A not-so-funny thing is happening on the way to California’s
June 8 statewide election. The cruel joke has to do with voters’
rights to put popular petitions, initiatives and statewide
propositions on the ballot.
Don’t look now but the progressive vision of Hiram Johnson’s
(1866-1945) “direct democracy” has been hijacked by the very powers
his California constitutional reforms first targeted in 1911.
The June 8 ballot includes two “sheep in wolves’ clothing”
initiatives that are being pitched as great “voters’ rights”
measures, but, in fact, are being funded and led by private
monopolies and corporate interests — the original target of
Johnson’s anti-greed movement.
Proposition 16 is the creation of PG&E to protect its
private profits and monopolistic territories. Ratepayers’ money is
being used against them with a bombardment of radio ads calling
Prop. 16 the “Taxpayers Right to Vote” Act.
Proposition 17 is being pushed by Mercury Insurance Company, one
of California’s largest automobile insurance corporations. Mercury
wants voters to think Prop. 17 will save loyal customers money when
in fact the new law would add new “surcharges” to drivers who allow
their insurance coverage to lapse for more than 90 days for any
reason.
The three other propositions (Prop. 13, 14 and 15) were placed
on the June 8 ballot by legislative action, not by voter
petitions.
With a minimum of bad humor or humiliated anger we offer these
brief summaries of the five June 8 propositions:
Prop. 13 — This constitutional amendment has the unanimous
support of all 37 state senators and all 78 assembly members. The
proposal provides that seismically retrofit work to existing
buildings would not trigger property tax reassessments.
Prop. 14 — This is the”Open Primary” initiative put on the
ballot by a split-vote of the legislature. Candidates in future
statewide primary elections would not have to declare a party
affiliation. All voters, regardless of party registration,would
receive the same ballot and vote for any candidate from any party.
The top two vote-winners for each office would face off in a
follow-up general election. Critics of Prop. 13 say it would
promote candidates to hide their true party affiliation by claiming
“decline to state.” Supporters of Prop 14 say it will offer a
better opportunity for “moderate” candidates and give independent
voters an equal voice. The League of Women Voters call this a “not
perfect” proposition but are endorsing it.
Prop. 15 — How could anyone oppose this “California Fair
Elections Act”? Well, many incumbent legislators oppose it, along
with some special interest lobbyists and some public employees
unions. Prop. 15 would lift the ban on public funding for political
campaigns. Local governments would decide whether to create public
financing programs or not. New registration fees for state
government lobbyists would be assessed to pay for the program which
would be tested by a new public funding program for the election of
Secretary of State. Prop. 15 and Prop 14 have some internal
conflicts which would have to be worked in court if both pass on
June 8. Hiram Johnson would probably oppose these complicated
propositions, but the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and
other “fair election” organizations are endorsing both.
Prop. 16 — If you own lots of PG&E stock you will like Prop.
16. It protects the monopoly practices of PG&E and California’s
other large investor-owned utilities such as Southern California
Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric. Prop. 16 would impose a
new two-thirds voter approval requirement for any city, local
government or group of governments to launch new or expanded energy
networks or services. Read your ballot and turn off the radio
ads.
Prop. 17 — When a private insurance company asks you to vote and
approve new rate discounts, does something sound funny to you?
Hidden in the proposal are new penalties for anyone who allow their
coverage to lapse, including military troops, traveling students or
anyone unable to pay all their bills.
Stop laughing, the joke’s on you.
— Rollie Atkinson

Previous articlePoisoned trust
Next articleHealdsburg Letters to the Editor

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here