California Special Election

[erikred]

Prop 73: Waiting Period and Parental Notification before termination of a Minor's Pregnancy: NO

While minors should be talking to their parents before getting abortions (or pregnant, for that matter), making it impossible for them to get abortions without doing so doesn't mean that they will talk to their parents; it means they're more likely to get dangerous and illegal abortions instead. If the people behind this measure really wanted to help minors, they should push for legalization of Plan B in conjunction with better sex education.

Pro 74: Public School Teachers' Waiting Period for Permanent Status: NO

Let's not confuse terms here: "Permanent Status" does not mean that a teacher is impossible to fire or somehow free to teach whatever the hell they want. "Permanent Status" means that you can actually plan to be working next year rather than waiting to find out if the school that you work for doesn't want to go to the bother of paying your benefits. Sure a probationary period is good and proper, and that's what the schools have now. Extending it to five years means that schools can have their teachers on pins and needles even longer, worrying how to make ends meet. This makes the teaching profession even less attractive than it already is.

Prop 75: Public Employee Union Dues: NO

Do unions need reforms? Hell, yes, they certainly do. But the image of the union as the great political machine is already a thing of the past. This is just another attempt by people with a lot of money to drive a wedge between unioin leaders and their members. Do not give in to this pettiness. If you want reform, become a shop steward.

Prop 76: State Spending Funding Limits: NO

There's a reason we don't put the power to make a budget in one person's hands: it's way too much power, dammit. If you don't like the way the current state congress drones are making up the budget, elect somebody else to do it. Allowing the Governor to "reduce budget appropriations of [his] choosing" is letting him design the budget. He's got enough power. Let him learn to use what he has instead.

Prop 77: Redistricting: NO NO NO

Do we have a perfect distrcting system at the moment? Of course not. But that's no reason to chuck it out and hand over the reins to three political appointees. Don't get me wrong, I work for Judges, and they're sterling creatures, but they're also political creatures. Do not be mistaken: we're not going to get Solomons here. This is a bald power grab by the Governor. NO NO NO.

As for Props 78-80, I really don't have enough information. 78 and 79 look remarkably similar, which is really never a good sign, and 80 looks like it could go either way.

Anywho, now go fill out those Absentee Ballots already.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

The more i stay in Califnordia, the more i lean towards voting 'no' on every proposition, no matter what it's about.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

It's been a while since I've seen something worthy of an unequivocal "yes."

[mkb-cbr.livejournal.com]

Conceptually I like the referendum process, but in practice it seems to be a way for the legislature to abdicate responsibility. My tax dollars pay legislators so that they can become experts on the issues and vote my best interest. If I have to do a lot of research, then they aren't doing their jobs.

I still haven't taken a look at the issues, but I'm inclined to just vote against everything just on principle.

special= retarded?

[lara7.livejournal.com]

This "special" election seems "special" in the same way the Special Olympics is special.

Re: special= retarded?

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Yeah, pretty much. Tell me things make more sense up in Seattle.

Re: special= retarded?

[lara7.livejournal.com]

ha! We have yet ANOTHER "are you SURE you still want a monorail?" monorail proposition ( I think its #7, no lie), an "advisory propositon" which says " seattle thinks Congress should give everyone health care" (it does nothing even if passes, so why is it on the ballot?), and a state wide non smoking in public proposition which seems okay until they get to the part about no smoking 25 FEET next to a door of a bar/business. Needless to say, selective enforcement would be a problem, and the fear is it would be used against businesses the cops don't like (hip-hop clubs, gay clubs, live music halls, etc),

The one nice thing is there is a "repeal the gas tax" prop that looked like it was going to pass due to voter tax revolt about high gas prices, even though this one goes to specific transportation projects and road/bridge repairs. But now that Katrina happened and the levees broke, it looks like voters might be a little more willing to fund infastructure stuff now, rather than having a bridge collapse happen later, since no one here wants to live in a FEMA trailer, either.

Re: special= retarded?

[alfvaen]

In Edmonton it's now completely illegal to smoke in a bar or restaurant. I was walking to the convenience store one evening, past the neighbourhood pub a few doors down, and got more second-hand smoke than I ever would have if the five people standing on the sidewalk had been able to smoke inside.

So if the whole point is to make it easily possible to avoid second-hand smoke if you don't want it, then a 25-foot limit doesn't sound that bad. Of course, the dangers of second-hand smoke may have been exaggerated anyway, but I still don't like it. Admittedly, I wouldn't mind it if each bar got to choose its smoking status, and post it prominently, but then I don't go to bars.

Personally, I'd prefer spreading a vicious blight that destroys all tobacco plants anywhere in the world, but that's just me.

[tagryn]

As someone voting exactly the opposite, except perhaps on 73, we're probably going to disagree about most everything here.

