A mess of state-wide California Propositions

Normally I will go over and get in-depth on the whole slate of propositions, both state-wide and before the City of San Francisco. However, I'm running late on these, and there are 12 state-wide props and 20+ city-wide propositions. So, I'm not going to go in-depth into the majority of these, but I will go into a few of these propositions where I think it appropriate.

First up is Proposition 2.

Prop. 2 proposes to set standards for the confinement of farm animals, specifically, pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens. Beginning in 2015, the proposed standards would require that those animals be confined in ways that allow them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Penalties are not to exceed $1000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.

Believe me when I say that I want to support this measure, but I cannot. I agree with the sentiment expressed in this proposition, but, honestly, I do not believe that using the power of the government is the right way to go about this. Plus, there is already a burgeoning market in California, and elsewhere, for these free-range and cage free products; God knows that I pay a premium for them. Which goes to my next point; in order to accommodate these new rules, the costs to farmers to implement and maintain animals under these standards are going to, first of all, increase the production and maintenance costs, which will result in increased prices to customers. Second, it will likely result in many companies leaving California to other states, and Mexico, that do not have these restrictions. Which, of course, means that these products will need to be shipped in from a longer distance than today- and longer truck drives means more CO2 emission. Finally, this will also reduce the number of animals a business would be able to raise, as complying with these new standards would necessitate an increase in the total area for raising these animals, increasing costs due to potential shortages in supply, or increasing costs due to the need to purchase more land to raise these animals.

Like I said above, I completely agree with what this proposition wants to accomplish, but I disagree with enshrining it into state law. The market already provides incentives to businesses to raise animals in this style, but not every Californian can afford cage free eggs, free range pigs and veal. We currently buy cage free eggs, because we can afford it and know that the product is of better quality; we buy free range and cage free chicken when we can, but a lot of people in this state can currently barely afford to pay for eggs as they are. This proposition will only increase these costs and prices beyond what some people are able to pay. While the limitation on the production of foie gras only affects those who can afford foie gras, eggs, on the other hand, are a necessary component in many families lives. Increasing the costs to produce eggs will have profound negative impacts on the ability of millions of families in this state to purchase eggs.

So, I recommend No on Prop. 2.

Proposition 3

Prop 3 proposes to issue nearly $1 billion in bonds to fund construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals across the state. There are 5 children's hospitals specifically mentioned in the text (UC Children's Hospitals, which will get at least 20% of the proceeds), and the voters guide identifies an additional 8 other hospital's that fit the requirements of the proposed law. So, what would be the potential issues I have with this proposition? Obviously, the first problem I have is that it increases the state's debt. The guide estimates that to pay off the bonds plus interest, 5% over 30 years, it would cost the state about $2 billion, with an average yearly payment of $64 million- this would all be paid out of the General Fund. Secondly, in 2004 the state passed Prop. 61, which authorized the sale of $750 million in bonds for this same purpose, of which $403 million has been awarded. In other words, there are still nearly $350 million worth of bond money currently unappropriated, and this proposition asks for another $980 million on top of that.

However. . .I'm really not a heart-less person. I do believe that there are worthwhile bond projects, and, let's not forget, think of the children. Plus, the proposition (along with Prop. 12, which I'll get to below) have the great advantage of being on the same ballot as Prop. 1A. Compared to Prop. 1A, these two propositions amount to peanuts. Where does that leave me? Well, even though this is proposition will increase the state's debt, during a time of serious economic constraints, these funds appear to be needed to upgrade the various children's hospitals across the state. Plus, if I recommended no, a doctor that I know would kill me.

So, I recommend Yes on Prop. 3.

Proposition 4.

Proposition 4 is another attempt to get an abortion parental notification law through the voters. The last attempt 2 years ago with Prop. 85 failed 46-54. This proposition provides for a 48 hour notification period before an abortion can be completed on an "unempancipated minor" under the age of 18. This time the authors of this Proposition have added several new exceptions, notably, notification is not needed in the case of an emergency (defined as a condition that threatens the minors life; a waiver of notification signed by a parent or guardian; and, if the minor is fearful of abuse from a parent, notification may be sent to an adult family member, identified as a grandparent, step-parent, foster parent, aunt, uncle, sibling, half-sibling or first cousin, provided they are at least 21 years old. In such a circumstance, the doctor performing the procedure would be required to file a notice of suspected child abuse with local law enforcement and/or local child protection services. Additionally, a minor can petition the juvenile court for a waiver, which the court may grant if it decides the minor is sufficiently mature and well-informed enough to make their own decisions.

