After all, opinions change.

But another argument may be made that this is far from a fleeting development, as support for the idea has slowly but measurably grown. And that theory can be backed up by more than 30 years of surveying on the issue by respected pollsters Mervin Field and Mark DiCamillo.

Today’s headline is clearly the poll results showing 51% of voters surveyed approve of gay marriages, while 42% oppose them. The poll will be online here later today.

But beyond that is some fascinating data about how the issue has changed over time. First, the historical context. In this poll, and six others dating back to 1977, Field asked the following question (used verbatim every time in the past 31 years):

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?

Only 28% of adults agreed with that statement in 1977. By 1997, it was 38%. In 2004, 44% of voters agreed. Today, it’s eeked over the majority line at 51%.

So what’s going on? No definitive answers, but some reasonable theories:

1. Young vs. Old: The generation gap on this issue is now enormous. Field’s new poll finds those between the ages of 18 and 39 strongly favor same sex marriages, while those 65 and over strongly reject them.

2. Urban vs. Rural: The familiar schism in California politics is holding true on this issue. Los Angeles and the Bay Area approve in the new poll, while voters in the Central Valley and Inland Empire generally do not. The divide is roughly the same when breaking the state down by coastal counties versus inland ones.

3. Religion: In one of the more controversial and murky areas of the poll, more Catholics and Protestants surveyed disapprove than approve. And those describing themselves as born-again Christians strongly reject the concept, 68%-24%.

As you might expect, the other big attention-getter in this poll is the fact that the likely November intiative to amend the state constitution and ban gay marriage looks to be in trouble before it even qualifies for the ballot. Regardless of how the question was asked (and it was asked two different ways), at least 51% of registered voters said they oppose such a plan. Field notes that the findings mirror other surveys on whether the issue should be amended into the U.S. Constitution — perhaps that major step is the problem.

But one particular item stands out in my quick analysis, and it’s the growing acceptance of same sex marriage among California’s new power players in state politics: the indepedent “decline to state” voters. In Field’s August 2003 survey on the issue, just 50% of these voters said they approved of gay marriages. This time around, support among decline to state respondents is at 61%.

Remember, this is the single fastest growing group of California voters — now almost 20%. This is also the group that has been closely tied to the political fortunes of Governor Schwarzenegger, who has said he will oppose the initiative if it makes it to the ballot. The convention wisdom is that most Democrats support same sex marriage and most Republicans oppose it. But the real action, to borrow a phrase from the guv, is with non-partisan voters. And they may hold the key to whether California takes the national lead on this issue in November… one way or the other.

It may not yet be a fully formed proposal for voters to consider, but from what they’ve heard… they don’t seem thrilled about Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan to sell bonds paid back by future revenues from the California Lottery.

That’s probably the headline in the poll released tonight by the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC found 58% of all adults and 62% of likely voters are opposed to the governor’s $15 billion lottery bond proposal.

But even more interesting is the fact that they actually seem to like the one idea that seems the least likely to materialize: a temporary one cent hike in the sales tax.

Schwarzenegger proposed the tax hike as an insurance policy should the voters reject the lottery idea. Legislative Republicans unanimously rejected the idea. But the new poll finds 54% of adults like the idea, and 57% of likely voters like it. Even 51% of Republicans surveyed said they’d support the plan, though all respondents made their support contingent on the tax being temporary, not permanent.

Also on the subject of taxes, voters seem to prefer sticking it to big businesses and rich people. 63% like the idea of raising the state corporations tax; 69% like the idea of raising the top income tax rate for the most wealthy.

Elsewhere, 78% of those surveyed by PPIC are either somewhat or very concerned with the governor’s new plan to cut another $3 billion out of health and human services programs. But only 17% said these programs were their priority in protecting; not surprisingly, the one sacred cow for the voters continues to be K-12 education (61% said it should be spared from budget cuts).

Meantime, only 35% of likely voters said they like the governor’s budget on the whole. In fact, only 17% of the adults surveyed said they prefer Schwarzenegger’s budget ideas above all others, while 57% said they’d pick either the ideas of legislative Democrats or Republicans.

