Our advice on the propositions appearing on the Feb. 5
presidential primary ballot is easy to remember: No on all of
them.
Prop 91 redundant, unnecessary
Our advice on the propositions appearing on the Feb. 5 presidential primary ballot is easy to remember: No on all of them.
Proposition 91 was made largely redundant by Prop 1A passed by voters in 2006. Even the folks who worked to put Prop 91 on the ballot are now recommending no votes. This measure would change the state’s constitution. If there’s no compelling reason to change the state’s most important governmental charter – and there’s not – we shouldn’t mess with it. Vote no on Prop 91.
Reject ballot-box budgeting
Proposition 92 is a ballot-box budgeting measure. It changes the state’s constitution and institutes statutes that, instead of giving legislators discretion to set spending based on economic conditions and priorities, set a formula that doesn’t allow any flexibility. Opponents also decry the measure’s lack of accountability and are concerned that it might jeopardize funding for K-12 public schools. The relevant question to ask about Prop 92 is not “Are community colleges important?” The relevant question is “Are community colleges now and forever the most important priority in the state of California?” Ballot-box budgeting handcuffs legislators’ ability to address changing economic conditions and shifting priorities. Vote no on Prop 92.
Legislators write their own break
Proposition 93 changes the state constitution to change term limits. In exchange for allowing legislators to serve all of their time in the one state legislative body, it reduces the total time a legislator can spend in the statehouse by two years. It’s a bad deal for two reasons. First, because legislators have not passed redistricting reform, they have proven themselves unworthy of any easing of term limits. Second, Prop 93 contains special exemptions that exempt 42 currently termed-out legislators. Some will be able to serve 20 years in the statehouse if Prop 93 passes. Vote no on Prop 93.
Indian gaming contracts a bad bet
Propositions 94 through 97 seek voter approval of Indian gaming contracts negotiated by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Each proposition applies to a different tribe.This was a close call, with arguments that these are the best deals California can expect holding some sway. In the end, however, concerns about lack of independent audits and disappointment that the contracts don’t live up Schwarzenegger’s campaign promises led us to reject these measures. Vote no on Props 94 though 97. Be sure to study the issues and cast your ballot on Feb. 5.
Nonpartisan information about all propositions is available at
www.smartvoter.org.
