California Propositions and Electoral Candidates
October 14, 2004
At the monthly meeting of the Bay Area Local of the Socialist Party USA, the local discussed the various state propositions and candidates on the November ballot. Below is a result of the discussion.
For decades, the Socialist Party of California has maintained a close working relationship with the Peace and Freedom Party where many SP members are dual member. When you visit the polls this November or cast your absentee ballot, please consider PFP Candidate Marsha Feinland for US Senate and PFP Candidate Tom Condit for State Senator, District 9. There are also two democratic socialist Presidential-Vice Presidential campaigns for consideration, the PFP Campaign of Leonard Peltier and Janice Jordon and the Socialist Party USA's Walt Brown and Mary-Alice Herbert.
The following are the Local's position on the California propositions and a San Francisco Measure:
California
NO on Proposition 1A. Protection of Local Government Revenues -- State of California Should local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local government thereby safeguarding funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services? Provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur.
YES on Proposition 59. Public Records, Open Meetings -- State of California (Legislative Constitutional Amendment) Shall the Constitution be amended to include public's right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials while preserving specified constitutional rights and retaining existing exclusions for certain meetings and records?
YES on Proposition 60. Election Rights of Political Parties -- State of California (Legislative Constitutional Amendment) Shall the general election ballot be required to include candidate receiving most votes among candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election? No Position on Proposition 60A. Surplus Property -- State of California (Legislative Constitutional Amendment) Shall the sale proceeds of most surplus state property pay off specified bonds?
NO on Proposition 61. Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program -- State of California (Bond Act. Initiative Statute) Shall $750 million general obligation bonds be authorized for grants to eligible children's hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children's hospitals?
NO on Proposition 62. Elections. Primaries -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute) Should primary elections be structured so that voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of voter or candidate? The two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with "no party" or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot. Exempts presidential nominations.
No Position on Proposition 63. Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 Million -- State of California (Initiative Statute) Should a 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors be established?
NO on Proposition 64. Limit on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws -- State of California (Initiative Statute) Should individual or class action "unfair business" lawsuits be allowed only if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce these laws on public's behalf.
NO on Proposition 65. Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment) Should reduction of local fee/tax revenues require voter approval? Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined.
YES on Proposition 66. Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment -- State of California (Initiative Statute) Should the "Three Strikes" law be limited to violent and/or serious felonies? Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
NO on Proposition 67. Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute) Should the telephone surcharge be increased and other funds for emergency room physicians, hospital emergency rooms, community clinics, emergency personnel training/equipment, and 911 telephone system be allocated?
NO on Proposition 68. Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute) Should tribal compact amendments be authorized? Unless tribes accept, should casino gaming be authorized for sixteen non-tribal establishments? Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services.
NO on Proposition 69. DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding -- State of California (Initiative Statute) Should collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from others arrested for or charged with specified crimes be required with submission to state DNA database? Provides for funding.
No Position on Proposition 70. Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute) Upon tribe's request, should the Governor be required to execute a 99-year compact? Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming.
NO on Proposition 71. Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute) Should the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" be established to regulate and fund stem cell research with the constitutional right to conduct such research and with an oversight committee? Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research.
YES on Proposition 72. Health Care Coverage Requirements -- State of California (Referendum) Should legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers be approved?
San Francisco
YES on Proposition N Ð Withdrawing U.S. Military Personnel from Iraq Proponents/Sponsors: Board of Supervisors Prop N will put on record that San Franciscans oppose the U.S. war and occupation of Iraq and demand that our troops come home now. Prop N will also set an example for other cities to demand that public resources be used for vital services.
In solidarity,
Antonio Salas
Bay Area Local Chair
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SUMMER 2003 CONTACT: Jack Gerson, Bay Area Socialist Party Local (510) 658-5520, jgerson@pacbell.net
STATEMENT OF THE BAY AREA SOCIALIST PARTY ON THE CALIFORNIA RECALL
The Bay Area local of the Socialist Party urges voters to abstain on the referendum to recall California Governor Davis, but to fight against any attempt to eliminate the right of California voters to recall elected officials. We strongly support the right of popular recall of elected officials. We equally strongly condemn Gray Davis, who has shown himself to be not only a friend of the corporate rich, but an incompetent one at that.
The right of recall is the only chance for the people to exercise direct control over elected officials. For this reason, the recall is usually opposed by all wings of the California establishment. The media has carried numerous stories suggesting that the recall undermines democracy. Yet they devote huge amounts of space and time to the most bizarre candidates, while saying nothing about some simple modifications that could ensure a serious campaign while strengthening democracy. Diane Feinstein has announced that she may back legislation to repeal the right to recall--in order to "strengthen democracy".
The way to strengthen democracy is to fix the flaws in the recall process, Consider the representative electoral process--for example, take the 2000 presidential election, or a typical senatorial race, or most gubernatorial races. All of these are rigged in favor of the rich, the powerful, the corporate elite and those that they back. Sometimes, as in the 2000 presidential election, the undemocratic nature of major elections in the U.S. becomes evident to all. But neon will argue (at least not today) that elections should be thrown out because they're abused. Well, the same holds for the recall. The way to strengthen democracy is to improve the recall process, rather than to throw out the recall process.
