Reposts on Props. 30, 31 and 32.

Reposting recommendations on California Propositions 30, 31 and 32, which were posted a couple of weeks ago:

CA Prop 30:  YES.

CA Prop 31:  NO.

CA Prop 32:  NO.

California Propositions: YES on Prop. 40

California's Proposition 40 is a referendum on the recent statewide redistricting lines put in place by the voter-approved independent Citizens' Redistricting Commission.  Prop. 40 seeks to [confuse voters in an effort to] overturn 2008's Proposition 11, which created the Redistricting Commission as a means of taking such duties out of the hands of politicians and granting more influence to ordinary citizens. 

Prior to the passage of Proposition 11, the legislature drew the boundary maps for the state's Assembly and Senate districts, creating nearly impenetrable lines of demarcation and virtually ensuring a lock on incumbency.  The fruits of Prop 11 can be seen in the very election coming this November, where we are seeing more competitive races than we have seen in years.  A No vote on Prop. 40 would return redistricting power to politicians and the special interests who support them. A Yes vote keeps redistricting in the hands of the Citizens' Redistricting Commission.

Vote YES on Prop 40.

Note:  This referendum is a classic example of all that is wrong with California's Ballot Initiative system, as can be gleaned from this single sentence in the Ballotpedia entry:

"The sponsors who put this on the ballot are thus its opponents..."

CA Propositions: YES on 39

California's Proposition 39 seeks to reform the state's tax code by requiring businesses that operate both inside and outside of the state to pay CA taxes on the proportion of their sales that occur within the Golden State's borders.  The measure closes a loophole that allowed multi-state businesses to off-load their revenues and dodge as much as $1-billion a year in California taxes.

Vote YES on Proposition 39.

CA Propositions: NO on 38

California's Proposition 38 seeks to boost funding for the states schools through a regressive, across-the-board income tax increase on all California taxpayers, even those earning as little as $7,500 per year. This measure is on the ballot as a Trojan horse against Governor Brown's Prop. 30, which also seeks to increase funding for schools, only in Prop. 30's case it's by increasing the statewide sales tax and income taxes only on those making more than $250,000 per year.  

In addition, should Prop. 38 trump 30, the state would face disastrous automatic spending cuts of more than $6.5-billion, which would devastate school systems from K-12 through community colleges and up to the Cal-State and UC universities.

Vote NO on Proposition 38.

CA Propositions: YES on 37

Perhaps the best argument in favor of Prop. 37 is that the food industry has spent $36-million opposing it.  The reasons to support the measure extend beyond that intuitive analysis however. Prop 37 is a simple measure that "requires the labeling of food...made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specific ways."  It prohibits the marketing of such foods as "natural," and the notion that producers might do so would seem justification enough.  There are exemptions written into the measure, such as for cows that eat genetically engineered food.  Pet food would need to be labeled.

The key question here is, why would international food corporations spend tens of millions of dollars opposing a measure that would simply require them to let us know what is in our food?  Could it be that they hope to deceive their consumer?  

At this point in our ever-expanding scientific history, there are no genetically-engineered animals in the human food chain. It makes sense to clarify the legal requirements for labeling such food before it becomes available, rather than after.

Vote YES on Proposition 37.

CA Propositions: YES on 36

The law-and-order forces in the state of California consistently prey on the baser instincts of the state's voters (see the arguments pro and con on Props. 34 and 35), and Prop 36 seeks to repair the damage brought on by California's poorly worded and even more poorly implemented "Three Strikes" law.

Prop. 36 reforms Three Strikes by revising the law to require that the so-called "third strike" involve a serious or violent felony.  No longer would you hear tales of men (or women) being sent away for life for stealing a slice of pizza or possessing an infinitesimal quantity of drugs.

Additionally, the measure would allow nearly a third of the 9,000 inmates already serving life under three strikes to petition for revised sentences, so that homeless guy doing 25-to-life for stealing a loaf of bread might have a second chance at freedom.

Vote YES on Proposition 36.

