LOS ANGELES -- California matters.

Not since 1972, when California Democrats helped propel George McGovern to his party's nomination, has the Golden State been anything but a coda to the Presidential primary process. This year, even though it is just one of twenty-some states heading to the polls on Tuesday, California has finally taken its rightful place as the Big Enchilada.

To contact Sherry, you can email her here.

More Political Perspectives

In all, about 40 percent of the GOP delegates and roughly half the Democratic delegates needed to win nomination are up for grabs. California's delegate stakes add up to nearly a quarter of what a Democrat candidate needs and 14 percent of what a Republican needs.

Democratic Primary

Late polls show the race tightening between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on the Democratic side. The latest Field Poll shows Clinton the choice of 36 percent of likely primary voters and Obama favored by 34 percent--with an astounding 18 percent still undecided. (In mid-January Clinton led Obama 39 percent to 27 percent.)

Momentum seems to be with Obama, but things are moving very fast and there's a surprise a day. Who could have predicted the dramatic withdrawal of John Edwards, which freed the 650,000 member Service Employees International Union to shift to Obama? Or the delicious Kennedy family split in candidate nods—topped by the surprise endorsement of Obama by California's First Lady, and Kennedy cousin, Maria Shriver?

The impact of vote-by-mail ballots is unknown. Election analysts speculate that about half the ballots cast in the primary will be absentee ballots.

Clinton's campaign is looking for a big showing among absentee voters; Clinton launched a major vote-by-mail effort in California—targeting women, after her New Hampshire primary victory.

Stephen Weir, Contra Costa County's registrar of voters, estimates about 60 percent of the total vote will be cast on Election Day. The Obama campaign likes their odds if that holds; in early contests, high turnout helped their candidate.

Obama's also counting on wooing California's decline-to state voters; they make up almost 20 percent of the state's electorate and can vote in the Democratic Party primary. (The Field Poll shows Obama getting 54 percent of that vote and Clinton 32 percent.)

Phil Matier and Andrew Ross argue that "the Democratic race in California is coming down to the question of which will loom larger -- Barack Obama's surge among younger, well-educated Dems, or the votes that longtime front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton believes she already has in her pocket."

GOP Primary

The GOP race could be all but over on Tuesday. Lately John McCain has been paying far more attention to California than his nearest rival, Mitt Romney.

The latest Field Poll shows McCain pulling 32 percent of the state's GOP vote, to Romney's 24 percent and Mike Huckabee's 13 percent. All three candidates have seen their support increase, since mid-January, but Mc Cain's margin is the largest.

Mc Cain also scored Schwarzenegger's endorsement (Although some would argue that's of little help in a GOP primary, where the party's conservative base rules.).

Proposition

Before Californians get totally swept up in the hype and drama of Super Duper Tuesday's presidential primaries, they need to step back and ponder some other important ballot decisions facing Golden State voters.

It wouldn't be a California election without a few ballot propositions to contend with; this time we've got seven to consider. And all, in one way or another, will impact policy and finances in a state already bleeding red ink and expecting some hard and hurting program cuts.

Proposition 91 prohibits use of the sales tax on gasoline for non-transportation purposes.

In 2006, while Prop. 91 was being circulated, Governor Schwarzenegger and a bipartisan group of legislators put Proposition 1A on the November ballot. It essentially did what Proposition 91 set out to do and was approved overwhelming by voters.

So, in the official ballot pamphlet argument in favor of Prop. 91, the proponents urge a NO vote! And no official ballot argument against Prop. 91 has been submitted.

However, a Legislative Analyst's report found that, although Prop. 91 would increase "stability of state funding for highways, streets, and roads, [it] "may decrease stability of state funding for public transit" and of "certain local funds for public transit."

On this one, as the old joke goes, you can vote "Yes on No" or "No on Yes."

