November 2012 Voter Guide

Dear friends,

Here are some of my thoughts on the issues on the ballot November 6th. As always, these are simply my personal opinions. Take what you like and ignore the rest. I hope that they are helpful and that I do not offend too many people by sharing.  

I know that many people feel that Obama has not delivered on the hope that he inspired during his first term. I do not agree. While if I had written the Affordable Care Act it would have been a single-payer system and the stimulus program would still be going strong, I recognize that Obama has done more with what he was given than any president in my lifetime. Government in this country is broken, which is not an excuse to disengage. Rather it is a definitive call to action, and it is my belief a call to support the leaders who are trying to create a better civil society within the confines of this crazy system of governance. For the time being there are no other viable options out there. I, for one, am grateful to leaders like Obama and Luis Lopez, who are willing to put up with the headaches to try to improve the lives of others. I not only support them, but am supporting a number of initiatives that will provide the resources the state needs to keep us from going off a fiscal cliff. I hope that you, too, will see the need to support these leaders and initiatives.  

President: Barack Obama

Senate: Dianne Feinstein

House of Representatives - 34th district: Xavier Becerra

27th district: Judy Chu

33rd district: Henry Waxman

37th district: Karen Bass

38th district: Linda Sanchez

40th district: Lucille Roybal-Allard

State Assembly - 51st district: Luis Lopez

You may have been living under a rock if I have not already asked for your support for Luis Lopez, but just in case I missed you, here is a recap: Luis is a fantastic candidate, who has lived and worked in north east LA for most of his life. He works for AltaMed, a community health clinic that provides healthcare to people who are poor and/or do not have insurance. He served on the board of Planned Parenthood and is a staunch defender of all civil rights, including LGBT and women’s rights. He grew up going to public schools in NE LA and wants to restore public education in CA to its former glory. This is the man for us - hands down. 

LA County District Attorney - Jackie Lacey

Jackie Lacey is by far the more progressive of the two D.A.’s on the ballot. 

Prop 30 - Yes

Prop 30 is Jerry Brown’s ballot measure to help balance the budget. It does not provide enough revenue to address all of the state’s budget woes, but it would help. It increases the sales tax from 7.25% to 7.5%. It also increases state income taxes on people earning over $250K. If Prop 30 does not pass, the Governor will be forced to cut an additional $6 billion from education in CA, which means higher classes sizes, a shorter school year, and other reductions. California is in bad shape budget-wise already, but if we don’t pass Prop 30 things will get even uglier. 

Here is a link to a nice, quick description of Prop 30 and 38 (the other education initiative):

http://kimtso.com/2012/09/05/prop-30-and-prop-38-a-voter-guide-for-parents/

Prop 31 - No opinion

I love LA Times columnist George Skelton’s description of this initiative “the most nerdy, wonky and nap-inducing measure” on the ballot. This initiative would reform a number of the state’s budget processes, most notably requiring the state to pass a two year budget instead of a one year budget. It limits the ability of the legislature to increase spending or enact new tax cuts. It requires bills to be published at least three days before passage. Lastly, it gives the Governor more power to make budget cuts. Some of these things sound good, but the jury is out on whether the bill would really help.

Prop 32 - No

This is a nasty proposition aimed at reducing the political power of unions. It would prevent unions from automatically deducting dues from workers’ paychecks, thus reducing unions revenue. There could not be a worse year to limit the funds unions have to give to campaigns. While I do not always agree with union positions, I know that I agree with their positions far more often than I agree with the positions of corporations, whose political spending has gone wild in the wake of the supreme courts’ Citizens United decision. Yes, it would be nice to be part of political system that was not driven so heavily by campaign contributions, but this proposition would only make our political system more lopsided as corporations could give unlimited amounts and unions would be far more limited in their ability to raise revenue. 

Prop 33 - No

This proposition would allow insurance companies to expand the use of “loyalty discounts” for drivers who have been continuously insured for the past five years. That all sounds good, but somehow this initiative seems to open the door for insurance companies to raise rates on drivers who have not had insurance continuously. This initiative is almost identical to a 2010 initiative that failed. Most alarming is the fact that one man, who happens to be the owner of Mercury Insurance, has invested $16M in trying to pass the initiative this go around alone.

