Yesterday, I sat down and skimmed the General Election Voter Information Guide for the first time. This is my initial take on the various propositions. Now is your time to convince me otherwise…
- Prop. 19: Marijuana Legalization
[Legalizes Marijuana Under California but Not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.]This is an odd one. I’m in favor of the general notion of legalization: make it legal, regulated, and taxed. But as with most initiatives, I’m sensitive to the argument that the actual legislation was written wrong, and this one just appears to be incomplete in a number of areas. Think about all the different places in the legal code that alcohol imparement is addressed. There should be equivalent areas the define legal imparement for pot. It doesn’t appear they are in this proposal. Conclusion: Reluctantly, No.
- Prop. 20: Redistricting by Independent Committee
[Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment]There are two competing redistricting proposals: one that returns everything to legislative redisticting, and one that moves everything to redistricting by independent committee. I certainly don’t believe it should be done by elected politicians: that’s too rife for partisan tinkering. So, I think the goal of this proposal (and independent commission) is reasonable. I think the argument about communities of interest is a red herring: for such communities could be used for good or bad, and it all depends on the chosen commisioners. Conclusion: Leaning Yes.
- Prop. 21: Fee for California Parks
[Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission to All State Parks. Initiative Statute]I can see both sides on this: on the one hand, the parks are one entity in the state that doesn’t have a strong voice, and thus is easily cut to the bone in a budget crisis. On the other hand, parks should be funded through the normal avenues, not an addition to the Vehicle License Fee. In general, I feel the VLF should be used to fund vehicle related expenses (roads, air quality, etc.). Conclusion: Leaning No.
- Prop. 22: Restrict State Fund Usage
[Prohibits the State from Borrowing or Taking Funds Used for Transportation, Redevelopment, or Local Government Projects and Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]This propositions restricts the ability to use collected state funds in various accounts for other purposes in the areas of transportation and redevelopment. Now, I’m the sort of guy you think would support any transportation related thing. But this one seems wrong, for a lot of the budget problems we’ve got are due to tying the hands of the legislature in solving problems. I don’t think this is the right idea, not now, much as I’d like to see more road problems being fixed. Conclusion: Reluctantly No.
- Prop. 23: Suspends Greenhouse Gas Law
[Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) Requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming, Until Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year. Initiative Statute.]Reading this, I just don’t buy the arguments that suspending this law will create any new jobs in California. At best, it might prevent some jobs from moving, at a potential unrepairable climate cost. I do see it suspending the law for a long time. On the other hand, retaining the law would help promote development of green businesses, which will help the state. Conclusion: No.
- Prop. 24: Repeals Legislation regarding Business Tax Changes.
[Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax Liability. Initiative Statute.]This is one of those propositions that most people won’t understand. Basically, what this proposition does is undo some changes made as part of recent budget dealmaking. Specifically, it would prevent carrying-back business losses to prior years or crediting those losses many years in the future, it changes how multistate businesses are taxed, and it affects sharing of tax credits. Such a change cries out that it is a special deal, and so the question becomes: which was the worse special deal: the original change brokered by lobbyists, or this proposition? I’ll also note that I don’t like ballot arguments that use the phrase “never met a tax they didn’t like”. If I had my choice, losses could only be used to offset future profits, not obtain refunds in past years; there would be single formula for calculating state income, and tax credits would only go to the entity that earned them. That seems to be closest to the prior law. Conclusion: Leaning Yes.
- Prop. 25: Reduces Budget Vote to 50%
[Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-Related Legislation from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]This initiative would reduce the requirement to pass a budget/budget-related legislation to 50% from 67%, while still requiring 67% for taxes. It would also suspend legislator pay for late budgets. I agree that the budget games in Sacramento have gotten ridiculous, where the excessively partisan politics have held the budget hostage and hurt many, many people. On the other hand, having the lower vote would virtually assure that the party in power would get their way without having to make any concession to the minority view. So there are strong arguments on both sides (as well as many many red herrings). For me, the most telling factor is that the current approach just isn’t working: there’s only been 5 budgets on time in the last 30 years. Conclusion: Reluctantly Yes.
- Prop. 26: Certain Fees: 2/3rds Vote
[Requires That Certain State and Local Fees Be Approved by Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those That Address Adverse Impacts on Society or the Environment Caused by the Fee-Payer’s Business. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.]There should be rule that if you can’t get a proposition title down to one line, you lose. Seriously, this is another confusing proposition, but generally it moves a lot of fees into the category of things that require 2/3rd vote, meaning that they will never be passed. Now, what has caused a lot of our problems in Californai is the extreme difficulty in changing our taxes, and this has resulted in more fees. Although I can understand the furor against those fees, the answer is not make more things 2/3rds majority: the answer is to fix the tax laws. I think this proposal, at this time, would further hurt the state. Conclusion: Leaning No.
- Prop. 27: Legislative Redistricting
[Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.]This is the opposite of Prop. 20: It moves all the redistricting back to the elected officials, with no strong requirements other than geographic in forming districts. To me, legislative redistricting has too much opportunity for partisan politics. Conclusion: No.
As noted at the beginning: these are my first thoughts. My mind may chanage on these propositions as I learn more. More importantly, my mind may change as you convince me otherwise, so start convincing, or tell me why you think I’m right.
