Capitol Alert

The likelihood of open warfare between Gov. Jerry Brown and civil rights attorney Molly Munger, who have rival tax increase measures on the November ballot, has increased with the formation by Brown's supporters of a committee to oppose Munger.

Stop the Middle-Class Income Tax Hike--No on Prop. 38 has filed a statement of organization with the secretary of state's office, with political consultant Jason Kinney as treasurer and Dr. James Hay, president of the California Medical Association, as its "principal officer." The CMA supports Brown's Proposition 30.

Proposition 30 would raise sales taxes slightly but would derive most of its revenue from hefty increases in income taxes on taxpayers with taxable incomes of $250,000 or more. Although billed as a measure to support schools, its proceeds would generally close a chronic deficit in the state budget.

Munger's measure, which is backed by the PTA, would raise income taxes on all but the lowest income taxpayers and its proceeds would boost school spending.

Brown attempted to persuade Munger to drop her measure but she refused. As part of the state budget, the Legislature passed a bill to elevate Brown's measure to the top of the ballot and Munger attempted, in vain, to block the shift with a lawsuit.

While polls indicate that Brown's measure has bare majority support, Proposition 38 falls below 50 percent, largely because it would hike income taxes on a wider segment of socety. And that appears to be the focus of the new anti-Munger committee.

The anti-Proposition 38 group has also submitted ballot pamphlet arguments against the measure signed by Sen. Ted Lieu, D-Torrance, and officlals from the California State Sheriffs' Association and the California Faculty Association.

Munger has criticized Brown's measure for purporting to bolster school spending while giving little or no new money to education, but has not indicated yet whether she'll finance an opposition campaign to Proposition 30.

Weeks after conceding defeat in the June 5 primary, supporters of an initiative to increase the tobacco tax to fund cancer research have requested a recount in parts of Los Angeles County.

Proposition 29 is losing 49.7 percent to 50.3 percent - a margin of just 29,565 votes out of more than 5 million cast statewide - according to unofficial results posted by the Secretary of State. Proponents of the measure conceded June 22, saying the gap remained too large to overcome as the final ballots were counted.

But a recount was requested in some Los Angeles County precincts Monday, the deadline for submitting such a request, Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Dean Logan confirmed today. He said 191 precincts were selected for a recount by supporters.

The request was filed by John Maa, according to the Secretary of State's office. A doctor and member of the American Heart Association, Western States Affiliate by that same name was featured in press releases and an advertisement aired by the Proposition 29 campaign. The filer's attorney, Bradley W. Hertz of the Sutton Law Firm, was not immediately available for comment.

The formal Proposition 29 campaign denied involvement in the recount. Spokesman Tim Douglas wrote in an email that "no one with any official connection to the campaign made such a request."

Logan said his department will begin the recount process on Monday, tallying the ballots electronically before starting a manual count midweek. He said he expects the cost of the recount, which could take more than a week, to break down to about $5,700 a day. The campaign requesting the recount must cover that amount in daily deposits, though taxpayers pick up the tab if the process changes the outcome of the election.

The precincts selected by the campaign accounted for about 48,000 of the roughly 900,000 votes cast for and against the measure throughout the county. The campaign can add more precincts or pull the plug on the process at any time, Logan said.

Proposition 29, which would increase the cigarette tax by $1 a pack to pay for cancer research and smoking cessation programs, was sponsored by the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association and American Lung Association.

The opposition campaign, fueled with tens of millions of dollars from tobacco companies, argued that the revenue could be put to better use during bad budget times and that the panel created by the measure to oversee the spending lacked accountability and would create more bureaucracy in state government.

Editor's note: This post was updated at 5:05 p.m. to include a response from the Yes on 29 campaign. This post was updated at 5:31 p.m. with the name of the filer.

San Francisco's political cognoscenti are buzzing over a lengthy article in the current issue of Washington Monthly that details how Willie Brown, the city's former mayor, continues to pull strings on behalf of his favored politicians and, apparently, his legal clients.

