Special Election Plan: Vote Now, Pay Later

Call it indifference, inconsiderateness or arrogance: Sacramento is stiffing the counties by not providing money for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special state election.

It’s even stiffing California’s chief elections officer, Secretary of State Bruce McPherson.

The counties never have been paid for their cost of the 2003 recall election that sent Schwarzenegger to Sacramento. They’ve had to swallow the $55-million tab, despite pleas in the Capitol.

“The Legislature’s view is, ‘That’s old news,’ ” says Farrah McDaid, an official of the California State Assn. of Counties. “The [Schwarzenegger] administration just says, ‘We had nothing to do with it. It wasn’t our gig.’ ”

Now there’s another looming drain on local treasuries. The counties’ cost of conducting Schwarzenegger’s special election in November -- above what they’d ordinarily be spending for local elections -- is estimated at $45 million.

The state has “a moral obligation,” says Contra Costa County voter registrar Stephen Weir, vice president of the California Assn. of Clerks and Election Officials. “You just can’t call an election for politically questionable purposes and expect counties to pay the cost.”

Politically questionable? “The world is not going to come to an end if these things are not dealt with right now by the public. If the state really feels this is important, the state ought to pay for it.”

Weir notes that all the initiatives slated for the special election could be placed on next June’s regular ballot at no additional cost to taxpayers.

Schwarzenegger does promise that the state will reimburse the counties eventually. In his proclamation calling the election, he declared that any resulting local costs “shall be included in the state budget for the 2006-2007 fiscal year, or in an earlier enacted claims bill.”

That happened a decade ago, when Sacramento ultimately paid for the local costs of a 1993 special election called by Gov. Pete Wilson.

But no governor, regardless of his proclamation, can commit the Legislature to appropriating money. Democratic lawmakers don’t want the election anyway.

Moreover, promises aren’t always kept in Sacramento. Ask schools.

Schwarzenegger reneged on a 2004 pledge -- part of a budget deal -- to give schools their normal share of any revenue increase. The Legislature even sent the governor a separate bill putting that promise in writing, and he signed it. The California Teachers Assn. now is suing for the $3.1 billion.

If the locals get stuck eating all the election costs, says the counties’ McDaid, “it’ll mean that if a sheriff needs a couple more deputies, he’s not going to get them. If a street needs to be repaved, it probably won’t be. There’s no special pot of money. Parks, social services, definitely libraries will absorb the hit.”

While refusing to pony up for the election, Sacramento also is stiffing one of its own: the new Republican secretary of state.

McPherson estimates the state cost of printing and mailing voter pamphlets at $8.5 million -- plus another $4 million if a supplemental pamphlet is needed because the Legislature and governor compromise and add some bipartisan measures to the ballot after the printing deadline.

But the Legislature not only refused to spend money for those pamphlets in the current $117-billion budget -- negotiated with Schwarzenegger -- the Assembly inserted language prohibiting the governor from dipping into his emergency fund to pay for “any cost associated with a statewide special election.”

“Some could construe it as legislative towel-snapping,” says H.D. Palmer, spokesman for the state Department of Finance.

The thinking was that McPherson this summer can dip into funds set aside for the June 2006 primary, then next year ask the Legislature for more money. This will force Schwarzenegger to negotiate with Democrats over which money pot is tapped, explains Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), the budget committee chairman.

“We want the governor to talk to us about it, to discuss priorities,” Laird says.

This frustrates McPherson. What if the governor and Legislature get into a snit and leave him hanging? Yet, he has no choice but to play a shell game with money and spend it for an unauthorized purpose.

“I don’t want to be the first secretary of state to not administer an election that’s called,” he says.

But if Schwarzenegger really wanted to “live within our means” -- the pitch for his spending cap initiative -- he’d call off the special election while his government faces yet another budget deficit, this one projected for the next fiscal year at $6.1 billion.

Schwarzenegger talks like the state can afford roughly $50 million for a special election. But here are things he contends it cannot afford:

* $48 million to provide 1.2 million elderly, blind and disabled who receive federal supplemental security income with $15 monthly cost-of-living increases for three months. He confiscated the federal money.

* $3 million he vetoed to treat low-income men for prostate cancer.

* $20 million for materials to help children learn English.

* $9 million for state parks staffing and maintenance.

Schwarzenegger is getting lots of free advice about whether to scrub the special election. Pols and pundits are dissecting all the political impacts. But hardly anyone seems concerned about the immediate impact on the public purse, on state and local services.

Maybe the governor and Legislature aren’t paying for the election simply because, deep down, they know it’s not a wise use of tax money. Call it passing the buck to the counties.

George Skelton writes Monday and Thursday. Reach him at george.skelton@latimes.com.