|
|
|||||||||||
THE NOVEMBER 8TH STATE INITIATIVES POLL:
Introduction A statewide special election has been scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2005. A number of propositions will be on the ballot (please see the listing below). The state party Campaigns and Candidates Working Group anticipates that we may well be asked to take positions on a number of these propositions fairly soon. By polling the county Green Parties at this time, we should be able to have official state party positions on most of these propositions by early September, in time for our endorsements to be printed on campaign literature. Information on the process used to create the recommendations and write-ups: Members of the state party’s Campaigns and Candidates Working Group (CCWG) (as well as Greens throughout the state via county contacts) were sent emails asking if they would volunteer to help analyze and write arguments on the state propositions. One or more Green volunteered for each of the propositions, resulting in the recommendations and write-ups below. This work was then reviewed by the CCWG, with only proposition 77 generating any differences in opinion. (Some Greens opposed prop. 77, while others did not want the party to take any position at all on prop. 77). There were not any disagreements on the CCWG listserve for any of the other recommendations or write-ups. A brief note about a few uncertainties for the special election: In late July, propositions 77 and 80 were removed from the ballot by court order, but those decisions are being appealed. Recently, there has been speculation that the entire special election itself might be cancelled, but no official decisions have yet been made towards that end. In order to be prepared for the Nov. 8 special election taking place (including the possibility that Props. 77 and/or 80 might be re-instated), we need to continue with our county polling process, as originally scheduled. Be sure to submit votes on all initiatives, even it there appears to be doubt about whether or not it will ultimately appear on the Nov. 8 ballot. Recommended Positions for November 8, 2005 State Propositions: “No” -- Proposition 73 - Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. “No” -- Proposition 74 - Public School Teachers Waiting Period for Permanent Status. “No” -- Proposition 75 - Public Employee Union Dues Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. “No” -- Proposition 76 - School Funding. Proposition 77 - Reapportionment -- We are polling whether the state party should take a “No” position on prop. 77. However, we do NOT have a recommended position on this proposition. “No” -- Proposition 78 - Prescription Drugs Discounts. (Proponent: Ashlee N. Brown) -- [Drug industry sponsored] “Yes” -- Proposition 79 - Prescription Drug Discounts. (Proponent: Anthony Wright) “Yes” -- Proposition 80 - Electric Service Providers Regulation. For more information: The official summaries of the propositions are at: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm The full text of each proposition is available at: http://www.caag.state.ca.us/initiatives/activeindex.htm Proposition 73 - Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy (1st of two write-ups) ----- Recommended Position: “No” This proposition places a notification requirement on doctors before an abortion procedure may be performed on a minor. Unless the minor applies for a waiver from a judge within the doctor’s jurisdiction, the minor’s parent or legal guardian must be notified before the procedure, and a 48-hour waiting period must be respected. There is no requirement for parental consent, and emergency abortions may be performed without parental notification. Doctors would also be required to report all abortions performed, and the State of California would keep records and statistics on abortions. As the Green Party of California unequivocally supports a Woman’s Right To Choose in matters concerning her sexuality and reproduction, we oppose any legislation that might infringe upon that freedom of choice. Often parents of minors feel empowered to make decisions for their daughters, and often minors feel compelled to obey those decisions rather than incur parental discipline. Proposition 73 - Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy (2nd of two write-ups) ----- Recommended Position: “No” California Green Party should totally oppose the proposed Fall initiative on Parental Consent. Greens advocate full access to safe and reliable reproductive information and services – including abortions. This should be true regardless of whether teens have been abused, are part of functional or dysfunctional families, or they live in rural or urban areas. Ready access to all reproductive services is crucial to ensure that appropriate and safe care is available to all young women. The parent who started the process of this initiative lost his daughter to complications from an abortion pill. Limiting access to abortions will only make more young women get medical complications and possibly die. Children deserved to be raised by willing parents and young teens deserve to make choices allowing them to fully mature before they become parents. This initiative is one more step in the process to limit women’s reproductive choices. All research shows that the availability of reproductive information and services lowers the incidence of teen pregnancies and abortions. Contrary to the claim of the Legislative Analyst, delays in access to reproductive care has increased the incidence of second trimester abortions. These efforts to limit reproductive services has delayed the introduction of safer approaches. See background sheet below: Background to being opposed to parental consent initiative: *Nationwide, the abortion rate among teens ages 15 to 19 has dropped from 34 per 1,000 in 1994 to 25 per 1,000 women in 2000, according to the Menlo Park, Calif.