Yesterday the California Democratic Party Resolutions Committee took up the question of November ballot initiative endorsements. After some debate, the committee narrowly rejected Tom Ammiano’s proposal to endorse Prop 19, and then unanimously approved the original plan to remain neutral on that initiative.

The speakers in support of Prop 19 – Ammiano and Alice Huffman of the California NAACP – made powerful arguments in support of the measure. Ammiano cited the more than 20,000 signatures we at the Courage Campaign (where I work as Public Policy Director) gathered in support of the initiative, the stack of which you can see at right, alongside the strong case for Prop 19 on the merits – to provide prison reform, help fix the budget, and to admit that our policy of prohibition has failed.

Huffman’s case was even more powerful. Rejecting claims that Democrats should be skittish of Prop 19 out of concern for their candidates on the November ballot, she called on delegates to “show courage” and endorse Prop 19 for the sake of ending the devastating war on drugs that has hit young African Americans and Latinos so hard, and seek a more sensible and rational regulatory policy of cannabis.

However, the more skittish view prevailed on the committee. In spite of the evidence showing that California Democratic voters support Prop 19 and their own party chair’s view that Prop 19 will boost turnout for Democrats, these folks worried that Democrats running in purplish or red areas would be hurt if the party endorsed Prop 19, even though some candidates in those kinds of districts already have gone on record in support of Prop 19.

I’m sympathetic to that view, but I think it also misreads the 2010 election. This is a turnout election, not a persuasion election. Democrats win by driving our people to the polls, plain and simple. Prop 19 will bring Democratic-friendly voters to the polls. If the CDP were to be on record in support of Prop 19, those voters might also be willing to cast their vote for Democratic candidates. If the party is neutral, then that might not occur at the levels we’d like.

Today the entire E-Board will take up the endorsement. It will require 60% to endorse. My feeling is the vote will be close. There’s no chance the CDP will oppose Prop 19, so the question is whether the party will endorse it or remain neutral. We’ll know by noon.

Prop 19 wasn’t the only ballot initiative endorsement that generated strong debate. Surprisingly (to me, at least) Prop 22, which would put a permanent end to state raids on local government funding, was very hotly contested. The Resolutions Committee ultimately voted to oppose Prop 22.

Prop 22 supporters argue that it’s unfair to make local governments suffer because of the state’s budget woes, hurting police, fire, and other vital services provided by local government. Many unions that represent workers in local government strongly support Prop 22. Others argue that the raids on local government funding play a major role in the public’s negative views of the legislature, fuels anti-union sentiment (including attacks on pensions) and undermines the progressive case for government instead of making it clear the problem lies with the 2/3rds rule in Sacramento.

On the other hand, Prop 22 opponents, led by the CTA, CNA, and the California Professional Firefighters, argue that this would tie the hands of the legislature and lead to deeper cuts to public schools and other state-funded priorities. They expressed sympathy for the woes of local governments, but did not want to conduct further ballot-box budgeting. This view won out at the Resolutions Committee, despite an effort by some to have the party be neutral on what could be a very divisive proposition.

I’ve not seen any polling on Prop 22 yet, but it would seem likely to pass by a healthy margin this November. In 2004, Prop 1A passed with 83% voting yes, a proposition that strictly limited raids on local government funding, requiring 2/3 of the legislature to support it and requiring funds to be repaid to localities within 3 years.

CTA and others are likely to spend some money against Prop 22, so that will create a different dynamic around this proposition than Prop 1A. Still, it will be interesting to see which argument sways voters.

The rest of the debate was fairly straightforward. The party voted to oppose Prop 20 (extend Prop 11 redistricting commission mandate to include Congressional districts) and support Prop 27, which would abolish the commission and return all redistricting power to the legislature. Fred Keeley, who was screwed by the 2002 redistricting, spoke for Prop 20 and against 27, but his arguments were rejected in favor of Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren’s call to oppose Prop 20 and support Prop 27, pointing out that the Prop 11 commission is totally unrepresentative of California (it’s mostly affluent white men).

Other endorsements taken up by the Resolutions Committee and likely to stand at today’s floor session: Yes on 21, No on 23, Yes on 24, Yes on 25, No on 26.

UPDATE by Robert: I moved to endorse Prop 19 and spoke in support of it. It needed 60% to pass, but it failed with 85 in support and 101 opposed. The E-Board then approved the party being neutral on a voice vote. This means that local county committees can go ahead and make their own decisions.