CA Ballot Propositions, November 2008 edition.
California's propositions are a unique populist institution that were designed to allow Californians to have some direct ability to influence the state's laws and spending. As some of them can alter the state constitution or create billions of dollars of spending (or remove billions of dollars of state revenue), they are important and not to be taken lightly. My cousin Nitin, who is an arch-libertarian conservative, once told me that his default position on anything is "no", unless there's an overwhelmingly good reason to vote yes. Even though I consider myself to be fairly liberal, I think that's a decent framework to evaluate California propositions. Of course, what I consider to be a "good reason" might be different from yours, but nonetheless, here's my take on the various California ballot propositions for November 2008:
Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
Prop 1A replaces Prop 1 on the ballot. This would authorize the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds to finance the construction of the first part of the state's new high speed rail system (The total would be in the neighborhood of $45 billion, some of which would come from federal, private, and local monies as well). I think the state would benefit greatly from such a high-speed rail system. It would connect all the major metropolitan areas in the state with 200+mph rail service which would charge fares in the neighborhood of $50 each way. I work at an airport and I know how many flights there are between the SF bay area and LA basin. A viable rail alternative would considerably ease congestion and pollution associated with air travel, as well automobile travel up and down the state. As a massive infrastructure project it would provide temporary stimulus with construction jobs (a sector which is no-doubt hurting due to the housing bust), as well as create new opportunities at stops along the rail lines. Furthermore, it's high time that this country had high speed rail; if they can build it in other place from China and Japan to France and Germany, why can't we build it here? Perhaps California can be once more on the leading edge in this country. Though there's a good argument that the money would better be spent on local projects, I don't see an initiative like that on the ballot, and $950 million of the bond would be spent on strengthening local transit systems like BART and Caltrain and Metrolink that could provide connectivity to the high-speed rail system. They've been planning this for a long time now, and it's high time to move this proposal forward.
My vote: YES on Prop 1A.
Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
Prop 2 would prohibit California farmers from confining pregnant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The standards would take effect in 2015. The opponents of this measure say that it would drive the industry out of the state and thereby simply move the animal abuse to another state or country, but I don't think that's likely. Agriculture is big business here, and they would have six years to build new, compliant cages. The major effect of this proposition is going be on egg farmers, but the treatment of industrial egg-laying hens is absolutely atrocious (the chickens are crammed in tightly, defecating on one another with no room to move). Making the cages somewhat larger (and there is no requirement that the hens be able to stretch out simultaneously) should not increase costs to the point where the industry would have to move. There is already a significant "cage-free" egg business, and although these eggs cost a little more, they still seem to be a viable business, and this measure wouldn't even abolish cages. Similar measures have passed in other states (AZ, CO, OR) regarding pigs and calves, and frankly I think this is just the right thing to do, and six years would give plenty of time for the industry to make the changes.
My vote: YES on Prop 2.
Proposition 3: Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
Prop 3 would authorize the state to sell $980 million in bonds for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, and equipping of children's hospitals, especially focusing on severe illnesses like cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell, and cystic fibrosis, requires that these qualifying hospitals provide comprehensive services to low-income children, and gives some monies to UC general acute care hospitals. I think these children's hospitals perform a great public service and could use the money. Although they have already gotten some funds through a previous proposition, construction costs have escalated, and they've seen a surge in medi-cal patients for which they don't get much money back, so I think it's reasonable to ensure that these important institutions remain viable.
My vote: YES on Prop 3.
Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prop 4 would prohibit abortions for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after their parents or guardians were notified by the physician, though the minor can go to the courts for a waiver.This sounds fairly reasonable on its face but this is just an attempt by pro-life groups to put limits on abortion. The SF Chronicle put it nicely: Reckless teen behavior will not be deterred by merely making abortion more difficult. To expect a girl to go through the courts to explain why her parents should not be notified (maybe they are abusive or otherwise irresponsible) presents a huge obstacle to a young woman in a vulnerable position, and besides, another adult relative would still have to be notified. It would just create incentive to have dangerous illegal abortions, or to go through with pregnancies and abandon the children, or otherwise engage in risky, unhealthy behavior. What about young women in turbulent circumstances with no real family life? Why impose this requirement on them? The bottom line is, if a young woman decides she needs an abortion, it's her body and her decision to make. And besides, most of the time the parents know anyway.
My vote: NO on Prop 4.
Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing. Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
This would allocate $460 million a year towards improving and expanding drug treatment programs for people convicted for drug and other offenses, moves drug offenders toward parole and rehabilitation, reduces penalties for marijuana possession, and creates a 19-person board for parole and rehab policy. In terms of money, the pro-argument is that it saves money by reducing incarceration, so there are fewer prisoners to house. The con-argument is that it spends $460 million a year. The state analyst says there's a one-time savings of $2.5 billion on new prison construction, and unknown beyond that. Looks to me like the proposition is a net budget winner. Besides, I think most drugs should be decriminalized, so investing in rehab is much preferable to prison sentences. Putting drug offenders in prison contributes majorly to overcrowding and creates hardened criminals. The "no" side would have you believe that those who engage in theft and embezzlement could blame their addictions and get off without prison time, but they would have to convince a judge of that, and I don't think it's likely except maybe some petty thieves who steal to feed their addiction. There are several criticisms of it that give me pause, but I think the current system isn't working and our prisons are so severely overcrowded that this is worth a try.
My vote: YES on Prop 5.
Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.
Prop 6 would spend $965 million a year from the state General Fund on police, DAs, probation, and jails. It spends almost a billion a year plus it creates a bunch of other unfunded mandates. This is a huge hit to the General Fund in the midst of a budget crisis and at a time when violent crime is in decline. It will dramatically increase our already huge prison population and although it's tough on gangs, it seems to undercut existing programs. Prop 6 will encourage trying children as adults and sending them to these horrible prisons, and I don't think we need a huge expansion in prisons and law enforcement bureaucracy like this proposal calls for. The LA Times, SF Chronicle, CA Democratic Party, and I all agree that it's a bad idea.
My Vote: NO on Prop 6.
Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.
This sounds like a good idea on its face, but it really isn't. First off, it sets mandates for public energy utilities to go to renewable power, but it seems to exclude solar power initiatives from counting towards that goal, which undermines the developments in solar power that are currently underway. It also is not really necessary because the state already is undertaking a lot of other global warming initiatives anyway, leaving this one unnecessary. Furthermore, it gives regulatory powers to the California Energy Commission that are already under the aegis of the Public Utilities Commission, which could create legal and political ambiguity and potentially a slew of lawsuits. Furthermore, the timetable is unrealistic and the rules would be difficult to change once enacted. The fact that both the Democratic and Republican parties are against it, and the Chamber of Commerce as well as environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, and major newspaper editorial boards are all against it should tell you all you need to know.
My vote: NO on Prop 7.
Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
This proposition was put forth by religious fundamentalists and backed with tens of millions of dollars from the Mormon Church in Utah. The title says it all. I'm sure most of the people I know who are reading this are as a matter of principle in favor of full equal rights for homosexuals. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, however, here are a few things to consider when you vote on Prop 8: Constitutional amendments are usually put in place to guarantee rights that were not previously clearly delineated or protected. There has never before been a constitutional amendment which curtailed rights or freedoms for a class of people. Do you want to be responsible for taking people's rights away? Gay marriage is currently legal in California and has been for many months. Even if you previously favored a separate civil institution such as civil unions or domestic partnership for same-sex couples instead of marriage, the fact is that they currently DO have the right to marry in the state of California, and thousands of same-sex couples ARE currently married. So to pass an amendment such as this would not only take that right away, but could potentially nullify people's marriages. If you had gotten married to the person you love, could you stand to be told by electoral fiat that your matrimony is suddenly worthless?
If marriage is something that you value as an institution, think long and hard about telling a group of people that they are not allowed to marry the people they choose. If you value families and think that marriage is important in creating social stability, then why would you want to prevent people from building their own families on the foundation of marriage? If you worry about the promiscuity and frivolity of gay culture, why would you undermine those gay couples who strive for commitment? If you think gay marriage somehow harms traditional heterosexual marriage, realize that it has been in place for several months now and guess what, nothing has happened to heterosexual marriage. If you yourself are married, think to yourself, has it affected you and your marriage at all? Of course it hasn't. Why would it? The Yes on 8 campaign has been spreading many lies about what could potentially be taught in the schools, but the fact is that this has nothing to do with schools, and besides, even if a curriculum did include references to gay marriage, parents in the state have opt-out rights for any part of the curriculum they disagree with. Even the state's Superintendent of Schools says that Prop 8 has nothing to do with education.
