CA: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative Process.

[Moooooo]

Want sure where to put this?

PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative.
   
Some findings of the current survey

* Californians think that initiatives (39%) should have more influence than the legislature (32%) or governor (18%) over state policy.

* Most residents (74%) feel that initiatives raise important issues that elected officials have not adequately addressed.

* Despite their loyalty, 63% of Californians think the initiative process needs either major (29%) or minor (34%) changes.

* Many residents believe that special interests have too much control over the initiative process (92%), find the ballot wording for initiatives complicated and confusing (77%), and think there are too many propositions on the state ballot (62%).
   
* Half of state residents say they have less confidence now than before Hurricane Katrina that the government can handle a major terrorist attack (51%) or a major California earthquake (54%).
   
* 62% of Californians think the nation is headed in the wrong direction.
   
* November Ballot Measures:

          o Proposition 74 (teacher tenure), 43% yes, 47% no
          o Proposition 76 (spending and funding limits), 26% yes, 63% no
          o Proposition 77 (redistricting), 33% yes, 50% no
          o Proposition 78 (prescription drug discounts), 43% yes, 38% no
          o Proposition 79 (prescription drug discounts), 34% yes, 40% no

This is the 59th PPIC Statewide Survey and the second in a series of three surveys focusing on Californians and the initiative process. This special survey series is funded by The James Irvine Foundation.

[Moooooo]

Maybe Ford, James, or other Cali residents could give us a run down on the props, what they think of them, etc...?

*Wonder why they didnt poll for Prop. 73 (parental notification)?

[Citizen James]

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 voters

Now 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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Hopefully all of the Arnold endorsed propositions (73-78) go down. Clearly 76 and 77 are completely toast. I think we can take 74 and 78 down, too.

73. Against, what if her dad raped her?
74. Against, Arnold doesn't like education
75. Against, Arnold doesn't like unions
76. Against, Arnold doesn't like education
77. Against, Arnold doesn't like reasonable districts
78. Against, the drug companies plan sucks
79. For, but it looks toast
80. For, we need re-regulation of energy to stop another Enron

[The Duke]

Maybe Ford, James, or other Cali residents could give us a run down on the props, what they think of them, etc...?

*Wonder why they didnt poll for Prop. 73 (parental notification)?

Teacher tenure should be abolished entirely, so of course I support 74.  No other job has such a thing as tenure, and there's no reason for it to exist in my opinion.

75 Is very important, the Unions actually increased mandatory dues from members with the intent of spending the money to fight this political campaign.  Actually, Unions should not be allowed to give any money to campaigns (neither should corporations).  That dues money should go to health care and pensions, not the funding of leftist politicians.  I'm with Andy Sterns and Jim Hoffa on this one, that unions should be more concerned with the welfare of members than with the welfare of Democrats.

76 would be nice, but its not really that critical.

77 is the single most important piece of legislation to come up in this state since Prop 13.  It must pass, or the legislature and House delegation will continue to be filled with lunatics like Maxine Waters.

I opose both drug bills (78 & 79), it just spends money that doesn't need to be spent.

[jimrtex]

Want sure where to put this?

PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative.
   
          o Proposition 77 (redistricting), 33% yes, 50% no

Poll respondents were also asked whether they thought it a good idea or a bad idea for the legislature and governor to be involved in redistricting.  22% good idea; 66% bad idea; 12% don't know.

But among those who thought that it was a good idea, 54% favored Proposition 77, which would remove the legislature from the process, other than a role in selection of the judges, while 32% were opposed.

On the other hand, those who thought it was a bad idea, were 27% in favor; and 59% opposed' even though failure would leave control in the hands of the legislature.

The only sane part of the poll was that 42% of those who didn't know whether it was a good idea or not, also didn't know how they were going to vote on the proposition.

[jimrtex]

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.

Retired judges could apply to serve as special masters.  24 would be drawn by lot, with at most 12 from a single party. 

Four legislative leaders (Speaker, Senator pro tem, and the minority leaders of the two houses) then each select 3 judges, who must not be of their own party (Democrats pick the non-Democrats, and Republicans pick the non-Republicans).  If a leader fails to select 3 judges, their choices will be made by lot, maintaining the opposite party rule.

The legislative leaders could then peremptorily strike one judge selected by another leader.  The final 3-member panel would then be chosen by lot, with at least one from each of the two major parties.

Has a redistricting plan ever been overturned by the voters?  I don't see any provision in the current Constitution that would provide by voter review other than by an initiative.  This proposal includes an automatic vote on any plan at the next election.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Want sure where to put this?

PPIC Statewide Survey: Special Survey on Californians and the Initiative.
   
          o Proposition 77 (redistricting), 33% yes, 50% no

Poll respondents were also asked whether they thought it a good idea or a bad idea for the legislature and governor to be involved in redistricting.  22% good idea; 66% bad idea; 12% don't know.

But among those who thought that it was a good idea, 54% favored Proposition 77, which would remove the legislature from the process, other than a role in selection of the judges, while 32% were opposed.

On the other hand, those who thought it was a bad idea, were 27% in favor; and 59% opposed' even though failure would leave control in the hands of the legislature.

The only sane part of the poll was that 42% of those who didn't know whether it was a good idea or not, also didn't know how they were going to vote on the proposition.

Yeah, so California is a weird state politically.