Election day is upon us, and it's never too late to make endorsements.
California's ballot initiatives, which are numbered arbitrarily, are often difficult to keep straight and require some serious crib notes to decipher your intentions in the voting booth.
This year is much easier; just remember to vote NO on everything.
As a rule, we tend to encourage "no" votes on most ballot initiatives. While we enjoy direct democracy, the results of these propositions almost always depend on voter turnout. In special elections like today, turnout is always low and Californians get saddled with laws determined by a small but motivated segment of the population. And then politicians defend the more ridiculous laws as a "mandate of the people." Oh brother.
Unfortunately, on a day like today, when none of the ballot measures has any kind of popular support, the average voter may not be terribly motivated to run down to their polling place just to vote down every proposition. And that's how some of these crazy propositions might win: if the majority of voters who oppose these initiatives don't bother to show up. And that's what their proponents are counting on.
So, we encourage everyone to vote, and summarize the initiatives accordingly:
Prop 73: Parental Notification--NO!
Abortion foes have been looking for any opening to roll back abortion rights, however piecemeal. This proposition contains punishment for doctors for performing abortions--Roe v. Wade was decided precisely to prevent such punitive measures towards health providers! Yes, this will guarantee teenagers illegal, unsafe, and deadly abortions, but the primary purpose of this initiative is to intimidate the medical profession out of providing abortions.
Prop 74: Public School Teachers Waiting Period for Permanent Status--NO!
This absurd proposition suggests that it will provide California with better teachers. Instead of dismissing bad teachers after 2 years, this proposition allows schools to let bad teachers keep teaching for up to 5 years. By extending the probationary period this initiative guarantees that cash-strapped school administrators will staff their struggling schools with lower-paid probationary teachers. The obvious result of the initiative is to once again try to destroy public education. Extended probationary status doesn't just save schools money by hiring bad teachers, it discourages good teachers from even seeking the profession.
Prop 75: Public Union Dues Restrictions--NO!
We've already reviewed this proposition extensively, but we simply ask why the voting public should have any dominion over the internal workings of democratic institutions like unions? Unions are far more democratic than any government Americans are familiar with, and yet this ballot measure attempts to give a line-item veto to any dissenting union member on the union's budget. This is an absurd attempt by Schwarzenegger to punish the very unions that have demolished his popularity. Even if it passes, it won't much stifle the union voice, but its intent should be rejected... with extreme prejudice!
Prop 76: State Spending and School Funding--NO!
Put simply, complicated restructuring of the fundamental budgetary process in California is far too important to be put on a ballot initiative. This initiative is Schwarzenegger's crown jewel in his governorship: he wants more control, and he can't get it through the legislature. Ultimately, the intention is to cut school funding, but the radical overhauling of the state's budgetary power structure should not be a ballot initiative!
Prop 77: Redistricting--NO!
Gerrymandering is but one of the many obstacles to true democracy which burdens all Americans. There should be a neutral party determining boundaries for Congressional and Assembly districts. However, this isn't the way to do it. Why 3 judges? For such a complicated task, which should be performed only once per decade, shouldn't there be an extensive committee? And shouldn't there be an even number of decision makers to ensure consensus? And why retired judges? Why couldn't there be a committee made up of distinguished professors or otherwise dedicated public servants? And why now? Redistricting is based entirely on Census figures, and the only figures by which anyone could determine redistricting would be from the year 2000. California was a more conservative place five years ago. This silly proposition is nothing more than a Texas-style means to give Republicans more power since they can't get it through the legislature. Most of the proponents and donors to this proposition are from out of state. Why haven't these concerned citizens enacted such redistricting mandates in their home states? Yes, it's truly puzzling.
Prop 78: Discounts on Prescription Drugs--NO!
The worst aspect of California's ballot initiative process is that there are always competing measures. Any propositional attempt to regulate an industry is usually matched with a proposition drawn up by that industry to negate the other. Prop 78 is an attempt by the pharmaceutical industry to mute the better aspects of Prop 79. Nevertheless, on its face, all laws written by industry should be rejected out of principle. The pharmaceutical industry is possibly the sleaziest known to man: the natural outcome of any industry which profits from human misfortune. We cannot allow regulation of this ignoble industry to be "voluntary".
Prop 79: State-Negotiated Prescription Drug Rebates--DUNNO! (probably yes)
This one is more complicated, and our impulse is to always vote down complicated measures since they require more deliberation than the ballot initiative process allows. However, the goals are admirable and it terrifies the pharmaceutical industry. This state, and even the country, should be able to negotiate group discounts on prescription drugs, just like every other industrialized country in the world. We don't know how effective this measure will prove if passed; the pharmaceutical industry will drag its feet and scream bloody murder and resist to its last breath. We are reluctant to see new state bureaucracies, but if they can effectively accomplish their goals, we cheer their creation. We may be inclined to vote a symbolic YES, but cannot give an official endorsement.
Prop 80: Electric Service Providers Regulation--no
Like Prop 79, the ultimate goals of this initiative are laudable, but the actual law is far too complex for a ballot measure. In fact, the proposition itself is a hodge-podge assembly thrown together just to slip into this election cycle. Consumers do need protection from the Enrons of the world, and the California legislature has proven inept at defending its citizens from these predatory energy companies. The Public Utilities Commission should have more authority over electricity procurement, but the convolutions of this proposition, and of the state energy architecture, does not lend this proposition to predictable or foreseeable results. Alas, the energy deregulation which permanently damaged California was unanimously enacted by our state legislature. We're not sure this proposition is the cure for our lawmakers' failures.
