February 5, 2008
Unofficial Crotty Voter Guide
I didn’t think it would be necessary to do a voter guide for the February election. Hillary is leading Obama in California by about 12 points, though Obama is surging. McCain, of all people, is leading here by 8 points over Romney, with Giuliani and Huckabee currently fighting for 3rd place, but with Giuliani losing Florida, that will change.
Where the heck is McCain getting his votes? Are Giuliani backers moving to him? If so, why? He was an independent when he ran against Bush, but now he is Bush repackaged in not-so-attractive casing. And, I assume you have all seen the results of the study where about 70% of those tested chose the winner of congressional races about which they had absolutely no information except photographs of the candidates. It seems we prefer our elected officials attractive. So, there needs to be some alternative explanation for McCain …. I just don’t know what it is!
We’re a week from Election Day. I’m not heavily involved, but I am doing some communications work. In addition, I have needy clients with April elections that are starting to peak. That will lead me into a very busy June cycle and an insane run-up to November … but, that’s why we love politics. Remember the mantra, “it’s not a job, it’s a life style.”
While I have your attention, I’d like to conduct an attitudes survey. I’m thinking of helping out Mike Aguirre in June just for fun. What do you think? Now, on to more pressing issues …
For those of you receiving this for the first time, let me briefly explain that this is one more in an increasingly occasional series of election guides since 2000, wherein I discuss some of the interesting issues and individuals appearing on the ballot for your consideration and your determination. This voter guide was begun in response to the myriad ballot initiatives California citizens and legislators spawned over the last decade or so, accompanied by clever or stupid or misleading or devious, but certainly confusing campaign ads. Of course, if not for the folks who always called to ask how they should vote, this would never have started, so you can’t blame me. You know who you are.
This cycle, it will be short and sweet, with very little commentary. The California ballot measures are confusing folks, so that’s what I’ll briefly touch on. I’ll do my regular voter guides for June and November, but for February, this brief missive is all you get.
As always, for many readers, it is an opportunity to learn the (almost) untarnished truth and make and informed decision prior to voting. Others jump to the end of each discussion, see what I recommend, then vote similarly or otherwise.
In addition, I must include my regular caveat that not all the information herein was written by yours truly. Some material was excerpted from other publications. In addition, this analysis is not quite as thorough as most of you have come to expect (and dread).
Proposition 91: Transportation Funding; Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
California levies a statewide sales tax of 6% on gas and diesel fuel. Prior to 2002, sales taxes paid on fuels were deposited in the state's general fund. Allocation of these funds was part of the annual state budget process, and there was no requirement that they be used for transportation purposes.
Proposition 42 (2002) amended the State Constitution to dedicate motor vehicle fuel sales tax (gas tax) funds to transportation programs. Instead of being directed to the general fund, gas tax revenues are transferred to the Transportation Investment Fund (TIF) to provide for improvements to highways, streets and roads, and transit systems.
Proposition 42, however, allows the Legislature to suspend the transfer by a two-thirds vote subject to a gubernatorial declaration that the transfer would have a negative impact on the state's finances. The transfer has been suspended twice — partially in 2003-04 and in full in 2004-05. In 2006-07, Proposition 42 is projected to shift $1.4 billion from the state's general fund to the TIF.
In November of 2006, Proposition 1A was placed on the ballot with the passage of SCA 7, introduced by State Senator Tom Torlakson (D-Antioch). The measure passed, amending the State Constitution to limit the Legislature's authority to suspend Proposition 42 transfers of gas tax funds to transportation programs.
Prior to Prop 1A, the Legislature could choose, but was not required, to treat as loans any amounts that were redirected to the General Fund as a result of a suspension. Prop 1A required that suspended allocations be treated as loans, to be repaid in full, including interest, within three years of suspension.
Under Prop 1A, which is current law, suspensions are permitted to occur only twice in ten consecutive fiscal years. All prior suspensions must be repaid before a subsequent suspension could occur.
Transfers that were suspended during 2003-04 and 2004-05 must be repaid to the TIF according to a specific schedule. Under Prop 1A, the Legislature can also authorize the sale of bonds backed by Proposition 42 revenues.
At the same time Prop 1A was being approved for the ’06 ballot, current Prop 91 was in the process of earning qualification. Proponents of this measure accepted Proposition 1A as an achievable compromise and intended to abandon Prop 91, which is very similar.
Prop 91 would eliminate the state's authority ability to divert gasoline sales tax revenues to fund non-transportation purposes after July 1, 2008. All transportation money used for non-transportation purposes previous to 2007 would be paid back into the transportation pool and Prop 91 would prohibit the General Fund from borrowing specified transportation funds for multiple years as is now the case.
Another new twist under Prop 91 would be that transportation funds could only be borrowed within a 30 day deadline of adoption of the state budget. All loans made from transportation funds would not be allowed to deplete the projects that the funds were intended for.
