California Election Web Forum

The best website that has been around for a while is Cal Voter's at
http://www.calvoter.org/voter/elections/2004/index.html

The various proposition websites, pro and con, are also listed in your California voter handbook, at the beginning with the pro and con arguments for each proposition, starting at page 3 in the section entitled "Quick Reference Pullout Guide: Ballot Measure Summary."

The most important of the 15 California propositions are:
Proposition 62-No
Proposition 64-No
Proposition 66-Yes
Proposition 72-Yes

Prop 62 would destroy all the small parties in California, such as Peace & Freedom Party, California's socialist electoral party, and the Green Party. It is very anti-democratic as it limits our choices on the ballot.
See http://www.Noon62.com

Proposition 64 limits our right to file lawsuits, in this case, unfair competition lawsuits. It is bad for consumers.
See http://www.NoonProp64.org or
http://www.electionwatchdog.org/

Proposition 66 limits the third offense in the horrifying prison-promoting three-strikes law to a violent offense. It will restore the concept of rehabilitation instead of punishment, which will save the taxpayers' money and build a much better society. This is not enough, but it is a start.
See: http://www.voteyeson66.org

Proposition 72 is a healthcare initiative that broadens the availability of healthcare coverage, at a time when millions of people have no healthcare coverage and that number is increasing daily.
See: http://www.YesonProp72.com

Below are the recommendations of the Green Party of Alameda County, and their (almost) final analysis and write-ups. (The final write-ups, including recommendations for most everything else on the ballot in the greater Berkeley-Oakland area, are at: http://cagreens.org/alameda/county/GPAC-VG-Sep04-Pages1-8.pdf and http://cagreens.org/alameda/county/GPAC-VG-Sep04-Pages9-16.pdf )

Paper copies of the Voter Guide are available 24 hours/day on the porch of the Grassroots House at: 2022 Blake St. in Berkeley (1/2 block west of Shattuck, about midway between the downtown and Ashby BART stations).





State Propositions --

Green Party of Alameda County final positions


1A -- Local govenment funding -- YES, with reservations

59 -- Public access to government information -- YES

60 -- Election Rights of Political Parties -- YES, please see write-up

60A--Surplus property -- No position, please see write-up

61 -- Children's hospital projects bond -- NO

62 -- "limited choice" primary elections -- NO, NO, NO

63 -- Mental health services, tax on millionaires -- YES, with reservations

64 -- Unfair business competition laws -- NO

65 -- Local govenment funding -- YES

66 -- Amend the "three strikes" law -- YES, YES, YES

67 -- Telephone tax for 911 -- NO

68 & 70 -- Tribal gaming compacts (2 different initiatives) -- NO on 68; No position, please see write-up for 70

69 -- Forced DNA Samples -- NO, NO

71 -- Stem cell research bonds -- NO, please see write-up

72 -- Save SB2, Employer-mandated health care -- YES, YES







Write-ups -- State Propositions
Green Party of Alameda County Voter Guide



(1A -- Local govenment funding -- See Prop. 65 write-up)


59 -- Public access to government information -- YES

This measure will enshrine in our state Constitution the public's right to know. After Prop. 59 passes, the amount of information that any agency can keep secret will become very limited, and bureaucrats seeking to keep information secret will have to justify their action. Virtually no government entity in the state (except law enforcement) will be able to prevent individuals, organizations or news media from accessing all government records, including those of local government and special districts. There is no organized opposition to the measure. We urge a YES vote on Proposition 59.



60 -- Election Rights of Political Parties -- YES, please see write-up

Prop. 60 was passed by the state legislature as a way to defeat Prop. 62. Because we are strongly opposed to Prop. 62 we support Prop. 60. (Please see below for our write-up explaining why we strongly oppose Prop. 62).

Prop. 60 will amend the state constitution so that each recognized political party in California will be guaranteed a ballot line on the General Election ballot. If both Prop. 60 and Prop. 62 pass, whichever proposition receives the highest vote total will take effect.

We acknowledge that much genuine electoral reform needs to happen in California, and that Prop. 60, unfortunately, will merely maintain the status quo. However, because Prop. 62 will simply be devastating for democracy (especially for the Green Party and other smaller parties), we strongly urge you to vote Yes, for Proposition 60.

As we go to press, it looks like significant funds will be spent to pass Prop. 62. So unfortunately we may not be able to defeat 62 directly. By the time you read this, the "Yes" on Prop. 60 campaign may have emerged as our best hope of defeating Prop. 62. Please vote Yes on Prop. 60. For more information, please see: http://www.yeson60.com







60A--Surplus property -- No position, please see write-up.

