State propositions

Proposition 1A - Local government funding: See Proposition 65 below

Proposition 59 - Access to government information: YES

   This measure will enshrine in the state constitution the public's right to know. After Proposition 59 passes, the amount of informaton that any agency can keep secret will become very limited, and bureaucrats seeking to keep information secret will have to justify their action. Virtually, no government entity in the state -- except for law enforcement -- will be able to prevent individuals, organizatiosn or news media from accessing all government records, including those of local government and special districts.

   Green California strongly urges a YES vote on Proposition 59.

Proposition 60 - Primary elections for all parties: YES YES YES

   Proposition 60 was passed by the legislature in an effort to defeat Proposition 62 (see below). Prop 60 will amend the state constitution so that each recognized political party in California will be guaranteed a ballot line on the General Election ballot. If both Prop 60 and Prop 62 pass, the proposition that receives the higher vote total will take effect.

   Green California overwhelmingly urges a YES vote on Proposition 60.

Proposition 60A - Surplus Property Sale: YES

   Once a part of Proposition 60 but separated from the proposition by the courts, Proposition 60A dedicates proceeds from the sale of state surplus property to pay principal and interest on the Economic Recovery Bonds approved by Proposition 57 in 2004, rather than being deposited to the General Fund.

   Other than helping Prop 60 pass, this question has very little effect on the payment of the Economic Recovery Bonds. However, while it may be several drops in a big bucket, it couldn't hurt to vote "yes" on this proposition.

   Green California urges a YES vote on Proposition 60A.

Proposition 61 - Children's hospital project bonds: NO

   While this sounds like a good proposition on the surface, Proposition 61 takes $750 million in bonds for children's hospitals -- which is a good thing -- but makes them due at $50 million increments annually -- that's not so good. Using this financial sleight of hand, it is an attempt to push the fiscal burden of public services onto middle- and working-class communities and away from the wealthy and the corporate interests that run state government.

   This may be a well-intentioned proposal, but it is flawed. It would be better to prioritize the $750 million to fix long-term structural problems with health care delivery -- SB 921, the single payer plan comes immediately to mind. Bonds of this nature produce an unnecessary and burdensome debt.

   Green California urges a NO vote on Proposition 61.

Proposition 62 - 'Limited Choice' Primary: NO NO NO

   This so-called "Open Primary" initiative sponsored by state Controller Steve Westly, former Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan and others provides that the top two vote-getters in the primary -- regardless of their party affiliation -- would advance to the general election. This means either two Democrats or two Republicans, or a Democrat and a Republican, would more than likely go on to the elections in November. Third parties, like the Green Party, would be shut out of the electoral process.

   This is an incredibly stupid proposition. It's so flawed that coalitions to defeat it include organizations and parties that span the entire political spectrum -- from Peace & Freedom and the Green Party on the left to the American Independent Party on the right. Even the Democratic and Republican parties have huge problems with this one.

   This is an incredibly stupid proposition. It's so flawed that coalitions to defeat it include organizations and parties that span the entire political spectrum -- from Peace & Freedom and the Green Party on the left to the American Independent Party on the right. Even the Democratic and Republican parties have huge problems with this one.

   The choice on this one is far too clear.

   Green California emphatically urges a NO vote on Proposition 62, and urges people who care about democracy -- no matter to which political party you may belong -- to work to defeat this monstrosity.

Proposition 63 - Mental Health Services; Tax on Millionaires: Yes

   The expansion of mental health services is a good thing; the expansion of all health services is better. A tax of 1 percent on incomes over $1 million points the way toward a progressive taxation that is long overdue. But why mental health was singled out is a mystery.

   Nevertheless, taxing the rich is a good idea. Spending it on the general well-being of the state is even better, rather than spending it just on mental health.

   Regardless, Green California urges a YES vote on Proposition 63.

