Campaign lawyers for Proposition 93, the term limits measure on the Feb. 5 ballot, are disputing the opinions of two attorneys quoted in a Sacramento Bee story on Tuesday who said the new law could open the door for termed-out legislators.

A press release from the “Yes On Prop. 93″ campaign quotes its attorneys, Robin Johansen and James Harrison, who said:

“This measure is clear — only current and newly elected Members will be subject to its provisions. It expressly contains a narrow transition provision that allows existing Members to serve a full 12-years in the house they’re currently in so long as those years are served consecutively. By creating this single exception — for current members only — it precludes any other exceptions. This would include former members currently covered and termed out by Proposition 140.”

I wrote about this controversy in my column on Sunday, where former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla said he might run for his old seat if the voters pass Prop. 93 in February. He also said he would consider legally challenging the proponents’ position that the law applies only to sitting and future legislators and excludes former lawmakers.

The proposition would allow legislators to serve a total of 12 years in either the Assembly or the Senate. The current law restricts legislators to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

It’s more controversial provision would allow incumbents who would have termed out in 2008 to seek re-election and serve up to 12 years in the house in which he or she currently holds office. That includes Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch.

As someone pointed out in my earlier blog item, put four lawyers in a room and what will you get? Four opinions.

It’s 6:16 p.m. and more than a dozen Democrats (numbers grow every few minutes as folks get off work and make their way to the restaurant) are gathering around the television in the back room of A.J.’s Pub in Concord eating nachos, having a beer or a soda and listening to the presidential candidates on MSNBC from Philadelphia.

So far, it’s a pretty quiet crowd as the questions center around the Iraq War and Iran in the early minutes. A number of folks in the room have “Obama” buttons but there’s no obvious interest in any one of the candidates just yet.

I’ll come back later on and describe their reactions to the debate, who they thought won and who they thought had the best lines.

6:45 p.m.
Wow, it seems as though the Democratic candidates are all running against New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, agreed Democrats Sally Sweetser and Marie McDonald. They are referring to the very critical language from sens. Barack Obama and John Edwards about Clinton, particularly her vote to reconfigure troops in Iraq with an eye toward stemming involvement from Iran.

“I’m not sure how I feel about that,” Sweetser said. “It seems as though most of the candidates are setting up Hillary to be the nominee.”

Both women liked all the candidates’ anti-war rhetoric, though.

“I’m really glad to hear all of them be so definitive about being against the war,” said McDonald, who supports Edwards.

7:15 p.m.
During the second break, the first reaction that comes to the mind of Ellis Goldberg of Danville is:”I’m concerned that Democrats are circling the firing squads.”

He’s talking about the ongoing anti-Clinton theme of this debate. But he agrees with New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who said that Clinton has a serious electability problem in the general election.

“I think a lot of people are concerned about being left voting for the lesser of two evils,” Goldberg said.

He blames cynicism among voters who may philosophically side with a particular candidate but view the die as cast for a front-runner with an air of inevitability.

“The only candidate to get any applause during this debate so far has been (Ohio Rep. Dennis) Kucinich but no one will vote for him because no one thinks he can win,” Goldberg said.

The best line so far?

That came from Delaware Sen. Joe Biden, Goldberg said.

Biden called GOP candidate and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani the “most unqualified candidate to run since (President) George W. Bush … He only has three words: A noun, a verb and 911.”

7:45 p.m.
Pundits were putting a lot of pressure on Obama in the days leading up to this debate to come out swinging in this event if he hoped to overtake Clinton’s substantial lead in the polls.

We’ll have to wait and see how the pundits rate Obama but a table of Obama supporters is happy with their candidates’ performance in this debate so far.

“He’s keeping his cool,” said Donna LoBue. “He has the answers. But he’s not getting emotional. Hillary is getting emotional. That keeps him above the fray.”

Yet, like some of the others at this event, this group of folks wearing Obama stickers also like Kucinich and would vote for him if they thought he could win in the more conservative parts of the country.

8:30 p.m.
The nachos are gone and the beers consumed and the post-debate crowd hanging around AJ’s Pub didn’t see a clear winner emerge from tonight’s event.