Prop 91’s Key Provisions:
• The state would be unable to use gasoline sales tax funds for non-transportation projects.
• Transportation funds that were kept aside for other uses in 2003-04 and 2004-05 would have to be repaid. These repayments would have to take place by June 30, 2017, with a minimum amount paid each year.
• Money from the transportation allotment could be loaned to the General Fund for cash flow purposes within a fiscal year. This loan must be repaid within 30 days of the adoption of a budget for the following fiscal year.
Prop 91 received the required signatures and by law must appear on this ballot. Proponents of Prop 1A, who were also proponents of Prop 91 until Prop 1A passed and couldn’t get their shit together to stop signature gathering for Prop 91 now say Prop 91 is not needed and therefore should be voted against.
Thanks for contribution to the economy by employing all of those signature-gathers. We ought to vote “Yes” out of spite.
However, the Southern California Transit Advocates have come out in favor of the measure. Who are these guys? The AGC and other groups that benefit from transportation construction projects!
How to vote:
Unless you directly benefit financially from building highways, vote “No.”
Proposition 92: Community Colleges, Funding, Governance, Fees; Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Mandatory minimum education funding has been a part of the state budget the last twenty years. Proposition 98, passed in 1988, guarantees a minimum amount of state and property tax revenue each year for kindergarten through all the way through to Community College. The amount is based upon the fiscal health of the state's economy for a given year. The California Community Colleges system (CCC) has received approximately 10% of Prop 98 funds in recent years. With a 14 billion hole in this year’s budget, I’d expect it would be somewhat less in 08.
Enter Proposition 92. Prop 92 was introduced last year (with an eye toward future state deficits) and would allocate 10.46% of Prop 98 funding to community colleges. It would change Prop 98 by separating funding of K-12 and community colleges. Each system would have minimum funding formulas. The K-12 formula would maintain the current Prop 98 formula. Prop 92 would introduce a new formula for the community college system.
Minimum funding under Prop 92 would depend on a growth factor based on the population of young adults, between the ages of 17 and 22 years or age and between 22 and 25 years of age respectively. The growth factor would also be tied to the state's unemployment rate. Student enrollment (average daily attendance, or ADA) would not be a basis for community college system funding requirement under the Prop 92, unlike that of K-12 education.
Prop 92 would also lower student fees, which have traditionally made up a small portion of education costs. The fees would drop from $20 to $15 a unit beginning in the fall of 2008. Prop 92 would also limit any future fee increase brought about by the legislature by requiring a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate. Additional limits would be put in place that would tie fee increases to percentage changes in per capital personal income in California.
Prop 92 would amend the state constitution by naming the community college system as part of the state's public school system. The constitution has not formally recognized the community college system previously.
The CCC has become a formal body based on legislation adopted over time. Prop 92 would allow for more members in the CCC's Board of Governors. They would also have more control over administering the statewide system.
Notice that there is no mention of the amount of money available in the state’s budget.
Prop 92’s Key Provisions:
• Alters state constitution to establish a system of community college districts and a board of governors.
• 10.46% of current Prop. 98 funding would be used for community colleges.
• Calculates minimum state funding levels separately for K-12 education and community colleges.
• Establishes $15 fees per unit taken. Only cost of living increases could cause fees to be raised.
• Limits on Legislature's ability to raise fees in the future.
Proponents of Prop 92 believe that California community college system has been woefully underfunded in past years, which is true. They claim that the initiative will finally provide a fair percentage of education funding to a system which serves 2.5 million students on 109 campuses, which is wrong.
The state will be forced to use K-12 funds to cover increased spending under the initiative. The legislature would have to fund the measure by cutting other programs like K-12 and state universities. In addition, Prop 92 does not provide adequate oversight for the CCC's Board of Governors, who, under the law, can set salaries and benefits independently. Plus, Prop 92 would place major limitations on legislative actions to raise fees.
Fun Fact to Know & Tell
Arguably two of the most powerful teacher groups in the state, The California Federation of Teachers union and the California Teachers Association are in a rare disagreement over the initiative.
The CFT supports the proposal, saying that altering Prop. 98 spending formula is the best way to mandate additional community college spending. The CTA believes the proposition will jeopardize K-12 funding which is already inadequate given the state's current and future budget deficit.
I bet many of you would never have thought that you would ever agree with the CTA!
How to Vote
California's community colleges are underfunded. They have been since Ronald Reagan was Governor. But the reason isn't inadequate state money. Take a look at those low fees (which costs the system and its students millions in federal grants and loans)!
The community colleges, which educate more than 2 million Californians in hundreds of programs, far more than the University of California and the California State University combined, have a right to feel shortchanged. Their faculties teach more hours, offer more classroom education per dollar, and get less credit for it.