CA Propositions: NO on 35

It's going to be tough to make an argument against Proposition 35, which imposes stiff criminal penalties on those convicted of "human trafficking," but here goes:  Human trafficking is a federal offense, prosecuted by federal authorities in federal courts.  Prop. 35 only muddies the waters in such prosecutions, and it's clearly just another over-reach by California's law-and-order extremists.  In particular, prosecutions of human traffickers are often "multi-jurisdictional," which is why they are best left to the federal government.  

Make no mistake, "human-trafficking" crimes like forced prostitution and exploitation of minors are already against California law, so in addition to complicating federal prosecutions, Prop. 35 is an unnecessary redundancy.

Vote NO on Proposition 35.

CA Propositions: YES on 34

There are many arguments to be made in favor of Proposition 34, foremost among them that life without parole is a more cost-effective punishment for convicted murderers, not to mention that the notion the death penalty works as a deterrent to homicide is patently absurd.

The greatest argument against the death penalty, however, stands on moral ground rather than fiscal or psychological:  The death penalty is inherently immoral because our imperfect justice system leaves open the possibility that an innocent person might be convicted and ultimately executed.  There's no fixing that mistake.  

If even one factually innocent person is ever executed -- and don't kid yourself, it's surely already happened -- then justice has not been served.

Vote YES on Proposition 34.

CA Propositions: No on 33

At its core, California's Proposition 33, amounts to little more than a penalty on drivers who may have, for whatever reason, gone without auto insurance for some period of time.  The measure would allow auto insurers to charge a premium on drivers buying insurance for the first time or reentering the market after a lapse in coverage. 

In addition to reversing the very rules imposed on auto insurance companies by the voter-approved Prop. 103 some 24 years ago, this measure amounts to a penalty on anyone who may have left the California insurance market, including military personnel serving out of state, students attending school elsewhere, workers transferred out of state and the like.

Vote NO on Prop. 33.

CA Ballot Initiatives: Prop 32

Proposition 32:  California's Proposition 32 is a insidious, nasty little piece of work. The measure claims to want to reform big-money politics by limiting contributions by "special interests" on both sides of the aisle (i.e. corporations and unions). 

The trick lies in how this reform is accomplished: All corporations and unions would be prohibited from deducting money used for political purposes from "members'" paychecks. If you read that again carefully, you might note one glaring issue there: corporations do not have "members," they have shareholders, hence they are not subject to the requirements of the very law they're promoting. The LA Times explains this nefarious and under-handed legislation in detail here.  The New York Times here. AmericaBlog calls it "a wolf in populist clothing."

In one Yes on 32 ad, the narrator informs viewers that "AT&T spends $140,000 a day on political lobbying in Sacramento" and then implores voters to "stop the special interests" by voting Yes on 32. Word to the wise: Proposition 32 would do nothing to prevent AT&T from spending $140,000 (or $1.4-million) a day on political lobbying in Sacramento. How dishonest is that?

When it comes to political action, corporations already outspend unions 15-to-1. It should come as no surprise that the notorious Koch Brothers are the money men behind this measure.  Proposition 32 is simply one more effort to break the will, the spirit and the power of the labor movement, and in the process, should it pass, it will also break the backs of the middle class. 

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.

CA Ballot Initiatives: Prop 31

Proposition 31:  Prop. 31 is a boondoggle.  It purports to reform the state budgetary process by 1) locking in a two-year state budget and 2) granting local governments the power to alter or even disregard implementation of laws, regulations or programs created through statewide funding.

We can dispense with issue #1 in short order: For the past 45 years (yes, since Prop 13 was passed), the California legislature has rarely, if ever, ever delivered even a single-year budget on time; a two-year budgetary requirement only grants Sacramento even more opportunity to kick the can down the road, and limits what little flexibility already exists for reforming spending priorities.

With regard to item #2, If Prop 31 were to pass, local governments would be granted authority (through what the measure calls a “Community Action Strategic Plan”), to pre-empt statewide legislation, which could prove disastrous to the environment, to labor standards and to health and human services programs.

