Voting on California's propositions

There are eleven state-wide propositions on the California ballot this November.

For some authoritative help, check out the excellent Los Angeles Times voter guide.  This is a comprehensive and non-partisan resource.  The guide includes the newspaper's voting recommendations, but only as another piece of information.  If you haven't already visited it and you are looking for facts as well as opinion on these things, then click here to see it.

Here are my thoughts on these propositions, sequentially by proposition number as shown on the ballot.

30 - Gov. Brown's temporary tax increases

Summary:  increases state sales tax by 1/4% for four years; and, increases for a period of seven years income taxes on individual annual incomes greater than $250,000, and on joint filer incomes of greater than $500,000.

Why it's on the ballot:  the Governor made it happen.

LWC votes "YES."

Reason for LWC vote:  The current budget is balanced because it assumes that this measure will pass.  If the measure does not pass, the budget will be out of balance, which will cause automatic spending cuts in the amount of about $6 billion, and so it's still a balanced budget.  Slightly more than 98% of those cuts would be to the various California public education systems:  K - 12 schools, community colleges, California State University and University of California.  California ranks 47th among the states in its per-pupil funding of public schools.  Support for higher education has been cut to the point that some elements in UC are attempting to remove themselves from being considered as "public higher education."  Both UC and CSU tuition charges have increased dramatically.  This condition is not new, the budget cutting has been going on for the last decade, and that's already too long.  It's time to face the fact that either some taxes must increase so that public education can be properly funded, or we accept the reality of a declining educational system that will fail to produce the quality student product in the numbers needed by the State and its businesses for the future.  If anybody opposed to this measure can truthfully stand up and say that California's public education system is adequately-funded given the current and future needs of the state's students and businesses, then they are keeping mum on the subject, because that's not the opposition's spin.  Instead, their campaign is full of misleading statements and other innuendos.  Long-term tax reform that includes bifurcation of the Proposition 13 property tax law so that commercial property ceases to benefit at the homeowner's and individual taxpayer's expense would be better, but that's not what is on the ballot this time.

31 - Changes to state budgeting, and moving state monies to localities

Summary:  makes the state budget a two-year affair; enables Governor to make somewhat arbitrary budget cuts during "fiscal emergencies;" transfers about $200 million annually of state budget monies to localities if they establish differing statutes on how to handle certain state-funded programs.

Why it's on the ballot:  a really rich fellow named Nicolas Berggruen has made it happen.

LWC votes "NO."

Reason for LWC vote:  state budgeting is getting better, but only in the last year or two, and that's a process that is baked-in for a one-year budget cycle; does anybody really think that all of a sudden now is time to try to plan ahead for a two year budget?  Not me.  Maybe someday, but let's have the new and improved budgeting process settle down for a bit before making a big change to it.  Besides, if it's real tough to balance the budget as things are now, does it make sense to make it tougher by pulling a pot load of money away from the balancing act?  No, there's no sense in that one, either.  Finally, this is way complicated, and it's not clear why life would be better if all of the many pieces of this proposition were enacted.  When things like this confuse me, I tend to vote against them; this time is no exception.

32 - Limitations on union and corporate political contributions

Summary:  prohibits labor unions, corporations, government contractors, and state/local governments from spending money deducted from employee paychecks for political purposes.

Why it's on the ballot:  a really rich fellow named Charles Thomas Munger, Jr.--and some other really rich people--made it happen.

LWC votes "NO."

Reason for LWC vote:  aw, c'mon folks, this one is so blatantly anti-union and asymmetrical that this is one of the really easy votes.  Here's the reality:  the only way that unions get funding for anything is via member contributions, which are the result of voluntary member decisions.  Corporations do not depend on deductions from employee paychecks for the money that they need to play these games.  Corporate funding for anything that they do ultimately comes from the revenues that they generate from their customers.  If deductions from employee paychecks for union political activities are to be banned, then the only way to treat corporations symmetrically would be to ban them using whatever money they collect from their customers, and that's not happening here.

33 - "Portability" of loyalty discounts for automobile insurance

Summary:  would create new auto insurance discounting capabilities within California's Proposition 103 structure.

Why it's on the ballot:  a really rich fellow named George Joseph--the founder and chief mucky-muck of auto insurer Mercury General Insurance--made it happen.

LWC votes "NO."

Reason for LWC vote:  voted "no" on almost the exact same thing in 2010, as did most other voters, and the reasons are still the same -- this is on the ballot by Mercury Insurance to benefit Mercury Insurance; it includes no true or measurable benefits for California drivers.  Here's another reason to vote "no:"  this is an example of how the ballot gets cluttered up with self-serving ideas with little or no general benefit to the State.  Take a look at your auto insurance policy and notice all the discounts for which you have qualified; there are lots of them.  If Mr. Joseph wants to increase his company's business--which he does, and that's only natural--then let him do it just like all the other insurance companies do within the existing structure of today's auto insurance industry in California.  It's an industry that is both regulated and highly-competitive, and it works well for California drivers, and has done so for a lot of years, ever since Proposition 103 was enacted.  There's no compelling reason to change things in the way that this initiative does.  