However, creating a their own funding niche in the budget at the expense of K-12 under the Prop 98 formula is not the way to “fix” the funding shortage.
Vote “No.”
Proposition 93: Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office; Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Term limits in the California Legislature are currently governed by the provisions of Proposition 140 (1990). It limits State Senators to two four-year terms, and members of the Assembly to three two-year terms. Legislators who serve in both houses are limited to a maximum of 14 years total.
Proposition 93 would reduce the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years. It would eliminate the two-term limit for Senators, and the three-term limit for members of the Assembly. It would allow a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.
Proposition 93 would also provide a transition period to allow current members to serve a total of 12 consecutive years in the house in which they are currently serving, regardless of any prior service in another house
Supporters of Proposition 93 claim that the elimination of the two-term limit for Senators and the three-term limit for members of the Assembly will give legislators more time and incentives to gain experience and to develop expertise, thereby improving the legislature's ability to perform its role in state government.
Prominent supporters include Ex-Controller Steve Westley, who lost in last year's Democratic primary for governor.
Opponents contend that the measure was written by incumbent legislators to benefit incumbents. They claim that by removing the two-term limit for Senators and the three-term limit for members of the Assembly, Proposition 93 would extend the total number of years in office for most current incumbents.
Opponents include Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, and former Governor Pete Wilson.
My View
Term limits are stupid in the first place. They give power to the institutional bureaucracy and lobbyists. We have term limits – they’re called elections.
I’m pretty much like everyone else when it comes to making decisions concerning how to vote. I ask, “How does it affect me?”
Well, let’s use the campaign for the Democratic nomination in the 78th Assembly District as an example. I’ve known Marty Block a long time and I like him a lot. When I heard he was considering running for the 78th, I called him. He had already hired Richie Ross. And, because of the way things work, I can’t disagree with his decision.
Ross, who once served as chief of staff to the legendary Willie Brown, is running more candidates in open California Democratic primaries this June than any other political consultant.
You see, as existing term limits force a shuffle of new relative unknown candidates to Sacramento every two years, Assembly hopefuls increasingly turn to one of two or three consultants to provide instant legitimacy to their candidacy. And because those consultants are often better known around Sacramento than the candidates themselves, labor groups and other large donors are more likely to open their wallet to clients of the handful of better known Sacramento-based consultants.
In addition, I’ve done the math. There will be fewer campaigns for me to work on under the new term limits than the old term limits.
So, for job stability, I’m voting no. You vote however you want – it really won’t make much of a difference one way or another.
Prop 94: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Pechanga Tribe Indian Gaming Compact.
Prop 95: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Morongo Tribe Indian Gaming Compact.
Prop 96: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Sycuan Tribe Indian Gaming Compact.
Prop 97: Referendum Petition to Overturn Amendment to Agua Caliente Tribe Indian Gaming Compact.
In 1999, Governor Gray Davis negotiated new tribal-state compacts with nearly 60 tribes allowing them to expand current gambling operations, allowing Nevada-style gambling in California, legalizing video slot machines, allowing casino employees to unionize and providing up to $1.1 million annually for non-gaming tribes. Indians also make quarterly payments based on the number of slot machines they own to reimburse the state for gambling addiction programs and the impact of casinos on local jurisdictions. The compacts were ratified by the passage of Proposition 1A, an initiative constitutional amendment that appeared on the March 7, 2000 ballot.
Since the passage of Proposition 1A, Indian gaming has generated billions of dollars of revenue, with $7.7 billion made in 2006. In addition to California Indians becoming the largest single group of contributors to California political campaigns, Indian gaming has become so lucrative that hundreds of Native Americans are petitioning the Bureau of Indian Affairs for recognition of new California tribes in order to buy land and build casinos.
In 2006, Gov. Schwarzenegger negotiated new compact amendments which would allow four of California's wealthiest tribes to add a total of up to 17,000 new slot machines. The tribes include Agua Caliente (Palm Springs), the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation (La Mesa), the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians (Temecula), and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians (Banning).
In the summer of 2007, the legislature passed four bills which approved the compact amendments and the Governor signed the bills in July 2007. The bills were put on hold, however, with the qualification of four propositions for the Feb. 5, 2008 ballot.
The propositions, which qualified in November 2007, are referendums intended to let the voters decide on the compact approval bills passed in the legislature. If approved, these propositions will allow the compact amendments to go into effect, subject to approval by the U.S. Department of the Interior.
If these propositions are rejected, the tribes would have to continue to operate their casinos under the 1999 compacts without the new slot machines. Any portion of the 1999 compacts that are not altered by the amendments would remain in effect.
ANALYSIS
Propositions 94-97 are virtually identical. They allow each tribe to increase the number of slot machines in their casinos by the thousands. Each tribe would be obligated to pay larger amount to the state through two funds. The RSTF fund was designated through the 1999 compacts as a way to pay the state a portion of slot machines revenue and would continue to receive a percentage of slot machine profits under the propositions.
