Vanguard Ballot Initiative Recommendations

While the Vanguard does not endorse candidates, we do make recommendations on issues. Many of these you can of course glean simply by reading the articles on this site. But since I have had a number of calls and emails over the last wee asking how I would vote and a number of issues, I thought I would put this in one place.

I also attach a sheet at the bottom with a link to the Courage Campaign who have compiled a list of 10 progressive organizations and how they are voting. Although other than on Prop 11 there are no disputes on which way to vote, some groups do not recommend on some of the propositions.

I will start with the local measures and then deal with the statewide issues.

DAVIS BALLOT MEASURES

MEASURE N: CHARTER CITY: NO. This measure would determine whether or not Davis would have a charter city enacted. In theory, I would be supportive of such a concept, but I think this charter is too broad. It would allow too much power to future city councils. I would like to see this charter get voted down and a committee formed to draft a new one that is much more specific.

MEASURE W: DJUSD PARCEL TAX: YES. For $120 per parcel voters of the city of Davis can ensure that core programs and teachers remain in tact. We are talking about elementary science, music, some HS athletic programs, as well as keeping class size down. If this does not pass, the district faces a $2.4 million deficit which means that teachers and programs get cut.

STATEWIDE BALLOT

PROP 1A: HIGH SPEED RAIL: YES. This would begin construction of a train that connects San Francisco to Los Angeles via San Jose and Fresno. This is a project I have been wanting for at least 15 years. Create a fast and convenient alternative transportation system to get people out of their cars. This is the most important project that we can fund this year.

PROP 2: STOP ANIMAL CRUELTY: YES. Goes without saying humane treatment for farm animals. We're not talking a lot--enough space for animals to beable to move around, stand up and sit down. This seems like a no brainer to me and the arguments against about costs and competitiveness do not make a whole lot of sense.

PROP 3: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BONDS: YES. I see no reason not to expand children's hospital facilities around the state.

PROP 4: PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ABORTION: NO. Proponents argue that this will get teens to talk their parents about sex. I do not believe that you mandate parent-teen communications. I think it places teens at risk who fear the response of their parents more than they fear other things. It is just not a good idea. One thing I never see in these proposals is how big a problem this actually is. If it is a problem, I think there are other approaches that would be more effective and starting well before pregnancy and abortion issues arise.

PROP 5: NONVIOLENT OFFENDER REHABILITATION: YES. I am a strong proponet of alternative forms of punishment. I think we put way too much emphasis on incarceration and our prisons are being overwhelmed with non-violent sex offenders. The program has the possibility of saving the state between $1 billion and $2.5 billion per year.

PROP 6: SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS ACT: NO. This basically does the opposite of Prop 5--it extends and expands mandatory sentencing and it also takes money from the rest of the state's beleagured budget and puts it into more prisons and correction spending. This may be the worst initiative on the ballot in my opinion and that includes 4 and 8.

PROP 7: RENEWABLE POWER STANDARD: NO. This bill may be well intentioned putting more resources to solar and wind projects by mandating that we get 50% of our power from renwable sources by 2025. The problem is that opponents believe that the measure is poorly written and would cause more harm than good. When the opponents include Sierra Club and Conservation league, then I tend to believe that statement.

PROP 8: ELIMINATES SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: NO. I believe that consenting adults should have the right to marry the person that they love regardless of gender. To me this is a no-brainer and almost every argument against it is based on fear. For those who suggest that same-sex marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, look at the divorce rate, it seems that marriage is under fire much more by people who do not respect marriage rather than people who desperately want to wed.

PROP 9: Victims' Rights and Protection Act of 2008: NO. Some of these provisions are not bad including notification and participation of victims in criminal justice proceedings. However, opponents argue that these are already in law. They also believe that these provisions would end up costing the taxpayer hundreds of millions. I am not nearly as opposed to this one as the Prop 6, but it does not seem the type of reform we really need.

Prop 10: California Alternative Fuels Act: NO. This is another one of those bills that look good until you realize who is supporting it and what it would actually do. One the plus side: The funding it provides will allow the generation of electricity from renewable sources, and provide consumer rebates for the purchase or lease of "clean alternative fuel vehicles". Th bill is sponsored by Boone Pickens, many have derided Pickens and Clean Energy Fuels for sponsoring this initiative because it may set up the company and Pickens for a financial windfall. Again, League of Conservation Voters and Sierra Club support it. This would take $10 billion out of the state's general fund over 30 years. The proposition was initiated by one person/interest group and as such lacks the vetting that would have come had it gained input from a wider variety of sources.

