top
Central Valley
Central Valley
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

Contesting Arnold’s Election

by Mike Rhodes (MikeRhodes [at] Comcast.net)
How Fresno is organizing to win in November, voting recommendations, and more
600_dog_arnold.jpg

Contesting Arnold’s Election
By Mike Rhodes

Kevin Hall, local campaign manager for the Alliance for a Better California, is worried that not enough people are paying attention to the November 8 special election. "The governor is trying to push his right-wing agenda by holding an off-year election," Hall says. But organized labor and community activists are mobilizing their forces and have a strategy to win in November. The plan includes a door-to-door effort, a "Dog Arnold" campaign, and a big Get Out the Vote effort.

On a pleasant Saturday afternoon last month, more than 100 people came together to learn about the propositions and began walking precincts in southwest and southeast Fresno. Precincts will be walked each weekend until the election. The goal is to educate and identify likely voters, and get them to the polls on November 8. Hall believes this organizing model might be used in future campaigns. If successful, this could be a Paul Wellstone–like model that mobilizes the grassroots and empowers poor and disfranchised voters. (Wellstone was a senator in Minnesota who built a populist and progressive movement through grassroots organizing. See <www.wellstone.org/>.)

Hall says that with three elections coming up in the next year and a half, he is hoping this model will be successful: "If we can get union members and community activists to take responsibility for the precinct they live in, we can start to influence the outcome of this and future elections." You can hear the excitement in his voice as he discusses this strategy to build an alliance that will unite labor and community activists to win this November.

Randy Ghan, secretary treasurer of the Central Labor Council in Fresno, is also optimistic about organized labor’s ability to unite to defeat the governor’s propositions this November. Ghan says, "There is a very strong commitment by labor to work in solidarity . . . particularly where we have the corporate right coming after us to silence our voice; we are not going to let that occur."

Joining in the door-to-door campaign are members from a wide range of local unions, including the United Food and Commercial Workers, Fresno Teachers Association, Service Employee International Union, Firefighters, and the California Nurses Association. There are also community members from the Living Wage Campaign, the Democratic Party, and the Central Valley Progressive PAC working on the campaign.

The Alliance for a Better California campaign is asking voters to vote No on Propositions 74,75,76, and 78, and Yes on Propositions 79 and 80. To become involved with the local campaign, contact the office at (559) 226–0756. To find out more about the Alliance for a Better California, go to <www.betterca.com/>.

###


A Progressive Guide to the Propositions

NO on Proposition 73: Let’s keep our teens safe
The Campaign for Teen Safety, which is opposed to Proposition 73, is a broad-based coalition of doctors, nurses, health care providers, educators, and civil rights and women's groups, including the League of Women Voters and millions of parents joining together to protect young women’s safety. Parents rightfully want to be involved in their teenagers’ lives, and all parents want what is best for their children. But government cannot mandate good family communication. Parental notification laws don’t protect teens; they hurt teens. Mandatory notification laws have resulted in teens—who for whatever reason can’t go to their parents—resorting to dangerous measures, like back-alley or self-induced abortions—instead of getting the medical help and counseling they need.

For more information see <www.noonproposition73.com/>.

NO on Proposition 74: The "Punish New Teachers Act"
This measure would do nothing to improve public education or deal with the real problems facing our schools. It unfairly attempts to blame teachers for the problems in our public schools, ignoring the realities of underfunding, overcrowding, and the lack of materials and resources needed for effective teaching and learning. If this measure passes, new teachers would serve a 5-year probationary period rather than the current two years, and would lose the right to even have a fair hearing on their dismissal for a full 5 years. Current law already allows for firing teachers who are not performing in the classroom, no matter how long they’ve been on the job.

For more information see <www.betterca.com/>.

