The California state primary election takes place Tuesday, March 5. Following is a brief explanation of the propositions and candidates on the San Diego County ballot, and the position of the Guardian editorial board on each.
Guardian
Proposition 40
yes
The Guardian endorses Proposition 40, which has been dubbed the “”California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002.””
The legislation is intended to accomplish a handful of environmental goals by allowing the state to issue approximately $2 billion worth of bonds.
Specifically, Proposition 40 will finance projects that focus on a variety of environmental goals: safeguarding California’s bodies of water against pollution, protecting open space against the threat of urban sprawl, preventing further pollution to California’s coast, protecting wildlife habitat, restoring historical and cultural resources, and repairing and upgrading the safety of state and neighborhood parks.
In all, the program will cost the state about $4.3 billion over 25 years. State and local costs are unknown but could reach millions of dollars annually.
We acknowledge that, if approved, this proposition will be a costly endeavor for California. However, its environmental projects are socially valuable and worthy proposals on which to spend state money. Furthermore, Proposition 40’s benefits may be experienced by nearly all Californians.
In addition, Proposition 40’s high price tag shouldn’t scare voters away, as environmental legislation will always bear high costs. Preserving California’s environment cannot continue to be ignored, and Proposition 40 would establish an important precedent of action and commitment on environmental causes in California.
Proposition 41
no
Proposition 41 asks for $200 million in bonds, which would be sold to assist counties in the replacement of punch-card balloting systems with either optical scanning systems (such as those used on exams) or electronic touch-screen systems.
The proposition would create a five-member board to allocate funds to counties. For every dollar that counties spend, the state will provide $3 in bond money.
The Guardian disapproves of this proposition. If designed properly (e.g., no confusing “”butterfly”” ballots) and used properly (e.g., voters checking for hanging chads), the existing punch-card system works fine.
Voters need to take responsibility for checking their ballots. This is a better alternative to selling $200 million in bonds that the state estimates it will pay $55 million in interest on, especially in light of California’s current fiscal woes.
While we are not against new technology being used in elections, we are against new spending when the state and counties may purchase the newer systems with existing funds.
The 2000 election should have taught us that the cost of democracy is voting carefully and responsibly — not $255 million for new equipment.
Proposition 42
no
So often in elections, we see legislation with its heart in the right place, but has effects that are either insufficient, misdirected or just plain nonsensical. Proposition 42 meets all of those conditions.
Proposition 42 aims to increase state spending on transportation — a noble goal, and one undoubtedly shared by California voters since we all hate suffering through traffic and love to complain about unsatisfactory road conditions. Seeking legislation to improve California’s transportation issues is both in the interest of Californians and politically savvy.
However, Proposition 42 is fatally flawed in a few critical aspects.
California law currently provides that revenues from motor vehicle fuel (gasoline and diesel fuels) be used for transportation purposes alone beginning in the 2003-2004 fiscal year and continuing until 2007-2008.
Proposition 42 would change that requirement from a legislative measure to a constitutional one. In other words, it would amend the California state constitution so that this taxation specification is a potentially permanent fixture of California’s political landscape.
The first problem with this is that putting tax law in the state constitution would tie the state government’s hands during trying economic situations.
If the legislature should at any time decide that gas tax revenues — a sum unlikely to fluctuate wildly with time, since the need for gas is relatively inelastic — would be better spent on other state expenditures such as education, health care, or other services California desperately needs improvements on, a supermajority would be needed to remove this from the constitution.
On the other hand, if the tax law remained law and not a part of the constitution, a simple majority would be necessary to reallocate the revenues. This allows the government the flexibility it needs to best serve Californians in unpredictable economic times.
Proposition 42 would also extend the effectiveness of the gas tax allocation indefinitely, past the already-distant 2007-2008 fiscal year. This is unsound — unless the state Assembly has contacted some late-night television psychics.
Proposition 42 could be further criticized for its allocation specifics. For example, only 20 percent of the tax revenues would go toward public transportation, and the only way Californians will ever solve the state’s transportation woes in the long term is to increase light rail and bus service. Proposition 42 actually discourages investment in public transportation, because to decrease the amount that people drive would decrease tax revenues from gasoline.
