THE CA PROPOSITIONS; Democratic and Republican activists discuss the propositions

There are eight propositions involving social, financial, medical and educational issues for California voters to decide in the special statewide election on November 8. To help voters cast their ballots, the Valley News asked Democratic and Republican activists to discuss the propositions and their parties’ stances on them.

Murrieta resident Bonita Connoley, a retired educator, lifelong Democrat and president of the Democratic Club of Southwest Riverside County (DCSRC), agreed to share the California Democratic Party’s views on the propositions. “Most propositions come from special interest groups,” she commented. “Voters need to read them carefully, think about who is proposing the proposition and consider the long-term implications.”

Kevin Jeffries is chairman of the Republican Party of Riverside County and is the 36th Senate Director for the California Republican Assembly. He moved to Lake Elsinore in 1971. Jefferies and his wife, Christina, have been married for 23 years and have two adult children. He weighed in on the Republican side of the issues.

Proposition 73: Waiting period and parental notification before termination of minor’s pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional amendment.

Democratic stance: ‘No’ vote. Connoley said this proposition is the hardest to talk about because it is so emotional. “We all think that teenagers feel free to talk to their parents about important matters, but that’s not always the case,” she said. “In most families that’s true, but in a case where there is incest or abuse, the teenager can’t always go to the parent.” She said the proposition does not provide the kind of help or counseling teenage girls need in those circumstances. Democrats oppose 73 because it does not sufficiently address all the problems involved with teenage pregnancy.

Republican stance: ‘Yes’ vote. Parental consent is required for minors to get pierced or tanned, buy violent videogames or even get an aspirin form the school nurse, but if a 14-year-old girl wants an abortion, another adult can take her to a clinic without her parents’ knowledge! Proposition 73 would simply require a physician to notify a minor’s (an unmarried girl under 17) parents 48 hours prior to performing an abortion. Prop. 73 even allows a judge to waive the waiting period if it is in the girl’s best interest.

Proposition 74: Public school teachers. Waiting period for permanent status. Dismissal. Initiative statute.

Republican stance: ‘Yes’ vote. California spending on education has increased by the billions, yet we continue to rank near the bottom nationwide on test scores. As parents we demand that our school administrators clean up our schools and produce results, yet these same school administrators are hamstrung with endless regulations that protect a few bad teachers from being flunked out of a job. Before a new teacher can lock down a lifetime of job security, let’s make sure they can actually do the job.

Democratic stance: ‘No’ vote. “The reasoning behind a ‘no’ vote is that school systems already have a process for firing incompetent teachers,” Connoley said. “All teachers are concerned about 74 because it would take away their due process. It allows them to be fired without a hearing. It also recommends a five-year probationary period. Because of that requirement, recruitment of new teachers will be hurt. California needs 100,000 teachers in the future. What young person wants to spend four or five years in college, do practicing teaching and then go to work for a school system in which he or she can be fired on the spot?”

Proposition 75: Public employee union dues. Restrictions on political contributions. Employee consent requirement. Initiative statute.

Republican stance: ‘Yes’ vote. Currently, government employee labor unions can increase dues to pay for political campaigns without the consent of their members. No other political organization has the ability to take money directly out of their members’ paychecks to spend on political propaganda. Prop. 75 will simply require government employee labor union bosses to get permission from government workers before they take and spend their money for political purposes.

Democratic stance: ‘No’ vote. “I think Democrats oppose this because it’s an attempt to silence community service workers,” Connoley said. “The Governor doesn’t like the criticism he’s received from the California Teachers Association, so if he can prevent them from contributing dues for political purposes, they won’t be able to mount a campaign against him. Other union employees such as plumbers or electricians are not restricted in this way. He’s unfairly discriminating against public service employees.”

Proposition 76: State spending and school funding limits. Initiative Constitutional amendment.

Democratic stance: ‘No’ vote. This proposition undermines school funding and overturns Proposition 98, which guarantees funding for schools, according to Connoley. “It empowers the Governor to cut school spending three times a year without any checks or balances on the part of legislators or voters,” she said. “The fact that he can do this gives him unlimited control of school budgets and could throw school budgets into chaos three times a year. It also affects funding for police and firefighters. Do we really want fewer teachers, police and firefighters? Do we want less money for schools? I don’t think so.”