Prop 34 - Yes

This proposition would repeal the death penalty in California. I personally am morally opposed to capital punishment, but even beyond the moral question of whether it is ever right to kill another human being is the question of whether the death penalty is improving public safety. Since 1978, the year the death penalty was re-instated in CA via proposition, only 13 prisoners on death row have been executed. During that time the state has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the legal costs of prosecuting death penalty cases. The non-partisan Legislative Analyst’s office estimates that if Prop 34 passes, and the sentences of the 750 inmates on death row were converted to life in prison without parole, the state would save $130 million a year. $130 million a year. That is how much cheaper it is to imprison people for life versus trying to execute them. Prop 34 would shift those savings to resources for local law enforcement to dedicate to working on unsolved homicide and rape cases. Prop 34 has an outstanding list of supporters including criminal justice experts, the families of murder victims, and a number of individuals who were falsely imprisoned. I believe in smart justice - criminal justice policies that strengthen the safety of the communities we life in - not policies like the death penalty that drain scarce public resources and do nothing to reduce crime.  

    

Prop 35 - No

This is a hard proposition to oppose, but I oppose it because it is exactly what is wrong with the initiative process. Prop 35 would institute longer prison sentences for individuals sentenced for human trafficking, expand the list of crimes on the sex offender registry and require sex offenders to provide more information about their internet use. That all sounds fine, but would it help? Here is what the LA Times says:

“Voter initiatives can be an important check on a legislature so captured by special interests or partisan politics that it fails to deal with problems as they arise. There is plenty of evidence that California's Legislature is too timid or cowardly to deal with a variety of problems, but human trafficking is not one of them. The state doesn't lack for effective laws to combat trafficking. It is among 21 states that have passed significant anti-trafficking legislation. California and federal law today severely punish abduction and pimping of minors (and adults, for that matter), false imprisonment, forced labor and rape.”

The state is doing a fine job on this issue and this is an issue that requires well thought out policies that are analyzed and debated publicly. What really starts to make Prop 35 stink is that it is funded by one man, Chris Kelly, who ran for Attorney General in 2010 and was Facebook’s Chief of Privacy (BTW, great job there, Chris). Prop 35 is a platform to launch political careers, not an answer to human trafficking.   

Prop 36 - Yes

I am so excited to vote in support of Prop 36, which would reform California’s three strikes law! While the three strikes law is always characterized as a law that puts people behind bars for life for three violent crimes, the truth is that one serious or violent crime can result in three strikes because it is not uncommon for people to be sentenced for multiple violations of the law that occur during a single incident. For example, imagine if an 18 year old is arrested for drug sales (one strike), and they have a gun on them (two strikes), and they say they are going to kill the police officer arresting them (three strikes). Do we really want to spend a million dollars for that 18 year old to spend 25 years in prison? Prison costs $48K per inmate per year. You know how many people are currently serving three strikes terms in CA? 3,500. Many of them belong there, but a number of them do not. Did you also know that under our current three strikes law your third strike does not even need to be serious or violent? Yep, any felony can be a third strike if you have two prior strikes. One man got a third strike for shoplifting golf clubs. Sound ridiculous? Oh, and BTW, Prop 36 happens to be endorsed by unlikely bed fellows including former LAPD police chief Bill Bratton, the NAACP, and Grover Norquist. 

Prop 37 - Yes

Wow, another proposition I will relish voting yes for. Prop 37 would require the labeling of food made with genetically modified plants or animals. Food consumption in this country is radically changing with the introduction of genetically modified foods and we know essentially nothing about the longterm health consequences of consuming these foods because they have not been around long enough to study them. Who knows if they are harmful, but what we do know is that we should have a choice about whether to eat them or not. I know it is extremely important to me to know whether I am feeding my children dairy products from cows treated with the rBST growth hormone and the only way I know that is through food labeling. This proposition could cost the state up to a $1 million a year to regulate food labeling, but I feel that this is a cost that is worth it. I also know that this an issue that state legislature is unable to tackle because genetically modified seeds are produced by our good friends at Monsanto. That little corporation that happens to give generously to political campaigns with the money they have leftover after suing organic companies and family farms. Monsanto happens to be funding the No on Prop 37 campaign with over $7 million. The next funder of the No on Prop 37 campaign list is Dupont with $4 million in. The largest funder of the Yes on 37 campaign is the organic consumers fund that has given $1 million. Corporations are trying to control whether we know what we are consuming or not, and I, for one, will be thrilled to vote in support of food labeling. Take that Monsanto. 

