Though we don’t quite deserve the ridicule we receive from the rest of the country, California is a troubled state. The structural problems created by Proposition 13 thirty years ago were aggravated by the Enron-created energy crisis and dot-com crash. In the hands of a competent leader, California might already be back on the road to recovery. Instead, we go back to the polls for the fifth time in six years in search of a solution.

Much like the 2003 recall election where voters were asked to choose between sacking Governor Gray Davis and choosing his replacement from a list of fools, the 2005 special election pits a broken status quo against a series of misguided and intentionally confusing ballot initiatives. The fact that both of these elections boast odd-numbered years is no accident; just as Arnold Schwarzenegger took advantage of a short cycle in an off year to become Governor, he is using another off year in an attempt to consolidate his own power and boost his 2006 reelection chances. Though most of the public polls show Schwarzenegger on the losing end of a rout, there is plenty of reasonable doubt:

In random interviews with voters up and down the state, Californians had mixed reviews about the election — and the governor. And even regular voters and loyal partisans expressed considerable confusion about the ballot measures.

Again, no accident. By rushing these initiatives onto the ballot in a $100 million special election rather than waiting just a few months for next year’s primary election, (or a year for the general) and deliberately obscuring their real-world effects, Schwarzenegger hopes that confusion and apathy will reduce turnout enough to concentrate the votes of his backers. For this reason alone, voting no on 74, 75, 76, and 77 is completely justified, but as it happens, there are plenty of specific reasons to oppose these initiatives. As promised, here are our recommendations for the 2005 California Special Election.

Proposition 73 – Changes the California constitution to require a doctor to notify a parent or guardian at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on a pregnant minor.
In a blue state such as California, abortion rights are treated as a matter of course; there are way too many pro-choice people here for abortion foes to wage a direct frontal attack on reproductive rights. With Proposition 73, the pro-life crowd hope to cloak the foundation for future attacks on abortion rights in what at first glance seems to be a pretty logical proposal; even a lot of mainstream pro-choice people agree that, in many cases, parents should be notified when a minor has an abortion. As with many ballot propositions, however, the devil is in the details. Prop 73 would actually change California’s constitution instead of simply putting new laws on the books, which lays the groundwork for future legal challenges to commonly accepted abortion practices; to this end, Prop 73 includes language that defines a fetus as “an unborn child” and “a child conceived but not yet born”. This is less about helping minors than providing constitutionally-supported cover for attacking all abortions. One also has to wonder if, in the real world, these new rules will drive teenage girls to try more dangerous ways of terminating a pregnancy rather than have their parents find out. Reproductive rights shouldn’t be defined in the fine print of an end-run around California’s legislature. No on 73.

Proposition 74 – Increases the trial period of new teachers from two to five years, while also making it easier to fire underperforming tenured teachers.
Californians already know that the state’s schools are in trouble, with test scores ranking near the bottom of the country and a general lack of funding, supplies and qualified teachers. Is the solution more funding? Smaller class sizes? Increasing access to needed educational resources? Nope. According to Prop 74, the failure of California’s schools can be laid completely on the shoulders of the teachers who, secure in the knowledge that they can’t be fired, do a half-assed job just to collect those sweet, sweet education paychecks. Seriously.

Is it any surprise that this proposition is aimed directly at one of the groups that have been most critical of Schwarzenegger during the course of his administration?

Every child in public school deserves competent teachers and a solid education. But 74 assumes that making it easier to fire teachers (and, by extension, weaken the teachers’ union) is the main engine in making our schools run better. However, increasing the probationary period to five years and eliminating a teacher’s right to a hearing before dismissal will only ensure that fewer people will consider becoming an educator in the first place, which doesn’t make much sense in a state facing a teacher shortage. Also, what’s to stop budget-minded administrators from simply dismissing teachers whenever they are in line for a pay increase? Under Prop 74, there’s a hell of a lot of grey area.

While education reform is certainly needed in California on all levels, it needs to be spread out among all the dysfunctional elements in the current system and will require compromise from every side. Putting all the weight on the backs of teachers is both unfair and unrealistic.

Proposition 75 – Requires government employee unions to get written agreement from each worker before using that worker’s dues or nonmember fees for political contributions.
As with Prop 74, 75 is a blatant attack aimed at weakening organized opposition to the Governor himself. Employee unions, in the midst of a 30-year slide of influence, are still the most important voice in protecting working Americans. With Schwarzenegger attempting to consolidate his power, unions are the last line of defense. By forcing 75 on them, he is knocking a leg out from under them when he should have no say in the matter. If union members were so inclined and possessed sufficient numbers, they could force their own unions to get approval before making political expenditures; in fact many unions already have provisions for individual members to opt out of political donations. The switch from opt-out to opt-in serves only those who wish to undercut union clout. As the Governor himself said:

“I think the people have sent legislators to Sacramento to represent the people, not to represent the unions.”

