Well, I have a very strong opinion on several of the measures, so before I toss in my views, I'll start with links to sites which present information on the propositions from a neutral point of view and present arguements from both sides.
California Secretary of state - The links go to PDF files of the information in the voter packets voters will be recieving.
California League of women votersNow for my opinions. Consider this a rant warning - these are my opinions, not impartial analysis...
73. Parental notification of abortion in minors. Well, after that warning, this is one of the few I am undecided on. I am leaning toward for, but would probably be moreso if the cutoff were the age of consent (16). There is a safety valve for judicial review, but it may be difficult to use. From a fiscal conservative standpoint, it increases state expenditures to develop the reporting system; and more pregnancies carried to term could increase the burden on social services. There is also the risk that a child carried to term against the will of the mother would suffer a higher incidence of birth defects (self harm/drinking to try and force a spontanious abortion), and suffer from abuse (unwanted children are sometimes treated very poorly). But I don't think most parents are that draconian, at least I hope not.
74. The screw teachers act. The teacher's union opposed Arnold, and cried foul a year later when he broke his promise to restore the money he raided from the school budget the previous year. This is the first of three propositions governor Schwartzenegger has proposed to get revenge.
Tenure is not a guarentee of lifetime employment. It is not like the supreme court where nothing short of criminal malfiecence can force their removal. Tenure simple means that there has to be a review of a termination to make sure it was 'for cause' - rather than just retribution for whistle blowing, informing parents about the legal rights they and their students have, or volenteering on their own time for a campaign the administrators dislike.
75. The weaken unions law. If this had a ballancing measure, forcing corporations to get the written permission of each of their shareholders in writting every year before using corporate funds for political purposes, I might consider getting on board for this one. But it doesn't. This is part two of Arnold's attempt to weaken his political oposition in the teacher's union. Though I don't think this would have that much of an effect of union dues, as those who don't want to join the union don't have too, and is likely to make them even more united against him in the short term, it would force them to spend a lot of money on paperwork to confirm funding every year.
76. The power grab. There is a certain minimum spending standard for the schools. Last year Arnold brokered a deal with the unions to ignore his temporarilly ignoring that law with the promise that it would be paid back. He broke that promise, and now want's to make it officially legal.
It also gives the governor the authority to declare a 'fiscal emergency', in which the legislature must cut funding by an amount he specifies and pass it by a 2/3 majority, or he gets total control over the budget.
77. Gerymandering. I don't buy the idea that judges are automatically politically impartial. This does have the interesting twist that the judges are drawn by lot from a pool, so they could be biased overwhelmingly Repbulican, overwhelmining democratic, actually have some good ideas, or have some weird half-assed ideas. Might be well suited for Nevada
. The lack of any sort of interviening voter approval kills it for me.
78-80. I'll just leave it to the impartial analysis for now, I'm typed out.
