Right now, my fellow Californians are poised to give the Republican party and big-money special interests their "silver lining" storyline on November 7. With a governor's race that looks more like a victory lap, progressive and Democratic voters may not see the point of turning out this time. That's dangerous.
Ask yourself: Do you really want to hear, post-election, that California failed to flip a congressional seat, swept Republicans into multiple statewide offices, rolled over to Big Tobacco, Big Oil, and the antiabortion movement, and turned back the clock on environmental regulation?
We're facing lots of issues that matter--many will go the wrong way without a good turnout. (Cheat sheet at the end.)
IMPORTANT AND SEXY
Big new cigarette tax. Proposition 86 slaps $2.60 more in taxes on each pack of cigarettes. A pack would average $7.00. Big Tobacco says "no, please, no!" Of course, the right vote is "yes," and not just to rebuke R. J. Reynolds, et al. The tax money goes to healthcare, backfilling emergency rooms' unreimbursed costs and expanding children's health coverage.
The biggest anti-smoking benefit comes not the measure's smoking cessation programs, but from the tax itself, which will reduce teen smoking - hence Big Tobacco's high-gloss campaign against it. Prop. 86 is a better course than prohibition, though a near-majority of Americans now supports that idea, too. The only negative: the tax revenue will surely drop over time as even fewer Californians smoke. Vote yes.
Alternative energy research funded by oil companies. Proposition 87 charges oil companies for pulling oil out of California ground. The proceeds, perhaps $400 million or more per year, go to aggressive new research on alternative energy. Thank Steve Bing not only for putting the idea before voters but for bellying up and putting tens of millions of dollars into this campaign, giving it a fighting chance against the predictable oil company onslaught of negativity.
They doth protest too much - energy companies will surely be the first to buy well-developed alternative technologies. One negative: a too-cute-by-half provision that purports to prohibit oil companies from passing along the costs to consumers - maybe a few cents a gallon at the pump. Probably unenforceable; surely a litigation nightmare. Reason to hope: maybe, like with the cigarette tax, this measure's revenues will steadily decline with the success of the prop's goals - more alternatives, less oil. A hearty "yes."
Environmental protection rollback. Proposition 90 is a clump of e. coli-infested dung with a sweet honey coating. It's styled as a property-rights protection measure responding to a lousy U.S. Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain. But it does much more than protect grandma's house from being razed for a Wal-Mart. The clever authors also made it much more costly to issue all kinds of new environmental, coastal and land-use regulations (including slow growth plans), requiring compensation of property owners and developers for perceived reductions in property values. Responsible regulations will quickly become too expensive to contemplate.
A fairly gigantic coalition against the measure is spearheaded by environmental groups but joined by the state Chamber of Commerce, the Schwarzenegger-affiliated Small Business Action Committee and law enforcement and firefighters. Their hyperactive campaign reflects how difficult it is to fight something 75% of voters want when they read the short ballot description. If Prop. 90 is beaten, it will be disaster averted. A big-time no.
IMPORTANT, IF NOT SEXY
Abortion restrictions. You can call Proposition 85 the "no means no" initiative. A year ago voters said "no" to Proposition 73, requiring parental notice before minors can receive abortion services. The debate was wrenching, and the margin was close, so the abolitionists behind 73 gave us 85, a do-over. Did they not hear? A bigger "no" this time may drive the extremists back. Dare we imagine what could follow a "yes" vote - next election, and the one after that? Even "Dear Abby" agrees: no means no.
Public financing of campaigns. Though it appears doomed, Proposition 89 deserves a look. The "clean money" people now have two states to hold up as models (Arizona and Maine), and they wrote a thorough public-financing plan that could work in the real world. Some day we need a system like this to encourage more regular citizens to run for office and to give them more time for the people's business, not fundraising. The moneyed interests - including liberal labor groups - hate Prop. 89 because it shatters their power in elections. Vote yes here to encourage more development of a winning plan.
The Bonds (Props. 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 84). The nasty secret we're ignoring during Arnold's coronation - er, this election season - is that the state budget is still a huge mess. There's no money for any real investments, and next year we're looking at big budget cuts again. There are five bonds on the November ballot, and the good news is that they all deliver something tangible that we probably wouldn't get otherwise. (Note: 1A is not a bond, and I'm a no - see below.)
The bad news is, most are faring weakly in the polls. An affordable housing bond (1C) is the least popular at the time it's most needed. Two water-related bonds (1E for flood prevention, Prop. 84 for water quality and supply) need help. 1B promises traffic reduction and port protection (it has principled opponents), while 1D builds and updates school facilities, K-university. Since none of these is a prison bond, I'm saying yes to all.
THE OTHERS
Restrictions on sex offenders. Proposition 83 is a costly, extreme overreaction. It requires from $100 million to $500 million per year to attach GPS systems to every registered sex offender - though nine out of ten pose no obvious risk as predators. The measure also restricts where these people can live after prison, but says nothing about where they can go during the day. It's a sham fix that gets the reality of sexual abuse entirely wrong. A similar law in Iowa is now vehemently opposed by prosecutors because it was a costly failure with many unintended consequences. There are better and cheaper ideas, like changes in sentencing and release policies. Vote "no" to spur smarter solutions.
Highway funding from gas taxes. This one, supposedly linked to the bonds at the top of the ballot, is generating much more opposition. Prop. 1A guarantees that gasoline tax revenues go to road and highway improvements. Big problem: This cycle of road-building only postpones our day of reckoning with our oil addiction. Second problem: As my friend Jackie Goldberg argues, the legislature should probably set priorities for gas tax revenue. On the other side, this is really a re-vote made necessary because the legislature ignored an earlier initiative (Prop. 42 in 2002) that sought the same thing. Though I'd normally insist that the legislature respect voter initiatives fully, I stay "no" here.
Property tax increase. It's easy to vote "no" on Proposition 88 because there is no campaign for it. And the "no" side scored a coup by getting the state PTA to oppose. Raising property taxes by a mere $50 per parcel (never to be adjusted for inflation) wouldn't bring in much money for education. If you're going to tackle Proposition 13, our landmark property-tax limitation, a bigger bite is in order.
HANDY SUMMARY
To wrap it up:
1A: No
1B: Yes
1C: Yes
1D: Yes
1E: Yes
83: No
84: Yes
85: No
86: Yes
87: Yes
88: No
89: Yes
90: No
More tomorrow on the critical statewide officeholder choices...