In the latest political love poem from the national media to Arnold Schwarzenegger, the new edition of Esquire magazine proclaims that the governor is leading the nation into a “new kind of politics.”

The March cover story, “The President of 12% of Us,” takes a quick tour of recent political goings-on in California en route to its final destination: a thesis that Schwarzenegger’s brand of governing is a model that the rest of America can follow (the title of the article hints that California’s large population makes it a nation state unto itself).

More on why that thesis seems somewhat specious in a moment. But first, California political watchers will enjoy some of writer Tom Junod’s anecdotes, apparently culled in a short visit with Schwarzenegger in mid December. For those who have forgotten, that’s when the health care reform debate was reaching its boiling point and the budget crisis was just starting to simmer.

First is Junod’s recounting of the governor’s private sessions with various interest groups about the budget crisis. The author was apparently in at least one of those meetings, and quotes Schwarzenegger as telling one group that this year, “Democrats are getting screwed, Republicans are getting screwed, we’re all getting screwed.”

In that same meeting, supposedly with advocates of the poor, the author’s adulation is palpable as he recounts the governor’s actions at the start of the confab:

“…the woman is meeting Arnold Schwarzenegger for the first time, and he takes her scarf in his hand, feels it, drapes it over his thick fingers, and lets it drop. Then he says, ‘Cashmere– some rich people here’… And he, the richest person in the room by many orders of magnitude, the most famous and most powerful person in the room by many more orders of magnitude than even that, gets away with it.”

The author’s love of all things Schwarzenegger is also seen in this description of another December meeting, this one with Senate President pro Tem Don Perata. Junod says Schwarzenegger told him that Perata was doing the “kabuki” on health care (that’s the guv’s favorite term for the “theatrical” part of politics):

“Perata had started the meeting doing the Kabuki, telling Arnold that it was not the right time for water and not the right time for health care, either, at least not until he saw the budget. Why did Arnold think this was the Kabuki? Well, for one thing, he thought Perata was playing for leverage because he wanted to be the man on water, and the only way he could do that was to hold out on health care.”

No doubt others will take issue with that characterization, but remember, the premise of this piece is that the governor is above politics as usual. “He was sure that he was on the side of history,” writes Junod of Schwarzenegger. “Hell, history was what he was offering Perata.” (Their emphasis, not mine.)

Back to the thesis that Schwarzenegger’s brand of politics could be emulated on the national stage. Actually, that’s the thesis of Esquire’s headline. The actual article seems to admit that Arnold Schwarzenegger is, as Dan Weintraub’s new book calls him, a “party of one.” The writer spends a lot of time talking about how unique the governor’s brand of governing is, and how much of it would probably have never come to pass had it not been for the governor’s star power. The governor admits as much in an interview with the author, saying about the 2003 recall election: “It was like God said, Hey you want to circumvent the Republican primaries, because you’re not conservative enough for them? Here’s the recall.”

That doesn’t sound like a political formula that’s going to be copied anytime soon… which is probably why the good folks at Eqsuire and others across the nation never seem to tire of stories about the Schwarzenegger persona.

The most interesting voting controversy in the state this afternoon seems to be in Los Angeles County, where some non-partisan voters are apparently unaware that they have to fill in an extra bubble on their ballot if they want to vote in the Democratic presidential primary.

No one seems to have any real numbers to show whether this is a minor or major problem. But in a nutshell, here’s the issue: all independent voters (registered as “decline to state”) are supposed to be given the same ballot… but only those who mark an additional space on that ballot will have it counted in the Democratic primary.

But do those voters know this?

Democratic activists supporting candidate Barack Obama allege the ballot configuration is as bad as the infamous Florida “butterfly” ballot. Obama, so goes the conventional wisdom, is the one most likely to draw independent voters in California. And there are some 784,000 of these voters live in Los Angeles County.

