Clueless on the California Propositions? Here's some progressive recommendations & help!!

[GreenTea]

BALLOT PROPOSITIONS

Prop 19 (marijuana legalization) – YES
Prop 20 (congressional redistricting) – NO
Prop 21 (vehicle license surcharge for parks) – YES
Prop 22 (protection of local govt. funds) – YES
Prop 23 (suspension of air pollution control) – NO
Prop 24 (repeals lower corporate taxes) – YES
Prop 25 (majority vote for state budget) – YES
Prop 26 (2/3rds vote for levies/charges) – NO
Prop 27 (repeals redistricting commission) – YES

PROPOSITION 19 — MARIJUANA — Allows people 21 or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use, subject to regulation and taxation. Prohibits use in public or when minors are present. Prohibits providing marijuana to anyone under 21. Major funding support ($1.2 million) provided by S. K. Seymour, LLC (a medical cannabis provider), and Oaksterdam University.

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Stops wasting taxpayer dollars on failed marijuana prohibition which disproportionately impacts communities of color; weakens drug cartels.

PROPOSITION 20 — CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING — Transfers authority for redistricting congressional districts from the Legislature to the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Commission, which was established by Proposition 11 (2008), already has redistricting authority for legislative seats and the board of equalization. Major funding support ($3 million) provided by Charles T. Munger, Jr., a physicist whose father, billionaire Charles T. Munger, is vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.

Rationale for our NO recommendation: Removes accountability for redistricting from the electorate to a bureaucratic commission, a Republican effort to seize 55 electoral votes.

PROPOSITION 21 — SURCHARGE FOR PARKS — Establishes $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge to be used solely to operate, maintain, and repair the state park system, and protect wildlife and natural resources. Grants free admission to all state parks to vehicles paying the surcharge. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches. Major funding support provided by Sempervirens Fund (redwoods protection group), Peninsula Open Space Trust, Conservation Action Fund, Save the Redwoods League, National Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, California State Parks Foundation, and Wildlands Support Fund.

Rationale for our YES position: Surcharge revenue will be used to fund state parks that are under the budget axe.

PROPOSITION 22 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Major funding support provided by League of California Cities and California Alliance for Jobs (a group including Associated General Contractors, Operating Engineers, Carpenters Union, and Association of Engineering Construction Employers).

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Protects local services: 911 emergency response, police, fire, libraries,
transit, road repairs.

PROPOSITION 23 — SUSPENSION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS — Suspends the state’s greenhouse gas reduction law until California’s unemployment rate has been 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Suspends requirements for increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel, as well as mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries. Major funding support provided by Valero (a Texas-based oil refiner and wholesaler), Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, World Oil Corp., Tower Energy Group, Tesoro Companies, Southern Counties Oil Co., and Jaco Oil Co.

Rationale for our NO recommendation: Preserves California’s clean air and water laws; will save a million jobs.

PROPOSITION 24 — CORPORATE TAXES — Repeals recent legislation which lowered corporate taxes by allowing businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years; expanding the time in which losses can be shifted; allowing businesses to share tax credits with affiliated corporations; and allowing multi-state companies to use a sales-based income calculation rather than one based on property, payroll, and sales. Major funding support provided by California Teachers Association ($2.2 million). Major opposition funding provided by Fox Group, Time Warner, CBS, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Amgen, Walt Disney Company, and Genentech, Inc.

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Stops $1.7 billion in new special tax breaks for wealthy multi-state corporations.

PROPOSITION 25 — MAJORITY VOTE FOR STATE BUDGET — Lowers the legislative vote required for adopting a state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Major funding support provided by California Federation of Teachers, AFSCME, California School Employees Association, California Faculty Association, and California Professional Firefighters. Major opposition funding provided by California Chamber of Commerce, The Wine Institute, MillerCoors, California Beer & Beverage Distributors, Crown Imports LLC, and ConocoPhillips.

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Reforms California’s broken state budget process; prevents Republicans, the minority, from holding Democrats, the majority, hostage by refusing to pass a budget or tax the oil companies.

PROPOSITION 26 — TWO-THIRDS VOTE FOR LEVIES AND CHARGES — Increases to two-thirds, from a simple majority, the vote required for the Legislature to adopt state levies and charges, with limited exceptions. Requires two-thirds vote of the public for local levies and charges, with limited exceptions. Proponent: Allan Zaremberg, president of California Chamber of Commerce.

Rationale for our NO recommendation: Makes it harder for California to climb out of debt because fees and charges not currently considered taxes would be redefined as taxes, requiring a 2/3rds vote of the legislature.

PROPOSITION 27 — REPEAL OF REDISTRICTING COMMISSION — Eliminates the Citizens Redistricting Commission that was established by Proposition 11 (2008), and returns the job of drawing state legislative and board of equalization districts to the Legislature. Proponent: Daniel H. Lowenstein, UCLA professor of law, former chairman of California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Stop the Republican power grab; save taxpayer money; return the responsibility to the state legislature.

http://www.laprogressive.com/progressive-issues/clueless-california-propositions/

[JSK]

1. The Courage Campaign is excellent as well

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/s/2010VoterGuide

[EFerrari]

2. Thank you, GreenTea!

[Control-Z]

3. Thank You, GreenTea!!

I pulled out my brochure last night and was planning to give it a good read sometime this evening. This will help a lot.

Edit: Rec

[mackerel]

4. Thanks Green Tea you're a total life saver!

[Merlot]

5. Thanks - This is JUST what I needed!

I'm going to need a crib sheet this year to vote. Usually it's easy to read and remember the good ones, but there are to many and they are to important this time.

My favorites are 19 and 25. Both of them stop CA from being held hostage to the police and repubs! It's about time.

