California Proposition Endorsements

Absentee ballots went out at the beginning of the week, and a number of my fellow Golden Staters are already voting. I’ll vote in person this year, but offer my suggestions with several weeks left before the election for others to consider.

I’ll post next week my formal endorsement of Barack Obama, treading on somewhat familiar ground. For today, my take on the propositions facing my fellow Californians next month.

There are three ballot propositions I care about more than the others: 2,4,8. An enthusiastic “yes” to the first, strong “no”s to the others.

Since at least 1978, I’ve been a loyal reader of ballot pamphlets. Californians have had the initiative process in place for nearly a century, and there’s little question that the system has often failed to deliver the progress results its creators hoped for. Legislators are “let off the hook” by an initiative system that allows them to pass off hard decisions on the voters; what we end up with is a lot of “ballot-box budgeting” that ends up tying those very legislators’ hands. Still, it’s better to have the system than not. And even when I was a child, growing up in a politically active family, I studied the language of the various propositions each election season. And I’ve done my due diligence this time around as well.

I do follow closely what organizations I respect have to say about propositions. I’m a life Sierra Clubber, and always read their endorsement lists; my mother was and is active in the League of Women Voters, and I always give a great deal of weight to their selections. So, here’s the League’s call for next month’s election, and here’s the Club’s. Both the League and the Club have certain requirements for making endorsements, so they don’t take a stand on each and every initiative. For the first time in a while, however, the League of Women Voters and I are not in complete agreement. The one point of disagreement comes on Prop. 5.

Proposition 1A: Yes. authorizes the state to issue $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds to fund (1) pre-construction activities and construction of a high-speed passenger train system in California, and (2) capital improvements to passenger rail systems that expand capacity, improve safety and/or enable train riders to connect to the high-speed train system.. A no-brainer for those of us concerned about combatting global warming and reducing fossil fuel consumption.

Proposition 2: Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! The California Humane Farms Act is short and sweet. All it requires is that each and every confined pig, cow, and chicken be in a cage large enough to turn around, stand up, spread its limbs (or wings) and lie down. That’s it. The New York Times gave a strong endorsement here. I care about this proposal more than virtually anything else on a ballot filled with important races.

Proposition 3: Yes. Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Backed by Democrats and major Republican figures (former Gov. Pete Wilson), this is the sort of capital improvement project for which bond financing is designed.

Proposition 4: No. Been down this road twice before, and I’ve given my reasons for opposing parental notification twice. Read my reasons why here.

Proposition 5: No, reluctantly, but no. This proposition expands Prop. 36, an initiative I supported many years ago, which authorized treatment rather than incarceration for non-violent drug offenders. As a recovering addict, that made sense to me and I still support the idea in principle. But while Prop. 36 allowed addicts to avoid incarceration for a first possession offense, Proposition 5 allows them to avoid jail for burglaries committed to get money to buy drugs — a dangerous expansion of the original idea. Martin Sheen, whose progressive credentials are more impeccable than any other actor in Hollywood, weighs in against Prop. 5 here.

Proposition 6: No. Easy to oppose this right-wing initiative. We may not need the get out of jail free card that Prop 5 offers, but this attempt to impose even more draconian penalties on various offenders is a disaster. An expensive and inhumane disaster.

Proposition 7: No. Sounds like an initiative an environmentalist should back — but all the major environmental groups oppose it. Here’s the argument against from the Sierra Club.

Proposition 8: No, No, No, No, and double No. Marriage has meant many things throughout history; it is an institution that in the past has been as much about property as about love or children. Today, marriage is about the public sanction of private commitment, and the right to seek that sanction (and all of its benefits) ought to be given to all. The most essential quality of marriage is not its potential for reproductivity, but its unifying of two people in love and shared responsibility. We will be a better society, with stronger families for all, when we extend the full benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

Proposition 9: No. More nonsense. Under the guise of “victim’s rights” (already enshrined in the California constitution since 1982), an attempt to ensure that our prisons and jails stay even more crowded. Will definitely raise taxes, as it will require county supervisors to provide funds to ensure that no prisoners are released early from county jails because of over-crowding.

Proposition 10: No. The “make T. Boone Pickens even richer initiative” allows substantial rebates for buying natural gas-powered cars. Problem: the cars could be bought en-masse in California, the rebates received — and then the cars could be sold a day later in Nevada or Arizona, leaving the state with no benefit but a huge expense. That’s only one of many potential pitfalls that come with a well-intentioned (one would like to think), but poorly written plan.

Proposition 11: Yes. We need redistricting badly. Here I break with the Democratic and Republican parties. The last two redistricting plans drawn in California were “incumbent protection plans”, designed to ensure that the only competitive races for state assembly or state senate were in the party primaries. The fundamentally unhealthy nature of these uncompetitive districts shows up in the lack of willingness to compromise in Sacramento — and that stubbornness has been one factor in the state’s endless budget negotiations. I wish this proposal, which calls for fair and bipartisan redistricting done by a commission, not politicians, went farther. We need to end term limits and the 2/3rds requirement to pass a budget too — but this is a good start.

Proposition 12: Yes. Simply continues the Veteran’s Mortgage program, one that has already worked well for decades. Not a new program, but the reauthorization of an old and sensible one.