For what they're worth. You can read the actual ballot props
here
Proposition 73 - Snitch law for teen abortion - No
This law would amend the Constitution to prohibit teen abortions until 2
days after the physician has notified the parents, except in the case of a
medical emergency or with a pre-signed parental waiver. It allows for a
minor to petition the court for an exception on a "clear and convincing"
showing of the minor's maturity or best interests. It redefines abortion
as the "death of an unborn child." It allows parents to sue noncomplying
physicians. It mandates reporting of details of the abortion to the
Department of Health Services. Lastly, it requires a minor's consent for
abortion.
This is a difficult issue for me. As a parent I am very concerned that a
medical procedure could be performed without my knowledge. As I would
never force my daughter through a pregnancy she doesn't want, I am not so
much concerned about a parental consent requirement - which is technically
speaking not proposed here. However, I want to be there for her if she
must undergo an abortion, and I can relate to the parents who object to
the decision making being taken out of their hands without their
knowledge.
The question here is of priorities. We have a societal interest in the
integrity of the family. We also have a societal interest in ensuring that
minors receive timely and proper counseling and treatment for any medical
condition. My vote will be based on the presumption that the second trumps
the first. And on the micro-level, I would rather that my daughter obtain
an abortion in my absence than she be forced to endure a pregnancy with
all the health risks simply because she was unable to communicate with me
and waited too long, or worse, obtained an underground abortion.
I do believe the pro-choice side trivializes the family concern however.
As the pro-73 crowd likes to remind us, we live in a society where a minor
cannot even get a cut finger treated without parental consent (they don't
seem willing to question the wisdom of this). We are talking about a major
medical intrusion into a daughter's body performed by an individual
licenced by the state. Many parents who are pro-choice may be tempted to
vote for this measure simply because they feel that they are in the best
place to make medical decisions for their children, and not a stranger
physician or a judge. On the other hand, one might also question whether
it is the state's role to artificially prop up a parent-child relationship
when it is obviously lacking in trust or the minor would not be requesting
anonymity to begin with. I would raise the same question with the issue of
runaways - where "pro-family" advocates are outraged that medical services
are provided to minors without parental notice or consent in some states.
Again, our interest is in the physical welfare of the minor. The
parent-child relationship is really up to the parents. It seems
hypocritical to demand that the state allow family autonomy when it comes
to corporal punishment and educational decisions while calling on the
state to keep their children in line when they've blown their child's
trust.
And needless to say, abortion isn't just any medical procedure. It carries
with it issues of stigma, shame, guilt, and serious life decisions. While
the law would technically allow minors the right to an abortion against
the will of the parents, the practical effect of the notice would often be
the opposite. Since the minor is in the custody of the parent, the parent
may legally forbid her from leaving her home for instance, effectively
preventing the abortion. And while the measure prohibits coercion towards
an abortion, nothing in the measure prohibits coercion to prevent an
abortion. Moreover, the same people who argue parental control as panacea
are pushing a measure that prevents a parent from compelling abortion. I
don't support the proposition that the parents should have the right to
impose an abortion - I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy. Try as they
might to argue that this measure isn't about abortion rights per se, the
agenda is all over the writing of the proposed law.
In fact, if you are pro-choice and you see no other reason to oppose this
proposition, consider that you would be voting to inject a redefinition of
abortion into the Constitution as the "death of the unborn child." That
represents a deliberate positioning for future legislation and litigation,
in light of the recent expansion of murder into the realm of fetuses
destroyed by an assault.
There is argument for at least a hearing on whether parents should be
given notice, and perhaps that counseling services should be mandated to
probe the issue of parental involvement prior to abortion. However
Proposition 74 - Teacher firing initiative - No
The first of the four Schwarzenegger propositions - the measure would
increase the probationary status of a new teacher from 2 years to 5, and
streamlines the process for firing permanent status teachers.
A teacher already has to complete 4 years of school and then complete a
credential program that can take 1 to 2 years past your bachelor's degree.
A five year internship would essentially mean that an individual who wants
to teach could end up investing 11 years into a career with no guarantee
of employment. That's more than many physicians! If incompetence hasn't
been screened out after 8 years, the additional 3 probably isn't going to
make much of a difference anyway.
Most teachers aren't hired incompetent anyway. The problem teachers are
more often than not burned out - marking time towards retirement.
Legislation offering more golden handshakes would do more for eliminating
incompetence. This measure does nothing to actually improve teacher
performance other than put a gun to the teacher's head.
Proponents have raised some legitimate concerns about the difficulty in
firing incompetent teachers. There are 12 steps apparently, and if the
teacher makes any progress, the process is aborted. And if the teacher
relapses, the process starts over again. Many administrators simply don't
bother because the process takes so much time and resources. There should
be room for discussion of reform of the process of termination.
But prop 74 offers another extreme - dismissal after two "unsatisfactory"
performance evaluations. The permanent employee does retain the right to
an administrative hearing, but there is no opportunity for improvement as
is in the current law.
There is a mis-perception that teachers in California have tenure. They do
not. They have procedural rights prior to termination, but teachers can be
and are dismissed for unsatisfactory performances rather than merely
cause, and they have no due process rights to employment enforceable by
courts other than administrative mandamus. The procedural safeguards were
put in place to protect teachers from political abuses. Given the history
of school board politics when it comes to the teaching of controversial
ideas, and the lack of specific standards spelled out in the measure as
criteria for an "unsatisfactory report," this measure will have a chilling
effect on teachers not seen since the McCarthy era.
And if the idea is to attract more qualified applicants for teaching jobs,
making the teacher's livelihood more vulnerable to political or arbitrary
whims is hardly the route you want to take. The bashing teachers take is
already a serious deterrent. With the same qualifications, most potential
applicants can find an easier and better paying job garnering more
respect.
Whether true, this measure is being perceived as an act of vengeance from
the governor for lack of support from the teacher's unions for his broader
agenda. The governor promised to address issues such as class sizes and
the restoration of a varied curriculum. He's done nothing to those ends,
and this measure appears designed to chill opposition to him. The
perception is supported by the other measures he proposes. A firm NO on
this one.
A side note: in the text of the proposed law at the back of the Voter's
Guide is portions of the amended law including the current list of causes
for dismissal. Among them is membership in "the Communist Party,"
(obviously a hangover from the 1950s), not "a communist party." So
apparently you can be a member of a more radical Marxist sect such as the
Spartacus League or the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee. I wonder about
the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party. I don't know if this subsection
was ever invoked, though I'm pretty certain under modern case law it would
be stricken as a violation of the First Amendment, but you'd think the
governor would exercise some of his alleged enlightenment and omitted that
particular subsection in his proposed rewrite.
Proposition 75 - public employee unions out of politics initiative - No
Would require public employee unions to obtain specific written consent
from each member before allocating any portion of the employee's dues
towards political contributions. Records of compliance would be sent to
Fair Political Practices Commission. No similar restrictions for
charitable donations.
Sounds reasonable on its face, but what the proponents don't tell you is
that employees already have the option of opting out of such allocations.
I personally remember signing an agreement to that effect when I was in
the teacher's union many years ago, although apparently the union was not
required to obtain my consent, only respond positively to a written
objection from me. What this does is simply make it more difficult for
unions to make political use of the money, and again, it appears to be
specifically aimed at the teachers and the nurses who have been major
thorns in the side of the governor.
The governor says that he also supports similar limitations on corporate
money with regard to shareholders, but he didn't put that on the ballot.
Go figure.
It should be noted that the "Small Business Action Committee" which is
backing this measure under the pretense of concern for workers has a
broader agenda which includes opposition to the minimum wage and the 8
hour day. This is not a benign measure, however it is being packaged.
Proposition 76 - spending restrictions and special fiscal powers to
governor - No
This extremely complex measure gives the governor authority to declare a
"fiscal crisis" at any time of the year, giving him the power to cancel
employee contracts, circumvent proposition 98 (mandated minimal funding
for education), and slash up previously arrived at budget appropriations
at will. The measure also limits state spending to the prior year's level
plus an average of three years revenue growth. It would lock in the prior
year's appropriations in the event that a budget is not reached (curiously
without reference to whether revenues match the previous year). It would
prohibit borrowing from state special funds (except of course prop 98
mandated funding). And thrown in as a bone to local governments who will
have to take up the slack for more state funding limitations, the measure
prohibits unfunded mandates.
On my radio show, San Francisco Bay Guardian editor Tim Redmond referred
to this measure as "the most profound power grab attempt I have seen in 25
years of political reporting." As I hadn't really had time to review the
propositions in detail, I thought he was being a bit melodramatic until I
opened up the voters guide. In addition to hand-cuffing the legislature by
greatly reducing the flexibility for deficit spending in lean times
(except in the case of an emergency such as a major earthquake), the power
given to the governor to declare a "fiscal crisis" is enormous. And again,
a major target of the measure is education. For all practical purposes, it
repeals proposition 98. It provides a strict formula for the allocation of
excess revenues.
But for the politics, I would probably urge a "no" vote simply because it
is extremely complex and the public would be better served by a
legislature taking it up with the appropriate committees, hearings, etc.
