California Ballot Propositions for Nov. 8, 2005
YES on Proposition 73:
Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Waiting Period and Parental Notification. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Amends California Constitution to bar abortion on unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver. Permits judicial waiver of notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or minor’s best interests. Physician must report abortions performed on minors and State shall compile statistics. Authorizes monetary damages for violation. Minor must consent to abortion unless mentally incapable or in medical emergency. Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent to abortion is coercedI am “pro-choice”, but it makes sense to me that parents have a right to know what medical procedures will be performed on their minor children. Frankly, if a minor daughter is getting an abortion, the parents NEED to know because they screwed up and could use a wake up call. This bill doesn’t give parents the right to prevent an abortion, as the child can have the procedure 48 hours after the parents are notified, no matter how the parents feel. If a child truly is terrified of their parents, a quick, free and easy court proceeding will waive the parental notification requirement.
YES on Proposition 74:
Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.
Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years; measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year. Authorizes school boards to dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. Most workers don’t get “tenure”, a protected status in which they can more or less depend on keeping their job indefinitely. In CA, most of us are “at will” employess, meaning that we can be terminated for any reason (except for protected issues like gender, age, race, etc.). While this proposition won’t get rid of tenure, it does make it take longer for teachers to obtain that protected status, and it makes it slightly easier to fire a bad teacher if they get two consecutive poor performance evaluations.
LDF says YES on 74, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom McClintock, John and Ken, Bill Handel, Roger Hedgecock, The Libertarian Party of California, The Los Angeles Times, The Orange Country Register, The San Diego Union Tribute, The San Francisco Chronicle, numerous other major newspapers, and fellow LLP member Eric's Grumbles from the Grave.
Yes on Proposition 75:
Public Employee Union Dues. Required Employee Consent for Political Contributions. Initiative Statute.
Prohibits public employee labor organizations from using dues or fees for political contributions unless the employee provides prior consent each year on a specified written form. Prohibition does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefiting the public employee. Requires labor organizations to maintain and submit to the Fair Political Practices Commission records concerning individual employees’ and organizations’ political contributions; those records are not subject to public disclosure.Right now, public employees must fill out paperwork to opt out of having money deducted from their paychecks and used for political purposes. This proposition would make it so that union members must “opt in” rather than “opt out”. Thus, people who don’t want to give money to political causes they don’t believe in will not be as vulnerable to harassment and retribution. Hopefully, if this passes, many union employees will wisely decline to opt in, and these public unions will have less funds to maintain their stranglehold on our state legislature.
LDF says YES on 75, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom McClintock, John and Ken, Bill Handel, Roger Hedgecock, The Libertarian Party of California, The Los Angeles Times, The Orange Country Register, The San Diego Union Tribute, The Fresno Bee, numerous other major newspapers and fellow LLP member Eric's Grumbles from the Grave.
Yes on Proposition 76:
School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98), permitting suspension of minimum funding, but terminating repayment requirement, and eliminating authority to reduce funding when state revenues decrease. Excludes above-minimum appropriations from schools’ funding base. Limits state spending to prior year total plus revenue growth. Shifts excess revenues from schools/tax relief to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment. Requires Governor to reduce state appropriations, under specified circumstances, including employee compensation, state contracts. Continues prior year appropriations if new state budget delayed. Prohibits state special funds borrowing. Requires payment of local government mandates.This one is CRITICAL to the future or
LDF says YES on 76, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom McClintock, John and Ken, Bill Handel, Roger Hedgecock, The Libertarian Party of California, The Inland Daily Bulletin, The Orange Country Register, The San Diego Union Tribute, The Mercury News, numerous other major newspapers and fellow LLP member Eric's Grumbles from the Grave.
Yes on Proposition 77:
Reapportionment. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Amends state Constitution’s process for redistricting
’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Requires three-member panel of retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and again after each national census. Panel must consider legislative, public proposals/comments and hold public hearings. Redistricting plan becomes effective immediately when adopted by judges’ panel and filed with Secretary of State. If voters subsequently reject redistricting plan, process repeats. Specifies time for judicial review of adopted redistricting plan; if plan fails to conform to requirements, court may order new plan. California
It is vital that this proposition pass. Right now, the districts are drawn to preserve party control of each zone. Incumbents are king, and it is unheard of for a party to lose control of an area to another party. There aren’t even close races anymore. In the last ellection, 53 seats were up for grab and not a single one of them changed hands to a rival party. Politicians are free to ignore the will of the people as they virtually can’t get thrown out of office and have no competition for their seats. This bill would change that. For those who worry about three judges redrawing everything, keep in mind that they couldn’t make things any worse if they tried, and their suggestions won’t take effect unless we the people vote to approve them.
LDF says YES on 77, along with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom McClintock, John and Ken, Bill Handel, Roger Hedgecock, The Libertarian Party of California, The Bakersfield Californian, The Contra Costa Times, The Fresno Bee, The Los Angeles Times, The Orange Country Register, The Sacramento Bee, The San Diego Union Tribune, The San Francisco Chronicle, MANY more major newspapers and fellow LLP member Eric's Grumbles from the Grave.
No on Proposition 78:
Prescription Drugs. Discounts. Initiative Statute.
Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by the Department of Health Services. Enables certain low- and moderate- income
residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices. Imposes $15 application fee, renewable annually. Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications. Authorizes Department to contract with pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance, and to negotiate rebate agreements with drug manufacturers. Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness. Creates state fund for deposit of rebate payments from drug manufacturers. Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions. California
Why would I want to pay more for my drugs so that other people can pay less for theirs? There's no such thing as "free" drugs, so the only way discounts will be possible is if people not eligible for the program pay more. No thank you.
LDF says NO on 78, along with Tom McClintock, John and Ken, Roger Hedgecock, The Libertarian Party of California, The American Independent Party, and fellow LLP member Eric's Grumbles from the Grave.
No on Proposition 79:
Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.
Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services. Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset administration costs. At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts. Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent. Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as defined, unlawful.This is the same issue as 78, in which we take money from most of us citizens to fund discount drugs for those the government deems worthy of a break. To make matters worse, it puts the State in charge of negotiating rebates and discounts, which means not only will we have to pay more for our drugs to fund the discounts, but we will also have to spend tax dollars so that the state can peform these negotiations.
No on Proposition 80:
Electric Service Providers. Regulation. Initiative Statute
Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission. Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers. Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation. Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017. Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Annual state costs of up to $4 million for regulatory activities of the California Public Utilities Commission. These costs would be fully offset by fee revenues. Unknown impact on state and local costs and revenues, as the measure’s impact on retail electricity rates is uncertain.Have you ever had to wait in line at the DMV or apply for a permit from a state agency? Have you ever seen a state office do ANYthing efficiently, or been positively affected by a state program that actually works? No? Me neither. Let's not put these same incompetents in charge of our energy.
LDF says NO on 80, along with Tom McClintock, John and Ken, Roger Hedgecock, The Libertarian Party of California and fellow LLP member Eric's Grumbles from the Grave.