McFreedom

California has a plebiscite system in which propositions are placed before the people for a direct vote. Some propositions come about because the special interests involved figure it's easier than lobbying for them. Some are required - issuing bonds beyond a certain amount for some classes of spending must be directly approved by the voters, for example. At its best, the proposition system involves the electorate using the legal system to get things done that aren't in the legislature's best interest - such as combating gerrymandering or cutting property taxes. At its worst, it's special interest groups buying bread and circuses with the public's money. Unfortunately, there are a lot of propositions this year, and not many of the high-minded variety.

The CA Secretary of State has a nice, short, comprehensive guide to the propositions, if you want the opinion of someone who at least pretends to be objective.

Proposition 1A

Keeps the state from raiding local treasuries. As part of outcome of the Great California Budget Wars of 2003-2004, Sacramento looted the local treasuries of towns and counties, but the governor promised to back a referendum that would make it illegal to do it again, in the future. The real plus to this is that it keeps a lot more money locally. The downside is that it locks some stuff into the constitution (like sales tax rates) that probably don't strictly belong there. Unfortunately the argument presented against seems to boil down to "Politicians in Sacramento are more trustworthy than the ones in your hometown." Maybe you buy that, but McFreedom votes Yes on 1A.

Proposition 59

Opens government records. In addition, it instructs courts to interpret the law such that, all things being equal, decisions should be made towards allowing access. The argument against seems primarily to be that this won't do enough, but that hardly seems reason to oppose this measure. At best, this is a case of California citizens getting a better handle on their government; at worst it would do little. McFreedom votes Yes on 59.

Proposition 60

Enshrines current California primary election system in the constitution. In response to Proposition 62, a set of groups put together Proposition 60. If both pass (since they're mutually exclusive) the one that receives the most votes wins. Generally, McFreedom is opposed to arbitrarily moving legislated decisions into the constitution, but Prop 62 is so heinous that this would be much better. McFreedom votes Yes on 60.

Proposition 60A

Meaningless initiative concerning how money from property sales is spent. In a transparent attempt to try to get people to vote for 60, its authors tacked on a totally useless amendment that requires the state to use any money from sales of surplus property to pay off bonds before doing anything else. It doesn't compel the state to actually perform the sales. The courts rightly ruled that it had nothing to do with Proposition 60 and required it split into its own proposition. No one cares about this one way, or another, and its effect would be minimal at best. Because it's useless and the result of transparent pandering, McFreedom votes No on 60A.

Proposition 61

61 would raise $750 million in bond money for building Children's hospitals. The presented argument for this is obvious (who could oppose building hospitals for sick children?) but the presented argument against is worthless: We shouldn't build hospitals for children because what we really need is socialized medicine. Unfortunately, this is one of those classic California propositions where the electorate is asked to make a decision about a complex issue with basically no information. How big a need is there for this? How many kids are unserved, and how will this help? Digging into the "yes" site a a little more, it seems like a lot of this money is going to be for buying new equipment at old hospitals, not making news ones. It's unclear to me why this couldn't be paid for through the normal legislative spending process, other than that there simply isn't the money in the budget for this, right now. If there isn't money in the budget for this, we shouldn't be putting it on credit, either. McFreedom votes No on 61.

Proposition 62

Changes California to a true open primary system. Right now we have a sort-of- open primary system, in which voters may vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation, but parties are free to ignore the votes of anyone who is not a registered party member. So, for example, an independent can vote for a Republican in the primary, but the Republicans will simply ignore the vote. This causes a lot of people to throw away their votes in primary season, and is result of a previous initiative that tinkered with the electoral process a while back. Louisiana is the only state in the union that has an open primary system, and it has resulted in some odd races in the past. Under this regime, the top two vote getters in the primary become the only candidates at the top of the ballot in the final election. Most famously, in Louisiana, this resulted in David Duke (ex-KKK Grand Wizard) being one of the two candidates for governor. While this is widely reported, often forgotten is that the Democratic incumbent was under indictment for fraud and extortion - surely not the type of choice advocates are hoping we'll get if they implement this system, here. Supporters have a theory that it will lead to more moderate big-party candidates. The theory is that, i.e., in San Francisco, one has to be a very left-wing Democrat in order to win the primary, but the more-moderate second-place finisher might be more to the wider electorate's liking.

