Actually, to call it a “special election” is a bit of a misnomer. We almost ALWAYS have a not-so-special statewide election in the odd-numbered years — at least in recent years. The Democrats’ voracious appetite for higher taxes drives this odd (numbered) bi-annual rite of spring. Or rite of summer.

My insightful prediction was the reason I wanted to rush a “DeMaio” prop (hopefully to force more managed competition, or perhaps to mandate a city council candidate must first prove they can balance their own checkbook) to ballot qualification — to catch the conservative 2011 special election wave.

But while there will be this 2011 CA election, the geniuses at city hall don’t HAVE to schedule the Walmart referendum to match that election. In truth, I can’t imagine they wouldn’t do so for the savings — assuming that they are dumb enough not to repeal the ill-advised Walmart superstore ban in council chambers.

The timing is this: The city has at most 30 days to verify the signatures. Never doubt that the sigs are good. Walmart did a 100% verification effort, so the validity rate will be exceptionally high.

After city verification, the city politicos have only 10 days to rescind the ordinance and put an end to this embarrassing episode. If they don’t, they MUST schedule a referendum election within 11 months. Apparently the timing of this quick referendum effort precludes the city from waiting until the 2012 primaries to have citizens vote on the measure.

From what we are hearing from the DE FACTO boss of our city (Lorena Gonzalez), labor has a poll that shows overwhelming voter support FOR the Walmart ban. And we all know what terrific polling acumen she brings to the table.

Apparently Lorena has never been in an election prop battle where her opponents will spend as much as her unions will. Walmart ain’t some Tea Party that can’t raise big bucks.

It would be an expensive education for her. The only upside is that it would waste labor union resources that would otherwise be spent on other anti-taxpayer, anti-business, anti-consumer causes and/or candidates.

So assuming Lorena wants another (losing) fight, the only way we rescind the ban at city hall (and avoid the election) is for one (or more) of the city council Gang of Four labor sycophants to vote against their master. I still stand by my earlier prediction post here that such will be the case.

But tto paraphrase another pundit, “No one ever went broke underestimating the political intelligence of liberal city council politicians.” We shall see.

BTW, just got off KOGO with Cliff Albert, where we excoriated the anti-Walmart mentality. Fun interview.

When I asked if the Labor Council has used the same pollster as it did during the ill-fated Prop D Campaign (referring to the slide provided here on Rostra by pollster John Nienstedt showing the flawed poll numbers on Prop D), she answered: “it is a different pollster. And we ditched Tom Shepard as a consultant too ”

Funny given that Rostra blogger Jim Sills just cited Shepard’s contribution to the results in the District 4 County Supervisor’s race in the same election cycle.

Could the Wal-Mart vote be held at the same time?