Upcoming June 2010 CA Ballot Initiatives

Coming up this June are 5 ballot initiatives for California voters to make a decision on. As usual, these tend to be carefully worded to be misleading to the average voter and are often pushed by special interests in order to sway government power in their direction (which may or may not be a good thing depending on your thoughts on the issues). The following will be my assessment and opinion of the 5 propositions. I will try and keep them simple and brief but some of these will need a bit more explaining. I will also try and keep this updated as changes are made to the propositions as we get closer to the election. Each proposition below will include the full title and Secretary of State’s summary. (Titles are currently being looked at by the court for possible changes, will update if any changes are made)
 
Proposition 13: Limits on Property Tax Assessment. Seismic Retrofitting of Existing Buildings. (Legislative Constitutional Amendment).
 
“Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value. Sets statewide standard for seismic retrofit improvements that qualify. Fiscal Impact: Minor reduction in local property tax revenues related to the assessment of earthquake upgrades.”[i]
 
This just restricts the government from re-assessing property taxes on property owners who have had to make changes to their building in order to comply with state earthquake safety regulations. Since the property owner is more than likely being forced to comply with new government regulations, and they more than likely are having to assume the cost of the new construction, they shouldn’t also be subject to higher taxes.
 
Prop 13: Yes
 
Proposition 14: Elections. Primaries. Greater Participation in Elections.
(Open Primaries)
 
“Reforms the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state and local government costs to administer elections.”
 
“Encourages increased participation in elections for congressional, legislative, and statewide offices by reforming the procedure by which candidates are selected in primary elections.
Gives voters increased options by allowing all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate’s or voter’s political party preference.
Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.
Does not change the primary elections for President, party committee officers, and non-partisan offices.” 1
 
The first problem with this initiative is the ‘Open Primary’ portion of it. The way that the primary would work is every candidate running puts their hat in the ring effectively running as independents. They can still attach their party affiliation to their name, but they will not only be running against other parties but also against their own party members. Once this large vote takes place, the top two vote getters would move on the final general election. This means we could have two members of the same party running against each other in the general election, which completely eliminates choice for voters not in that party. For example, we could have two Republicans face off each other in the general election. Anyone who’s a Democrat or member of a 3rd party has little choice, their option is to vote for a Republican, or not vote at all.  I can only see this demoralize voters further, causing less people to get involved in the voting process.
 
The second problem with this initiative is even more disastrous to voter participation than what I mentioned above. This entire portion of the initiative isn’t mentioned one bit in the Secretary of State’s summary. Currently, there are three ways for parties to gain ballot access:
1. During the previous gubernatorial election, the party needs to get 2 percent of the vote for any office voted on throughout the state, not just the governor’s office. In the 2006 election, that 2 percent threshold was 173,588 votes. That’s the number to be applied for this election, in 2010. (The number should rise after the current election, assuming more people vote than last time.)
In the 2006 election, four minor parties got the following votes, and so qualified for the 2010 election:
 
Green Peter Miguel Camejo for governor: 205,995 votes
Libertarian Donna Tello for controller: 188,934
Peace and Freedom Party’s Tom Condit for insurance commissioner: 187,618
 
2. Register 1 percent of the vote in the last gubernatorial vote. For the 2006 election, that number was: 86,794. The following data is according to the Secretary of State’s registration numbers as of Jan 5, 2009:
 
American Independent: 382,380
Green: 111,395
Libertarian: 84,462
Peace and Freedom: 55,036
 
So, only the American Independent and Green parties meet that threshold.
 
3. Petitions signed by 10 percent of voters. This is impracticable.”[ii]
 
If this initiative passes, the first method to gain ballot access will be eliminated, meaning only the two more difficult methods remain. Taking a look at the numbers above, this means that only the American Independent party and Green party will still qualify for ballot access, goodbye to Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, and Constitution Party candidates, along with any other parties that want to participate. This is a power grab to keep the establishment in power, plain and simple. There’s no need to make ballot access more restrictive. This initiative gets a big fat ‘No’ vote from me.
 