Apparently they were unwilling, so Schwarzenegger wants to slip it by the
voters with simplistic packaging. The legislative analysis is almost as
convoluted and difficult to understand as the proposed text of the law
itself, but the provision of the analysis to note is the "fiscal
emergency" paragraph on page 25 of the voter's guide. It describes in
understatement (damn Kevin Shelley for wigging out and leaving us with a
Republican Secretary of State to draft the voters guide!) the scariest
provision is located in the text of proposed laws on page 61 of the
voter's guide containing subsection "g." The decision to declare
essentially a fiscal marshal law can be arrived at based upon the
governor's own fiscal estimates rather than the legislature's or that of
any other constitutional office. Secondly, the governor may unilaterally
reduce spending when an agreement "cannot be reached." And as far as I can
tell, there is no provision that would punish the governor from cooking
his projections, even if he could be caught. I'd still vote against it,
but you'd think he would have the decency to at least propose a mandate
that the Treasurer's office or Controller's office produce the criteria
upon which the "fiscal emergency" is determined.
I have numerous additional reasons to oppose this draconian and convoluted
measure, but if near total power to the governor isn't enough, you won't
be convinced by anything else I have to say. I hope enough voters can see
through the simplistic ad blitz.
Proposition 77 - Redistricting - No
Would turn redistricting over to three theoretically apolitical retired
judges, selected in a convoluted process that is apparently designed to
prevent partisan manipulation but seems as susceptible as any other
process. Read it for yourself and see if you can make any sense of it as
it's not adequately described in the analysis. You'll find it on page 65
of the voter's guide, beginning near the top in the left column at
paragraph "(2)(A) through (2)(f). Personally I think we'd be better off
simply drawing lots to select from the Judicial Council nominees.
The measure also sets up some criteria for redistricting, such as the
minimalization of cutting up counties, keeping assembly districts
congruent with senate districts, and keeping the population differential
between districts within 1 percent. It's going to be very difficult to
accommodate all of these criteria and thankfully the courts apparently
struck down a provision to ensure a minimal percentage of voters from each
major party in a given district, which would have led to competitive races
that would have produced a homogenized centrist mush for a legislature.
And that's if it could have been accomplished given that Democrats tend to
be concentrated in the two major metropolitan areas and the coast while
the valley and inland counties tend to be extremely Republican heavy. The
proposed maps I've seen look ridiculously like the Japanese flag with two
focal points for long thin triangles. The measure would also provide
confirmation of redistricting plans by election, but even if rejected the
plan would be used for the following primary election, and presumably a
new plan would be in place before the next general election.
I also think a commission of 3 is too small, and I don't think a voter
referendum for redistricting is an effective way to depoliticize the
process. But honestly, I could probably live with this proposal for its
faults. Mostly, I will vote no simply because it will result in more
Republicans in office in California. If there was a nationwide reform,
with each state agreeing to remove the potential for political
gerrymandering, I'd gladly support it. But right now, the Republicans have
an additional 5 members in congress due to Tom DeLay's gerrymandering of
Texas, and similar occurrences have taken place in other states. Then when
the Democrats in Illinois had similar opportunities, they declined to use
them in the interests of ethics. This is a commendable on
a certain level,
but unfortunately King Solomon is unavailable to render proper justice
before the kid gets dismembered. I don't want to seem petty, but I don't
want to play fair if they're not going to.
But even if I wanted to play fair, I think turning the process over to 3
retired judges who have survived a crucible of nominations is a mistake.
It should remain with the legislature. I have no objection to a mandate of
trying to maintain some congruency between districts and counties, and I'd
suggest that districts should be within 3 percentage points of population.
I don't believe 1 percent is necessary, and I don't believe the census is
that accurate anyway.
Proposition 78 - Pharmaceutical companies' prescription discount proposal
- No
Proposition 79 - Good guys' prescription discount proposal - Yes
Page 38 of the voter's guide provides a chart of the differences between
the propositions. Of course, if both pass, the one with the greater number
of votes prevails.
The measures would essentially expand the existing MediCal prescription
discounts. I'll discuss the other differences shortly, but the key
difference is that prop 78 "offers" to allow drug companies the
opportunity to offer discounts out of the goodness of their hearts. Prop
79 mandates discounts, the punishment for failure to comply being the loss
of MediCal contracts. It also offers rebates to participating companies,
where 95% of the rebates must be directed to actual discounts rather than
administration. Prop 79 mandates oversight, and makes drug profiteering
not only unlawful but also subject to civil suit (hence the propaganda
about how the measure benefits trial lawyers like me).
Another key difference between the measures is the eligibility
requirements. Under prop 78, applicants earning under 300 percent of the
poverty level would be eligible, including families of four earning 58
thousand or less. Under prop 79, the threshold would be 400 percent of
poverty, or 77 thousand for a family of four AND any persons with medical
expenses above 5 percent of income. Prop 79 also establishes a discount
program for employers and labor organizations.
