At least every other year, I have an excuse for an easy blog entry - my voting guide for the elections. And given that I live in California with its messy system of propositions (in the pretext of direct democracy), there are usually a bunch of issues to comment on and not just political offices. Thankfully, there aren't too many props this time around, although some of that relief has been washed away by the relentless attack ads between the two contestants of one of the few house seats that is competitive and happens be from San Diego (the 52nd).
As usual, I will dwell less on the political offices (where I typically recommend a straight Democratic party line vote) and more on the props. Here goes:
And now for some of the political offices:
As usual, I will dwell less on the political offices (where I typically recommend a straight Democratic party line vote) and more on the props. Here goes:
- Prop 1: The $7.12 Billion Water Bond: California's current drought is reaching historic proportions and makes this gigantic bond measure possible. Most experts agree that it is a tiny fraction of what is required to fix the state's broken water distribution system, but it is a start. The prop seems to be drawn up rather strictly, leaving limited room for redirecting the bond money as our politicians are often wont to do. Vote YES.
- Prop 2: The Rainy Day Fund: This is yet another attempt to smooth the ebbs and flows of California's revenues which tend to swing rather wildly with the economic cycle. Most such attempts have failed in the past, but this one seems a bit more specific and tightly worded. Vote YES.
- Prop 45: Insurance Rate Regulation: This prop was supposed to be on the ballot in 2012, which would have been before the ACA became law, but its supporters did not collect enough signatures in time. It gives additional powers to the state insurance commissioner to reject insurance rate hikes, but a lot of this is moot in the post-ACA world. Vote NO.
- Prop 46: This is a prop that tries so hard to please that it combines three almost-separate measures into one prop. That is clearly a recipe for a mess and Prop 46 does not disappoint. It raises the limit for the pain and suffering portion of a medical malpractice claim from $250,000 to $1.1 Million, requires doctors to check the state registry before prescribing narcotics to first-time patients, and introduces random drug testing for doctors. It would be hard to argue with any of these measures on their own (the new limit is simply catching up to inflation over the 39 years since the current limit was established), but the prop seems to be cobbled together with no real thought about practical implementation issues. The 'No' side is arrayed with every health care special interest and has raised vast amounts of money ($57 million vs $8 million on the yes side). This would normally be sufficient reason for me to reflexively come out in favor of the prop. However, in this case I am not sure that a bad provision is better than no provision at all. Vote NO.
- Prop 47: This prop reduces the penalties for some small scale criminal acts including possession of certain drugs for personal use. The smallness of the scale is set (somewhat arbitrarily) at $950, but in my opinion this prop continues the welcome swing back from the extreme approaches to policing that reached its apogee in the Three-Strikes law. Vote YES.
- Prop 48: I am really torn on this one. The prop is a vote on allowing an Native American tribe to establish a casino on non-reservation land. This particular tribe has land in remote and environmentally sensitive areas and turns out that somebody had thought through what to do in such situations and this tribe has followed all of the required steps. Then, why the ambivalence? Well, I am not convinced that casinos are the best way to help Native American tribes and allowing one to come up on non-reservation land seems a slippery slope. However, the flip argument is that this would be just unfair to the tribes that have land in remote or sensitive areas. And wouldn't it just be churlish to turn away somebody who has followed all the rules simply because we didn't like the premise to begin with? I am going to recommend a YES vote, but I can easily see why somebody would want to vote No.
And now for some of the political offices:
- Scott Peters (D) vs Carl DeMaio(R) for the 52nd Congressional District: I am (somewhat) proud to note that I had gone against my liberal leanings and recommended Carl DeMaio over the Democrat Bob Filner when both were running for SD Mayor. Filner of course went on to win only to be forced out of office in disgrace shortly thereafter. However, Mr.DeMaio's tactics and personal character are of a dubious level at best and I would hate to give John Boehner any more of a majority than he already has. Vote for Scott Peters.
- Superintendent of Public Instruction: This is not really a race that garners much interest, but given the mess that California's public education system is in, I think it is an important race. Both candidates are Democrats, so the partisan element is not there. The incumbent (Tom Torlakson) is a one-time teacher and would seem ideally suited to the role. The challenger (Marshall Tuck) is the younger, more-of-an-outsider candidate and I think that is at least some of what we need. Vote for Marshall Tuck.
- For all other offices, vote democratic. Or, if you are so inclined, do some more digging!
