NOTE: Adopted and expanded from my earlier comment post
As my more astute admirers will recall, earlier this fall I all but guaranteed a statewide “special election” in 2011. But since both of said admirers are on Christmas vacation, I can offer no ready verification of my prediction/promise.
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 perhaps 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. Apparently 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 then 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.
One interesting problem is that it is likely that the governor’s statewide special election to raise our taxes will not yet be firmly in place (no definite date), so I’m not sure the city can coordinate its referendum election with the state election. Uh oh.
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, based on the Prop D sales tax drubbing she took, 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 costly election) is for at least one of the city council Gang of Four labor union sycophants to vote against their master. I still stand by my earlier prediction posted here that such will be the case.
But to 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 morning show with Cliff Albert. We excoriated the anti-Walmart mentality. Fun interview.