[Originally posted October 11, 2005 at NorCal Politics]
Bottom Line: A young woman in a good family situation who finds herself pregnant will tell her parents anyway. A young woman in a bad family situation who finds herself pregnant should not be forced to tell her parents. Even Dear Abby knows this (reprinted because it will disappear): Continue reading [From NCP] No on Proposition 73
[Originally posted 11/05/2005 on NorCal Politics by LSchwark.]
Beyond the criticisms of the proposition as being detrimental to the health and safety of California teens, Proposition 73 is also a stealth initiative to criminalize abortion, amending the state constitution to define abortion as infanticide.
From the text of the initiative (emphasis mine):
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto…
(1) “Abortion” means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.
I would have thought this was obvious to Californians by now. Unfortunately, the LA Times conducted a poll this week that indicates Prop 73 is running at 51% approval by likely voters.
This is not the first go around with notification laws. In 1953, the constitution was amended to allow minors to have the same access to medical care as adults, without notification. In 1987, the legislature added a parental notification amendment in the case of abortions for minors. The state supreme court struck it down as being unconstitutional. So, now they anti-choice forces are trying to amend the constituion.
As they always do, the anti-choice agenda is acting by stealth because people in the US, and even more so in California, are pro-choice. Therefore, they’re trying to nibble away piecemeal the underpinnings of abortion access and availability. Much like the Intelligent Design advocates argue they just want to allow their side to be heard alongside evolution to get their foot in the door, the same is the case with parental notification. Conservatives understand the game, moderates are often fooled into supporting the idea as if that were the only issue involved. But it’s not the only issue, it’s just part of an ongoing campaign. The graphic snipped from the LA Times poll shows why this tactic can work. While pro-choice voters outnumber anti-choice voters 58% to 39%, there’s a swing 19% that is open to some limitations on abortion. If they can be convinced that one measure or another is reasonable, the anti-choice forces can sneak through a trojan horse.
There are plenty of conscientious and well-meaning people who take a principled stand against abortion. Many of them are also against the death penalty and concerned with the general social welfare. But the anti-choice activists who put things like Proposition 73 forward are the people who also oppose birth control, sex education. These anti-abortion activists are now debating whether they should oppose the addition of the HPV vaccine that prevents most cervical cancer to the routine child vaccination schedule. Their argument, predictably, is that immunizing girls aginst HPV will encourage sexual activity. You see, HPV is communicable much more easily than most STD’s and thus condoms aren’t effective. So the fear of cancer is their ally in promoting abstinence only education.
There are plenty of other arguments against Prop 73.
Vote NO on PROPOSITION 73.
Arnold’s Props:
Field Poll for 74-77 (Nov 1)
Field Poll for 74-77 + 80 (Sep 5)
Special election in general (feb 24, 2005)
73, 78, 79
Field Poll for 73, 78, 79 (nov. 2)
Field Poll for 73, 78, 79 (sep. 6)
Field Poll for 73, 78, 79 +75 (June 22, 2005)
Polimetrix
November 6, 2005 Special election Poll
October 31, 2005 Special Election Poll
Validation (?) of Polimetrix techniques
Stanford/Knowledge Ventures Poll (Oct 18)
Nov. 6, 2005
Nov 1, 2005
October 18, 2005
October 3, 2005
Polling accuracy in general:
Polling accuracy
These two charts are from SurveyUSA. I have not checked the math, but they purport to average the “error rate” by the six pollsters that surveyed the special election. The first chart looks at only the five props that SurveyUSA polled, and how all the pollsters did on those measures. The second chart looks at each outfit’s rate for all the props they polled. Note that many pollsters would quibble at the use of the word “error” since they consider their surveys to be snapshots in time which, unless taken on election day, can never be said to be wrong. Also note that the much maligned Field Poll does pretty well using either measure. And see my added note below regarding the PPIC.
PROPS 73-77 ONLY
POLLSTER AVG. ERRORField 3.36
SurveyUSA 5.32
PPIC 5.76
Stanford/KN 5.96
Polimetrix 6.24
LA Times 7.44BY ALL PROPS POLLED
NO. POLLSTER ERROR5 SurveyUSA 5.32
8 Field 6.05
7 Polimetrix 7.20
8 LA Times 7.85
8 Stanford/KN 8.80
7 PPIC 9.57NOTE: Mark Baldassare at PPIC notes in an email that the poll used in this comparison for the first chart came out of the field 16 days before the election, and some of the results in the second chart reflct a poll that was completed 50 days before the election. He is right that it’s not fair to compare those results to polls that were done within days of the vote. But it’s also true that the media and political players cite his polls as reflecting the state of mind of the voters right up until Election Day, so it’s worth reminding folks that, in most cases, the data they are citing is quite old.