Or as the magazine itself describes the article's premise: "San Francisco's ex-mayor Willie Brown has pioneered a new way to control a city without breaking a sweat -- or running for office, or getting elected, or disclosing his clients, or making anyone particularly mad."

The article's writer, Elizabeth Lesly Stevens, says Brown, who also was the longest-serving speaker of the state Assembly, refused to be interviewed and keeps his list of legal clients a secret. She describes how Brown pulled strings to make an obscure city bureaucrat, Ed Lee, San Francisco's mayor after Gavin Newsom - another Brown protégé - resigned to become lieutenant governor.

Leaders of a Republican-led drive that qualified a referendum for the November ballot to overturn California's newly drawn state Senate districts have decided not to seek its passage.

Dave Gilliard, a Republican political strategist who led the signature-gathering drive to place Proposition 40 before voters, said that sponsors have filed a ballot statement concluding that a California Supreme Court ruling has eliminated the need for their measure.

Proposition 40 will remain on the November ballot, but sponsors will not raise money to campaign for the referendum, Gilliard said. A "no" vote on Proposition 40 supports overturning the state's 40 newly drawn state Senate districts.

"As the official sponsors of Proposition 40, our intention was to make sure its qualification for the ballot would stop the current Senate lines from being implemented in 2012. The Supreme Court intervened to keep the district lines in place," the sponsors' ballot statement said.

"With the court's action, we are no longer asking for a no vote," said the statement, signed by Julie Vandermost, an Orange County businesswoman and chairwoman of Fairness and Accountability in Redistricting, or FAIR.

Jason Kinney, spokesman for the Senate Democratic Caucus that opposed the referendum, said he was not surprised that GOP sponsors have decided not to bankroll a Proposition 40 campaign.

"This was a highly partisan, high-risk gambit by a handful of Republican Party establishment members -- and it's clearly backfired," Kinney said of the referendum.

The measure targeted new Senate district boundaries that many political analysts predicted would give Democrats at least two additional seats this year, assuring the party of the two-thirds majority needed to approve tax or fee increases in that house.

For the first time ever, the state's legislative districts were drawn last year by a 14-member citizens commission, consisting of five Democrats, five Republicans and four independent or minor-party voters. At least three yes votes from each bloc were required to pass new district maps.

By challenging the new districts through a referendum, sponsors of Proposition 40 were counting on the state Supreme Court to suspend use of the new boundaries and perhaps set temporary districts pending the November vote. Twenty of the Senate's 40 seats are up for grabs this year.

The high court threw the campaign a curve ball by ruling that the challenged Senate district boundaries could be used for the June primary and November general elections, after which Proposition 40's fate would determine whether lines would be redrawn next year.

The court ruling meant that if the Republican-backed referendum succeeds in November, newly elected senators would serve only four years in those districts. Any future campaigns would be for newly drawn seats.

* Updated at 10:20 a.m. Thursday to add quote from Jason Kinney.

Dan Walters says that with San Bernardino being the latest California city to approve filing for bankruptcy, the common factor is that elected officials and managers spent too much.

Have a question you'd like Dan to answer? Post it on our Facebook page.

See other Dan Walters Daily clips here.

VIDEO: In today's report, Dan Walters looks at "the common denominator" among the California cities lining up to file for bankruptcy.

This won't stop the presses: California voters aren't fans of Congress, according to the latest Field Poll -- but there's growing support among Democrats and independents for one-party control of Congress and the White House.

More than half of likely voters registered as Democrats, members of minor parties or having no party preference say the president's party should also control Washington's Capitol building.

Likely Republican voters are moving in the opposite direction, with only 28 percent agreeing with that sentiment. Instead, split-party control gets the nod from 45 percent of those GOP voters.

Dan Smith has more details in today's Bee. You'll find the publicly released poll here and the statistical tabulations, compiled exclusively for Capitol Alert, at this link.

CAKE AND CANDLES: Assemblywoman Wilmer Amina Carter, D-Rialto, turns 71 today.