2010 California State Ballot Initiative Voters Guide

This year is not a Presidential Election, so we in California only need to worry about 10 9 State ballot measures. This guide is to help the discerning Californian understand the salient aspects of each measure in order that they can make an informed decision on election day, or whenever they get their mail in ballot, because who wants to wait on line while dozens of people ahead of them read measures that they haven’t seen until they set foot in the voting booth.

Proposition 18

In a rare moment of lucidity the legislature did the voters job for them by removing this proposition from the ballot altogether. This is unusual because obviously the job of the legislature and governorship does not involve actually legislating and executing - that’s what ballot measures are for.

But don’t worry, proposition 18 will be coming back in 2012. It’s a water bond act, so try not to get thirsty until then.

Proposition 19 - Legalizes Marijuana Under California Law But Not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments To Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, And Sale Of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.

In 1996, voters in California voted in a law allowing the cultivation and possession of marijuana for medical purposes. In 2005, despite having been packed by conservatives the US Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Government has the authority to enforce it’s laws throughout the nation and would continue to prosecute people with Marijuana under its jurisdiction. In other words, California doesn’t get to make up laws that contradict Federal laws even in the narrow case of easing the excruciating suffering of cancer victims.

This new version of the law is Ok, however, because it’s being passed under California law but NOT Federal Law. The Feds are totally going totally cool about letting California just do its own thing. Ask anyone from the South.

Besides, Obama’s Justice Department said that they were not going to prosecute users and purveyors of medical marijuana. That means it’s ok to pass an expansion to the the U.S. Supreme Court already kicked in the pants, because once Obama makes a decision everyone in the country will respect it from that point on and into the indefinite future. There’s no chance at all that a Republican will ever get in to the White House again and contemplate the idea of arresting every single Californian.

Who knows, maybe it’s a good thing. If anyone wants to arrest a Californian for smoking pot, they’re going to have to send some Feds our way. It might be the only way California has of bringing in any significant federal money.

20 - Redistricting Of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Gerrymandering is as much an Ancient American Tradition as clam bakes, egg foo young and tax evasion. And like tax evasion, it’s not one of our better traditions. Everyone in the country thinks that Gerrymandering is unfair and should stop, except for the half that can’t win representative competitions.

This Amendment proposes that there be a panel of 14, 5 democrats, 5 republicans and 4 libertarians that always vote with republicans... oops, I meant 4 independents, who are responsible for deciding what the states districts are. Importantly, there are no requirements that any of the 9 people on the panel have any understanding of demographic statistical sampling, or anything that might make them scientifically partial, only that they vote regularly.

Gerrymandering is a national problem. In southern states, where Republicans are firmly in control, redistricting has caused massive losses for Democrats, and I particularly remember what happened in 2003 during the Texas processes. The only thing that remotely balances this out is how unfairly the boundaries are drawn in Blue States. This California amendment proposes solving the national issue by unilaterally fixing the Blue State Bazooka so that it is ultimately representative of it’s constituencies. Texas will probably respond in kind by redrawing districts right down the middle of actual Democrats.

But assuming you’re not a partisan flack, like I am, it must be pretty awesome to you that California just passed Proposition 11 in 2008. It must feel like an efficient use of your time to change the rules of redistricting again only two years later for a process that only happens once every 10.

Do you remember voting on 11? Do ya? I think someones betting you don’t.

The worst thing, however, is that this proposition is competing with Proposition 27, which of course proposes eliminating the reforms set up in 2008. This may mean that you don’t even have a choice between change and status-quo. Since the two propositions are opposites of one another, you would think that if they both passed they would just cancel each other out, like matter and anti-matter. No, in this case, the one with the most votes wins. So if you don’t like either one of them, you better make sure that the one you hate least is the one that gets the most votes.

But seriously, is anyone going to vote “yes” on 27?

21 - Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge To Help Fund State Parks And Widlife Programs. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission To All State Parks. Initiative Statute.

This is a rare proposition in that something is being proposed that the legislature can’t actually do on it’s own. In California, the legislature does not have the power to raise taxes. That’s why the responsibility to do so falls on you.

However, this tax raise is the return of the dreaded “Car Tax”. Like all courageous acts, it comes with risks. If this measure passes, it’s very likely that in less than a year California voters will be recalled and replaced by Austrians.

