Hey, folks, below is a discussion about some of the propositions on the California ballot. Help me decide some measures and candidates (other than the obvious political ones). Some of the props look well-intentioned but seem to have hidden, unintended(?) consequences (or are they purposely Trojan horses?). Below I'd like you to comment on brief analyses, keeping in mind I haven't had time to read up on or listen to EVERYTHING said by the League of Women Voters says and various newspapers/blogs; local NPR stations don't seem to have good TEXT versions of analyses or synopses of transcripts (many are audio only, not written pieces); and newspaper editorials or reports aren't well-grouped, too hit-and-miss in their structures, leave too much unanswered, are "analysis" in name only, and/or are hard to find -- their "voter guides" or "election guides" are hardly guides -- but let me know if you have found a few good websites that DO offer concise, balanced guides!). As to judgeships, boards of education, city councils and county commissions, etc., well, any guidance and directions to good websites would be greatly appreciated!
= = = = = =
Props:
19 -- Legalize marijuana -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT IT'S A MESS -- I was going to vote yes, but as Mom and others point out, it's deeply flawed. Against it are both the Dem and GOP attorney general candidates, both Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman, even Dianne Feinstein -- in part because no test is required for truckers, school bus drivers, etc. if they get in a crash -- they can't get tested for "driving under the influence"; its accounting is also at risk; paying taxes inherently self-incriminates vs. federal law; grass could be sold in the office workplace along with cosmetics and school candy, if those are allowed for fundraisers; billions of $ in gov't contracts could be voided because the state couldn't guarantee a drug-free worksite and would be in violation of federal law; and the list goes on. However, as former Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders and numerous others point out, we should accept the status quo -- that it is easier for kids to get MJ than beer, that precious law-enforcement resources are used to prosecute for small amounts of grass rather than collect taxes on it, that drug cartels thrive on the unregulated market, etc. So, even though it's flawed, it's a start, and I'm leaning toward yes, but my mom is voting no.
- - - - - -
20 -- Redistricting committee -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT IT'S VERY FLAWED -- On the one hand, this takes redistricting out of the hands of the partisan legislature, which tends to gerrymander; on the other hand, it puts the control in the hands of 14 people (5 Dem, 5 GOP, 4 neither) who aren't chosen by the people, don't have to answer to anyone, could more easily be bought or influenced than 58 or more legislators, etc., and the prop in essence divides people by race and economics, theoretically. Julian Bond, the head of the Sierra Club, and the head of the California Black Chamber of Commerce are against it, as is the founding chairman of the Calif. Fair Political Practices Committee because it in effect codifies/condones Jim Crow segregation; but supporting it are the heads of the Calif. NAACP, Calif. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Calif. AARP, Calif. Common Cause and others. Those against it say this "pernicious" proposition "mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities.'" I don't read it quite that way, but I haven't looked at the full text of the proposition yet to see if it actually says that; it does say, however, that in addition to not favoring incumbents over others nor favoring one party over the other, the committee will set boundaries in part based on "communities of interest" -- code word for economics and race? -- and will decide what the definition of that phrase means, but should include "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation." Theoretically, this should give miniorities more power, but Julian Bond and others think not. Originally I was leaning toward yes, because we've seen what politicians can do and to send a message. (There's also a lot of pro and con about the prop's primary sponsor, GOP billionaire Charles Munger Jr., physicist and son of Berkshire Hathaway's vice chairman, vs. Demo billionaire George Soros, who is fighting it and supporting the contrary Prop 27, which would do away with the commission and the original Prop 11. A few years back, Prop 11 created the commission and many of the rules that Prop 20 would augment, but Prop 11 left the deciding in the hands of the legislature.) Prop 20 would put all the deciding in the hands of the 14-member commission forever and ever (well, until the consititution is again amended). Prop 27 does away with the commission and its rules and returns control
to the legislature. So if you vote yes on 20, you should vote no on 27 (or vice versa, although I suppose you could vote no on both, and everything would stay as is).
- - - - - - - -
21 -- $18 license fee to help state parks -- LEANING TOWARD YES, but will fund be overfunded?
Well-intentioned to clear up backlog of unfunded maintenance work? Or cynical voter manipulation to reintroduce "car tax" so funds can be freed up for other "wasteful" spending? See also Prop 26 re: requiring "fees" to be called "taxes" and thus trigger need for 2/3rd majority vote to pass.
- - - - - - -
22 -- Ban on state borrowing of certain earmarked funds -- LEANING TOWARD YES BUT TERRIBLY FLAWED (purposely?). Well-intentioned (seemingly): Prohibits state from borrowing or taking funds intended for transportation, redevelopment, local gov't -- Trojan horse for redevelopment agencies and their developer friends? Cripples state's ability to pay for bond debt? Would hamstring state finances? On the other hand, I hate how the state eats the local governments' lunch -- but currently law requires the state to repay within three years, with interest. Currently it's basically a revolving credit, so the local/earmarked coffers are paid back and then diminshed again.
- - - - - - -
23. Suspends AB32 implementation of greenhouse gas limits -- NO. This is that legendary slippery slope you've heard so much about: If not now, when? Meg and others say it would "only" suspend implementation until the state's unemployment rate stays at 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. We're at, what, 12 percent or more now -- it's not gonna come down anytime soon, and I think this will encourage more "green" jobs than kill other ones.
- - - - - -
24. Repeal law allowing businesses to lower tax liability -- LEANING TOWARD YES but will costs be passed along to the consumer, cost jobs, and not help schools?
- - - - -
25. Simple majority to pass state budget -- YES, but does it eliminate the right of voters to use referenda in some cases? Opponents say yes, proponents say no. Tax raises will still require two-thirds majority, despite what the foes say. Supporting the plan are the California head of the League of Women Voters, and state treasurer Bill Lockyear.
- - - - -
26. Requiring fees to be OK'd with two-thirds vote -- NO. Besides crippling municipalities and the state, it apparently would protect polluters: According to the LWV Calif. prexy and others, it was put on the ballot thanks to Chevron, Exxon Mobil and Phillip Morris. It redefines pollution fee payments for harm to the environment as a tax and thus a two-thirds vote.
- - - - - -
27. Contravenes Prop 20, Undoes old Prop 11, abolishes 14-member redistricting board -- LEANING TOWARD NO since I'm leaning toward YES on Prop 20 -- but maybe we can just wave a magic wand and the districts will magically draw themselves?
- - - - - - - -
San Bernardino County judges, school boards, water district, supervisors .... help!!!!
