Editorial, THE MONTEREY COUNTY HERALD
Four of the five propositions on California’s June 8 ballot are slam-dunk, easy-call, no-contest pieces of political cake, or at least that’s how it seems to us.
The tough one is Proposition 14, which is intended to reform the political primary system. It deserves support despite a rough spot that actually could create problems as large as those it aims to fix.
But let’s start with the simpler ones.
Proposition 13: Opposed by almost no one, not even the Howard Jarvis folks, it would provide tax breaks to owners of unreinforced masonry buildings if they make their structures safer. It seems to be a small price. Yes.
Proposition 15: This creates an experiment with public campaign financing, a public financing system for the next two elections for California secretary of state. The money would come from a tax on lobbyists and their employers. Those opposed say it would give more power to government employees and their unions. They don’t explain that the reason they would have more power is that even bigger corporate spenders would have less power. Yes.
Proposition 16: Written by Pacific Gas & Electric Co., it is designed to protect the giant utility from municipal takeover efforts by setting up a nearly impossible requirement of a two-thirds vote. No.
Proposition 17: Another special-interest boondoggle, this one was written by Mercury Insurance to punch loopholes in existing state law limiting increases in auto insurance premiums. It is made to look like a consumer-protection measure, but don’t be fooled. No.
OK, to the tougher one.
Proposition 14 would create an open California primary in races for Congress, the Legislature, the governor and other statewide offices. There would be no party primaries, like the one we face June 8. Instead, all candidates would run in one race and the two top vote-getters would advance to a runoff.
The political parties don’t like this one because it would make them less relevant, which is largely the point. Backers of Proposition 14 argue that it would move candidates toward the middle. That is because rather than appealing only to their party’s core, the way gubernatorial candidates Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner are now pandering almost exclusively to the conservative side of the GOP, the candidates would try to seek votes from everyone.
That sounds good, but it seems that it would be too easy for rich candidates, such as Republicans Whitman and Poizner, to spend lots of money early to the point of overwhelming candidates of other persuasions.
Though this would not take effect this year, envisioning a November “runoff” between Whitman and Poizner, with no Democrat to coax them anywhere near the middle, gives us very serious pause.
But if time has taught us one thing, it is that when the League of Women Voters is on one side and the party bosses are on the other side, the LWV probably has it right. We’ll go with a yes.
The Herald recommends:
Supervisor District 2: Lou Calcagno
Monterey County Sheriff: Scott Miller
County schools superintendent: Donna Vaughan
Treasurer/tax collector: Mary Zeeb
Proposition 13, earthquake retrofit: YES
Proposition 14, open primaries: YES
Proposition 15, public campaign financing: YES
Proposition 16, PG&E monopoly protection: NO
Proposition 17, Mercury Insurance premium loopholes: NO
Tags: consumer, deceptive, Editorial, Mercury, overcharges, trust, voters