Prop 60A dedicates proceeds from sale of state surplus property to pay principal and interest on the Economic Recovery Bonds approved by Prop 57 in March 2004, rather than be deposited to the General Fund. The Legislative Analyst estimates net long term savings for the State in the low tens of millions of dollars by potentially accelerating bond repayment by a few months. The sale of surplus property is not a major source of General Fund revenue, fluctuates significantly, and has averaged around $30 million a year. The proposition does not accelerate the sale of surplus property and it only covers property originally purchased with General Fund money. This revenue may be better allocated to other pressing needs than the minimal impact it may have on reducing the size of the State's debt, but is that a decision voters should be deciding by ballot initiative? This proposition was originally attached to the unrelated Prop 60 protecting primary elections from the competing "limited-choice primary", Prop 62. (The courts then ruled that Prop. 60A had to stand on its own). While we definitely support Prop 60, and oppose 62, this Prop 60A represents an unrelated amendment that was merely added to help Prop. 60 pass.

While well intentioned, Prop 60A is probably unnecessary, and by itself, represents a not very significant mixed bag that now does not warrant a definite endorsement either way.



61 -- Children's hospital projects bond -- NO

If this passes, $750 million in bonds would be sold by the state and paid back out of the general fund to expand capacity in Children's Hospitals across the state. Each year of the next 30, a $50 million bill will come due out of the state's general fund when as it is, hospitals are not able to adequately staff the beds they do have and we were barely able to keep funding for operating the Alameda County Medical Center by passing a regressive local sales tax. This is another attempt to push the fiscal burden for public services onto middle- and working-class communities and away from the wealthy and corporate interests that run state government.

The Green Party believes this perhaps well-intentioned proposal to be poor use of taxpayers' money. Greens would prefer prioritizing solutions that both fixed long-term structural problems with health care delivery (like the single payer plan in SB 921, see http://www.healthcareforall.org/). Or, until universal single-payer health care can be enacted, we prefer measure that were more honest about where the money was going to come from. Like most bonds, this proposal would add debts that would make it harder to provide other necessary services from the state coffers without actually saying now either where that additional revenue would come from or what the state should cut to accommodate these obligations. Vote No.



62 -- "limited choice" primary -- NO, NO, NO

Proposition 62 will be a disaster for democracy, especially for the Green Party and all other smaller political parties. If Prop. 62 passes, voters will be limited to choosing between just two candidates in the November general election. And for many of the races, the "choice" presented to voters will incredibly be a one-party election! The two candidates will both be from the same party, and no candidates from any other political parties will be allowed on the ballot!

Proposition 62 will also affect all partisan primary elections in California except the Presidential primary. If Prop. 62 passes, all voters of all parties (or lack thereof) will receive identical primary ballots.

The ballots will list all candidates and their party affiliation from all the parties in a single group, an the candidates who get to move on to the General Election will be the top two who received the most votes, regardless of their party affiliation.

For the regular General Election voters will receive a ballot limited to only those two choices, even if these two candidates are of the same party. Incredibly, voters could not only often end up with a general election limited to just two candidates from the same party, but that party could well not even be the party that got the most votes in the primary! For example, in the primary, if only two Republicans run, with one getting 19% and the other 18%, but four Democrats run, getting 17%, 16%, 11%, and 7%, with candidates from other parties (and independents) sharing the remaining 12%, then the two Republicans will advance to the General Election, despite the fact that they together only received 37% of the vote, while Democratic candidates together received 51%, and all non-Republicans combined totaled 63%!

Among the he chief sponsors of Proposition 62 are Richard Riordan, Steve Westly, Leon Panetta, and Eli Broad, with major funding coming from corporations and their CEO's.

Already, gerrymandering has created an overwhelming majority of safe districts so that contested, open, and public electioneering has largely gone by the wayside. The candidates do not have to answer the tough questions. And Prop. 62 would extend this by severly eliminating most of the competition, including all of the smaller parties.

The Green Party devotes its volunteer time and energy to reform our democracy, to make it more open, more representative, more fair, and more democratic.

Proposition 62 moves drastically in the opposite direction, limiting our General Election choices to the two pre-ordained and highest vote getters. It is a recipe for less political choice, less accountability to the issues and needs of a constituency, and more control for those moneyed powerful people who pull the levers on the Media and major political parties.

