The latest Field poll reveals that Prop 93 is trailing in the Bay Area. That seems to mean that many progressives, disgusted with Speaker Nunez and President Pro Tem Perata are willing to throw away the best chance to reform term limits we have had since that pernicious “reform” was enacted in 1990.  There is much to complain about where Nunez and Perata are concerned, and yes, this does help them remain in office.  But are we really so childish that we are willing to eschew a much-needed reform of a very bad public policy, one that prevents legislators from remaining in office long enough to become effective at their job, simply because it also benefits two corrupt politicians?  

Progressives will cement the current system of term limits for the forseeable future if they defeat Prop 93 out of frustration with two individuals.  Unless we get behind Prop 93, we are likely to regret it when we lament the defeat of public financing of elections and meaningful health insurance reform, to name just a few items on our agenda.

Field released their polling data on Props 93 (Brian’s Disclosure) and 94-97. PDF here.  Supporters and Opponents of these propositions still have quite a bit of work to do before February 5, as voter awareness is still hovering around the 2/3 mark for both and undecideds around 20-25% even after poll education. Also, Field seems to have not polled Prop 92 again.

Let’s get to the details over the flip.

On Proposition 93, the vote is evenly split between yes (39%) and No (39%). Awareness of the initiative has increased to 65% from 25% in last month’s poll, after new ads (Yes ads here) and a recent surge in spending by Republican insurance commissioner and all-around Rich Uncle Pennybags Steve Poizner. Yet even with the higher awareness, undecideds are still hanging at 22%.  Interestingly, 28% of Democrats are undecided, while only 16% of Republicans are undecided.

Democrats tend to break late in polling. And, wearing my Yes on 93 hat for a minute, that’s not a bad thing. With an impressive endorsement list, including the Sierra Club, the California Democratic Party, Equality California, and the SEIU state council, hopes are high that many of these Democratic voters will break Yes. Of course, the Governor’s endorsement, who is also strangely popular, could also help tilt some undecideds. Also, the endorsement of La Opinión (English here) should help considerably. With the bulk of Vote-by-mail ballots outstanding, likely due to the close presidential races, there are a lot of votes out there yet.

On Props 94-97, the Native American gambling casino slot machine initiatives, Yes slightly leads 42-37.  Awareness is at 70%, likely due to the millions upon millions being poured into the ads by the four tribes who stand to make billions of dollars off these compacts.

The yes ads, which you can see in our own ad section (along with a no ad), continue to trumpet the billions of dollars coming to the state. (What they don’t trumpet as loudly is that these billions come over 20 years. Oh, and the state isn’t actually guaranteed that money.)

The yes side on the casino compacts has one other problem. The votes are confusing. If you want to overrule the legislature, you must vote NO. If you want to allow the casinos, you must vote YES. But either way, this is confusing. And when voters are confused, No is the traditional response. With less than two weeks until February 5, expect a whole flurry of activity from all participants.

 (Brian’s Disclosure)

Today in the LA Times, the Editorial Board endorsed Proposition 93. In the end, it’s not a huge deal. Newspaper endorsements have been gradually declining in importance over the last 20 years or so. That decline was seen starkly in the 2006 Democratic primary, where Steve Westly got 49 of the top 50 newspaper endorsements. (I think that’s the right figure, but I could be wrong on the exact figures.)

Nonetheless, the Times editorial makes the argument that I’ve been (at least attempting) to make on Prop. 93 for a while. It’s not perfect, but it puts California in a better position for the long run. From the Times editorial, over the flip.

Sure, it stinks that Nuñez and Perata would get a special benefit, but voters should not spike the chance at term-limits reform just because a few leaders would get a few years extra in power. That negative consequence would be short-lived. Then it would be gone forever, and we would have a new term-limits structure we could live with forever. The Times has long been skeptical of term limits of any kind, but Proposition 93 provides a positive and creative compromise.

Redistricting, meanwhile, is out of the Legislature’s hands and will be before voters in November, when they can finish the job that the Assembly and Senate couldn’t handle. (LAT 1/21/08)

For my part on the issue of redistricting, well, voters have rejected that over and over again through recent history, the last attempt being Prop 77. I’ve always thought the redistricting argument was something of a bugaboo for newspapers and the like, but doesn’t really have resonance with the voting populace. But, as I said in comment earlier today, redistricting is a different issue. I know why redistricting has become entangled with Prop 93, because the governor tried to do so. However, the two are not, and should not, be related. As we saw with Prop 77 in 2005, redistricting is a tricky process. Few states have actually mastered a good plan. There are reasons why, in this state, where we have majorities in both houses, that we would not readily give up our position so freely to unelected bodies who are only accountable to a single patron, be it a board of judges or a governor or a legislator. It is unilateral disarmament unless all states have a similar reform. Otherwise we will be throwing ourselves to the wolves of Republican majorities in states like Texas who have no compunction to seek reform for reform’s sake.  It is a risky trail that we ought not trod unless we are completely sure that reform will be unanimous.

