Adizzying array of propositions appears on the ballot for
California voters to consider. Here are our recommendations on
each.
Adizzying array of propositions appears on the ballot for California voters to consider. Here are our recommendations on each.
Proposition 1A would keep the state from grabbing property and sales tax revenues that belong to local government, thereby safeguarding a host of locally funded services. Vote yes on 1A.
Proposition 59 would amend the California constitution to ensure that the public has access to government meetings and to prutings of public officials.
As a newspaper dedicated to helping you follow what your city and county officials are doing in your name, we can’t stress enough the importance of this proposition. Vote yes on 2.
Proposition 60 would require that the general election include candidates receiving the most votes in the primary election, even if they are members of the same party. We don’t think a general election that features two candidates of the same party gives voters any real choice. Vote no on 60.
Proposition 61 would authorize the state to issue $750 million in bonds to pay for the construction and renovation of children’s hospitals. While it’s hard to argue against helping sick children, California is up to its eyeballs in debt, in large part thanks to the bonds recently passed to refinance the state’s red ink. Vote no on 61.
Proposition 62 would allow voters to cross parties in primaries, but also forces no-party or third-party candidates to participate in the expensive primary election process to appear on the general election ballot. While we like the open primary concept, we don’t like restricting voters to only two choices in the general election and we don’t like the negative impact this measure would have on minority-party candidates. Vote no on 62.
Proposition 63 would impose a one percent tax on personal income above $1 million to fund mental health services. Again, this is a worthy, heart-tugging cause, but this is the wrong way to fund mental health services. Ballot-box budgeting is bad for California and it relieves legislators of the job they were elected to do: Prioritizing spending. It’s hard work, but they need to do it. Vote no on 63.
Proposition 64 would limit private enforcement of unfair business competition by not allowing lawsuits until actual losses are suffered. The problem is that by the time actual losses are suffered, it’s too late. Businesses, just like regular folks, should play by the rules and should suffer the consequences when they don’t. Vote no on 64.
Proposition 65 is in competition with Proposition 1A; both aim to protect local government revenue and the measure that receives the most votes will become effective. Prop. 65 would require a approval of state voters before local revenues could be reduced.
Prop. 1A is a much better plan. Vote no on 65.
Proposition 66 would amend California’s three strikes law so that it can be used only for violent or serious felonies, not for relatively petty crimes. It would allow resentencing under new definitions, and would increase punishment for specific sex crimes against children.
This common-sense proposal would help to ensure that expensive, lifetime incarceration is reserved for truly heinous criminals, and would give those convicted of less serious offenses a shot at rehabilitation. Vote yes on 66.
Proposition 67 would impose a surcharge to pay for emergency room staffing, clinics and the 9-1-1 system. Again, this is ballot box budgeting. Setting funding priorities is the legislature’s job. Vote no on 67.
Proposition 68 would amend California’s constitution to permit up to 30,000 slot machines at 16 existing racetracks and card rooms not on Indian reservations unless all Indian tribes with existing tribal state gambling compacts agree to certain terms within 90 days.
This proposal is a back-door way for California to break its promises to Indian tribes, reduces local government control of existing card rooms and race tracks, and won’t help the state budget. Vote no on 68.
Proposition 69 would allow police to collect DNA samples from anyone who is arrested – not convicted, just arrested – for a felony. DNA records of people who are wrongly accused would not be automatically removed from the database; instead, they would have to fight through a complex legal process without appeal rights.
DNA has a person’s entire genetic blueprint, including medical information. It’s a lot more than a fingerprint. This proposition is a dangerous, offensive affront to privacy rights. Vote no on 69.
Proposition 70 would force the governor to enter into 99-year gaming agreements with tribes to allow unlimited Nevada-style gaming with tribes that request them. In exchange, the tribes would pay the corporate tax rates on a portion of net income. Prop 70 gives tribes a 99-year monopoly on gaming but offers local governments no revenues.
Vote no on 70.
Proposition 71 would authorize the state to issue $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research; would establish a state institute to regulate stem cell research; and would establish a constitutional right to conduct such research.
While we support stem cell research and wish the federal government would lift its hypocritical limits on it, California cannot afford to foot the bill. Vote no on 71.
Proposition 72 would require that large- and medium-size businesses provide health care for their employees.
The sad truth is that if employers don’t provide this coverage, taxpayers do instead, in the form of Medical and other entitlement programs. Vote yes on 72.
For detailed, non-partisan analysis of all the propositions on the Nov. 2 ballot, visit www.smartvoter.org