With political decisions in Republican-controlled America increasingly amounting to “people or commerce,” it is imperative that unions and corporations be held to the same standard, with unions, consisting of people, deserving at least as much representation as corporations. Should 75 pass, unions would be at a huge disadvantage via the need to gain approval from each member while large corporations could still use money to influence politics without approval from each shareholder. 75 is a solution in search of a problem, and Schwarzenegger’s political problems shouldn’t be solved by weakening unions through a vote of overwhelmingly non-union voters.

Proposition 76 – Changes the State Constitution about how the state budget is managed.
California is in a serious budgetary crisis, which should be apparent from all ends of the political spectrum. By changing the way the state budget is managed, Proposition 76 hopes to stem the flow of red ink and set the state toward an era of balanced budgets. But, in the process, it gives the governor way too much autonomous power over state spending, eliminates mandatory levels of education funding, puts even more financial burden on local governments and sets the stage for deep cuts in popular programs and necessary services. Under Prop 76, the Governor (either Arnold of the next doofus who comes along) can declare a fiscal emergency when state income falls below certain levels, giving him unilateral power to cut funding to programs how he sees fit, completely undermining the legislature in an executive power grab. In addition, language within the proposition makes it difficult to use tax increases as a revenue source, which paves the way for further reductions in education, police, fire and medical spending. While this is a great idea for the Grover Norquists of the world, real budget reform requires flexibility, compromise and the ability to use all options on the table.

Proposition 77 – Changes the California Constitution to give authority for setting up political district lines every ten years to a panel of three retired judges, instead of the state Legislature.
After the unprecedented mid-decade Texas redistricting, the technical (and usually very backroom) issue of drawing political boundaries has gone mainstream. There is no doubt that protecting incumbents through gerrymandering has become a problem in American politics, but so far the proposed solutions only add to the damage. Tom DeLay strong-armed Texas into throwing out a two-year-old redistricting plan for one that created more Republican seats at the expense of Democrats, despite no new population data to support such action. In the wake of that “success,” Republicans in many states are trying to emulate DeLay and increase their representation. In overwhelmingly blue California, Schwarzenegger wants to marginalize the state legislature to raise the number of red representatives. The California legislature may not be ideal, but taking the decision out of their control and putting it in the hands of retired judges of indeterminate philosophy is not comforting when the methodology behind 77 is considered. All three judges could be the most partisan Democratic hacks available, and the rules would still produce a significant gain for Republicans because they call for “compactness” as the driving factor. Though backers of reform tout competitive elections as the desired result, compactness guarantees the opposite: current districts that are evenly split would be replaced by a small number of very blue urban districts and an increased number of rural districts that will favor Republicans. With most other states “reforming” districting strictly for partisan gain, using compactness to make a blue state more red is simply unacceptable. California should not be the location of unilateral disarmament for Democrats.

Proposition 78 and Proposition 79 (Prescription Drug Discounts) present the perfect argument against the California initiative process. Simply reading the top line description of each gives the average voter little or no indication as to which of these propositions is better for the state. A deeper look reveals that 78 is the creation of drug companies, and makes their participation voluntary rather than the mandatory controls of 79. If the state is going to go to the trouble of negotiating lower prices for low-income Californians, the drug companies that don’t play ball should necessarily lose their preferred status.

Proposition 80 – Puts increased state control on California’s energy market.
Other people have read about how Enron and other energy companies gamed the market for increased profits; we as Californians lived through it. California’s energy crisis led to wildly increased costs, “rolling blackouts” and, eventually, the installation of Arnold Schwarzenegger into the governor’s office. Based on those lovely memories, it would be tempting to vote yes on 80 just to stick it to the huge corporations who want no part of re-regulation. Controlling the energy industry via voter initiatives is not the answer, though. While California loves its “direct democracy”, energy policy, like the budget, is not something that should be enacted by the simple check of a “yes” or “no” box. A solid energy policy needs flexibility as well as strong public oversight, and Prop 80 provides for neither. Instead, it forces re-regulation on a state that may not be ready for the consequences. As energy policy is really something that needs to be dealt with in the legislature, let’s float the idea of re-regulation the right way. No on 80.

It’s not a coincidence that we are recommending opposition to the Governor on each of his four signature initiatives. After campaigning on his supposed ability to negotiate with both sides, he has consistently chosen the side of his corporate funders while ignoring, belittling, and attempting to marginalize those who disagree with him. This special election is an extension of that philosophy, this time coated with the sheen of reform and bipartisanship, while in reality it’s nothing more than Schwarzenegger looking to consolidate power, pay off donors, and stoke his ego. 73, the confusing 78-79, and 80 are further evidence of a broken system that allows voter manipulation on issues best left to the legislature.

On Tuesday November 8, 2005 vote NO on 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78 and 80, and vote YES on 79.