The Proposition System: Retards or Reform

Ever since its baptism in 1911, the proposition system has given California’s voters the opportunity to support or reject a grand parade powerful laws that have had enormous, far-reaching consequences.  Some of these consequences have served the people well while others have created Frankensteins. When so much is at stake, should this form of shotgun democracy be salvaged or scrapped?

A poster-boy example of why the proposition system should be scrapped has to do with on the reality of most voters. The reality of most voters is that they are: 1.) too confused and reliant on all the conflicting information and propaganda that bombs them over their airwaves and chokes their mailboxes with wasted paper 2.) not mentally equipped to decipher all of the subtleties of such measures 3.) lacks the resources to machete their way to the truth behind all the bullshit 4.) lacks the inclination to properly educate themselves about the issues 5.) makes decisions based on prejudice, ignorance, and immediacy rather than on what is right 6.) all five of these things.

If you want proof of these magical combinations, look no further than Proposition 13. Prop. 13 is a towering inferno of horseshit that was designed and spearheaded by a egotistical nazi named Howard Jarvis, funded and marketed by the wealthy, and overwhelmingly endorsed by a retarded, selfish, petty, and myopic electorate (i.e. Howard Jarvis clones) 27 years ago. The apocalyptic outcome of this proposition is what we now call the “taxpayer revolt”.

Though in reality, Californians paid among the lowest taxes in the world at that time, backers of Prop. 13 duped the public into thinking that they were paying insanely high taxes and that they ought to “revolt” -- with extreme prejudice --  against so-called “Big Government”. Thus, from 1978 to beyond, Californians tied both hands behind their balls by severely restricting the government’s ability to tax, pass budgets, and otherwise legislate -- all essential recipes for a democracy. Meanwhile, California’s public schools, roads, libraries, parks, and basic infrastructure (the things that Prop. 13’s supporters always bitch about) have been starved into oblivion. And even when a minor repeal of Prop. 13 is broached (see Proposition 56, March 2, 2004), the voters scream bloody murder.

In addition, whether deserved or not, Prop. 13 is credited with inspiring a plague of copycat measures in other states while also being the catalyst that ushered in a new breed of conservative politics, beginning with the “Reagan Revolution” as foreplay and George W. Bush and a pathetic, craven, pack of “moderate” democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and other such filth, as the orgasm (or so we hope). Thus, it can be argued that, due in part to our inane proposition system, we are saddled with semi-tyranny.

You still don’t believe that those magical combinations exist? Let me tell you this about that: the proposition system has been a major tool with which California’s voters have unconstitutionally rolled back civil rights and turned their ignorance, bloodlust, and hatred into law -- particularly when it comes to gays, minorities, and/or immigrants. For example:

Proposition 22 (2000): this law made it so that if another state allowed same-sex marriages, California would not recognize the unions and the spouses would not be eligible for the legal rights and privileges of marriage. Prop 22 received the support of 61.4% of the voters.

Proposition 209 (1996): this law rolled back the affirmative action policies put in place over the previous 30 years. It was approved by 54% of the voters.

Proposition 187 (1994): this law, also called the “Save Our State” initiative, denied hardworking, taxpaying illegal immigrants access to social services, health care, and public education. It passed with 59% of the vote, but was overturned by a federal court.

Proposition 7 (1978), Proposition 18 (2000) & Proposition 196 (1996): these laws (particularly Prop. 7) expanded the use of the death penalty. They also gave the state more freedom to punish criminals with life imprisonment without possibility for parole. Prop. 18 passed with the support of 75.2% of the voters, Prop. 196 passed with the support of 86% of the the voters, and Prop. 7 passed with 72% of the voters. There are currently 648 prisoners on death row in California, with 11 (soon to be 12) executions since 1976. The ongoing costs of the death penalty is approximately $114 million per year. With 11 executions spread over 27 years, on a per execution basis, California and federal taxpayers have paid more than $250 million for each execution.*

Proposition 6 (1978): this proposition would have outlawed all gay teachers from teaching in public schools. To the voters’s credit, it went down in defeat, with 59% opposed to the measure. But the very fact that it made it on the ballot and was supported by 41% of the voters says a lot. Former Supervisor Harvey Milk was a leading opponent of this initiative. Former Supervisor and Harvey Milk’s murderer, Dan White, was a supporter of this initiative.

It should also be noted that there is currently a proposition in gestation that would outlaw gay marriages in California -- just like the one that passed in Texas by 74% of the  voters.

What was my point? ... I don’t know, but I do know this: the proposition system is used and abused by people and organizations that wield the money and power to bring their schemes to the ballot. Hundreds of millions of dollars are amassed and spent before, during, and after elections that are, like the one vomited on Californians on November 8, specifically and cynically designed for a low-turnout. There is so much money to be made during the process of putting an initiative on the ballot that the proposition system has become an industry unto itself, replete with unscrupulous, paid signature gatherers who have no idea what they are promoting. How can this kind of environment possibly be considered democratic?

While you think about that, think about this: in a warped way, there is still some democracy left in it. Though woefully outspent and unfairly slandered, grassroots proposition campaigns do exist and are successful and it is important to recognize them. 

Exhibit A: African-American Kingfish, de facto dictator, and consummately corrupt former Assemblyman, Willie Brown, was able to maintain his iron grip over the state legislature for over 30 years due to the absence of term-limits. At the time, Brown was extremely popular in his home of San Francisco, though unpopular in the rest of the state, and he wielded great control over legislative affairs and political appointments, making his removal from his position as Speaker politically difficult. Partially to remove Brown from his leadership position, Californians passed a constitutional amendment imposing term limits on members of the State Legislature. After Brown left office due to the term limits, the Assembly restructured their rules, giving most of the powers formerly held by the Speaker to a leadership committee made up of senior members of both parties.

Exhibit B: in 1988, a “voter revolt” (as Ralph Nader called it) occurred in California with the passage of Proposition 103. Unlike Prop. 13, voters actually directed their anger in the right direction: at the auto, homeowner, and business insurance industries’s wholesale rip-off of Californians. After a David v. Goliath campaign in which Big Insurance created three decoy propositions and spent $80 million to defeat it (sound familiar?), Prop. 103 passed with 51% of the vote. And with its passage, an ongoing 20% discount in auto insurance was given to good drivers, stringent regulations of the insurance industry were instituted, and special laws that allowed insurers to abuse their policyholders were stripped away. To top it off, there was a 20% across the board roll back in insurance rates. Since 1988, Prop. 103 has blocked $23 billion in automobile insurance rate increases.

Thus, the cost-benefit ratio of the proposition system is decidedly mixed and, as a result, California has become more and less democratic as a whole. This begs the question: if voters are going to keep the proposition system, how can they harness the benefits and jettison the negatives? And, if voters decide to get rid of it, how will they make sure that the state government remains responsive to their needs?

The only realistic and viable way to answer these questions is for serious, conscientious voters to take a long, hard look at how they have created their laws, how it currently affects them, and how wielding an ungainly “yes” or “no” democracy can shape their future. In other words, voters need to submit before themselves propositions to adapt the current proposition system into a more democratic alternative ... Wait a minute ...

http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost

--Matt Stewart