Elections Nov 2010 - The California Propositions

Interest in the upcoming midterm elections is high - at the national level, this is the first real test of the strength of the Tea Party movement, not to mention the depth of opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party. The situation looks dire for the ruling party and much doom and gloom is predicted. I'll reserve my thoughts on that topic for later and focus on the California state propositions in this one. I'll follow up with posts on the local props and of course the two interesting state-wide races: the ones for Governor and US Senator.

I am going to limit myself to a few comments, but almost every one of these are really worthy of a more detailed examination. Here are the props on the ballot this time around:

Prop 19 (Legalizing Marijuana): This is quite easily the most well known ballot measure this time around. If passed, it would legalize the possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana for personal use. In 1972 a similar measure was defeated almost 2 to 1, but this time around polls suggest that it is likely to pass. The arguments in favor are predictable - savings from not having to catch, prosecute, and incarcerate large numbers of casual users, potential tax revenues from being able to impose taxes on marijuana sales, and even the possibility of putting a dent on the Mexican drug cartels. The opposition is somewhat surprising - most of them relate to potential loss of federal revenue because even if Prop 19 passes, marijuana will continue to be illegal under federal law. I find this rather weak and in any case, the experience with medical marijuana and indeed Portugal's experiment with legalizing drugs suggest that nothing disastrous would happen if Prop 19 passes and it is quite likely that some of the benefits will come to pass. I recommend a YES vote.

Prop 20 (Redistricting by a committee and not by the legislature): This is almost a no-brainer for me. Rampant gerrymandering has rendered most districts noncompetitive and this prop should go some way to fixing this problem. Vote YES.

Prop 21 ($18 vehicle tax to fund state parks): On the surface this sounds like a noble measure - at least for those who care about the vast network of Ca's state parks. But dig a bit deeper and it seems to be a cynical attempt to collect more revenue while playing upon the desire of Californians to keep their parks open. Vote NO.

Prop 22 (Limit the State's ability to dip into some local funds): Another seemingly well-meaning measure, but ultimately, misdirected. We want legislators to balance the budget, but we continue to tie their hands with such so called "ballot box budgeting." Vote NO.

Prop 23 (Suspend clean energy laws while unemployment is high): All you need to do is look at who is funding the "Yes" campaign - two big out of state oil companies. Vote NO.

Prop 24 (Eliminate 3 specific business tax breaks): This one seems rather arcane at first, but the potential amounts we are talking is high (a few billion). Then you realize that these were breaks that were promised to the businesses in exchange for some allowance they made and now some folks want to renege on that promise. The 'No' campaign is well funded by a host of well known Ca businesses including Qualcomm. I am going with big business on this one - a promise is a promise. Vote NO.

Prop 25 (Budget can be passed with a simple majority instead of 2/3rds majority): The 2010 budget was delayed by over 100 days. Enough said. Vote YES.

Prop 26 (Voter permission for new fees): Who is funding this measure? Almost exclusively alcohol and big tobacco! Also, another twist on the ballot box budgeting approach. Vote NO.

Prop 27 (Repeal Prop 11): Prop 11 established the committee that is the subject of Prop 20. This prop goes with Prop 20 in that only one of them can take effect. If both happen to pass, then the one with the higher majority will win. Easy choice, given my vote on Prop 20. Vote NO.