As most of you know, I like to sit in a pub on Election Day and watch the returns come in. Today is November 8th 2005: California Special Election Day. My recommendations for the ballot:<\/p>\n
NO.<\/strong> Proposition 73<\/a>. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor\u2019s Pregnancy\u2014State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment). Should the California Constitution be amended to require notification of the parent or legal guardian of an unemancipated, pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion on the minor?<\/em><\/p>\n The Pro Argument is essentially: children are property of their parents. The Con Argument is: \u201cMy father will literally kill me. No, really. I need a restraining order and witness protection.\u201d At 17-ye ars old I would not h ave appreciated the entire state of California climbing into a conversation between my doctor and I, and I see no reason that should change.<\/p>\n NO.<\/strong> Proposition 74.<\/a> Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal\u2014State of California (Initiative Statute). Should the probationary period for public school teachers be increased from two to five years, and should the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent certificated employee be modified?<\/em><\/p>\n Pro Argument: Make it easier to fire bad teachers. NO.<\/strong> Proposition 75.<\/a> Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement\u2014State of California (Initiative Statute) Should public employee unions be required to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member\u2019s dues for political activity?<\/em><\/p>\n Pro Argument: Big Bad Public Unions contribute lots of money to politicians. Make them stop. NO.<\/strong> Proposition 76.<\/a> State Spending and School Funding Limits\u2014State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment) Should Californians make major Constitutional changes to create an additional state spending limit, grant the governor substantial new power to unilaterally reduce state spending, and revise key provisions relating to Proposition 98, school and community college funding, and transportation funding authorized by Proposition 42?<\/em><\/p>\n Look: California voters have fouled up the budget process with propositions, and 76 would make it worse. Previous propositions stripped the legislature of control over certain types of spending (eg Educations & Transportation). This proposition would grant power to cut that funding to the governor. NO.<\/strong> Proposition 77.<\/a> Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment\u2014State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment) Should the California Constitution be amended to change the process of redistricting California\u2019s State Senate, State Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts, transferring the implementation of redistricting from the Legislature to a panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders?<\/em><\/p>\n What? Instead of redistricting being done by elected officials chosen by party leaders it will be done by unaccountable judges chosen by party leaders? No, I don\u2019t think so. Go away and come back when you have real reform.<\/p>\n NO.<\/strong> Proposition 78.<\/a> Discounts on Prescription Drugs\u2014State of California (Initiative Statute) Should the state adopt a new state drug discount program to reduce the costs of prescription drugs for Californians at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level?<\/em><\/p>\n Apparently Prop 78 doesn\u2019t require any company to participate by offering bulk discounts to the state. A similar program died a few years ago when companies withdrew their support and refused to offer discounts. Prop 79 is a better option.<\/p>\n YES.<\/strong> Proposition 79.<\/a> Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates\u2014State of California (Initiative Statute) Should the state of California create a new prescription drug discount program for residents at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level, and change state law to make it illegal to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription drugs?<\/em><\/p>\n Covers more people and requires participation of pharmaceutical companies. The most persistent argument I\u2019ve read against this proposition is that if we offer prescription drug benefits to all these people we\u2019ll soon be providing everyone with free healthcare. …sounds good to me.<\/p>\n
\nCon Argument: We have a shortage of qualified teachers and schools are finding it difficult to hold on to good new graduates. This proposition will make the situation worse. Prop 74 would end job security for one of the lowest paid professions and increase the time required to land a permanent job. Under the current system, new teachers get moved from school to school, for several years, before they manage to stay in one place for the whole (two year) probationary period. Increasing the probationary period to five years would virtually end any hope of stable employment for new teachers, discouraging new entrants and frustrating recent graduates.<\/p>\n
\nCon Argument: Big Bad Businesses don\u2019t like competition from unions when they go to buy politicians, it raises the price. Boo hoo.
\nIf businesses aren\u2019t required to obtain written consent from shareholders, unions shouldn\u2019t be required to obtain written consent from members.<\/p>\n
\nMaybe I\u2019m off on my understanding of the ballance of power in American republic government, but I thought the purse strings were supposed to be held by the Legislative Branch. That\u2019s how we keep the Executive from going haywire, right?<\/p>\n