California State Issues -- June 2010

Politics & Elections
1

For us Californians, we have two until the primary election*. Per typical here, there’s some statewide issues that are being voted on. While I’ve made an initial decision about how I’m going to vote, I could change my mind. I’m hoping we can have a reasonable discussion about these issues.

The issues as explained by the Cal Secretary of State. Here are the Republican voter guide and the Democratic home page (the Dems don’t seem to have a description of their reasons). In summary…
Prop 13: Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value.
Republicans YES, Democrats YES.

Prop 14: Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Republicans NO, Democrats NO.

Prop 15: Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions.
Republicans NO, Democrats YES.

Prop 16: Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds.
Republicans YES, Democrats NO.

Prop 17: Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage.
Republicans YES, Democrats NO.
Here is how I’m thinking of voting…

Prop 13: probable YES. This encourages owners to refit buildings. Well worth the “loss” of revenue.

Prop 14: definite YES. The parties are against it because they want the state to continue to subsidize their primary elections. It’s better for the voters if the two candidates with the most general support gone on to the general election. The parties may want to choose their candidates another way, but candidates not affiliated with the two major parties will have an easier time now. That’s a good thing in my view

Prop 15: maybe YES. Public financing is a better way to combat the influence of private political funding than censorship.

Prop 16: probable NO. I don’t like the two-thirds requirement. Supermajorities do not make processes more democratic. They should be reserved for basic constitutional issues, not the typical policy questions.

Prop 17: maybe NO. It seems like this proposition would discourage uninsured drivers from getting insurance, since they will face greater rates because they have not been insured. This seems like it will set in stone the current division of people into insured and not.
*While I don’t want to discuss the partisan primaries, I simply must note that I’ll have the dubious honor of voting against Orly Taitz for Secretary of State.

2

No on all except 14. Open primaries will combat fixed districts and hopefully less extreme views on either end of the spectrum will win the day.

We agree on the others except 13 and 15. For 13 - Owners can retrofit or not. They dont need to be subsidized by me to do it. For 15 - I dont want to subsidize politician’s election campaigns. If they want it, they can pay for it. My stance is money = speech.

3

If the public funding came primarily from taxpayers in general, I’d lean more against it, but this proposition sets up the funding to be from lobbyist fees. I don’t mind so much that those who can afford to hire professionals to speak for them have to also provide for those with less monied support.

4

From the CA site:

Voluntary contributions = okay. Fees = not okay. I’m against subsidizing election campaigns whether that comes from taxpayers in general or targeted groups that we’re not supposed to like. Taxes and fees should be avoided generally - regardless who they come from.

5

I find it interesting that two issues the major parties agree on have both found their way onto the ballot, including one both are opposed to. What group or groups are supporting 14? Even in a referendum-heavy state like California, I expect that it still takes a significant organizing infrastructure to run the petitions or whatever to get something on the ballot.

6

Here is the pro-Prop 14’s list of supporters. With a quick skim, it looks like mostly business and police, with Arnold and the AARP as the big names. I expect it was the business groups that organized the effort. The LA Times is in favor of it and reports 60% support in a poll.

I just noticed the LA Times editorial positions on the props: 13 yes, 14 yes, 15 yes, 16 no, 17 no. Exactly like me. :slight_smile:

7

The first time redistricting reform was put on the ballot by Arnold, virtually every major newspaper supported it, and had large polling support. By the time it got to the ballot, it was defeated. Due at least in part to Arnold’s other ballot measures that were less popular and grouped together and pushed for to be voted in a block. Both parties in CA have a vested interest in fixed districts where no incumbent loses.

Two solutions to break the rigged elections are redistricting and open primaries. Both parties are against these as they threaten the power structure of the corrupt legislature. Our ballot initiative system is a joke - it persists because the legislature is worse.

8

Yes, Yes, No, No, No

The strongest yes is on Prop. 14. Anything to break up the joke that is the State legislature.

9

13- No. Stop adding patches to our totally screwed up tax system - fix the whole thing, already.

14 - Yes. Anything that might get the legislature back to looking out for our common good, instead of their partisan advantage.

15 - probably no. I’m generally in favor of trying to reduce the influence of money in politics, but why secty of state??

16 & 17 - Hell no. Both are corporate-sponsored attempts to rip us off.

