Are you ready for the Special Statewide Election? Almost sounds fun doesn’t it? Another SPECIAL election and this one so soon after the last. Of course, just like us people there is nothing particularly special about this election; only because all elections are suppose to be special and important. What does make this election interesting is that it involves only initiatives, including four of which might make or break our celebrity governor’s agenda not to mention his hopes for re-election.

Now, we all understand the fundamental importance voting has as a corner stone of this thing we like to call democracy; but what I think people might forget sometimes is how crucial that role becomes when we are voting as a means of direct democracy. That is, voting on ballot propositions. Forget representatives; forget legislatures and senates; when we vote on propositions we the voters get the final say on actual law. It’s kind of refreshing and perhaps a little scary. With that said it now becomes our responsibility to inform ourselves of the pros and cons of EACH proposition and then make a thoughtful and constructive decision on Election Day. While it might be convenient to just vote “yes” on a certain Governor’s package of initiatives or likewise try to send a message by voting “no” to all of them, we all know that it would be so, so wrong. With that said, lets take a hard unbiased look at the first three propositions on the ballot. Remember that there are a total of eight props on the ballot, not just these three!

Proposition 73
Proposition 73 would amend the California Constitution to require that physicians give parents of minors 48 hour notice before performing an abortion. It does not require that physicians get parents consent, only that they notify the parent(s) or guardian. There are certain exceptions that would apply under this proposition, including minors whom are emancipated from their parents, cases involving a medical emergency and those minors who have obtained a waiver from their parents. Also, pregnant minors could request a waiver from a juvenile court, which if granted would allow them to terminate their pregnancy without their parents ever getting involved at all. A judge would have to determine if the minor was mature enough and/or that parental notification would not be in their best interest.

As for the arguments in favor of the proposition one of the most significant noted by the proponents was that potentially two-thirds of under age pregnancies were the result of sex with men of an average age of 22.6 years. The proponents argue that such acts of statutory rape and possible sexual abuse go unreported when abortions are kept private by minors. The opponents to 73 rebut with the argument that a notification law actually puts minors in danger, forcing those unwilling to notify their parents or to appear in court to seek illegal and perhaps unsafe abortions elsewhere. So, the real question at hand here remains, do parents have the right and need to know if their under age daughter is getting an abortion?

Proposition 74
Prop 74 involves teachers and the ability to dismiss them from their jobs in a more efficient manner. Under current law, new teachers remain on a probationary period for two years. At the end of the two year period school districts either choose to hire the new teachers full time, or dismiss them without a required reason. If the teachers are in fact hired after the probationary period they can only be dismissed by a specific process which includes a 30-day notice on the intention of dismissal, a formal hearing as to the reasons for dismissal and the right of a teacher to appeal the decision to the courts. Also, a 90-day period is provided to allow a teacher to improve their performance and possibly remained hired. What prop 74 would do is change the probation period from 2 years to 5 years and eliminate the 90-day period in which a teacher might improve their performance. Also, Prop 74 limits the amount of documentation required to prove that a teacher is a "bad performer". All that would be required for dismissal is two consecutive unsatisfactory evaluations from their school.

Those in favor of this proposition cite that the dismissal process for teachers is too extravagant and too expensive when it comes to removing poor performing teachers. They list approximately three instances where school districts racked up extensive legal fees and ultimately had to pay some teachers to quit. They do not provide any statistics when it comes to the amount of poor performing teachers that might exist or if school districts find that unfit teachers are holding the education process back. The opponents to 74 claim that it will not aid the performance of students and that teachers can be fired under current law. The opponents also question the wisdom behind a five year probation period when a two year period is already in place. They do not address the issue of cost associated with the current dismissal process, however. So, the question here is are poor performing teachers a rampant problem for California schools and do school districts need an easier way to fire them?

Proposition 75
Public employee union dues are at stake with prop 75; or rather, how those unions choose to spend those dues. To clarify, public employee unions include things like firefighter, police, nursing and teacher’s unions. Currently unions of this nature collect dues from all the members of a certain group, like the group consisting of all California firefighters. An individual firefighter might choose not to officially join the union, but that person must still pay a certain amount of dues to cover the collective effort that the union has over all firefighters. That is, when a union negotiates a new contract with the state even non-union members are affected by the bargaining and thus must contribute for that service. Sometimes these unions spend dues on political issues, as in a campaign against this very proposition or a candidate that the union views as unfriendly toward their cause. Under current state law it is forbidden to spend any of the dues collected from a nonmember of the union on any political purpose if that individual objects to that use of their money. To enforce this process public employee unions are required to publicly report what amounts of dues go toward political issues each year. What Proposition 75 changes in the law is that non-union members no longer must simply request that their dues do not go toward political issues, but instead requires that the unions get the individual consent from all of the members in their group before any of their dues go into a political campaign. It switches the burden of consent from the non-union members to the union as to the function dues may be used.

Those in favor of Proposition 75 claim that it is unfair for non-union members to have their dues used for political activities that they might not agree with. They claim that the political contributions that certain public employee unions have waged have resulted in the movement of a political agenda that some public employees might not agree with. The opposition to Prop 75 argues that non-union members are already protected in that they can request that their dues are not spent on political activities. As to union members they state that if the majority of the union consents to the dues and how they are spent then they are operating under a democratic system. Some members might not agree, but if they are members its only fair to go along with the majority of that group. Then the question here is in two-parts. First, are public employee unions unfairly forcing their political views on some of the members they are representing and/or are some individuals outside of these public employee unions trying to reduce the over all power that these unions have in the state?

Unfortunately, we can’t cover each of the eight propositions here in an adequate manner. If you are a registered voter you should have received a Voter Information Guide from the Secretary of State’s office. This guide is essential for anyone who plans on voting. If you haven’t got your hands on one yet, or you haven’t registered to vote yet check out The Secretary of State website at www.ss.ca.gov.