A point, though: the one you're most strongly against, 77, actually has the most bipartisan support; even Kos supports it, which is very unexpected coming from a guy who opposes everything Repubs put forth on general principle. Without 77, I don't see there being much chance of "elect(ing) somebody else to do it" as you propose in 76, since the gerrymanders are drawn up to keep incumbents of *both* parties in place.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Then propose some method that doesn't involve appointing three retired judges to do the task. Propose a mathematical method for redistricting based purely on the next census. Propose a districting system based on reason and logic, not a replacement political machine.

I'm not opposed to solving this through the initiative process. I'm just opposed to this solution.

[tagryn]

That sounds reasonable, and if it ever got to the ballot I'd vote for it. Unfortunately that's not an available option in this election, and the legislature has certainly had more than ample time to implement that reform if there was sufficent interest - hasn't happened. If 77 fails even with the Gov's considerable clout behind it, can't see anyone expending additional capital to try and push alternatives forward for a while. It'll be "well, voters like things the way they are & they voted that way."

The choices we have are either keep things the way they are, with partisan-fueled gerrymandering all around, or try a different approach, however imperfect. If the judges system proves a failure, we can try something else. I can't see how it could be >more< biased than what we have now, with the parties controlling how boundaries are set up in order to assure re-election of incumbents. We can argue optimal solutions until we're blue in the face, but given this year's choice between the two options we have, I know which way I'm voting.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

So in other words, we must vote for this arbitrary change or stick with the old system regardless of how much we want to reform it?

Rubbish. If defeat of one anti-abortion measure after another has not convinced anti-abortionists to give up the ghost, why should rejection of one corrupt and power-grubbing initiative cause reform-minded citizens to do so?

If the judges system goes into effect, the overall effect will be even MORE politically biased redistricting, but this time it won't be bi-partisan-- it will be solely up to the powers the appoint the judges, and since those powers at this point would appear to be condensed in the person of the Governor, all this is going to do is push out the Dems in favor of the Repubs. I understand the need to make a difference, but this initiative is rotten to the core and makes the wrong difference.

Have faith in the system, and have patience this year. Then get out and sponsor a reasonable initiative for next time. I'll vote for it.

[tagryn]

Of course, there's nothing stopping folks from putting that theoretically-more-reasonable initiative on the ballot next year, if there's as much support for it as you suggest. Like Kos said in the comments section of that post, "if the current plan is so horrible, there's nothing stopping Democrats from creating a better plan to put on the ballot the next election. It's not as if ballot initiatives are that freakin hard to pull off in this state."

There's a lot of misconceptions and misinformation going around about this one. The initiative itself is worth going through. Section 1 and 2(C) states the nominees for the panel of judges are selected by the leaders of the Legislature, not the Governor; the 3 judges writing up the actual redistricting are selected by lot from those the Legislative leaders select. In 2(A) it specifies that no more than half of the 24 retired judges who are eligible (by lot) to be nominated can come from any one party, selected judges cannot have held partisan political office, cannot have changed their voter registration, accept restrictions on holding public office in the future, etc. It seems pretty fair and bipartisan to me upon reading the actual text.

The Gov isn't involved in the judge selection process, period.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

This initiative does bear reading.

Section I.c.2(A): Only retired California state or
federal judges, who have never held elected partisan public office
or political party office, have not changed their party affiliation,
as declared on their voter registration affidavit, since their initial
appointment or election to judicial office, and have not received income
during the past 12 months from the Legislature, a committee thereof,
the United States Congress, a committee thereof, a political party, or
a partisan candidate or committee controlled by such candidate, are
qualified to serve as Special Master.

So the candidates cannot be current politicos of any flavor. In fact, they must be surviving on their pension (which, I might add, can be mighty generous for a Judge)-- or they can have any other job in the private sector. Not to be paranoid, but does anyone have statistics on Judges who have taken corporate jobs after retiring? Because there's nothing to prevent a retired Judge receiving a stipend from PG&E from being on this panel.

Section I.c.2(C): From the pool of retired judges nominated by the Judicial Council, the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate shall each nominate, no later than five days before the deadline for appointment of the panel of Special Masters, three
retired judges, who are not registered members of the same political
party as that of the legislator making the nomination. No retired judge
may be nominated by more than one legislator.

So now we have a bipartisan pool from which to select our panel of Judges. And since the electors are selecting from outside their own party, this should keep the field moderate... and strictly between the two major parties. Because, unless a Green Judge slipped in without alerting the national press, I think the odds of a Green ending up on this panel are significantly zero.

So now we have a pool from which to pick. Now the fun begins:

Section I.c.2(C): From the list of remaining nominees selected by said legislative leadership, the Chief Clerk of the Assembly shall then draw, by lot, three persons to serve as Special Masters.

Since the odds of a non-Big 2 candidate slipping in here are non-existent, that means that we're going to end up with a panel of either two Dems and one Repub (strangely representative of the Legislature as it now stands), or we're going to end up with a panel of two Repubs and one Dem.

