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.