Proposition 92 deals with Community Colleges' fees, funding and governance. The measure would set student fees at $15 per unit—down from $20, and limit increases; it would also, according to the Sacramento Bee, "grant the community college system more autonomy and secure dedicated funding each year from the state's general fund."

Supporters, including the Community Colleges' Faculty Association, the system's Board of Trustees and the California Federation of Teachers, say "Proposition 92 would provide more stable funding for the state's network of 109 community colleges."

The measure's opponents, including the politically powerful California Teachers' Association and the California Taxpayers' Association, are, in the Sacramento Bee's analysis, "concerned that it could take money from other education needs as the state faces a $14.5 billion deficit."

Prop. 92 tinkers with Prop. 98 -- the 1988 initiative which requires about 40 percent of the general fund revenues to go to K-14 education. It would split the minimum funding requirement under Proposition 98 into two separate requirements: one for K-12 schools and one for community colleges, with roughly 10 percent of the current Proposition 98 school funding mandate going to community colleges.

The CTA is particularly concerned that K through 12 education could lose too much of its share of the budget to a fiscally protected Community Colleges system.

Opponents also argue, according to the Desert Sun, "Proposition 92 would lock in another spending formula, which would require the state to spend millions more, but the measure adds no sources of revenue to pay for it."

In simple English: A "Yes" vote will mean one more round of ballot-box budgeting -- which has already gone a long way toward tightening the state's fiscal straight jacket. A "No" vote means community colleges, with no guaranteed minimum funding, will remain susceptible to fiscal fluctuations.

Anyone who's turned on a TV in the past few weeks knows that Proposition 93 will shorten the term limits for state legislators established by California voters in 1990 -- or extend them. The initiative would cut the number of years a lawmaker could spend in the legislature from 14 to 12, but all of those years could be spent in one legislative house. Currently, draconian limits of 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the State Senate make it difficult for lawmakers to gain policy expertise and accrue legislative clout.

Recently, Gov. Schwarzenegger changed his mind and endorsed the initiative. His Sacramento tenure, he said, convinced him that "special interests and lobbyists up there are so much more sophisticated and so much more advanced than the politicians."

Proponents of Prop. 93 -- who include the Democratic legislative leadership -- argue that it "strikes a balance that protects term limits while allowing lawmakers to focus more on policy than reelection." Re-election is never out of a legislator's mind—despite the safe districts they inhabit. Still there's truth in the argument for knowledge and experience.

Had the proposition stopped there, it might be in better shape than it is now. But legislative leaders decided to grandfather in current incumbents, allowing them to stay on beyond the current term limits. That's allowed opponents to label the measure a "power grab" by "greedy" politicians.

Prop. 93 may not be a perfect reform, but the current term limits system has clearly contributed to the legislature's dysfunction. The bottom line is whether voters think any other formula will improve how our government works.

Completing the list of February ballot propositions are Propositions 94 through 97, four referenda on compacts with four Indian gaming tribes, allowing an expansion of their casino gambling. These compacts have already been approved by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor, but opponents collected enough signatures to force a vote on the deals. A "NO" vote would repeal the compacts.

It is a classic, economic battle between well-heeled interest groups; campaign expenditures by both sides total over $130 million so far.

The PRO side, headed by the four tribes who would benefit from the compacts, declares that the state would gain $9 billion in revenues, in the face of its $14.5 billion budget deficit. But the Legislative Analyst's Office puts the estimate closer to $3.5 billion. And whatever the tribes' contribution, it would be spread over two decades -- not nearly enough to erase the current deficit.

Opponents include Las Vegas gaming interests, the hotel workers' union, a race track owner and other Indian gaming tribes. They call the compacts "sweetheart deals" between Sacramento politicians and tribes who've contributed millions of dollars to them; they want the deals renegotiated.

Voters will have to decide whether they want to don their green eyeshades and take on the task of contract negotiation.

As voters head to the polls on Tuesday, it's clear that not only does California matter this year, this election matters for California.

Politics Page