There seems to be discussion in Washington about creating a legal framework for state bankruptcies. My guess is that any law that might be passed will simply be a Trojan Horse.
A lot of people (including myself) would like the idea of the tough provisions applied to individuals who are bankrupt being applied to states. Unfortunately, it is wildly unlikely that this is actually what we will get. Any such law would likely just be a bailout program renamed "bankruptcy" to make it more palatable to the public, a transfer of obligations from state to federal taxpayers without any real imposition of discipline or cleanup of long-term obligations like pensions. Heck, this is exactly what happened at GM, and that was just a private company.
Some might assume that a Republican House would be loathe to support bailout provisions for California, but two thoughts come to mind.
First, California, despite being a blue state, has plenty of red Congresspersons who will scream support for a bailout (for a parallel, think ethanol or farm subsidies, where grain state Republicans are among the first to break ranks with their brethren to support government interventionism).
Second, it is not clear that the Administration even needs the Congress any more to dish out money. It has found so many extra-Constitutional ways to appropriate money without actually having to go to Congress (e.g. use of TARP funds for about anything, use of the Federal Reserve, etc.) that it should be no problem to do this without the House. Take just one idea -- Imagine California issues a $100 billion in 0.0000005% 100-year bonds that the Fed then buys at face value with printed money (as they have been buying US securities). Instant bailout, no Congress.