So what’s the silver lining for Schwarzenegger? Not his approval numbers; they’re down to 41%, a 15 point drop in just five month’s time.

No, the top vote getter for the guv may just be his ideas on changing the budget process… or at least as much as the voters know about it. PPIC asked whether voters like the idea of a new limit on how much state spending could increase from year to year. 68% of likely voters said they’d go along with that.

It seems like California’s official campaign finance watchdog is barking a little louder these days about the role of money in politics. And its top target: the murky world of interest groups who ostensibly operate independently of the campaigns run by candidates for office.

The Fair Political Practices Commission recently began a new effort to shine light on the millions of dollars in “independent expenditures” spent in support or opposition of various candidates. IEs, as they’re known to politicos, gained special prominence after the passage of Proposition 34 in 2000. The ballot measure was marketed as a way to dampen the influence of money in politics. But it seems to have mostly been a measure cleverly crafted by legislative leaders to change the flow of cash from one path to another that’s not as transparent… and one where contributions can be made in unlimited amounts, as long as the committee in question is legally independent of any candidate.

The FPPC recently launched a page on its website devoted to tracking IE money in the 2008 campaigns. This morning, the agency released a detailed and fascinating look at who’s been behind the most expensive IE efforts since Prop 34 took effect.

The report, “Independent Expenditures: The Giant Gorilla In Campaign Finance,” finds that over the past six years IE committees have made a whopping $88 million in political contributions. Of that amount, a full $61.7 million was above and beyond the contribution limits outlined in Prop 34. Again, it’s not that the contributions were illegal; rather, that they were made through a legal but not-so-visible loophole in the law.

The new report can be found online here. Some of the more juicy morsels worth pondering:

* The #1 IE since Prop 34 took effect was in support of Democrat Phil Angelides in the 2006 gubernatorial primary. That IE committee, known as “Californians For a Better Government,” spent more than $9.8 million to help Angelides defeat rival Democrat Steve Westly. The FPPC report says more than 80% of that money came from Sacramento developers Angelo Tsakopoulos and his daughter, Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. Angelides was a one-time business partner of the elder Tsakopoulos.

* The report reaffirms what most political watchers already knew– that much of the money funneled into IE campaigns has come from familiar political players: labor unions, business groups, and Indian tribes with casinos.

* The FPPC identifies seven politicians it calls “Million Dollar Babies,” meaning that at least $1 million was spent in support of that candidate’s campaign. The list, in order of IEs spent on their behalf: Phil Angelides in his losing 2006 race for governor ($19.6 million); Democrat John Chiang in his winning 2006 race for controller ($3.5 million); Republican Tony Strickland in his losing 2006 race for controller ($2.1 million); Democrat Lou Correa in his winning 2006 race for the state Senate ($2.4 million); Democrat John Dutra in his losing 2006 race for the state Senate ($1.8 million); Democrat Gloria Negrete-McLeod in her winning 2006 race for the state Senate ($1.2 million); and Democrat Nicole Parra in her winning 2006 race for the state Assembly ($1.2 million).

The FPPC’s new chairman, former legislator Ross Johnson, is no stranger to the world of campaign finance– having worked on a number of contributions rules and regulations for the better part of the last two decades. His new reign as the top man at the FPPC is shaping up to be one of the most activist eras at the agency in recent memory.

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

That’s the official statement from Governor Schwarzenegger after this morning’s announcement by the California Supreme Court that same sex couples have the same rights to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

The 4-3 decision is sure to dominate the state’s airwaves and newspapers for the next few days; the ruling takes effect in 30 days and it’s reasonable to assume that thousands of gay couples will be applying for marriage licenses at that time.

Setting aside the decision and the details of the issue for a moment, let’s consider the politics.

Public opinion polls have found some changes in the attitudes of Californians about the issue of same sex marriage in recent years… with what appears to be more support than existed when Proposition 22 passed in 2000.

Prop 22 was focused on state statute and not the California Constitution — hence, it’s a little tangential to the high court’s ruling today. It’s also a tangent to the initiative that voters may be asked to weigh in on this November: an actual amendment to the state constitution to ban same sex marriage… in other words, a cancellation of today’s legal victory for gay couples.