-based Kaiser Family Foundation. The ACLU and NOW web sites were reviewed to prepare for this including (in case you or others want to refer to them): http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/2351 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposition 74 - Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. ----- Recommended Position: “No” Proposition 74 would increase the probationary period for teachers to five years (it is now two years.) During probation, teachers can be dismissed without cause or reason. In other words, new teachers are now denied due process for two years, and this proposition would deny new teachers due process for five years. This is a very bad idea. Contrary to the intimations of Proposition 74’s advocates, permanent teachers do not have tenured status. They can be dismissed for a variety of reasons specified in the state education code -- including unsatisfactory performance, unprofessional conduct, criminal acts, dishonesty and conduct unfit for associating with children -- no matter how long they’ve been on the job. But they cannot be dismissed without cause. Permanent teachers have the right to due process, and that clearly disturbs Proposition 74 advocates. School administrators routinely use their power to arbitrarily dismiss probationary teachers to intimidate new teachers from speaking up at a meeting or engaging in union activity. New teachers who ignore these threats frequently find themselves out of a job. And herein lies the real intention of Proposition 74: to keep new teachers intimidated, inactive, and fearful of supporting their teacher’s union for a full five years. This would greatly weaken California’s teacher unions, at a time when they (and, indeed, all of public education) are under heavy fire: Schwarzenegger reneged on his word and cut billions in state education funding; school districts are going bankrupt, schools are being closed or privatized, school workers laid off, wages and benefits cut. Good teaching, like good learning, requires freedom to think, freedom to inquire, and freedom to speak one’s mind. Proposition 74, if implemented, will succeed in discouraging many potentially fine teachers from becoming teachers, and in chasing many of the best new teachers out of the field, or at least out of California. Vote NO!!! Proposition 75 - Public Employee Union Dues Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. (1st of two write-ups) ----- Recommended Position: “No” PROPOSITION 75 STATEMENT Proposition 75, according to the official summary, would “Prohibit public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form”. The main proponent of Prop. 75 is Lewis Uhler, a former official in the Reagan administration and a long-time conservative activist. Prop. 75 is similar to Prop. 226, which was defeated in 1998. The difference is that Prop. 226 applied to all unions, while Prop. 75 applies only to public employee unions. Obviously, the backers are trying to split the more conservative unions from the public sector unions. The big businesses who put up the money to put Prop. 75 on the ballot have 2 major goals. The most important goal is to weaken the labor movement on the political front. Our rulers are trying to impose cuts to both the wages of individuals and to the social wage of workers with cuts to pensions (including Social Security), schools, healthcare, etc. The labor movement in general and the public employee unions in particular are a major obstacle to their plan. By fighting for these programs, public sector unions protect the jobs for their members, to be sure. But, they also fight for the services that public employees provide and for the people who need them, including some of the poorest and sickest who are least able to defend themselves. The campaign the nurses, teachers, and other public employees are waging against the Governor has blunted this business offensive. The businessmen are afraid that fighting against these cuts may lead to a movement for progressive taxation which neither the Democrats or Republicans support. The second goal is to divert resources from these fights by forcing the public employee unions to use person power to get the members to fill out forms. The current situation in most unions is that a person joining the union will find a box on the membership application to check if they do not want dues used for political purposes. This is called, “Opt out.” What Proposition 75 would do is require each member to “Opt in” every year by filling out a form. This would weaken the unions, which is the point. If the proponents of Proposition 75 were interested in fairness, the equivalent for business would be to get the approval of stockholders for political donations that a publicly held corporation might make. We are not hearing this from the backers of Proposition 75. The Green Party recognizes Proposition 75 for what it is; a battle in the class struggle. We are on the side of the poor and working people. Vote no. Proposition 75 - Public Employee Union Dues Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. (2nd of two write-ups) ----- Recommended Position: “No” Proposition 75 1084. (SA05RF0009). Public Employee Union Dues Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute. Proponent: Lewis K. Uhler (916) 786-9400 Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees’ and organizations’ political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Probably minor state and local government implementation costs, potentially offset in part by revenues from fines and/or fees. ---------------- Its big business backers say there is a conflict between the political leanings of union members and the way union leaders use dues for political purposes. Many say this is not the real issue behind the measure. Public employee unions are among the largest financial donors to Democratic campaigns in California. Of all the ballot measures being circulated for a possible special election later this year, the so- called paycheck protection measure is the biggest threat to Democrats’ power. While paycheck protection does not take away a union’s right to spend dues on politics, it does something almost as bad in the eyes of union officials: it requires the union to get each member’s written permission before using his or her dues for political activity. Big Business already greatly outspends working people in the political process. This measure would make the playing field even more lopsided. Corporations could continue to spend freely while public sector unions would face major barriers to participating in the political process. Backers say this will promote democracy by giving individual workers a say in how their dues are spent: No one should be forced to support political causes against his or her will. But how most union money is spent is determined by majority rule: If union members believe the union is not representing their views in the political world, they can go to a union meeting and vote in new leadership. Moreover, public employees already can opt out of union campaigning by paying only “fair share” fees for contract bargaining done on their behalf. Pooling their money gives workers a louder voice in the political process than acting as individuals. It is important to defeat this measure not only for its potential disempowerment of unions, but because it will increase its likelihood of spreading nationally. Washington state passed a similar measure in 1992. Five other states have followed suit. A California victory would give the little-known concept much higher visibility. Proposition 76 - School Funding. (1st of two write-ups) ----- Recommended Position: “No” Proposition 76 would sharply reduce state funding for education and other social services. It would: The California Teachers Association estimates that Prop. 76 would cut school funding by over $4 billion every year. This will mean more bankrupt school districts, more overcrowded schools, more layoffs of school workers. Inner city schools will be hit hardest, widening the gulf between “have” suburban schools and “have-not” inner city schools. (Schools in affluent area raise money from wealthy parents; inner city schools don’t have that option.) This initiative cuts school funding by over $4 billion every year - $600 per student, leading to more overcrowded classrooms, teacher layoffs, and fewer textbooks and classroom materials. We think some things are too important to cut—things like education, health care, fire protection. Schwarzenegger and other Prop 76 proponents think other things are too important to cut: although their proposition requires cuts to vital services, it prohibits cuts to special interests like the California Dried Plum Board and pork barrel road building projects. Vote NO Proposition 76 - School Funding. (2nd of two write-ups) ----- Recommended Position: “No” Proposition 76: The California Live Within Our Means Act This proposition empowers the Governor, in cases of budget emergencies, to impose spending reductions. A “budget emergency” is defined as a state spending budget in which expenditures exceed revenues by more than $250 million, adjusted for inflation and determined by the Consumer Price Index. The legislature would be required to close the anticipated spending excess within 30-45 days of the emergency declaration, or relinquish that power to the Governor. The proposition would also reduce or endanger current minimum state requirements for public school funding as are required under Proposition 98, prohibit certain inter-governmental loans the authors consider to be fraudulent “budgetary gimmickry,” and require a 2/3 support vote from the legislature on any statute that would increase taxes on any taxpayer. Greens believe that fair taxation statutes will be needed to finance all state expenditures, and that legislators should be increasingly more responsible to the taxpayers for increasing Public Education spending in particular. Legislators should NOT be forced by Proposition 76 to either reduce spending to match revenues, nor to yield responsibility for needed spending reductions to the Governor. Greens oppose giving the Governor more unilateral power over the state budget. Realizing that California spends less money per student per school year than most states in the US, Greens support fair taxation statutes that will increase spending each year on Public Education, including years of artificial “budget emergencies.” Greens oppose Proposition 76 insofar as it threatens to reduce Public School funding. Proposition 76 has two names. It is called the “Live Within Our Means” act, and also the “School Funding, State