Editorial, THE VENTURA COUNTY REPORTER
Tis the season to vote
Along with every election season comes its fair share of controversy. This is the time where everyone seems to be seeing only in colors of red and blue, and one’s political colleague becomes his or her foe. This election is no different.
Partisan infighting seemed to be the name of the game this time around. Republicans Geoff Dean and Dennis Carpenter divided their department in the race for sheriff. In the primary race for 35th Assembly district, the battle ensued between Democrats Das Williams and Susan Jordan over offshore oil drilling. In the race for the nonpartisan Ventura County district 2 Supervisor seat, the Ventura County Republican Party did a smear campaign on moderate Republican incumbent Linda Parks.
The propositions on the state ballot also had some major issues. Whether corporate sponsored or well intentioned to create balance in our electoral system, the proof is in the fine print. We encourage readers to look past the propaganda and see what is really in store.
Doing these endorsements, for the most part, was no easy task. We know there are some good people running in various races. We also know that the some propositions, pass or fail, may backfire when it comes to progressive change. Overall, the decisions made to endorse or not to, came with much thought and debate, with the hopes that our endorsements would lead to the sort of leadership we need in our community and the kind of change we need in our state. Don’t forget to vote June 8.
Proposition 13: Limits on property tax assessment
In 1978, 65 percent of registered voters in California passed the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, which lowered property taxes by rolling back property values to their 1975 value and limited annual increases in assessed value of real property to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2 percent per year. It also prohibited reassessment of a new base-year value except upon change in ownership or completion of new construction. However, the proposition did not stipulate that government-mandated improvements, which automatically increased property values, would not equal higher taxes.
Proposition 13 is on the ballot again to set the record straight. While Prop. 13 is still in full effect, this additional language closes the loophole to prevent policymakers and tax collectors from gouging property owners with higher reassessed values because of such improvements, specifically seismic retrofitting. This one’s easy. It’s just semantics.
Vote yes on Proposition 13.
Proposition 14: Increases right to participate in primary elections
On paper, Proposition 14 looks good — and we don’t just mean in the simplified, more streamlined way candidates running for public office would appear on voter ballots. Developing a primary system that cuts to the chase and allows residents of any party affiliation to vote for whomever they want, gives people more choice in who they nominate.
The system proposed by Prop. 14 calls for the top two vote getters in a primary election to be placed on general ballots, regardless of their party affiliation.
But there are too many side effects to Prop. 14 for us to endorse it, not the least of which is an exclusion of political parties from the electoral process.
We’re all for nonpartisan campaigns, but in a primary election, Democrats need to stand behind Democrats, Republicans behind Republicans, and so forth, to guarantee that the chosen candidate for a particular party gets a spot on a general election ballot. Sometimes, tradition is good, and we mean in the tried-and-true sense.
With Prop. 14, the top two vote getters nominated in a primary could be from the same party, excluding other party nominees and their viewpoints. Come November, Democrats, Independents and so forth may not show up to the polls because nobody from their party made the final cut.
During primary election season, Democrats and Republicans need to stand firm on important issues relevant to their parties’ philosophies. But with Prop. 14, party lines will become blurred on the campaign trail. Politicians will begin assuming moderate voices and flip-flop tactics to appease all sides.
Other parties that hardly ever gain traction on general ballots, such as the Independent and Green parties, could be left out altogether if they can’t make it through primaries.
At best, the “open primary” system becomes a convoluted mess of candidates who differ in no way. At worst, we’ll see the dissolution of political parties. While the state, or the country, for that matter, may be a better place without partisan lines, people are creatures of habit, and we don’t believe the majority of the voting public is ready to set aside its political parties.
It’s no surprise why Democratic and Republican central committees, on this rare occasion, are both against Prop. 14, which is a bad idea all around for politicians, political parties and voters with a voice.
Vote no on Prop. 14.
Proposition 15: California Fair Elections Act
One of the good things about pilot programs is that they’re experimental; they can be canceled if they’re not working out. It’s even better when the program puts to the test public financing for political campaigns obviously meant to be public.
That’s why Proposition 15 works: it would temporarily raise lobbyist fees (from $12.50 to $350) during the next two races for secretary of state. Judging by the overall success of the program, and how much money is raised, those funds could eventually be used to finance campaigns for offices statewide.
Politics is already marred by private special interest money, and Prop. 15 targets lobbyists that control that money.
Testing the waters of public financing gives more people with no corporate financing the chance to run for public office with public funds to stand on. It’s not called the Fair Elections Act for nothing.
Vote yes on Prop. 15.
Proposition 16: “The PG&E initiative”
Even though Pacific Gas and Electric doesn’t serve Ventura County, we still encourage our readers to vote down Proposition 16, a manipulative ballot measure that could ultimately, over time, allow PG&E to set up shop statewide and monopolize the energy market.
Supporters of Prop. 16 would like us to believe the “Taxpayers Right to Vote” means just that — that the passage of Prop. 16 empowers residents to vote for the formation of their own community choice aggregators (CCA, or independent electrical service providers). Sounds like an easy, neat idea until considering that the two-thirds vote needed to start a CCA is downright impossible to obtain electorally.
Of course, PG&E has spent $43 million to ensure burial of this piece of information in the spin of its campaign, because it believes Ventura County voters are gullible enough to pass Prop. 16 with a simple majority without reading the fine print.
The “Taxpayers’ Right to be Conned and Manipulated” is a better title for Prop. 16 because it tries to fool ecologically aware residents, who care about SOAR initiatives, greenbelts, open space, less oil drilling and more energy efficiency, into handing over power to a major conglomerate. And that’s where Prop. 16 works at its basest level — by trying to convince voters that it’s a ballot measure with the best environmental interests in mind.
Vote no on Prop. 16.
Proposition 17: Reward/penalty for history of continuous insurance coverage
Proposition 17 is like the sibling of Proposition 16 because it tries to confuse voters — in this case, motorists — into thinking that the millions of dollars spent by the measure’s main bigwig corporate sponsor is all in the spirit of saving consumers some of their own hard-earned money.
Prop. 17 seems attractive on the surface, tempting motorists with the idea that they can switch to another auto insurance carrier and still maintain their “persistency discount” for being a longtime client.
The main benefit, they say? With Prop. 17, people can seek out cheaper insurance rates elsewhere and still have their persistency discount. But enormous surcharges — up to $1,000 per motorist — that companies like Mercury Insurance, its primary sponsor, and others would be allowed to hand down to their customers through Prop. 17, cancel out its perceived benefits.
Those opposed to Prop. 17, including groups like Consumer Watchdog, project that the surcharges will leave more motorists, especially low-income residents, driving on the road uninsured. No $250 courtesy discount can compensate for that. The measure is a metaphorical lemon with a flat tire on ballots next week.
Vote no on Prop. 17.