The word on the street here is “fungible”. It doesn’t matter where the money is going, they are just telling you it’s going to trees to make you feel nice. The State is going to pay for trees anyway... somehow. What matters is that this will raise money for the State. You might think this is good. You might think it’s bad. But given that 1978’s proposition 11 changed the constitution to read, and I quote “The legislature may not raise taxes unless the Republicans say so”, this may be the only way to bring in money.

Look, even the opponents of proposition 21 agree it would raise “...to the tune of $1 billion every two years.” Awesome! You know how much the state needs that money!?! It certainly needs those 18 bucks more than I do.

Fungible the Racoon says, “Remember, only YOU can raise your own taxes now. Are you happy?”

22 - Prohibits The State From Borrowing Or Taking Funds Used For Transportation, Redevelopment, Or Local Government Projects And Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

This appears to be turf war between multiple opposing but deserving levels of government. The sad reality though is that even if one side wins, they still don’t win, because there is nothing left to win. It’s like the riot scene in Soylent Green.

I am not 100% certain because much like the heroes in the Marvell Universe, the origins of these propositions are murky and cloaked obscurity. From what I can tell, the two sides of this tragedy are the state government and local governments, aka cities. When the financial crisis hit, there were some local governments who thought they would be sitting pretty because they had been scrimping and saving since 1978 to build up a modest treasury nest egg. But it was not to be, because the state government was bankrupt and if something wasn’t done fast, it was going to fold. In order to prevent its immediate disintegration, Governor Schwarzenegger invoked a number of emergency fiscal measures which included raiding numerous local government largess's. Naturally, this made the local governments screaming mad, because what were they going to do? Raise property taxes?

Apparently, this constitutional amendment has set off the transportation and emergency services folks against the teachers, nurses and social services folks. Now it’s reminding me of being at a gladiatorial arena where slaves are forced to fight one another for a piece of dried potato skin. My money is on the nurse. Better access to piercing weapons.

The problem is that state finances are not healthy. Local governments can pretend that they are allowed to be a healthy heart in an otherwise unhealthy body but it doesn’t work like that. I feel like one can hardly blame localities for defending themselves, but just like in Soylent Green, when the oceans upon which all life on land depends on dies, the rest must naturally follow. This amendment will not put off the inevitable forever.

23 - 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 A Full Year. Initiative Statute.

I was recently talking to a European about environmental issues and I was amused by the way she discussed these issues with great earnestness and sincerity. I couldn’t quite place what was so odd about what she was saying until it dawned on me. She was talking about how society might attempt to deal with environmental problems rather than still trying to argue that there are any environmental problems at all. In the interest of fostering international cooperation and learning, I interrupted her to explain something she apparently knew nothing about.

The problem with the way she was thinking was this: She was looking at environmental issues from the point of view that the Earths resources are exhaustible. If she had considered the point of view that the Earths resources are actually inexhaustible, she might have realized that in that context the way she was talking actually made her sound ding-bat crazy.

And that must be the context within which this proposition must be understood. Allegedly slowing down the economy in order to seek out new ways of life that tries to make due with less is absolutely insane when all you need to do to make things better is get more resources and spur economic growth FOREVER! I understand that point of view. It makes total sense. Total sense in the alternate universe. I think it would be awesome if the Earths resources were inexhaustible. In fact, why the hell aren’t they?

I propose a ballot measure for 2012. I’ll call it “Require The Earths Resources Are Inexhaustible Under California But Not Federal Law. Initiative Statute.”

Until then, the environment is a fragile, complex and very delicately balanced system. Much like the state legislature. Except for the balanced part. We must tread carefully else we shall forever destroy this rare and most endangered species. I am of course talking about the Blue Bellied Assembly Bill. For the sake of the gods, the assembly passed something, and if we make any sudden moves we might scare it away.

Ultimately however, if you won’t listen to reason then at least reject this referendum because it is supported by The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which in the alternate universe is known as The Howard Jarvis Extremely Long-Term Thinking Association. While I’ll always treasure the damage they’ve done to the manageability of government finance I think we can get along without them on this one.

24 - Repeals Recent Legislation That Wold Allow Businesses To Lower Their Tax Liability. Initiative Statute.

In a state where everyone always says that the legislature never does anything, it sure doesn’t take much to put a new measure on the ballot to overturn anything they actually do. The justification for this insanity is that the legislature never does anything. Next time that thought enters the mind consider for a moment... why should they? If they do, somebody will come along with the 30 signatures or so that seem necessary to get these things up there and undo all their work.