Prop 31 also comes with a poison pill:  The initiative would be embedded in the California Constitution, meaning it would be close to impossible ever to go back and revise the measure should it prove as unworkable as its opponents are predicting.  

Vote NO on Proposition 31.

Lazy Dopers

Failed to get off the couch. CA's Prop 19 looks headed for defeat.

Election 2010: The Propositions

Tonight we tackle all 9 statewide (California) ballot propositions, plus the city of SLO's Measure H. Let's get to it....

Proposition 19: Yes The war on drugs has failed, and its draconian view of marijuana consumption and the punishments imposed are a throwback to the 1950s. This measure would allow people over the age of 21 to possess small amount of marijuana, treating the drug much the same way we treat alcohol, which is the way it should be.

Proposition 20: No This measure, along with Prop 27, is a classic example of the CA ballot initiative bamboozle: Confusing as hell and probably no right answer. So I'll just say this, when I found a slickly produced mass-mailer DVD in my mailbox a few weeks ago, I watched it. Told in Michael Moore, "can you believe this crazy bullshit?" style, it tells the story of the evils of gerrymandering, even explaining the origins of the term. But I found myself wondering who would put up the cash to produce such a film, and who would pay to mail copies to 20-million California voters? Turns out it's right-wing Republican billionaire Charles Munger, Jr., who's shoveled hundreds of thousands of dollars into propositions over the years that seek to tweak the California electoral process toward Republicans. Munger is, for all intents and purposes, Prop 20's sole financial backer. Once I did a little research on this character, I just decided to run screaming away from Prop 20. It doesn't pass the sniff test.

Proposition 21: Yes Prop 21 would increase the state vehicle registration fee by $18 per year and the new revenue, estimated at more than $500,000,000, would be earmarked specifically toward protection of state parks. In exchange, all Californians would have access to all state parks and beaches free of charge. This is a common sense solution we only wish the legislature could have come up with on its own. With the 2/3rds majority budget rules, however, the just say No Republicans make such solutions impossible. Vote Yes on 21!

Proposition 22: Yes Prop 22 seeks to end longtime practice of state government raids on local government funding sources. If Prop 22 passes, local revenues from such sources as hotel taxes, parcel taxes, utility taxes, transportation taxes and sales taxes would remain under local control. As it stands, whenever the state is feeling pinched, it dips down into the local trough, leaving city and county governments scrambling to find funds for much-need local services.

Proposition 23 No Prop 23 is an onerous and evil measure --funded almost entirely by two Texas oil companies -- that seeks to place certain economic restrictions on the state's landmark AB 32, better known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 or the "green jobs bill". Prop 23 would freeze AB 32 until such time as the California unemployment rate falls to 5.5%...for four consecutive quarters. As it stands, the CA unemployment rate is 12.4%, and it has never dipped below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters so long as they've been keeping records! Ergo: Prop 23 aims to overturn AB 32 by imposing economic standards that have never been achieved in the state's history.

Proposition 24: Yes Eliminates the corporate tax cut Republicans finagled when they held the budget hostage last year. The additional new revenues created after Prop 24 passes will be used to hire teachers and fund the S-CHIP program giving health care to poor children. It's a no brainer.

Proposition 25: Yes The first step toward reforming Prop 13, Proposition 24 frees the legislature to pass the state's annual budget with a simple majority. Until now, the 30 Republican members of the state assembly have repeatedly, by virtue of a simple No vote, held the state budget hostage. This measure puts the kibosh on the tyranny of the minority. Please vote Yes on 25.

Proposition 26: No If we need Prop 25 to get rid of the 2/3rds vote on the budget, why would we vote for Prop 26, which simply imposes a new 2/3rds rule, this time on any fee increase in statewide services? This measure is also yet another sneaky attack on AB 32, the "green jobs bill," because that measure depends on such fees to pay for state efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Proposition 27: Yes Confusing as it may seem, Prop 27 is basically the polar opposite of Prop 20. Prop 27, if approved, will eliminate the redistricting commission created by Prop 11 in 2008. That measure was supported by Arnold Schwarzenegger and is, at its core, a Republican effort to take the redistricting power out of the hands of Democrats and into their own, with the ultimate goal of turning our Blue state Red.

