The editorials are starting to trickle out of the newspapers.  Let’s start out with a big one from the San-Diego Union-Tribune going no on Prop 8:

As gay couples have gone to the courthouse and entered into matrimony, usually surrounded by champagne, family and friends, the worst fears of gay marriage opponents suddenly seem greatly inflated. For instance, Christian conservatives have asserted for years that allowing gays to marry would undermine heterosexual unions – hence, such laws as the Defense of Marriage Act. In truth, however, there has been no discernible impact on traditional marriage between a man and a woman now that gay couples in California have the same right.

*   *   *

In the past, this page has advocated civil unions for gay couples rather than marriage. But our thinking has changed, along with that of many other Californians. Gay and lesbian couples deserve the same dignity and respect in marriage that heterosexual couples have long enjoyed. We urge a No vote on Proposition 8.

This echoes a similar shift from San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders. I would expect most of the big city papers to go No on 8 with a few holdouts here and there.

Prop 4, or the Vote No, No, and No again to parental notification measure, is also getting some bad reviews.  Like this one from the Bakersfield Californian:  (yeah, really)

This is the third time in four years California voters have been asked to place a “notification hurdle” in the way of minor women obtaining an abortion. Twice California voters have said NO. They should do so again.

*   *   *

If the woman fears having her parents or guardians notified, she can ask a judge to waive the notification requirement or ask that an alternate adult be notified instead.

But for an alternate adult to be notified, the minor must claim she is being abused – sexually, physically or emotionally. Her report is sent to law enforcement and child protective services. Likely a young woman who fears retaliation would reject the notion of provoking a criminal investigation of her family to obtain an abortion.

*   *   *

Again, this year’s attempt falls short and should be rejected.

Follow me over the flip for a few more endorsements…

Prop 11, or the “Republican Voters First Initiative” as I like to call it, is getting panned around the state.  However, I’m guessing we’ll see a split decision on this from around the state.  Some papers will take the High Broder Position of thinking that this is real reform from some good touchy-feely groups. It’s not, and the SF Chronicle agrees with me (UPDATE: Turns out that most of the newspapers are, in fact taking the High Broder position on this pseudo reform. I actually linked to an op-ed by the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California. Sorry) :

California’s got real problems – an economy in turmoil, a massive budget deficit and political gridlock in Sacramento. And what do the political insiders bring us?

No help for our sagging state economy. No solution to the budget gap. No end to political gridlock. Instead, we get Prop. 11 – another scheme to change redistricting – how we draw political lines between one legislative district and another, and thus whom we elect to office.

California needs political reform, but Prop. 11 is a phony.

It’s complicated and confusing, relying on a 12-step political process to choose who draws legislative districts, and it won’t treat every part of the state equally. Many communities will have no representation at all. There’s no guarantee, for example, that the Bay Area will have even one seat at the table when district lines are drawn.

What it will do is give even more power to people who already have too much clout – the oil companies, corporations and PACs who helped pay to put Prop. 11 on the ballot. That’s the hidden agenda behind Prop. 11.

As for Prop 7, it’s getting mostly panned as well. After a big Sierra Club No Vote, the No side has almost all of the major enviro groups. And now they are getting most of the newspaper endorsements. Including the Riverside Press-Enterprise, the San Diego Union-Tribune, the Santa Cruz Sentinel, and this one from the San Jose Mercury-News: (NOTE: I work for the No on Prop 7 Campaign.)

Solar, wind and other clean energy producers oppose the Solar and Clean Energy Act, Proposition 7, even though it promises them more business at higher prices.

Environmental groups who’ve fought for renewable energy oppose Proposition 7. Private and public utilities oppose it. Both political parties oppose it. Business and labor, consumer groups, taxpayer groups, the League of Women Voters … . You get the idea.

“No” is the green vote on Proposition 7.

And finally, Prop 10 is also featured in that the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial, also getting panned.  I’ve said frequently that it is a bad deal for California that gives money to a wealthy Republican Swift-boater (T Boone Pickens).  The Sentinel picks up on both of these reasons:

What Proposition 10 will bring to California is more bond debt. That $5 billion in bonds will be repaid over 30 years, bringing the cost to an estimated $10 billion.

California does not need to take on additional debt to finance the purchase of vehicles.

I’ll get to a bunch more editorials as the election draws closer.

While most of the Calitics editorial board is conventioning in Denver this week I’m holding down the fort back here in California. I love the Mile High City, but with the onset of Monterey’s summer I don’t think I’m going to miss much.

