…which sounds like something Wonkette should be writing about.
OK, I’m seriously depressed about the Presidential election (as U. Utah Phillips would say, “It’s good, though!” – explanation here, listen here). Nothing changes my view below, but right now I’d like a do-over on the nominating conventions, if one could be offered. I’ll get some sleep and be better in the morning, honest…
So let me turn to the fun-filled California ballot. We’ve got government by initiative here in California, which was the reformer’s tool against the Union Southern Pacific back in the day, and is now sadly the tool most often used by large corporations to mount Astroturf campaigns when getting things though the Legislature proves to be too expensive. What’s even sadder is that sometimes it’s the best way we have to make laws.
Here’s a list of the propositions, with links out the League of Women Voter’s great ‘Smart Voter‘ site.Over the next few weeks, I’ll try and dig into each of them and comment.
Proposition 1A.
Protection of Local Government Revenues — State of California
Should local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local government thereby safeguarding funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services? Provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur.
Proposition 59.
Public Records, Open Meetings — State of California
(Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
Shall the Constitution be amended to include public’s right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials while preserving specified constitutional rights and retaining existing exclusions
for certain meetings and records?
Proposition 60.
Election Rights of Political Parties — State of California
(Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
Shall the general election ballot be required to include candidate receiving most votes among candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election?
Proposition 60A.
Surplus Property — State of California
(Legislative Constitutional Amendment)
Shall the sale proceeds of most surplus state property pay off specified bonds?
Proposition 61.
Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program — State of California
(Bond Act. Initiative Statute)
Shall $750 million general obligation bonds be authorized for grants to eligible children’s hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals?
Proposition 62.
Elections. Primaries — State of California
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should primary elections be structured so that voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of voter or candidate? The two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with “no party” or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot. Exempts presidential nominations.
Proposition 63.
Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 Million — State of California
(Initiative Statute)
Should a 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million
to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors be established?
Proposition 64.
Limit on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws — State of California
(Initiative Statute)
Should individual or class action “unfair business” lawsuits be allowed only if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce these laws on public’s behalf.
Proposition 65.
Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates — State of California
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
Should reduction of local fee/tax revenues require voter approval? Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined.
Proposition 66.
Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment — State of California
(Initiative Statute)
Should the “Three Strikes” law be limited to violent and/or serious felonies? Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
Proposition 67.
Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge — State of California
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should the telephone surcharge be increased and other funds for emergency room physicians, hospital emergency rooms, community clinics, emergency personnel training/equipment, and 911 telephone system be allocated?
Proposition 68.
Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions — State of California
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should tribal compact amendments be authorized? Unless tribes accept, should casino gaming be authorized for sixteen non-tribal establishments? Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services.
Proposition 69.
DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding — State of California
(Initiative Statute)
Should collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from
others arrested for or charged with specified crimes be required with submission to state DNA database? Provides for funding.
Proposition 70.
Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State — State of California
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Upon tribe’s request, should the Governor be required to execute a 99-year compact? Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming.
Proposition 71.
Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds — State of California
(Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
Should the “California Institute for Regenerative
Medicine” be established to regulate and fund stem cell research with the constitutional right to conduct such research and with an oversight committee?
Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research.
Proposition 72.
Health Care Coverage Requirements — State of California
(Referendum)
Should legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers be approved?
Sixteen of them. That’s about average, isn’t it?
1A. Yes.
59. Yes. Then ask for more.
60. Yes to stop 62.
60A. Yes. (What’s with the “A” business?)
61. Um, doesn’t the state have enough bonds out already? Oh, but It’s For The Children(tm). Well, that’s OK, then.
62. Yipe! Why not go back to 1958 and allow cross-filing, too?
63. How California nearly went bankrupt, part 2. Anyone who would vote for it needs to take advantage of the services offered.
64. It’s not that way already? YES, darn it!
65. No, I think. Dunno without the docs.
66. No. The idea is not bad, but this is a very bad implementation.
67. No. This should be your first priority; cut something else.
68. Ugh. These things are always so complicated, and always end up in court. No, to save court costs.
69. No. I would say Yes if it GUARANTEED removal if charges were dropped or you were acquitted.
70. Oh, no! Not another one!
71. Oh, sure. It’s not as California has other things to spend money on, like police, roads,…
72. Let’s send even MORE companies to Nevada and Arizona. Then the ex-employees can get Medi-Cal.
To A.L., you mean the Southern Pacific, /aka/ Frank Norris’ “The Octopus.” (And, yes, SP’s dominion over the state was one of the things that drove the Progressive Party’s reforms, which included ballot initiatives and referenda.) The Union Pacific bought out SP only at the end of the 20th Century.
To Gary and the Samoyeds, concur somewhat, though I usually vote “no” on bond measures since they (1) tend to add to the state’s indebtedness (interest can cost as much as the capital raised) and (2) they tend to be things the Legislature couldn’t or wouldn’t budget and put on ballot referenda instead.
(BTW, what’s the problem with Prop 66?)
Interesting (and skeptical) editorial on some fiscal propositions by California local-gov’t guru “Peter Schrag”:http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/v-print/story/10912786p-11830290c.html in the Sacramento Bee.
Bob H. – D’ooh, sorry. Correction in progress.
Gary; interesting takes. Biggest issue is that (I believe) Ah-nold’s budget patches rely on some changes in gaming laws, which I believe are reflected in one of the competing initiatives. I’m against gambling anyway, so what do I know…
A.L.
A.L. – Props 68 and 70 seem to both address gaming and Indian tribes. No one in the political circles I follow seems to like them. Certainly they were a big presence in the hospitality suites in past state conventions (gee, I never knew that lobster bisque was Indian cuisine) and now there’s great big casinos on I-10 between San Bernardino and Palm Springs. And plans for an enormous casino in the Bay Area in San Pablo.
PS. My partner worked for the Western Pacific RR (computers, freight manifests, that sort of stuff) till the Union Pacific bought them out. He got the choice of a transfer to Omaha or an early retirement. Given that we live in Mill Valley and he loved sailing and sailboat races on the Bay, was an easy choice.
However, the nice thing about the California ballot is that they do ask for your input. I say no.