There is life West of the Hudson. I see it in every election in California, where ballot measures are barometers of public fears, culture clashes, anger, and naivete. In approving Propositions, the public directly makes laws and changes the state constitution, especially when the state legislature won’t or can’t.
Theoretically, the system provides a safeguard against a lazy and/or corrupt legislature. Some things are straight-forward. On the ballot this November, for example, is a measure increasing sex offender penalties, and another for flood management bonds.
However, an industry or religious coalition can use Propositions to scam the public, too. If blocked in Sacramento, all it has to do is hide traps in the guise of consumer protection.
California’s 191-page Official Voter Information Guide has arrived. Of the thirteen Propositions on the ballot, three are opposed by the California Democratic Party:
Proposition 85
Waiting Period and Parental Notification before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy
Physicians are required, here, to notify parents 48 hours before an abortion on anyone under the age of 18, not married, not on active military duty, or not legally emancipated.
It’s opposed by the California Medical Association, California Nurses Association, obstetricians, gynecologists, Planned Parenthood executives, and me, among others.
The trap: this is one of the steps which in aggregate could lead to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Proposition 88
Education Funding — Real Property Tax
This would set up the first statewide property parcel tax since 1910. On the surface it collects money for more teachers and textbooks.
Currently, property taxes are collected locally for local services. Under this Robin Hood law, the taxes would go first to the State, then be distributed as the legislature decides.
The trap: this system would require merely a majority vote to hike local property taxes — an end-run around the current requirement of a two-thirds majority.
Proposition 90
Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property
Property owners could claim more for losses due to such government requirements as:
- downzoning
- elimination of access
- air space use limitation
- employment conditions
- apartment prices
- endangered species
- historical preservation, and
- consumer financial protection.
The trap: it’s not only homeowners who would benefit. Prop. 90 would also require huge payouts to large landowners and corporations which merely claim loss of business value due to a law.
Opponents wrote:
If local voters pass a measure to limit a new development to 500 houses — instead of 2,000 houses that a developer wants… the developer could demand payment for the value of the remaining 1,500 houses.
Wal-Mart has defended its property investments and development plans in campaigns up and down the state. The governor just vetoed a bill which would have allowed towns to recoup legal fees for prevailing against big-box retailers which challenge zoning ordinances. If fought off successfully by local communities, there’s one company which wouldn’t waste an Arkansas minute to demand compensation.
The big buck corporate interests shift places on two initiatives which highlight the California public’s interest in clean air and health. Here, they become the opponents:
- Proposition 87 would tax oil production to fund alternative fuel research and technology.
The early television barrage is growing fiercer, not to mention scandalously expensive. Steven Bing, a movie producer, donated $40 Million for the Prop. 87 campaign — a record individual contribution — as announced by President Clinton at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York last month. Million dollar contributions have come from Silicon Valley venture capitalists and Google co-founder, Larry Page.
Leading contributors against Prop. 87 are a multitude of oil companies, including Chevron Corp., Aera Energy LLP, and Occidental Oil and Gas Corp. Shocked, I’m shocked. The campaign’s espanol site features a long, convoluted analysis in English concluding that Prop. 87 would result in a loss upwards of $8 Million a year for schools. Talk about desperate. - Proposition 86 would increase cigarette taxes to fund hospital emergency services, tobacco-use prevention, and other health-related programs.
Currently, a pack of cigarettes costs about $4 in California. If passed, this proposition would raise it by $2.60, a 13 cent tax on each cigarette.
The campaign against Prop. 86 has amassed enormous amounts from such leading health sages as R. J. Reynolds, Phillip Morris, and Pacific Groservice (a wholesale distributor of groceries in Northern California).
Window-dressing reasons apart, too many initiatives are opposed simply because of someone’s bottom line. The public is not served well, and that’s shameful. So much (paid) focus on controversial ballot measures makes the others seem unworthy of attention, and that’s a shame, too.
They’re afraid California is only the beginning. That’s why a spokesperson for No on Prop. 86 repeated the old saying when interviewed on NPR:
As California goes, so goes the nation.