I make these recommendations on the California Ballot Propositions solely on my own behalf, and from my own research. Feedback is appreciated.
Prop 1A- The CA Bullet Train: YES
This is the sort of government investment we need right now, one that simultaneously creates jobs and fights global warming. The 220 mph High Speed Rail will link all of California in stages, from the Inland Empire and LA to San Francisco, Sacramento, and San Diego. It will be a welcome alternative for frequently traveling business customers who currently rely on commuter air travel, a form of transportation which burns massive amounts of jet fuel that not only contributes to global warming, but has been shown to be very damaging to the ozone layer. On the other hand, an electric bullet train, much like those in Japan, South Korean, Taiwan, France and many other European countries, would be fueled (as California is) mostly by clean hydroelectric energy and some natural gas, which can be burned with less pollutants than oil. During this economic downturn, it is also important to create jobs; the High Speed Rail project is estimated to create 160,000 jobs over the next 10 years. An emphatic YES to Prop 1A.
Prop 2- Healthy Meat and Eggs: YES
Many people are approaching this issue as one of preventing animal cruelty, which is of course very important, and which this initiative would do. Currently, egg-laying hens are treated in the cruelest manner of all industrial farm animals; a not-insignificant percentage of industrial egg hens actually die of stress from the terrible conditions that they live in. Similarly, this law would require much better treatment for cattle and pigs. But another less discussed advantage of this new treatment of animals is that the meat and eggs produced in California would become much healthier to eat! The law would require that these animals are placed outdoors in their natural environment for a certain amount of time each day, which will reduce stress and improve their nutritional value, and also mandates more room for each animal. An independent study by Pew estimates that these changes will make it 20 time less likely that the egg-laying hens will contract Salmonella, and much less likely that crowding of animals will lead to diseases. So this isn't just hippie, tree-hugging PETA stuff; this is about making sure the food you're eating is good for you. Those of us who eat meat and eggs, I mean. For healthier food and better treatment for animals, vote YES on Prop 2.
Prop 3- Bond for Children's Hospitals: Unclear
In 2004, California passed Prop. 61, which funded construction for children's hospitals in the state. This initiative would also fund children's hospitals, with 80% going to private children's hospitals and 20% going to five UC hospitals (UCLA, UCSD, UCSF, UCI, and UCD). The cost of this bond to the state is about $2 billion, about $64 million for the state each year to pay off both the principal and interest.
Helping sick children seems like this should be an easy "yes," but I think it's more complicated than that. There's a reason why not every group has endorsed this initiative, and why all the sponsors in the official voter's guide are listed as "parent": this is an emotionally persuasive issue, but no one is sure whether it is a financially sound one. So I'm not going to make a recommendation here, but I will make the following points. First, this is not the way that health planning should be made. As a state, we need real health planning that will look qualitatively and quantiatively at what the actual health needs of the state are, and allocate our limited health care and financial resources accordingly. Second, these are specialty hospitals. I make a distinction between specialty hospitals, or specialty wings of general hospitals, and true community hospitals. Patients at these hospitals are children that are being treated for leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. So yes, it is important that our country and state continues to have the best specialty hospitals in the world, but I cannot answer whether or not it makes sense for taxpayers to pay for the expansion of private specialty hospitals when many community hospitals in the state are struggling and closing their doors on those who most need it, like King Hospital in Los Angeles. Vote the best you can on Prop 3.
Prop 4- Mandatory Parental Notification: NO
In 2005 and 2006, this exact same initiative was on the ballot, and California wisely voted it down both times. There's a reason for that: this bill would endanger the safety of the most vulnerable teenage girls. That's why the California Nurses Association, California Medical Association, and California Association of Counsellors all oppose Prop 4. What this bill would do is make it mandatory for any doctor to inform a parent 48 hours before providing an abortion to a minor. The sponsors of this bill will argue that teen girls should be talking to their parents about these issues. I agree, with one major amendment: I think that teen girls should be talking to their parents about these issues when they have supportive and loving parents. The problem is that many children do not live in loving households. There are many abusive parents, and worse, there are still in modern times crimes of incest. This law would require doctors to inform abusive, even incestual parents of their daughter's effort to get an abortion in a way that will result in further abuse of these girls, or worse.
As Obama said during the last debate, we all want to do what we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and along with that, the number of unnecessary abortions. I fully believe that in healthy families, daughters (and sons who cause pregnancies, for that matter) should talk to their parents if they become pregnant. And I fully believe that in healthy families, they will. This bill will not affect in any way those families; the only people this would affect are those girls who are actively afraid of telling their parents about their pregnancy, and those are the girls who we shouldn't be forcing to do so. To protect teen girls from child abuse, Vote NO on Prop 4.
Prop 5- Rehabilitation, Less Incarceration: YES
Medical professionals agree that drug addiction is a disease. And yet the largest growing population of prisoners who cost billions of dollars a year to lock up are nonviolent drug addicts. This is bad policy from a public health perspective, a criminal justice perspective, a financial perspective, and a moral perspective. California has too many prisons and imprisons too many of its residents; this is not how you create a productive and compassionate society. This initiative takes a step in the right direction, by providing for rehabilitation and treatment for drug addicts rather than prison time. Drug addiction needs to be treated, and addicts can't get treatment in prison; in fact, there they are trapped and forced deeper into the drug addiction and oftentimes harder drugs and more serious crimes. In terms of justice, there is not even any sense of vengeance or societal retribution in punishing someone for hurting themselves; imprisoning nonviolent drug addicts is simply punishment for the sake of punishment, and contrary to a civilized society. Financially, keeping people out of prisons will save California $1 billion a year, important considering our annual budget deficits. And finally, morally, imprisoning 170,000 Californians is not just and not a sign of a state or country that cares about its own people and helping them to lead healthy and productive lives. Vote YES on Prop. 5.
