OK, I'm going to try not writing this at the last minute this time! Last time I actually heard some compelling arguments that changed my thinking about the propositions on the primary ballot -- AFTER the election, which is not a good time for that.

As always, I'll preface my comments with a repeat of my general principles:

Proposition 19: meh

I'm all for limited pot legalization. And I like the way this proposition leaves most of the implementation details up to local governments and the state legislature. But as long as the feds continue to prosecute marijuana this really doesn't make much of a change. California's already spending very little time and money prosecuting and jailing marijuana crimes ("several tens of millions of dollars annually" is a drop in the bucket). And while I think the opponents are exaggerating the "loopholes", those ARE the types of bugs that the legislative process can easily catch which the initiative process won't.

Overall I just don't see a compelling reason for this, which means I'm gonna rely on principle #1 and vote no. However, I won't be too worried if it passes. At the least it will "send a message" which might allow federal and/or state legislators to cover their asses when dealing with this issue in the future.

Proposition 20: No

 I voted for Prop 11. I think allowing legislators to draw their own districts is a long-term recipe for disaster that's been proven by California's sorry state. That said, the redistricting system created by Prop 11 is experimental and has yet to actually be used. The California Legislature is seriously broken, and I'm willing to gamble on a new system. Our Congressional representation, however, while probably contributing to the partisan deadlock in Congress, isn't in such a crisis. I'd prefer to see how the new system works with the 2010 redistricting before expanding its scope.

 Proposition 21: No

Sigh, more ballot box budgeting. (See general principle #2.) I like our state parks. I'm willing to pay higher entry fees to support them. I'm even willing to pay higher taxes to ensure that everyone can use them. I'm NOT willing to lock in yet another mandated spending flow, especially one based on a fairly regressive funding source.

 Proposition 22: No, with reservations

 I have to admit I'm torn on this one. Ever since California "nationalized" collection of local property and sales taxes, it's become de rigueur for the state to use money earmarked for counties and cities to balance its own budget shortfalls. It's supposed to be done only in emergencies, but the California budget has basically been in a permanent state of emergency for years. And even though most, if not all, of the "borrowed" funds have to be "repaid" within a few years, local governments have effectively lost control of their ability to manage their own budgets. We've already passed two measures to reduce these shenanigans, but the state keeps finding new loopholes.

 I would love to see a comprehensive measure to decouple state and municipal funding sources in order to end this unhealthy dependency, but there are a number of things about this specific amendment that bother me. First, there's the general rule of adding yet another layer of straitjackets to the whole budgeting process. Second, the limitation to transportation and redevelopment funds. Yes, those are the funds that tend to get raided most often, but I'm worried that it will just shift the state's rapacity to other sectors. Finally, the prohibition on using funds to pay off bonds. I want bonds paid off, and actually think it's a GOOD idea to divert at least some of the money for new projects so we can finish paying for the old projects. Put that all together and I'm going to stick with my rule, "when in doubt vote no, and that goes double for constitutional amendments". However, I won't be particularly disappointed if it does pass. It will help out the cities and counties and just MIGHT force Sacramento to come to start addressing its systemic problems.

 Proposition 23: Big No

 Oh, energy industry! We can always count on your for at least one self-serving, short-sighted proposition each election. Pollution is, quite literally, industry's way of making everyone else pay so they can make money. It's the equivalent of dumping toxic trash into the local park and saying "What? You expect ME to pay for that? And hey, it's your kids fault if they play in it and get sick!" Sure, letting companies do that allows them to make more money, hire more people, offer cheaper products, and generally contribute more to the local economy. But it should be obvious that, no matter how much this will help the economy, SOMEBODY will eventually pay for the consequences. So no, I don't think it's a good idea to reduce pollution controls because whenever the economy slows down. I'm far more concerned about the long term economic costs that will occur from reduced public health, damaged environments, economic dislocations of climate change, or expensive efforts to mitigate those effects.

 Proposition 24: Mild No

 Two issues here. First, there's the validity of the tax changes under discussion. I don't buy the "these were crucial to keep jobs in California" line, but they do appear to be reasonable changes. I couldn't find any hard info comparing these tax rules to other states, but combining the info from the Legislative Analyst with that from various editorials, it looks like one (tax carrybacks) brings California more in line with federal practices, while another (letting multi-state businesses choose between two taxation systems) is quite unusual -- not the two systems, both of which are common, just allowing businesses to choose the one which will net them lower taxes. Still, definitely not something that I think needs a ballot measure to repeal, that can be done through regular channels.

 The second issue is whether or not it's wise to provide corporate tax breaks during a budget crisis. No matter how reasonable, it does seem crazy that we're giving tax breaks when the state budget is falling apart. It only makes sense when you learn that these tax changes were used in order to get some Republican votes to pass the 2008 and 2009 budgets. Now I've got definite views on the ridiculousness of our budget process (see below), but I think I'm once again going to fall on the side of not using ballot measures to override the legislative process. FIX the process, yes, but not go back and review every single deal that was made in order to get votes.

 Proposition 25: Yes, yes, a million times yes!