Let’s commend legislators for recognizing the importance of transportation in California and acknowledging that improvements must be made. However, Proposition 42 is not the panacea we so need, and so should be rejected.
Proposition 43
yes
Proposition 43 corrects a blind spot in the California state constitution: the fact that there is no guaranteed right to have a person’s vote counted if he is an eligible voter.
The right to vote is the central underpinning to our democratic society, and if an election were to come down to a situation like Florida’s in the 2000 presidential race, this proposition would allow counties and courts to extend post-election deadlines for the express purpose of having all votes counted.
The opposition contends that vote-counting is not the issue, but rather the influence of corporate and special interest financing in politics. That argument has little to do with the matter at hand, and if there is any connection, campaign finance reform can only be helped by establishing clear and fair principles of democratic elections.
This measure comes at no cost to voters; the Guardian unreservedly endorses this proposition.
Proposition 44
yes
Proposition 44 amends the California Chiropractic Act to make several provisions regarding chiropractic clinics in the state.
First, it would outlaw the use of “”runners”” and “”cappers”” — people who function as paid scouts for chiropractic businesses, actively recruiting potential patients from ambulances and accident scenes. It would also mandate revoking a chiropractor’s license for 10 years on a second conviction for certain types of insurance fraud. Finally, it requires that the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners investigate licensees who have been charged with crimes, unless the district attorney objects.
The Guardian recommends a “”yes”” vote on Proposition 44. Its provisions will provide increased protection against insurance fraud, the costs of which affect us all, and ensure that chiropractors cannot avoid punishment when they are found to have committed crimes.
Proposition 45
yes
The Guardian endorses Proposition 45, which is a constitutional amendment that would allow termed-out officeholders to remain in office for a maximum of another four years — one four-year term for the Senate and two two-year terms for the Assembly. The initiative would alter term-limit laws approved by voters in 1990, which restricted Assembly members to three two-year terms and Senate members to two four-year terms.
Specifically, Proposition 45 states that a candidate can run for the extended last term only if registered voters in his district submit petitions supporting this. Such petitions must be signed by at least 20 percent of the registered voters who voted in that district’s last general election. Furthermore, the signatures would have to be verified and filed before the end of the legislator’s final term. Proposition 45 also stipulates that the extension is available to each candidate only once.
Importantly, Proposition 45 wouldn’t simply eliminate the term limits that voters approved by initiative in 1990. Instead, it offers a reasonably difficult device through which local voters can keep their preferred candidate in office for four more years of service.
The Guardian acknowledges opponents’ argument that career politicians must somehow be controlled, and that term limits are a seemingly easy way to prevent their presence in California. However, we also acknowledge that term limits can be more harmful than helpful in districts where voters overwhelmingly prefer that a termed-out officeholder be allowed to remain in office. Such voters should be provided a mechanism through which they can display their will, and Proposition 45 does just that without gutting term limits as a whole.
California voters’ support for term limits developed because of the difficulties political newcomers experienced when trying to run against incumbents. However, politicians have found ways around term limits. In recent years, they have turned to gerrymandering, wherein after taking office, they subsequently re-draw district lines to create a “”new”” district so they can continue to run for election.
In light of gerrymandering, term limits simply aren’t the perfect system they were intended to be — yet our political situation prior to term limits was equally mired in problems. Since California’s system has yet to be perfected, voters should be allowed some flexibility when choosing who would best serve as their representative. Proposition 45 accomplishes this goal by reserving term limits as a whole while offering voters an alternate path.
In short, in districts where voters strongly prefer termed-out candidates, term limits seem to violate the will of the people, and we believe that voters should be given the ability to retain leaders who have earned their confidence.
Although we recognize that term limits are an imperfect solution to career politicians, the Guardian supports Proposition 45 because it resolves these concerns regarding the will of the people without destroying term limits in their entirety.