Hey, this is easy:

YES NO YES YES NO YES YES NO YES

[alp227]

6. Why yes on 27? What's wrong with Prop 11?

How is a Citizens Redistricting Commission "bureaucratic" and not representative of the electorate?

[Merlot]

7. If they are not elected, how would they be representative of the electorate?

They would be appointed. Who appoints them? And who appoints the people that appoint the commission?

Who decides who's a "real" democrat? What is an indepenent - a green or a tea party person?

Prop 11 is how the repubs plan to redistrict CA to get more seats, just like they did in TX. Look at who sponsored it.

[alp227]

8. But why does Common Cause oppose P27?

I was reading the voter guide and saw that Common Cause wrote the argument against P27, so I decided initially to vote Yes on 20 and No on 27 because I sorta liked the idea of an "independent commission" for districting. But now I'm a bit more scpetical.

[Xithras]

12. The current/old system is not representative of the electorate either.

In the old system, the borders were chosen by the people elected from those districts. It wasn't "representative", because the gerrymandered districts themselves aren't representative of the popular will. While Prop 11 isn't perfect, it's a big improvement over the previous system.

And I don't see how the Republicans are going to use it to gain control of the state. Of the 14 people on the commission, only 5 are representative of the Republican party. The rest are Democrats, Greens, and nonpartisans.

I live in a Republican "safe" district. Those SHOULD NOT EXIST in California. Every district should be competitive, and yet I end up stuck in a district where the Democratic party won't even offer financial support to Democratic candidates, because it's considered a lost cause. The entire district was gerrymandered to give the Republicans a seat they couldn't lose. There is NOTHING fair, equitable, or representative about the process that created the district.


As for who supported it....it was sponsored by that evil, freeperish organization Common Cause. It's other supporters included right-wing bastions such as the ACLU, the League of Women Voters, Gray Davis, the AARP, and the California Democratic Council. It was endorsed by right wing rags like the San Francisco Chronicle and the Santa Cruz Sentinel.

I couldn't IMAGINE standing with any of those groups.

[LaPera]

9. Kick!

:kick:

[mackerel]

10. Now if I could just get some recs on judges.

[GreenTea]

11. As republicans pour in more last minute money to deeat props measures and Boxer, Debra Bowen, etc...

We need to donate, even the smallest amount makes a difference.

[bemildred]

13. Well, I disagree with their positions on 20, 22, and 27.

The legislature has clearly failed to handle the responsibility for redistricting well. Even if one allows that the new commission will soon enough become corrupted too, we are no worse off for that.

As for 22, there is an obvious remedy for the theft of local funds, throw the bastards out. Better yet vote for Prop. 25 so we can just raise taxes when we need more money.

Edit: Ooops, sorry, Prop 254 won't fix the 2/3 requirement to raise taxes, it just makes the budget a majority vote thing. Still, less blackmail in governance is still good.

[letterwriter]

14. I agree

Yes - 20 - no on 27

Voters should choose the elected officials rather than elected officials choosing the voters.

[LaPera]

15. I agree with the progressive choices! NO on Prop 20 - YES on Props 22 & 27

I agree with the unions & progressive democratic liberals like Rep. George Miller - No on 20 and Yes on 27!

Republicans Arnold Schwarzenegger, Pete Wilson & Charles Munger all want a yes vote on 20 and a no vote on 27

Republicans like Arnold & Munger face stiff opposition from progressive Democratic legislators and labor unions.

Judy Chu, a first-term Democratic congresswoman from Los Angeles an many of her colleagues, like Representatives Anna G. Eshoo, Jackie Speier and Michael M. Honda, have given $10,000 each. Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, has also given $10,000.

Munger’s obsession with redistricting coincides with his becoming much more active within the elite Republican circles of Northern California.

Republicans believe that the measure may deliver them a political advantage in a state where Democrats have a lock on the Legislature.

Only the usual same people who are always sucked into big money corporate ads like the "Hold Politicians Accountable" bullshit ads, telling people to vote yes on 20 and no on 27 - ads that run night & day 24/7 - These gullible people always fall for these kinds of ads it's truly amazing - Just another republican backed "anonymous" group calling themselves an Orwellian type cliché "Hold Politicians Accountable" - I mean get fucking real!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
NO ON PROPOSITION 20 — CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING — Transfers authority for redistricting congressional districts from the Legislature to the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The Commission, which was established by Proposition 11 (2008), already has redistricting authority for legislative seats and the board of equalization. Major funding support ($3 million) provided by Charles T. Munger, Jr., a physicist whose father, billionaire Charles T. Munger, is vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway.

Rationale for our NO recommendation: Removes accountability for redistricting from the electorate to a bureaucratic commission, a Republican effort to seize 55 electoral votes.

YES on PROPOSITION 22 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT — Prohibits state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting use of revenues dedicated to local government services, community redevelopment projects, and transportation projects and services. Prohibits the state from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Major funding support provided by League of California Cities and California Alliance for Jobs (a group including Associated General Contractors, Operating Engineers, Carpenters Union, and Association of Engineering Construction Employers).

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Protects local services: 911 emergency response, police, fire, libraries, transit, road repairs.

YES on PROPOSITION 27 — REPEAL OF REDISTRICTING COMMISSION — Eliminates the Citizens Redistricting Commission that was established by Proposition 11 (2008), and returns the job of drawing state legislative and board of equalization districts to the Legislature. Proponent: Daniel H. Lowenstein, UCLA professor of law, former chairman of California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Rationale for our YES recommendation: Stop the Republican power grab; save taxpayer money; return the responsibility to the state legislature.

[GreenTea]

16. Last time for those who need help kick!