Harold finally gets around to posting an update and urges Californians to vote by giving some last minute voting advice.

Hello to anyone who cares to read what I have to say. I’ve been struggling to find time to update my website to put in some technical improvements. However, Election Day is tomorrow and, here in California, we have some very important ballot measures that need the voters’ support in order to reform the politics-as-usual that voters fought back against when it recalled Governor Davis.

First of all, as with any such election, voters should feel obligated to familiarize themselves with both sides of the issues before casting that vote. California publishes a Voter’s Guide, available for viewing or download at www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov if you didn’t receive one in the mail.

According to Governor Schwarzenegger, the guy who put a lucrative Hollywood career on hold in an effort to do the right thing for California, the voters have a chance to help the state recover, reform, and rebuild. The Democrats have been out in force to try to stop these ballot measures, first by claiming the special election would cost more than it actually will (since many counties already planned on holding elections), and then by using scare-tactic campaigning and getting people like Rob Reiner to say things about the propositions that simply do not reflect what the propositions would actually do. Both sides in any argument have their own agenda, both stated and hidden, so the voter must review the arguments on both sides and figure out who has the voters’ best interests in mind.

First, the Governor’s key Propositions, 74 through 78, deserve some attention. Prop. 74 would increase the probationary period for public school teachers from 2 years to 5 years before they can have a permanent, tenured position and modifies the process for dismissing school employees effectively to give school boards greater ease with which to dismiss them. Teachers in California receive the third highest average salary among teachers from all fifty states (source: NEA), while California schools lag behind other states in almost every objective measurement (source: Rand Report). It makes sense that the increased ability for school boards to fire bad teachers will lead to an improvement to student performance, as teachers will have a greater incentive to make sure their students learn material that will keep them competitive with students from other states.

Prop. 75 would require public employee unions to obtain consent from the workers before using their union dues for political contributions. Certainly, this proposition has a very political nature, and it certainly has the effect of reducing, at least to some extent, the financial ability of public employee unions to lobby the government. However, imagine how you would feel if, in order to join a union, the union would force you to endorse political views that you do not believe in. The alternative for you the worker, of course, could involve lower pay or benefits because of the lack of collective bargaining. Basically, this proposition changes the status quo from an opt-out to an opt-in. It makes sense that the unions would want to challenge this proposition, as the average worker probably would not actively opt-in to having their funds spent on political lobbying, regardless of political views.

The centerpiece, Prop. 76, provides the single biggest opportunity for voters to change the way the legislature spends tax dollars. It provides a second constitutional spending cap for the state, limiting expenditures to the previous year’s level adjusted by average growth rates in combined General Fund and special fund revenues over the previous three years. The cap can adjust if actual spending falls short of the set limit, or in the event of natural disasters or enemy attacks. The voter guide offers a great illustration of the effect of this rolling average method, allowing the state to smooth out spending over time to account for the business cycles that tie into the state’s revenue. More importantly, the guide also specifies the new powers for the governor–you know, the ones that the Democrats have tried to paint as Arnold trying to become the King of California. The new powers involve only the ability to declare a fiscal emergency based on set guidelines, at which point the governor, not just Arnold but whoever holds that office at the time, can force the legislature to hold a special session to address the budgetary shortfall. Only if the legislature fails to do so within 45 days can the governor then unilaterally reduce state spending at his or her own discretion.

Another portion of Prop. 76 changes funding for schools. Because of the rolling average method of increasing state expenditures, it necessarily must remove a test for increasing education spending that triggers when the General Fund revenues rise or fall slowly since the General Fund will by plan grow slowly to stabilize expenditures. However, it also removes the automatic reduction in funding. The net effect appears to result in a steady growth of the budget, allowing for stability based on more fiscal responsibility.

Prop. 76 also prohibts the suspension of the 2002 Prop. 42 measure that requires sales tax on motor vehicle fuel to go into a special transportation fund, devoted to improvements and repairs on roads, highways, and public transit. So Prop. 76 appears to provide many good reasons to pass. Nowhere in the proposition does it say Arnold becomes king of the universe, so read it and decide for yourself instead of believing any hype from either side.

Finally, Democrats and Republicans alike have denounced Prop. 77. Arizona Sen. John McCain supports the measure, while Judge Wapner of People’s Court fame has told voters to just say “No”. Prop. 77 changes the method of redrawing district lines for voting purposes. You may have heard ads saying that a panel of three retired judges have the say in how to redraw district lines, but that would not accurately reflect the way 77 works. California voters get to approve or reject the districts drawn by the judges, whom the legislature chooses through a bipartisan process, under strict guidelines. Redistricting will not occur until 2011, so it remains somewhat unclear as to the need to pass such a measure now, except to pressure current politicians or to provide enough time to get the procedures in place to provide a fair redistricting under the proposed new law.

So really, a vote on these propositions comes down to whether you enjoy the status quo of low student test scores, annual fighting over the state budget, and constant partisan bickering, or whether you want to see real change and believe that these propositions provide at least a step in the right direction.

As for the other Props, 73 probably has pro-choice activists in an uproar, but only unreasonably so. Prop. 73 requires parental notification in most cases, but also provides for privacy protections in events of parental abuse and also provides numerous rights for the minor. In addition, opponents raise the flawed argument that young girls will result to back-alley abortions. In reality, girls, as well as poor and minority women, turn to “chop shop” abortion clinics which have little to no concern for the health or well-being of the abortion patient as they harvest the fetus parts. This seems less an anti-abortion measure and more of a way to prevent violence against women. I don’t quite understand what people have against stopping violence against women.

Propositions 78 and 79 feature opposing prescription pill plans. In this situation, if you don’t believe in having such a law for prescription pill discounts, then you should reject both of them. If you believe in having one, you need to decide which one will best serve the needs of the people of California. By reading the arguments for and against the propositions, it appears that the Prop. 78 plan has worked in other states, while Maine tried the plan offered by Prop. 79 and it failed miserably. Of note, Prop. 79 has the potential to increase litigation in the state over profiteering on drugs. Drug companies back Prop. 78, which opponents try to paint as a negative. Having support from the drug companies, however, means that they have already agreed to provide discounted drugs through the proposed program. Moreover, Ohio already uses a similar plan to great success.

Prop. 80 seems a bit confusing even for me, but appears to try to alter the way Californians get electricity. It seems dangerous that it “restricts electricity consumers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other providers” and sounds like a recipe for blackouts, brownouts, or higher electricity prices.

Whether you ultimately decide to vote “Yes” or “No”, make sure you inform yourself on the pros and cons of each proposition before you make a decision on them.

Share This