NO on Proposition 75: "Paycheck Deception Act"
Proposition 75 is a deceptive measure put on the ballot by the big corporations and out-of-state billionaires who support Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's destructive agenda for California. It unfairly targets teachers, nurses, firefighters, police, and other public employees with restrictions that don’t apply to other groups or corporations, which regularly spend shareholder money on politics without permission. Prop. 75 is designed to reduce our ability to respond when politicians would harm education, health care, and public safety, effectively clearing the opposition to the governor’s education and health care cuts.

For more information see <www.betterca.com/>.

NO on Proposition 76: The "Cuts School Funding Act"
This measure would devastate our public schools and other vital services, cutting school funding by over $4 billion every year—$600 per student—leading to more overcrowded classrooms and teacher layoffs, and fewer textbooks and classroom materials. Our schools lost $2 billion when Governor Schwarzenegger broke his promise to repay the money he took from education, and if this initiative passes, the governor will never have to repay that money to our schools. It also overturns the voter-approved Proposition 98, eliminating the minimum funding guarantee for education. It also cuts funding for local government––cutting police and firefighters, as well as local health care services that protect children and the elderly. This initiative hurts our most vulnerable populations including the sick, the elderly, and the young.

For more information see <www.betterca.com/>.

NO on Proposition 77: The Unfair reapportionment scheme
Every time they don’t get their way, politicians cook up new schemes to change the rules. They’ve tried sneaking redistricting schemes past voters four times over the last 25 years, and each time, voters said no! This time, their plan will cost taxpayers millions, and three judges and two courts have ruled it was illegally qualified for the ballot. Don't be fooled! Read the fine print. This undemocratic and unfair redistricting scheme has huge loopholes.

For more information see <www.noonproposition77.com/>.

NO on Proposition 78: The Drug Companies’ "Bad Prescription" Initiative
The big drug companies are going to spend millions trying to fool voters and keep them from passing the real prescription drug relief contained in the Alliance-backed Prop. 79. This phony measure says only that drug companies can enter a "voluntary" program to reduce prices…but why will they? They have no real incentive to lower the sky-high cost of prescription drugs. A "No" vote on this measure is necessary to provide consumers with real relief from soaring drug prices, because whichever measure gets the highest number of votes becomes law.

For more information see <www.betterca.com/>.

YES on Proposition 79: The "Cheaper Prescription Drugs for Californians Act"
Sponsored by consumer, senior, and health organizations, Proposition 79 would provide deeper, enforceable discounts to twice as many Californians than the drug industry-backed Prop. 78. Proposition 79 would use the purchasing power of the state of California to negotiate the best price for up to ten million Californians, who now pay more than anybody else in the world for prescription drugs. Prop. 79 saves taxpayers money by reducing prescription drug costs by 50% or more, and ensuring that more people can afford needed medications now, rather than get more expensive care later. Proposition 79 is supported by Consumers Union, Health Access California, Breast Cancer Action, Congress of California Seniors, the League of Women Voters of California, and many other organizations.

For more information see <www.betterca.com/>.

YES on Proposition 80: The "Affordable Electricity and Preventing Blackouts Act"
This is a common-sense consumer initiative that will help prevent energy blackouts and massive fraud by unregulated private energy producers like Enron. It will override the failed energy deregulation policies, put utilities back in the business of serving the public, and encourage development of more renewable energy sources. The ultimate result will be more affordable energy for ALL Californians.

###

Nix the Six:

Vote NO on

Proposition 73......Puts teenagers lives at risk
Proposition 74......The anti-teacher initiative
Proposition 75......Attacks labor unions
Proposition 76......Cuts school funding
Proposition 77......Unfair reapportionment scheme
Proposition 78......The big drug companies’ scam

Vote YES on

Proposition 79.......Guarantees deep discounts on prescription drugs and will save the taxpayers millions of dollars.
Proposition 80......Will make our utility bills more affordable by re-regulating the power industry and by encouraging renewable energy.


Parental Notification Endangers Teen Safety. November 8th, vote NO on Proposition 73!
From the Planned Parenthood Web site

What is this initiative all about?