Proposition A
no
Proposition A seeks to make San Diego County’s treasurer-tax collector an appointed position.
The treasurer-tax collector is currently elected by countywide popular vote, and is responsible for overseeing the county’s $3.2 billion investment pool and managing the county’s tax collection.
The Guardian opposes this politically loaded, knee-jerk proposal that would drain far too much power from voters and give it right to the five-member San Diego County Board of Supervisors.
One reason the board of supervisors put this proposition on the ballot is the alleged misconduct of current Treasurer-Tax Collector Bart Hartman. In 2000, a county internal investigation found Hartman guilty of sexual harassment against one of his subordinates. Because Hartman was elected by voters, the board could not discipline or fire him. Despite the board’s stern urgings, Hartman did not resign his position.
Now the board of supervisors is saying it should unilaterally appoint the county’s treasurer-tax collector because he is the only individual with the power to single-handedly bankrupt the county, and only members of the board are qualified to choose and hold accountable someone in such an important position.
However, the Guardian believes it is exactly the power and importance of this position that makes it necessary that it be an elected one, accountable to all San Diego taxpayers — not just the five-member board of supervisors.
There also appears to be another reason the board of supervisors is so interested in passing Proposition A: It would give the board of supervisors control of the County Employees Retirement System and the county’s $3.7 billion pension fund by appointing a majority of the members on the retirement board.
On top of the authority the board of supervisors already possesses, that’s simply too much power for five people to hold. It is the treasurer-tax collector’s independence from the board of supervisors that safeguards us from corruption and abuse.
Treasurer-tax collector is an elected position in 54 of California’s 58 counties, and a similar measure was defeated handily by San Diego voters in 1996. One elected official’s alleged misconduct should not suddenly result in voters relinquishing their right to elect people to his position in the future. The Guardian is opposed to rash and irresponsible legislation, and recommends voting “”no”” on Proposition A.
Proposition B
yes
Proposition B calls for an amendment in the San Diego City Charter that would allow the City Ethics Commission the right to subpoena witnesses.
Currently, the power to subpoena witnesses and require them to testify about alleged ethics violations by public officials under oath does not fall under the jurisdiction of the commission.
The Guardian believes that the proposed amendment will help ensure that San Diego’s public officials act ethically by giving the commission the power to make a thorough investigation of alleged ethics violations and by forcing witnesses to testify about their knowledge of ethical violations before the City Ethics Commission.
Public officials have a responsibility to their citizens to make decisions that are honest, sincere and service-oriented. Officials must be held accountable when they violate the public’s trust. Proposition B will help guarantee this.
Proposition C
yes
The passage of Proposition C would require city employees to work for the city for five years to be eligible for city retirement benefits. Currently, city employees must work 10 years to qualify for such benefits.
The Guardian supports the passage of Proposition C because it will help the city of San Diego attract better employees. Many competitive, private-sector retirement systems use a five-year vesting period, and it is difficult for the city to compete with such companies for the best and brightest people. Most state, federal and county public retirement systems also use five-year vesting.
If San Diego wants to improve its applicant pools for police officers, firefighters and senior employees, it simply must keep its benefits system competitive with those of other cities and private companies. In the interests of attracting and retaining the best people for city jobs, the Guardian recommends a “”yes”” vote on Proposition C.
Proposition D
yes
If passed, Proposition D would allow public agencies other than the city to contract with the city retirement system for administration of its retirement packages, subject to city council approval. Each participating public agency would be responsible for all costs associated with its participation in the retirement program.
Passage of this proposition will have minimal fiscal impact on the city and will allow public agencies the choice of using the city’s large, safe and relatively inexpensive system to handle the administrative aspects of their retirement packages. The Guardian recommends a “”yes”” vote on Proposition D.
Proposition E
no
Proposition F
yes
Proposition E and Proposition F are two special measures on this year’s ballot because they affect each other. Seldom do two laws that pass on the same ballot take immediate action on each other, but such is the case with these two measures.