I also find a relevant analogy in my own personal life. I am currently in a relationship with a woman of a different racial/ethnic background than myself. Until the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision, anti-miscegenation laws in many states would have legally prevented me from marrying the woman I love, and I am utterly grateful for how far we have progressed since that time. California was actually one of the first states in the modern era that repealed its anti-miscegenation laws as early as 1948, and just as with gay marriage, it also happened because the California Supreme Court realized that they were unconstitutional. We were on the leading edge of justice and equality then, just as we are now with gay marriage. Personally, the idea of gay marriage does not trouble me one iota, but even if it did, there is no way I could in good conscience vote in favor of discrimination and against loving couples who want to marry; it would go against everything I stand for. Here's a compelling video of the Republican mayor of San Diego describing his emotional decision not to veto a City Council resolution in favor of gay marriage.
This is one of the few things on the ballot that I feel strongly enough about, and since the polls show that this one could go either way, I felt it was important enough, that I attended a rally, marched, and did visibility with the No on 8 campaign last weekend. I pray it goes down to defeat.
My vote: an emphatic NO on Prop 8.
Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victim's rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
This is a victim's rights bill. It all sounds well and good, as who wouldn't want to see crime victims get the justice they seek, but it grants the victim's families an inappropriate role in the criminal justice system. Some of the changes are good ideas, such as giving crime victims information cards which help them figure out how to deal with their situation, but a lot of it is already in place on the state and local level. But this amendment goes further and involves the victims and their families in prosecutions and parole hearings. The victims' families should not be involved in punishing criminals; these decisions should be made on the merits. Furthermore, the constitutional changes mandated could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars through delayed paroles. This is a bad idea.
My vote: NO on Prop 9.
Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Like Prop 7, this sounds like a good "green" idea, but it's actually bad policy. It has the state sell $5 billion in bonds, and of that money, $1.5 billion or so goes toward grants and incentives for clean energy technology and alternative fuel vehicles, which is nice but since it's a bonanza for anyone who figures it out, there's already a bunch of venture capital being thrown in that direction. A few hundred go toward demonstration projects and energy equipment. Most of the money, however, goes toward rebates for people to buy private "alternative fuel" and "high fuel economy" automobiles. First of all, taking on public debt to give people money to buy cars doesn't seem like good public policy to me, even if they are green cars. Maybe a tax credit or a gasoline surcharge might be good incentives, but bond debt? Seems dubious. What's even more dubious however is that most of the rebates would go not to people buying hybrids, but towards "alternative fuel" vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen, or natural gas. Now, there aren't any hydrogen or electric vehicles out on the market, so that means the bulk goes to natural gas cars. And who's sponsoring this proposition and paying for advertising for it? T Boone Pickens and his company Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which just happens to be one of the largest natural gas companies that run fueling stations throughout the country. It sounds like Prop 10 is more like the T Boone Pickens Enrichment Plan than anything else.
My vote: NO on Prop 10.
Proposition 11: Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Do you want to know why California politics is so polarized? Take a look at some of our state legislative districts:
State Assembly
State Senate
Every zig and zag of these jagged, creatively shaped districts has been very carefully gerrymandered by the state legislators themselves to ensure that they have the absolute safest re-election possible. With safe Democratic and Republican districts, we end up with extreme right-wing and left-wing people getting elected and then, surprise, they can't agree on anything when they get to Sacramento. Prop 11 takes redistricting out of the hands of the legislators so there is no conflict of interest. Now, for whatever reason, the proposal is for a 14-member commission made up of 5 republicans, 5 democrats, and 4 independents out of a pool of applicants to be selected from a lottery. Anyway, even though that's a bit strange (though hey, it seems open, so I might consider applying), the people selected still have to follow certain sensible guidelines. It all seems a little weird, but the way I see it, the status quo is pretty bad, so this is probably not going to be worse and could maybe make things a bit better. Why not give it a try? The state legislators are against it, naturally, but it's supported by the likes of Gray Davis, Steve Westly, and Bill Lockyer, as well as the LA Times and SF Chronicle.
My vote: YES on Prop 11.
Proposition 12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008.
The state sells bonds to loan money to veterans, enabling them to purchase homes and farms. The veterans pay the money back, so we even recoup the costs. We've been doing this for veterans since 1921. I'm sure this will pass overwhelmingly, and there's no reason why it shouldn't.
My vote: YES on Prop 12.