Please help us stop this outrageous assault on what remains of our democracy! Vote No on Prop. 62. For more information, please see: http://www.noon62.com/home



63 -- Mental health services, tax on millionaires -- YES, with reservations

The Green Party favors the expansion of mental health services. However, we also favor the expansion of other health services, education, etc. The best part of Prop 63 is the funding. A tax of 1% on incomes over $1,000,000 points the way toward progressive taxation, which is so lacking in today's tax policy. However, we question why mental health was singled out. The current inadequate level of funding for public services produces an almost inexhaustible list of unmet needs at every level of government.



64 -- Unfair business competition laws -- NO

When a proposal has the backing of insurance companies (Blue Cross, Kaiser), large banks (Wells Fargo, Bank of America), the Chamber of Commerce and numerous auto dealers, Greens are bound to be suspicious.

This proposition aims to limit the rights of individuals and public interest organizations to sue to enforce unfair business competition laws. Many consumer protection laws have come as a result of public interest cases brought by nonprofit groups that have identified problems in the course of their work. 285 projected layoffs in the Attorney General's office make state enforcement of these laws harder to fathom.

The Green Party exists, in part, to create a political choice free of corporate dominance and we more often find allies in community organizations like ACORN, citizen groups like Foundation for Taxpayers & Consumers Rights, and unions like the California Nurses Association and Teamsters. They are urging California to vote No on Proposition 64 and so is the Green Party of Alameda County. See http://www.electionwatchdog.org/ for more information and Vote No on Prop. 64.



65 -- Local govenment funding -- YES

1A -- Local govenment funding -- YES, with reservations

Summary:
Prop 1A and Prop 65 are competing intiatives for protecing local government funding sources (property tax, sales tax, and vehicle license fees) from reductions and adjustments by the State Legislature. Prop 1A is a negotiated compromise by the Governor and Legislature and is being promoted by them and the League of Cities in lieu of Prop 65, which was placed on the ballot earlier this year and prior to the State budget negotiations. If enacted, Prop 65 restores local government's share of local tax revenue to 2003 levels and would require majority approval of voters for any shift in allocation. This would prevent the State from shifting $1.3 billion from local governments in each of the next 2 years as now planned, forcing the State to rebalance its current fiscal year budget if it does not gain majority approval from the voters. The alternative Prop 1A allows the State to shift the total $2.6 billion over the next 2 years, but imposes presumably stronger restrictions on such revenue shifts beginning with the 2008/09 fiscal year. Prop 1A would prohibit the State from reducing or altering the allocation of local taxes except by approval of 2/3 of both houses of the Legislature. Any shift to the State must be repaid in 3 years. Only 2 such funding shifts can occur in a 10 year period and any previous "borrowing" from local funding must be repaid prior to another "borrowing". If 1A and 65 both are approved, but 1A has more votes, 1A supercedes the provisions of 65.

Upsides:
Both Prop 65 and 1A provide local government with higher, more stable revenues and promote local control of locally-generated taxes. In theory, Prop 1A provides stronger long term protections because of its higher bar for approving funding shifts and its repayment requirements. Prop 65, however, lets local governments retain $2.6 billion over the next two years and lets the voters, versus the Legislature, decide on funding shifts.

Downsides:
Both Prop 65 and 1A will make State budgeting more difficult. This will likely lead to more State spending cuts, presumably in higher education, health and social services, rather than more progressive tax revenue as we would prefer. These Props represent another example of budgeting by ballot initiative, which we do not favor. Both Props lock in current local tax levels and make it difficult for the State to reallocate resources to less-endowed cities and counties, schools and community colleges. Without the potential for reallocation, localities may also be further incentivized to increase the size and number of retail sales tax generating businesses.

Recommendation:
Overall, we favor the protection that both propositions provide for local governments' revenue. We prefer Prop 65 over 1A because it restores $2.6 billion to local government revenues and forces the State to address its unsolved structural budget deficit. However, because we definitely would like to see at least one of these two propositions approved, we endorse both, and we express our preference for Prop. 65 by giving 1A our endorsement "with reservations".



66 -- Amend the "three strikes" law -- YES, YES, YES

We understand the public's fear, anger and perception of crime. Some of us felt the same way and supported the 3-Strikes law as a way to protect the innocent from violent criminals. But the facts and experiences, not widely known except by the families whose lives have been destroyed by the 3-Strikes law, does not serve or benefit the people of California.