Ultimately, of course, that shouldn't matter, because the penultimate decision has to be unanimous:

Section I.c.2(G): The final redistricting plan shall be approved by a single resolution adopted unanimously by the Special Masters and shall become effective upon its filing with the Secretary of State for use at the next statewide primary and general elections, and, if adopted by initiative pursuant to subdivision (h), for succeeding elections until the next adjustment of boundaries is required pursuant to this article.

Unanimously? Try "the compromise that best serves the parties we support." Let's put it another way: the current beneficiaries of the system have nothing to lose by keeping things the way they are.

This is truly a partisan affair, in that the Republicans have nothing to lose if this initiative gets adopted, since they have about 33% control of the process already. The Democrats, on the other hand, have everything to lose here since they're reducing their chances to nearly 50% of losing the 66% control they already have. And, of course, there are no bones here for the Greens, Libertarians, or Others.

A useful initiative would be one where instead of appointing a new panel to design a redistricting plan, the writers of the initiative spelled out their redistricting plan in advance. It would also be refreshingly honest.

[tagryn]

If one's primary goal is to maintain Democratic hegemony in California, this *is* probably a bad thing - the current system does a good job in locking that in. Same deal for the Repubs in places like Ohio & other states where they hold majorities. In terms of drawing up districts which represent the populace more fairly, though, it's a better option than what we currently have. Not perfect, but better. AFAIK the current system doesn't give 3rd parties much power at all in redistricting decisions, so they're out in the cold either way.

Anyway, if the reformers can get initiatives on the ballot next year which do a better job with representation than 77, I'll be happy to vote for them regardless of whether 77 passes or not. That's not the choice being offered this year.

Have we at least laid to rest the meme that Arnold would be pulling the strings of the selection process?

[erikred.livejournal.com]

Laid to rest. Still not pleased.

not paranoid, just realistic

[(Anonymous)]

Gubernatorial control of the judge selection process may not be explicitly codified in the text, but that does not mean that there won't be strings, he won't know where there are, and that he can't or won't pull them.

[tagryn]

Revisiting this two years later...the CA legislature has refused to deliver on promises to reform redistricting, nor has any plans to address this, nor does it sound like the governor plan to bring this up again, either.

Turned out, "stick with the old system regardless of how much we want to reform it" actually *was* the other option to Prop. 77. sigh.

Not really my problem anymore since we're living in Maryland, now, but as CA goes so goes the nation, and I have enough friends back there to want the state to do well.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

"Turned out, "stick with the old system regardless of how much we want to reform it" actually *was* the other option to Prop. 77. sigh."

And this is a failing on the part of the CA leg. and the Governor, not to mention the lack of more schemes on the part of the folks who propose initiatives. Perhaps this is a failing on my part, too, and the rest of California.

Still, my point was that while we need reform, the "solution" proposed would have put us in an even worse situation. We need reform, yes, but not change at any cost.

[tagryn]

Revisiting this three years on, no reforms on redistricting have been made by the CA legislature. Hence, we get the emergence of Proposition 11 in 2008, which is basically an improved Proposition 77. I only regret it took them this long to get another attempt together, since I'm now in MD and can't vote for it this time around.

[erikred.livejournal.com]

And I continue to oppose it. Look, we didn't need a committee the last time around, and we don't need one now. What we need is an actual proposal on how to change the districts, not a proposal to shift power in redistricting from 60/40 Dem/GOP to 50/50 Dem/GOP.

Show me a reasonable redistricting proposal, and I'll vote for it. Show me another committee, and I'll continue voting against.

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

seventy eight (http://smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/78/)

seventy nine (http://smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/79/)

a comparison sponsored by folks in favor of 79 says:
http://www.voteyesonprop79.org/comparison.htm

a comparison sponsored by folks in favor of 78 says:
http://www.calrxnow.org/comparison.html

as a disclosure of potential bias, i'm voting no on 78 and yes on 79.

here's why: 79 is not sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and 78 is. prop 79 will also apply to more people. the pharmaceutical industry doesn't care for 79, because it could stand to lose a lot of money by being told that they either must offer drug discounts, or their product will be removed from the medi-cal formulary. now, it'd be bad if "fine, remove it, then", which is what proponents of 78 are saying, but that is a huge bluff, because those companies would stand to lose even more money by losing such a huge deal. pharmaceutical companies already get money from the government in the form of grants to research helpful drugs, but they have not been held accountable for making those drugs available to the populace. sure, it's a business, but if they're gonna play like that, then perhaps they ought to stop receiving any government funding whatsoever.

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

79 is an ugly patch that will barely help the disaster we have now. Passing it might end up discouraging real reform.

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

it's an awful lot better than what we have now, and reform seldom happens in one clean, sweeping over-haul. no one is going to stop lobbying for universal health care because prop 79 passes. so far i haven't seen much evidence to suggest that smaller positive steps discourage broader change. it's a patch, yes, but it certainly doesn't do anything to prevent healthcare reform.