Feel free to discuss any of these with me; I'd be very interested in hearing your views. And who knows, maybe you might change my mind on something. Let me know!
Proposition 1A: Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.
Prop 1A replaces Prop 1 on the ballot. This would authorize the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds to finance the construction of the first part of the state's new high speed rail system (The total would be in the neighborhood of $45 billion, some of which would come from federal, private, and local monies as well). I think the state would benefit greatly from such a high-speed rail system. It would connect all the major metropolitan areas in the state with 200+mph rail service which would charge fares in the neighborhood of $50 each way. I work at an airport and I know how many flights there are between the SF bay area and LA basin. A viable rail alternative would considerably ease congestion and pollution associated with air travel, as well automobile travel up and down the state. As a massive infrastructure project it would provide temporary stimulus with construction jobs (a sector which is no-doubt hurting due to the housing bust), as well as create new opportunities at stops along the rail lines. Furthermore, it's high time that this country had high speed rail; if they can build it in other place from China and Japan to France and Germany, why can't we build it here? Perhaps California can be once more on the leading edge in this country. Though there's a good argument that the money would better be spent on local projects, I don't see an initiative like that on the ballot, and $950 million of the bond would be spent on strengthening local transit systems like BART and Caltrain and Metrolink that could provide connectivity to the high-speed rail system. They've been planning this for a long time now, and it's high time to move this proposal forward.
My vote: YES on Prop 1A.
Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.
Prop 2 would prohibit California farmers from confining pregnant pigs, veal calves, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The standards would take effect in 2015. The opponents of this measure say that it would drive the industry out of the state and thereby simply move the animal abuse to another state or country, but I don't think that's likely. Agriculture is big business here, and they would have six years to build new, compliant cages. The major effect of this proposition is going be on egg farmers, but the treatment of industrial egg-laying hens is absolutely atrocious (the chickens are crammed in tightly, defecating on one another with no room to move). Making the cages somewhat larger (and there is no requirement that the hens be able to stretch out simultaneously) should not increase costs to the point where the industry would have to move. There is already a significant "cage-free" egg business, and although these eggs cost a little more, they still seem to be a viable business, and this measure wouldn't even abolish cages. Similar measures have passed in other states (AZ, CO, OR) regarding pigs and calves, and frankly I think this is just the right thing to do, and six years would give plenty of time for the industry to make the changes.
My vote: YES on Prop 2.
Proposition 3: Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.
Prop 3 would authorize the state to sell $980 million in bonds for the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, and equipping of children's hospitals, especially focusing on severe illnesses like cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell, and cystic fibrosis, requires that these qualifying hospitals provide comprehensive services to low-income children, and gives some monies to UC general acute care hospitals. I think these children's hospitals perform a great public service and could use the money. Although they have already gotten some funds through a previous proposition, construction costs have escalated, and they've seen a surge in medi-cal patients for which they don't get much money back, so I think it's reasonable to ensure that these important institutions remain viable.
My vote: YES on Prop 3.
Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prop 4 would prohibit abortions for unemancipated minors until 48 hours after their parents or guardians were notified by the physician, though the minor can go to the courts for a waiver.This sounds fairly reasonable on its face but this is just an attempt by pro-life groups to put limits on abortion. The SF Chronicle put it nicely: Reckless teen behavior will not be deterred by merely making abortion more difficult. To expect a girl to go through the courts to explain why her parents should not be notified (maybe they are abusive or otherwise irresponsible) presents a huge obstacle to a young woman in a vulnerable position, and besides, another adult relative would still have to be notified. It would just create incentive to have dangerous illegal abortions, or to go through with pregnancies and abandon the children, or otherwise engage in risky, unhealthy behavior. What about young women in turbulent circumstances with no real family life? Why impose this requirement on them? The bottom line is, if a young woman decides she needs an abortion, it's her body and her decision to make. And besides, most of the time the parents know anyway.
My vote: NO on Prop 4.
Proposition 5: Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing. Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.