Proposition 66 “The Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004” will amend 3 Strikes to violent felonies only.

In 1994, Californians intended to put away murderers and rapists for life but less than 5% of the more than 47,000 people in California’s prisons serving their 2nd and 3rd Strike, are there for murder and rape. Over 4,000 are serving 25 years to life for nonviolent crimes and of these, 353 are in prison for life for petty theft, a crime which usually carries 6 months in prison.

3 Strikes is inherently wrong. It violates the 8th amendment of the constitution prohibiting “cruel and unusual” punishment, and it violates the rule of “double jeopardy” since people are sent to prison for crimes they’ve already paid for. 3 Strikes applies to crimes committed before its enactment in 1994; Burglary of unoccupied dwellings counts as "serious or violent" strikes. The law applies to juvenile offenses.

The law needs to be amended for many reasons but the biggest reason is because it is an unjust law applied almost exclusively to poor people and particularly to poor people of color. African-Americans make up 7% of the California population, over 31% of the California prison population, and 44% of the Third Striker population.

3 Strikes does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the nationwide $200 billion dollar crime control industry producing misery at one end and super profits at the other end. A father is sent to prison for petty theft and his child is sent to foster homes until he too becomes fodder for the prison system.

Currently there are 162,120 people in California’s prisons at an average annual cost of $30,929 per prisoner. $5.7 Billion could provide homes, jobs and restore California’s educational system.

We invite you to stand with us and vote “yes” on Proposition 66 to amend 3 Strikes to violent felonies only.

For more information, call the FACTS office at (213) 746-4844 or you can access our website at http://www.facts1.com.
Donna J. Warren for Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes



67 -- Telephone tax for 911 -- NO

Although the premise of Proposition 67 seems reasonable – a minor telephone tax to pay for uncompensated emergency and trauma medical care performed by hospitals, doctors and clinics (revenue estimated at $500 million annually) – the proposition also includes both unfortunate details and deceptive language, conflicting with key Green Party values.

For example, aside from the telephone tax, Prop 67 mandates that each county must also establish a Maddy Fund (previously optional and generally comprised of "specified revenues from criminal fines and penalties.") which would be administered by the state. While provisions are made for counties to apply for control of some portion of those funds, we do not support either the mandating of new county funds nor the shifting of control of such funds to the state. This is of particular concern when the proposition appears to voters to be only a telephone tax. It is estimated that $32 million in revenue each year would be raised and transferred from county Maddy Funds to the state.

Furthermore, the actual allocation of the funds seems inappropriate and deceptive in its language. The fund is described as "the new 911 Emergency and Trauma Care Fund," however, less than 1% of the money actually goes toward 911 emergency services, while 90% of the money goes toward hospitals (60%) and physicians (30%). The most highlighted groups get the least of the money - Emergency and Trauma first responders (training and related equipment for firefighters, paramedics and other first responders) get 3.75% and nonprofit Community Clinics get just 5%. While this may make sense in terms of actual costs, we are concerned that the real purpose of proposition is deceptive in it's message as helping 911 responders.

Finally, Prop 67 also sets a curious precedent on how one industry can tax an unrelated industry. Vote No on 67.



68 & 70 -- Tribal gaming compacts (2 different initiatives) -- NO on 68; No position, please see write-up for 70]

Prop 68 was written by racetrack and cardroom owners to deal a blow to their business rivals, Native American casinos. It should be rejected out of hand.

Prop 70 is more complicated. People have widely differing views on gambling and the wisdom of having gambling be a major source of government funding. Our starting point is the historic position of Native Americans before gaming. Many of the remaining Native Americans lived on reservations that were mired in poverty and despair. Gaming has improved the lives of many Native American people. Prop 70 would expand gaming, but also would require a fixed amount to be given to the State by gaming tribes.

Some of the opposition has some validity. Some people are philosophically opposed to gambling. Some environmentalists object that construction projects on tribal land do not require the same environmental scrutiny. The AFL-CIO opposes tribal gaming because labor law, including the right to form unions, is not as strong on tribal land.

However, much of the opposition is based on envy tinged with racism. Gaming money has made California gaming tribes real players in State politics, which does not please everyone. We oppose the money-driven political system, but Native Americans did not create the system.

We were not able to agree on whether we should support or oppose Prop. 70.



69 -- Forced DNA Samples -- NO, NO

Prop 69 is another assault on civil liberties and privacy rights in the name of "fighting crime." Prop 69 allows the State to forcibly collect DNA samples from people arrested for specific crimes. Starting in 2009, Prop 69 provides that anyone arrested for any felony would be forced to provide a DNA sample.

