As you most likely know if you are from California, the election has come and gone. The state has rejected all of the initiatives. It is possible that the voters of California made up their mind that rather than consider the merits of any single measure, it was safer to just say no. Rejecting all initiatives was a way that the electorate could force the politicians to do their job—to negotiate amongst themselves to bring progress to the state. Negotiation is not possible through the ballot box. Arnold Schwarzenegger authorized this election solely because he has been unsuccessful negotiating with state representatives his agenda. Voters told him he must try harder. The governor has stated he looks forward to working with the congress, and hopefully the interchange of ideas will occur between state politicians.

Some of the most important issues in the Central Valley in this election happen to be local issues. Among them are:

• Galt finally approved bonds to be sold to build a new high school. After years of trying to win voter approval (and years of growth), Galt will alleviate overcrowding in its one high school.
• El Dorado Hills residents rejected a proposal to incorporate and become the largest city in El Dorado County.
• Placer County voted to advise county supervisors to continue to seek a private four-year college near Roseville.
• Davis residents rejected a large growth measure, in part because it did not address the needs for low income housing of current city residents.
• Stockton voters approved a large school bonds measure for expansion and to reorganize schools into a K-8 system.

Change rarely comes only through elections. Hopefully state officials can find common ground as they represent the needs of this fantastically varied state.

Electric service providers. Regulation. Initiative statute.

And finally…

This is a classic “oops” initiative. Why in the world did California at one time think deregulating the energy industry in the state would be a good idea? It seems so odd to give up control of such a vital resource as energy. Consider how hard it would be to go without electricity for a single month. Eating would be nearly impossible. While people could cook, by using grills, propane, and other heat sources, where would a contemporary California household be without a working fridge? Hygiene levels would decline, as we tried to figure out how to wash clothes and dishes. We could drive cars for a while, until we ran out of gas or crashed at a nonfunctional intersection.

Of course, deregulation of the electrical industry would never result in such an apocalyptic scenario. California has, however, experienced rolling blackouts, causing localized discomfort. The impetus of proposition 80 is a response to the problems following deregulation. It seeks to keep energy users from switching sources. It gives power to the California Public Utilities Commission to control and regulate all current and future energy providers. To sweeten the deal, 80 calls for all energy sellers to use renewable energy to supply at least 20% of the total energy sold in 2010, seven years earlier than currently required.

This proposition may be another risk, as opponents claim. However, there is myriad evidence that deregulation did not turn out as hoped. The Legislature has taken many steps to roll back from deregulation, and 80 will most likely stabilize the industry even more. The main fear is that prices will rise for electricity, but that would happen no matter what. With a commitment towards increasing renewable sources of energy quicker, 80 looks like a good initiative. Vote Yes on Proposition 80.

78 Discounts on prescription drugs. Initiative statute.

79 Prescription drug discounts. State-negotiated rebates. Initiative statute.

First of all, ValleyVue refuses to call either Proposition 78 or 79 “the right prescription for California.” It appears that in this election, one of these two propositions will prevail, or else they will both be defeated. However, they can’t both become law. From the California voter handbook, the opponents and supporters of both propositions agree on one thing—there must be some law to assist Californians in receiving affordable prescription drugs.

There are positives about both proposals. Both make the program available to people making money in an amount over the federal poverty level (78-300%, 79-400%). This is important considering the higher cost of living in California compared to other states. Both have low application fees (78-$15 per year, 79-$10 per year). Prop 79 calls for the drug discount program to assist labor and business. 79 also looks to link the program to Medi-Cal. Prop 79 allows for the drug discounts to families that make more money than the maximum, if their medical costs reach 5%.

On the other hand, there are some problems. Both proposals are subject to successful negotiations with drug companies. Those companies have shown a devotion to profit making, as have most companies traded publicly. Companies must show continued profits and revenue growth to shareholders to keep the value of the company high. Other than the considerable strength the state of California has in negotiating prices for millions of our population, pharmaceutical companies have little reason to lower prices.

That is where Prop 79 tries to establish a disincentive to profiteering by opening up companies to civil lawsuits. While this is somewhat reasonable to prevent profiteering through lawsuits, it could also result in an overall rise in the costs of drugs in California. Lawsuits intend to punish companies for wrongdoing. However, companies need to make profits as part of their nature. Therefore, when a drug company must pay for a civil judgement, it will put those costs into the price of its products. Meanwhile, all drug companies will either take insurance to guard against lawsuits, hire more legal assistance, or store up profit in reserves for future lawsuits, all of which result in a rise in cost for the consumer.