The application and renewal fee for prop 78 is $15, while it is $10 for
prop 79.
Do the math.
The one disadvantage I see to proposition 79 is that it will require
federal approval for the Medicaid related provisions, and unlike prop 78,
the pharmaceutical companies are likely to attempt to tie 79 in the courts
for years. But if they were so confident they could defeat the proposal,
they wouldn't have offered up a sham in the form of 78. And they can
always offer up discounts out of the goodness of their hearts anyway.
Prop 80 - partial re-regulation of power - Yes
In 1996, the Wilson administration negotiated back door with a Democratic
majority legislature a power deregulation plan with only a minimum of
public hearing and virtually no input from consumer or environmental
groups. The law removed most of the PUC jurisdiction over the three major
private companies, while allowing for "direct service" companies to
compete with those companies. It was a product of the privatization
panacea of the 1990s, where it was presumed that competition rather than
regulation would result in the best performance from these companies, and
the streamlining of construction of new power source facilities would lead
to abundant energy for all.
The access for competition seemed to be a silver lining for
environmentalists as a green alternative popped up hoping to be the
Working Assets of the power industry. The problem is, consumers stuck
with the major companies and most of the upstart companies died off,
including the green one. And the word "competition" belongs in quotes, as
the "deregulation" provided a form of protectionism preventing the
upstarts from underselling the bigger companies saddled with expensive
nuclear power plants because of bad decisions made during the 1970s.
Given deregulation without the benefit of competition, the larger
companies did not significantly upgrade their systems as demand expanded
exponentially resulting in the rolling blackouts of 2002 culminating in
the Enron debacle.
In an expression of extreme hubris, or perhaps with nothing to lose, the
private industry spokespersons continued to tout deregulation and argued
that it was actually what was left of the regulations that were somehow
responsible for the crisis. The claim is seriously undermined by the fact
that the Municipal Utilities Districts in places like Sacramento and Los
Angeles not only managed to avoid the crisis, but so dramatically
outperformed the private companies that they were selling power to the
rest of the state (this being years after pro-nuke folk assured us that
SMUD would collapse after the dismantling of their nuclear plant) and
passed those profits on to their own consumers.
This measure would restore some of the pre-1996 PUC regulation of power.
Essentially, it would regulate the "Big Three:" PG&E, Southern California
Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric. It would have no effect on the
Municipal Utilities Districts currently managed and regulated locally.
Among the items that would be regulated is rates, though it is unclear to
what degree. It does unfortunately reduce the ability to switch companies
as a bone to the big three so they don't have to compete with companies
not saddled with the nuclear obligations. The measure also mandates
"cost-effective" power acquisitions in the future (alternatives to fossil
fuel based production). It also mandates that each company maintain supply
with peak demand by keeping adequate reserves. Also mandates that 20
percent of the power be from "renewable resources" and regulates other
areas such as grid integrity.
Hopefully Californians have learned that power really does require some
central regulation and coordination, and really shouldn't be privately
owned at all. Prop 80 is a good start. Not the ultimate answer, which in
my opinion would be the creation of more MUDs, but one step at a time.
Measure S - Redway Community Services District funding - No
The measure is merely advisory - the Planning Department, having received
a resounding rejection of the proposal in a recent hearing, is hoping to
find silent majority support for their plan in this measure. The plan
would include the Redway Community Services District in the county's
redevelopment scheme and would divert a portion of the service tax
revenues towards that plan. The county reps were very vague on just how
the money would be spent in Redway, and there's no guarantee that Redway
would receive the value of what it would be forced to put out.
Redway residents are a bit wary of the county right now following the
lower Redway housing development that only received proper hearing after
it was a fait accompli. The developers knew what they were doing and
posted legal notice of the mandated hearings in the Eureka Times Standard
rather than either of the local papers, so by the time Redway residents
had caught wind of the project the permits were already finalized. The
development will considerably impact traffic on the very dangerous
Briceland Road/Redway Drive corner, and the lame attempt to divert
Briceland Road traffic with the recently constructed island only adds to
the danger where Orchard lane pours into the same intersection - and from
which the new traffic will be emerging.
Roger Rodoni was notably AWOL throughout the controversy. I'm not certain
he can be counted on to guarantee serious consideration of Redway resident
input into the "improvements." I like the guy, but his free-market
libertarianism doesn't make him the best candidate to protect the
community from developers, and the northern portion of his district
carries most of his votes.
Besides, recent experiences should have educated the community about the
importance of those district funds for fire protection. That's what the
taxes were levied for.
There's a similar measure up in Manilla, and hopefully they will also send
the county a message to find other funding for their projects. Nobody
bothered to submit a statement in favor of the measure, and unless there
is some sore of matching fund grant, I just don't see Redway's incentive
for approval.