One disturbing and critical difference betwen DNA and fingerprints is that DNA contains perhaps millions of times more informaiton than a fingerprint. While both samples provide a unique identification, DNA can also identify genetic diseases, unique aspects of ethnicity, and soon, much much more. DNA research is one of the fastest growing research areas in the world and one of the most well-funded, naturally, due to its potential benefits. Howver, the precedent of forcible collection of this highly personal information is far beyond the scope of external devices for gathering information, such as retinal scans, facial identification and the ink pad to record a finger print.

Furthermore, one would not even have to be charged with a crime, much less convicted, in order to be forced to "give" a sample. This is a blow to the important legal protection of being presumed innocent until proven guilty. This measure also compromises the constitutional right not to incriminate oneself. We urge a NO vote on Prop 69.



71 -- Stem cell research bonds -- NO, please see write-up

The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act would direct the State to issue $3 billion in general obligation bonds. It would establish the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" to disburse up to $350 million a year for stem cell research. The Institute would be run by a committee whose members (designated in the law) would be drawn from academia, biotech companies, and patient advocacy groups. The Act seeks to amend the State's constutution to provide a constitutional right to conduct stem cell research.

With interest on the bonds, taxpayers are asked to commit $6 billion (over 30 years) to a project that could potentially benefit a lot of people. However, as usual, private industry would reap the profits of research paid for by taxpayers. And, if we are amending the State constitution, why not establish a consitutional right to health care for all? And, $6 billion for health care would more quickly and surely help people if spent on known treatments for well-understood conditions for the millions of uninsured Californians. And, research probably has higher priorities, such as an AIDS vaccine. Plus, there has been little public discussion of what kind of public oversight would be best.

We are not opposed to stem cell research as such. However, even some prominent people in the biotech industry acknowledge that treatments based on embryonic stem cells and research cloning, if they ever prove feasible, are likely to be prohibitively expensive in the foreseeable future. Such "boutique medicine"--unavailable to most people--is a long way from our vision of health care for all.

For a three-way exchange on "stem cell wars," see http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/index.cfm/action/tikkun/issue/tik0207/article/020712.html

Prop. 71 looks like an industry strategy to bypass serious discussion by jumping straight to the TV ads showing suffering people waiting for a miracle cure. We recommend a "no" vote.



72 -- Save SB2, Employer-mandated health care -- YES, YES

Health care for all as a human right has a long, long way to go. Many other countries provide universal health care within their borders, or some approximation--rich countries (Western Europe, Canada, Japan) and poor countries (Cuba, Mexico), more or less, well or not so well. The very rich country we live in doesn't even try.

In the 1960's, the nationwide debate about health care access in the U.S. brought us Medicare and Medicaid (called MediCal in California) which sort of cover the elderly and the very poor. In the 1990's, the nationwide debate brought us a lot of failed reform efforts. (For example, Prop 186 for single-payer universal health care in California went down to serious defeat in 1994.) Currently, another attempt to achieve universal single-payer health care in California, Senator Kuehl's SB 921, passed the State Senate in 2003 and is inching through committees in the Assembly.

This brings us to the man on horseback, State Senator John Burton, who sponsored SB 2, a "Play or Pay" bill, mandating medium-to-large employers to provide affordable health care (or pay into a State fund). This bill was signed into law by Gray Davis. This is truly a crumb--a small piece of what we need. It is expected to cover one million of the seven million California uninsured.

The continuing crisis in the health care safety net--locally, at the Alameda County Medical Center, for example--is partly caused by the large and growing number of uninsured families who rely on the publicly-financed clinics and emergency rooms. Therefore, more insured working families will help those families and also help the County's financial crunch.

But the Chamber of Commerce has financed the opposition to SB 2, to try to stop implementation of this "crumb". They represent Wal-Mart, McDonald's, Target, and other large employers who do not want to take responsibility for the health care costs of their employees. Naturally, the California Federation of labor (the unions) have made saving SB 2 a priority. Bitterly, we must agree. Healthcare is too important to risk any setbacks right now. Save our crumbs! Yes on 72!

Please note that "Yes on 72" is for SAVING the Health Insurance Act, despite its misleading ballot title.

For more informaiton see the California Labor Federation's website at http://www.calaborfed.org or call (510) 663-4000. Or visit health access, at: health-access.org