The League's California Proposition Guide

Endorsed Vote: No

"How can you oppose children's hospitals," people keep asking us. Well, a bunch of hospitals paid to put Prop 3 on the ballot. The money would go to five University of California hospitals and eight private children's hospitals. We don't like that system of people paying to put a proposition on the ballot that benefits them. Why should they decide which hospitals get the money? We think the state legislature should decide that. The same people put Prop 61 on the ballot back in 2004, which is almost identical to Prop 3, and the hospitals have only spent about half of that money so far. Why do they need more already? Prop 3 is only money for construction, not for actual health care.

Also, we're suspicious of bonds. They're California’s credit cards. They seem like free money, but we have to pay interest on them. The interest comes straight out of California’s general fund. That means less money for everything else. Typically we end up paying as much in interest as we get from the bonds in the first place. So for us to like a bond, it better be a really cool bond like Prop 1A. Prop 3 doesn't make the cut.

Endorsed Vote: No

Haven't we decided this already??? Yes. Yes, we did. As Prop 73 in 2005 and Prop 85 in 2006. This thing is like Chucky: it keeps coming back. The same very wealthy Christian Fundamentalist men put it right back on the ballot again.

Forced parental notification for abortion = BAD. Prop 4 has dangerous long-term implications for all women’s right to choose. No law can force a family to communicate, and we believe that the government shouldn’t be in the business of forcing itself into sensitive family decisions. Youth and families need real solutions like honest sex ed, access to birth control, and, definitely, choice.

For the third time, HELL NO!

Endorsed Vote: No

We've made voter guides for the last eight elections, and this is the first proposition where we felt "Hell No" wasn't strong enough. So we're saying a big "FUCK NO" to Proposition 6. This is a crass and vindictive attempt to demonize the poor, immigrants, and youth of color in order to pump more money into California's failed and bloated prison system. It would prosecute kids 14 and older convicted of 'gang-related' felonies as adults. It's well documented that when you put kids in adult prison you create more career re-offenders. Prop 6 would also deny "illegal" immigrants a right to bail, which means the state has to pay more to keep them locked up. If that's not enough, it would strip away housing assistance for entire families and households when someone doesn't pass a criminal background check. Guilt by association sucks. Prop 6 does nothing to reduce crime, and it would cost hundreds of millions a year.

Endorsed Vote: No

A melancholy "no" on this one. We love us some clean energy. But this prop is too poorly written for us to support.
The kickass good stuff:
It requires all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for all utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties for noncompliance. Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.

The $h^tty stuff:
It allows too many loopholes for utilities to avoid meeting the renewable standards and paying penalties for noncompliance.
* It allows utilities to count signed contracts towards their renewable-energy goals, even before they bring the power online.
* It decreases environmental review of power plants.
* Opposed by a very wide coalition -- From Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, LCV, local Green parties, labor, to PG&E. While PG&E opposes this for all the wrong reasons, we shockingly find ourselves on the same side as them on this prop (but we still revile their opposition to SF clean energy Prop H). Prop 7 is basically funded by one rich guy.
* It is biased towards large-scale energy plants instead of distributed, rooftop solar The proponents of the initiative admit that they expect much of the new renewable generation will come from massive solar power plants in the desert. Gonzalez says concentrating solar power, also known as solar thermal, is the technology that’s simplest, most affordable and most ready to be deployed on a large scale.

Endorsed Vote: No

The government should not be in the business of telling us who we can or can't marry. Period. Can we move on now, please?

Endorsed Vote: No

This one leaves a bad taste in our mouth. It mandates strict limits on when convicts would be eligible for parole. The courts and parole boards already handle that job just fine. Prop 9 also allows unlimited numbers of victims, their families and their representatives to attend parole hearings. We have massive empathy for people hurt by a crime. But the justice system shouldn't be swayed by emotion. Prop 9 sounds too much like mob justice to us.

Endorsed Vote: No

It is a bond measure to provide financial incentives for 'alternative vehicles', and 'alternative' energy including the questionable liquid natural gas and the clearly good renewable energy such as wind. It will cost the state $10 billion over 30 years. We like the part about investment in renewable energy, but we don't like the massive funding of natural gas cars and liquid natural gas terminals.
* Massively funding liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and natural gas cars is a bad idea since it diverts attention and resources from far more environmentally-friendly options. Electric cars and plug in electric cars -- unlike natural gas cars -- already have the refueling infrastructure in place (i.e. the socket in your garage); emit far less carbon even when using a dirty electricity grid, and can emit even less once we change our grid to run on solar and wind. All these amazing benefits to electric cars, yet they still are not being adopted by our government -- which is constantly threatened by the car and oil industry... we don't want another roadblock to the desperately needed transition to electric cars. Of course, most of us Pissed Off Voters don't even own cars, and prefer to bike, BART or Zip car -- but we know that for the rest of the world, they need electric cars.
* Even if we replaced 100% of all vehicles with natural gas around the country - the U.S. emissions would still increase! Because GHG from transportation is rising at 23%, and natural gas is only slightly less carbon-intensive than coal.
* Some environmentalists support this prop since it will help transition large trucks to cleaner vehicles (about 20% lower emissions than gasoline) -- since electric large electric trucks are not yet ready and we need to move immediately to reduce carbon. However, most environmental groups are opposing this measure since it creates a roadblock for transitioning all cars to the far better option of electric cars, and it diverts funds from the far better option of building railroads.
* This is oil tycoon T.Bone Pickens's self serving agenda. He owns Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas fueling station company that is the primary funder of Prop 10.

Endorsed Vote: No

We could get into a long discussion about whether we need to change how our legislative districts are drawn. We tend to say yes. But Prop 11 isn't the answer. For one, it discriminates against youth. To serve on the commission that draws the boundaries, you have to be registered to vote for 5 years with the same party designation. So if you're under 23, you're not welcome. Prop 11 would also over-represent Republicans on the commission. Finally, there's a lot of randomness in how the commission is selected. Government auditors select 60 applicants. Legislative leaders then can veto 24 of them. Then 8 of the applicants are RANDOMLY SELECTED. Then they pick the remaining 6 commissioners. That seems a little weird. No one has ever tried a system like this before. We're not convinced it's the right way to go.