Best of Pete Rates the Propositions


Sensible opinions on the California ballot propositions since 1980 by Pete Stahl

Home

Read the ratings:
Prop. 1A - YES
Prop. 1B - NO
Prop. 1C - NO
Prop. 1D - YES
Prop. 1E - YES
Prop. 1F - NO

Election resources

About the author
Best of Pete Rates
Past results
Contact Pete

Previous elections:
November 2008
June 2008
February 2008
November 2006
June 2006
November 2005
November 2004
March 2004
October 2003
November 2002
more...

Best of
Pete Rates the Propositions

Welcome to my “Best Of” section. Here you'll find my favorite ratings from the past couple decades. I've divided these into four categories:

Compelling arguments on important issues		Quixotic crusades & lost causes
Humorous takes on laughing matters		The Poems

Compelling arguments on important issues
Prop. 1A Nov. 2008	High-Speed Rail Bonds ($10 billion) - Yes Our competitors around the globe, from Japan and China to France and Spain, have developed high-speed rail. Should we join them, or should we pretend that our highway system will be adequate in the mid-21st century?
Prop. 71 Nov. 2004	$3 Billion Stem Cell Research Bonds - Yes The amount of money is staggering, and the eventual payoff is by no means certain. Yet turning down the chance to make life better for people worldwide would be such a huge mistake that I must recommend a “yes” vote.
Prop. 49 Nov. 2002	Giving Top Funding Priority to After-School Programs - No Look, people, there’s a distinction between “beneficial” and “untouchably sacred.” I’m asking you to make that distinction right now.
Prop. 38 Nov. 2000	School Vouchers - No Prop 38 claims it will solve horrific problems in our failing public schools with its radical plan. Unfortunately the plan addresses virtually none of the cited problems. Instead, it will cause drastic changes and turmoil in all schools, even the best ones.
Prop. 21 Mar. 2000	Juvenile Crime Crackdown - No Juvenile offenders have the greatest chance of being rehabilitated. Mistreating them, as Prop 21 would do, will only lead to more shattered lives, more despair, and ultimately a reversal of the current decrease in violent crime.
Prop. 223 Jun. 1998	Capping School District Administration Budgets ("95/5") - No Prop 223 is so poorly crafted that it will give school districts powerful incentives to waste enormous sums of money on stupid tricks designed to bring their budgets under the 5% cap.
Prop. 223 Nov. 1996	Prevention of Suits by Drunk and Uninsured Drivers - No Look closely: drunk and uninsured drivers are prevented from suing. Drunk drivers I can understand. But whether a driver is insured has nothing to do with fault in an accident.
Prop. 194 Mar. 1996	Denial of Unemployment Benefits for Released Working Prisoners - No Prop 194 is overkill, like using an atomic bomb to swat a fly. Yes, it's a shame that the employers of prison inmates pay too much for unemployment insurance. But this would give employers an undeserved windfall while compromising everybody's safety.

Quixotic crusades & lost causes
Prop. 1A Nov. 2006	Earmarking Sales Tax on Gasoline for Transportation - Yes If we divert the sales tax on gasoline to transportation projects, as Prop 42 requires, perhaps we also ought to divert the sales tax on running shoes to sports facilities, and the sales tax on electronic equipment to building Internet infrastructure. You can see where I'm going with this.
Prop. 62 Nov. 2004	Elimination of Partisan Elections - Yes Partisan primaries aren’t about who’s the better candidate for California, but rather who’s the more loyal party member. Let's give moderate candidates a shot at winning. If you do the math, you'll see this proposal works.
Prop. 42 Mar. 2002	Earmarking Gasoline Tax for Transportation - No The result of passing Prop 42 will be an atmosphere where special interests feel they can buy legislation for their own benefit. You might believe these interests already own most of the politicians in Sacramento and Washington. Don’t let them think they own us, too.
Prop. 22 Mar. 2000	Defining Marriage as Man + Woman Only - No It wasn’t long ago that interracial marriage was illegal in much of the country. Surely the same arguments were used then as now. If you’re considering voting for 22, try reading the arguments in its favor while substituting “black and white” for “two men or two women.” I think you’ll see my point.
Prop. 1 Nov. 1998	Reassessment Exemption for Contaminated Property - No The size of your property tax bill depends more on how long you’ve owned your property than how much it’s really worth. It’s sort of like paying income tax based on how long you’ve had your current job instead of how much money you make. It’s ridiculous.
Prop. 6 Nov. 1998	Ban on Horsemeat - No This is cultural imperialism, folks, and it has no place in a state with no ethnic majority. I may not be a fan of horsemeat, but I know people who are, and I'll bet you do too.
Prop. 222 Jun. 1998	Elimination of Work and Education Credits for Second Degree Murderers - No You must be able to imagine some inmate who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, has already served twelve years, and has demonstrated rehabilitation. Wouldn't you want the parole board to have the latitude to parole this person two years early?
Prop. 209 Nov. 1996	Elimination of Affirmative Action (CCRI) - No Given that it can be applied only as a remedy, that set-asides are illegal, and that contractor goals are not firm, affirmative action doesn't seem as diabolical as it has been portrayed. But is it necessary at all? Absolutely.

