CALIFORNIA: A New State for Gov. Wilson : A chorus of ‘no’s’ and term limits will test his skills

We welcome Gov.-elect Wilson to the winner’s circle with the wish that he is able to savor the victory. It was a win so close that it may have surprised him. And ahead there are plenty of other surprises waiting for him, few that even resemble pleasant.

At least the new governor will not have to eat any campaign words about the budget. Neither Wilson nor Democrat Dianne Feinstein promised to do much of anything, if elected, that would cost a lot. Nor did either make the mistake President Bush made in accepting his party’s nomination with a “read my lips” promise not to raise taxes. But the state’s financial shape, the loss of crucial bond issues and the reality of even a mild recession may leave very little leeway for action.

FUTURE SHOCK: Sometime between now and Wilson’s first few minutes in his new office, he will be briefed on the state’s financial condition. If the briefing is soon, he will learn that he must start drafting his first budget $2 billion in the hole. The longer it takes to brief him, the bigger the deficit may get.

The deficit is running high for the same reason that many bond issues were rejected by California voters. Unemployment is creeping up in the state and housing prices are creeping down. There is, if not a recession, at least enough hints of one to make people hesitate to borrow for themselves, let alone the state.

Wilson’s caution may be just the ticket for some problems. Economic forecasts still say California will outperform the nation as a whole, but a cautious approach would lead to careful analysis of the most pressing needs; it also would help in shifting state funds around to match the needs. Then, too, money will not be the most pressing aspect of the next phase of programs to protect California’s environment. In these, imagination and diligence can make the difference. There’s no shortage of diligence, but the governor-elect needs to show far more imagination than he did during the campaign.

SACRAMENTO SHOCK: Despite predictions that Tuesday would unleash the politics of rage and revenge for poor public service, California voters punished the state Legislature by a relatively mild 52-48 vote in favor of Proposition 140. But a majority wins, and the resulting chaos in the Legislature over 140 may make Sacramento’s financial troubles seem a welcome diversion for the governor.

In the first year after every federal census, the Legislature has the task of drawing new district boundaries for Congress and the state Senate and the Assembly. That duty always distracts Sacramento, but this year the distraction will rise to near frenzy for the Assembly, whose members will be limited to three terms totaling six years, and the Senate, whose members will be limited to two terms totaling eight years. The constitutionality of Proposition 140 will no doubt be challenged in court, but that could merely string out the uncertainty for state politicians--not to mention stringing out the voters who assumed that what they voted for would actually take effect.

PROPOSITION SHOCK: National commentators searching for the deep meaning of the voters’ rejection of 12 of 14 statewide bond issues would be right to cite the growing economic uncertainty, a general lack of confidence in an expanding government and a legacy from the Proposition 13 era.

But they would be wrong to ignore the daunting complexity of the state ballot. It’s the wrong way to conduct governmental business and the voters recognized it. In no little measure the chorus of “no’s” was a vote against complexity. Irritation with the long ballot no doubt contributed to the crushing defeat of Proposition 128 (“Big Green”). Commentators can complain about the negativism, but anyone who braved into the voting booth Tuesday won’t find it hard to understand.