Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Law Students Blogs -> Nuts & Boalts

Law Students

: Nuts & Boalts

Won't Somebody Please Think of the Other Propositions

From time to time, I ruminate on propositions that appear on ballots.  In general, my default is to vote not unless there is something compelling about the proposition.  The reason is I think propositions have fundamentally constricted the state's ability to adjust to changing economic conditions.  Too much of the state's budget expenditure is fixed by propositions that allocate funds for specific purposes, that may or may not be warranted in a given year.  That said, here we go:

Prop 19:  Yes.  I can pretty much guarantee that I will never buy pot.  But even a dollar of the state's money spent on busting people for pot possession is a dollar wasted.  Any harms that can result from smoking pot already result from smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol.  So, we save money by not bothering with enforcement and we gain revenues from taxes.  Deal.

Prop 20:  Yes.  My idea on redistricting used to be, "Hey, when Texas adopts a non-partisan redistricting commission, then California should happily follow, 'til then, T.S."  But I'd rather that California officials concentrate on improving the state's fiscal crisis.  So, "I am a flip-floppin'."

Prop 21:  No.  See, dedicated funding for parks and wildlife.  I love parks and wildlife.  I really do.  But isn't flexibility important?  What if our schools face a critical shortfall next year?  On top of that, the source of the fee is an $18 vehicle registration fee, meaning it disproportionately burdens the poor.  I'm ok with a use tax if it is directly related to the benefit, e.g., park entrance fees, parking fees at state parks, etc., but a blanket car fee?  Makes no sense.  Why does the guy in the BMW pay the same to enjoy state parks as the guy with a clunker?  It's a classic benefit provided by the state to all of her citizens, not just car owners.  And it should be funded through general income taxes. 

Prop 22:  No.  It sucks when the state raids local funds.  But again, propositions are already stifling the slightest flexibility remaining in the budget process.  The solution isn't more restrictions that eliminate the few remaining options...it's to open up more options. 

Prpo 23:  No.  The Berkeley Center for Law, Energy, and Environment has a great whtie paper on this proposition, co-authored by prolific writer Prof. Dan Farber.

Prop 24:  No?  OK, I confess.  I approach the propositions, unless they are REALLY interesting, the same way most voters do.  I read the very short paragraph in the pamphlet and form a quick opinion.  (Not unlike how women decide if you will get lucky that night, but I digress).  I don't understand why repealing taxes on business, particularly small businesses, is a good thing.  High tech and the entertainment industry are very fickle and can easily abandon California for greener pastures.  I'd rather keep them here.  Plus, again, I'd rather have the Legislature determine fiscal budgets rather than having voters pass their judgment piecemeal. 

Prop 25:  Yes.  Only majority needed to pass a budget, but retains the 2/3 requirement to pass taxes.  Not ideal, but a good move to bringing sanity to the budget process.  My fear is that Democrats in Sacramento, following this proposition, will not give any serious consideration to elimination of wasteful or unnecessary spending.  I hope that's not the case.

Prop 26:  No.  The anti-25.  Adds fees to the 2/3 voting requirement. 

Prop 27:  No.  The anti-20.  And it really irks me that two completely contradictory propositions can be on the same ballot.  What if both pass? 

Your thoughts?

Full post as published by Nuts & Boalts on October 29, 2010 (boomark / email).