Which gives me time to focus on one of the ongoing arguments over this fall’s ballot, specifically over Proposition 11 – redistricting reform. Over at the California Progress Report Frank Russo has been hosting a running debate on the topic, with Democratic redistricting expert Bill Cavala taking on all challengers in his effort to explain why Prop 11 is a bad idea.

Cavala defends himself well and certainly doesn’t need my help, but today’s pro-Prop 11 article from the president of the CA branch of the AARP is so full of flaws that I felt compelled to add my two cents.

Jeannine English’s article repeats the two most common errors of Prop 11 advocates: 1) making the assumption that legislative-controlled redistricting is at the core of our state’s problems, and 2) that redistricting reform will produce a less partisan legislature and therefore solve our state’s problems. Both are completely false. It is a reform in search of a problem. From English’s article:

The question California voters should ask themselves this November is this: “is the status quo in Sacramento working for me?” Considering the state’s ongoing budget problems, lack of health care reform despite years of debate, regular cuts to social services, and a host of other issues that are not being properly addressed in the state, the answer from all but political insiders will likely be “no, the status quo is not working for me.”…

So now its time for voters to get it done. Prop. 11, written over two years by voting rights attorneys and experts in consultation with Californians of all ideological persuasions, will create fair redistricting in California so incumbents are not guaranteed their reelection but actually have to work for their votes. With Prop 11’s passage, legislators will have to work better together to solve the problems Californian’s care about, instead of staying in their partisan corners.

This is a slick move to cast Prop 11 as a solution to the state’s problems, but it ignores some important truths. The reason Sacramento is broken is because a far-right Republican minority bent on destroying public services has repeatedly exploited the 2/3 rule to prevent the state from putting its fiscal house in order. Those two problems – a wingnut Republican caucus and the 2/3 rule – are without a doubt the major obstacles to a state government that works.

Redistricting reform solves neither of these problems. Instead it stems from the misguided belief that what California has is too much partisanship – a stance that lets the Republicans off the hook and hides from voters the real work Democrats have done to compromise and fix the budget.

It also errs in assuming that it’s even possible to make competitive districts in California. There’s no way to make San Francisco or south Orange County anything but a safe seat for one party or the other without gerrymandering on a far more egregious scale than anything currently done.

That being said, is there a significant downside to Democrats from Prop 11, even if it’s a pointless reform? After all, Washington State has used a similar independent process to draw districts since 1983 and today Dems have 2/3 majorities in both houses of the state legislature.

In fact downsides do exist. The “independent commission” is not an accurate representation of the state’s political demography. Republicans and Democrats would have the same number of seats on the commission, despite the fact that Democrats have over a million more registered voters in California. Prop 11 gives Republicans an artificial advantage that they have not earned and do not deserve.

Bill Cavala has argued convincingly that a redistricting commission could wind up shifting enough seats to the Republicans to move Democrats from having a realistic shot at 2/3 majorities to having to defend their majority. And he quite rightly points out that the current “moderates” in the Republican Party have consistently voted in lockstep with the wingnuts, suggesting how out of touch Prop 11’s proponents are.

The most frustrating aspect of Prop 11 may be how much time and energy it is diverting from the real issues facing California. Why aren’t the so-called “good government” groups making a stronger push to get rid of the 2/3 rule? We can see its damaging effect on the state right now with a budget crisis dragging on with no end in sight. If groups like the AARP really want to fix a broken California, they should direct their resources to fixing that issue.

Joe Matthews, a former LA Times reporter, and a fellow at the New America Foundation, pretty much shot down two (Republican leaning) radical business moderates, Tony Quinn and Joel Fox, on Fox’s blog. As purely political analysis of why the proposition will likely lose, it’s quite brilliant. I highly suggest the post if you are at all interested in the measure. But I just loved his take on why this is a waste of time:

I’m not a doctor, but I enjoy practicing medicine without a license. Recently, I’ve begun diagnosing a California disease called Redistricting Fantasy Syndrome. Most of the population doesn’t know enough about redistricting to be susceptible to the disease. But in certain elite precincts, RFS has become a minor epidemic, striking down otherwise sensible moderate “goo goos” who persist in the belief that good process is good for you.

* * *

This disease at first seems harmless, but because it disproportionately affects our state’s most civic-minded thinkers, it has caused outsized damage. Redistricting — and the unreasonable hopes that it can be achieved — are consuming time, energy and even Fox and Hounds space that would be better devoted to some of the state’s deeper problems. The opportunity costs of RFS are huge.

Matthews goes on to say that it might affect 6 seats, and that’s the guess I would go with too. But, it would hardly make the devastating impact Common Cause want you to believe.