I wrote this in response to this diary reflecting on the loss of 73 at redstate, but I think it stands on its own well enough.
1) The Special election itself was a bad forum for any proposition. Normally, special elections get low turnout, but because of the way Arnold handled himself, there was high turnout. 6.6 million was way too high for any of the conservative props to pass. People were motivated to make sure props didn’t pass. Heck, both 78 & 79 failed. You would figure that at least one of those would have pass. There was a presumption towards no on tuesday.
Conservatives are outnumbered in the state. If 73 was going to pass it needed to have people who came in to vote for just it. If that were the case, 73 would have at least slightly more votes. That was not the case:
Prop #votes
73 6595691
74 6649942
75 6643506
76 6637715
77 6594017
78 6541956
79 6474566
80 6371500
2) Arnold was not going to help anybody. Arnold didn’t appear on commercials for his own propositions. He had several other speakers arguing for his propositions, 1 by 1. But the only ad he did himself in the weeks leading up to the election was one timed to pull news away from a bad poll.
California is a pro-choice state. It would be near impossible for a true pro-life governor to be elected. Arnold isn’t a social conservative himself, and one shouldn’t expect there to be a social conservative gov in CA for a while.
But I have one larger problem with your post:
Contrast with Governor Schwarzenegger, who has more or less abandoned California conservatives wholesale. He is a leftist on the environment. He is a leftist on life issues. And he resolutely refuses to empower, appoint, or consistently consult with California conservatives in the course of his governance. The inevitable result is Tuesday’s debacle.
Perhaps Arnold truely is a leftist(?) on those issues (note that Arnold did officialy endorse 73 though). Your statement that “moderation” is killing the GOP seems a bit harsh, to say the least. We have seen what happens when strict conservatives run in California:
Boxer (D) 6,955,728 57.8%
Jones (R) 4,555,922 37.8%
If parental notification is to pass, try just adding parental notification without all the strings that were in 73. Now, I am pro-choice, and a “liberal”, but I actually think it would have had a chance if given better circumstances.
(A good roundup of press coverage – promoted by SFBrianCL)
This morning California’s newspapers put photos of Governor Schwarzenegger on the front pages, even in abject defeat. They should have pictured the voters, or if they could have found the image for it, the process of a freewheeling election itself.
Because Schwarzenegger took on the public employee unions, he didn’t have the usual advantage that bullying pols enjoy: there was a force with money and people power to contest him. And in a fairer than usual fight, Californians said no to a rightwing celebrity’s power grab, yes to education and social services, yes to unions being able to contest corporate power and even, as a bonus, yes to young women’s right to choose.
The morning’s headlines were indeed sweet; self-indulgently, I’ll round up some tidbits here:
Voters Reject Schwarzenegger’s Bid to Remake State Government — Los Angeles Times
“Schwarzenegger put in $7.2 million of his own money. That brings his total personal spending on political endeavors to $25 million since he ran for governor in the 2003 recall race.”
This governor role has proven to be an expensive hobby.
Why His ‘Sequel’ Failed to Captivate — Los Angeles Times
“Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday met the limits of his celebrity: Even a campaign built around his action-star persona could not persuade voters to embrace his ‘year of reform’ agenda.”
“A Republican strategist and occasional Schwarzenegger advisor put it more bluntly Tuesday, saying privately: ‘The act is getting stale.'”
Enough with the actors already. California faces real problems; let’s get on with solving them.
Schwarzenegger faces ‘resounding defeat’— San Jose Mercury News
“Elizabeth Garrett, who directs the USC-Caltech Center for the Study of Law and Politics [said] ‘It means that, Wednesday morning, he is an ordinary Republican governor working with a Democratic Legislature in California — no stronger, no weaker.”’
That’s pretty weak; the current districting of the legislature ensures that Democrats will remain in large majorities throughout this decade.
Analysis: A bruising blow from ‘the people’ — San Francisco Chronicle [Full caps are the Chron’s.]
