California’s decisions for governor and the propositions pacify radical positions
California voters were in the spotlight on Nov. 2 as election day began across the nation. The general election ranged from voting for governor to FUHSD school board members to global warming issues. Overall, California made some wise decisions this year.
Governor:
Congratulations, Jerry Brown. There’s not much to say about the $46 million spent on his election. As for Meg Whitman, it was somewhat disappointing for her to have lost, especially with $142 million coming from her own pocket. Instead of earning the trust of the public, Whitman tried to buy it. Well, California has said it: money doesn’t buy happiness. Or votes.
Propositions:
(Voters: NO) Proposition 19: California’s legalization and taxation of marijuana. California may be liberal and may have pioneered medical marijuana more than a decade ago, but passing legislation that flat out opposes federal law is still a little extreme for the time being. However, if the Bay Area had seceded from California, then the proposition would have most definitely passed. The only reason Proposition 19 lost was because it had failed to gain support in larger southern California cities such as Los Angeles. Thank goodness, since the law allowed for each county to make their own laws, and the lack of uniformity could bring up avoidable legal issues. Good choice, California voters!
(Voters: YES) Proposition 20: Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee. This was supposed to be passed along with Proposition 27, where the task of redistricting is returned back to the state legislature. Sadly, Proposition 27 didn’t pass, and Proposition 20 did. The committee of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party, are to redraw the district lines, so now, this is just a wild up-for-grabs opportunity for politicians to prepare for their next election. With a balanced committee that favors neither party, this won’t foreseen chance for a single-party dominance in California. Overall, this proposition shouldn’t have much of an effect on the daily lives of Californians, as there was no clear beneficiary to gain anything by randomly redrawing lines.
(Voters: NO) Proposition 21: Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks. Apparently California isn’t as eco-friendly as it may seem. It is a little disappointing that people do not want to pay an extra $18 a year for a forest, but that money does have other places to go to, and should have gone in support of the declining educational funding, such as Measure E.
(Voters: YES) Proposition 22: State government prohibited from taking designated types of local funds. Or in other words, if the federal government gives you $3 million to spend on a railroad that travels into the middle of the ocean, you spend it on that railroad, no matter how bankrupt the state of California is. This basically allows the rest of the nation to decide how money in California should be spent, but it really should be California who’s deciding where its money goes— and when and where they need to stuff a few extra bucks in to keep the state afloat. Well, California left the decision to the federal government, so the future doesn’t look quite so bright for the state budget.
(Voters: NO) Proposition 23: Suspend AB 32, the “Global Warming Solutions Act” until unemployment falls below 5.5 percent for a year. Even with unemployment in 2010 as high as 12 percent as opposed to the 4.8 percent in 2006 when the bill was signed, voters are throwing their support behind the environment, despite their previous decision on Proposition 21. Although going green is hardly a bad thing, the rise of unemployment is, and California has voted in favor of the latter, just to make the world a more eco-friendly, naturalistic place to live in. It might not do wonders for the workers who have their jobs now placed in the hot spot, but California agreed to pass this act in 2006, and it should be their responsibility to continue pushing ahead for the previously-made environmentally-friendly decision. A main deciding factor for voters could have been the commercials from oil companies support Proposition 23, and the oil companies are very highly regarded by Californians after the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.
(Voters: NO) Proposition 24: Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act. The name says it all. So does the support behind the act, or rather, the lack of support. The results indicate, in layman’s terms, the following: “We understand the tax loophole allows big businesses to sneak out of their taxes payments instead of funding the next generation of education.” Not quite sure why California decided to not pass this, although the decision will save businesses a lot of money by allowing them to continue to slip through tax loopholes.
(Voters: YES) Proposition 25: Budget and related legislation can be passed with simple majority, rather than current two-thirds requirement. Good news, California! You’ll be seeing your budget. In your lifetime, too. It has also protected the interest of the people by keeping the two-thirds vote requirement necessary to pass tax increases. Doesn’t it make you proud when you’ve voted for the right thing?
(Voters: YES) Proposition 26: Requires a 2/3 supermajority vote in the legislature to pass certain state and local fees. Since tax increases still require a two-thirds vote to increase, this law prevents those state legislature from disguising those pesky little tax increases as fees. In fact, the state legislature is allowed to raise as much as $10 million off those little “fees,” so your vote has contributed dramatically to the Stop Hidden Taxes initiative that will make the government begin to take more steps towards transparency.
(Voters: NO) Proposition 27: Return task of redistricting to the California State Legislature. That was sneaky! In conjunction with Proposition 20, it would essentially read: “The state legislature wants to redistrict the areas so that they’ll win the next election, and no one can do anything about it.” It’s even so separated from that previous proposition, almost as if they thought voters would have forgotten about the fact they agreed to the redistricting. Definitely destined for failure, this attempt to bring the state legislature back into political control of California was clearly shot down by voters, and most definitely for the betterment of the state.
And so, California has spoken, and the future looks bright with these wise decisions. Until the 2012 elections, California!
