Summary:

This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide farm and home aid for California veterans. Fiscal Impact: Costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans. Average payment for principal and interest of about $59 million per year for 30 years.

I was unaware of the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program before researching this initiative, but it seems truly incredible.

Since 1921, the Cal-Vet program has issued low-interest rate loans to veterans purchasing homes or farms. As the veterans repay the loans, the payments are sufficient to cover the cost of the bonds as well as the cost of running the program. The program is entirely self-supporting, with no direct cost to the taxpayer.

These new bonds would provide funds for at least 3,600 additional veterans to receive loans.

The men and women who have served this country deserve our support. With a program that is operating so effectively, there is no reason to deny this funding.

I’m voting Yes on Prop 12.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Changes authority for establishing state office boundaries from elected representatives to commission. Establishes multilevel process to select commissioners from registered voter pool. Commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Fiscal Impact: Potential increase in state redistricting costs once every ten years due to two entities performing redistricting. Any increase in costs probably would not be significant.

For me, this is the most complicated issue on the ballot this election cycle. You have to be a dedicated California state policy wonk to truly grasp this one, and I am not.

Currently, the legislature draws districts every 10 years. Supporters of this proposition claim this to be a conflict of interest, because districts tend to get drawn in a way that favors reelection of those in the legislature. That is a fair assessment.

The proposal is to establish a new commission of registered voters who will be responsible for drawing the voting districts, with the exception of U.S. House of Representatives districts, which would continue to be drawn by the legislature.

The process through which people would be appointed to this new commission is mind boggling, and I won’t attempt an explanation. There are valid concerns however, that the commission won’t reflect the makeup of the constituents in the districts that will be required to draw.

In all likelihood, the breakdown of politicians along party lines is unlikely to change noticeably, regardless of how the districts are drawn. I tend to agree that reform is desirable, but it is unclear to me how this proposal will bring that about.

I’m voting No on Prop 11.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Authorizes $5 billion in bonds paid from state’s General Fund, to help consumers and others purchase certain vehicles, and to fund research in renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $10 billion over 30 years to repay bonds. Increased state and local revenues, potentially totaling several tens of millions of dollars through 2019. Potential state administrative costs up to about $10 million annually.

As I’ve mentioned before, I’m a supporter of alternative energy and other environmental efforts. However, I don’t believe the government has any business providing rebates to consumers who are purchasing vehicles.

If the state wants to improve the vehicle efficiency, it should do so through mandates on primary fuel sources or fuel efficiency standards. This would impact all Californians equally, without providing a direct benefit to only the few who are able to purchase a new car.

Additionally, much of the funding for this initiative has come from Clean Energy, a company owned by T. Boone Pickens. The manner in which this proposal is drafted gives preference to natural gas, which Clean Energy stands to benefit from financially. The special interest implications are obvious.

Further, I’d like to see research and promotion of alternative energy be more ambitious, rather than falling back on natural gas, which itself is a fossil fuel.

I’m voting No on Prop 10.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Establishes victim safety as consideration for bail or parole. Fiscal Impact: Potential loss of state savings on prison operations and increased county jail costs amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually on parole procedures.

I’m generally suspect of any initiative that would change the state constitution, and Prop 9 is no exception.

Much of what Proposition 9 aims to accomplish, has in fact already been provided for Proposition 8 in 1982, dubbed the Victim’s Bill of Rights. There is no need to duplicate laws that are already on the books.

Further, Proposition 9 has been placed on the ballot through funding from a single person, Henry Nicholas III, who has donated about $5 million to the cause. His sister was murdered in 1983 and the family feels they haven’t been treated with proper regard by the justice system.

Ironically, Nicholas himself has recently been indited on drug and securities related charges, and ties to a prostitution operation have been alleged. He has stepped away from active involvement in promoting this initiative, so as not to be a distraction.

Obviously, all sympathy is given to victims and their families, who have to deal with these terrible tragedies. However, a constitutional amendment is not the appropriate recourse for a single family who feels slighted by the system.

I’m voting No on Prop 9.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Changes California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Homophobia is, simply, bigotry. I can’t believe that we, as a country, are still looking for groups of people to which we can deny rights.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Denying any loving couple the right to marry, denies them the pursuit of happiness. It also denies them equal rights under the law. The country has, of course, made serious and severe mistakes in the past, in which these rights were not upheld. The passage of Prop 8 would be another one of those mistakes, one I hope does not happen.

I am voting an adamant No on Prop 8.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Requires government-owned utilities to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Fiscal Impact: Increased state administrative costs up to $3.4 million annually, paid by fees. Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates.

This initiative has been one of the more contentious issues of the election, with a lot of advertising aired, especially from the opposition.

On the face of it, this is an issue that I would normally be a supporter of. Unfortunately, the experts in this area are unanimous in declaring that this initiative is poorly written and deeply flawed. If passed, it could actually effect the efforts of renewable energy in detrimental ways.