This measure is only going to increase the Democrat's lock on Northern California and the Republican's lock on southern. For many state-wide offices, we'll end up with two Democrats running, and this will effectively end ballot access for third parties. It's difficult to imagine this will make things better or less confusing, so McFreedom votes No on 62.

Proposition 63

The millionaire's tax. This would add a one percent tax to people who make more than one million dollars to pay for services for mental health. A classic case of "soak the rich" populism that no doubt will pass. This sets a terrible precedent and will only encourage more millionaires to declare their legal residences elsewhere; the bottom line may be less money into the state treasury, in total. McFreedom votes No on 63.

Proposition 64

Makes it harder to bring "consumer protection" lawsuits. States that, in order to sue a manufacturer under the state's "unfair business" laws, a person who actually suffered a loss must be produced, which will prevent lawyers filing lawsuits for theoretical violations of unfair business laws that didn't actually hurt anyone. McFreedom votes Yes on 64.

Proposition 65

Another orphaned proposition, 65 would control the state's ability to raid local coffers. It's been superseded by 1A, in that everyone who supported 65 now officially opposes it and encourages voters to vote for 1A. This is a hard call; it seems to be harder on the state than 1A, but the lack of argument on it makes coming to a conclusion difficult. Still, McFreedom is always in favor of restricting the state of California and sees no reason not to vote Yes on 65

Proposition 66

Limits the "three strikes" law such that the second and third strikes must not just be felonies, but be violent felonies. It also gratuitously lengthens some jail terms for certain types of sex crimes against children. Media horror stories notwithstanding, three strikes seems to be working well and doesn't need tinkering with. There is already significant prosecutor and judicial decision making available in three strikes cases. McFreedom votes No on 66.

Proposition 67

Funds emergency medial services by a surcharge on local phone service. This one seems doomed to fail, and good riddance. We have quite enough taxes for what we get, so McFreedom votes No on 67.

Proposition 68

The first Indian Gaming Proposition. This is the one that's been running the odious "fair share" campaign in its favor. You know, the "We took all the land from the Indians and committed genocide on them, and now it's time they pay their fair share" ones. This sets up extortion for the Indian Casinos - either pay 25% of your profits to the state, or we'll authorize significant competition from racetracks and card clubs. The Indian Casinos will of course do no such thing, so this is just a transparent bait and switch. People who vote for this thinking they're going to soak the Indians are going to be very surprised when the card club up the street turns into a megacasino. As this is a disgusting example of raw special interests abusing the proposition process, McFreedom votes No on 68.

Proposition 69

Sets up a DNA sample database. While setting up a database from convicted criminals might be defensible, this collects DNA from people simply arrested for some crimes, DNA which will remain in the system even after acquittal or the dropping of charges. Unlike fingerprints, significant information about a person is contained in a DNA sample, and long term we have to consider the probabilities of information about perfectly innocent people being misused. It might be possible to come up with a reasonable DNA database, but McFreedom votes No on 69.

Proposition 70

Standardizes gaming compacts. This seems to be an attempt to end-run around the Governor's office and try to get a better deal from the voters, who probably aren't familiar with the specifics. McFreedom joins Governor Schwarzenegger and votes No on 70.

Proposition 71

Stem Cell Research funding. The point of this one, obviously, is to poke a finger in the eye of George W. Bush for his refusal to fund stem cell research. Unfortunately, it's a terrible boondoggle - $3 billion in bonds which will cost $6 billion to repay. The Federal government would "normally" be funding something like $100 million per year for the whole country; this would fund $300 million per year for just California. This seems to be nothing more than a giveaway to VCs and biotech megacorporations that ought to be able to come up with their own funding. Remember that whole "budget crisis" thing? Why are we even considering spending all this money on this right now, when we can't balance the state budget as it is? While it'd be nice to give Dubya the finger on this one, McFreedom regretfully votes No on 71.

Proposition 72

Attempts to provide healthcare coverage to most Californians. It does this by requiring small and medium sized companies to offer healthcare to their employees with the employer picking up 80% of the tab, and sets up a state-run system for companies that don't. It's hard to know where to begin on the flaws with this scheme - it seems at best to back-door socialized healthcare. It will result in big bureaucracies, people losing jobs and downgrading benefits, and will increase healthcare costs across the board. McFreedom decisively votes No on 72.