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
07:58 PM
|
TrackBack
My ballot - Final!
Updated! Final ballot below.
Comments/criticism welcome.
California Propositions:
(All require a simple majority to pass, but some conflict. If two conflicting measures both achieve simple majority, the one with the most "Yes" votes becomes law and the other is disregarded. Conflicting pairs are: 1A and 65, 60 and 62, 68 and 70.)
- Proposition 1A (Protection of Local Revenues): Yes
Forces the state to share more tax revenue with local government, allows local govenments to resist unfunded mandates from the state. Pretty much everyone agrees this is a good thing.
It's not actually nearly as strong as it could be (compare to Prop 65 and to current law), but it helps local governments without immediately devestating the state budget.
CONFLICTS with Prop 65 - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 59 (Public Records, Open Meetings): Yes
The least controversial measure this year, 59 elevates current sunshine laws to the state
constitution and directs courts to interpret liberally in favor of the public's right to know.
- Proposition 60 (Rights of Political Parties): NO (see my later post)
CONFLICTS with Prop 62 - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 60A (Sale of Surplus Property): No (see my later post)
- Proposition 61 (Childrens' Hospitals):
No? Yes
I'm suspicious of bond measures, especially the really feel-good ones. This is a pretty small bond issue, so maybe we can afford it, and health care is important, I guess.
Why do the non-profit-corporate hospitals get 250% as much money per hospital as the UC hospitals, though? Do they really deal with so many more children, or are they the major sponsors, or what?
- Proposition 62 (Open Primaries): Yes (see my later post)
CONFLICTS with Prop 60 - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services): No
I'm torn. This is a bad way to structure taxes or to write laws,
but mental health services are a significant public good and are
traditionally underserved. Voting No - I don't like these laws that micromanage the state budget. 63 would put these significant new funds into mental health and tie up existing allocations to mental health, preventing ever lowering mental health spending rates - something we may someday want to do.
- Proposition 64 (Unfair Business Competition Laws): No
I have to admit, now I'm just voting No mostly by default because I'm tired.
The Unfair Business Practices law in question needs to be amended; it's been abused by unscrupulous lawyers. Groups that like to sue in the public interest (ACLU and so on) are opposed, saying it would make their jobs harder. I suspect for any serious suit they can find other grounds, and I think the harm to businesses from the frivolous suits may be significant. Anyway, the responsibility for prosecution of suits in the public interest would generally fall to government: AGs and DAs under 64, and the fees recouped from such cases would go into the AG/DAs budgets for consumer protection. (Currently these funds are not restricted?) Here we're both giving up some rights to sue and we're micromanaging revenues. The former's borderline-okay, the latter's not.
- Proposition 65 (Stricter Protection of Local Revenues): No
Prop 65 was proposed by local governments, but later they compromised with the state to recommend Prop 1A instead.
This older proposition would mandate much stricter protection of local revenues, including
not being able to lower some taxes without a vote of the people. Apparently, 65 would create
a giant hole in this year's state budget because it's retroactive to the start of the year or something. Everyone says to vote no.
CONFLICTS with Prop 1A - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 66 (Three Strikes Reform): Yes
After reading all the cases for and against 66 I was torn and leaning hard toward a No, but in the end I'm more moved by the miscarriages of justice under current law than the threat to public safety should 66 pass.
- Proposition 67 (Emergency Medical Services Telephone Tax): No
There are too many frickin' phone taxes - they're like half my phone bill!
This proposed tax is only marginally related to 911 or anything phone-related.
Ridiculous. The tax is capped for residential and low-income users, but not for mobile or business phones, for which it would be significant.
- Proposition 68 (Non-Tribal Gambling): No
68 would be a windfall for racetracks and card clubs, not for the state.
CONFLICTS with Prop 70? - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 69 (DNA Collection):
Yes? No
Initiative statutes can't be modified except by later initiatives,
so they have to be very carefully written.
69 casts too wide a net in DNA-printing all felony arrestees and in only giving one chance to appeal - even to those not charged or found not guilty at trial.
The current DNA database, on the other hand, only contains those convicted of the most serious felonies. (Thanks to Patterico for pointing that out.) We should build a bigger database, but 69 is not the way.
- Proposition 70 (Tribal Gambling Contracts): No
70 would lock us into 99-year contracts, and one source says the
tax provisions might be overturned, leaving us with nothing.
Tribes support it because it's a better deal for them than making a
contract with the Governor.
CONFLICTS with Prop 68? - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 71 (Stem Cell Research): No
I don't think the state can afford to take on any additional bond debt right now.
Otherwise, I like the concept.
- Proposition 72 (Employer-Provided Health Insurance, Referendum): Yes
I admit, it's a job-killer, but I think universal health coverage should be our goal; 72 brings that closer. Lots of regulations are job-killers.
Too, since 72 is a referendum on statutes enacted by the legislature, it can be amended by the legislature to resolve problems, unlike statutes created through the initiative process, which can only be amended by another initiative.
Los Angeles City
- Los Angeles City Measure O (Water Clean-up Bonds): Yes
They make it sound important, and I'm all for clean water anyway.
Not sure what percent of the vote this requires.
Los Angeles County
- Los Angeles County Measure A (Sales Tax - Law Enforcement): Yes
The LAPD at least is too small, and while sales tax has problems as a regressive tax and
incentivizing retail over other types of growth, 8.75% is not too high. Local governments
are struggling under increased state and federal mandates and the bad economy.
Proposition 1A may help too.
(Requires a 2/3 majority to pass.)
- Superior Court Judge #18 (Escobedo/Campbell): Escobedo
- Superior Court Judge #29 (Jones/Gomez): Jones
- Superior Court Judge #52 (Priver/Gutierrez): Priver
She's supposed to be more qualified.
- Superior Court Judge #53 (Zeidler/Lopez): Zeidler
Near-universal opinion seems to be that Zeidler's better-qualified.
(Actually, I voted for Lopez by mistake, but it's not one I feel strongly about. Lopez is okay too, so it wasn't worth the hassle of getting a new ballot.)
- Superior Court Judge #69 (Meyer/Groman): Groman
Both candidates well-qualified. Groman has a more judge-like experience, and displays a more liberal bent in her candidate statements, Meyer is an experienced prosecutor and shows more of a law-and-order leaning. Some say Groman did not work well with lawyers in a previous post in Inglewood, but I think the deputy DAs I'm voting for above and the recent ascendancy of the law-and-order-and-safety impulse need to be balanced, so I'll vote for the more liberal Groman.
Further judicial-related reading:
My opinions on the above come heavily from endorsements, I admit, and from light position-reading and web-searching. The trend of the LA Times and MetNews seems to be based almost solely on experience rather than policy, with the MetNews perhaps having a more conservative bent. The LA Weekly and various LA Democratic organizations have more varied and less explained endorsements. The LA Jewish Journal has some background, and smartvoter.org has candidate statements and links to some candidate websites.
Boring/Obvious Races:
- Assembly District #42 (Fredrix/Koretz): Koretz
- Congressional District #30 (Elizalde/Waxman): Waxman
- US Senate (Boxer/Jones):
Gray? (the Libertarian) Boxer
Boxer's annoyed me a couple of times, and I like the libertarians' social-libertarian stances, but their laisse faire economics are totally round the bend. I'd consider a Green candidate if there was one, but -eh - Boxer'll do.
- US President (Kerry/Bush): Kerry
Other peoples' endorsements:
(The newspapers below have non-editorial articles that may also help, but I'm mostly linking to their endorsements pages.)
Impartial analyses:
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.