Arguments for and against selected November 2010 ballot propositions


Progressives lack consensus on three initiatives: Propositions 20, 22, and 27. To help you decide, we have invited the campaigns for and against each initiative to submit a short argument for their position. Please read these arguments, then cast your vote and help decide the Courage Campaign's November 2010 election endorsements at:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/November2010Vote

Please note that the Courage Campaign does not endorse candidates for elected office.


Proposition 20


Proposition 20 would have the Citizens' Redistricting Commission created by Prop 11, which narrowly passed at the November 2008 election, take over the task of redrawing the lines for Congressional seats. Currently the state Legislature draws these lines. Supporters claim that the legislature should not be in charge of these lines. Opponents argue that this proposition would lead to an increase in the number of Republicans winning California Congressional elections.

Argument for Prop 20: Submitted by the Yes on Prop 20 campaign

Hold Politicians Accountable
Fed up with the old system, which virtually guaranteed that incumbents reelection because they drew their own seats, voters passed Proposition 11 in 2008, creating an independent Citizen's Redistricting Commission.

Proposition 20 gives the voter-approved Citizen's Redistricting Commission the authority to draw congressional districts in addition to state legislative and board of equalization districts. Prop. 20 will finally let voters hold members of Congress accountable –- and make it easier to vote them out of office when they don't do their jobs.

What You Need to Know
Today, the Legislature draws congressional districts so members of Congress have "safe seats" and don’t really have to work for votes and therefore aren’t accountable.

With Prop. 20, members of Congress will have to run in fair election districts and actually work for votes, and most importantly, Prop. 20 will put an end to backroom deals by helping to ensure that the redistricting process will be open and transparent.

Historically, redistricting has been done behind closed doors by the Legislature and last redistricting, in 2000, 32 members of Congress paid a political consultant more than $1 million to draw district boundaries that helped guarantee their reelection.

The Yes on 20 campaign is a broad-based coalition of seniors, good government groups, small businesses, public safety organizations, including former State Assembly Members Fred Keeley, Dede Alpert and Delaine Eastin, Former State Senators Betty Karnette and Lucy Killea, AARP, CA Common Cause, NAACP California State Conference, California Hispanic COC, California Black COC, Latin Business Association, and more.

Argument against Prop 20: Submitted by Representative Zoe Lofgren, D-CA (16th District, San Jose)

No on Proposition 20

In 2008, Charles Munger Jr., son of Wall Street billionaire Charles Munger Sr. and long time contributor to Republican candidates, donated $1 million to the campaign supporting Arnold Schwarzenegger's bizarre legislative redistricting scheme, Proposition 11.

Now, Munger Jr. is the major sponsor and financial backer (he has given more than $4 million) to Proposition 20.

Prop. 20 would give power over redistricting of California's congressional districts from a democratically elected body to a panel of 14 randomly selected volunteers. What is most puzzling about Prop. 20 is that it mandates that all California's political districts be segregated according to income -- "similar living standards ... similar work opportunities" -- these are the exact words of Prop. 20.

Districting by race, by class, by lifestyle or by wealth is unacceptable. That's why NAACP Chairman Emeritus Julian Bond says:

"Prop 20 is insulting to all Californians. Jim Crow districts are a thing of the past. 20 sets back the clock on redistricting law. No on 20."

With California facing a financial crisis, it is reckless to jeopardize the seniority of California's Democratic House members. If Prop. 20 passes, billions of federal dollars will flow away from California and to states like Texas.

California's Democratic members of Congress, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are leading the fight to protect the environment. That's why Sierra Club Chairman Carl Pope says "No on 20. Proposition 20 is a disaster."

Please join with the League of Women Voters -- vote No on 20.

Zoe Lofgren
Chair, California Democratic Congressional Delegation

Ready to vote? Then go to http://www.couragecampaign.org/November2010Vote. Or, read on for arguments for and against Propositions 22 and 27.


Proposition 22


Proposition 22 would stop the state from taking local government funds to balance California's budget, and immediately return several billion dollars to local agencies. Supporters claim that the legislature should not be taking this money, which they argue belongs to cities and counties. Opponents argue that this proposition would force an immediate cut of over $1 billion to the budget of public schools and other vital services, while making it more difficult to solve the state's budget woes.

Argument for Prop 22: Submitted by Eric Garcetti, member of the Los Angeles City Council

For too long, Sacramento politicians have dealt with their budget mess by raiding local services. Voting YES on Prop. 22 says "no more."

Just last year, $5 billion was taken from local services and disappeared into the Sacramento budget. Local police, fire, 911, library, parks, senior and other critical services have all fallen prey to these raids. Voting YES on Prop. 22 protects neighborhood funds from being seized and even stops "borrowing" schemes.

Voting YES on Prop. 22 closes loopholes that have been used to seize the gas taxes we pay at the pump. Voting YES on Prop. 22 makes sure those dollars are used as they are supposed to be -- to fix local roads, reduce traffic and help clean our air. Similarly, voting YES on Prop. 22 protects funding that is supposed to be dedicated for public transit, which is needed now more than ever during these tough times to stop fare increases.

California's families don't live in the State Capitol -- they live in neighborhoods, and that's where our tax dollars should be, so that residents can have a say in what their communities need. Local, grassroots decision-making is a fundamental progressive principle.