Proposition 64 - Limit unfair business competition laws: NO

   When a proposition has the backing of insurance companies, large banks, chambers of commerce and numerous auto dealers, red flags are raised high.

   Proposition 64 aims to limit the rights of individuals and public interest organizations to sue to enforce unfair business competition laws. Many consumer protection laws have come as a result of public interest cases brought by nonprofits that have identified problems during the course of their work.

   Green California joins the Green Party, ACORN, citizens groups like the Foundation for Taxpayers and Consumer Rights and unions like the California Nurses Association and Teamsters in opposing this proposition.

   Green California urges a NO vote on Proposition 64.

Proposition 65 - Local government funding: YES

Proposition 1A - Local government funding: YES

   Propositions 1A and 65 are competing initiatives for protecting local government funding sources -- property tax, sales tax, vehicle license fees, etc. -- from reductions and adjustments by the legistature.

   Generally, the protection that both propositions provide for local governments' revenue is favorable. Green California, however, prefers Proposition 65 over Proposition 1A, even though we give both our endorsement.

   Green California urges a YES vote on Proposition 65 as well as a YES vote on Proposition 1A.

Proposition 66 - Amend 'Three Strikes' law: YES YES YES

   If ever there was a law that needed amending, the state's "three strikes" law is one of many. This law needs amending for many reasons -- the 25-years to life sentence for stealing a pizza is one -- but because overall it is an unjust law applied almost exclusively to poor people, particularly people of color.

   Currently the cost to house California's prison population is $5.7 billion per year. Savings on prison reform in general would be in order, and changing a bad law like "three strikes" is a start.

   Green California urges a YES vote on Proposition 66.

Proposition 67 - Emergency medical services telephone surcharge: NO

   While the premise of Proposition 67 is innocuous enough -- a minor telephone tax to pay for uncompensated emergency and trauma medical care performed by hospitals, doctors and clinics -- the proposition also includes deceptive language that flies in the face of Green principles.

   For example, aside from the telephone tax, Prop 67 mandates that each county establish a Maddy Fund (previously optional, and generally comprised of "specified revenues from criminal fines and penalties") which would be administered by the state. Green California does not support either the mandating of new county funds, nor shifting the control of such funds to the state, especially when the telephone tax is estimated to be $32 million a year.

   This is a wolfish idea wrapped in sheep's clothing.

   Green California urges a NO vote on Proposition 67.

Proposition 69 - DNA Database for those charged with a certain crime: NO NO NO

   In the name of fighting crime, Proposition 69 is yet another assault on civil liberties by allowing the state to forcibly collect DNA samples from people arrested for specific crimes. Starting in 2009, Proposition 69 provides that any arrested -- not convicted, but arrested -- for any felony would be forced to provide a DNA sample.

   Can you say "1984"?

   Maintaining innocence until proven guilty is something that should be preserved. In addition, this measure also compromises the right not to incriminate oneself.

   Green California urges a NO vote on Propsition 69.

Proposition 71 - Stem cell research bonds: NO

   The California Stem Cell Research and Cures Act would amend the state constitution to direct the state to issue $3 million in general obligatoin bonds. With interest on the bonds, taxpayers are asked to commit $6 billion over 30 years to a project that could potentially benefit a lot of people. However, as usual, private industry would reap the profits of research paid for by taxpayers.

   While we're amending the state's constitution, why not establish a constitutional right to health care for all?

   This is clearly an industry strategy to bypass serious discussion for jumping straight into the TV ads showing suffering people waiting for a miracle cure.

   Green California urges a NO vote on Proposition 71.

Proposition 72 - Keep health care coverage requirements: YES YES YES

   Health care for all as a human right has a long, long way to go. Many other countries provide universal health care within their borders -- both rich countries like Canada and Japan, and poor countries like Mexico and Cuba. The very rich country in which we live doesn't even try.

   Proposition 72 provides that health care is maintained by business owners for their employees.

   Green California urges a YES vote on Proposition 72.