One of the flaws that stood out to me, as a layperson, is the fact that electricity from small energy producers does not count toward meeting the goals. Only electricity from facilities generating 30 megawatts or more count toward to quota.

If renewable energy generation is going to have a significant impact, its my belief that it will be done in a distributed manner, utilizing solar panels installed on the rooftops of homes and businesses. The output from these installations are measured in kilowatts. Thus, this initiative offers no incentive for pursuing this approach.

The list of opponents to Proposition 7 is long, and includes all political parties, leading environmental groups, and renewable energy businesses.

I’ll be joining them and voting No on Prop 7.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Requires minimum of $965,000,000 of state funding each year for police and local law enforcement. Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law. Fiscal Impact: Increased net state costs exceeding $500 million annually due to increasing spending on criminal justice programs to at least $965 million and for corrections operating costs. Potential one-time state prison capital outlay costs exceeding $500 million.

This initiative sets aside too much money, and leaves little flexibility for legislators in deciding how to best appropriate it. Furthermore, these funds come directly from those currently allocated to education, heath services, transportation, and other community programs.

The initiative also wants to rewrite criminal law, including a number of revisions that I consider outright unfair. One such example is forcing recipients of public housing subsidies to submit to criminal background checks. Those with recent criminal activity would have their subsidies withdrawn, potentially leaving families unable to afford housing stranded on the street.

I’m voting No on Prop 6.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs. Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs potentially exceeding $1 billion annually primarily for expansion of offender treatment programs. State savings potentially exceeding $1 billion annually on corrections operations. Net one-time state prison capital outlay savings potentially exceeding $2.5 billion.

I’m voting Yes on Prop 5.

The issue of how to deal with non-violent drug offenders is one that doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

From a purely financial standpoint, this initiative represents a cost savings to the taxpayer. It simply costs more to incarcerate a criminal than it does to provide treatment programs, especially in an era of overcrowded prisons. Furthermore, if rehabilitation is a viable option, the person is allowed to be a functional member of society, as opposed to being largely wasted in confinement.

The implications are even deeper, however. According to a report by Human Rights Watch from 2000, “one in every 20 black men over the age of 18 is in a state or federal prison, compared to one in every 180 whites.” Since that time, these numbers have gotten worse. When the statistics are analyzed, a racial imbalance clearly reveals itself.

The social causes and effects that lead to this situation are complex. However, the present situation is a downward spiral. Non-violent, incarcerated males with children are also absent fathers. The punishment extends to the younger generation, thereby reducing their chances of obtaining a better life.

I favor methods of rehabilitation over incarceration, where rehabilitation offers clear benefits to society.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Changes California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian, or, in limited cases, substitute adult relative. Provides an exception for medical emergency or parental waiver. Fiscal Impact: Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

Now here’s a heavy issue, and, not being a parent, one I consider myself wholly unable to understand.

As such, I’m voting No on Prop 4 based on the following organizations that stand in opposition to the initiative.

• American Academy of Pediatrics, California District
• American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, District IX
• California Academy of Family Physicians
• California Family Health Council
• California Nurses Association
• California School Counselors Association
• California Teachers Association

To the extent that I can form an opinion on the matter, I don’t believe any law can mandate proper family communication.

The sad reality is that domestic violence exists. If a young girl fears physical or emotional abuse from her family, I believe she is better served initially by professional counselors at places such as Planned Parenthood. These counselors urge teens to talk with their parents, but are also trained to detect signals that would indicate potential threats.

If this option is eliminated, an already distressed teen may consider worse alternatives, such as a back-alley abortion or suicide. The first option should be to talk to someone who will listen, be it family or not.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.

Summary:

Authorizes $980,000,000 in general obligation bonds for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of eligible children’s hospitals. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and interest ($933 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $64 million per year.

There doesn’t appear to be any organization formed in order campaign against this act. The only counter arguments presented in the Voter Information Guide involve general opposition to taxes and spending and the vague assertion that hospitals are “special interests.”

This seems pretty cut-and-dry. Who would vote against children’s hospitals?

However, after some googling, I turned up a compelling argument written by Pete Stahl. The claim is that the hospitals receiving funding from these bonds are private institutions. As such, the tax payers see no return on investment, since the money is not directed toward public works.

I am swayed by the argument, but not quite enough. I think, at a fundamental level, the health care system in this country has major flaws. Many corporations position themselves as middlemen and extract huge sums of undeserved money. I’m sure this involvement extends to children’s hospitals as well, willingly or otherwise.

However, children’s hospitals also serve families who could otherwise not afford treatment. This is, at least in a small way, a return on the public’s money. I can’t, in good conscience, vote against this.

I’m voting Yes on Prop 3.

Additional information is available at Ballotpedia.