Ballot Proposition Endorsements from the Green Party of Sonoma County

Green Party of Sonoma County

Recommendations - Fall 2010 November Election

Here are some perspectives and positions on the propositions from the Sonoma Green Party.


Prop 19 - YES

Legalizes, regulates, and taxes cannabis (“marijuana” is Mexican slang for cannabis) in ways similar to how alcohol is regulated. Local governments retain some powers of discretion of how to regulate. Estimated increases in state revenues of $2-3B/yr. After 70 years, the war on “reefer madness” has clearly failed, has jailed thousands of individuals, mostly from communities of color for non-violent possession, and has increased profits and powers of murderous drug cartels. Prohibition did not work in the 1920s, isn't working now, and is creating modern mobsters. When you don’t learn from history, you’re condemned to repeat its mistakes. It's time to try a fresh, less repressive approach that saves money, creates new jobs, awareness and income for the state.


Prop 20 - YES

Every ten years after the census current law requires the party in power in California to re-draw the 53 congressional districts boundaries to make districts roughly equal in population again, according to the constitutional principle of "equal representation." The corporate sponsored parties, acting in their own self-interest, use that law as an opportunity to manipulate or "gerrymander" district lines in ways that ensure their candidates are easily elected and re-elected again and again. Computer programming and mapping have now enabled those parties to pre-determine with precision who will be elected (99.5% of the 212 CA congressional elections from '02 - '08, when only one district changed parties). Maximum electoral predictability and a lack of real electoral choices are characteristics of repressive tyranny, not a democratic republic. Prop 20 establishes a multi-lateral commission to draw district lines according to geographical considerations, maintaining compact, contiguous, towns and cities rather than chopped up, separated, bisected and divided communities for purely political power motivations.


Prop 21 - No Position

The Green Party of Sonoma County is a strong supporter of State Parks. We also support fees on automobiles to help pay for their externalized impacts and to act as a disincentive to their use. We do not like the regressive nature of this proposition, in that it imposes the same $18 fee on a working person driving a small, fuel-efficient vehicle that it imposes on an investment banker driving a large SUV. Prop 21 also creates a perverse incentive, motivating people to increase their vehicle miles by offering free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. We acknowledge that there are not a lot of options on how to travel to state parks, but that doesn’t mean that the state should incentivize driving at a time when the state is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


Prop 22 - YES

One of the ten key values of the Green Party is decentralization, which implies greater local control of resources and decision-making. Prop 22 helps to safeguard local control over local resources, in this case tax revenues. State raids on local transportation and other funds make it extremely difficult to carry out transportation and other planning.


Prop 23 - NO

Funded mostly by two large Texas-based oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, this proposition would effectively kill California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a noble first attempt at reining in the state’s greenhouse gas emissions which are about 2% of global emissions from a population that is only 0.6% of the global population.


Prop 24 - YES

Closes loopholes, ends tax write-offs, tax breaks, and tax cuts of $1.7Billion/year, recently opened and granted to the state's biggest, most profitable corporations, by our Republican and Democrat state legislators, while they cry crocodile tears for laid off teachers, firefighters and police. Who supports and who opposes this Proposition? -- Follow the money: Funding support by California Teachers Association ($2.2 million). Opposition funding by Fox Group, Time Warner, CBS, General Electric, Cisco Systems, Amgen, Walt Disney Company, and Genentech Inc.


Prop 25 - YES

The Green Party strives for consensus-seeking decision-making. When consensus cannot be reached, we seek to arrive at decisions with high voting thresholds. The purpose of this process is to make a sincere effort to hear and involve all points of view, promoting maximum inclusion in the best solution. A 2/3 vote threshold would be a good thing in the budget process in that it is a way to bring out and address all concerns in order to reach the high threshold. Unfortunately, the reality is that the high threshold has been abused for irrational reasons not based on merit, resulting in gridlock and a stranglehold on the ability of the legislature to pass the state budget in a timely manner.


Prop 26 – NO

The state legislature is currently restricted by the 2/3 requirement needed for passing new taxes. In order to get around that restriction, state lawmakers have been passing various fees, levies and surcharges that appear on consumers’ bills (e.g., utility bills). These fees only require a 50.1% threshold and are thus easier to pass. Utility companies and other corporations pass on these extra charges to consumers. Proposition 26 is an attempt by large corporations to avoid the increased costs for natural resources they extract, for airwaves they use, pollution they cause, or harm to public health they’re responsible for. It’s an abuse of supermajority thresholds for the sole purpose of protecting corporate profit.