This would allocate $460 million a year towards improving and expanding drug treatment programs for people convicted for drug and other offenses, moves drug offenders toward parole and rehabilitation, reduces penalties for marijuana possession, and creates a 19-person board for parole and rehab policy. In terms of money, the pro-argument is that it saves money by reducing incarceration, so there are fewer prisoners to house. The con-argument is that it spends $460 million a year. The state analyst says there's a one-time savings of $2.5 billion on new prison construction, and unknown beyond that. Looks to me like the proposition is a net budget winner. Besides, I think most drugs should be decriminalized, so investing in rehab is much preferable to prison sentences. Putting drug offenders in prison contributes majorly to overcrowding and creates hardened criminals. The "no" side would have you believe that those who engage in theft and embezzlement could blame their addictions and get off without prison time, but they would have to convince a judge of that, and I don't think it's likely except maybe some petty thieves who steal to feed their addiction. There are several criticisms of it that give me pause, but I think the current system isn't working and our prisons are so severely overcrowded that this is worth a try.
My vote: YES on Prop 5.
Proposition 6: Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.
Prop 6 would spend $965 million a year from the state General Fund on police, DAs, probation, and jails. It spends almost a billion a year plus it creates a bunch of other unfunded mandates. This is a huge hit to the General Fund in the midst of a budget crisis and at a time when violent crime is in decline. It will dramatically increase our already huge prison population and although it's tough on gangs, it seems to undercut existing programs. Prop 6 will encourage trying children as adults and sending them to these horrible prisons, and I don't think we need a huge expansion in prisons and law enforcement bureaucracy like this proposal calls for. The LA Times, SF Chronicle, CA Democratic Party, and I all agree that it's a bad idea.
My Vote: NO on Prop 6.
Proposition 7: Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.
This sounds like a good idea on its face, but it really isn't. First off, it sets mandates for public energy utilities to go to renewable power, but it seems to exclude solar power initiatives from counting towards that goal, which undermines the developments in solar power that are currently underway. It also is not really necessary because the state already is undertaking a lot of other global warming initiatives anyway, leaving this one unnecessary. Furthermore, it gives regulatory powers to the California Energy Commission that are already under the aegis of the Public Utilities Commission, which could create legal and political ambiguity and potentially a slew of lawsuits. Furthermore, the timetable is unrealistic and the rules would be difficult to change once enacted. The fact that both the Democratic and Republican parties are against it, and the Chamber of Commerce as well as environmental groups such as the League of Conservation Voters and Natural Resources Defense Council, and major newspaper editorial boards are all against it should tell you all you need to know.
My vote: NO on Prop 7.
Proposition 8: Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
This proposition was put forth by religious fundamentalists and backed with tens of millions of dollars from the Mormon Church in Utah. The title says it all. I'm sure most of the people I know who are reading this are as a matter of principle in favor of full equal rights for homosexuals. Regardless of how you feel about homosexuality, however, here are a few things to consider when you vote on Prop 8: Constitutional amendments are usually put in place to guarantee rights that were not previously clearly delineated or protected. There has never before been a constitutional amendment which curtailed rights or freedoms for a class of people. Do you want to be responsible for taking people's rights away? Gay marriage is currently legal in California and has been for many months. Even if you previously favored a separate civil institution such as civil unions or domestic partnership for same-sex couples instead of marriage, the fact is that they currently DO have the right to marry in the state of California, and thousands of same-sex couples ARE currently married. So to pass an amendment such as this would not only take that right away, but could potentially nullify people's marriages. If you had gotten married to the person you love, could you stand to be told by electoral fiat that your matrimony is suddenly worthless?
If marriage is something that you value as an institution, think long and hard about telling a group of people that they are not allowed to marry the people they choose. If you value families and think that marriage is important in creating social stability, then why would you want to prevent people from building their own families on the foundation of marriage? If you worry about the promiscuity and frivolity of gay culture, why would you undermine those gay couples who strive for commitment? If you think gay marriage somehow harms traditional heterosexual marriage, realize that it has been in place for several months now and guess what, nothing has happened to heterosexual marriage. If you yourself are married, think to yourself, has it affected you and your marriage at all? Of course it hasn't. Why would it? The Yes on 8 campaign has been spreading many lies about what could potentially be taught in the schools, but the fact is that this has nothing to do with schools, and besides, even if a curriculum did include references to gay marriage, parents in the state have opt-out rights for any part of the curriculum they disagree with. Even the state's Superintendent of Schools says that Prop 8 has nothing to do with education.
