Today over lunch I’ve been perusing the endorsements of various state papers, reading them in light of my post yesterday on the ballot propositions. I find endorsements such as these useful: often they highlight aspects of an issue I hadn’t thought of, and in some cases, and provide indications of buried bias in the issues that were not obvious on a surface reading. I’d like to discuss/highlight a few:
- Prop. 20: Redistricting by Independent Committee / Prop. 27: Legislative Redistricting. These two are very closely linked: Prop 20 expands the scope of the new independent redistricting commission to congressional districts; Prop 27 kills that commission and returns everything to the legislature. Yesterday, I noted that I was in favor of Prop 20, and against Prop 27. Almost unanimously, papers across the state are against Prop 27. As for Prop 20, however, many are in favor of it: San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, OC Register. A notable exception is the Sacramento Bee, which advocates a NO vote on both. Their rationale is interesting. First, they note we haven’t seen this commission in action yet, and perhaps we shouldn’t extend its reach until we know how it works. The second reason is that drawing new districts could hurt the seniority of our congressional delegation, which will reduce clout in Washington. That’s a valid argument, and one of the drawbacks of “throw the bums out”: with newbee politicians, you also lose a lot of your clout. You need measured change in your politicians so you don’t lose all your clout at once. I’m still leaning in favor of 20, but the Sacbee’s arguments have gotten me thinking.
- Prop. 24: Repeals Legislation regarding Business Tax Changes. This proposition repeals some business tax deals put in place as part of last year’s budget dealings… and almost every paper is against it: Sacramento Bee, LA Times, SF Chronicle, OC Register, LA Daily News. The editorials make some interesting points: we shouldn’t be tinkering with budget deals via initiatives, and the retraction of these deals will be sending bad signals to businesses in California. I tend to find these arguments compelling, and am changing my position on this to NO.
- Prop. 25: Reduces Budget Vote to 50%. This is another interesting battle. It ostensibly reduces the vote threshold on the budget and budget related bills to 50%, whilst keeping the tax threshold at 2/3rd. I don’t believe it touches Prop 13, despite what the scare email going around says. Endorsements are mixed: SF Chronicle and the LA Times are in favor; the Sacramento Bee, OC Register, and LA Daily News are against. Again, here there is an interesting balance: most seem to want to make the budget passing process easier, but the other problems of the bill create significant problems. What other problems? The measure would supposedly eliminate voters’ right to put referendum measures on the ballot to reject new fees or fee increases imposed by the budget, and it appears to make it easier for legislators to increase their own travel and expense accounts with a simple majority, rather than the current two-thirds legislative vote. There is also debate on whether it really preserves the 2/3rd limit for taxes. What this says to me is that this bill suffers from the same problem as Prop. 19: it was written by someone who didn’t think things out. As any game player will tell you: writing rule books is difficult because someone will always try to abuse the rules. The same is true for legislation, perhaps doubly true. This is why initiatives are often good in intent, and bad in execution, and why I may be moving to the “NO” side on this one.
- Governor: Brown vs. Whitman. I’m just noting here that the bulk of the endorsements are siding with Brown here: Sacramento Bee, LA Times, SF Chronicle. Given that I was already a Brown supporter, I don’t have much to add to what they say, but I find the unanimity of opinion quite interesting.
- Senator: Boxer vs. Fiorina. Here the endorsements seem to be splitting. Not all papers are endorsing here, but the LA Times has gone for Boxer, whereas the LA Daily News (Media News Group) has gone for Fiorina. I tend to be a Boxer supporter (mostly due to distaste over what Fiorina did at HP, as well as distaste for the Conservative social line Fiorina draws): my observation here is more the contrast with the Brown endorsements: Boxer may have a battle on her hands. It will be interesting to watch this one shape up. One comment, though: Regarding the “Ma’am vs. Senator” ad: She was talking to a Brig. General, and the military is very big on titles. Using “ma’am” was a way of disrespecting, just as if Boxer had slipped on up the general’s rank. I’m worried that Fiorina doesn’t understand that, which could lead to California being hurt.