PROP 11: REDISTRICTING: NO. This sets up an appointed bipartisan commission to handle state redistricting. We already have a bipartisan commission that handles redistricting, it's called the state legislature, they are elected by the voters in California. From what I have seen, voting reforms generally create more harm than good. The system we have now has been in place for over 100 years.

PROP 12: VETERANS' HOMES BOND: YES. Basically renews a home loan program for veterans that dates back to 1922. The bond must be periodically renewed--this would be the 12th renewal. Enables veterans of current wars to get affordable loans and the bonds are repaid by the veterans themselves. Do not see a downside to this one.



---David M. Greenwald reporting

Proposition 4, Parental Notification, Has an 8 Point Lead in Latest Field Poll

California is vastly different from most states. Case in point, parental notification for abortions. The issue is one of the slam-dunks for opponents to abortion. In state-after-state they put these type of initiatives on the ballot and win them easily. But not in California. Twice before abortion opponents have put parental notification measures on the ballot in California and twice before the California voters have defeated them.

Is this time different? Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll thinks so.

Right now is it ahead by a 49-41 margin with 10 percent undecided. However after we have mentioned before on this blog, late breaking voters and undecideds tend to oppose new initiative. However, this issue may be a bit different.

Mark DiCamillo points to two factors--the Latino Voters and the Presidential Election.

"If there's a shift going on, it's coming from the Latino voters. Because this is a presidential election, Latino voters will constitute a larger proportion of the turnout than was true two years ago."

According to the Field Poll, Latinos are even more strongly in favor of this measure than they were a few years ago. According to DiCamillo, Latino voters are expected to be 17 percent of the electorate in November. The poll indicates they favoring the measure 62 percent to 31 percent. That 31 point margin is somewhat higher than it was in 2006 when it was 22 percentage points.

Proposition 4 is a parental notification law rather than a parental consent law. That means when a minor requests an abortion from a doctor, the doctor must send a letter to her parents. Regardless of parental opposition, the abortion could be performed 48 hours later.

Supporters of the measure believe that parents need to be informed and involved in crucial decisions in their daughter's lives.

However, opponents like the ACLU argue that government should not and cannot mandate good family communications.

"Of course parents want to be involved in their daughters’ lives. Many pregnant teens do confide in a parent. But laws can’t create good family communication—that has to start long before a daughter is pregnant. It’s important to remember that not all teens live in homes where open communication is safe and possible. Many teens fear being forced to have the baby, kicked out of their homes or subjected to violence.

Proposition 4 won’t transform abusive, dysfunctional families into stable, supportive ones. It would create more difficult options for pregnant teenagers at an already difficult time in their life."

They go on to argue that Proposition four is more dangerous than previous parental notification initiatives in two ways.

"It would dramatically expand the liability of doctors who care for pregnant teenagers, authorizing lawsuits against them decades after an abortion is performed."

Furthermore they argue:

"A deceptive and dangerous alternative was written into Prop 4 for pregnant teens who can’t safely notify their parents or obtain court orders. Authors of the initiative assert that teens in an abusive home could request that notification be sent to another relative over 21 who fits the initiative’s criteria. But it’s not as simple as it sounds. To invoke the alternative, a teen would have to write a history of charges against her parents and provide that document to her doctor. The doctor must then send the teen’s written statement to law enforcement and send the state-scripted abortion notice to a designated substitute relative, together with a letter saying that the parents have been reported to a law enforcement agency. This provides no real protection for the pregnant teen. If law enforcement pursues the report, or the relative calls the parents, the abusive parents will find out about the teenager’s charges, her pregnancy and her abortion."

I agree with the ACLU's position on this proposition. I understand both points that are raised by this proposition. First, I think we need to work together to limit pregnancies in teens. Second, I agree that teens need to include their parents in their decisions. That's why they are minors.

Unfortunately, the real world often does not work out nearly as idyllic as we would like it to be. There are many teens that come from broken and abusive homes and this puts a tremendous burden and creates a tremendous barrier to make the right types of decisions for their lives.

Far from helping these teens, they put them at risk both physically and emotionally. What I would like to see rather than this type of legislation which is a band-aid at best for the types of problems raised by both opponents and supporters of the measure, is legislation that would create real resources to help teens even before they become pregnant. Real resources to help families come together, real resources to enable parents to become more involved in their children's lives, so that we do not get the point of the abortion choice. That is the legislation I will support. This I see as a draconian measure that attempts to force communication where obviously it has long since in many case broken down.

---Doug Paul Davis reporting