Archive - February 2008 Ballot

Prop 91 - Failed

Here is how the argument in favor of Prop 91 reads: "As the official proponents of this measure, we are encouraging you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91...IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED."

In short, Prop 1A from last year's ballot (regarding the allocation of gasoline tax revenue) already settled this issue, so Prop 91 should not be on the ballot. Some bureaucratic snafu must have prevented its removal.

Vote NO, or YES. Flip a coin. It doesn't matter. Enjoy.

Prop 92 - Failed

Existing state law guarantees minimum funding for elementary, secondary schools, and community colleges (together known as K-14 education). The funding for community colleges is currently based on K-12 attendance. Prop 92, however, would change the funding formula to be based on the state's population of residents between 17 and 25. It would also increase funding any year that the state unemployment rate exceeds 5 percent (which has happened in 13 of the past 15 years).

The effect would be to remove the relationship between community college funding levels and actual enrollment, costing the state an estimated $300 million more per year, for the next two years. After that, the analysis predicts, Prop 92 would have no effect for the near future.

The measure would also reduce student fees, which are already the lowest in the country, and set up requirements that would almost guarantee that they are not raised for decades. Student fees, however, cover less than ten percent of the revenue to the community colleges (about $70 Million at current levels).

Finally, the measure would make changes to the way that the community colleges are managed.
Currently, the community colleges are operated by districts that are governed by locally elected Board of Trustees. They, in turn, are overseen by the state Board of Governors, which sets minimum standards, coordinates statewide programs, and appoints a chancellor. Prop 92 would increase the number of members of the Board of Governors from 17 to 19, and limit the pool of candidates from which the Governor can appoint people to the Board. In addition, the Board would acquire greater control over its budget.

The proposition is mostly supported by teachers' and school employees' unions, as well as a few construction companies, who probably expect the money to be spent on new buildings. And this is the problem that the opponents pounce on. There is no requirement that the money be spent on any particular need.

Here's the weird thing: the bill is supported by the CA Federation of Teachers, and opposed by the CA Teachers Association. I don't know enough about these groups to understand their different agendas.

Community Colleges serve some our neediest residents. Whatever money this measure will add to the college budget will be small, especially given the analyst's prediction that Prop 92 may not apply after two years. Still, I am unconvinced as to the efficacy of this particular measure.

The biggest problem with our state budget is the fact that state legislators have so little discretion. This initiative will only make that problem worse. If we are serious about education, we should take the politically unpopular step of reforming Prop 13, although I know that is unlikely.

I have changed my vote on this one twice already. For now, Your Political Friend is voting NO, although I won't be upset if it passes.

Prop 93 - Failed

Current term limits allow a person to serve a maximum of 14 years in the state Legislature (6 years in the Assembly, 8 years in the Senate). Prop 93 would reduce this maximum to 12 years, regardless of where that time is spent. Current members caught in the transition could serve the 12 years in addition to whatever years they have already spent in the Legislature.

Such a change would have no fiscal impact. Still, it is bitterly opposed by term limit advocates who seem to believe that every politician in office is there only for his own power hungry interests.

Personally, I have always been against term limits. Constituents should have the ability to elect whichever representative they damn well want, and for as long as they want. Furthermore, this bill would allow a representative to serve the full 12 years in the Assembly, for example, instead of forcing them to run for State Senate after only 6 years. Again, this is not a problem if that person's constituents want to keep their representative.

I agree with the opposition that the bill is an attempt by incumbent politicians to keep their jobs. However, unlike the opposition, I don't have a problem with it.

Your Political Friend recommends voting YES.

Prop 94-97 - Passed

Prop 94 is the first of four similar propositions dealing with the expansion of certain Indian casinos in San Diego and Riverside counties.

In 1999, most Indian tribes in the state signed an agreement, called a compact, that set the rules regarding Indian casinos, including labor relations, audits, and payments to the state. In 2006, the four of the tribes and Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated an amendment that allowed them to significantly expand their gambling operations, in return for paying more money to the state. They also signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that addressed casino operations, including a clause that would allow the state to garnish wages of casino employees for child support or back taxes (this was not previously allowed, as Indian reservations are sovereign nations).

Under the 1999 compact, the four tribes collectively pay about $76 Million per year into two funds that support other tribes without casinos, as well as gambling addition programs and grants to local cities affected by tribal casinos. Under Props 94-97 that amount would be raised to a minimum of $123 Million, with additional fees that would probably raise the amount to $675 Million, nearly all of which would be paid into the state's General Fund, making it available for all of California.

In 2007, however, several tribes and gambling interests decided to stop the deal by qualifying these four measures for the ballot. Their arguments come down to five points:

1) This is an unfair expansion of the wealthiest tribes interests, creating the largest casinos in the world. This is true- the current pact allows them a maximum of 2000 slot machines. Prop 94, for example, would let the Pechanga Tribe expand that to 7400 (consider that the MGM Hotel in Las Vegas has only half that number). Smaller tribes that are not allowed to expand, as well as non-tribal gambling interests would possibly see their revenues reduced.

2) The measure would erase accountability by allowing the tribes to audit themselves. This is possibly false. The props would have the audits performed by an independent accountant instead of state auditors. A copy of the audit would be provided to state regulators on a confidential basis. Since the propositions are not the actual 2006 agreements, I do not know who is responsible for choosing the auditor.

3) Casinos will no longer be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves. This is false. Currently, the tribes are not subject to CEQA requirements when building casinos. Instead, they must prepare a report on the significant negative environmental impacts of the project and make a "good faith effort" to reduce or avoid those impacts outside their reservation. Prop 94 would go further, requiring the Pechanga Tribe to negotiate an agreement with Riverside County in order to reduce or avoid those environmental impacts. The local government outside the reservation would also have to receive "reasonable compensation" for increased public service costs due to the casino such as public safety, traffic, and gambling addiction programs.

4) Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. This is true. If the state allows a non-tribal entity to operate slot machines or certain card games in a nearby area, the tribe's required payments would be reduced or eliminated. This is, essentially, the tribes' paying the state "protection" money.

5) By voting No on these props, we will force the state to negotiate a better deal. This may be true. One thing is certain, Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated the 2006 deal because the four tribes gave huge campaign contributions to him and many others in Sacramento. Although the deal may sound like a lot of money is going to the state, it is chump change compared to what the tribes will be keeping in profits.

I believe that we owe the Native Americans a good life, given our government's shameful history. However, these four tribes in question are not exactly suffering. What is more, any money they pay is offset by the fact that tribes do not pay any income or corporate taxes to the state.

In my opinion, the arguments against the measure outweigh the arguments for it. This issue isn't an emergency, so we should be sure that we're getting the best possible deal.

Your Political Friend recommends you vote No.