Sacramento says they need to take local funding to maintain State services. But that kind of robbing Peter to pay Paul is not a solution. The right solution for our schools, our seniors, our environment and our transit-riders is for Sacramento to get its house in order and protect state and local services alike.

The right solution for California families is a YES vote on Prop. 22.

Argument against Prop 22: Submitted by Lou Paulson, president of the California Professional Firefighters

On the surface, Prop 22 sounds seductive. Protecting local tax dollars makes sense - so much sense that voters did it four years ago by passing Proposition 1A.

That measure was balanced and reasonable. Prop. 22 isn't.

Under the guise of "reform," Proposition 22 locks a bulletproof shield around special pots of money for redevelopment agencies. Unelected and unaccountable, redevelopment agencies hand out lucrative taxpayer subsidies to developers for auto malls, hotels and stadiums.

Counties (which by and large oppose Prop. 22) have lost millions to redevelopment. Los Angeles County alone has seen $45 million drained away, not available for cash-strapped vital services. Prop. 22 would lock these cash grabs into the state Constitution.

Protecting welfare for the wealthy is bad enough in this economy. But Prop. 22 also takes away billions from schools, fire protection and other services. It blows a $2 billion hole in next year’s budget by canceling a one-time shift of unspent redevelopment money. Cost to schools: $1 billion this year. It also adds new shackles to the state's ability to pay off debt. Potential cost to schools: $400 million a year or more.

And because it would create yet another ballot-box set-aside, Prop. 22 threatens scores of vital services that protect our most vulnerable - like In-Home Support Services for seniors and the disabled, and health care for the poor.

Prop. 22's kind face can't mask the severe unintended consequences. It doesn't do anything to fill our current budget hole - it just digs a new one.

Ready to vote? Then go to http://www.couragecampaign.org/November2010Vote. Or, read on for arguments for and against Proposition 27.


Proposition 27


Proposition 27 is in many ways the opposite of Prop 20. Prop 27 would eliminate the Citizens' Redistricting Commission created by Prop 11, which narrowly passed at the November 2008 election, which is currently tasked with redrawing the lines for state legislative districts. Supporters claim that the commission is unaccountable, an example of wasteful spending, and will not draw fair district boundaries. Opponents argue that the power to redraw legislative district lines should not be returned to the legislature and that the commission is doing a good job.

Argument for Prop 27: Submitted by Daniel Lowenstein, founding chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission

Yes on Proposition 27
Prop 27 will put an end to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s reapportionment power grab!

This November progressives have a clear choice: The Schwarzenegger scheme to draw the districts, or Proposition 27 -- the only redistricting measure that assures that districts are precisely equal in population, that assures that decision makers are accountable to the people, that assures that progressives (and all Californians) have a seat at the decision making table.

Governor, our state is bankrupt, unemployment is over 12%, our environment is deteriorating, and people's civil rights are in jeopardy. Yet you still obsess on your political reapportionment power grab?

Look at the mess we have with Schwarzenegger's plan, the law implemented by his 2008 ballot proposition:

Under Schwarzenegger’s plan three randomly selected accountants choose the 14 un-elected commissioners to head a bureaucracy with the power to decide who is to represent us. Yes on 27 will ensure that those who make the decisions are accountable to the people.

Under Schwarzenegger's plan voters can be denied the right to pass a referendum against unfair Congressional district gerrymanders. Yes on 27 ensure that voters will have the right to challenge any redistricting plan.

Under Schwarzenegger's plan, some people count more than others -- one district could have almost a million more people than another. Yes on 27 will ensure that all districts of the same type are precisely the same size and that every person counts equally.

YES ON PROPOSITION 27 -- NO ON PROP 20!

Daniel H. Lowenstein, Founding Chairman, California Fair Political Practices Commission

Daniel Lowenstein is director of the Center for the Liberal Arts and Free Institutions at UCLA. He has served as deputy secretary of state of California (under Jerry Brown) and was the first chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

Argument against Prop 27: Submitted by the No on Prop 27 campaign

Beware of Prop 27: The Politician Power Grab

In 2000, Sacramento politicians sat behind closed doors in secret map rooms and drew their own election districts so they could guarantee their reelection and avoid accountability to voters. In 2008, voters said "no more" when they approved Prop. 11, which took the power of drawing districts away from the politicians and gave it to an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Today, a group of self-serving politicians have placed Prop. 27 on the November ballot in a desperate attempt to return redistricting to Sacramento legislators so they can draw districts to protect their jobs and those of their colleagues in order to avoid accountability.

Prop 27 Will Overturn Voter-Approved Reforms
Prop. 27 will gut the voter-approved independent Citizens Redistricting Commission and let legislators draw their own districts.

If Prop 27 passes in November it'll protect politicians, and hurt voters by permitting the backroom deals for favorable districts to continue. Voting no on Prop 27, ensures that redistricting will be lead by the Citizens Redistricting Commission and that the process will happen in the light of day because public meetings are required under Prop 11.

The No on 27 campaign is a broad-based coalition including AARP, CA Common Cause, NAACP California State Conference, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Black Chamber of Commerce, Latin Business Association, and more who want to protect and extend voter approved redistricting reforms so politicians can no longer draw election districts to protect their jobs.

To cast your vote and help decide the Courage Campaign's November 2010 election endorsements, please go to:

http://www.couragecampaign.org/November2010Vote