 Every political and economic expert agrees that, of the many causes for California's current fiscal crisis, the 2/3 majority requirement to pass the budget tops the list. The only people that disagree are California Republican legislators, who are desperately clinging onto their ability to scuttle the budget in order to extort concessions (not necessarily related to the budget). I specifically say the California Republicans, because most of those in other states have enough foresight to realize that when they're in the majority they wouldn't want similar power handed to the Democrats. There are places in the government process where you want to require super-majorities (can we say "constitutional amendments"?), but passing an annual budget is not one of them.

 Prop 25 still leaves the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes. The governor still has line-item veto. This will not be the end of the world. And for all those Republicans who say the Democrats will be "let loose" to destroy the state, I would remind you that if that happens it will simply hasten the day when a Republican majority gets elected and has the power to reverse those changes.

Proposition 26: No, no, a million (OK, maybe only a thousand) times no!

 This is the exact opposite of Prop 25, adding yet another hurdle to efficient government. Just read the legislative analyst's analysis: http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/26-title-summ-analysis.pdf Hundreds, possibly thousands of routine regulatory fees would require 2/3 majority in the legislature. Even worse, cities and counties would be required to put every single one of these into a measure for the public to vote on, again with a 2/3 majority required. This would even include raising fees, something which has to be done routinely to account for inflation, since many of these are flat fees. This could cost BILLIONS in lost revenues. Yes, it's true that this proposition doesn't touch direct assessments, but many problems require a broader definition of "mitigation" -- see the lead example in the analysis.

 Let's also throw out the term "hidden taxes". The CA Supreme Court has ruled that these fees don't count as taxes. That's why they have to amend the constitution (yes, this is an amendment) to change the definition.

 Even if you think the government regulates too much, deregulation must be done carefully and with planning. Look what happened when we deregulated energy a decade ago -- it created the very crisis which put our current governor into office. This would be using a shotgun to do the work of a scalpel.

 You know what that the real effect will be if this passes? A lot of these programs will have to start relying on the state's General Fund. That means shifting the burden of the costs from the specific corporations involved to the taxpayers as a whole. (See Prop 23 above.) Face it, many of these programs are quite popular and/or necessary for public safety, and when things get desperate it will be a lot easier to pass one overall tax hike than a hundred separate fee hikes.

 There's actually another possible outcome should this pass. If we can't charge fees to mitigate certain activities, processes, and materials, we may end up just banning them all together. And much as I'd love to see this come back and bite the corporations in the asses, I think it would simply drive businesses to other states -- you know, one of the 49 where the government wasn't forced into an all-or-nothing approach to dealing with industries which impact the environment, public health, and public safety.

Proposition 27: No

 Since this is basically a repeal of Prop 11, this is pretty simple if you voted in the 2008 general election. Just vote opposite to how you voted back then.

 There is one monkeywrench to this issue, however, and that's Prop 14, which we passed in June. By eliminating the traditional primary/general system and switching to a general/run-off system, it's essentially eliminated party affiliation from affecting the electoral process. That means that even if the Legislature draws up "safe districts", it does mean that the more moderate candidates who usually lost in the old party-specific primaries are more likely to appear in the run-off, where they can (presumably) count on the votes of the opposing party against the more partisan candidate. That eliminates some, but not all, of the reasons for Prop 11.

 But if you really want to eliminate the safe districts all together, I still think Prop 11 is necessary. Prop 14 stops them from creating safe districts for individuals, but not for the parties as a whole. Besides, as a matter of principle, I oppose the idea of letting legislators define their own districts. Let's at least see if the Prop 11 system works before we throw it out.

I'm way too rushed downloading candidate websites (thank you SO much to all 23 people who think they can be governor, the 14 running for attorney general, and so on) to give the propositions the attention they deserve. But I know how I'm going to vote and will try (during breaks while I wait for the archiving software to chug along) to explain my reasons here. As I finish this, I'm actually just about to begin downloading the ballot measure websites -- if I find compelling arguments to change my mind I'll post a quick update.

For my general rules of thumb see http://swmartin.livejournal.com/18410.html.

Prop 13 – Definite Yes

It's telling when the voter guide says "No argument against Proposition 13 was submitted." This Prop 13 amends the original Prop 13 to create a permanent exemption for seismic retrofitting. If you upgrade your building to meet the latest earthquake standards, you won't get re-assessed as you would if you made other major modifications. I don't know about you, but I spend a lot of time in buildings in California, and I really don't want to discourage their owners from keeping them up to spec.

 Prop 14 – Moderate Yes

California has a long history of tinkering with the way primaries work, and this is the latest example. It's also the most dramatic, since it makes our state elections run the same way our municipal elections run, which basically means ignoring political parties. All candidates are thrown into one big pot in the primary. The top two, ignoring party lines, go on to the general. (Some differences from the municipal: There's still a general election, even if someone gets more than 50% of the votes in the primary. Plus candidates are ALLOWED to list their party affiliation on the ballot – it just makes no difference in how the election process works.)