“This must be the worst defeat the governor has ever had,” said Kevin Spillane, a GOP consultant. “It’s not like having a movie that underperforms. … Now, we have to see how he deals with defeat.”
I’ll hazard a prediction here: Arnold will pull out of the governor’s race if it looks like a fight for him. I hope the unions and the Democrats in Sacramento don’t let up now. Californians deserve better and yesterday they proved they know it.
Cross posted at Happening-Here
I’ll work on this more later today. But for right now, here’s the data. Something is whack with the software, it doesn’t like the table or something. Scroll down! – fixed by Soapy (The Software is great! )
| Proposition | Yes Votes | yes % | No Votes | No % | Field Poll (Oct 05) | Stanford (Oct 05) | PPIC (Oct 05) | SUSA (Nov 05) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 73 N Minor’s Pregnancy | 3129340 | 47.4 | 3465146 | 52.6 | 41/49 | 54/46 | 42/48 | 51/47 | |
| 74 N Teacher Tenure | 2986287 | 44.9 | 3662429 | 55.1 | 44/50 | 49/51 | 46/48 | 48/51 | |
| 75 N Public Union Dues | 3091713 | 46.5 | 3550563 | 53.5 | 40/50 | 70/30 | 46/46 | 45/54 | |
| 76 N Spending/Funding | 2521709 | 37.9 | 4114787 | 62.1 | 32/60 | 30/70 | 30/62 | 39/59 | |
| 77 N Redistricting | 2672882 | 40.5 | 3919919 | 59.5 | 35/51 | 50/50 | 36/50 | 41/56 | |
| 78 N Rx Drug Discounts | 2719375 | 41.5 | 3821383 | 58.5 | 36/45 | 59/41 | n/a | n/a | |
| 79 N Rx Drug Rebates | 2523419 | 38.9 | 3949942 | 61.1 | 37/43 | 58/42 | n/a | n/a | |
| 80 N Electric Regulation | 2188786 | 34.3 | 4181536 | 65.7 | 33/33 (Sep’05) | 37/63 | n/a | n/a |
From about 10:15, Kos is apparently able to get through to the Statewide resuls:
For comparison’s sake, I’m putting in some poll numbers here with the current numbers. First the Field Poll, then the Stanford/Hoover Institute:
Precincts: 48.9% reporting
Proposition 73: Minor’s pregnancy
Yes 49.4
No 50.5
Field: 41/49
Stanford: 54/46
Proposition 74: Teacher’s tenure
Yes 47.6
No 52.4
Field:44/50
Stanford: 49/51
PPIC: 46/48
Proposition 75: Public union dues
Yes 50.5
No 49.5
Field: 40/50
Stanford: 70/30
PPIC: 46/46
Proposition 76: Spending limits
Yes 40.3
No 59.7
Field: 32/60
Stanford: 30/70
PPIC: 30/62
Proposition 77: Redistricting
Yes 43.3
No 56.7
Field: 35/51
Stanford: 50/50
PPIC: 36/50
Proposition 78: Drug discounts (Rx industry backed)
Yes 41.9
No 58.1
Field: 36/45
Stanford: 59/41
Proposition 79: Drug discounts (consumer groups backed)
Yes 38.9
No 61.1
Field: 37/43
Stanford: 58/42
I’ll try to get some more info as soon as I can, but it appears that the California Secretary of State website is being overloaded.
Statewide (Was down as of 9:30pm)
UPDATE: AP Called No on 79 and 80 at 9:15
UPDATEProp 74 and 75 are slightly towards yes, but without the liberal strongholds. 75 was at 55% yes. Willie Brown (he’s on KRON4 in SF) says that we’ll have to wait until LA and SF are in though to call anything.
I won’t spend too much time on this Field Poll on Turnout for the special election, as I need to get back into the field for more GOTV precinct walking. It’s all over the news, including the cover of the San Francisco Chronicle:
An estimated 6.8 million Californians are expected to go to the polls today despite early concerns — and Republican hopes — that the all-initiative special election would be largely ignored by voters.
Voters will decide statewide measures on issues ranging from teacher tenure to the costs of prescription drugs in an election that already has generated spending of more than $300 million and is among the most expensive campaigns in California history.
You heard that right. $300 million for this stupid election. They could have just given every voter $25 and saved the change for education. Or not, I guess Arnold’s priorities are different than ours. All the more reason to ensure that we defeat the props today and Arnold in 2006.
