[Ed. note] The following are ballot recommendations from a columnist and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the lbpost.com. An incorrect version of this article was posted earlier and we apologize for any confusions. What follows is the correct version. You can find differing recommendations from contributor Dennis Smith in this article.
2:00pm | It’s election time again, and as much as I’m a big fan of the democratic process, unlike many people I am not going to sit here and tell you something like, “The important thing is that you vote”—because I’d just as soon have you stay home if you’re going to vote stupidly.
Yes, I’m being somewhat sardonic; and no, I don’t think you’re necessarily being stupid if your votes don’t line up with mine. But stupidity is very much on my mind this election. After all, we have an electoral phenomenon, the Tea Party, whose godhead is a woman lacking the political and intellectual wherewithal to tell the difference between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and a Canadian radio DJ in a Clouseauesque accent offering up presidential pronouncements like, “[My wife] is so hot in bed” and “I just love killing those animals. Mmm, mmm! Take away life, that is so fun!”1
But even if all politics is not local, the lbpost.com is, so let me rein in the rant and get to my purpose here, which is to offer up the main points on my election wish list, with annotations.
Proposition 19 and Measure B—YES!!!
In short, Prop. 19 would make recreational use of marijuana legal in California2 for all persons 21 and older. Measure B—contingent on passage of Prop. 19—would allow for recreational marijuana businesses in Long Beach, levying a 15% tax (which would not apply to medicinal marijuana).
If I could have you vote with me on only one issue, it would be this one. It’s not because marijuana is the most important thing in the world, but because on so many levels this one simple change changes our state for the better. For me marijuana criminalization is chiefly a civil-rights issue. I strongly believe in humans having a right to self-determination on the most basic levels, which certainly includes what we do with our bodies (so long as we don’t impinge upon the rights of others). Never mind when we’re talking about marijuana, which, as former DEA administrative law judge Francis L. Young points out, “In strict medical terms […] is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. [… I]t is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man”3; and which at worst is certainly less potentially damaging than alcohol and cigarettes, both of which are big business.
Study the history of marijuana criminalization and you find it’s rooted in bigotry against Mexicans4. And bigotry remains today in the way marijuana criminalization disproportionately affects minorities. That’s one of the reasons the California chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has endorsed Prop. 195.
But put all that aside and focus merely on the financial realities and fallout. Marijuana is California’s #1 cash crop6, and yet the state not only makes zero tax revenue off of it but maintains a black-market marijuana trade by keeping it illegal, which creates crimes and diverts law-enforcement resources from trying to stop rape, murder, property crime, etc.—things everyone would rank more important than stopping 25-year-old Johnny from smoking a joint (which he’s doing anyway). Say that people shouldn’t smoke marijuana, if you like, but admit that people are smoking marijuana, and admit that police have better things to do than try (and inevitably fail) to prevent it, and admit that the estimated $1.4 billion per year the state will make if Prop. 19 passes could really help California out, funding police, fire, schools, infrastructure, etc.
The “con” side says negative effects include things like our roads being more dangerous because there will be more stoned drivers. That’s possible—although I’m not sure there’s a ton of people who want to use marijuana who aren’t using it already. But one thing’s for sure: if Prop. 19 passes we’ll be able to afford having more police on the roads to bust dangerous drivers.
Bottom line: Marijuana is and will continue to be a multibillion-dollar industry whether or not Prop. 19 passes. So let’s put some of those billions to work for the state—while at the same time reducing crime, freeing our courts from wasting time persecuting people who aren’t harming anybody, allowing police to spend more resources on truly protecting and serving, and returning to us a basic right of what we put in our bodies.
Proposition 21—Yes, but not as enthusiastically as I’d like
That may be a terribly lame recommendation, but I’ve got mixed feelings about Prop. 21, which adds an $18 surcharge to all non-commercial vehicle registration fees, with all revenue to go toward state parks and wildlife programs. On a basic level it sounds good, but there’s something manifestly unfair in treating all vehicles the same. Since the spirit of Prop. 21 is about bettering nature, wouldn’t it make sense not to treat your ridiculous Hummer and my friend’s Prius or my little motorscooter the same in the context of this tax? Yes, making distinction would mean less money for our stewardship of nature, but it probably best serves the engine driving Prop. 21 (namely, a motivation for us to be ever less harmful to nature as we continue to live our industrialized lives) to, at every opportunity, make it increasingly attractive to consumers to opt for less-nature-damaging options.
But aside from the merit of the use of funds, a nice little upside to passing Prop. 21 is that for your $18/year you get “free vehicle admission, parking, and day-use at all units of the state parks system,” which I have to imagine can only be a good thing in getting people out to them, since naturally people are more likely to be environmentally conscious when they have so direct and unadulterated contact with nature.