Proposition E is a proposed amendment to the San Diego City Charter that would require a two-thirds vote to levy a new general tax or increase an existing one. Proposition 218 passed in 1996 and required that a two-thirds vote be required for any new or increased special tax, and this current proposition seeks to extend that law to general taxes as well. We feel that this would do more harm then good, and therefore urge a “”no”” vote on Proposition E.
While this proposition may seem well-intended in its claim to put the power to tax in the hands of the voters, it could potentially hurt the city. Under Proposition 218, general taxes must be passed by a simple majority vote. This still puts the decision of whether a tax should go through in the hands of the people.
If general taxes were suddenly to need a two-thirds majority to pass, then realistically, a new tax would never be passed in an election. This could hurt the city’s ability to raise funds in a time of crisis. As a result, the city’s credit rating could suffer, which would affect citizens in the form of higher interest rates. This could cost millions in taxpayer dollars.
Proposition F appears very complicated, but when boiled down, it states that a law that seeks to impose a vote requirement of more than a simple majority must pass by the majority it seeks. For example, since Proposition E seeks to make the passage of general taxes require a two-thirds majority, it must pass by a two-thirds majority itself, or not take effect. This is only, of course, if Proposition F is passed. Otherwise, it would only take a simple majority for Proposition E to pass.
We favor Proposition F because it is a law that makes sense. If somebody wants to change something to impose a voter requirement of more than a simple majority, then it should have to live up to those standards itself.
The so-called supermajority has the potential to lock the government into dangerous ruts. For example, if just over a simple majority of voters voted for a supermajority bill, then that would leave more than 45 percent of voters who disagree with it. If the supermajority required a two-thirds vote to pass a tax law, such as Proposition E, and there was a small portion of the population against raising taxes, such as 35 percent, then that 35 percent would have the power to stop the tax increase every time it came on the ballot. It would make the people who constitute 35 percent more powerful than 65 percent of the people who want higher taxes, which goes against the basic democratic principle of majority rule.
In short, Proposition E would put this city in a dangerous economic rut, while Proposition F is a good check of power that should be in place.
Proposition G
no
San Diegans seem to be neatly divided over Proposition G.
Some say drinking on the city’s beaches leads to rampant crime and dangerous streets in coastal communities, and banning such alcohol consumption would reclaim the beaches for families.
Others counter that the crimes are committed by an extreme minority of beach-goers and alcohol-drinkers, and law-abiding citizens shouldn’t lose their right to enjoy a six-pack during a sunny day barbeuque.
The battle over the beach alcohol ban would seem, then, to be a contention over the right of citizens to enjoy a crime-free family outing and the right of adults to have a calming drink and watch the sunset.
Both sides, however, fail to see the true flaws behind the “”logic”” Proposition G is based on.The facts in this debate have been obscured or ignored by nearly everyone.
First of all, many who favor the proposition, which would ban alcohol 24 hours a day on Mission Beach and most of Pacific Beach for the next 10 months, are unaware that alcohol is already banned on those beaches between 8 p.m. and noon.
Thus, it is already illegal (though often practiced) to throw raucous midnight bonfires in these areas. If this is still occurring — to the understandable dismay of beach residents — it is only because of the insufficient enforcement of existing laws or because the drinkers themselves may be unaware that they are breaking the law.
Also, many supporters of the ban argue that because alcohol-related crimes such as public urination, drunken driving and underage drinking are so high in Pacific Beach and Mission Beach, prohibiting beach drinking will dramatically decrease these blights. They often point to the success of banning alcohol at La Jolla Shores, which brought crime to all-time lows.
Need it be pointed out that La Jolla is hardly Pacific Beach? The 92109 zip code has the highest concentration of liquor licenses of any community in San Diego County.
Any alcohol-related crime that was occurring in the 92037 zip code — that of La Jolla Shores and downtown La Jolla — was almost undoubtedly happening because of drinking on the beach. On the other hand, it is impossible, based on the currently popularized data, to ascertain how many of those often-cited crimes in Pacific Beach are due to beach drinking and how many are due to people having one too many at any of the other dozens of restaurants and bars throughout the neighborhood.
