Courage Campaign background information for the June 2010 election
Please read the following background information on the five propositions on the June 8 ballot. Then cast your vote and help decide the Courage Campaign's June 2010 election endorsements at:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/June2010Vote
The choices before you on the June 2010 ballot -- particularly Propositions 15, 16 and 17 -- revolve around the central issue we face in California this year: Will greedy corporations use the ballot to impose their will on Californians, or will voters stand up and take back their democracy?
The propositions on the June 2010 ballot show just how broken our state's initiative process has become -- but also how we might be able to use that initiative process to start fixing California and returning power to the people.
The Courage Campaign is determined to defend California from this corporate attack on our values and our wallets. That's why the June election matters so much to all of us.
Please note that the Courage Campaign does not endorse candidates for elected office.
Proposition 13
This is not the same thing as the infamous "Prop 13" from 1978, but it does deal with the same subject. This would enable property owners to seismically retrofit their buildings without triggering a reassessment for property tax purposes. This was placed on the ballot by a 2/3rds vote of the state legislature in early 2009.
Arguments for: Seismic retrofits of private property have been lagging in California, and this would incentivize more seismic retrofits by providing a tax break.
Arguments against: Commercial property owners have an obligation to ensure their buildings are safe. The original Prop 13 already gives these owners a significant tax break, so it is unnecessary and costly to the state to increase that unfair advantage.
More information: Ballotpedia article on Prop 13 (no official campaign websites for or against this intiative have been created)
Proposition 14
This proposition would completely change the way primary elections work in California. Currently, the primary election is where voters choose a single nominee for the political party of their choice, and that nominee goes on to face the nominee of the other parties in the general election.
Under Prop 14, however, the two candidates who receive the most votes move on to the general election, regardless of their party. This would affect all state legislative and statewide offices, as well as elections to the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. This system is currently only used in Louisiana and Washington State. Californians rejected this kind of primary when they voted down Proposition 62 in 2004.
This initiative was placed on the ballot as a result of the February 2009 budget deal. Senator Abel Maldonado presented a list of demands to Democrats that he wanted satisfied in exchange for his vote to pass a budget. One of his demands was that this initiative be placed on the June 2010 ballot, and Democrats accepted it with reluctance. If approved, the new system would begin operating in the June 2012 primaries.
Arguments for: Extreme partisanship creates political stalemate. An open primary will help reduce partisanship by letting voters decide the best candidates no matter which party they prefer. It will increase competition, reducing the influence of special interests and delivering better results in a less polarized Legislature. Coupled with voter approval of redistricting reform in 2008, experts say Prop 14 will result in a less extreme Legislature that can find solutions to the state's problems.
Arguments against: This is nothing more than an effort by moderates and Republicans to make the Democratic Party less progressive by enabling Republican voters to choose a moderate Democrat over a progressive Democrat in the general election in many Democratic districts. It would push out primary fights into the general election, diverting resources from other priorities. It would disadvantage smaller parties by making it virtually impossible for them to reach the general election ballot in most districts in California.
More information:
Yes on Prop 14 website
No on Prop 14 websiteProposition 15
This proposition was placed on the ballot by the state legislature in 2009, and would repeal the prohibition on public financing of state elections as well as create a public financing system for elections to the Secretary of State office beginning in 2014. That system would be funded by an increase in the fees lobbyists pay when they register with the state.
Prop 15 is an effort to begin implementing a public financing system for elections in California. Currently Arizona, Connecticut and Maine use this system. Subsequent legislative action would be required to expand public financing in California to other offices were Prop 15 to pass, although local governments would be empowered to create such a system on their own.
Under Prop 15, candidates for the Secretary of State's office would need to get at least 7,500 contributions of $5 to demonstrate viability before they become eligible for at least $1 million in public funds to run their campaigns. Candidates would also have to agree to limitations on how they can spend money.
Arguments for: Corporate money currently dominates politics, as legislators must spend their time fundraising from and therefore becoming dependent on those donors. That often leads legislators to make decisions based not on what is best for California, but on what is best for their donors. Fair elections require public financing, so that our elected officials are accountable to the people, not to corporate donors. This system has proven to be popular and successful in the states where it has been adopted.
Arguments against: Californians have rejected similar proposals twice within the last ten years. Public funds should not be used to support political campaigns - this is "welfare for politicians."
More information:
Yes on Prop 15 website
No on Prop 15 websiteProposition 16
This initiative was placed on the ballot by a signature-gathering effort funded by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Northern California's privately-owned electric utility. It would require a 2/3rds vote (instead of a majority, as under current law) for a local government to create a municipal utility or to create what is known as "Community Choice Aggregation" (CCA).
CCA was a reform created during the electricity crisis nearly ten years ago that enables local governments to pool resources to buy power. Many local governments, including Marin County, use CCA to encourage the use of renewable power. PG&E opposes this, and has pledged to spend up to $30 million to pass this initiative.
Arguments for: This proposal will require greater public discussion of government plans to enter the electricity market, and could save the public money. It protects the "taxpayers' right to vote" by ensuring that a supermajority of voters approve public power projects like public utilities and CCA.
Arguments against: This is nothing more than PG&E's effort to protect its monopoly by misleading voters about the intent of the initiative. California already suffers from the problems created by the unfair 2/3rds rule for the state budget. If voters want to create public electric utilities or encourage the use of renewable power and pay cheaper rates than PG&E, they should be able to do so by a majority vote. This initiative would merely increase electricity costs for most families.
More information:
Yes on Prop 16 website
No on Prop 16 websiteProposition 17
This initiative was placed on the ballot by Mercury Auto Insurance, which spent $2 million to pay signature gatherers and has spent over $5 million on the campaign in support of the proposal.
Prop 17 would undermine some of the protections in the landmark Prop 103, approved by voters in 1988 to reform the auto insurance industry. Specifically, Prop 17 would allow auto insurance companies to charge people more money if they have a lapse in coverage, even if that lapse is as short as a few hours. Current state law forbids this practice.
Arguments for: Prop 17 would produce cheaper auto insurance rates for most drivers, and increase competition among insurers.
Arguments against: This is nothing more than Mercury Insurance trying to wring more money out of already squeezed consumers. Mercury has already tried to do this and was slapped down by the courts, and in states where insurers can charge more for a lapse in coverage, many drivers wind up paying significantly more money for their auto insurance. This would punish people who have legitimate reasons for a lapse in coverage, including veterans.
More information:
Yes on Prop 17 website
No on Prop 17 websiteIf you have any questions about the sources used to produce this information, please send an email to info@couragecampaign.org
To cast your vote and help decide the Courage Campaign's June 2010 election endorsements, please go to:
http://www.couragecampaign.org/June2010Vote