I also find a relevant analogy in my own personal life. I am currently in a relationship with a woman of a different racial/ethnic background than myself. Until the 1967 Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court decision, anti-miscegenation laws in many states would have legally prevented me from marrying the woman I love, and I am utterly grateful for how far we have progressed since that time. California was actually one of the first states in the modern era that repealed its anti-miscegenation laws as early as 1948, and just as with gay marriage, it also happened because the California Supreme Court realized that they were unconstitutional. We were on the leading edge of justice and equality then, just as we are now with gay marriage. Personally, the idea of gay marriage does not trouble me one iota, but even if it did, there is no way I could in good conscience vote in favor of discrimination and against loving couples who want to marry; it would go against everything I stand for. Here's a compelling video of the Republican mayor of San Diego describing his emotional decision not to veto a City Council resolution in favor of gay marriage.
This is one of the few things on the ballot that I feel strongly enough about, and since the polls show that this one could go either way, I felt it was important enough, that I attended a rally, marched, and did visibility with the No on 8 campaign last weekend. I pray it goes down to defeat.
My vote: an emphatic NO on Prop 8.
Proposition 9: Criminal Justice System. Victim's rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
This is a victim's rights bill. It all sounds well and good, as who wouldn't want to see crime victims get the justice they seek, but it grants the victim's families an inappropriate role in the criminal justice system. Some of the changes are good ideas, such as giving crime victims information cards which help them figure out how to deal with their situation, but a lot of it is already in place on the state and local level. But this amendment goes further and involves the victims and their families in prosecutions and parole hearings. The victims' families should not be involved in punishing criminals; these decisions should be made on the merits. Furthermore, the constitutional changes mandated could cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars through delayed paroles. This is a bad idea.
My vote: NO on Prop 9.
Proposition 10: Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.
Like Prop 7, this sounds like a good "green" idea, but it's actually bad policy. It has the state sell $5 billion in bonds, and of that money, $1.5 billion or so goes toward grants and incentives for clean energy technology and alternative fuel vehicles, which is nice but since it's a bonanza for anyone who figures it out, there's already a bunch of venture capital being thrown in that direction. A few hundred go toward demonstration projects and energy equipment. Most of the money, however, goes toward rebates for people to buy private "alternative fuel" and "high fuel economy" automobiles. First of all, taking on public debt to give people money to buy cars doesn't seem like good public policy to me, even if they are green cars. Maybe a tax credit or a gasoline surcharge might be good incentives, but bond debt? Seems dubious. What's even more dubious however is that most of the rebates would go not to people buying hybrids, but towards "alternative fuel" vehicles powered by electricity, hydrogen, or natural gas. Now, there aren't any hydrogen or electric vehicles out on the market, so that means the bulk goes to natural gas cars. And who's sponsoring this proposition and paying for advertising for it? T Boone Pickens and his company Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which just happens to be one of the largest natural gas companies that run fueling stations throughout the country. It sounds like Prop 10 is more like the T Boone Pickens Enrichment Plan than anything else.
My vote: NO on Prop 10.
Proposition 11: Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Do you want to know why California politics is so polarized? Take a look at some of our state legislative districts:
State Assembly
State Senate
Every zig and zag of these jagged, creatively shaped districts has been very carefully gerrymandered by the state legislators themselves to ensure that they have the absolute safest re-election possible. With safe Democratic and Republican districts, we end up with extreme right-wing and left-wing people getting elected and then, surprise, they can't agree on anything when they get to Sacramento. Prop 11 takes redistricting out of the hands of the legislators so there is no conflict of interest. Now, for whatever reason, the proposal is for a 14-member commission made up of 5 republicans, 5 democrats, and 4 independents out of a pool of applicants to be selected from a lottery. Anyway, even though that's a bit strange (though hey, it seems open, so I might consider applying), the people selected still have to follow certain sensible guidelines. It all seems a little weird, but the way I see it, the status quo is pretty bad, so this is probably not going to be worse and could maybe make things a bit better. Why not give it a try? The state legislators are against it, naturally, but it's supported by the likes of Gray Davis, Steve Westly, and Bill Lockyer, as well as the LA Times and SF Chronicle.
My vote: YES on Prop 11.
Proposition 12: Veterans' Bond Act of 2008.
The state sells bonds to loan money to veterans, enabling them to purchase homes and farms. The veterans pay the money back, so we even recoup the costs. We've been doing this for veterans since 1921. I'm sure this will pass overwhelmingly, and there's no reason why it shouldn't.
My vote: YES on Prop 12.
Feel free to discuss any of these with me; I'd be very interested in hearing your views. And who knows, maybe you might change my mind on something. Let me know!