Summary of positions on State Propositions:
19: Leaning Yes
20: Leaning No
21: Yes
22: No
23: NO NO NO
24: Leaning Yes
25: Yes
26: NO NO NO
27: NO
Leaning Yes on 19: Legalize Marijuana in CA
I'm generally supportive of legalizing marijuana. I don't have a personal stake in the matter (smoked it once, tried to inhale, didn't get the point). I have the impression legalization would reduce an unnecessary load on the justice system, reduce violent criminal activity associated with smuggling, allow the government to put rational and enforceable controls on use (unlike the existing laws that are unevenly applied), and get some dearly-needed revenue from a common commercial enterprise. Given currently widespread availability, I don't think many people are being protected by current laws. So I support the intent.
Unfortunately, Prop 19, like so many initiatives, has several flaws. It may stop employers from testing, even when testing may be well-justified and required by federal law (for airline pilots & train/bus/truck drivers). It leaves it up to local governments to set up taxation systems -- that's a bit chaotic. And there's no standard for what qualifies as DUI. All these seem like important flaws that need to be fixed.
But Prop 19 is an initiative statute, not a constitutional amendment, so it can be fixed by the legislature. If we pass Prop 19, they'll have to work out the fixes. If we don't, the status quo will continue. So I'm leaning Yes on Prop 19, but I'm open to feedback.
NO on 27, Leaning No on 20: An Independent Commission, not Legislators, should control Redistricting
Two years ago, I encouraged you to vote Yes on Prop 11, a League of Women Voters and Common Cause-supported measure to establish a citizen commission to conduct redistricting for state legislative districts. California voters passed the previous measure.
Prop 27 would undo the good reform and instead put legislators back in control of drawing their own boundaries. That's what leads to gerrymandered districts where politicians select their voters -- bad policy, bad results. See why the League of Women Voters says No on 27.
Prop 20, on the other hand, would extend the redistricting commission to cover Congressional districts as well. When I started writing this post, I thought I'd say that was a good idea. After all, the same reasoning applies as in 2008: this has to be an initiative, because legislators won't rewrite the rules well to govern themselves. And it has to happen now, because the state is about to reset districts based on the 2010 census.
But then I read the LWV analysis, and they're saying No on 20 as well! Prop 20 would increase the redistricting commission's workload but reduce the amount of time they have to draw boundaries, and it would "narrow the definition of communities of interest in ways that would make it harder for the commission to protect California’s diverse neighborhoods." That doesn't sound good, and that's coming from the staunch and smart supporters of redistricting reform. Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm leaning NO on Prop 20 as well.
YES on 21: Fund state parks with vehicle registration fees
This is straightforward and reasonable. In return for charging every California vehicle a relatively small ($18/yr) annual surcharge on everyone's vehicle license fee, to help fund state parks and wildlife programs, all those vehicles will get free admission to state parks. It isn't a perfect solution, it is still ballot-box budgeting, but it is a reasonable fix while we still have our current messed-up budget system.
NO on 22: Overly complicated, Unintended Consequences
Prop 22 is a proposed amendment to the state constitution that aims to limit the state’s ability to borrow or take from local governments funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or other local government projects and services. That sounds pretty good, and we certainly need good and stable funding for transportation, affordable homes, and local infrastructure. However, it would also increase the state deficit by about $1 billion per year, make it harder to do tradeoffs to balance the budget, and potentially have a host of unintended consequences.
This is just plain way too confusing and complicated of a measure for us to pass on a simple up-down on the ballot. I'm voting no.
Some resources: TransForm's neutral position, California Budget Project's analysis, San Francisco Chronicle's NO editorial.
NO NO NO on 23: Stop Texas Oil Companies from Buying California Elections
I'm just going to quote from TransForm's writeup on this: "Texas oil companies and other major polluters are spending millions of dollars to push this ballot proposition, deceptively titled the "CA Jobs Initiative," which will actually gut California clean energy and air pollution standards and destroy hundreds of thousands of new and future good-paying clean and green jobs."
Resources: TransForm, SF Chronicle, No on 23 website.
Leaning YES on 24: Close Corporate Tax Loopholes
I think I'll vote yes on this: I think I agree with it -- it appears to close some major tax loopholes that allow businesses to shift tax losses to different tax years, share tax credits with affiliated companies, and limit the basis on which taxes are charged. My main hesitation is that I tend to feel like we voters shouldn't make this kind of budgeting decision. But the system is so messed up, I'm inclined to vote yes anyway.
YES on 25: Majority vote to pass the state budget
This seems like a common-sense good first step towards fixing the state budget mess. Prop 25 would mean that California can pass its budget by a majority vote. Right now, we're one of only three states that requires a super-majority (2/3) to pass the budget. That's part of the reason we have budgets that come in months late. We need more solutions too, particularly to deal with how we raise revenues. And I'm a little less enthusiastic after reading the California Budget Project's analysis. But I'm still planning to vote Yes on 25. It is a good start.
NO NO NO on 26: Don't Protect Polluters from Reasonable Fees
Again, I'll quote from TransForm's writeup: "Prop 26 would kill our ability to levy impact fees on pollution or other sources of harm to our communities and state. It would relieve the worst polluters and corporations that cause the greatest harm to public health and the environment from having to cover even the most minimal costs of cleaning up their messes. Prop 26 would also make it impossible for communities to fund critical local infrastructure investments, such as key transportation projects, that are supported by the majority of residents." Learn more.
NO on 27: see combined writeup with 20, above.
NOTE -- this is the last of the November 2010 recommendations. Everything below this is from an earlier election!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Jeff,
Just some additional context for Proposition 24. The tax cuts that the proposition would repeal were passed by the Legislature during the budget process as a trade-off to get Republican votes. These tax cuts had been proposed in various incarnations before, but never managed to get through the Legislature. To me, this means that they were not passed on their own merits. Also, if we pass Proposition 24, the state will have more money than it would have for education and health and human service programs.
Jeff,
I was going to vote for Proposition 20 as it seems like Congressional districts should be drawn by the Citizens Commission. Now I'm going to have to read the LWV analysis.
I'm troubled by the fact that the parks tax (Proposition 21) is a regressive tax ($18 no matter how expensive or cheap your car is), but am also leaning toward voting for it.
Jeff,
Hmmm about Proposition 20. I'm still not sure. Mostly it says that we should wait and do this later. But will there be a later?
Like you, I have no personal interest in marijuana. But given the violence that marijuana's current status is instigating in Mexico and our own cities (not to mention the damage being done in our national parks by Mexican cartel growers http://home.nps.gov/applications/release/print.cfm?id=814), I feel it is important to take this step.
It will be great if we get some more tax revenue out of it, but I really don't care if that works out or not. The violence is the compelling issue to me. I know that California's marijuana is not the only cause of the drug violence and that Prop 19 is a very imperfect proposition, but as you indicated, the prop is fixable in implementation (unlike some props) and I feel a moral imperative to try it out.
Thank you again, Jeff, for taking the time and effort to post these important analyses. It is always so interesting and thought-provoking to read them, and very much appreciated!
Post a Comment