Propositions 94-97 would also now require tribal money to be paid directly to the general fund for California. The four tribes would pay collectively at least $131 million to the state each year.
Each proposition would require their respective tribes to justify and control environmental impacts of their casinos on nearby communities. Each tribe would create a report on environmental impact that would then be open for public comment. A final report would be published including documented public views.
The tribe would have to come to agreements with adjacent cities and the county of residence to provide funds for treatment of social problems created in near-by communities, such as gambling addiction or increased crime. Any failure to reach an agreement would be settled by arbitration. Each tribe would also have to document their intent to avoid or limit casino's impacts on the nearby environment.
A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by the Governor and each tribe in the summer of 2007 to take effect at the same time as the amendments. The MOA addresses various casino operational requirements. Each casino would have to abide by certain standards regarding money transactions and patron credit. Guidelines would be drawn up to identify gambling addicts and provide treatment. Each tribe would have to provide a copy of annual internal gambling audits to state regulators.
In addition to these provisions, Prop. 96 (the Sycuan compact) authorizes a second, off-reservation casino. Federal law usually restricts casinos to Indian lands. However, the law contains several exceptions that allow for casinos to be built on lands that touch the reservation along a boundary.
Sycuan bought 1,600 acres of land between their reservation and the site of a future resort. The land contains 24 separate parcels, which if taken into trust as a single piece of property, can meet the federal exception. The tribe has said they are giving thought to building a second casino on the property, but for the time being, the property would be used for recreation and tribal residences.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced that Propositions 94-97 had qualified for the ballot on Nov. 19th, 2007. In a surprising move, the federal government approved the compacts in late November 2007, technically allowing the compacts to go into effect well before the February 2008 state election.
The compacts were approved automatically as they were received over 45 days previous by the Department of the Interior in Washington. Federal law declares that all compacts must be reviewed within the 45 day period or are otherwise approved.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen submitted the compacts to the Interior Dept. on Sept. 5th, 2007, almost two months before the propositions were filed. On Dec. 3, 2007, U.S. Interior Department officials said they will delay finalizing the approvals by not publishing a notice of the approval in the Federal Register.
Legal Issues
Legal problems will arise with the federal decision if the propositions are rejected on Feb. 5th. It’s unclear how the federal government will handle the compacts if they are not approved by California voters.
Three legal challenges were mounted in an effort to stop the compacts from going before voters. Agua Caliente's tribal chairman, Richard Milanovich, brought forth a suit that argued that the propositions should be banned from the ballot because the qualifying petitions did not include the full text of the compact agreements for signers to read. Milanovich also contended that the California's constitution forbids challenges to state tax collections, making the propositions invalid. Superior Court Judge Lloyd Connelly rejected the lawsuit on Nov. 27th, 2007.
Two similar lawsuits were brought by the Pechanga tribe and the Morongo tribe. Their suits contended that the propositions were not verified within 90 days upon collection of the correct number of signatures. They claimed that state law mandates that signatures gathered to qualify an initiative must be collected and verified within 90 days. Judges Gail Ohanesian and Jack Sapunor ruled against the tribes, concluding that state law permits verification after a 90-day period for signature gathering.
Proponents of Propositions 94-97 say that passage of the compacts will provide a significant amount of new money to California during a period of economic crisis. They claim that the new agreements provide new environmental standards and additional state oversight of tribal gaming.
Supporters also claim that $198 million of the new revenues will go into the RSTF fund that will benefit non-gaming tribes around the state. Several prominent law enforcement and business groups support the proposal.
Critics claim that the compact amendments additional slot machines would give financial advantage to four powerful tribes, with smaller gaming tribes unable to compete. They point to the fact that the agreements do not provide for a comment period for community members to voice environmental concerns. They claim casino workers are not given appropriate benefits or protection under the compacts.
Opponents also claim that the agreements do not provide the level of revenues promised by backers of the plans. Many different labor groups and education organizations oppose the propositions along with several California tribes.
Hey, Wait a Minute …
I’m fine with Native American Indian tribes taking white folk’s money in casinos. If some tribes have more money than others, well, tough.
What about the local control over the impacts of building casinos? IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH WAY YOU VOTE. The tribes are independent, sovereign nations and deal directly with the Feds. The EIR provision in the Props is a red herring … it could never be enforced.
The state doesn’t get as much as it should and local governments don’t get as much “local control” as they would like under the compacts. However, if we vote “no” on all the Props, it simply reverts to the rules created by Prop 1A and the politicians and the gaming tribes will just go back and re-negotiate another compact for more slot machines and re-negotiate revenue disbursement with the state.
In addition, if we vote “no,” there will be endless lawsuits and all that money will go to lawyers, and nobody wants that.
Vote “Yes.”