But it’s not tangential to the politics, with many seeing all of this as a cultural battle. The new initiative appears to be a lock to qualify for the ballot. And that raises the likelihood that it will dominate what’s going to be an already crowded ballot. As his above statement makes clear, Schwarzenegger has firmly stated his opposition to the anti-gay marriage initiative. That puts him, once again, at odds with his conservative GOP brethren.

But will he campaign against the measure? Or better yet, how broad a coalition will arise to challenge conservative supporters? How will the political campaign influence the race for the White House (California is, after all, the big enchilada when it comes to electoral votes)? How might the debate shape the political future of possible gubernatorial candidates… in particular, the gentleman from San Francisco?

There are many, many layers of political intrigue here. And the ink is barely dry on the historic ruling.

For complete coverage of today’s ruling, tune in to KQED Public Radio this afternoon for a half hour special news report, and more coverage tomorrow on The California Report.

Ah, where to begin?

Governor Schwarzenegger’s new budget proposal reminds me of the old adage that journalists have used so much that it’s become a badge of honor in our profession: if people on both sides of something are mad at me, then I must be doing something right.

Of course, it’s never that simple… in the news biz, or with this state budget plan.

The $144 billion spending proposal seeks to erase what the governor’s advisers say is a $17.2 billion shortfall (to be fair, it’s actually $15.2 billion in red ink, with $2 billion more for a reserve). $9.1 billion of the solutions are spending cuts. Those are, in several cases, serious cutbacks… many in health and welfare programs.

But it’s the new revenues the guv is counting on that are getting a lot of the attention.

And more than 60% of those new revenues are found in Schwarzenegger’s unusual… and already controversial… plan to sell bonds repaid by future profits from the California Lottery. The governor’s team doesn’t like that many of us are calling it “borrowing.” Call it “securitization,” or “selling future lottery profits,” they say. But it’s also true that the state would be asking for a loan from Wall Street investors for $15 billion in future lottery earnings up front, to be paid back with interest.

Only $5.1 billion of that loaned cash would be used now; the rest would be stashed away. The entire plan would have to be blessed by voters in November, because the lottery itself was created by an initiative in 1984.

The lottery idea isn’t a new one. Three other states — Oregon, Florida, and West Virgina — have already embarked on somewhat similar lottery bond offerings.

But what is new is the ultimatum that Schwarzenegger and legislators (who’d have to agree to place it to the ballot) would be sending to voters: agree to change the lottery… or the state will enact a 1% sales tax increase.

The threat of a tax increase immediately had legislative Republicans threatening to go to the mattresses. But it may also become perceived as a “give us your money one way or the other” kind of strategy: buy lottery tickets or pay more in sales tax at the register.

And how might you get more people to play the lottery? Many of the ideas were discussed back in March when a state Senate committee considered the idea of lottery privatization: more marketing… perhaps even to younger Californians… more machines in more neighborhoods… and bigger jackpots. Those same kinds of changes are currently enshrined in SB 1679 by Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter), a lottery reform bill upon which the governor’s plan appears modeled.

But bigger jackpots means that the long-standing guarantee of 34% of lottery sales going to education must be eliminated. And that’s raised the ire of the powerful California Teachers Association, which formally opposes SB 1679.

Education’s role in lottery revenues would be further diminished by something made explicit today in a Q&A between reporters and Schwarzenegger’s budget director, Mike Genest: Wall Street investors would have first dibs at future lottery revenues. “Education revenue is subordinate” under this plan, said Genest.

Something tells me that’s going to be a tough pill to swallow.

There will be much more to examine on this issue… and the budget battle… in the coming weeks. But one other thought to ponder on this sweltering day in Sac Town: the lottery proposal and the governor’s much ballyhooed budget reform plan both have to be on the November ballot.

The first (and official) deadline for getting them on the ballot is June 26. That’s fine if the budget’s enacted in time, too, for the July 1 fiscal year. But almost no one in Sacramento thinks that will happen… meaning elections officials could also be scrambling to get these two measures included in the fall lineup.