More work needed on propositions More work needed on propositions (October 28, 2005)

Last week, the Voice recommended that voters reject propositions 74 to 76. This week, we look at Propositions 77 to 80, most of which we also find wanting.
Proposition 77

This initiative places a redesigned redistricting process into the state constitution. Proposition 77 is one of the Governor's key initiatives and was authored by Ted Costa, the architect of the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis.

This initiative almost didn't make it to the ballot. A superior court judge ruled that signatures for Proposition 77 were gathered illegally and ordered it removed from the ballot. Backers had submitted one version of the measure to the state Attorney General, and used a different version to collect signatures. It took the California Supreme Court to finally place it back on the ballot.

Common Cause and the League of Women Voters have collaborated on a model redistricting initiative. This is not it. In fact, the League opposes this measure. Proposition 77 would allow three retired judges selected by legislators to design election districts, require that the next primary and general elections be held in those districts, and would put the boundaries on the ballot for approval or rejection by voters. Districts drawn under the terms of this initiative would rely on six-year-old census data, and the timeline necessary to have districts in place for the 2006 primary could create havoc.

Also, retired judges may not be the ideal narrow group of people to tap for such an important task. If voters reject the plan, different retired judges would be selected, and the process would begin again, followed by new districts and another vote on the plan at the next general election. Apparently, this process could continue indefinitely if voters repeatedly rejected the plan.

The goal of more competitive districts, fairly drawn, is laudable. Unfortunately, the process created by this initiative could be worse than the current one. The Voice recommends a NO vote on Proposition 77.
Propositions 78 and 79

The high cost of prescription drugs has been a problem and a political issue for years. Both of these initiatives purport to reduce those costs for particularly vulnerable populations. Both create new structures in state government to administer their programs.

Their backers, however, are very different. Proposition 78 is funded and supported by large drug companies and business organizations. Proposition 79 is supported by a long list of consumer groups, unions, seniors organizations and the League of Women Voters. According to an Associated Press analysis, Proposition 79 would cover about 10 million people, while Proposition 78 would cover about five million and depend on voluntary participation by drug companies.

Proposition 79 appears to offer broader, more dependable relief. The Voice recommends a NO vote on 78 and a YES vote on 79.
Proposition 80

Proposition 80 would give the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) more authority over electricity providers, prevent customers from switching from private utilities to other providers and establish a goal promoting more renewable energy use.

Proposition 80 is supported by a coalition of consumer groups -- such as TURN, CalPIRG and Consumer Federation -- as well as unions, seniors and Democrats. It purports to "override failed energy deregulation policies, put utilities back in the business of serving the public, and encourage development of more renewable energy sources." It's opposed by a business coalition, including some involved in energy production and sales such as the Western States Petroleum Association, i.e. Big Oil.

What's unusual is that also among the opponents are soft-path energy organizations -- including wind, solar and geothermal industry associations -- as well as V. John White, longtime California environmental leader and head of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies. White sees this initiative as a return to the monopolistic utility model that existed prior to deregulation. It would favor utility generators over everyone else, it's hostile to direct access and customer generation and not friendly to advancements in "soft grid" technology. For the system proposed in this model to work, the PUC would have to demonstrate savvy leadership and aggressively regulate big utilities. Evidence of such leadership is slim to nonexistent.

Proponents argue that deregulation, particularly in California, has been a failure and that we need effective regulation to assure that big energy companies cannot manipulate the system again. They may be right, and their goal may be to serve the public interest, but it's not clear that this initiative accomplishes its purpose without creating serious problems of its own.

When in doubt, we prefer to err on the side of not enacting suspect laws through the initiative process because they are so difficult to modify when problems arise. We don't believe deregulation has worked, but we are not convinced that this initiative fixes the problem. The Voice recommends a NO vote on Proposition 80.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.