And it gets even stranger. Our bureau chief in Los Angeles, Rob Schmitz, tells me he saw the DTS voter confusion first hand this morning in his polling place; there, Schmitz says poll workers were sidestepping the entire “extra bubble” issue by giving decline to state voters (what we call DTS voters) a Democratic ballot.

A spokesman for the LA County registrar of voters says officials are aware of the problem, but have no evidence yet that it’s widespread. He also says officials have been trying hard to make DTS voters aware of the issue.

However, the same spokesman confirms that any DTS voter… voting on a DTS ballot and failing to fill in that extra bubble… will not have their vote counted in the Democratic presidential primary. And late word from LA is that Obama activists are keeping their options open for potential legal challenges should the problems appear to be significant.

Could we be calling this “Bubble-Gate” tomorrow morning? Stay tuned.

The sun is up, the polls are opening across the Golden State, and for political watchers one of the most interesting California primaries in modern times is finally here.

It’s going to be a long day, especially for the political operatives who have pulled marathon days in support of both presidential candidates and ballot measure campaigns. That’s because their job is now done… and it’s all in the hands of the voters.

And there should be a lot of voters. The venerable Field Poll is predicting almost 9 million votes will be cast in California, which adds up to about 56% of the state’s registered voters. One would guess that, should this estimate hold, a large number of those voters are weighing in on the most interesting presidential race in a generation. As noted here just the other day, some 400,000 Californians have registered to vote in just the last few weeks.

My KQED colleagues and I will be on the air tonight with a special election night edition of The California Report, airing on most public radio stations from San Diego to the Oregon border (station info here).

A few random thoughts as I contemplate whether to wear Mardi Gras beads with my “I Voted” sticker today…

* The Early Votes: There are estimates that suggest while a lot of Californians are voting by mail this time around, many of them had yet to turn in their ballot by today. Nonetheless, a lot of folks did vote early… and one has to wonder who won those early votes. While the Democratic presidential contest comes to mind first here (and the big lead that Hillary Clinton had in the California polls until just recently), there’s also been substantial movement on ballot measures in recent weeks — most notably, the term limits modification Proposition 93. Our best chance for assessing those early votes will come just after 8:00 p.m., when local elections officials release the only numbers they have at that point: those votes that were mailed and tabulated before today.

* Voting Changes: The most frustrated group on this election night may be those of us in the news media. That’s because the many changes in voting systems this time around may push definitive results in close races into the wee hours. Several vote-rich counties are back to paper ballots after Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s decision last summer to decertify most electronic touchscreen voting machines. And should some of the replacement systems stumble, there could be a lot of crticism of the voting process in the next few days.

* What If: I can’t help but be struck by what voters are not considering today on the ballot. First on this list is the non-binding ballot measure that would have asked Californians whether they favor an immediate withdrawal from the war in Iraq. You may remember that the advisory measure, championed by Senate President pro Tem Don Perata and approved by the Legislature, was vetoed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. But suppose he had allowed it on the ballot; how might that have driven the anti-war votes toward a candidate like, say, Barack Obama?

The “what if” category also has to include one of today’s biggest subplots: the decision by the state GOP to exclude independent voters from the party’s presidential primary. Democrats are allowing so-called “decline to state” voters to participate, but the Reeps are holding a closed primary. That means the man who had the most to gain from independent voters, GOP front-runner John McCain, now may find himself in a tight race… or even losing the California primary… to the more conservative candidate Mitt Romney.

* The Arnold Factor: No election analysis in California is complete these days without wondering about the impact of our most high-profile politician. Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of McCain may not have been as big as it could have been if, as discussed above, independent voters could have weighed in on the race; after all, those voters are a core constituency of the governor. Schwarzenegger’s real impact will be watched tonight in the ballot measures. Can he help carry Prop 93, the term limits change, over the goal line with his late-in-the-game campaigning? And what about the four Indian casino referendums, Propositions 94 through 97? While the TV ads both pro and con have helped push the campaign into record breaking territory for political spending, the deals are the handiwork of the Schwarzenegger administration. Will voters see them as a worthwhile and substantial infusion of cash for the state? Or will they decide that the deals represent an over-expansion of gambling and not nearly enough cash in exchange for more lucrative slot machines?

