---

73. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

I only got as far as "Amends California Constitution, defining and prohibiting abortion" and decided to vote no. My views on abortion aren't as cut-and-dry as those of many of my peers here on the left, but the California Constitution should absolutely not be amended to deal with abortion issues.

My vote: No.

---

74. Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. Initiative Statute.

The core of this seems to be that if it passes, schoolteachers are considered "probationary" -- meaning both less pay and less power in the system -- for five years instead of two. So, somebody's going to get paid next to nothing to teach 30+ brats for five years before they're a full teacher? That's crazy.

And yeah, I know there are other nuances -- some of which may be valid by themselves. But, we don't get a line item veto. In the initiative process, one part awful with two parts good is still awful.

My vote: No.

---

75. Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. Initiative Statute.

Union dues could no longer be used for political donations, but businesses could still donate as much as they damned well please. Um, no. Campaign reform is a good idea, but it shouldn't affect only one side in so many important debates.

My vote: No.

---

76. State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Operative sentence in the description: "Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of Governor's choosing." This gives the Governor broad powers to cut funding for anything he (or eventually she) doesn't like, totally upsetting the balance with the legislative branch. The "specifed circumstances" refer to the Governor delcaring a "fiscal emergency" if general fund revenues drop by a certain percentage, but it seems fairly obvious that California's current budgetary crisis won't be ending any time soon, so that's not much of a check on executive power.

My vote: No.

---

77. Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

On the face of it, this actually sounds like a good idea. Rather than the legislature re-drawing the boundaries of their own districts, an impartial panel of retired judges draws the lines. But this panel of judges is chosen "by legislative leaders." That doesn't make any sense at all.

Reading the actual text of the proposition, it makes a tiny bit more sense. The Judicial Council (which isn't defined here) of the Legislature nominates 24 retired judges who aren't on anyone's payroll, haven't changed their party affiliation since becoming judges, aren't running for office, etcetera. Then "the Speaker of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the Assembly, the President pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate" choose, via a complicated process of nomination and un-nomination, three of those judges to serve as "Special Masters," which is the panel that makes the redistricting decisions. That's a lot of power in the hands of those legislative leaders, all of whom are incumbents -- which is the problem I thought this was supposed to solve.

There's also the argument that if California's Congressional districts are drawn fairly while Texas's were drawn by that criminal Tom Delay, it'll reduce the number of Democrats in Congress. I'd like to think that if redistricting reform works here then eventually other states will follow suit...but I'd hate to let Delay's cronies get any more power. I do think that redistricting reform is an important issue, but it should be tackled at the national level also.

Even so, it was mostly the legislative leaders choosing the judges that convinced me.

My vote: No.

---

78. Discounts on Prescription Drugs. Initiative Statute.

79. Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates. Initiative Statute.

The official voter information guide includes a chart by the Legislative Analyst which compares 78 and 79, and that's mostly what I went by. 79 gives discounts to "persons in families with medical expenses at or above 5 percent of their family's income," while 78 doesn't care. 79 "Establishes drug discount program to assist certain businesses and labor entities," meaning that the discounts apply to some employed people too; 78 doesn't care. 79 creates a "panel to review the access to and pricing of drugs," while again 78 doesn't care. And finally, 79 addresses "profiteering from the sale of drugs."

My free-market Libertarian friends may argue that drug dealers should be able to charge as much as they damned well please, but I think health care is one of those places where the market does a crappy job of self-regulation -- because, in a great many cases for a great many people, there simply is no competitor to turn to.

My votes: No on 78, Yes on 79

And yet, I feel a bit dirty (and not the good kind of dirty) for having voted in favor of any ballot initiative in this "special" election. I think I like what prop. 79 will do, but I don't think I like how it will come to pass (if indeed it does.)

---

80. Electric Service Providers, Regulation. Initiative Statute.

This was a hard one; it's very complicated, and I'm generally in favor of repealing the idiotic pseudo-deregulation that led to the rise of Enron and the California power crises of a few years ago. Here's what prop. 80 would do:

• Place electric service providers (the independent alternatives to investor-owned utilities like PG&E or public entities like the LA DWP) under the control of the Public Utilities Commission. I'm mildly in favor of that idea, but not entirely. Read on.
• Bar any customer currently receiving power from an investor-owned utility from switching to an independent alternative electric service provider. I assume this is part of the re-regulation effort, but it seems a bit odd.
• Directs the PUC to implement a long-term procurement process, and that the first priority of that process must be "cost-effective" energy efficiency and conservation programs, followed by "cost-effective" renewable resources, and then traditional polluting sources. The legislative analyst says "this 'loading order'...has been adopted by the PUC, but is not currently required by law."
• The utilities & alternative providers must be able to meet peak demand, also current practice but not required by law.
• Finally, it brings in the deadline by which the utilites & alternatives have to increase their use of renewable resources.

A lot of this sounds good, but I'm concerned that by kicking out the independent alternative electric service providers, this'll further entrench the investor-owned monopoly utilities. I'm okay with the public owning a monopoly for their/our own benefit, but PG&E and such -- like all investor-owned corporations -- have to answer to their investor masters first and the PUC second and the consumers third. I don't like the idea of giving them their monopoly back without also adding lots more accountability at the same time.

My vote: No.

---

And, that's it for me. I'm still a bit uncertain about my votes for 79 and against 80, but my sharpie has bubbled and my absentee ballot will be in the mail tomorrow morning.

Polite, well-written comments are welcome.