WHAT’S THE POINT?
In two weeks, the state of California is holding a special election on eight initiatives — everything from the mind-numbingly dull, to the really important because they have far-ranging effects on peoples lives.
But this upcoming election also has a subtext. It really is a referendum on the governor and the job he is doing. His ability to get his initiatives on the ballot, and passed, is seriously in question in this election, and the outcome will have an echo effect for the balance of his term as governor.
The man who swept into the highest elected position in the seventh largest economy, because of his years of benefiting from the studio machine marketing that made him a household name, is now being judged on his merits.
The electorate, which is not to be confused with the public — one third of the population did not vote in the last California election — now has the opportunity to grade the governor.
This governor, with much fanfare, stormed the capitol with his laudable goals of “fixing” the state. His campaign made much political hay of the previous governors’ tremendous fundraising and inability to get the legislature to pass legislation.
Governor Schwarzenegger it seems has once again proven his ability to surpass others, for he has raised more money that Governor Davis did, and has been more effective in not getting the legislature to bend to his wishes. In fact, this governor has gone so far as to veto groundbreaking legislation, and abdicate his responsibilities to the judicial branch.
Since this election is not actually a recall, the question then becomes: What are the initiatives that are actually on the ballot? There are four major initiatives that the governor was spreading the gospel on, until his face and name became a liability to the cause. They are Propositions 74 through 77. These are the ones that all the TV commercials are going on about.
In this battle, there is the usual political confusion over what does the proposition really mean. The political hacks have worked long hours to make this election as confusing as possible.
Providing clarity on these propositions is a goal of mine, but one that may remain elusive. Here’s a rundown of four them and my take on how to vote: Proposition 73 — abortion notification This proposition is designed to make it mandatory that a minor child who is seeking an abortion must have at least one parent notified, or seek a judicial waiver.
I think this is a bad answer to a terrible situation. The facts of teen pregnancy are appalling and this is a painful area to try and legislate. However, it is not the government’s job to act as chaperone for all of life’s events.
There is another good reason to vote “no” on this proposition. It adds language that reads “unborn child, a child conceived but not born.” This is important because it is the first step in making the argument that a child exists, which is what the Pro-Life lobby wants, so that they can then argue that abortion should be outlawed, as the murder of a child.
Whether you are for or against abortion, the fact is this proposition is changing California constitutional language without full disclosure to the voters. That is not right and this should be voted down.
Proposition 74 — teacher tenure This attempt at reforming our schools and improving the education of our children is another example of right ideas, bad law. The idea is that good teachers should be kept and bad teachers should be removed from the classroom. It attempts to make it easier to determine the good from the bad, by making the probationary period longer, so that the good teachers can be discovered as well as the bad.
The problem is that it doesn’t create any inducements for people who are qualified, to want to become teachers, and it doesn’t reward those who are good to stay on and continue performing.
We lack enough good teachers but that has more to do with the fact that we value them so little. If we want good teachers, we should give people a reason to become teachers. Making it harder to get tenure only makes it harder to find qualified people. This is backwards legislation.
Proposition 75 — public employee union political contributions This proposition is marketed as a way to help union members decide where their money is used. It requires an annual statement by the employee that the funds collected can be used for political purposes. Unfortunately, it is an unnecessary law.
Unions are about collective voices, and in this state, the public unions are a large block of votes. However, approximately 25 percent of their members are not participating in the political debate. Right now, no member is forced to spend their money on political purposes. They have the right to opt out of paying dues, and can pay “fees” which are dedicated to the collective bargaining purposes of the union.
This is about making it harder for the unions to speak. By creating an annual statement by the member, the burden is being put on the unions to administer additional pieces of information, and accounting — neither of which has any benefit to society at large. This is union busting at its finest.
I’m not a big fan of unions, but they should have the right to organize their internal business however they want. This is not a subject the voters should be deciding, and we should vote it down.
Next week, I’ll finish up on the remaining propositions that deal with “living within our means,” “redistricting,” “prescription drugs” and “electric companies. (David Pisarra is a business development lawyer in the Santa Monica firm of Pisarra & Grist. He welcomes your questions and comments. He or (310) 664-9969.)
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 25, 2005. Read the original PDF.