While the civil lawsuit clause could be a major flaw in 79, there is no doubt it would cover many more Californians than 78. Individuals can earn up to $9000 more and be eligible for 79, while they would not for 78. There are also more people excluded form the program in 78. For the higher number of people covered, ValleyVue says vote Yes on 79. However, it is so crucial to deal with the rising costs of pharmaceuticals, ValleyVue also recommends a Yes vote on 78. This is simply to ensure one of the proposals is approved. Keep your fingers crossed for 79, though.

Redistricting. Initiative constitutional amendment.

Redistricting in California is predictable. Done every ten years to “reflect the changing demographics of the state” according to the national census, the redistricting has become a way for politicians to lock-in their district for their party. Democrats, with control of both state houses, make sure their voting districts have enough people who traditionally vote Democratic to continue to hold that seat for the party. Republicans do not block changes to the districts, because they too receive districts likely to vote Republican. This proposition seeks to discontinue this practice.

Proposition 77 would allow for the appointment of 3 retired judges—called “special masters”—to set the voter districts. The new plan would then go up for a vote of the people. While there is a complex system designed in the proposition to pick these judges, the main thrust is that the two major parties would receive at least one judge, despite several requirements to keep judges from being recently involved in partisan politics.

So, the system is kind of broken. You can see evidence when a state district combines such geographically distinct cities as Lodi and Davis. This proposition should be approved if you believe this new system will result in better districting. However, it doesn’t look like this is the case. The judges are still chosen through the two major parties. After the new districts are agreed to, the election results may not appear any different, causing people to blame the district lines.

Furthermore, when the “special masters” pick the new districts, the voters, who are already inundated by proposals, must approve the plan. If voters decline to improve the districts, then a new plan must be proposed, a process potentially costing millions of dollars.

Plain and simple, if the voters dislike a candidate, or disapprove of an incumbent’s job performance, then they will not vote for that person. Traditional voter alliances in political districts are important indicators of how voters might decide, but not necessarily how they WILL. Alliances do change. If you were looking at California politics 10 years ago, you would have never thought voters would recall a Democratic governor in favor of a Republican. People are less loyal to a particular political party than in the past, mostly because the parties have both become more centrist. The electorate does not need to try to fix manipulation by state gerrymandering politicians. If the voters want change, change will be made. This is an unnecessary amendment to the state constitution. Vote No on Proposition 77.

State spending and school funding limits. Initiative constitutional amendment.

Proposition 76 is about a change in priorities. It is also about a government that cannot regulate itself in order to spend only what it receives. It is about trying to replace a system earlier approved by voters to become a system in which more discretion is left up to the governor. Proposition 76 seeks to entirely change the budgeting expectations in California.

One of the most complex public initiatives ever to be up for statewide election, Proposition 76 is possibly the most far-reaching. There is no question the state has significant debt. Governor Schwarzenegger has targeted the general fund as a way to reduced yearly deficits. The most crucial component of Proposition 76 to do this is reducing the amount the state has been mandated to pay for education since 1988. In 1988, voters approved Proposition 98, setting up a minimum percentage of the state’s budget to be used for education funding. Later, in 2004, Proposition 58 required state budgets to be balanced.

Through various mechanisms from other election initiatives and from court interpretations of laws over the years, the state has found ways to deal with a shortage of revenues. However, Proposition 76 would create a mechanism to stop the boom-bust system of state funding by building a reserve for years with low revenues. However, it seeks a lower guarantee for state funding of education and a possibility of other general fund services to lose state funding.

Once that happens, a number of drawbacks arise to 76. With a reduction in funding for education, school districts will be forced to look at ways to decrease costs. This will mean cuts to nonessential school programs (athletics, clubs, music, art, bus transportation), larger class sizes, and an overall decrease in teacher salaries over time. This is even more troubling looking at Proposition 74’s likelihood of decreasing the number of teachers entering the profession.

Furthermore, other programs funded by the general fund like social programs, will lose state funding if the budget goes out of balance. The counties will pick up the costs for those programs. If these funding requirements are more than currently, this could put dangerous pressure on the counties. Not too long ago, Orange County declared bankruptcy. In the Valley, the prospects are frightening. Many counties are struggling to maintain open/agricultural land. Meanwhile, counties gain much of their funding from sales taxes. This puts pressure on counties to allow big box/mall retail and auto malls to increase the sprawl on our urban edges. It means more building on prime agricultural land in the Fresno area and in flood plains in north Sacramento. On the plus side, counties will be repayed by the state in 5 years instead of the previous 15 for programs that are mandatory.

The priorities have shifted with Proposition 76, away from an educational commitment and towards transportation. It is really difficult to see the right way to approach California’s fiscal troubles. This is Governor Schwarzenegger’s way. Due to the threats to education funding and the possibility of unchecked abuse by a governor in the future, it is not ValleyVue’s way. We recommend vote No on 76.