Spending Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” Greens read these two titles to mean that its supporters believe California cannot afford to continue to increase Public Education spending. We support education professionals from Pre-K through University and Research Institutions, who, together with their Organized Labor Unions, oppose Proposition 76 on the grounds that it would further degrade the educational environment for all Californians in the Public Schools System, while increasing the appeal of Private/For Profit Schools, only for the wealthy who can afford them. Proposition 77 - Reapportionment. (1st of two write-ups taking DIFFERENT POSITIONS) ----- This write-up is the “No on 77” position: This ballot initiative would create a constitutional amendment requiring a three-member panel of retired judges to draw congressional and state legislative districts, rather than the members of the current Legislature. This would supposedly take the party politics out of redistricting. The new boundaries would take effect as soon as possible, rather than waiting until the next scheduled census in 2010 when redistricting is typically done. The judges would be asked to design districts that preserved cities, counties, and “communities of interests”, and ignore any political considerations. Republicans want to gain seats-- This redistricting initiative is Arnold’s latest effort at electoral reform, in his on-going plan to rid the capital of “special interests”. A side benefit for the governator is that the better-financed Republicans would be able to win more seats if the districts were not so lopsidedly drawn to include mostly Dems or Repubs. Rearranging the deck chairs-- Opposing this bill would put us in the same camp with Democrat and Republican incumbents who want to continue to run in their gerrymandered districts. It seems to be another “lesser of two evils” proposition, and if we oppose it, Greens may be again painted as “spoilers” of the governator’s effort to reform our corrupted electoral system. Nevertheless, this bill does nothing for Greens, and still makes it look like something is happening. No matter how they draw the districts, only the Republicrats can win, due to the lock that corporate money and winner-take-all voting has put on elections. It’s a distraction from real reform— Furthermore, to win in the newly competitive districts, all candidates will have to be more centrist in order to appeal to a wider range of political opinion. This will result in less progressives of any stripe in the Legislature, and more corporate-owned Republicrats. Any change would be cosmetic only, and would otherwise distract the electorate from the real democratic reform that Greens have been proposing for years: Multiple-Seat Districts, Single Transferable Vote ballots, and Public Financing of Campaigns. We therefore recommend a NO vote on Prop 77. Proposition 77 - Reapportionment. (2nd of two write-ups taking DIFFERENT POSITIONS) ----- This write-up is the “No Position on 77” position: The main goals of redistricting (aside from the mandates of the Constitution) are commonly cited as: The reality is that no matter how the lines are drawn, nor who draws them, these goals can not be achieved under a system of single-member (one winner) districts. How do you draw a district line to favor the election of a minority group but still have fair competition? If it’s competitive, there’s no assurance that any group in that district will have their candidate prevail. If it’s favored to elect one group’s candidate, it’s not competitive. These are mutually exclusive goals when there’s only one seat to win. The attempted solution is absurd gerrymandering that tries to encircle a minority community but still have a near equal balance of Republi/Demo-crats. And, all districts must have near equal population sizes. Good luck! Arizona, Iowa, New Jersey and Washington have tried independent or bipartisan redistricting panels. These efforts did not result in a significant difference in which party gets elected in any given district. In California, we had partisan redistricting during the 1980’s, with an average of 4.6 district seats changing parties in each election (out of 145 state legislature and Congressional seats). We had independent redistricting in the 1990’s, with an average of 8.6 seats changing parties (out of 152 state legislature and Congressional seats, with more house seats added after 1990 census).** Proponents point out that this is an 87% improvement. But, 8.6 seats out of 152 (5.7%) changing parties simply does not indicate a significant improvement in competitiveness. The main benefit of redistricting by an independent panel is that of public perception. It just seems fairer than having the legislature do it. And it probably is fairer, but it brings more cosmetic than real solutions. The only scheme that can produce truly competitive races AND allow fair representation of minority groups is multi-member districts using a proportional representation voting system. Reconfiguring California into using large districts that would comprise four or five of the existing Assembly districts would produce fair and competitive results. The majority group in such a district would likely win the majority of seats, and minority groups would likely win the remaining minority of seats. And this will hold true in most cases regardless of where the district boundaries are placed. Under such a scheme, gerrymandering the lines becomes much less of an issue. The boundaries will