October 28, 2004

Propositions 60, 60A, and 62

More details about the primary and surplus property initiatives below:
  • Proposition 60 (Rights of Political Parties): NO
    Proposition 60 would enshrine the current system of primary and final elections into the California Constitution, making it harder to make any steps toward a better system. I think we can find a better way to elect our representatives, so I'm voting No.

    Furthermore, I really dislike the strategy of writing a proposition that does nothing but affirm existing law. Proposition 60 was put on the ballot solely as a hedge against the open primary initiative, Proposition 62. If 60 and 62 both pass, the one with more votes takes effect. They do this just to confuse voters -- I find the practice disingenuous and cynical; it ought to be discouraged.

    Both major parties support Prop. 60, but most newspapers I've read and I think Governor Schwarzenegger oppose it.

  • Proposition 60A (Sale of Surplus Property): NO
    Proposition 60A would mandate that proceeds from the sale of surplus property be used to make excess payments on part of the state's debt instead of going into the General Fund. I'm voting No because I think the Legislature should have the discretion to allocate these revenues. The saving of a puny amount of interest is not a cause worth usurping the legislature's prerogative.

    The debt in question is the $15B in bonds approved by voters in March 2004 -- once these bonds are paid, property sale proceeds would revert to the General Fund. The Legislative Analyst's summary is informative: the revenues from these sales average $30M annually. The bonds are currently paid from certain designated revenue streams, so 60A would accelerate their repayment but only by a few months and would save only a few tens of millions in interest, according to the Legislative Analyst's estimate.

    Does 60A force or accelerate the sale of surplus property, and would that be bad or good? My Democratic Club was concerned that 60A would accelerate the sale of surplus property, but the Anti-60A ballot statement is concerned that 60A would not force the sales. I agree with the Dems that forcing sales might be bad, but I don't include that in my argument, because I don't think 60A forces or accelerates sales. The Legislative Analyst's summary says there is a standing mandate that the state attempt to sell any surplus property, and 60A contains no language to strengthen that part of the law. The Oakland Tribune has more background on the surplus property issue than I've seen elsewhere.

    This surplus property sale business was originally part of Prop 60 to try to improve that measure's chances against Proposition 62. This violated a requirement that ballot measures treat only a single issue, and the courts ordered the separation.

  • Proposition 62 (Open Primaries): YES
    62 would change California's primary elections to an open, almost non-partisan system. All voters, regardless of party, would select from the same slate of primary candidates, and the top two vote getters, regardless of party, would advance to the general election. I think this would make elections more meaningful in a large state where many races are simply not competitive on a Republican vs. Democrat basis. Proponents and opponents agree that 62 would encourage the election of moderates.

    Other sources:
    The newspapers below have non-editorial articles that may also help, but I'm mostly linking to their endorsements pages.

    Update, Nov 3: closing comments now that it's all done - not that I don't want to hear what people have to say, but to prevent spam.

    Posted by betty at October 28, 2004 07:58 PM | TrackBack