Humorous takes on laughing matters
Prop. 11 Nov. 2008	Redistricting Commission - Yes Simon, Paula and Randy choose three tribes of survivors. Then the Legislative leaders, pretending to be Donald Trump, gleefully fire two survivors apiece from each tribe. At this point the producer returns and presents long-stemmed roses to three Democrats, three Republicans, and two Neithers. These eight become the first Commissioners.
Props 94-97 Feb. 2008	Indian Gaming Compacts - No If it’s fine to close the budget gap partially by legalizing, franchising, and taxing one “victimless” activity, wouldn’t it be better to close it completely with more? We could legalize prostitution, grant a franchise to the Police Athletic League, and direct 35% of the profits into the General Fund. It would be worth billions!
Prop. 76 Nov. 2005	Limits on State Spending - No “Captain! Look on the view-screen! There’s an enormous robot running amok! It has huge escalator claws, and has already ripped up nearly half the state budget! I can just make out its identification: PROP-98.” “I know how to handle this, Yeoman. We’ll send an even bigger robot to destroy the first one!”
Prop. 43 Mar. 2002	Right to Have Your Vote Counted - Yes So I’m, like, “Huh? Don’t they already have to count our ballots? I’m, like, totally confused.” But then I’m like, “Duh, remember that election in Florida, with, uh, Kate Bush and Leslie Gore, aren’t they singers? And that guy Chad from the Charlie’s Angels movie?” Yeah, you’re like, “Uh-huh.” You remember too.
Prop. 20 Mar. 2000	Earmarking Lottery Funds for Textbooks - No Ladies and Gentlemen! Step right this way! Presenting the Amazing Useless Proposition! Gawk as this Freak of Democracy does Nothing at All! Gasp as it Merely Pours Money from One Pot into Another! Cringe at the thought of its Unintended Long-Term Consequences! Marvel at its Unamendable Permanence! Hurry, hurry, hurry!
Prop. 1A Nov. 1998	$9.2 Billion School Bonds - Yes Okay, students, who here wants to reduce elementary school class sizes? Good, you can put your hands down. Now an algebra question. What happens when you divide a growing number of students by a smaller class size? Yes, Mr. Einstein. That's right, you need more classrooms.
Prop. 11 Nov. 1998	Sales Tax Revenue Sharing - Yes Wal-Mart has made it known they'd like to plop a new shopping mall in one of the twin cities. One city "wins" by offering a 110% sales tax refund, free sewer and garbage services, a 17-lane freeway to the new mall, and a city-subsidized mansion for the store manager.
Prop. 219 Jun. 1998	Uniform Application of Ballot Propositions - Yes Five years ago, putrid Prop 172 went before California voters. This malodorous measure imposed a tax increase statewide, but distributed the proceeds only to those counties where a majority had voted for it. Prop 219 will outlaw such stinky tactics by requiring propositions to apply uniformly across the area voting on them. 219 will be a breath of fresh air.