In 2006, I supported Proposition 85. As I argued then, I find it odd that a minor needs a parent to get a tattoo, get a piercing, get a driver's permit and even go to an R rated movie; yet, state law and policy is fine with allowing a minor to have an abortion without parental notification. This is entirely inconsistent with the motives and rationale for keeping those other parental requirements on the books. Having an abortion is one of the most important decisions a minor can make, yet, state policy is of the belief that parents or some other adult family member shouldn't even be notified. Opponents of Proposition 85 presented the threat of parental abuse as reasons why notification laws are bad; as I argued in 2006, those activities are illegal, and Prop. 85 provided for a waiver of parental notification in those circumstances. Proposition 4 strengthens these protections from abuse by allowing a minor to notify another family member, and requires the doctor to report abuse.

I still see no reason to oppose this proposition. As noted above, Prop. 4 provides for new exceptions to parental notification, which should allay fears for parental abuse due to parental notification. I still see an illogical divide in the treatment of minors in state law and policy. As such, I have no reason to change my recommendation from 2006 on parental notification of abortions.

I recommend Yes on Proposition 4.

Propositions 5, 6 and 9 all deal with various aspects of law enforcement. For the life of me, I can't understand what any of those three do, so I am going to pass on those for the time being.

Proposition 8

I am not at all looking forward to talking about this proposition. I must admit, I thought about deleting this section and giving a terse "I have no opinion" statement, but I came to the conclusion that using that would be a cop-out. So, I left the text intact- I realize that it is probably not at all satisfactory, but I'm fine with that. I have tried to be honest with myself and the reader on my this topic; you may disagree, but I hope you do not think I came to this conclusion rashly.

Proposition 8 re-writes into the California Constitution that marriage be defined as between a man and a woman, and that only those marriages be recognized by the State of California. This proposition is in response to a California Supreme Court decision earlier this year that ruled that Proposition 22, that was passed by California voters in 2000, and subsequent legislative activities on domestic partnerships, violated the equal protection clause of the California Constitution. Now, I disagreed with the California Supreme Court decision because it overturned a valid vote by the people of the state. I also disagreed with the ruling because it overturned a series of legislative actions by the state that granted same sex couples the same rights and benefits afforded to straight couples, except that it wasn't called marriage. I believed that the Court had no power or authority to overturn either of those decisions; instead, that decision should be left with the people.

So, here is a proposition to get the vote of the people on this topic. My internal struggle on this question is profound- my political philosophy is that government shouldn't care what individuals do or decide on their own, as long as there is no detrimental effects on society. In other words, according to my political philosophy, the government shouldn't care about the decisions of individuals to marry. However, my personal view, based on my own personal morals and ethics come to a different conclusion. So, where does that leave me.

From a legal perspective, I disagreed with the Court's equal protection argument on gay marriage- I believed that the Court created a new law, a law that I do not believe is correct, outside of current statutes in overturning Prop 22, as such, they violated the separation of powers between the legislature and the judiciary. Therefore, I am not inclined to believe in an equal protection argument for the justification of gay marriage. I do not believe that domestic partnership laws, as in effect at the time of the court's ruling, violated the equal protection laws of the California Constitution. Nevertheless, that does not answer the question presented in this proposition.

Frankly, I do not believe that I can make a recommendation on this proposition. I believe that how one votes on this decision is incumbent on one's own interpretation and beliefs; my own struggles between divergent philosophy's provide just one example. Since I do not buy an equal protection argument, primarily because domestic partnership laws provided for the same legal rights and responsibilities as marriages, I'm left with determining which philosophy is important to me. As such, I am left with the conclusion that this is fundamentally a personal decision- and I still am uncertain as to how I will vote.

The final proposition that I will discuss on this posting is Proposition 12.

Proposition 12 would approve the issuance of $900 million worth of bonds to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Money from the sale of these bonds are used by the State Department of Veterans Affairs to help our veterans, and voters have been approving bonds like this since 1921. The total cost of paying off these bonds and interest (5% over 30 years) would total around $1.8 billion, at an annual cost of $59 million a year. However, as supporters of Prop. 12 note, all costs of the program and repayment of the bonds that have been issued to support Veterans have been repaid through the Cal-Vet Home Loan Program, and have not relied on the General Fund. In other words, this program has historically been entirely self-sufficient, being paid off by the borrowers, only relying on the state so that it can take advantage of the state's superior credit rating. The Home Loan Program purchases homes using the proceeds from the bonds, then re-sells the houses to veterans, thereby recovering all costs from the mortgages of the borrowers to pay off the bonds. The state would only be required to cover the costs in the event that the program came up short, primarily if a foreclosure occurred.

All of that is to say that this is a good program- bonds are issued to help veterans purchase homes, then the mortgages themselves pay off the bonds, with little risk to California voters.

So, I recommend Yes on 12.

I'll finish off the rest of the state-wide ballots soon. There will really only be one San Francisco initiative that I think I'll have to get in depth on, so I hope to get the San Francisco post out in due time as well.