* Ms. Schwarzenegger? And lastly… we know the governor is a McCain Man. And this weekend, we discovered that First Lady Maria Shriver has decided to vote for Obama. That’s two votes in the Schwarzenegger household. But what about the newest voting member of the family, 18-year old Katherine Schwarzenegger, who gets to cast her first vote today? Good thing it’s a secret ballot.

(Sorry for the long absence with all of last month’s big political news… as mentioned before, the new little one in the family has kept me away from the hustle and bustle. Look for more frequent blog entries this month! –JM)

Secretary of State Debra Bowen’s new report on the number of registered voters in California shows a healthy uptick in the size of the registered electorate from the 2004 presidential race: 700,000 more voters.

But the even more interesting stat may be that some 240,000 new voters have signed up just since December. The conventional wisdom, of course, is that this could be driven by the high interest in this year’s race for the White House.

And if that’s true, most folks have signed up to weigh in on the Democratic presidential primary. Today’s report shows that for every 1 new Republican voter since December, there were almost 4 new Democratic voters.

Still, independent voters, those who “decline to state” a party affiliation, are the fastest growing segment of registered voters. And while these voters can cast a ballot next Tuesday in the Democratic primary, they cannot do so in the GOP contest… due to a decision by party leaders to close their contest to independent voters.

Total California voter registration, per the new report (which can be read here): 15,712,753.

As mentioned before, I’m taking some time away from California politics and public policy. And now I can show you why…

On Saturday we welcomed Elena Myers into our family, seen here wearing a hat placed on her head by your humble Duke alumni blogger.

As such, blogging will be very sporadic for the next few weeks… and the podcast is taking a hiatus until I finish my paternity leave.

But rest assured, I’ll be watching all of the goings-on with interest. I’ve got a lot to teach Elena about the structural budget deficit, the Schwarzenegger global warming philosophy, and the high political stakes of Proposition 93.

Another big blow was struck late last week against the embattled plan for tribal gambling in the desert city of Barstow, as federal officials rejected the land applications of two out-of-the area tribes.

On Friday, the U.S. Department of the Interior rejected requests from both the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians and the Big Lagoon Rancheria to open side by side casinos in Barstow.

The casino plans are contingent on the land being taken into trust by the federal government as Indian land. But in a letter from assistant secretary for Indian affairs Carl Artman, each tribe’s proposal was rejected on the grounds that a casino far away from the actual Indian reservation would have a negative impact on the community back home.

“The remote location of the proposed gaming facility may encourage reservation residents to leave the reservation for an extended period to take advantage of the job opportunities,” writes Artman in his letter to Los Coyotes. “The potential departure of a significant number of reservation residents and their families could have serious and far-reaching implications for the remaining tribal community and its continuity as a community.”

Federal officials sent a similar letter to Los Coyotes’ Barstow partner Big Lagoon, which hails from the northern Humboldt County coastline. In all, according to an Interior Department news release, applications from 11 tribes across the country seeking land away from their reservation were rejected last week.

Los Coyotes tribe members attacked the decision as unfair. In a written statement, the tribe’s new chairperson Francine Kupsch said that federal officials are suggesting that “tribal members would be better off poor and unemployed and living on the reservation rather than living off the reservation near the casino with a job.”

The Barstow casino plan was approved by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, but was met with a chilly reception in the Legislature. Neither the Assembly nor Senate voted on the proposal last year, and there’s been no indication that legislators are inclined to do so as 2008 begins. Lawmakers pointed to the same issue as the feds did this week — the distance of the location from tribal lands — while Big Lagoon and Los Coyotes leaders have long accused other powerful gaming tribes in southern California of political maneuvering behind the scenes to stifle new competition.