The Poems
Prop. 1C May 2009	Borrowing Against Future Lottery Receipts – No after Alfred, Lord Tennyson
Prop. 10 Nov. 2008	Prius Rebate and Renewable Energy Bonds ($5 billion) - No after William Blake
Prop. 99 Jun. 2008	Restriction on the Use of Eminent Domain - Yes after Masaoka Shiki
Prop. 1D Nov. 2006	School & University Construction Bonds ($10 billion) - Yes after Rudyard Kipling
Prop. 78 Nov. 2005	Prescription Drugs: The Industry's Proposal - No after Samuel Taylor Coleridge
Prop. 70 Nov. 2004	Tribal Gaming: Agua Caliente Band's Scheme - No after Ernest Lawrence Thayer
Prop. 48 Nov. 2002	Finalizing Elimination of Municipal Courts - Yes after William Shakespeare
Prop. 44 Mar. 2002	Chiropractor Discipline - Yes after W. S. Gilbert
Prop. 39 Nov. 2000	55% Vote for School Bonds - Yes after Lewis Carroll
Prop. 27 Mar. 2000	Congressional Term Limit Pledges - No after Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Prop. 225 Jun. 1998	Congressional Term Limit Pantomime - No after Edward Lear
Prop. 183 Nov. 1994	Combining Recall Elections with General Elections - Yes after Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (sort of)
Prop. 173 Nov. 1993	Use of Existing Bonds to Assist First-Time Home Buyers - Yes after Edgar Allan Poe
Prop. 163 Nov. 1992	Repeal of the Snack Tax - Yes after Dr. Seuss, or perhaps Eminem

Proposition 173: Use of Existing Bonds to Assist First-Time Home Buyers - Yes
November 1993

Once upon a ballot dreary, as you pondered, bored and weary,
Some obscure provision of a bill you'd just as soon ignore,
Suddenly you spied a measure which, although not quite a treasure,
Might help people purchase homes with incomes moderate or poor—
Just this goal and nothing more.

Back in '82, it states here, whent the mortgage interest rates here
Were so high a first-time buyer barely could get in the door,
Voters passed Prop 5, supplying rate reductions to those buying
Their first houses if their incomes were below a certain score—
Authorizing bonds galore.

In eleven years (and counting) of the program, great discounting
Of the Prime has driven interest rates down nearly to the floor.
So the problem, as you gather, isn't interest rates, but rather
Finding the down-payment for that condo out in Livermore.
"Just the place you're looking for!"

Of the bonds Prop 5 allotted, few were used, so it's been plotted
To allow them to reduce down-payments for the working poor.
Prop 173 will let the State use Prop 5 bonds to get the
Folks with lower incomes out of situations we deplore.
So vote “yes.” That is your chore!

Proposition 163: Repeal of the Snack Tax - Yes
November 1992

Tax on snacks. Snacks on tax.
Here are facts on tax on snacks.
Until 1991 snacks were not taxed,
So you paid the price marked on snacks' sacks.
Then the hacks and PACs, as one of their Acts,
Passed the law that jacks the snack tax to the max.
So snacks now taxed include chips in stacks,
And pretzles on racks, and little Tic Tacs.
And bottled water, and Cracker Jacks,
And candy in paper coated with wax.

(The rationale behind extending the sales tax to snack foods was that the taxed items are non-essential, “luxury” foods. So taxing snacks wouldn't add any new costs to those buying just the essential “survival” foods. Nice theory, but it doesn't wash. Poor people spend just as many dollars on snacks as rich people. Maybe more, since stores in low-income neighborhoods tend to stock more Twinkies and Ding Dongs than apples and carrots. The sales tax won't change this; it will just make poor people poorer. Taxing snacks amounts to a flat fee, imposed regardless of one's ability to pay, and is therefore unfair.)

Even lax flacks and Iraq's worst quacks
Know who a regressive snack tax attacks!
Poor whites and blacks. People in shacks.
People who live on the wrong side of the tracks.
The tax on snacks is a try by those hacks
To balance the budget on poor people's backs!
So take those taxers off our backs
By giving the axe to the tax on snacks!