Prop 6- Prison Expansion: NO
This is the opposite of Prop. 5, moving us toward a society that locks up more of our people. The Prison Guard union in California is very powerful and uses prisons to continue to enrich themselves; the more people who are incarcerated in the state, the more guards get hired and the higher salaries and greater political influence they wield. The 31,000 prison guards in the state make up a full 40% of California's public payroll, with a base pay 39% higher than in 10 neighboring states or large states, and with more than 10% of the guards, 3,600, making over $100,000 annually. Since 2000, they have contributed $12 million to candidates and ballot initiatives. This particular initiative would push many minors in juvenile detention into adult prisons in order to increase the prison population size, at a cost of no less than nearly $500 million each year and an addition half billion dollars to build new prisons. This is outrageous, and California needs to stop allowing prison guards to profit from our misery. Vote NO on Prop. 6.
Prop 7- Fake Renewable Energy: NO
Very rarely do you see an initiative opposed by both the California Democratic and Republican Parties, as well as both environmentalists and small business owners. This bill is opposed by all those groups and more, because this bill is a lie. It promises renewable energy but would really do no such thing; environmental groups such as the National Resource Defense Council and California League of Conservation Voters explain that this will actually reduce the amount of renewable energy produced in California by closing the market to small local renewable energy companies and by creating more unnecessary regulations that only benefit large, out-of-state energy companies. This law would reduce transparency, reduce the number of "green collar" jobs created in California, and very possibly increase the price of renewable energy in the state. This is an awful bill. Vote NO on Prop. 7.
Prop 8- Elimination of Marriage Equality: NO
Prop. 8 would eliminate the right for same-sex couples to be married in California. This law would legalize discrimination and is a massive step in the wrong direction. I've heard that in California, the sponsors of this bill (which, by the way, are hateful right-wing fundamentalists) are running TV ads saying that this bill would lead to churches losing their non-profit tax status; that is an absolute lie. Civil marriage is a matter of the state, and religious institutions are free to decide who can and cannot receive a religious marriage, just as churches are free currently to refuse to marry you if you're not a member of that church. This is a civil rights issue, and there is only one correct way to vote here. Vote NO on Prop. 8.
Prop 9- "Victim's Rights" and Parole Limitations: NO
Prop. 9, like Prop. 6, is about keeping people in prison longer. The law would reform the parole system so that prisoners are given fewer parole hearings, meaning that they would likely stay in prison longer, possibly costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars in unnecessary prison costs. This is a punitive, mean-spirited initiative in the guise of "victim's rights," which is a false argument given that California already has some of the strongest victim's rights laws in the country. We should not be a society of locking people up unnecessarily for the benefit of prison guards. Vote NO on Prop. 9.
Prop 10- Subsidy for Fossil Fuel Producers: NO
Like Prop. 7, this is another fake renewable energy initiative. The initiative seeks to take out a $10 billion bond to subsidize the company owned by T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman and one of the largets funders of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who ran those despicable ads against John Kerry in 2004. The law would give massive amounts of money to producers of natural gas which, while cleaner burning than oil, is not renewable and is a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming. Vote NO on Prop. 10.
Prop 11- THE STUPIDEST INITIATIVE ON THE BALLOT: NO
I had to use all caps in the title because this initiative really surprised me when I read it; I didn't believe it was possible for anyone to write an initiative this stupid. This law would change how we do our legislative redistricting in California; that is, how the state legislative districts are drawn. Currently, they are drawn by the democratically-elected State Legislature, but since the Legislature is Democratic, Republicans will every once in a while try to pass an initiative that takes away the Legislature's power and gives it to some "non-partisan" commission. Last time they tried this, they wanted to give the job to a panel of retired judges, because apparently they thought a room full of old, mostly white men is the best way to draw districts for the most diverse state in the country. This time, however, they have completely lost their minds: what they are proposing is to have the redistricting commission made up of California residents randomly selected from the voter registration lists. Basically, they want to use the jury pool. Nothing against the jury system, but there you have two lawyers who argue the case before the jury and a judge who will instruct the jury on the law. On the other hand, this law is written so that leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties will have equal say in selecting the commission from a larger, randomly selected "pool," but after a partisan selection process would leave the commission to its own devices in the complicated process of redistricting. This is possibly the stupidest idea I have ever seen on a ballot initiative. Not necessarily the worst, but likely the stupidest. Vote NO on Prop. 11, obviously.
Prop 12- Veterans' Home Loans: YES
Since 1922, California has sponsored a program that helps veterans of current wars get affordable home and farm loans in the state. Every so often, the program needs to be renewed; it has been renewed 26 times, and is up for renewal this year. This law costs nothing to taxpayers; the loans are taken out and paid back by the veterans. Given the current market situation and the inability of people to get home loans, it is important for the economy that programs like this help maintain the home-buying and building-related industries even as the private bank loan sector has locked up. Vote YES on Prop. 12.
Like I said, this is just me talking; for other progressive opinions on how to vote on the proposition, the Courage Campaign has compiled quite the nifty comparison chart, available in .pdf format.