Naturally I can’t help but have sympathy for this proposition. Yummy tasty state revenue. And all of it at the expense of someone else. Unfortunately, the reality of this proposition goes beyond the simplicity closing corporate loop holes.

There are legitimate aspects of the California Tax code that could be more sensible. For example, California is out of line with the rest of the country regarding carrying forward and backward tax losses for companies over multiple years. Without going in to details, some of these so-called “tax breaks” are actually quite reasonable and standard practice all over the country. Those parts of the bill may not be arriving at the best time, but there is policy here to be levied.

That’s not to say that I’m advocating for the bill and it’s awesome corporate fat cat give aways. I’m sure there’s a lot of soul crushing tax breaks for non-human human entites. It just that there are some justifiable compromises to be had here. You see? And therein lies the problem. Compromise. Like all propositions, this one is all or nothing. Big sweeping changes to the rules that are either accepted and rejected. Big sweeping changes that are discussed with the electorate in mind numbingly overly simplistic terms.

The reality is that a compromise to fix this law requires repetitious and boring back and forth between people who are dedicated to the task of arguing and finagling. The law is rife with technical details and numerous other financial angles that many people of the state, and I do not exclude myself, cannot always understand.

Compromise is not the intent of this proposition. You can tell by looking at Section 3.

Purpose and Intent

The people enact this measure to repeal three tax breaks that were granted to corporations in 2008 and 2009: the elective single sales factor provisions contained in ABx3 and SBx3 15 of 2009; (2) the net operating loss carryback provisions contained in AB 1452 of 2008; and (3) tax credit sharing provisions in AB 1452 of 2008.

See? This is not compromise. Am I right? I mean, SBx3 15 for crying out loud! The people who put this on the ballot knew what they were doing, but it’s intent is opaque guesswork. Is it really opaque? No, not if you’re a lawyer. And since this is California we’re talking about you probably are. Is the actual intent of the law clear from this section? It’s not unless you read ABx3, SBx3 and AB 1452. Let me know when you’re done, I’ll wait.

25 - 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.

Most of the time I try to avoid voting “yes” on any of these propositions, especially the ones that change the constitution. But this one is a good exception because the proposition is targeted at another proposition.

California as a general rule doesn’t pass their budget on time. There are a combination of factors that contribute to this problem, but one of them is that it seems like anything having to do with finances requires 2/3 of the legislature to pass on to the governor. Of course, it’s important that a democracy sometimes requires super-majorities in order to protect minorities from unfair treatment. For example, normally you might put a high barrier on making constitutional amendments. Not in California, of course, where the constitution changes every first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. Here, the government is restrained from passing basic administrative processes such as setting budgets over the objection of the political minority. Specifically, the constitution singles out the Republican minority for protection. Such a measure wouldn’t have an effect if Democrats were in the minority, because they're spineless anyway.

Nobody else in the country restrains their budget process like this, except for Arkansas and Rhode Island. Because budget processes are already too boring to draw them out any more.

26 - 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 Amendments.

I’m out. I don’t know how to make this one sound funny. Ok, I’m not all that certain I made any of these sounds particularly funny, but what’s up with this one? Either the Democrats managed to effect the wording of this proposition or the Republicans actually have Montgomery Burns in the back writing these things.

This ought to be popular after the whole country watched a 24/7 web cam showing oil bleeding in to the gulf of Mexico. Especially in a state full of environmentalists.

I can’t go on, it’s just so damned cheeky.

27 - Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting. Consolidates Authority For Redistricting With Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Holy cow! Constitutional amendment AND statute? They always save the best for last.

As I mentioned, as long as the Texans are making doilies in Austin it only seems fair that Democrats get to control who gets in to office in California. However, this proposition just seems somehow immoral. It feels like a proposition that more or less overtly defends gerrymandering. I mean, you don’t just come out and say it like that. Furthermore, it’s proponents are weirdly selling it as some kind of cost saving measure.

Ultimately, I feel like this proposition is part of a conflict between the Democratic party and Arnold Schwarzenegger. It’s a fight to wrest or keep control based on the rules and not policy. Unfortunately for political hacks like myself, Schwarzenegger has the moral upper hand here. Why does that make me feel some sort of resentment? It’s because of the overwhelming sense that one doesn’t want to give in to the moral righteousness of the other side without them capitulating on their own grievous immoral infractions. Maybe the mistrust is enhanced by the fear that the other side doesn’t even see their own intransigence for what it is. And finally there is the dawning that it’s possible they are thinking the exact same thing.

It would be funny if it were not so sad.