“I was leaning toward Edwards but I heard good things from (Connecticut Sen.) Chris Dodd and Richardson,” Sweetser said. “I also think Biden is a stealth candidate. But I haven’t made up my mind yet.”

Goldberg, on the other hand, doesn’t view as serious the second-tier candidates like Dodd and Biden.

“This was all about Edwards and Obama hitting Clinton,” Goldberg said. “Those other candidates are here for entertainment and they know it.”

They both agreed, though, that Clinton was on the defense all evening.

Among her toughest moments, they said, was when she failed to answer one way or the other a question about whether she supported a proposal in New York to give illegal immigrants driver’s licenses. Edwards and Obama both said they were confused by Clinton’s answer, and most of the folks watching in Concord yelled out agreement during the debate.

But this audience was far from a representative sample of voters; it’s vastly white and over the age of 45 years old.

The sole young person in evidence, Christina Walburn, a 27-year-old Obama supporter, says she is satisfied with her candidate’s performance and believes he will prevail despite the air of inevitability around talk of Clinton’s candidacy.

“I don’t think Obama had to come out in this debate swinging and throwing punches at Clinton,” she said. “He just had to be himself. He did that. He’s been so consistent. You get what you expect every time you hear him.”

Several election experts cited in a Sacramento Bee story today agree with former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla’s opinion that a term-limits measure on the Feb. 5 ballot — Proposition 93 — could allow him and termed-out legislators to return to Sacramento.

I wrote in my Sunday column about how Canciamilla may challenge in court — if voters pass it — the proponents’ contention that the measure specifically excludes lawmakers who have already termed out.

Canciamilla served six years in the Assembly and say that Prop. 93 would allow him to serve a total of 12 years. (See my column for details on how the measure would change the law.)

Bee reporter Shane Goldmacher contacted several election law experts who concurred with Canciamilla’s interpretation:

“I don’t see any basis for saying a person who has previously served six years is precluded from serving another six years,” said Daniel Lowenstein, an election law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who helped write the state’s Political Reform Act in the 1970s. “It is quite clear.”

Richard L. Hasen, a professor who specializes in election law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that while the measure “may have been written to provide a specific rule for current members, it does not appear, on its face, to limit already termed out legislators” from returning to the Assembly.

This throws an interesting curve at Prop. 93.

If sitting legislators are allowed to seek re-election, why not allow all those termed-out lawmakers another shot at Sacramento? Let me know what you think.

Photo of Joe Canciamilla as it appeared on www.halfwaytoconcord.com on Feb. 7, 2007

Contra Costa Community College Trustee Tomi Van de Brooke has sent Assemblyman Guy Houston a blistering e-mail after her name appeared on an endorsement list posted on www.GuyHouston.com.

Van de Brooke writes that she is not endorsing Houston, who terms out of the Assembly next year, in his race against incumbent Contra Costa County Supervisor Mary Nejedly Piepho.

“I am not endorsing you for supervisor,” she wrote. “I am endorsing Mary Piepho whom you encouraged to run for supervisor. You have never received any indication that I would support you for this seat. I called you the day you announced and expressed my concerns about you running for supervisor.”

But the list that Van de Brooke cites and includes in her e-mail is actually Houston’s old Assembly endorsements, said Houston’s spokesman Matthew Del Carlo.

The first sentence of the page identifies it as his Assembly campaign. And in another clue as to its origins, it not only lists Van de Brooke but it also includes Piepho and several other names of folks who supported him for Assembly but are definitely not embracing him for supervisor.

The page wasn’t intended for public viewing, Del Carlo said. It is a leftover page from the Assembly web site that staff plans to update for the supervisor campaign.

“There’s no live link to this page from the (supervisor campaign) web site, so I’m not sure how it was accessed,” Del Carlo said. “We removed the page as soon as we heard about it. But it’s clearly his old Assembly endorsement list.”

Regardless, Van de Brooke’s reaction reveals her strong feelings about Houston’s decision to run against Piepho.

