Opponents and proponents of ballot measures read the fine print very differently Tuesday is Election Day
CITYWIDE — Voters on Tuesday will have an opportunity to cast their ballots on a number of special election propositions that could have significant impact on quality-of-life issues for residents throughout the Golden State.
Tuesday’s special election and the seven propositions it includes would have an effect on the state budget process, the regulation of electric service providers, political redistricting, the organization of state union political groups, public school teachers’ probationary periods, discounted prescription drug access, and whether parents must be notified if their minor-aged daughters seek abortions.
How to find your polling location: Polling locations are printed on the back cover of the sample ballot booklets. The Los Angeles County Registrar’s office suggests that voters check the polling place address for each election because locations often change. Also, poll locations are available at www.lavote.net, or by calling (800) 815-2666. Voters also can consider asking a neighbor since it is likely they are assigned to the same polling place.
At the heart of the special election have been multimillion-dollar campaigns by groups trying to promote or discourage the measures.
Locally, westside Democrats have opened a Santa Monica headquarters at 1508 18th St., from which they have been fighting the special election and the ballot measures the governor supports, two of which they believe will undermine public education in California.
Democrats say they are outspent by Republicans, and therefore activism has had to make up for their smaller war chest. As a result, Marc Saltzberg, president of the West LA Democratic Club, said local Democratic voter turnout will be crucial to the special election. In the last three days leading up to the special election, westside Democrats have been stepping up efforts with a “get out and vote” drive, they said. Saltzberg and other organizers have been increasing the number of ballot-initiative information events they have hosted, as well as conducting more phone-banking, voter registration efforts and canvassing of area precincts.
Westside Democrats are encouraging the public to vote “no” on Propositions 73 through 78, and “yes” on Propositions 79 and 80, Saltzberg said.
PROP. 73 This ballot measure, if approved, would amend the California Constitution in a way that would require parents and legal guardians to be notified by physicians within 48 hours of surgery that their minoraged daughter is to have an abortion.
It defines abortion as the “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born” and mandates various reporting requirements. There would be potential state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social service programs to put the measure into practice, according to legislative analysis.
Those who support the measure argue that when parents are involved in their daughters’ unwanted pregnancies, it reduces their daughters’ secret access to free abortions and deters the reckless behavior that leads to unwanted pregnancies. Also, older men and Internet predators would be deterred from impregnating minors when secret abortions would not be available to conceal their crimes, supporters say.
Opponents of the measure argue the government can’t require parents to talk to the children. They say most teens do talk to their parents, but some just can’t do so safely. They say giving teens the opportunity to approach their parents, or choose not to do so, does more to protect their interests than mandated parental notification would.
PROP. 74 Three of the eight ballot measures — Propositions 74, 76 and 77 — were initiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his supporters. Two of them, including Proposition 74, have to do with public education.
Proposition 74, which Schwarzenegger has dubbed the “Put Kids First Act,” is a measure that its supporters say is intended to improve teacher accountability in the classroom by putting them on probation for five years before they can obtain a permanent position.
According to the state’s legislative analysis, California is one of nine state that have a two-year probationary period. Thirty-three states have a three-year probationary period, while only two states — Indiana and Missouri — have a five-year probationary period.
California’s teachers are paid an average of $58,287 per year, while the national average is $46,726, Ng said. At the same time, California’s cost of living is only 6 percent higher than the national average, yet the state’s teachers earn 23 percent more than the national average.
Proposition 74 would improve California’s education system by allowing schools to better manage some teachers, Ng said.
Saltzberg said the ballot measure, if approved, would detract the best educators from working in California, since it’s not realistic to expect top talent to endure a five-year probationary period when they could go somewhere else.
Second, he said people who are working during a probationary period tend to not speak up. Having a five-year probationary period may serve as means for administrators to have more control over their teachers.
PROP. 75 Firefighters, teachers and other public workers are among those who oppose Proposition 75, claiming that if it is approved during the Nov. 8 special election, their ability to take political action will be significantly diminished. Meanwhile, Gov. Schwarzenegger’s campaign office, which supports the measure, said Prop. 75 will empower public workers by forcing unions representing them to request permission to use their funds for political action.
According to the state’s legislative analysis, a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 75 means public employee unions would be required to receive annual, written consent from government employee union members and nonmembers to charge and use any dues or fees for political purposes. On the flip side, a ‘no’ vote means public employee unions could charge and use dues or fees for political purposes without consent.
Ng said that Gov. Schwarzenegger supports Proposition 75 because he believes public employees should have the right to choose when money is taken out of their paychecks for political campaigns.