Also, I’m not sure what to make of the absentee turnout numbers, which may rise to as high as 40%. In theory absentee votes trend a little more on the conservative side, soo it does seem a little scary. However, in this election, I don’t think you can apply the conventional wisdom. I will be disecting the numbers after the election. Hopefully, I’ll be able to provide a full roundup of trends, turnout, voting patterns, etc.
These endorsements represent nothing but my own views. Take them for what it’s worth.
For some other recommendations see:
LA Times Survey of Newspaper Endorsements
Alice B. Toklas LGBT Club (w/ SF recommendations)
Plan C SF (SF Moderates) (PDF) (SF-related only)
California Propositions
Prop 73 – Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy: No
73 defines a fetus as a person and allows for the prosecution of an illegally preformed abortion. It sets a bad precedent in the battles to come. No on 73.
Prop 74: Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. : NO
Teachers work very hard. Tenure provides only due process, not the guarantee of a job. We owe at least that much to teachers. Vote NO on 74.
Prop 75: Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. NO
There are several reasons that I don’t like 75. First, it weakens unions unnecssarily. Union members already have the easy option to opt-out of political spending. Also, 75 only addresses unions. If this was truly about transparency, corporate donations would also be addressed. You can’t take the voice away from workers and leave corporate voices to scream in Sacramento. No on 75.
Prop 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits. NO
The Governor, especially this governor, does not need these additional powers. It makes the governor far more powerful than California’s founding fathers envisioned, to the detriment of the seperation of powers between the legislature and the governor. No on 76.
Prop 77: Redistricting: NO
We need redistricting reform. However, 77 is not the way to do it. It is an unclear and bizarre means of redistricting. We need fair redistricting, with time for public input. No on 77.
Prop 78: Discounts on Prescription Drugs. NO
Big Pharma’s response to what they say as the danger of Prop 79. 79 is a better plan. Vote No on 78.
Prop 79: Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.Yes.
79 gives real teeth to the prescription drug discounts by requiring the companies to deal with the State’s large bargaining power. There are also good enforcement provisions to make sure the drug companies follow the law. Vote YES on 79.
Prop 80: Electric Service Providers. Regulation: No Recommendation
I know many progressives are in support of 80, but I cannot endorse it myself. It seems hastily assembled and too complicated for most voters. I think this is an issue that is best dealt with in the legislature.
San Francisco City Officials
San Francisco Treasurer: Jose Cisneros ~ A highly qualified treasurer with the added benefits of being an openly gay city official.
San Francisco Assessor:
1st Choice: Phil Ting ~ A good manager. Very supportive of LGBT rights.
2nd Choice: Ron Chun ~ A skilled tax attorney
San Francisco City Attorney: Dennis Herera: Has fought hard for the rights of the city and its citizens. He deserves re-election.
San Francisco Initiatives
More information from the City
A – Community College District General Obligation Bonds Yes
CCSF needs additional funding to help train the city’s workforce.
B – Street and Sidewalk Improvement Bond No. Reform the Department of Public Works and its funding first. Then, if we still need more money, we can talk.
C – Ethics Commission Budget and Outside Counsel. No, This is a decision for the Board of Supervisors. Stop bothering the voters with these issues.
D – Appointment of Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors No. This just shifts power to the Board of Supervisors. It is nothing more than a power grab by the Supes.
E – Election Date of the Assessor – Recorder and Public Defender Yes. Common sense adjustment to conform with ranked choice voting.
F – Neighborhood Firehouses. No. The Board and Mayor have already reviewed the issue. It should remain in their hands.
G – Access to Underground Parking at Golden Gate Park Yes, I would love to be able to park at the Park finally. This is a reasonable accomadation of all sides.
H – Firearm Ban No. Constitutionally questionable and ineffective. It will end up costing us money in legal bills.
I – No Military Recruiters in Public Schools, Scholarships for Education and Job Training.
No Recommendation: Military Recruiters shouldn’t be in our schools, but this proposal risks No Child Left Behind Funding. How much is it worth to you?
Just a short note as I’m quite busy today, but I did want to stress how important tomorrow’s election is. Please do what you can to help defeat Arnold’s Propositions.
Don’t let Arnold Proposition You!
Oh, and check out another animation which I somehow forgot to mention: http://www.electionwatchdog.org It’s another funny one, Arnold tries to convince Minerva about the wisdom of his brilliant propositions. I’ll leave the ending to the cartoon…