“I detest what you are doing and believe you should live with term limits and go back to your pre-elected life or find a more relevant seat,” she wrote. “Taking my personal support for Mary out of it, I believe you to be an Alameda County-based person and this is simply an opportunistic move on your part.”

Van de Brooke is not alone in her negative assessment of Houston’s choice of races. But whether or not it will make a difference next year remains an unanswered question.

Photo of Van de Brooke taken from Contra Costa Community College web site.

The Alameda County Registrar of Voters mistakenly sent letters to 234,000 permanent absentee registered Republicans, Democrats and members of other parties advising them that they had failed to select a qualified political party for the Feb. 5 presidential primary election.

The county meant to send the letter to about 60,000 voters permanent absentee voters registered as “decline to state” but a staffer sent the wrong mailing list to the out-of-state printing company.

In this climate of suspicion about the integrity of voting equipment and systems, hundreds of voters have deluged the registrar’s office with angry phone calls and complaints.

But no voter has been stripped of his or her party registration, nor has there been any nefarious activities on the part of any county employee, said Alameda County spokesman Guy Ashley.

“It was a mistake that we regret and we are doing everything we can to clear up the confusion,” Ashley said.

Next week, the election department will send out a follow-up letter of explanation to those who received the letter in error and it will send the original letter to the correct list of “decline to state” voters.

Why did the letter go out in the first place?

It was intended to let “decline to state” voters know that they cannot vote in the presidential primary for the candidates of registered parties except for the Democrats and the American Independents. In contrast, the California Republican Party restricts voting in its primary to members of its party.

This means that a “decline to state” permanent absentee voter may request a nonpartisan, Democratic or American Independent ballot for the Feb. 5 presidential primary. He or she may not ask for a Republican ballot.

But the letter did not mention the GOP or spell out the Republican Party’s rules. It simply said, “We are sending you this notice because you did not choose a qualified party when you registered to vote.”

“People are confused and angry,” said Ryan Hatcher, executive director of the Alameda County Republican Party. “We don’t think there was any voter fraud here. It was an honest mistake. But people are vigilant these days about the voting system and a lot of Republicans think this is a move against them.”

The wording of the letter also bolsters critics of the GOP’s decision to exclude “decline to state” voters who say the party’s policy will push the growing numbers of independent voters into the arms of the Democratic Party.

Hatcher plans to meet with the county election staff this afternoon to discuss the wording in both the apology letter and the notice “decline to state” voters.

For a link to today’s story on the issue in the Oakland Tribune, click here.

Contra Costa County Administrator John Cullen will retire in September 2008, Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Mary Nejedly Piepho told the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association at a breakfast meeting this morning in Walnut Creek.

The news is not entirely unexpected although the conservative taxpayers’ group collectively groaned when they heard of Cullen’s decision. They like Cullen, particularly after their tense relationship with his predecessor, John Sweeten, over the county’s budget, pension and retiree benefit woes.

Cullen also won widespread praise and respect from county employees, other county elected officials and the Board of Supervisors as that rare breed of manager who could both make the hard decisions and inspire a teamwork atmosphere.

But Cullen, a veteran county employee promoted in 2006 to the top job from his role as the director of employment and human services, has never suggested that he would remain in the post for an extended period.

For an in-depth look at Cullen’s decision and his career with the county, check on-line or pick up a copy of the Sunday edition of the Contra Costa Times and look for a story on Cullen by reporter Ryan Huff. He met with Cullen earlier this week.

Secretary of State spokeswoman Nicole Winger disputes several statements that Contra Costa County Registrar of Voters Steve Weir made at a meeting Wednesday morning with reporters, editors and editorial writers of the Contra Costa Times. (Click here for link to my blog entry yesterday on the meeting.)

Reached earlier today, however, Weir stood by his comments. It was another in a series of tense exchanges between Weir, who is president of the state association of county registrars, and the Secretary of State’s office.

Here’s a rundown of the dispute:

Weir says the Secretary of State’s office failed to process a certification application from Election Systems and Software (ES&S) in a sufficient time-frame for him to use upgraded voting equipment in the Feb. 5, 2008, presidential primary. Instead, Weir will use older equipment that will work but has some operational problems.