The Sacramento stalemate has led Big Lagoon’s leaders in recent months to consider reviving plans for a casino on their north coast reservation, an idea opposed by environmental groups and the governor. Los Coyotes, on the other hand, has maintained that its reservation is too mountainous and remote for development… and that Barstow is its only viable option.

Just a quick FYI: Capital Notes is taking a brief hiatus as I attend to some things away from the state Capitol and California politics.

But please check back later in the month… thanks.

Late word this afternoon that the initiative has been filed for funding the health care reform plan now awaiting state Senate approval, with Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez as its official authors.

The initiative asks voters to approve a financing plan to pay for the $14 billion a year reform proposal, and includes contributions from employers, employees, and hospitals and an increase in tobacco taxes.

Probably the most newsy tidbit in the initiative is the size of the new tobacco tax. It tacks a new $1.75 per pack tax on cigarettes, a figure that appears to be the compromise between Democrats (who wanted a $2 hike) and the governor (who preferred $1.50).

“This is the most effective way to fund the reform we need to fix California’s broken health care system,” said Nunez in an e-mailed statement.

Much of the other components are similar to what’s been reported. Businesses will be required to spend money on health care for their employees at a rate that’s tied to their total annual payroll. Those employer fees begin at 1% of annual payroll and go up to 6.5%.

The initiative also seeks to inject some protections against rumors that the health care plan could be in violation of a federal law that governs what health care mandates can legally be placed on employers. Whether that passes muster may ultimately be decided by the courts.

The 39-page initiative was received today by the Attorney General’s office, where it now will be vetted for an official title and summary.

The timing is important, as the clock is ticking on the initiative’s chances to qualify in time for next November’s ballot. An aide to Nunez says that the political committee to raise money and gather signatures will be announced next week.

In our final edition of the Capital Notes Podcast for 2007 we examine this week’s big developments in Sacramento on health care reform. And we check in on the battle brewing over the term limits initiative, Proposition 93.

Capitol Weekly editor Anthony York and I also examine another battle brewing for 2008: the serious state budget deficit lawmakers will face in the new year.

Happy Holidays!

Related News & Notes
“State Assembly Backs Health Care for Everyone,” by Jordan Rau and Patrick McGreevy in the Los Angeles Times

“The Pitfalls of Health Care Financing,” by John Myers

“The Politics of the Health Care Vote,” by Anthony York

“Year In Review 2007,” by Anthony York

“Big Prisoner Release Plan,” by Andy Furillo of The Sacramento Bee

Confirming what’s been discussed inside the state Capitol for the last few weeks, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger announced today that he will declare a fiscal state of emergency early next month and will call a special session of the Legislature to resolve it.

The low-key announcement via press release this morning sets the stage for what will easily be the most bleak state budget season since the one Schwarzenegger inherited upon taking office in 2003.

“I firmly believe that the way to solve our chronic budget problem is with fiscal restraint,” said the governor in a written statement. “We will figure out how to get spending in line with revenue.”

Of course, that’s easier said than done. Critics have pointed out that none of the budgets the governor has signed in the last four years have had actual revenues (and not borrowing or reserves) match actual expenses.

An interesting nugget inside this morning’s announcement: an official projection from the administration that the current year budget shortfall will total $3.3 billion. That’s about $1.3 billion more than the shortfall estimated last month by Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill. And it makes conservative estimates of the budget problem over the next 18 months now total more than $11 billion… though the governor has reportedly told some groups the problem is closer to $14 billion.

Schwarzenegger said that he will make the formal declaration on January 10, the same day he unveils his proposed 2008-09 budget. This is the first time a fiscal emergency will be declared under the powers given to the governor in 2004’s Proposition 58. The governor also said he’s now preparing emergency legislation to send to the Legislature once the special session convenes.