California Democratic Party Positions on June Propositions

[Auggie]

Proposition 13 – Yes
Provides that construction to seismically retrofit buildings will not trigger reassessment of property tax value. Sets statewide standard for seismic retrofit improvements that qualify.

Proposition 14 - No
Changes the primary election process for congressional, statewide, and legislative races. Allows all voters to choose any candidate regardless of the candidate's or voter's political party preference. Ensures that the two candidates receiving the greatest number of votes will appear on the general election ballot regardless of party preference.

Proposition 15 - Yes
Repeals ban on public funding of political campaigns. Creates a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant. There would be strict enforcement and accountability.

Proposition 16 - No
Requires two-thirds voter approval before local governments provide electricity service to new customers or establish a community choice electricity program using public funds or bonds.

Proposition 17 - No
Permits companies to reduce or increase cost of insurance depending on whether driver has a history of continuous insurance coverage.

ON EDIT: Forgot the link: http://www.cadem.org/atf/cf/{BF9D7366-E5A7-41C3-8E3F-E06FB835FCCE}/EndorsementsJune2010_Rev.pdf

-----------------

Rather straightforward, I would say.

[Greyskye]

1. Can anyone explain to me why NO on Prop 14 is a good thing for voters?

I can understand why the party feels this way; but I'm not sure I agree.

[Auggie]

2. I see it as allowing for the organized effort of one political party

to try to vote out the stronger candidate of the opposing party.

[KamaAina]

4. Oddly, that was the objection raised to the open primary system

at the forum last Saturday mentioned in post 3.

Prop 14 would NOT establish an open primary. An open primary, as used in 21 states, would, for instance, allow me to show up at the polls on Primary Day and ask for a repuke ballot. Why, you ask, would I want to do this (other than to create mischief, as you suggest)? Well, suppose my Dem assemblymember is running unopposed -- but the repuke primary is contested between a relatively moderate repuke (this being Silicon Valley, they are still occasionally to be found) and a full-scale, knuckle-dragging, homophobic, racist teabagger. I have an interest in voting (R) to make sure the teabagger doesn't make it to the general ballot.

[KamaAina]

3. I was just discussing Prop 14 on Saturday

with a minor-party candidate for Secretary of State who is dead set against it (so much so, in fact, that she ended up leaving our table after a heated dispute with the moderator!) Her objections:

http://www.stoptoptwo.org

Basically, she feels that Prop 14 would establish a Louisiana-style system (and bear in mind that the "jungle primary" system is no longer allowed in Federal elections there, thanks to a civil rights lawsuit), with the added burden of a six-month wait between the June primary and the Nov ember general election, in which only the top two candidates get to campaign (write-ins wouldn't even be allowed!).

[Auggie]

5. Got it. That is a much clearer (and correct) explanation. Thank you.

[hypocrisyandlies]

7. That's how I understand it, too.

The two people with the most votes after primaries, regardless of their party, would be the ONLY people on the ballot in November. Meaning that third party representatives would probably never show up on the November ballots.

[truedelphi]

9. Thank you for all this information.

My household is voting No! You and your information are part of the reason why.

[Nikki Stone1]

6. Thanks for posting

Anything on LA?

[Auggie]

8. K