 How this would play out really depends on the dynamic of the individual districts involved. Some places won't change at all, in others all bets are off. At the very least, you can say that this will make California politics DIFFERENT. I do, however, want to refute the argument I've heard from many sources that it reduces voter choice. That's just plain bullshit. It allows everyone to vote for any candidate in the primary. The fact that no candidate from any specific party may make it to the general election (very likely for third parties) makes no difference. Every voter already had a chance to vote for that person in the primary, an opportunity they would NOT have had in the old system if that candidate had lost his party's primary nomination. So yes, fewer choices in the general, but in exchange you get ALL the choices in the primary.

 Another argument I don't accept is this example: "In a heavily Democratic district two Democrats are likely to top the list, so there won't be a Republican in the general election. Thus Republicans are disenfranchised." Well guess what, no Republican was going to win that district anyway! So no, in that example Republicans won't get a chance to throw away their vote in the general election on a candidate who has no chance of winning. They will, however, have an opportunity to choose between the two leading Democrats, a much more meaningful choice which they would NOT have had in the traditional primary system.

 The only negative argument that I've heard that holds water is the possibility of "diluting" a specific interest group by having too many candidates representing them. If 20 Democrats run against 2 Republicans, there's a good chance the two Republicans will have the most votes, even in a Democratic district. The traditional primary system did do a good job of "concentrating" interest groups onto a single candidate – but ONLY when those interests matched party lines! The old system has always had spoilers, in the form of the third party candidates. Bush won in 2000 only because of Nader, and Clinton won in 1992 only because of Perot. This may happen more often than in the old system, but it will happen in different ways that aren't defined solely on party lines.

 As for all the ways voters and candidates can "game" the system – yeah, so what? There are a dozen ways to game the current system, exploiting the loopholes you can find in any set of rules. The proposed system won't have more loopholes. It will just have DIFFERENT ones.

 So will this reduce partisanship in our representatives? It certainly won't solve all of our problems with legislative gridlock, but it will likely help. And I think breaking that deadlock is desperately needed. The current system favors the election of extremist candidates in the primaries, those who appeal to the narrow constituency of a single party, so those are the only candidates we're left to choose from in the generals. And hey, if we don't like it, we can always change to a new primary system a few years from now – it's a California tradition!

 Prop 15 – Yes

This is one of those measures that's really intended to do just one small thing, and the rest is just cover. The cover is a limited experiment with publicly funded elections for the Secretary of State position in the next two elections. It would be funded by a modest tax on lobbyists (and no other source – this will in no way eat into existing funds). There's a lot of fine print about who qualifies for money and how the funds are distributed. Ignore it. Because the REAL point is simply to rescind the current ban on publicly funded elections, opening the doors for future experiments. Now I have yet to see a system for publicly funded elections that actually works (we have one at the federal level, but almost no one uses it), but I think cities and counties should at least be allowed to try it out. So this one gets a yes – with a raspberry for wasting our time with the all the extraneous material.

 Prop 16 – Hell No

Ah, corporate ballot measures. One of California's less savory political traditions, where anyone with a few million dollars can collect the signatures to get a ballot measure written specifically to increase their profits. And then spend millions more convincing voters that the measure is really all about better government or helping children or stopping criminals or whatever other phony cause they can come up with. Most of the time the voters spot these and they go down in flames, but enough pass that they keep trying.

 This one of the more egregious examples. PG&E is trying to shut down (or at least prevent the creation of) public utilities in California, thus keeping more customers for themselves. The claims of "voter fairness" and "people deserve to vote" are just standard "big lie" tactics. If you keep complaining that people aren't being allowed to vote, maybe some people won't notice that they already CAN, and that what you're proposing actually makes it HARDER for a majority of citizens to get what they vote for.

 Prop 17 – No

Corporate ballot measure #2. This time it's Mercury Insurance, backed by other insurance companies, trying (again) to loosen the restrictions of Prop. 103. Surprisingly, for the first time ever I actually think they've made a reasonable case! Prop 103 allows insurers a very narrow range of characteristics that they're allowed to use to set auto insurance rates. One of those things is a loyalty bonus – they can give you a discount for having continuous coverage with them for a long time. What they CAN'T do is offer discounts to new customers for having had a long-term policy with ANOTHER company – an obvious marketing tactic to entice customers to switch.

 So why would anyone object to the insurance companies LOWERING their rates? Because, by definition, if they lower someone's rates they have to raise someone else's. In this case it would fall on people who have NOT had continuous insurance policies for a long time, i.e. new drivers and those who had a lapse in their insurance coverage. Now normally I'd say let the free market prevail. If some insurers raise rates on new drivers, those drivers can always switch to a company that doesn't. But auto liability insurance isn't a free market – it's state-granted monopoly, a situation which distorts the picture dramatically. The Prop 103 restrictions on profiling were put in there specifically because all the major insurers were setting their rates to exclude "risky" drivers, forcing those drivers into shoddy fly-by-night operations (which rarely paid out on claims) or to just drive without insurance, undermining the entire purpose of the liability system.

 So basically, this one boils down to "if it ain't broke don't fix it". The proposed change sounds  reasonable (though I would note that Mercury Insurance has a terrible track record of twisting insurance regulations to screw over customers), but the current system is working just fine (take a glance at their quarterly profits) and I don't see any reason to meddle with it.