We’re getting closer to the election, so here’s my initial thinking on what’s on my ballot.
PROPOSITION 73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
No. This one is hard, because I do have a daughter. I want to know what is happening with her… not to stop her if she needs one, but to help her through what can be an emotional time. Still, I’ll have to trust she’ll do the right thing, because putting this law in place will only serve to discourage youths from having abortions if we need them.
PROPOSITION 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. Although looking at the analysis, we should likely increase the probationary period some to be closer to other states (the majority are 3 years), I think 5 years is too long. Most significantly, this proposal would increase state costs, which is the last thing we need right now. In short… moving towards a better idea, but the wrong implementation.
PROPOSITION 75: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This one is too biased. If it was (a) national, and (b) applied equally to corporate contributions, I might consider it. But it puts public employees in California at a distinct disadvantage in having their voice heard. Bad idea.
PROPOSITION 76: STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
No. This is an end run related to taking money from the school system and not having to pay it back. Our schools are underfunded as it is. It is also punative, allowing the Governer to reduce appropriates of his own choosing, including employee compensation. There are some good ideas in it, but the package as a whole is bad.
PROPOSITION 77: REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Yes. I’m not in favor of the gerrymandering that goes on to preserve districts these days. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but I’ve got something in my gut saying there’s a latent flaw. Someone tell me what it is: I don’t want to agree with the Governator, for some reason.
PROPOSITION 78: DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This one is funded by the drug companies. That alone makes me nervous.
PROPOSITION 79: PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This one is supported by Consumers Union. However, there may be flaws in the legislation. Safest to vote no, until I’m convinced otherwise.
PROPOSITION 80: ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. Perhaps I’m lucky being in a DWP area (municipal power), but I think this is overreaction. The electrical problems years ago were due to corporate executives of the power generation companies (read ENRON), not the suppliers in California. I see nothing in this that addresses the crux of the problem: the need for more generation plants. Let’s not tinker with the system again.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY MEASURE Y: $3.985 billion neighborhood school bond measure
Maybe. On the one hand, I’m all in favor of new school construction. On the other hand, LAUSD has a poor record in managing construction (can you spell B E L M O N T. I knew you could). Additionally, most of the schools are outside of the San Fernando Valley. So, again, convince me.
Do you feel different than me? Convince me to change my mind.