Related Posts

Election Time…

A few years ago I signed up to be a Permanent Absentee Voter. My thought was, why drive to some polling place to vote, when I can just do it from the comfort of my home. Of course, there is something kind of interesting about going to a polling place, standing in line with fellow voters and getting into that voting booth and doing it in there, but to be honest, I’ve been there and done that and don’t really need to relive the experience all the time.

So, my voting pamphlets are sitting here, I’m reading through the measures and trying to wrap my head around it all—the arguments for, the arguments against, the rebuttals to the arguments, the impartial analysis and the endless commercials that just make it all that much more confusing.

Anyhow, here’s what’s on the ballot this time around:

First off there are all the people that I have no clue who they are. People that want to join school boards, community college boards, city councils. Ugh. I don’t know them, aside from the little marketing message they have printed in the voters handout. I don’t get how anyone can really make a decision on things like this. Might as well leave it blank.

Below are the rest of the Propositions we have to decide on. Although I’ll add some commentary below, I haven’t really made a decision either way and probably won’t until I actually mark the ballet. Often, I’ll feel one way about something and then at the last minute get some information that changes my opinion, so who knows.

PROPOSITION 73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Defines abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests. Mandates various reporting requirements. Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation. Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions. Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced.

I’m torn on this because I strongly believe in a person’s right to choose what they want to do with their own body. At the same time, I think that minor’s parents should be notified, because of laws that make parents responsible for the actions of their minor children. The problem I’m running into is that some minor’s might be so afraid of what their parent’s reaction would be that they might try alternative methods to abort their child. So the question becomes, do you allow minors to have abortions and keep them a secret from their parents, or do you notify the parent and possibly cause more of a traumatic experience for the minor.

PROPOSITION 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years. Measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.

I have friends who are teachers and respect teachers for what they do. That said, I have no problem increasing the length of time it takes a teacher to have permanent status. A good teacher will be able to stand on their own merits regardless of the time it takes to get tenure. Also, the second part of this measure addresses disciplinary action for unsatisfactory performance. The current system appears to take a long time to get through the dismissal process. In my opinion, if a teacher isn’t doing their job correctly, it shouldn’t take years to get rid of them.

PROPOSITION 75: PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form. Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefitting the public employee. Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political contributions. These records are not subject to public disclosure.

Having belonged to a union in the early 90’s, I have a lot of issues with unions as a whole. Personally, I think they did very little to help the employees while giving the employers a lot of wiggle room to make under the table deals. That said, I never liked the fact that my dues were used to support candidates I might not endorse. The way it was set up, if the union endorsed a candidate, they’d use our dues to make a political contribution and then send us a pamphlet letting us know who we were supposed to support.

PROPOSITION 76: STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended. Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base. Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates.

I don’t always agree with how tax dollars are appropriated, but I also don’t think giving the Governor unitlateral decision making power over the budget is the right direction to move in. There’s a reason for check and balances and this sort of moves away from that.

PROPOSITION 77: REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings. Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan. If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms. Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.

Redistricting is just confusing as hell. Basically I understand that it affects the district you’re in and who governs it. Also that redistricting is affecting by the census in order to make each district somewhat equal. The biggest problem I’m having with this is the fact that retired judges are appointed to make the decisions on the new districts. And the fact that judges are appointed politically and that I can see this turning into a political game when all is said and done.

PROPOSITION 78: DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by California Department of Health Services. Enables certain low- and moderate-income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Authorizes Department: to contract with participating pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance; to negotiate rebate agreements with participating drug manufacturers. Imposes $15 annual application fee. Creates state fund for deposit of drug manufacturers’ rebate payments. Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.

PROPOSITION 79: PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset costs of administration. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as described, unlawful.

These are basically two different propositions where if one is voted in the other will fail. So we’ll either get one or none. I certainly don’t know enough about the pharmaceutical business to know how to vote for this, but 78 seems to rely on pharmaceutical companies to agree to sell at discounted prices, where 79 appears to link into a system that we already have in place and sort of forces these companies to sell at discounts. Also 78 requires an entirely new department to be created to oversee their process, while 79 can use the department that is already in place. What I like about 79 is that it makes it illegal for a drug company to engage in profiteering from the sale of drugs. I really think there needs to be some strong regulations in place over the pricing of drugs.

PROPOSITION 80: ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.

A few years ago, California had an electricity crisis where we were subject to rolling blackout throughout the state in order to conserve energy. As the state with the country’s largest budget, it’s hard for me to believe that there wasn’t anything that could be done to prevent that, but it happened. Then we were taken advantage of by unscrupulous energy company’s that found ways of making money off our problem. I still have to read through this proposition more thoroughly, but anything that fixes the problem would be welcome. Competition is fine with me.

MEASURE A: COMMUNITY COLLEGE FUNDING. To prepare College of San Mateo, Cañada College, and Skyline College students for universities and high demand jobs; upgrade nursing, health career, science, computer, and biotechnology labs; improve accessibility for disabled students; make earthquake safety improvements; repair/modernize libraries,classrooms, and aging facilities; and other projects in the Bond Projects List, shall San Mateo County Community College District be authorized to issue $468,000,000 in bonds at interest rates within legal limits and with oversight by a Citizens’ Advisory Committee?

Every year there seems to be another bond measure on the ballot for the schools. And I know people read it and think, anything we can do for schools is great. The problem is that, as a homeowner, those bonds cost me money in the form of taxes. This one could cost a couple thousand dollars added to my tax bill at the end of the year and honestly, I’m not even sure they need the money. In this area, there are three community colleges that are part of the system. They are all within a 20-30 drive from each other which is convenient, but I don’t think necessary. They could easily close one of those and put the expenses toward rehabilitating the other two school. According to the data given, at peak these three schools don’t have full attendance. Not only do we have those three community college campuses, but we have state universities and private colleges all within the same region. I’d love to give more and more money to these schools for new libraries, classrooms, etc, but in my opinion, if the schools want to upgrade nursing labs, biotechnology labs and computer and science classes perhaps there are deals that could be made with private companies in exchange for some recruitment or something.

 Print This Post
  Link to this Entry