San Luis Obispo City, Measure H: No As we talked about the other day, this is one of those counter-intuitive measures: If you say YES to the Prado Road Extension, you must vote NO on Measure H. We would urge you to vote No. How many times have you been driving down either So. Broad or So. Higuera streets and said to yourself, "It sure is a long way around to get to the other side of this frigging town?" And please, spare me the whine about how Prado Road will run too close to the soccer fields and the kids will have to breathe in dangerous levels of car exhaust. If that's all you got, then get on board. Vote NO on H.

On Fire: Yes on 19

Best way to get people to vote Yes on California's Proposition 19, which would for all intents and purposes legalize possession of marijuana? Get hold of a big-ass firetruck, paint flames all over it and drive it around the state on a GOTV barnstorming tour. Prop. 19, by the way, is polling very well, 53%-44% in favor as of October 4th. Whatever its problems, I love this state.

California's Nightmare

The hard decisions should never have been left in the hands of the voters in the first place, but now that California's whacked out "budget-by-ballot-initiative" plan failed, the folks in Sacramento are planning to turn the state into a house of pain...

The day after voters overwhelmingly rejected a plank of ballot measures intended to ease the state's financial woes, lawmakers awoke to a harsh reality: a projected $21.3-billion deficit and the prospect of another round of bitter negotiations among Democrats, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and conservatives across the legislative aisle.

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Schwarzenegger said the message from voters, unpalatable as he found it, was clear.

"There's a certain point where you feel that it will be devastating to some people and so we tried not to make those cuts," said the governor, who last week outlined grim plans to cope with the deficit. "But now we have to, we have no other choice."

Scattershot Endorsements [Props 9-12]

Still more propositions....

Proposition 9 -- No. The Victims' Rights and Protection Act would, in part, increase victims' active participation in the prosecution of cases against those who committed crimes against them. This is a role best left to third party prosecutors. The measure also has similarities to CA's "Three Strikes" law in that it would decrease the number of parole hearing open to an inmate. Additionally, it would limit indigent defendants' access to state-funded attorneys. That's not fair. For more information on Prop 9, check here, here, here and here.

Prop 10 -- No. "Big Wind" This measure proposes to "set up a rebate program to give a rebate to people who purchase vehicles that are powered by fuel sources other than regular gasoline, as well as a rebate for people who buy fuel-saving vehicles (like the Toyota Prius)." While that may sound well and good, opponents of the measure (who run the gamut from the Sierra Club to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association) point out that the legislation mandates a taking of $10-billion from the state general fund at a time when California is virtually tapped out. Additionally, the rebate program is unlikely to provide much monetary benefit to the average consumer; rather, companies with large auto fleets could reap a windfall. This ballot measure has one main proponent -- and one main beneficiary: Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens. For more info on Prop 10, try here, here, here and here.

Prop 11 -- No. Proposition 11 would take the job of drawing up the state's voting districts out of the hands of the legislature and instead turn it over to a bipartisan 14-member panel chosen in part by lottery (8 members) and in part by selection (6 members). As Calitics says, this ballot measure is "a solution in search of a problem." I'm opposed to this sort of voter imposed micromanagement, just as I am opposed to term limits, judicial redistricting and, in large part, the ballot initiative process in general I believe we should leave these decisions to the legislature. After all, that's what we send them to Sacramento for. For more on 11, click here, here, here and here.

Prop 12 -- Yes. Prop 12 is a bond measure that, if passed, will expand the Veterans' Home Loan Program to assist military veterans purchasing farms, homes and mobile homes. The Libertarians are about the only people who oppose this measure. That's good enough for me. Vote Yes. For more info, check here, here and here.