Prop 14: No
 
Proposition 15: California Fair Elections Act
 
“Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to strict spending limits and no private contributions. Each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive the same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant. There would be strict enforcement and accountability. Funded by voluntary contributions and by an annual fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. Fiscal Impact: Increased revenues (mostly from charges related to lobbyists) totaling over $6 million every four years. These funds would be spent on public financing for campaigns of Secretary of State candidates for the 2014 and 2018 elections.” 1
 
First of all, I’ll just argue this from a strait up Libertarian standpoint. I personally have strong convictions against government spending on almost anything including political elections. I don’t think it’s right for the government to take taxpayer money and hand it over to a special interest, especially one that a taxpayer disagrees with. Why should an ardent Democrat have to pay for a Republican’s campaign? Why should a Libertarian voter be forced to pay for a Green Party candidate’s campaign? Now, I know this isn’t taxpayer money being used to fund a public campaign grant; it’s a lobbyist or lobbying group’s money. I see that as just a big of deal as if it were taxpayer money and this is why; lobbyists are merely individuals or groups exercising their 1st Amendment right. Forcing them to pay a mandatory annual fee looks to me to be a clear violation of that right (they now have to pay a fee in order to petition their government). It also goes along with what I said up above, for example: why should a labor union be forced to pay for a conservative’s campaign?
 
Another issue I have is that since this is effectively subsidizing campaigns, what funding caps would be placed on it to prevent the public funding from skyrocketing in order to match what privately funded campaigns pay out. If private campaign funding increases by 5% does that mean legislators can in turn increase public funding in order to match that increase? What prevents this spending from getting out of control?
 
Aside from my purely opinionated opposition to this initiative, there may be a legal conflict between this initiative and Proposition 14 – “Open Primaries (Top-Two)”. Now I’ll to try and simplify this without quoting a bunch of legalese. Prop. 15 assumes that independents would not be running in the primary, and they must not run in the primary if they wish to obtain public funding. The problem is that if Prop. 14 passes, everyone, including independents, will run in one big primary election. This means that independents would automatically be ineligible for public funding. Unless this portion of Prop. 15 is amended, both of these initiatives will be in conflict with each other. Section 4 of Article XVIII of the California Constitution states, “If provisions of 2 or more measures approved at the same election conflict, those of the measure receiving the highest affirmative vote shall prevail."[iii] If the voters pass both of these, only the initiative, which received the most votes, will be put into effect.
 
While the legal conflict is interesting to me, I very much dislike the arbitrary annual fee placed on lobbyists wishing to exercise their 1st Amendment right. And believe me, there’s plenty of lobbyists that I really could care less about.
 
Free Speech wins, Prop. 15 loses.
 
Prop 15: No
 
Proposition 16: New Two-Thirds Requirement for
Local Public Electricity Providers Act
 
“Imposes new two-thirds voter approval requirement for local public electricity providers. Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds.”1
 
I think what will turn people off from this proposition is the fact that Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) are the primary supporters of this initiative. I personally don’t have a problem with this. Passing prop. 16 would allow voters to have more say in how their local governments utilize their tax dollars as far as public utilities are concerned. I’d prefer to see more competition between private public utility companies. Governments creating public utility services only creates unfair competition and pushes private interests out of the market. This initiative would make it harder for local governments to do so.
 
Prop 16: Yes
 
Proposition 17: Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage
 
“Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage.

• Changes current law to permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company, and notwithstanding the ban on using the absence of prior insurance for purposes of pricing.

• May allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not qualify for discount.

• Establishes that lapses in coverage due to nonpayment of premiums may prevent a driver from qualifying for the discount.”1

 
I see no reason to have the existing law other than the notion that consumers of auto insurance need to be ‘protected’ from increasing prices. This eliminates
 
The existing law seems to be based on this notion that consumers need to be ‘protected’ from increasing auto insurance costs, never mind the fact that government mandates that drivers purchase insurance in the first place. The fact that Mercury Insurance is backing this initiative makes it an easy one to attack, as they’d be able to increase prices based on a driver’s previous coverage. However, they’d also be able to offer discounts to drivers for maintaining insurance coverage, which is a good thing. Also, Mercury isn’t the only insurance company out there, so this could bring more competition between companies offering discounts to customers. Even if Mercury wanted this initiative to pass so they could increase their prices on customers who have had lapses in coverage, wouldn’t that just discourage customers from using them as a provider?
 
This removes what I see as being an unnecessary price control regulation and allows insurance companies to compete by way of discounts to customers. Allows companies to think for themselves and set their own prices.
 
Prop 17: Yes
 

[i] California Secretary of State: Ballot Labels and Titles and Summaries http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ccrov/pdf/2010/february/10076jh.pdf
[ii] “Will Prop. 14 Kill 3rd Parties?” CalWatchDog.com
http://www.calwatchdog.com/2010/02/19/new-will-prop-14-kill-third-parties/
[iii] “California Constitution,” Article XVIII, Section 4.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18