Here's further evidence of the dysfunctional way California's ballot proposition system works: The first initiative to qualify for the February 5, 2008, primary ballot is there by mistake.
Cosmo Garvin of the Sacramento-based Capitol Weekly lays out the whole complicated mess in a March 28 story. The gist of it is that the California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of construction companies and building trades unions, ginned up the initiative last year to stop the state from dipping into gas tax revenue that's supposed to be dedicated to transportation and using it for other purposes. The group gathered thousands of signatures to get its measure on the ballot.
In the meantime, the Legislature came up with its own measure, weaker than the Alliance wanted but acceptable to them. They pulled back on their own initiative and backed Proposition 1A, which voters approved in November.
But some signatures had been delivered to the state for verification, as a backup in case the compromise went sideways. And guess what? They were enough to qualify the measure for the ballot.
So now the Alliance is in the position of having to write the argument against their own initiative next February. What a system.
I find it hypocritical for the Bee to bash the proposition system.It has been the mothers milk of all the whacky crap that is sending California into a tailspin and the Bee has championed most of the lunacy.The Bee helped nuke Arnold's props in the special election that would have put a small degree of sanity into the mix.Or did you forget?
Actually, The Bee supported part of the governor's agenda, including redistricting reform, in the special election But we have long lamented problems created by legislating through propositions. Even if the cause is a good one, the proposition language doesn't get vetted through a hearing process. That leaves it vulnerable to legal challenge and unintended consequences. We would prefer the legislators and governor do their jobs and solve problems through the legislative process.
I'm not sure I understand the logic of Mr. Murray's complaint. He calls the Bee hypocritical for criticizing the state proposition scheme while supporting some individual propositions. Yet he then offers his own criticism of the proposition system ("mother's milk of all the whacky crap"), then turns around and criticizes the Bee for not supporting some individual propositions.
If that makes the Bee hypocritical, what does it make Mr. Murray?
Mike, you are right. It is an opinion that on its face is contradictive. Jim is right. The Bee did support redistricting reform.My apologies.Do you actually have an opinion on propositions and the direction of our state? None of the ones that make sense ever seem to make it.Propositions that is.
I think we may actually have a consensus on this issue. I agree with you, Russ and Jim that while some individual propositions have merit, the system itself is flawed, and has harmed the state in the past and may harm it again in the future.
Of course, we probably would disagree on which individual propositions are good and which ones are bad.