Fortunately, Common Cause (they endorsed Prop 93 over the weekend) has written their initiative to only govern the reapportionment of the state Legislature. For my part, I haven’t made my mind up about it yet; it is too soon. I assume it will get on the ballot, as it has Arnold’s support. However, I will want to carefully review whether this initiative actually does the state any good. And that will go to the voters to stand or fall on its own merits.

But to the issue of Prop 93 itself, as the Times says, Prop 93 addresses many of the negative points of term limits, such as the degrading institutional memory, and the inability to resolve the largest issues because the negotiating pairs change. It doesn’t address all of the issues, and for other issues, the effects of Prop 93 are unclear. For example, the issue of decreased female representation remains a riddle.

But as for the leaders themselves, as the Times points out, they must still answer to another power: the voters. That term limits deny voters this option is inherently anti-democratic (small d).

Besides, no lawmaker gets more time in office without approval of the voters in his or her home district. That’s democracy, and it should be protected, not limited.

(Brian’s Disclosure)

Today, in somewhat of a last-minute fashion, Common Cause of California endorsed Proposition 93, the term limits reform measure. Common Cause is one of many groups who are opposed to term limits in their current structure on principle grounds, but they wanted to get redistricting reform at the same time. Nonetheless, they have endorsed Prop 93, along with a heavy dose of pimping for their redistricting measure that has been endorsed by the Governor.

Check the press release over the flip.

(Los Angeles) – California Common Cause today announced its endorsement of Proposition 93, a measure that will reform California’s term limits.  “While we strongly condemn legislative leaders’ failure to adhere to their agreement to place a redistricting reform measure on the ballot along with the term limits proposition,” said California Common Cause Vice-Chair Roy Ulrich, “Common Cause has long believed that term limits arbitrarily limit the right of voters to elect their representatives from among the most qualified candidates while at the same time giving more power and influence to special interest lobbyists.”

Proposition 93 will give voters the ability to decide whether to keep their assemblymember or senator in office for up to 12 years.  Under existing law, assemblymembers are limited to three terms of two years, and senators are limited to two terms of four years, with the possibility that a person could serve a total of 14 years in the state legislature if elected to both houses.  If passed, Proposition 93 would allow legislators to serve a total of twelve years in the Assembly, the Senate, or both.

Although legislative leaders have failed to live up to their promise to place a redistricting reform measure on the ballot, California Common Cause has joined forces with the League of Women Voters, AARP, the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, and other groups and individuals to obtain the signatures necessary to place the California Voters FIRST Act on the November 2008 ballot.  Presently, California’s legislators draw their own districts behind closed doors, which creates a serious conflict between a legislator’s self-interest in drawing districts that ensure his or her safe reelection and the legislator’s responsibility to serve the interests of the communities he or she represents.  If passed, the California Voters FIRST Act would create an open and transparent 14-person independent citizens commission to draw district boundaries.

The San Francisco Bay Guardian has long been considered the voice of progressives in the Bay Area. Publisher Bruce Brugmann has been working to give progressives a voice for a long, long time. (He even supplies the world with transcripts of Sup. Tom Ammiano’s joke of the day voicemail message.) That the “Weekly” papers have now been brought under a larger corporate banner and have moved considerably to the center, their publication has become one of the most important reads for progressives in the state, if not the most important. (Save Calitics of course. 😉 )

With that, I bring you the Bay Guardian’s endorsements. As a good non-partisan paper they made endorsements in all three primaries by endorsing Obama, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney.  On California Propositions, they said yes on 92 & 93, and No on 91, and 94-97.  As for the SF props, Yes on A&B, No on C.

See the flip for more discussion of the SFBG endorsements.

President: Obama, Paul, and McKinney

The SFBG readily acknowledges that Paul and McKinney will not win, and for Paul, that is a good thing. They take fault with his libretarian, anti-tax, “anti-gummint” (jsw’s phrase) stances. However, they point to the importance of having a Republican that is anti-war on the ballot as a point of contrast.  As for the Dem race, well, it reads kinda like the Calitics endorsement. We loved Edwards, but it was not to be. The same for the BG. On Clinton, here’s the money quote:

We are convinced that deep down she has liberal instincts. But that’s what’s so infuriating: since the day she won election to the US Senate, Clinton has been triangulating, shaping her positions, especially on foreign policy, in an effort to put her close to the political center. At a time when she could have shown real courage – during the early votes on funding and authorizing the invasion of Iraq – she took the easy way out, siding with President Bush and refusing to be counted with the antiwar movement. She has refused to distance herself from such terrible Bill Clinton-era policies as welfare reform, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and don’t ask, don’t tell. We just can’t see her as the progressive choice.