be more influenced by Constitutional and legal requirements for equal size and minority representation. Passage of this proposition may bring some relief from the extremes of gerrymandering, but let’s recognize that it will not be a significant improvement in democracy for Californians. ** Statistics from “Designing Districts” by Common Cause Education Fund Proposition 78 - Prescription Drugs. Discounts. (Proponent: Ashlee N. Brown) -- [Drug industry sponsored] ----- Recommended Position: “No” Proposition 79 - Prescription Drug Discounts. (Proponent: Anthony Wright) ----- Recommended Position: “Yes” No on 78, Yes on 79 Health Access California, and other labor and consumer groups, sponsored Prop 79, which would use the purchasing power of the State of California to negotiate prescription-drug discounts for millions of Californians that now pay retail prices for these medications. This measure is opposed by “Big Pharma,” the prescription drug industry, which also sponsored a counter-measure, Prop 78. This one’s easy; Yes on 79 (“Nine is fine”) and No on 78 (“We Hate Eight”) will help your memory (which there’s no clear evidence that Aricept will do, but that’s another story). The San Francisco Chronicle (July 13, 2005) ran a front-page story (“Drug firms arming for battle at ballot box”) listing twelve drug companies which have contributed $43 million since June 16 for this battle. Pfizer, Merck, and GlaxoSmithKline each contributed $8.5 million to their industry’s “California Initiative Fund.” Coincidence? I don’t think so. The Alliance for a Better California (the coalition of nurses, teachers, state employee and so on that have provided so many large, enthusiastic anti-Schwartzenegger rallies all over the state in recent months) also worked to put Prop 79 on the ballot. Much of the language came from a measure which passed the legislature last year and was vetoed by Schwartzenegger. (Schwartzenegger supported a version of Prop 78, which didn’t get out of a State Senate committee earlier this year.) So now you know who the major forces on both sides are. Both measures claim to provide prescription drugs at discounted prices to some low- income and moderate-income Californians. Prop 79 would cover more people (the income cutoff is higher). As I see it, the major difference is that Prop 79 is mandatory for the drug companies. Firms that don’t provide medicines under this program for the same price they charge MediCal could be barred from selling to the State’s MediCal program. You will not be surprised to learn that Big Pharma prefers Prop 78, where their participation is voluntary. Greens are on record for universal single-payer health care. Our side is still working to achieve that for California through the legislature (SB 840). Meanwhile, let’s work for Prop 79, one small but important step down that road. Proposition 80 - Electric Service Providers Regulation. ----- Recommended Position: “Yes” In response to the California energy deregulation debacle – which resulted in dangerous rolling blackouts in 2000/ 2001, and the eventual transfer of wealth from California to Texas via Enron and others - a bill was passed in the CA legislature (AB 2006) in 2004 which would have required utilities and other power suppliers to rationally plan for the future by re-regulating energy in California. Despite the bill’s easy passage in the legislature, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed it, preferring “competitively priced” electricity over regulated electricity, even if residential rates go up in the process. Now organizers at TURN (The Utility Reform Network, the state’s major utility consumer group) have taken the bill to the voters during Schwarzenegger’s special election and created the ‘Electric Re-regulation and Blackout Avoidance Initiative’ (1114). A little known but simple fact in support of re-regulation is that blackouts due to power shortages and market manipulation did not exist in California prior to deregulation (all previous blackouts resulted from transmission or distribution outages). Essentially, this proposition re-establishes a number of legal requirements which were done away with during deregulation. ‘Integrated resource planning’ is a part of the proposition that means that large commercial customers no longer have a special right to jump back and forth between ‘direct access’ (buying power from independent providers) and utility services. Restoring this limit will preserve certainty and reliability for utilities in their purchase planning. There are also requirements for ‘adequate reserves’ for preventing blackouts due to power ‘shortages,’ as well as restoring the obligations of those corporations profiting off supplying energy to California - PG&E, SCE and SDG&E - to serve California consumers rather than those elsewhere. Certain other aspects of this proposition are also favored by Greens, such as the requirement of all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, and the moving up of the date of the state’s 20% renewable energy requirement from 2017 to 2010 (decreasing our dependence on expensive fossil fuels). Similarly, ‘first priority for energy efficiency,’ ensures that the cheapest kilowatt hours (those that are conserved rather than generated) are given first priority, meaning that efficiency programs will be pursued before new power plants are built. We strongly recommend a Yes vote. |
|||||||||||
|
[home] [get involved] [election] [platform] [greens] address: PO Box 15073, Santa Rosa, CA 95402 |
|||||||||||