Ng said the governor also supports, in concept, similar restrictions on corporations that would require them to also receive pre-approval before using shareholder money for political campaigns. However, Ng acknowledged such a component hasn’t been incorporated into the current initiative.
Harry Keiley, president of the Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teacher’s Association (SMMCTA), said supporters like to call Prop. 75 “paycheck protection,” but in actuality it’s a deceptive measure to silence the voice of firefighters, nurses, teachers and police officers.
He also said it’s not necessary because current laws protect the rights of public workers. In California, a public employee cannot be forced to join a union and can opt out of having their dues contribute to political activities, Keiley said.
Keiley said another aspect of Proposition 75 voters need to take into account is that American corporations outspend unions by a margin of 24 to 1 on political action. Therefore, if Proposition 75 passes, it would obligate state unions to take further steps to use the financial support they receive to promote labor interests.
PROP. 76 Proposition 76, which Schwarzenegger has dubbed the “Live Within Our Means Act,” is intended to improve the manner in which the state manages its financial affairs by preparing a “rainy day fund” for future economic downturns. It also would allow Schwarzenegger to make mid-year cuts to some groups that receive funding.
“For too long, California has spent more than it has brought in,” Ng said. “Proposition 76 would require that California live within its means.”
Since 2000, according to Ng, state revenues have increased by $12.5 billion while expenditures have increased by $23.5 billion. Proposition 76 is intended to stabilize revenue over a period of years. It would also eliminate one of the major ways to reduce education funding, Ng said.
Westside Democrats don’t see Proposition 76 in such a favorable light. Saltzberg said the ballot measure is “draconian,” taking money away from schools that was guaranteed in previous legislation. It will also give the governor unprecedented control over the state budget process, Saltzberg said.
PROP. 77 If approved, this measure would amend the process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, congressional and Board of Equalization districts.
It would require that a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, adopt a new redistricting plan if the measure passes, as well as after each national census.
The redistricting plan would then be effective once adopted by the panel and filed by the Secretary of State.
There would be a one-time cost of $1.5 million for the state and $1 million total for the counties to put the measure into action.
Proponents say the measure would guarantee fair election districts for California, give voters the final say in the process and help rid the influence of special money in politics.
Opponents say the measure was put onto the ballot by the “special interest money” it attempts to control and is actually a loop-hole-ridden scheme. Proponents say that the measure would in fact take away current voter rights to reject a redistricting plan before it goes into effect.
PROP. 78 AND 79 Both of these ballot measures have to do with prescription drugs.
Proposition 78 would authorize the California Department of Health Services to contract with participating pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at reduced prices agreed upon in advance and negotiate rebate agreements with participating drug manufacturers.
The cost to put the measure into practice is estimated to be in the lower tens of millions of dollars, according to the legislative analysis.
Proponents of Proposition 78 say it will offer Californians the ability to participate in the best prescription drug discount program in the country. They say it’s an improved version of a program already in place in Ohio, delivering discounts on an average of 31 percent, or saving customers an average of $15.31 on every prescription.
Opponents say Proposition 78 is being supported by pharmaceutical companies because it would provide smaller discounts to fewer people and doesn’t allow the state to enforce the discounts. They say this approach already failed in California.
Opponents to Proposition 78 say Proposition 79 is the better option. This measure would provide prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by the California Department of Health Services.
Like Proposition 78, Proposition 79 would also cost in the lower tens of millions of dollars to put into effect.
Proposition 79 is supported by consumer, health and senior organizations because it’s enforced by the government, unlike Proposition 78.
Opponents of Proposition 79 say the measure is so poorly written it will result in years of legal challenges. They say pharmaceutical companies, health professionals and patient advocates are against it because it would let trial lawyers file thousands of lawsuits claiming that prices are too high or profits too unreasonable, because the measure fails to define what a fair price or profit is.
PROP. 80 This measure would subject electric service providers to control and regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission.
It would impose restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers.
It would also require that 20 percent of electric retail sales be procured from renewable energy by 2010 instead of 2017.
The regulation would cost $4 million per year.
Proponents of the measure say it’s a direct response to the deregulation that caused the California energy crisis five years ago. It would aim to make sure no further deregulation can occur and see to it there is long-term investment in cleaner electricity supplies.
Opponents say the measure would steer California on the wrong course in terms of its energy policy. They say it’s poorly written and will be bad for consumers, while not ensuring the highest environmental standards.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 7, 2005. Read the original PDF.