“The state had the application on July 1 but three months later, they said they wouldn’t process it. The state has been sitting on it,” Weir said.

Winger, however, said ES&S didn’t file a completed certification application until Oct. 22 and the state couldn’t start the six-week testing process until it had obtained everything from the company that it had requested.

“Secretary (Debra) Bowen will not bend the law and the certification process for this one vendor, and she will continue to hold them accountable,” Winger wrote in an e-mail.

But Weir was not impressed with the state’s explanation.

“To my way of thinking, a pox on both their houses for not working together and resolving this issue,” Weir said.

The other dispute involves a state law — it pre-dates Bowen’s 2006 election — that Weir’s office says bans any direct network connections between the servers that store the uploaded election results from the data cards and the servers where his staff posts updated election results on the Internet. The restriction came out of security concerns in voting scandals elsewhere in the nation.

The unintended consequence of the network prohibition, Weir says, is that his staff must stop all uploading while they run a “snapshot-in-time” report, burn a copy and carry it over to a separate computer — they call it the “sneaker” network because a worker actually walks from one computer to another — and post it to the Internet. The process takes 15 to 20 minutes, he said, which slows down the counting process.

“My comment (about the uploading issue) was not directed as a criticism of the Secretary of State’s office,” Weir said. “It would require a change in the state law. But there has to be a way that we can solve this issue technically while avoiding any threat to the voting system.”

A new book authored Tom Del Beccaro, vice chairman of the state Republican Party and chairman of the Contra Costa County Republican Party, will hit the streets on Nov. 13.

“The New Conservative Paradigm,” published by a Bend, Ore., boutique company called TMK Books, will “carve out new, solid ground for the next generation of Americans determined to make a difference,” according to the publisher’s web site.

Del Beccaro has scheduled a series of book-signings at GOP events around the state. Locally, he will appear Nov. 14 at a forum at Carondelet High School in Concord at 11 a.m. and at 5 p.m. at the Rossmoor Republican Club meeting in Walnut Creek.

For a link to a list of Del Beccaro’s scheduled book-signings, quotes from other writers about the book and other information, click here.

Democrats will gather at A.J.’s Sports Pub in Concord on Oct. 30 to watch the televised Democratic presidential candidate debate.

MSNBC will air the debate, which will take place from 6-9 p.m. PST from Drexel University in Philadelphia. Click here for a link to the network’s debate page.

I’m planning to attend and cover the local reaction to the candidates’ views and performance. I’ll file a blog entry after the speech and a story for publication on Nov. 1. (It will go too late to meet our print deadlines Tuesday night.)

If it seems too early to think about the presidential options, keep in mind that even though California’s presidential primary election is on Feb. 5, its residents will start voting on their choices for the GOP and Democratic nominees on Jan. 7.

That’s when the counties will send out the ballots for permanent absentee voters, or those who choose to vote by mail every election. In some counties, half of its voters vote by mail and roughly half of those ballots are returned to the registrars’ offices in the first three weeks. The remaining ballots usually arrive in the final week as voters wait to see if any new information crops up that might influence their decisions.

A.J.’s Sports Pub is located at 4633 Clayton Road in Concord. Click here to link to Google maps.

A Oct. 16 lecture by author Jack Cashill to a joint meeting of Contra Costa County’s Republican Women Federated organizations will air Sunday on C-SPAN 2, Book TV, at 10 a.m.

Cashill, a conservative author and former television producer, talked about his new book, “What’s Wrong With California,” and answered a variety of questions about his numerous other publications. (Click here to access his web site and his list of books.)

Cashill is an entertaining and engaging speaker, and his new book is based on the premise that many of California’s social ills can be traced to no-fault divorce and the decline of the traditional, two-parent family. He also calls for the pardon of Steven Levy, who is serving time in a California prison for killing a man in a bizarre, 1996 San Francisco gay sex case.

As a side note, those who enjoy media-bashing will like the speech, too.

Click here for information about the California chapter of Republican Women Federated.