This is an update of a previous post. Do remember to vote today, and remember that your polling place may have changed. I’ll be voting when I get home from work (I leave before polls are open), so if you have conflicting notions, please let me know.
PROPOSITION 73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
No. I’ve thought about this one. Although well intentioned, I believe it is a move towards government intruding into private issues. It should not be government’s place to dictate when parents should be informed about things. That’s for the parent child relationship, and parents should be raising their children right so that there is no fear about talking to each other about anything.
PROPOSITION 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. I’ve thought about this one a lot. Although I like the notion of improved discinplinary procedures, I don’t like the notion of shortening tenure. Tenure exists for a reason, and it is not to protect bad teachers. Rather, it exists to protect our freedom to teach ideas that may disagree with what the schoolboard wants one to teach. Schoolboards have insisted on the teaching of religion, of politics, and it has been brave teachers protected by tenure that have fought that. I don’t want to give up that freedom, even if it protects a few bad teachers. Fix the disciplinary procedures; it is not tenure that is a problem. I also feel that a 5 year probationary period is too long and puts the state at a competitive disadvange. If the proposal was for 3, I might support it. This falls into the good idea, bad implementation camp.
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. Public employees already have the ability to opt out of the political donations. This is a pure punative measure.
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. The legislative analyst also notes this could hurt the state. Although it could smooth out spending if the state is able to set aside large reserves (which tends not to happen), “if the state were not able to accumulate large reserves, the limit would likely result in less spending over time. This is because the state would not have enough reserves available to cushion the decline in revenues during bad times. When this occurred, the reduced level of actual spending during periods of low revenues would then become the new, lower, “starting point” from which the next year’s spending limit is calculated. This could cause the spending limit to ratchet down over time.”
PROPOSITION 77: REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
No. I’m not in favor of the gerrymandering that goes on to preserve districts these days. On the surface, this seems reasonable, but it really only works if people vote with their brains, and not just upon party lines. If you have party line votes, I’d rather have districts preserved to keep the good politicians, as opposed to folks just voting for a pretty face. We’ve seen where that gets us.
PROPOSITION 78: DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This one is funded by the drug companies. Consumers Union is also against it. I really haven’t seen strong arguments in favor.
PROPOSITION 79: PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This one is supported by Consumers Union. Yet I see flaws in the legislation. Safest to vote no.
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
No. Much as I’m in favor of new school construction, LAUSD has a poor record in managing construction (can you spell B E L M O N T. I knew you could). I don’t need property taxes raised again. I think LA should move along under its current bonds, and come back at the next election for me to reconsider this. Now it is too soon.
So, what’s your opinion?