Proposition 73 is a harmful and ill-conceived initiative that would amend the state constitution to require health care providers to notify the parents of young women under the age of 18 before providing abortion services. Once a parent has been notified, a mandatory waiting period of 48 hours is required before the doctor can provide an abortion. Only those teens faced with a medical emergency or those who obtain a "judicial bypass" are exempt from the parental notification requirement. This initiative would serve as a blatant intrusion by the government into private, personal family matters and would place vulnerable teens in jeopardy of severe health consequences.

What’s wrong with parental notification laws?

Most parents' top priority is to ensure that their teens are safe and healthy. Parental notification laws do nothing to keep teens safe or promote family communication. Ironically, the real outcome of these laws is delayed medical care and counseling for the most vulnerable teens. Parents need real tools to help them communicate openly with their children about healthy behaviors and sexual decision-making. What they don't need is government intrusion laws.

Shouldn’t parents have a right to know if their teen is getting an abortion?

First and foremost, parents want to ensure that their teens are safe. Although many parents do a good job of communicating with their teens about sensitive issues like sexuality, some teens can't or won't go to their parents when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Most parents agree that whether or not their children come to them, they should have timely access to medical care and counseling.

Do teens usually involve their parents in decisions about whether to have an abortion?

Yes. In fact, research shows that a majority of teens talk to their parents about their options when faced with a difficult situation like an unplanned pregnancy. Planned Parenthood works with parents and teens every day to promote healthy communication at home. But we also know from experience that not every family is able to communicate when it comes to sensitive issues like abortion or sexuality. We must do everything in our power to protect the health of young people by ensuring they can receive the medical care they need, when they need it.

What is a judicial bypass?

Proponents of Prop. 73 contend that because it contains a judicial bypass waiver—which allows a young woman to go before a judge to waive the parental notification requirement—teens in abusive homes are protected. In fact, judicial bypass offers little if any protection. For those young women who can’t talk to their parents about this issue, going before a judge is daunting and unrealistic. Many teens lack knowledge of court procedures or live in rural areas and cannot easily access a judge in a timely fashion. And some judges are anti-choice and will not grant a waiver to teens even under the most compelling of circumstances.

Who is behind Proposition 73?

James Holman, a San Diego millionaire known for his extremist anti-choice views—he opposes contraception and believes abortion should be outlawed in all cases, including rape and incest—has pumped hundreds of thousands of dollars of his own money in support of Prop. 73. Most of Holman’s money to date has gone to paid signature gathers in an effort to qualify Prop. 73 for the ballot. Because Prop. 73 will be brought to voters in California, the most pro-choice state in the country, anti-choice donors from around the country are also backing the dangerous measure.

Who opposes Proposition 73?

Along with Planned Parenthood, NARAL Pro-Choice California, and the ACLU, many other medical and civil rights organizations have come out in opposition to parental notification laws. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and many others have cited the risk to teens’ health in opposing these laws. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, "mandating parental notification does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate care." Concerned parents across the state also oppose the initiative because they know that if their teen couldn't come to them, for whatever reason, they would want her to be safe. They also don't want judges making important life decisions for their daughters.

Planned Parenthood is looking for volunteers for the Campaign for Teen Safety, No on Proposition 73. They are phone banking every Sunday, 5–9 PM. If you are interested in volunteering, contact Patsy Montgomery at (559) 488-4908 ext. 301 or patsy_montgomery@ppmarmonte.org.

Michelle Colvin is working on the No on 73 campaign at CSU-Fresno. Michelle is working with the Feminist Majority Foundation and can be reached by at mveritycolvin@sbcglobal.net or (559) 804-1660.

600_abc.jpg
Ricardo Ornelas from the California Teachers Association is training precinct walkers at the
Alliance for a Better California Fresno campaign kickoff held September 10, 2005. Photo: Mike Rhodes
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$110.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network