Reforming California

The Patriot’s Guide to the November 8 Special Election

By Rohit Joy
From the November 2005 Print Edition

Proposition 73: Parental notification for minors seeking abortion

Proposition 73 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit physicians from performing an abortion on an unemancipated minor without notifying a parent or legal guardian at least 48 hours in advance. The notification requirement would not apply in medical emergencies or with a parental waiver. If passed, this measure would ensure that a pregnant minor discusses all her options with her parents, only obtaining an abortion if absolutely necessary. As a result, should the minor decide to proceed with the abortion, her parents would be able to help her deal with the physical and psychological effects that ensue. Judicial bypass would be available if the minor can show that she is mature enough to decide for herself, or that notifying her parents is not in her best interests.

Recommended vote: YES

Proposition 74: Public school teacher tenure reform

Proposition 74 would extend the period required for public school teachers to gain tenure from two to five years. It would also expedite the process for dismissing teachers who receive two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations. California’s education spending has increased $3 billion this year to $50 billion, now comprising almost 50 percent of the entire budget. This amounts to over $10,000 per student and yet no quality improvement has been forthcoming. Other states spend less on education per student and produce superior results. This proposition is a step toward ensuring that California taxpayers get a good value for their money, and that the quality of California’s public schools actually improves, by establishing more rigorous standards for teachers to keep their jobs.

Recommended vote: YES

Proposition 75: Paycheck protection for public employees

Proposition 75 would require public employee unions to obtain annual written consent from members before charging them dues for political purposes. Currently, public employees are assessed dues for all types of political purposes unrelated to their compensation and benefits, including, but not limited to, efforts to introduce same-sex marriage in California and campaigns to roll back Proposition 13 protections. Most union members oppose these efforts but have no choice other than to contribute to them. This initiative would not stop unions from collecting political contributions, but would make such contributions strictly voluntary. Proposition 75 is endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning economist Milton Friedman.

Recommended vote: YES

Proposition 76: Constitutional limits on state spending

One of the main causes of California’s dire fiscal situation is that politicians can appropriate virtually unlimited amounts of money to their pet causes. They do not have to balance expenditures against income as households and businesses do. Proposition 76 would help fix this problem by placing constitutional limits on budget growth, forcing legislators to prioritize funding of government programs. Specifically, it would limit state spending to the previous year’s level plus the average of the previous three years’ revenue growth. This would ensure that extra tax revenue is not immediately used to create new government entitlements, the primary cause of huge deficits. In addition, the Governor would have expanded authority to reduce state spending in cases of large budget shortfalls.

Another provision in Proposition 76 modifies Proposition 98 to allow reduced minimum funding guarantees for education during fiscal crises. It makes little sense to increase guarantees in proportion to increased tax revenues during good economic times, or decrease guarantees during bad times. Finally, Proposition 76 would require that gasoline tax revenues are spent exclusively on roads and highways — the purpose for which they are raised — and are not raided for unrelated purposes.

Recommended vote: YES

Proposition 77: Redistricting reform

Currently, the California state legislature draws its own districts as well as those for the California Congressional delegation. This presents a clear conflict of interest, because legislators can draw their districts so as to maximize the number of safe, noncompetitive seats, effectively selecting their own voters and ensuring their reelection time after time. Such a system is entirely contrary to the principle of representative democracy, which requires competitive elections. Proposition 77 would fix this process, transferring redistricting powers from state legislators to retired judges, so that the people who draw the districts are different from those who are elected in them. Under this plan, the retired judges would be required to follow basic guidelines, such as maximizing the number of whole counties and cities in each district and minimizing the number of county and city fragments. Individual citizens would be permitted to take legal action if they believed these guidelines were not followed, and the districts drawn would be subject to voter approval in the general election of the year they go into effect.

Recommended vote: YES

Proposition 78: Prescription drug discounts

Proposition 78 would create a new discount prescription drug program overseen by the California Department of Health Services. It would allow California residents in families with an income at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty line to purchase drugs at reduced prices at participating pharmacies. Proposition 78 would also create a mechanism for the state to negotiate rebates with drug makers. While this may seem attractive on the surface, implementing such a program will have numerous unintended consequences. First, there is no such thing as a free lunch, so discounted prices for one group of patients will mean higher prices for another — the middle class. Second, the state would essentially gain monopolistic bargaining power, which would cause drug prices to not reflect their true costs of production, including research and development costs. This would drastically reduce research and development in the pharmaceutical industry. On top of all this, the neediest members of our society already have discounted drug coverage through Medicaid and Medi-Cal, and the elderly will be able to purchase discounted drugs through the new Medicare prescription drug program beginning in 2006.

Recommended vote: NO

Proposition 79: Prescription drug discounts

Proposition 79, like Proposition 78, would create a new discount prescription drug program, allowing certain individuals to purchase drugs at reduced prices at participating pharmacies and allowing the state to negotiate prices with drug manufacturers. It goes even farther, however, by creating a new Prescription Drug Advisory Board to “review” prescription drug access and prices and making it a civil violation for drug makers to engage in “profiteering.” In addition to the same unintended consequences brought by Proposition 78, Proposition 79’s advisory board would create a new unnecessary and expensive bureaucracy.

Furthermore, the statute defines “profiteering” as charging “an unconscionable price” for a drug or demanding “prices or terms that lead to any unjust or unreasonable profit.” These terms are vague and will invite scores of frivolous lawsuits, not to mention that drug manufacturers, being owners of the goods they produce, should set whatever terms they want for selling their drugs under a system of free enterprise.

Recommended vote: NO

Proposition 80: Regulation of electric service providers

Proposition 80 would subject currently unregulated electric service providers to regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission, and would restrict consumers’ ability to switch to these providers from “investor-owned” utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric. This measure would effectively allow the government to monopolize the provision of electricity. A government monopoly would take away competition among electricity providers, reducing consumers’ ability to shop around for the best price and increasing electricity costs in California. In addition, the absence of competition would suppress innovation in providing electricity, denying Californians an opportunity for investment and high-paying jobs and stifling the development of more environmentally friendly energy options.

Recommended vote: NO

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot