California legislators know well the low esteem in which they are held: A positive rating of just 18 percent in the latest polling. And Gov. Schwarzenegger knows he has a lower-than-ever 38 percent favorable rating in the same surveys.

But these political paragons nevertheless figure that, going principally on their say-so, voters will ratify six ballot measures vital to making their latest 16-month state budget work.

What if they're wrong? Early polling indicates voters might go along with the pols on some of the six propositions in a May 19 special election, but likely not all. This vote will be the ninth statewide vote since the election-happy Schwarzenegger became governor in late 2003 and measures he's backed have lost more often then they've won.

If the propositions lose, it's back to the drawing board for Schwarzenegger and the lawmakers, who spent most of the last year wrangling over budgets. They passed one last September — three months late — but its revenue assumptions turned out to be so wrong a redo was needed. That one finally passed in mid-February after more months of infighting.

The current Props. 1A through 1F are products of that bargaining, which saw a handful of Republican legislators join virtually all Sacramento Democrats to put them on the ballot.

Now there's a growing sense that some of these propositions might lose. Several ask voters to reverse previous choices, at least for awhile. From their inception, a couple figured to be so unpopular they were given misleading titles.

Talk About Misdirection

Prop. 1A, for one, is a classic of verbal manipulation. It would authorize a third and fourth year of the sales, vehicle and income tax increases that keynote the new budget. That would mean somewhere between $14 billion and $16 billion more in taxes if this passes than if it does not. In exchange, taxpayers would get state spending limits.

But the ballot title and the arguments pro and con in the official ballot pamphlet don't mention additional years of taxes. When not told of those added years, likely voters in a Field Poll early this month favored the measure by a 57-24 percent margin. But when told of the extra taxes, the yes vote dropped by 30 percent, making prospects for passage shaky at best.

One thing for sure: Opponents will make sure voters learn about the politicos' effort to foist a deceptive description on them.

Then there are the proposed changes to the previously-expressed wishes of the voters. Prop. 1C would be the biggest change. It redirects $5 billion of future state Lottery receipts to the general fund budget. Instead of almost all Lottery profits going to public schools, as demanded in the 1984 proposition that set up the Lottery, proceeds now would go to all manner of things.

That one had only 47-39 percent support in the early Field Poll, probably not enough for passage if there's a decently-funded “no” campaign.

A Subtle Distinction

And there's Prop. 1D, redirecting $608 million in the next year from tobacco taxes that now go to the early childhood development programs of First 5 California to health care for children. This one won't spur the same resistance as the planned Lottery change because it will be hard for voters to distinguish between childhood development and health care for kids under 5. That's why its early margin was 62-20 percent.

To some, this will all look like a shell game, with dollars shunted around like the proverbial pea. For the bottom line on the measures borrowing from voter-mandated programs to fund other things is that they mostly just move money around. They don't solve long-term budget problems.

Altogether, voters are being asked to okay more than $20 billion in fund shifts and tax increases. In return, they get only a spending cap in which some experts already detect loopholes.

Perhaps the worst thing about all this is that it's likely to be decided by no more than a small share of the people who would pay for it. Holding this vote in a special election guarantees a low turnout. Here's the most recent example of this:

In the 2005 special election, the last time a state spending cap went before the voters, just 8.2 million voters turned out. By contrast, more than 13.4 million, fully 5.2 million additional voters, cast ballots in the 2008 general election.

If the same 8 million voters who showed up in 2005 turn out this time, they will amount to less than one-fourth of all Californians. So an active minority would once again decide matters for the indolent majority.

But the pols could not put these measures on either a primary or a general election ballot. They couldn't wait because they needed the money yesterday.

In all, these measures represent a flawed attempt at solving government's flaws via perhaps fatally flawed arguments.

So it would be no surprise if voters said no to most of this deal, regardless of how many dire predictions emanate from government about the possible consequences of defeating any or all of the ballot items.

Mr. Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated third edition. He may be contacted at tdelias@aol.com