Prop 91: No

While we merely stated that Prop 91 had no campaign, the good folks at the Bay Guardian were absolutely correct in pointing out the underlying reasons for not supporting any such measures to restrict gas taxes to roads:

Driving a car is expensive for society, and drivers ought to be paying some of those costs. That should mean extra gas taxes and a reinstatement of the vehicle license fee to previous levels (and extra surcharges for those who drive Hummers and other especially wasteful, dangerous vehicles). That money ought to go to the state General Fund so California doesn’t have to close state parks and slash spending on schools and social services, as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is proposing.

Prop 92: Yes

Different place, same story as the Calitics endorsement:

Some teachers fear that Prop. 92 could lead to decreased funds for K-12, and that’s a real concern. … But many of the same concerns were voiced when Prop. 98 was on the ballot, and that measure probably saved public education in California. The progressives on the San Francisco Board of Education all support Prop. 92, and so do we. Vote yes.

Prop 93: Yes  (Brian’s Disclosure)

The Bay Guardian diverged in only one place from the Calitics endorsement, and this was it. They, like Mal Burnstein, oppose term limits in general, especially the “Mark Leno versus Carole Migden bloodbath.”

But it’s sad that the California State Legislature, once a model for the nation, has been so stymied by corruption that the voters don’t trust it and the best we can hope for is a modest improvement in a bad law. Vote yes.

Props. 94-97: No

The Calitics Editorial Board view on these is about the same as the Bay Guardians. Not enough money to the state, not enough labor protection, and too much to too few:

The governor cut this deal too fast and gave away too much. If the tribes want to expand their casinos, we’re open to allowing it – but the state, the workers, and the other tribes deserve a bigger share of the revenue. Vote no on 94-97.

(This post (and the comment in the Arnold 93 diary) is from Mal Burnstein, who currently serves as the NorCal Co-chair of the Progressive Caucus of the CDP. His beliefs are, of course, his own rather than from any group that he is affiliated with.   – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Some of my progressive friends have come out against Prop 93, arguing that because it is really designed to save the jobs of some current legislators, it must be flawed.  In my opinion that is a very short sighted way of looking at things, and it risks swamping the public policy baby with the self-interest bath water.  The argument for Prop 93 is really very simple, to wit:

(Edited by Brian for space, see the extended).

 Term limits bad

           Prop 93 weakens term limits.

           Therefore, Prop 93 good (despite the blatent self-interest of some who are responsible for it being on the ballot).  The bottom line is that it leaves better public policy than we have now.  We need to look beyond the small down-side and recognize the benefits to all of us of legislators who have a chance to learn their job and have the time to accomplish their legislative goals.

Of course, if you support term limits – an anti-democratic method of telling people who they can and can’t vote for – then I suppose you oppose Prop 93.  And we simply agree to disagree.  But if you recognize the pernicious effects of term limits, Prop 93 is a way to loosen their iron grip and allow legislators to gain sufficient experience and longevity in their job to be able to accomplish something.  For example, Loni Hancock, assembly member for the 14th AD, is termed out this year.  She is the legislative author of clean money.  If we lose her fervor, knowledge and experience in working that legislation, how will it ever become law?  Sheila Kuehl is now termed out of the senate.  If we don’t have her in the senate, who can effectively fight for single payer health insurance?  Do we really want to leave the legislative process to staff and lobbyists?

With respect, I think for progressives it should be an easy decision.

SF’s NPR affiliate KQED is doing a show on Prop 93 right now. You can listen live here. They’ll be doing the other props soon as well. You can find the Forum archive here.

UPDATE: The program is now over, and will be available in their archive in a couple of hours. In the meantime, check out PeteRates for an interesting take on the propositions. Pete usually does a pretty good job on analyzing the state props. This time he has an abstain on 91, no on 92, yes on 93, and no on 94-97.

(Brian’s Disclosure)

Recently, I had the chance to sit down, errm, stand up, with former state controller (and former eBay exec, and former gubernatorial candidate, and current green venture capitalist) Steve Westly about proposition 93. Mr. Westly had an interesting take, which I think you’ll see from these videos. You can play through all of them in a row, or watch just one by selecting a video from the playlist.