Proposition 23—No
Speaking of the environment, Prop. 23 is, by any measure, an anti-environment proposition, intended to suspend an existing law (AB 32)7 that mandates California taking measures related to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Why is this on the ballot? Well, Prop. 23 is funded chiefly by two Texas oil companies, Valero and Tesoro8, so you can guess the rest. To show you how transparent their motives are, they’ve speciously tied the proposition to the state’s unemployment rate—like it’s all about their big hearts or something—not attempting to do away with AB 32 but simply suspending it until the California’s unemployment rate is under 5.5% for four consecutive quarters. You know the often than happens? Three times in the last 40 years, that’s how often. Puh-lease.
But one has nothing to do with the other. Prop. 23 is a joke.
Proposition 26—No
And if you like that joke, here’s another. One look at the major funders of Prop. 26 (e.g., Chevron) tells you it favors big business. How? By tweaking the definitions of such terms as “tax” and “fee,” Prop. 26 makes it harder for businesses to be held accountable for (e.g.) paying cleanup costs for the environmental damage they do.
In most elections you can find a proposition (or more) that are all about making it easier for big business to generate profit, with little regard to the non-monetary costs to the state. Prop. 26 is a yet another example.
Governor—Jerry Brown
First of all: Meg Whitman?! For starters, if you elect her, you may as well not bother to vote No on Prop. 23, because she says she’ll suspend most provisions of AB 329. She’s also supports Prop. 8—though, to be fair, not necessarily enough to have voted for it. Or about anything enough to have voted at all. She answers to the description of herself as “a person who didn’t vote for so many years10” and admits, “I am not proud of my voting record11.” But by all means, make her governor—because why should we care whether the person we’re choosing for that job has a history of being engaged in our state’s political process?
On the other hand, Jerry Brown has had a career of engagement; and whether or not you’ve always agreed with him on the issues, I think you’d be hard-pressed to make a case that Brown hasn’t consistently meant well for the state. During his first round of service as governor Brown became famous for his interest in the environment, fiscal stewardship that resulted in a massive budget surplus, and for personally refusing many of the perks of office (such as the governor’s mansion) in the interest of saving the state money.
More recently, Brown has served as the mayor of Oakland (where he helped bring about a revitalization of several areas of the city while at the same time providing more affordable housing) and currently as attorney general, recently showing the wisdom not to waste state resources by appealing the overturn of Prop. 8.
But even if you’re not crazy about Brown, he’s running against Meg Whitman, which makes this an easy choice if you care about our state’s being competently governed by someone whose lifetime goal has obviously been about something other than making a lot of money.
Senator—Barbara Boxer
I don’t always agree with Boxer—she’s dead wrong in her opposition to Prop. 19—but she is one of the only Democrats who over the years hasn’t profoundly disappointed me. She has consistently stood up for civil rights. She’s consistently taking the right stands for the environment. She had the wisdom to vote against our invading Iraq. Imagine how different things might be in the U.S. right now if more politicians had maintained such a clear vision in the midst of crisis.
And unlike most Democrats and Republicans in or running for office, she does not become a babbling tergiversator when put in a tough spot, such as in a recent debate when challenger Carly Fiorina asked if the adamantly pro-choice Boxer approves taxpayer money being used to fund abortions: without missing a beat, Boxer said she absolutely does favor it in cases of incest, rape, or when the mother’s life is in danger. Fiorina, meanwhile, disingenuously protests that she is not in favor of criminalizing abortion, even though that’s exactly what happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned—something that Fiorina is clear she wants12.
Barbara Boxer has had an amazing career, and we’ll all be better off if it continues.
Attorney General—Not Steve Cooley
It’s not that current L.A. County District Attorney Steve Cooley is all bad. Yes, he’s made some dubious decisions, such as closing his office’s Environmental Crimes unit, leaving a total of one attorney to cover all environmental crimes in the biggest county in the entire United States. But he’s done some good, too, such as working to reform the state’s “Three Strikes” sentencing laws.
But I’m against Steve Cooley’s being elected attorney general because this is a man who often puts Steve Cooley’s desire above what’s in the best interests of the state—not a quality we should want our chief law officer to have.
For example, he criticized his predecessor, Gil Garcetti, for seeking a third term on the ground that three terms is too many for that office, which needs “fresh eyes”—a phrase he used multiple times—to see old problems13… then turned around and sought a third term for himself. Because it’s about Steve Cooley, not the best interests of the office.
Less than a year ago, while the City of Los Angeles struggled to craft its medical-marijuana ordinance, Cooley did his best to strong-arm the city council by claiming he would disregard their ordinance if it allowed for sales and prosecute collectives they explicitly recognized as permitted14. The irony is that in so doing Cooley would be completely disregarding the legal opinion15 of his boss, the state attorney general. Because Steve Cooley doesn’t have any especial respect for the office (never mind for making a pragmatic use of the office’s resources), only for his own desires.
