Wish List by Wilson Needs Aladdin’s Lamp

After all the razzle-dazzle, charts and verbiage, there is only one certainty about what Gov. Pete Wilson did last Thursday: There definitely will be a statewide special election in November.

And at that election, many California voters--probably most--will be asked to choose between cuts in vital county services, such as sheriff’s patrols and emergency hospital care, or a higher local sales tax.

Additionally, all voters will be asked if they want to provide tax money for private school tuition through the voucher system. And there will be some other state ballot measures as well, including one to reduce the voting majority needed to adopt local school bond issues from two-thirds to a simple majority.

The governor can call the special election on his own, and any measure that has qualified for the ballot must be put to the voters.

But all the state budgeting matters Wilson talked about--the welfare cuts, the deficit spending, the business tax incentives, the shifting of property tax revenues from local governments to schools--will require the acquiescence of a deeply divided Legislature. Even the local sales tax increases the governor suggested to help counties erase red ink because of sharply reduced state aid will need to be proposed by skittish county supervisors.

So although Wilson has sketched an outline of painful solutions to California’s state and local government budgeting crises, his specifics rest on assumed actions that vary from potentially doable to wishful fantasy. The package is ripe for speculation, and here is some:

*

Despite theories of Machiavellian motives, it seems unlikely that one reason Wilson called the special election was to dispense with the volatile voucher initiative before he seeks reelection next year. To start with, it would have made more political sense for him to leave the measure on the June, 1994, ballot and force his adversary, the California Teachers Assn., to spend its millions against vouchers closer to the November general election. Then, the CTA would have had less time to replenish its treasury to use against him.

Wilson, incidentally, was urged by voucher backers not to call the special election because they wanted more time to raise money. They expect to be outspent at least 3 to 1 by opponents.

The governor anticipates remaining publicly neutral but is known to oppose the measure because it shifts public money to private schools.

As for the impact of the earlier election on the voucher cause, it probably is a wash.

On the one hand, special elections tend to generate low turnouts dominated by conservatives, who tend to favor vouchers. (The last statewide special election, in 1979, produced a turnout of only 37% for two hot issues pushed by conservatives: an anti-busing proposal and state spending limits. Both passed lopsidedly.)

On the other hand, voucher opponents are highly organized and have a ton of money. And their ranks--including 1.2 million members of the Parent-Teacher Assn. and more than 600,000 school employees--also tend to vote heavily.

“We believe we’re going to blow them out of the water,” says Rick Manter, campaign manager for the opposition.

Many of the same people campaigning against vouchers also will be advocating the measure to lower the vote requirement for school bonds. Wilson strongly backs that proposal and, if he stumps for it, conceivably could temper the education Establishment’s hostility toward him.

But this could be a hard sell. A statewide survey by the Field Poll in February found Californians opposed, by a 5-to-4 margin, to changing the two-thirds vote requirement for local bonds.

It also likely will be an uphill fight to raise county sales taxes, presumably by half a cent. And there are enough legal ambiguities surrounding local sales taxes hiked by a simple majority vote to keep lawyers busy for months.

*

The important thing for Wilson, however, is that in calling a special election and offering new budget proposals, he helped himself politically by being an activist governor and inserting more flexibility into Capitol negotiating. He increased the chances of avoiding another summer of budget deadlock and embarrassing IOUs.

One can conceive of Wilson and the Legislature, for example, agreeing to extend the temporary half-cent state sales tax until at least the November election, rather than allowing it to expire on schedule June 30, as the governor insists. Wilson also could wind up stretching out the state’s debt payment over 24 months, instead of the 18 he proposed. The business tax incentives and welfare cuts certainly will be negotiated.

The next move is the Legislature’s--and all those angry county supervisors.