I'm going to briefly discuss how the propositions fared in this year's elections, but first let me point out this comparison. The map on the left is Prop 73, the first "parental notification" prop, from 2005, and the map on the right is this year's reprise of the exact same concept, Prop 85. On the left, red counties voted majority against. On the right, blue counties voted majority against.
Prop 73 was put down by a 52.8% against vote; Prop 85 was put down by a 54.1% against vote. This may reflect demographic shift in who voted this time, however, note that the counties that went against this time include more in the center of the state, and bridged a gap running down the coast.
As I said in my review, Props 73 and 85 are cynical and harsh ways to try and prevent abortion by targeting those who have no direct power to vote against it. To those who supported it, I recommend taking a cue from David Kuo and understanding that the solution to problems that lead to abortions -- especially among young women -- will not come through legislation that makes life harder for the young girls in question. Abortions among this age group are a symptom of other problems, problems that can be addressed socially (and even perhaps through constructive legislation that builds social programs).
More on the other props in the extended.
Passed
1A: Transportation Funding Protection - Passed, 76.6% yes
I'm quite disappointed that 1A passed, as it further hamstrings our state legislature's ability to respond to fiscal problems and state emergencies. That said, I guess we'll be sure to have nice roads while everything else is falling apart.
1B: Highway Safety, Traffic Reduction, Air Quality, Port Security - Passed, 61.3% yes
1C: Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund - Passed, 57.5% yes
1D: Kindergarten - University Public Education Facilities - Passed, 56.6% yes
1E: Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention - Passed, 64.0% yes
I'm not as upset that these four passed. Although I dislike the debt model rather than "pay as you go" for infrastructure, the state can handle this debt load, and as I noted in each entry, these are all good causes. I don't know what it says about California, however, that the lowest "yes" percentage goes for the public education facilities measure. In each of the four measures, counties that voted "no" all cluster in the north-east quadrant of the state.
83: Sex Offenders, Punishment, Residence Restrictions, Monitoring - Passed, 70.5% yes
I changed my mind on this one based on the twin problems of the GPS system not doing much and pushing sex offenders into rural areas. That said, the strongest voting for Prop 83 came from rural areas, so I guess they're willing to put up with the sex offenders.
84: Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Park Improvements and more - Passed, 53.8% yes
Prop 84's passage was largely driven by the coastal cities, with the notable exception of a helping hand from the Imperial Valley -- which, if you're not familiar with your state geography, is a farming region more or less east of San Diego county. Once again, I was against Prop 84 on the debt versus pay-as-we-go principal, but we can handle the debt, and it's a good cause.
Failed
85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy - Failed, 45.9% yes
As I discussed above, Prop 85 did worse than the previous notification prop. Take this as a sign, give it a rest and address social problems through social mechanisms.
86: Tax on Cigarettes - Failed, 47.9% yes
The advertising worked. Although much of the Bay Area voted for it, this very reasonable measure went down after a blitz of tens of millions of dollars worth of advertising against it. I'm ashamed of you, California. Just because someone comes on television and screams "bureaucracy and taxes" at you, you really ought to know better than to think they have your best interests in mind. R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris spent $46 million to buy themselves a reprieve.
87: Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives, Oil Tax - Failed, 45.3% yes
Another victim of massive spending. Chevron alone spent $29 million against this one. Once again, people ran scared from the words "tax" and "bureacracy" without slowing down to think about the topic. I'm not so much bitter as annoyed, because we really ought not to be acquiring our knowledge of government from corporate television commercials. Again, counties voting yes clustered around the Bay Area.
88: Education Funding. Property Tax - Failed, 23.1% yes
Prop 88 died a horrible electoral death, with no counties going for it. We are strange creatures, being so tax-phobic that an added fifty bucks a year in property tax horrifies us, but so debt-loving that we'll gladly pick up $20.3 billion in debt on the exact same topic. FYI, that works out to several thousand dollars per household, or about eighty years of the $50 property tax per household.
Yup, that's right. We're afraid of the tax, but we're happy to incur debt that equals that tax for our natural lifetimes.
89: Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Spending Limits- Failed, 25.5% yes
I'm not surprised Prop 89 died. Although I liked its exclusion of corporate money -- which as I've shown, played a huge, huge role in this year's election -- it's hard to defend a proposition that changes many electoral laws, but leaves the primary backer untouched. When the opposition can say "this is all funded by one special interest" and it's actually true, you're in political trouble.
90: Government Acquisition of Private Property - Failed, 47.5% yes
I'm glad Prop 90 didn't wiggle its way into law. It was two good components that limited eminent domain mixed with one very, very bad component designed to cripple our ability to make the world a safe, healthy place rather than just letting anyone build anything wherever they want. Given the genuine appeal of the eminent domain problem, I was quite afraid that not enough people would find out about the huge downside to Prop 90. You can see how Prop 90 voting broke down here.
Comments (3)
That's the thing. The ultra right has successfully made 'tax' a dirty word. Until CA gets it through it's head that you have to pay for what you get, we've got problems.
I am, actually, not at all optiimistic about the long term prospects for California because of this. The Bay Area, sure, but the rest? I don't think so. The fact is too, that we subsidize everyone else, and no one more so than the Central Valley. Where do you think all their water comes from? Northern California (the Bay and also from the area near Oregon).
One day we need politicians who aren't afraid to use our leverage against Southern California and the Central Valley.
Posted by tim | November 8, 2006 12:01 PM
Posted on November 08, 2006 12:01
What's interesting is that from a net vote perspective, 85 actually got fewer raw votes than 73 did. (In toher words, people who voted for 73 the first time voted against 85, like myself... more annoyed at the fact that they tried again despite being turned down than anything else).
Posted by calwatch | November 11, 2006 11:51 PM
Posted on November 11, 2006 23:51
I don't know that it's a correct read that people who voted for 73 the first time voted against it the second time. The sum of all votes cast (for and against) on 85 is only 89.7% that of votes cast for and against 73. Notably, however, votes for 85 came to 87.4% of those for 73, whereas votes against 85 came to 91.7% of those against 73.
Overall, this suggests to me that in general voter attendance was down (73 was on the ballot during the recall election, of course) and that some people who might have voted for 73 stayed home, whereas people who voted against it turned up again for this election.
Exit polling would provide actual facts, but my hunch (for what it's worth) is that it's not a matter of a whole lot of "aisle switching" on this topic.
Posted by parak | November 12, 2006 11:01 PM
Posted on November 12, 2006 23:01