As recently as this month Cooley again showed it’s all about him and not the best interests of the state, as he openly admitted that if elected attorney general he will “double dip” and collect the pension afforded him from his stint as district attorney (during which he made $300,000 per year) while he earns the “very low, incredibly low salary [of $150,000] that’s paid to the state attorney general16.” Quite a different ethos than the guy he’s looking to succeed as attorney general (vide supra).
Treasurer—Bill Lockyer
In his long history serving California, Lockyer has successfully championed numerous environmental causes (such as authoring the first California legislation covering trucks hauling toxic substances), tort reform, and civil rights (authoring California’s first “hate crimes” legislation). As attorney general he stood up to the Bush administration’s “punitive expeditions [against] locally authorized medical marijuana operations [and] targeting the state’s seriously ill residents17.” Now he’s our treasurer, and he’s perfectly willing to call out even the members of his own party when he sees “junk” coming out of the legislature that is hurting the state18. As the Los Angeles Times noted in its recent endorsement of Lockyer’s reelection:
Lockyer turned out to be exactly the right person to have in charge of the state’s investments during the nation’s worst economic crisis since the Depression and California’s worst succession of budget meltdowns ever. He showed creativity and good judgment in a series of moves to protect the state from Wall Street and from itself19.
Bill Lockyer is the kind of public servant we can sorely afford not to keep around.
And now, my request: Can anyone tell me how to find information on judges? Being that each courtroom is to some degree each judge’s little fiefdom, and that therein judges routinely make decision that have direct and serious effects on the lives of both individuals and society, these are extremely important electoral contests. And yet almost inevitably I find myself leaving every one of these ballot spaces blank because I don’t know anything about these people. I’ve searched for sources on their records, I’ve tried contacting them directly, but to date I find myself without recourse to information that would allow me to make even quasi-informed votes. Someone’s voting for these people, and I presume at least some of those voters are doing so based on actual information about the candidates in question. How do I get in that club?
In the 2006 U.S. midterm general election, only about 40% of the eligible voters bothered to go to the polls, with Californians falling right in line20. Take 1 out of every 7 people who didn’t vote and get them together (call them AdHocBloc) on a single issue (call it Proposition !#). If Prop. !# was defeated 40% to 60%—a blowout—had AdHocBloc voted Yes, and Prop. !# would have passed.
Maybe voting’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Participating in the process isn’t the same as really knowing what you’re doing. A lot of us make our best guesses based on the little we think we know. Still more of us just sort of do what we’ve been programmed to do, like birds trained to peck out the red or blue box. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be better. And the less-than-ideal realities of the status quo aren’t reasons not to take part, because the status quo can be changed. We shouldn’t be governed by a democracy in which most of the people haven’t bothered to have our say. That‘s stupid.
The system may be a mess, but it doesn’t prohibit people from getting together and making a difference. Say what you want about the Tea Party, but they get that. They are speaking up, and they may get some of what they want.
We can do better.
UPDATE Tuesday 10:00am | Wait a minute. I just saw this commercial that has turned me all around. See, it turns out Boxer was once in a hearing, and this general was calling her “ma’am,” and Boxer asked him for the favor of calling her “Senator” instead and said “I worked so hard to get that title.” “Twenty-eight years in Washington,” Fiorina points out, “and Barbara Boxer works hard for a title?”
Oh my god, I get it now: Boxer really doesn’t care about California—it’s all been for the title. She’s a complete sham. Fiorina proved it, and I’m on board. Carly for California! Woo-hoo!
Footnotes
1Hear it for yourself, here.
2Please don’t annoy me with the BS argument about we can’t legalize recreational marijuana use in California because doing so would contravene federal law. Medicinal use of marijuana contravenes federal law every bit as much (federally marijuana is Schedule I: illegal for all purposes), and yet clearly we have legalized it statewide.
3From “In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition,” [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57).
4See, for example, here.
5Info here.
6A nice confirmation of that where it’s pointed out that the marijuana industry generates about seven times the revenue of the wine industry, here.
7Even Meg Whitman, who wants to suspend enforcement of AB 32 (see note 9), thinks Prop. 23 is wrong.
8In fact, the top four funders of Prop. 23 are in the oil industry. KCET has put together a nice listing of the major contributors for and against all the propositions, here.
9More info here.
10More info here.
11See, for example, here.
12See, for example, here.
13See, for example, the excerpt from a 2008 Los Angeles Times editorial here.
14More info here.
15Viz., that sales are illegal only to non-members of a collective. See here.
16Hear it here.
17More info here.
18His plain-spokenness is both charming and refreshing.
19From here.
20More info here.