We've heard quite a bit about Prop 8, of course, but Californians have 12 issues placed up for referendum on the state ballot, plus any local issues various cities and counties have, (in the city of San Francisco there's 22 more, on issues as diverse as land use and housing to some more outlandish bills like decriminalizing prostitution and naming a Sewage Treatment plant after George W. Bush.) On the thought that some folks might be interested in seeing and talking about some of the other eight, I thought I'd run through the rest of the state propositions.
I'll try to be relatively neutral in the descriptions of the measures, though I certainly won't claim to be unbiased. Anyone who wants to know more can of course look at other sources such as Calitics.
Prop 1A authorizes the sale of $10 billion in bonds to create a high-speed rail system from San Francisco to Los Angeles. As a slight digression, bond measures are paid by taxpayers over a period of 30 years. At the current rates of California bond values, they will cost approximately double the amount of the bonds over the thirty-year period, i.e. California taxpayers would pay roughly $666M/year to fund this particular plan. Supporters include the LA Chamber of Commerce, the California Alliance for Jobs and the California Highway Patrol. Opponents are the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (a California organization dedicated to convincing Californians that the solution to all their problems is to pay less in taxes.)
I'm voting YES on 1A because it's exactly what a government should be spending money on in a depressed economy: infrastructure-building that will create thousands of jobs, reduce the cost of highway maintenance in the future, and have a significant positive impact on air quality and fuel consumption as well.
Prop 2 requires farm animals that are kept in cages or other enclosures have enough room to stand up and turn around. Supporters are environmentalists and animal rights activists. Primarily affects chicken farms as pig, sheep and cattle farmers are already either compliant or transitioning to more humane farming techniques. Opponents are factory farming companies and assorted UC academics beholden to them who say this will force us to get all our eggs from Mexico, which will cause children to get salmonella and die.
I'm not making up that last part. I'm voting YES on 2 because I see nothing wrong with treating my food humanely and because fearmongering annoys me.
Prop 3 is another bond issue that would authorize $980 million for improvements to children's hospitals. I have some question about voting money for a relatively narrowly-defined set of beneficiaries (why not improvements to hospitals in general,) but this seems to do more good than harm. Supporters include the hospitals and some building contractors, opponents are the anti-tax types. I'm voting YES.
Prop 4 would require underage girls to notify their parents before receiving abortions. Which is fine and good in reasonably healthy families but a horrible imposition for girls living in abusive or other unhealthy situations. There's a way around it via the courts, but how many scared teenage girls will have the willingness (to say nothing of the understanding of the process) to go through with that? What's worse is that this has been on California ballots twice in the past three years and was voted down both times. I'm voting NO.
Prop 5 expands the state's treatment program for drug-related offenses and shortens sentences for nonviolent drug offenders who successfully complete the rehab program. I'm voting YES because it's that rarest of the rare: sensible policy with regard to drugs. Naturally I expect it to lose 65-35.
Prop 6 locks in state spending on law enforcement in the budget (at a level over 50% higher than it is in the current budget) and imposes harsher sentences for gang-related offenses. Because that's exactly what a state with a budget shortfall and overcrowded prisons needs: less available money and more prisoners. I'm voting NO.
Californians voted in a previous law that requires that in 2025, 20% of the power generated in California be from renewable sources. Prop 7 would increase that to 50%, and would require 20% by 2010. I'm voting NO on the bill because it's really badly written. For some reason, utilities which generate less than 30 megawatts don't count towards this total, which would exclude a significant number of small solar and wind producers which already exist. This bill has managed to get the League of Conservation Voters, the Chamber of Commerce, the California Labor Federation, the California Green Party and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association unified against it, which I'm pretty sure is some kind of first.
I'm voting NO on Prop 8 because I'm not a bigot.
Prop 9 amends the state constitution to codify and expand a great deal of rights for victims of crimes. Among other things, crime victims would have the right to "prevent the release of certain of their confidential information or records to criminal defendants" as well as the right to "refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony". I'm voting NO on Prop 9 because this infringes on the rights of defendants to defend themselves.
Prop 10 is a $5B bond measure that provides discounts and rebates for consumers who buy cleaner cars. The problem is that the bill is written to specifically exclude hybrids.
I'm voting NO on Prop 10 because it's a boondoggle designed to orchestrated by former oilman and Swift Boat-funder T. Boone Pickens. It's designed to funnel billions of dollars of taxpayer and consumer money into cars which run on natural gas, as well as the creation of natural gas filling stations. Other technologies are included, but for the most part (e.g. fully-electric and fuel-cell technology,) they don't exist yet.
Natural gas is marginally cleaner-burning than gasoline, but it isn't cleaner than a Prius, let alone a fully electric car. We don't need to switch to another fossil fuel, we need entirely new technology. And we don't need to give a billionaire billions more to sell us a bad deal.
Prop 11 takes redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and puts it in the hands of a commission of 14 people chosen by a process designed to weed out anyone actually qualified for the job.
I'm not kidding.
Anyone who has ever been a political candidate for state or federal office or contributed $2,000 or more to a candidate (any candidate) in a single year is specifically excluded and the State Auditor is directed to remove anyone with a "conflict of interest".
So, no one that is politically active or has an interest in politics would qualify. The 60 "most qualified" people remaining in the pool would be selected (20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, 20 "other") and 8 people would be randomly drawn from that list.
Again, I'm not kidding. The 8 people whose names were drawn from a hat would pick their 6 colleagues with a requirement that the 14 people be 5 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 4 "other", all of whom have the dubious honor of being the "most qualified" people that have never been politically active or have any sort of interest in the process.
See a problem with that math? Republicans don't! They think it's absolutely fine that Republicans, who make up significantly less of the population than Democrats, get at least as much influence into the redistricting process as the majority party. I'm voting NO.
Lastly, Prop 12 would authorize the sale of $900M in bonds to augment the Cal-Vet program, enabling approximately 3,600 veterans to buy homes and farms. I'm voting NO on the bill, because it seems like a lot of money all going to the benefit of a relatively small number of people. That said, the bill's almost certain to pass, and I'm not too bothered at the prospect.