Prop 38 - Yes

So this is where the tax increases and education spending propositions get really confusing because, just like Prop 30, Prop 38 would increase taxes to increase education spending. Prop 30 is Jerry Brown’s initiative and Prop 38 is Molly Munger’s initiative. The long and short of it is that Prop 38 would provide more money for education because it would tax more people and not allow that money to go to any other public expense. That is a good thing, but we still have to vote for Prop 30 because Prop 30 is retroactive, which means that it would provide money right away for schools, while Prop 38 would take at least a year and half to produce revenue that could be directed to schools. Unlike Prop 30, most of us would see an increase in our state income taxes as a result of Prop 38, but I am not opposed to a slight increase in taxes to fund education. So, I recommend yes on both 30 and 38.

  

Prop 39 - Yes

Prop 39 is worth voting for, but a bit annoying because there is no reason that the legislature and Governor could not have gotten this done through the normal legislative process. John Perez has even introduced similar legislation, but it has taken so long that the backers of this policy decided to forgo the process and do this through an initiative. Prop 39 closes an existing state corporate tax loophole that incentivizes businesses that locate facilitates and jobs outside California (huh? who was behind that bit of brilliance?). By closing this loophole the state would collect a $1 billion (yes, with a “B”) more in corporate taxes that would be dedicated to energy efficiency. 

Prop 40 - Yes

Things are getting really trippy here because Prop 40 is a proposition that keeps things the same. If you vote No on 40 you vote to overturn the California Citizens Redistricting Commission’s state senate maps. If you vote Yes, you vote to keep the maps, which have already been approved. This is my favorite part of the description on ballotpedia:

“The sponsors who put this on the ballot are thus its opponents, or were until they withdrew their opposition. Sponsors/opponents of Proposition 40 announced on July 12 that they are throwing in the towel and will not campaign against the referendum.”

The CA Republican party was originally behind putting this on the ballot in the hope that it would fail and overturn the maps, but even they have withdrawn their opposition/support. Confusing, eh? In the end, the republicans are unhappy with the Citizens Redistricting Commission, probably because there is a chance that we may end up with a state senate that is 2/3 democrats this fall. The Commission is not perfect, but it is better than the good old days when legislators drew their own district boundaries. We should support the Commission’s work and vote Yes on 40.    

LA County Measure A - LA County Assessor to be Appointed instead of Elected: No opinion

This initiative is in response to the John Noguez scandal, but I am unclear on how this would actually prevent future corruption in this office. Yes, the Assessor would no longer need campaign contributions if it was an appointed instead of elected position, but, as we have learned well in Los Angeles, bribes to appointed leaders are just as good as campaign contributions. Maybe better... 

LA County Measure B - Condoms in Porn: Yes

I cannot think of one good argument why not to mandate condoms in porn. 

Metro Measure J - Extension of Measure R sales tax: Yes

Voters approved Measure R, which is a half cent sales tax increase, in 2008. You many have noticed since then that we have opened the Expo Line and that more light-rail is under construction. Senator Boxer also shepherded a transportation act through congress that will allow communities like LA to borrow additional funds to build transportation infrastructure against future Measure R proceeds, which will increase the pace of these projects. Metro is asking voters to extend the life of Measure R. This is not a tax increase, it is simply saying that the Measure R sales tax increase enacted years ago will end in 2069 instead of 2039. This will allow LA to leverage more of the federal loans under the transportation act and build more public transportation. Woo hoo! 

If you made it through all this analysis feel free to reward yourself with some serious wonk dorkiness with the the CA Voter Foundation’s 2012 Proposition Song - calvoter.org/voter/elections/2012/general/props/song/.

If you would like to do more of your own research on these initiatives my new favorite resource is ballotpedia.org. I love how easy it is to look at supporters, opponents and where the money behind the campaigns is coming from. And if you are not sure about a proposition, (other than Prop 40) the safest thing is always to vote no and keep the status quo. 

Happy voting!

Love,

Molly