10

Huh? How is 16 a corporate-sponsored attempt to rip us off?

11

It is funded entirely by PG&E, the electric and gas utility company, and is designed entirely for the benefit of that one company. They don’t want cities to be able to take over electricity distribution.

12

No on 14.

If I read it right it will have some bad side effects.
No write in canidates in November. There was a Dem congressman that his party would not help in running for re election. He ran as an independant write in canidate in November and won the election.

You can forget about third parties getting on the November ballet. And this year I will probably vote third party.

13

Well, be that as it may, I’m all for making it harder for California officials to raise taxes. If it be such an imperative, they should be able to convince people to vote for it.

14

13? NO. If this needs doing, the legislature has the power to do it.

  1. NO. California had an open primary several years ago, and it was ultimately struck down by SCOTUS. I don’t think we need to go through the expense of litigating the issue again this year.

15? NO. Probably. There never should be a ban on public financing, but it should be the responsibility of the legislature to get rid of this one. Unless the current ban has a provision that forbids removal except by public refrendum. Anybody know?

Supermajority requirements are a very dicey proposition, and should never be imposed on a future electorate by a simple majority. NO on 16.

Californians are famous for being suckered into voting for things that have unforeseen deleterious effects. If there’s really something wrong with current insurance law about discounts, the legislature can fix it. NO on 17.

15

16 has nothing at all to do with taxes. All it does is create a supermajority hurdle to create or expand a publicly owned utility. Public utilities already require a majority vote to be created/expanded.

As a resident of a public utility district where our rates are lower than PG&E’s rates in surrounding areas, I assure you the only real beneficiary of Prop 16 is PG&E, not ratepayers or taxpayers.

16

If you’re setting up an open primary to pick the top two candidates for the November ballot, why not go one step further and declare the top vote-getter in the primary the winner of the election? Why do you still need the November ballot?

17

Actually, because this is a patch to the famous predecessor proposition of the same number, the legislature doesn’t have the power to fix it themselves.

I’m still a “no” since I’m opposed to patches, instead of fixing the whole mess.

Also, if you think about it, this proposition actually exacerbates one of the great inequities of CA’s property tax system – commercial properties don’t get re-assessed nearly as often as residential ones, which has resulted in an ever-increasing share of the tax burden shifting from commercial owners to residential owners. How many private homeowners are worried that their homes will be reassessed if they do a seismic retrofit on their house?

18

I came in the point this out. Prop 16 is supported by the large energy providers (and funded by PG&E) to preserve their local monopolies on energy distribution. Vote against it.

19

.

Then you don’t understand the Proposition. Electric systems are not paid for with taxes they are for with rates. PG&E calls it the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” which is about as truthful as idf they had called “THe Kittens Are cute act”. The whole proposition is a straight out lie by PG&E, who have beeen the SOLE funder of this proposition to the tune of $46 million, meanwhile they are asking fro rate increases that total billions of dollars. Not to mention it is poorly written, such that the Califronia Association of Realtors recommended No because it would require ANY new customers to be voted into a ublic power company service, even existing companies. Opposition is no where near that funding because no one has the kind of cash PG&E can throw around. Thhe two other major utilites in California - SCE, and SDG&E - have n ot endorsed this proposition. The Los Angeles Country Republicans went against their state party and recommended a no vote. Practically every major paper in the state recommends voting no. It is a straight up attempt to cement PG&Es monopoly status in the Constitution and they are using straight out lies to make their case. City council after City council have voted unanimously against this. County Boards across the state recommend no, rate payer gourps recommend No, local Chamber of Commerce across the state have gone against the State Chamber of Commerce and recommended No.

Check out this list or those recommending No:
http://noprop16.org/endorsements/

Compare that to this far from impressive group of those recommending Yes:
http://www.taxpayersrighttovote.com/coalition

20

I would expect the exact opposite to occur. I keep seeing pie in the sky pronoucements that this would occur but I’m not buying it. Primaries always have lower turnouts, skew older and more partisan.

On to the rest of the OP, no an all.

  1. Commerical building owners can pay for it themselves.

  2. See above.

  3. I haven’t developed an opinion yet.

  4. The protect PG&E act? No thanks.

  5. We’ve been ripping you off. Can you make it legal? No thanks.