California Propositions - Nix the First Six! (10/22/05)
by Dean Hartwell
California Governor Schwarzenegger has called for a special election in this off-election year. Eight initiatives made the ballot on topics as diverse as parental notification of teen abortion, union dues payments and prescription drug discounts. Here is my analysis for each of them:
No on Proposition 73 – This proposition forces an abortion provider to notify parents of minors seeking an abortion. By all means, parents should be concerned about what their children do, but the issue is whether the government should enforce communication.
If we passed this initiative, minors who have problems with their parents would have no incentive to go to licensed abortion providers. They would likely hurt themselves trying to induce a miscarriage or go to an unqualified provider and risk harm to their health.
If we do not pass this initiative, some parents will not learn of their daughters’ abortions. Supporters of the initiative point out that doctors must receive consent for all other non-emergency medical procedures on minors, so why not notification for abortion?
As much as I want parents and children to communicate, I am more concerned about the health of children. I am also disturbed by the fact that this proposition would define abortion as the “death of an unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” This could be the first step toward an all-out ban on abortion.
No on Proposition 74 – This proposition makes it easier for schools to remove teachers who have worked less than five years. We should be concerned about the quality of teaching at the K-12 level, but the issue is whether changing rules on tenure will accomplish this goal.
If this initiative passes, fewer people will become interested in teaching. We will lose good and bad teachers alike.
If this initiative fails, we will have the same two-year tenure that we have now. Some bad teachers will get their tenure and continue to teach.
I am bothered by the fact that this initiative does nothing to add textbooks or reduce classroom sizes. It appears to be a calculated attempt by the governor to scare the teaching profession which spoke out against him earlier this year.
No on Proposition 75 – This proposition forbids unions from using union dues for political activities without member consent. The issue here is whether a new rule would be fair to the union members.
If the initiative should pass, union members would have to “opt in,” or write their preference to have dues money toward political causes.
If the initiative should fail, union members would continue to “opt out” by writing their preference not to have union money go toward political causes.
Though few union members likely know of the “opt out” provision, I think it is their responsibility to investigate where their money goes if they are concerned. What bothers me most, though, is that businesses do not have restrictions placed on them about shareholder money.
No on Proposition 76 – This proposition allows the governor to declare a fiscal emergency and cut any program by any amount he chooses. The issue is whether this power is properly vested in the governor.
If the initiative passes, the governor could undo decisions made by voters previously. School funding, health, police and emergency rooms, among other expenditures, would be at risk.
If the initiative fails, the governor would have less power to act in years when the budget is in a crisis.
Our state government is like the federal government in that power is shared by the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Giving the power to the governor to overturn prior decisions made by voters upsets this balance too much.
No on Proposition 77 – This proposition takes the power to redistrict (decide the boundaries for seats held by state and federal officials) from elected officials and gives it to a panel of three retired judges. The issue is whether retired judges are in a better position to draw district boundaries.
If we pass this initiative, the retired judges might be able to draw boundaries that don’t favor incumbents. They would then present their recommendation to the voters who would then decide whether to ratify it.
If we do not pass the initiative, the state legislature (i.e. majority party) would continue to draw the lines on districts. The voters would thus have the power over the redistricting plans when they vote for representatives. They would not be asked to merely ratify it.
What bothers me most here is not so much the proposal but the one who proposes it. Governor Schwarzenegger, seeing his Republican Party in the minority in the State Legislature, has sought to change the rules on redistricting for political purposes.
No on Proposition 78, Yes on Proposition 79 – Proposition 78 makes prescription price reductions voluntary for drug manufacturers. It competes with Proposition 79, which makes price reductions mandatory. If both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
If Proposition 78 passes, seniors will have to hope the drug manufacturers will cut into their own profits and offer discounts. Nothing in their history has ever shown they will do that.
If Proposition 79 passes, drug manufacturers will have to pay more to make up for the forced price reductions.
If neither passes, the status quo continues. Many seniors will be unable to afford their medications.
While drug manufacturers wrote Proposition 78, consumer groups write Proposition 79. Supporters of 78 include the drug manufacturers themselves whereas supporters of 79 include doctors, nurses, health care providers and consumer groups. Supporters of 78 have outspent supporters of 79 by a whopping $80 million to $1 million on television ads. Which side do you trust?
Yes on Proposition 80 – This proposition forces regulation of electric service providers by the California Public Utilities Commission. The issue is whether this regulation serves the public better than less regulation.
If this initiative passes, electricity customers will have trouble switching from one utility provider to another.
If the initiative fails, the government will have little control over public utilities, including the right to control prices. It was a lack of regulation that got California into its energy crisis in late 2000 – early 2001.
I support the regulation of utilities. Consider the alternative: Remember Enron.