We propose the following ways to make the recall more democratic: (1) Institute instant runoff; (2) Eliminate paid solicitors; (3) Require a minimum of 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot; (4) Eliminate the financial requirement for getting on the ballot; (5) Make advertising free and equally available to all qualified candidates.
As far as the current recall is concerned: while it started out as an attempted right-wing coup, initiated by right-wing talk show hosts and bankrolled by millionaire Republican Congressman and would-be governor Darrell Issa, it more and more resembles a traditional election. Issa was forced out of the race by the Republican establishment, who back a moderate Republican (Arnold Schwarzenegger). But neither the Democrats (Davis, Bustamante) nor the Republicans (Schwarzenegger, McClintock) want to examine the real causes of California's budget crisis: federal military spending and California's regressive tax structure. The Republicans don't want to restore the lost jobs and services; they want to make even deeper cuts. They don'Õt want to remove the deficit by increasing taxes on the rich; they want to mimic George Bush with tax cuts for the rich and handouts to corporations. Meanwhile, Democrats like Davis and Bustamante applaud the bloated military spending and call for soaking workers and the poor rather than the rich: for example, instead of increasing income taxes on the rich and property taxes on corporations, they call for increasing the state sales tax (which falls disproportionately on families with lower incomes).
Davis has been a rotten governor. He has made state workers and the poor the targets of his fiscal policy: he has slashed education, housing, medical, transit and other essential services across the board, laying off thousands of state workers and depriving working people and the poor of essential services. These cuts have been passed down to the county and municipal levels. Consequently, bus service has been drastically reduced in inner city areas; teacher layoffs and lack of basic materials make schools more overcrowded and more dysfunctional; tuition has been sharply increased at community colleges, state colleges, and the University of California; community health clinics have been shut down, particularly hurting poor single mothers, children, and the elderly; and on and on. Davis has handed out millions to his corporate friends, rewarding them for the campaign contributions he so openly and continually solicits.
In good conscience, we simply cannot recommend a vote in favor of Davis, and therefore we cannot and do not recommend voting no on the recall.
At the same time, it's clear that the Republicans are trying to take advantage of the flaws in the current recall process to undercut democracy. They used hired guns--paid solicitors--to get the signatures needed to put recall on the ballot. They have succeeded in keeping Davis off the gubernatorial ballot, which is patently unfair: Davis could lose the recall vote and still be the gubernatorial choice of the largest percentage of voters. Therefore, we cannot recommend voting yes on the recall.
Therefore, the Bay Area local of the Socialist Party recommends abstaining on the referendum to recall Governor Gray Davis.
It is important to keep our eyes on the big picture. We must recognize that Davis is inept, corrupt, and not to be defended. At the same time, we must also recognize that the current recall process is flawed. We must fight to broaden democracy by fixing the flaws in the recall process, and we must resist all attempts to deprive the people of California of the right to recall their elected officials.
###
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 28, 2003 1:30 PM CONTACT: Jack Gerson, Bay Area Socialist Party Local (510) 658-5520, jgerson@pacbell.net
STATEMENT ON THE OAKLAND POLICE ATTACK OF PEACEFUL PICKETLINE
The Bay Area local of the Socialist Party USA condemns the violent police attack at the Port of Oakland on a peaceful community picket line on the morning of Monday, April 7. We likewise condemn the unwarranted beatings and arrests of longshore workers and other innocent bystanders. It is urgent that these events be investigated and redressed immediately:
Drop all charges on protesters and bystanders arrested at the port on Monday morning, April 7.
Launch a full and open investigation into the behavior of the police, starting with an emergency session of the City Council. Chief Word, Mayor Brown, Manager Bobb, and police commanders in charge must be there to respond to the testimony of protesters and bystanders. The investigation must identify the perpetrators of the police violence, those that authorized it, and whether it was premeditated (why were the police in full riot gear? Why were they armed with concussion grenades, wooden bullets, etc.? Did the mayor and/or the city manager have prior knowledge? Did word come down from the federal government to keep the port clear of demonstrations?)
This matter should be taken up--now--by a session of the entire City Council. The longer a full hearing is delayed, and the more it is shunted off into committees, the more likely it is that those responsible will go unidentified and unpunished.
It is no accident that the police violence occurred on the docks. The police--and Mayor Brown--sent a clear message: hands off the port. Antiwar protesters may be allowed (limited) free speech and assembly in downtown, Grand/Lake, and Rockridge. But not on the docks; not near the big shipping companies. Demonstrators there get the same kind of brutal treatment from the Oakland PD that blacks, Latinos and other minorities face every day from the Oakland PD.
The Socialist Party calls for defending and extending basic civil liberties: in Oakland and throughout the country. These freedoms are under severe attack: by the Bush Administration with its Patriot Act, and now here in Oakland by those responsible for the April 7 police violence. Defend our civil liberties: Free the jailed protesters! Jail the perpetrators of violence! Rein in the cops--for real civilian control of the Oakland police!