Republican stance: ‘Yes’ vote. “All this proposition does is stabilize the increase in state spending, to keep out-of-control legislators from spending one-time money on ongoing problems, as we did in the Davis years. It will also allow us to give extra money to schools without being punished for it in the budget process if tax revenues decrease again in the future. Prop. 76 will also restore the Governor’s ability to make mid-year adjustments in the event of an economic crisis.”

Republican stance: “‘Yes’ vote. In 2004, we had elections in 153 Congressional, Senate and Assembly Districts. Not a single district changed political parties. When new district boundaries were drawn in 2001, the politicians drew the boundaries and picked the voters instead of the voters picking the politicians. Prop. 77 simply gives the map-making to an independent group and then to voters for final approval.”

Democratic stance: ‘No’ vote. Connoley said this would give the task of redistricting to a team of judges before the 2006 election. Democrats are opposed because judges are not necessarily politically impartial in their decisions. “While redistricting must been done responsibly, it should occur after the next census,” she said. “Democrats also see this proposition as a power grab by the Governor. He’s trying to create more Republican districts in the state.”

Democratic stance: ‘No’ vote. “Pharmaceutical companies sponsored this initiative,” Connoley said. “The proposition gives them the power to offer their own discounts on selected drug categories. They would be able to change discounts and drug categories as they deem appropriate. This poses a threat to consumers, especially to the elderly who live on fixed incomes.”

Republican stance: ‘Yes’ vote. “Prop. 78 is based on a program recently launched in Ohio that has delivered drug discounts averaging 31 percent to qualified uninsured low- and moderate-income patients. Unlike Prop. 79, it does NOT impose artificial government price controls on manufacturers or retailers or threaten Medi-Cal funding.”

Proposition 79: Prescription drug discounts. State-negotiated rebates. Initiative statute.

Republican stance: ‘No’ vote. Prop. 79 is a “poison pill” discount drug initiative sponsored by labor unions. It allows trial lawyers to sue drug companies and others over the cost of prescription drugs even without proof of harm and allows lawyers to keep proceeds of lawsuits — driving up costs for Californians.

Democratic stance: ‘Yes’ vote. “We’re supporting Proposition 79,” Connoley said. “It provides enforceable discounts controlled by the California Department of Health Services. It covers more Californians than Proposition 78 and is a better alternative.”

Democratic stance: ‘Yes’ vote. Democrats favor this initiative because it ensures that all electricity providers are subject to the regulation of the Public Utilities Commission. “It would eliminate market manipulation by corporations. It protects families and small businesses and ensures that California will be free of blackouts in the future,” Connoley said.

Republican stance: ‘No’ vote. “Prop. 80 does absolutely nothing about the cause of California’s power crisis: a shortage of supply. In fact, it makes future investment in power plants even more difficult. Prop. 80 would prohibit private companies from lining up the best price on electricity and eliminate consumer choice. It [would] also lock the state into one strategy for providing power by permanently prohibiting companies direct access to independent power sources.”

Got this in the mail:
"Dennis Hastert, the speaker of the House of Representatives, the entire Republican leadership of the House of Representattives, and the Chairman of the Republican National Committee all think Prop 77 is a disastrous idea!

Governor Schwarzenegger is sincere, but like a moth to a flame, he is drawn to 77 by the state legislature. Proposition 77 is bad for the Republican Party!"

- Republican Congressman John Doolitte, California Secretary of the House Republican Leadership (Sacramento Bee Sept 11, 2005)

Then goes on to say

"Being a Judge does not magically remove one's partisan beliefs. Judges can be highly partisan ... retired judges are not accountable to the public."

- Republican State Senate Caucus Briefing Book

Just thought I'd throw that out there. I'm still for it, but they raise a reasonable point. I don't personally care if career politicians don't like it, but indeed the judges need to be accountable to the people. Comments anyone?

I hate to say it, but this is more from the scared Republicans, who are more willing to accept a permanent minority status in CA, than take a chance on potential more Republican seats.

I don't think the redrawn CA districts will hurt our majority in the House, which is what they are worried about.

It's time for Republicans to acquire some courage.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.