First, I want to make sure that everybody is clear that these endorsements come from the Calitics Editorial Board, not the community as a whole. The Calitics Editorial Board consists of Brian Leubitz,  jsw, Julia Rosen, David Dayen, Lucas O'Connor &  Robert in Monterey. We would have liked to endorse as a community, but there are tremendous problems with ballot stuffing that this software just can't deal with. That being said, all are welcome to agree, disagree, flame us, whatever, in the comments. I'll give you our endorsements here, and then briefly discuss them over the flip.  An endorsement required 4 of the 6 votes. Furthermore, this post should not be considered of anybody specifically. Rather, it is the voice of the Editorial Board as a whole. So, without further adieu, here they are:

President: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)

Proposition 91, Transportation Funding: No

Proposition 92, Community Colleges: Yes

Proposition 93, Term Limits Reform: Neutral/No Recommendation

Propositions 94-97, Native American Gambling Referenda: No 

Flip it for more.

President: Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)

It was one of those fantastic things this year, we had a multitude of great candidates. You had a real progressive lion in the form of Chris Dodd who stood proudly for the values of the Constitution. You had Joe Biden who presents a coherent place for America in the new global environment. Kucinich, Richardson, Clinton, Gravel also brought much to the table. And, of course Sen. John Edwards was a very attractive candidate. For many of us, it seemed a tough course to reject Sen. Edwards; his message is so powerful. He is willing to stand tall against corporations and the anti-populists of the country.

However, when it comes to today, and given the current standing of the race, Sen. Obama is our choice. His vision of hope has brought countless young and otherwise new voters to the world of politics. In California, where 15-20% of the state makes decisions for the entire state, that is a particularly strong argument. And while some would say that he lacks experience, we ask them to look back over his political career in Illinois and DC. It is genuinely trying to find someone that really knows the man and will speak ill of him. He is an effective messenger for so many progressive causes.

Some also say that he hasn't spoken of specifics enough; we suggest they look to BarackObama.com and review his positions. They are specific enough for us to oppose him on several issues: “clean” coal, marriage equality, and healthcare, just to name a few. He's not perfect. He's not offering Medicare for all, like every other non-Kucinich candidate, and he is unable to leap tall buildings in a single bound, either.  But, he is a tremendous pioneer and agent of progressive change that can get elected this year. And that's a great step forward.

Prop. 91, Transportation Funding: No

This issue was dealt with in Prop 1A in Nov. 2006, but was not removed from the ballot. It has no supporters, and there is no reason to vote for it.

Prop. 92, Community Colleges: Yes

This is a really tough issue for many of us. Ballot box budgeting is a bad concept in general, but occasionally, it's a good thing. While, it doesn't makes budgeting any easier, there are reasons to vote yes sometimes.

Rules such as the 2/3 requirement to pass a new tax mean that the legislature rarely takes action on big matters and we can't move forward on new programs. That's not a knock of any specific legislator, it's a flaw in our system. And, as we've said before, our entire system needs reform. But, today, we must deal with the world as it is. And in this world, our community colleges are flailing, struggling from consistent underfunding. How are we to be a state of innovation if we have no innovators? How can we succeed if the labor pool can't progress beyond high school due to the prohibitive costs associated with college?

We are aware of the opposing talking points that the tuition fees are only a small part of costs associated with college, but the facts show that when fees jumped from $11 to $26/hour, 300,000 students left California's community colleges. Fees matter. So, we support Prop. 92.

Prop 93, Term limits reform: Neutral/No Position (Brian's Disclosure) 

Prop 93 changes how term limits work, from 6 years in the Assembly and 8 years in the Senate, to 12 years total in either House. We split on this measure, so we remain neutral.

Props 94-97, Native American Gambling Referenda: No

A No vote on these referenda would overturn the compacts. These compacts do not make any guarantees of revenues to the state, although they toss around huge numbers in their ads, $9 B is the normal number. This number is through 2030, the life of the compact, and the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that on an annual basis, the income will be no more than $200M for the next few years, ranging up to the mid-hundreds of millions at their height.  That is between 0.2% and say, 0.5% or 0.6% of the annual general fund income, which is currently $100B.  Furthermore, if non-gaming tribes do not receive enough revenue, as dictated by the compacts, the state has to dip into its portion of revenues.

Furthermore, there is the issue of the unions. The tribes are not subject to NLRB standards, and these compacts make no assurances that the workers of this casino will have fair opportunity to organize.

A lot of money will be spent on this, and a lot of communities will be ripped apart. Even if one were to disregard Marc Cooper's story about the troubling incidents in the Pechanga tribe, the issues remain in favor of a No vote.