But let’s give the supporters the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume that a high proportion of the alcohol-related crime in PB and Mission Beach is indeed taking place on the beach. The question then is: When do these crimes happen?
It is doubtful that the high rates of drunken driving, public urination and underage drinking are occuring between the hours of noon and 8 p.m. When was the last time you got smashed in the afternoon and made a public nuisance of yourself?
Therefore, even if alcohol-related crimes are happening because of drinking on the beach (which is unproven), in all likelihood, the causative drinking is already illegal.
Finally, a few words on underage drinking: These kids are already breaking the law. They know that they will get fined if they are caught boozing it up at age 17. Is one more law really going to stop them?
In short, the issue of alcohol-related crime on or near the beach is not one that can be solved by prohibiting drinking for eight daylight hours. While it is expensive, the only surefire option is to increase police presence on the beaches in question between the hours of 8 p.m. and noon to enforce the laws already in place.
Vote no on Proposition G, drive to Mission Boulevard and Garnet Avenue and (if you’re 21) lift a glass to the failure of faulty logic. It will be a rare victory.
Governor candidate profiles
Bill Jones
Bill Jones currently serves as California secretary of state after having served as a state assemblyman for Fresno, Calif. As secretary, his No. 1 goal has been achieving higher voter turnout and lowering levels of voter fraud. An author of California’s “”three strikes”” law, Jones has held various important positions within the Republican Party, serving as Assembly Republican leader and Assembly GOP leader. He is considered well-versed in areas of water, trade, agriculture and public safety.
Richard Riordan
Only two months ago, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan was the prohibitive favorite to win the GOP nomination and battle Democratic incumbent Gov. Gray Davis for California governor. Favored early on by the Bush administration and attacked unusually early with $10 million in Davis campaign television ads, the moderate Riordan finds himself trailing political neophyte and former friend Bill Simon in the latest polls.
Riordan is the sweetheart of the “”new Republicans,”” who are pushing for a more inclusive makeover of the GOP’s image. Riordan professes to be pro-choice, despite being ravaged by Davis-sponsored television ads quoting Riordan in a 1992 radio interview as saying he thought abortion was murder. Riordan has shown himself to be a tight spender; he passed eight consecutive balanced budgets as L.A. mayor without raising taxes.
What looks to be Riordan’s No. 1 weakness is his centrist image. With Simon having successfully grabbed the title of the “”real conservative,”” Riordan looks to have lost the favor of traditional Republicans, who have proven themselves to be the most consistent voters.
Bill Simon
Proud winner of the coveted “”real Republican”” title, successful businessman Bill Simon, Jr. looks strong coming into California’s gubernatorial primary. According to the most recent polls, Simon has a small lead over former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan — this after trailing Riordan on Jan. 22 by a whopping 17 percent.
Simon seems to have won the favor of traditional Republicans who tire of Riordan’s attempts to appeal to independents and centrists.
Simon lists his No. 1 priority as restoring fiscal responsibility to Sacramento. His plans include eliminating the state’s soaring deficit by slashing its operating budget by 15 percent and cutting capital gains taxes at the same time to stimulate growth.
Simon favors extending local control to schools and decreasing state government regulations, impressing small-government supporters statewide. Simon opposes legalized abortion.
Non-Republican
Gray Davis has received the state Democratic Party’s nomination for governor, a position he currently holds. His platform includes improving public education, health insurance for children and gun control.
Anselmo A. Chavez advocates reassessing Proposition 13 for commercial and industrial property. The increased funds would be used to pay for additional health care funding for the poor and elderly, as well as Cal Grants for students.
Charles Pineda, Jr. is running on a platform that advocates public ownership of energy companies. According to his estimates, the state’s energy bills could be reduced by 20 to 50 percent.
Mosemarie Boyd is campaigning on a bipartisan antiterrorism and economic platform. Security and economic issues would be addressed by cutting the budget of all state programs by 10 percent.
Peter Miguel Carmejo of the Green Party and Gary Copeland of the Libertarian Party are running unopposed within their parties.
