Author: Joel Fox

High-propensity Republican voters split on the idea of a top-two primary system according to the poll conducted by M4 Strategies and released by the Small Business Action Committee today.

The top-two primary concept, incorporated in Proposition 14 on the June ballot, received 43.5% Yes and 36.3% No with nearly 20% undecided. Sometimes called the Open Primary, the measure would allow all voters to vote for any candidate in a primary election with the top two finishers facing-off in the general election regardless of their party affiliation.

Usually a measure that scores under fifty percent months before Election Day is doomed to failure. However, this poll reflects only Republican voter attitudes. The measure will undoubtedly be popular with independent voters who make up 20% of the electorate and who often determine the outcome of many elections in California.

Former eBay CEO Meg Whitman has a commanding lead over Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner in the race for the Republican Gubernatorial nomination according to a new poll conducted by M4 Strategies and released by the Small Business Action Committee today.

Republican voters, indicating a preference, supported Whitman over Poizner 60% to 12%.

In separate questions testing the candidates’ favorable and unfavorable ratings, Whitman scored a favorable to unfavorable advantage of 53% to 9%. Poizner’s scored 20% favorable, 9% unfavorable.

Poizner’s absence from the airwaves seems to be taking a toll on his campaign. Nearly 50% of the poll’s respondents said they have not heard of the Insurance Commissioner. Only 22% had not heard of Whitman.

Poizner intends to become more well known through a blitz of radio and TV ads he plans to launch soon. Referring to his campaign kitty, Poizner told the Associated Press: "We’re going to spend it all" … "I mean, it’s not like I’m trying to keep my resources for the general (election) or something. We’re going to spend what it takes."

Economist Arthur Laffer annually compares the economic and revenue conditions in the states, noting, “With people, products and capital free to move from state to state, state governments are competitors.” Given California’s budget difficulties it is no surprise that the Golden State ranks poorly in the new Laffer analysis.

California is not the only state that is suffering in these difficult times. The Laffer account reports that state revenues declined 8.09% from Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 to FY 2009. Heading into this Fiscal Year, 48 states faced budget shortfalls. While many states implemented measures to close their funding gaps, 41 states have come up short.

Laffer and co-author Mark A. Wise argue that, “The evidence suggests that pro-growth policies result in higher after-tax returns, increased economic activity, and an eventual improvement in overall state fiscal health; anti-growth policies result in the opposite effects.” Comparing the nine states that have no broad base income tax with the nine states that have the highest marginal income tax rate (California ranks fourth at 10.55%), the report says that, generally, states that tax less on “productive activities such as working and investing, experience higher growth rates (GSP) than states which tax more.”

On separate occasions last week, two justices of the California Supreme Court criticized the initiative process. One critique charged that the process could deny citizens basic rights; the second fingered initiatives as a key reason for California’s dysfunctional government. Both arguments are off-base and, to use court terminology, need to be appealed.

Early last week, Justice Carlos Moreno charged that certain basic rights could be subject to change by simple majority votes under the initiative process. Moreno’s remarks were delivered in reference to the gay marriage initiative. What’s odd about the comment is that the Justice ignores the role of our courts in the governing process.

If a law is indeed unconstitutional – if rights are being taken away – then it is the role of the court to overturn the offending law. In the case of the gay marriage initiative, that legal test is going-on right now. Laws passed by legislative bodies face the same scrutiny. Courts are not shy about declaring laws unconstitutional, it happens all the time.

Many political reformers will tell you that money corrupts politics. But how do we get through to voters without an aggressive effort to reach them, which nearly always involves money?

Despite being the talk of California’s political world with over 700,000 views on YouTube, the Demon Sheep created by the Fiorina for U.S. Senate campaign was unknown to most of the very involved community group members I spoke to in Los Angeles this week.

The Sacramento echo chamber sometimes make you believe that the political stories being discussed all around you are also spreading far and wide and having an impact. In our great state of 36-million people it takes quite a lot to have an impact, especially when politics is not very high on the average citizen’s ‘things I like to do’ list.

Independent Expenditure (IE) campaigns attacking Republican Gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman have started advertising. The first ad to air was produced by an outfit called Level the Playing Field 2010, made up of an A-list of Democratic political consultants.

This first ad claims Whitman is trying to buy the election with her billions. That argument won’t push aside the big issues of this election year: jobs and California’s budget problems. We’ll hear about jobs from the IE ads, as well. They will say that Whitman as a business executive made some decisions that reduced jobs. But, she will win that fight because she created many more jobs and the Democrats’ charge will open the debate on the policies of the Democratic controlled legislature that have driven so many jobs away from California.

The Democrats don’t want to talk about the budget problem, either. Their usual solution of tax increases won’t fly in the current political environment. And, they will have to defend a candidate in Jerry Brown who set California on its current wayward path by creating what columnist Dan Walters called the “hegemonic power of public employee unions” by granting them collective bargaining, which has resulted in such a strain on state and local government budgets.

“Sequels can be better than the original … T2, Get the DVD, you will see.”

With those words, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger defended his re-nomination of state Senator Abel Maldonado for Lt. Governor. Throwing his arm around the shorter Maldonado, Schwarzenegger called him a “good man” who was capable of doing the job.

Maldonado did not secure the necessary 41 votes in the Assembly to be confirmed, but neither did he have 41 votes against him to reject the nomination outright. To avoid a court battle over whether the lack of 41 NO votes meant rejection, Schwarzenegger simply decided to try, try again.

Sticking with his man may indicate what the governor’s going to do with the other big issue facing him – the budget. During the press conference, in response to a reporter’s question, the governor said once again the state must live within its means. The usual rhetoric? Or does the action with Maldonado add some significance to his determination?

For this President’s Day, here’s a tale of California’s decisive role in one presidential election.

The 1916 election between Democratic incumbent Woodrow Wilson and Republican challenger Supreme Court Justice Charles Evans Hughes was one of the closest in American history. The voters of California would decide the man who would be president and, collectively, those voters were divided.

The election was held in the shadow of war in Europe. President Wilson argued for neutrality. He ran on the slogan: He kept us out of war.” Hughes, former New York Governor, and future Secretary of State and Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, had won the Republican nomination as a compromise candidate to unite the moderate and conservative wings of the Republican Party.

With Hughes winning the big electoral vote states of the day in the Northeast and most of the Midwest, the race came down to the 13 Electoral Votes in the Golden State. California’s neighbor to the north, Oregon, had gone for Hughes, the only western state besides South Dakota to do so, and if California joined in, Hughes would be president.

Finally a reason to support a constitutional convention: To rewrite Article V Section 5(b) of the state constitution to make clear what it means by the phrase “refused confirmation.” If we can dump that murky phrase we would know if California had a Lt. Governor or not today.

Since there was no majority of the Assembly to reject outright the nomination does that amount to the Assembly refusing to confirm the nomination? Does that mean that Abel Maldonado is the Lt. Governor of California? The Governor thinks so. The Assembly Democrats don’t agree.

So as all issues must in the natural order of things the confirmation result has come down to the lawyers.

Whether you agree or not with Maldonado’s positions on tax increases, it seems Democrats in the Assembly have lost the right to criticize Republicans for refusing to compromise. Here’s a Republican who voted with the Democrats yet they stick to politics and punish him.