by Robert in Monterey [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

While the percentages may very well changes—and in some cases by a several points—it appears that California voters have said no to all ballot propositions except for approval of Propositions 94 to 97 which will allow an expansion of slot machines at tribal casinos.

There are some surprises here in the numbers so far—particularly Prop 93 on term limits which is doing a lot better than the polls indicated it would. With 62 % of the vote counted it is garnering losing only 53% to 47%. And Prop 91 on transportation funds was getting more votes than Prop 92 on Community College fees and funding—despite the fact that the proponents of Prop 91 wrote an argument urging a no vote as it was no longer necessary. I would have thought it would have gone down in flames with no more than a quarter of the vote—I guess many voters do not even glance at the ballot arguments and just look at the title and summary on the ballot or screen itself while voting.

So, here are the results:

Prop 91 Transportation funds is losing 42.7% to 57.3%

Prop 92 Community Colleges is losing 41% to 59%.

Prop 93 Term limits is losing 46.9% to 53.1%

Props 94 to 97 Indian gaming compacts are all passing by about 56% to 44%.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Martin Bennett
Deptartment of Social Science
Santa Rosa Junior College

On February 5th California voters can overturn four Indian gaming compacts approved by the legislature--compacts which will permit Native American tribes in Southern California to commence one of the largest expansions of gambling in American history. Californians concerned with the unprecedented polarization of wealth and the consequences of urban sprawl in the state should assess the impacts of these compacts--Propositions 94,95,96,97--on small non-gaming tribes, casino workers and their families, and the environment.

Unlike compacts approved by the Legislature in 2004, these compacts will deny up to 50,000 present and future casino workers protections essential to improve their standard of living and to gain access to California's middle class. If this legislation stands, the basic right of California casino workers to organize unions will be significantly eroded.

In California and across America, workers who attempt to organize a union at a casino are routinely harassed, threatened, illegally disciplined, and fired. Without specific provisions to protect workers at these gigantic casinos, working conditions suffer, and wages and benefits are lower than comparable union casinos such as those operated by the United Auburn and Rumsey tribes.

by Lucas O'Connor [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

The Dump Denham campaign came to life in the midst of last year's budget wrangling, helped in no small part by Senator Don Perata.  Well Jeff Denham may or may not ultimately face recall, but he'll be termed out in 2010 if he lasts that long, and it looks like Democrats have themselves a challenger ready.  It seems that Assemblymember Cathleen Galgiani recently moved into Denham's Senate district.

Galgiani, who succeeded the ever-popular Barbara Matthews in 2006, says she just wants to live closer to the center of her Assembly District, but it certainly is convenient that she also happens to enter SD-12.  Denham's district is at or near the top of nearly every Dem-target list for the near future, especially as the 2/3 rule collides with the year's budget crisis.

Just a hunch, but I'm guessing that budget flexibility is going to become a bigger issue over the course of the year, what with that whole budget shortfall thing.  And healthcare funding.  And Indian Gaming compacts.  Might just be that ambition is finding a place in all this.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Peter L. Stahl
Pete Rates the Propositions

Props 94 through 97 would allow four southern California Indian tribes to expand their casinos so they would be among the largest in the world. In exchange the tribes would pay billions of dollars into the state’s General Fund. Sounds like a painless solution California’s budget crisis, right? That’s certainly what the legislature and governor thought when they approved these compacts last June. But this isn’t a good way to balance the budget, and the agreements are tilted too heavily in the tribes’ favor anyway. We can do better—much better. Vote down the compacts to encourage a better solution to our budget crisis, or at least send the parties back to the bargaining table.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Art Pulaski
Executive Secretary-Treasurer
California Labor Federation

Next year will be a complex year for California voters. In addition to the June primary and the November general election, we will vote on a number of important ballot initiatives in February 2008. To help voters better understand these initiatives, the California Labor Federation has carefully analyzed each of the measures and announced its positions based on the impact these initiatives could have on California’s working families.

The California Labor Federation Firmly Opposes the Indian Gaming Compacts on the Ballot and Urges a "No" Vote on the Referenda Propositions. California’s unions have stood in strong opposition to these tribal gaming compacts since they were originally proposed in 2006. Under tribal law, casino workers on Indian reservations have no enforceable right to organize into a union unless it is expressly specified in the gaming compacts. These four gaming compacts do not include provisions to protect the rights of these workers, which is why labor will continue to oppose these compacts as referenda.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Frank D. Russo

The California Field Poll released results this morning
on how likely voters in the February 2008 election break out on Proposition 93 (the "Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office" initiative) and the 4 referenda to overturn Indian gaming compacts that will receive a proposition number and be on the ballot--unless a court decides otherwise based on the amount of time to collect signatures.

Field shows that the term limit measure has more likely voters supporting it--by 49% to 31% and that the "yes" side on the referenda (to approve the compacts) is ahead 52% to 35%. But that doesn't tell the entire story about the likely passage or failure of these measures where normally support for the yes side on a ballot proposition has to be significantly higher at this stage of the campaign cycle to prevail. It is easier to defeat a ballot prop than to pass one, as all any organized opposition generally needs to do is to sow seeds of doubt and voters either vote no or don't vote at all.

But we've seen exceptions to this in the last election cycle--where the infrastructure bonds were passed, and support actually went up closer to the election, because of a unified campaign by the Governor and Democratic legislators. And because of money.