Prop 27 - NO

Prop 27 is diametrically opposed to Prop 20 - (see above). Prop 27 was masterminded by Howard Berman (House Rep, D - LA, 28^th Dist). Berman ran unopposed in the last election in his heavily gerrymandered district. He and other incumbents try to avoid true electoral competition by promoting this Proposition which eliminates the Redistricting Commission which is dedicated to stop gerrymandering in state legislative districts, and which was approved by the voters by Prop 11 in 2008. Prop 27 tries to confuse and confound voters into voting against Prop 20 and overturning Prop 11.

Ye Gods - so the local Green Party has "no position" on an elegantly simple tax for funding our state park system. Their objections to the initiative may have some merit, but they are small tea in the larger frame. Park admission fees are just as regressive as the auto license tax, so there is no change there.

The parks are in a severe state of neglect and little or no new land is being added to the system. The only way I can see out of the current budget mess is to have a dedicated revenue stream for the parks that is outside of the general fund. The license tax does exactly that. Personally, I would favor a 1% real estate transfer tax dedicated to environmental restoration, parks and wildlife. Lots of luck with that.

While we wait forever for perfection, the parks will languish and much beautiful land will be lost to development. Usually I agree with the Greens, but really, this is too much. It reminds me again of exactly why I left the party long years ago.


Prop 21 - No Position[/SIZE][/FONT]

The Green Party of Sonoma County is a strong supporter of State Parks. We also support fees on automobiles to help pay for their externalized impacts and to act as a disincentive to their use. We do not like the regressive nature of this proposition, in that it imposes the same $18 fee on a working person driving a small, fuel-efficient vehicle that it imposes on an investment banker driving a large SUV. Prop 21 also creates a perverse incentive, motivating people to increase their vehicle miles by offering free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. We acknowledge that there are not a lot of options on how to travel to state parks, but that doesn’t mean that the state should incentivize driving at a time when the state is trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3]

Geomancer,

I wasn't involved in the decision making process for the local Green Party on proposition endorsements. I think their explanation indicates why they couldn't come to an agreement on Prop 21. I've decided to vote yes, in spite of the "encouraging everyone to drive a lot" objection.

The GPUS has many problems. But it still has the best platform and values of any party in the U.S. The reasons for the problems are many, "the lower the stakes, the more vicious the infighting", being a key dynamic. The structure of U.S. electoral law, and the way it locks out third parties being another central issue.

I will reply to Edward/Valley Oak on the other current electoral thread, in a few days. I'm trying to keep my weekend chill.

I received my sample ballot yesterday and marked my choices. In the case of governor and the Boxer/Fiorino Senate race, I'm waiting to see how things look on the day of the election. If Brown and Boxer look to have it, I'll vote Green. If they're hanging in the balance, I'll have to decide if I can hold down my revulsion, and tactically vote for them "just in case". I can't really say what my decision will be ahead of time.

Turns out I can't vote for Michael Allen for Assembly, Boo! He's solid, smart, funny, personable and committed to helping working and middle class people. I hope he wins. He's got a solid shot given the hegemony of the Democratic Party in this area.

I'm voting to reelect Wes Chesbro, because he takes good positions (he could have been more vocal about gutting correctional education and rehab last year, but he wasn't an advocate of it either) and my sister and brother-in-law have known him for at least a couple of decades, and say he's one of the good ones. They're veteran partisan "progressive" Democrats by the way.

Whitman seems to be imploding, let's hope that trend continues. What is clear is that she and Jerry are equal, in that they're both opportunistic liars. My brother once claimed, "All politicians lie, they have to, so the question is who are the ones who do it convincingly, and for the right reasons." I don't agree with my brother, but he has a point.

Finally, for today, Does anyone have information on the candidates for local school boards and the judiciary? Does any organization that I might agree with make recommendations for the various Judicial candidates? How about for the Palm Drive Hospital Board choices? For the School District, I live in Forestville.

I'm enjoying the cool, overcast day. I hope everyone else is!

any suggestions on the judicial races?
thanks susan