34 - Death penalty repeal

Summary:  repeals the death penalty and replaces it with lifetime imprisonment without possibility of parole.

Why it's on the ballot:  a really rich guy named Nicholas Pritzker--and some pals--made it happen.

LWC votes "YES."

Reason for LWC vote:  moral and ethical opposition to the death penalty.  The proponents make the argument that the death penalty is too expensive for the state, or--at the very least--the state can save big bucks by repealing this penalty.  Their numbers seem to add up--I remember using the same logic during high school debates many years ago; the financial argument was valid then, and it's probably even more valid now.  But that's just a fiscal sideshow for me.  If even one convicted individual is erroneously executed--it's happened--then the death penalty is a failure.  In addition, nobody has ever produced any convincing evidence that the death penalty is actually a deterrent to future crime.  Do we really want to share a truly significant social characteristic with nations such as Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and China?

35 - Expands definition of human trafficking

Summary:  expands the definition of human trafficking, increases some penalties, and adds related law enforcement responsibilities.

Why it's on the ballot:  a fellow named Chris M. Kelly who's apparently rich enough to contribute over $1.5 million (according to the Times) to get this thing to qualify.

LWC votes "NO."

Reason for LWC vote:  we already have lots of laws against human trafficking, and there's no apparent reason for having any more.

36 - Adding some leniency to the state's "Three Strikes Law"

Summary:  would modify the current "Three Strikes Law" by letting it be applied differently depending on whether the third conviction is a serious/violent felony, or if it is something less.

Why it's on the ballot:  more rich-guy support, but also because of all the news over the last few years about how over-crowded the state's prisons are, and how much of the state's budget is spent on incarceration.

LWC votes "YES."

Reason for LWC vote:  as currently enacted, the three strikes law forbids a judge from using judgment (isn't that why we have them?).  Consequently, California has an unusually high percentage of its population behind bars, even as the incidence of violent crime has decreased.  That's whacky, and the existing three strikes law is a big cause of that whackiness.

37 - Labeling of genetically-modified food

Summary:  would require the labeling--in certain cases--of food for sale that is the result of genetic engineering.

Why it's on the ballot:  lots of people have lots of concerns about genetically-modified organisms, including (and especially) food for human consumption.

LWC votes "???"

Reason for LWC vote:  this is an issue that's going to come up again, irrespective of the outcome of this proposition, and when that happens it ought to be with more general public information that has been the case so far.  On the other hand, there's no reason why the public shouldn't be informed of the nature of what they are eating at the earliest possible moment.  This one's up in the air until further notice.

38 - Tax to fund education

Summary:  increases personal income tax rates on almost everybody (all earnings above $7316/year) using a sliding scale (i.e., lower percentage increase for lower incomes, higher percentage increase for larger incomes) for a period of twelve years, with most of the resulting revenues going to public school funding.

Why it's on the ballot:  a really rich lady named Molly Munger, and at least some of the California PTA, prefers this approach to increase school funding over the approach set forth in Proposition 30.

LWC votes "NO."

Reason for LWC vote:  in the short run, enacting this one would provide less funding to schools than would Prop 30--but in the long run it would provide more.  However, for both the short term and the long term, Prop 38 would also blow a bigger hole in the state's general fund budgeting.  It's become clear that ballot initiatives such as this one that siphon tax money into iron-clad special funding buckets is one of the major reasons for the state's perennial budgeting problems.  This would exacerbate those problems.

39 - Modifying tax treatment for multistate businesses

Summary:  requires multistate businesses to calculate their income tax liability solely on the business they do within California; simplifies other aspects of the business tax code; provides some related funding for clean energy jobs.

Why it's on the ballot:  this is interesting -- several years ago the Legislature and the Terminator Governor worked too late one night on a budget bill--admittedly a complex thing--and they did something that was not intended; this proposition will undo what was done at that time.

LWC votes "YES."

Reason for LWC vote:  the mistake mentioned above gives preferential tax treatment to certain businesses that take their jobs outside of California; yes, odd as it sounds, that was the mistake that was made a few years ago.  This proposition would correct that error.

40 - Senate redistricting referendum

Summary:  passage of this referendum is needed to approve the California State Senate redistricting that has been done by the Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Why it's on the ballot:  the state's Republican Party didn't like the newly-drawn Senate districts, so they managed to confuse enough people that this thing qualified for the ballot.

LWC votes "YES."

Reason for LWC vote:  first of all, this is a referendum and not a proposition like the other items on the ballot, and the people who put referendums on the ballot want the winning vote to be the "no" vote, because that's how the intent of the referendum is achieved.  In this case, the people who put the referendum on this year's ballot--mostly the California Republican Party--have announced that they no longer want to achieve the intent of the referendum. . .in other words, they now think that the Citizens Redistricting Commission has done a good job.  So, this is one case where whether you are a Democrat or a Republican or something else entirely, you can vote "YES" and in good conscience feel that you are contributing to bipartisanship, non-partisanship, or whatever floats your boat.  What a waste of time and money it was to put this one on the ballot.