POLLS MAY MISLEAD IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S RACE

Former Gov. Pete Wilson is the only politician to have beaten Jerry
Brown in an election. In 1982, Wilson, then-San Diego mayor, trounced
Brown, then California's bigfoot governor, in the race for U.S.
Senate 51 to 45 percent. Now Wilson serves as Meg Whitman's campaign
chairman. On Thursday, he told me not to believe polls that show
Whitman losing by as much as double digits. Whitman, he says, has a
real shot at beating Brown.

Polls that show Whitman losing, Wilson said, "are greatly
underestimating the enthusiasm on the part of the Republicans and
pretty much a lack of it on the other side."

And: "I think the undecided are going to decide in her favor."

If the polls are right and Brown does win, the big question is: Will
Brown conclude that he won because he ran a savvy campaign or that he
won largely because Whitman spent $161 million on a dysfunctional campaign?

Maybe both.

Darry Sragow, a former Democratic strategist, is interim director of
the Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California poll that
shows Brown ahead of Whitman with 52 percent to 39 percent of the
vote. (Wilson has real issues with that poll.) While Sragow refused
to call the race, and noted that "the unexpected sometimes happens,"
he believes that Whitman frittered away her credibility during the campaign.

But also, "Jerry Brown won in one very, very important way," Sragow
noted. Brown and campaign manager Steve Glazer withstood months of
pressure from Democratic operatives who "were beating Jerry on the
head and shoulders for not engaging and not spending money."

In the punditry biz, we have a tendency to overplay the importance of
campaigns. In California, 44 percent of registered voters are
Democrats and 31 percent are Republicans. In a wave year that sends
Republicans to the polls while Democrats stay home, the tide could
propel some Republicans into statewide office. Any other year, the
Democratic primary winner has to really mess up to lose in November.

Now on the propositions ...

Yes on Proposition 19. The establishment spin goes something like
this: Even if marijuana legalization makes sense, Prop. 19 is so
poorly written that voters must reject it.

Bunk. The measure is tightly written to give state and local
governments unimpeded authority in deciding whether to allow the sale
of marijuana, and if so, how to tax and regulate it.

There won't be a better bill. Marijuana prohibition enables and
enriches criminal cartels and gangs. Californians have a chance to
end the madness, and voters should grab it.

Yes on Proposition 20, No on Proposition 27. Right now, Sacramento
has authority to draw lines for California's 53 seats in the House of
Representatives. In sum, the status quo has allowed politicians to
pick their voters. In 2008, voters approved a good-government
measure, Proposition 11, to put Assembly and state Senate
redistricting in the hands of a new Citizens Redistricting
Commission. Prop. 20 would put congressional seats under the new
panel's jurisdiction.

Prop. 27 would kill the new Citizens Redistricting Commission before
it even gets started. If you think politicians don't have enough
arrogance and power, then vote yes.

No on Proposition 21. The measure is bound to appeal to voters, as it
would add $18 to vehicle license fees and guarantee that the proceeds
go to state parks. I get the appeal, but this measure constitutes
ballot-box budgeting - it's the sort of money grab for a popular
service that has warped the budgeting process in Sacramento.

No on Proposition 22. See above, but with less popular beneficiaries,
like redevelopment agencies.

Yes on Proposition 23. Don't be fooled by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
this measure isn't about overturning clean air regulations - which
other state laws protect. A state with an unemployment rate of 12.4
percent cannot afford the fees and regulations that will follow when
California's new global warming law (AB32) takes effect.

No on Proposition 24. See above, but in this case, the so-called "Tax
Fairness Act" would restore taxes that give employers reasons not to
do business in California.

No on Proposition 25. Proponents argue that the measure would allow a
majority of state lawmakers to pass a state budget - while preserving
the mandate for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Then why would
public employee unions push for this measure?

No on Proposition 26. The ballot measure would require a two-thirds
approval not of taxes, but fees - which traditionally have required a
majority vote because there is a relationship between the service and
the charge. At The Chronicle Editorial Board endorsement interview,
proponents utterly failed to demonstrate the need for changing the
system. Consider this a special-interest grab in search of a nonexistent cause.

Don't forget to vote.