.Proposition Pop Quiz

Perception doesn't always equal reality with state ballot measures.

Depending on whom you ask, state ballot measures can be tools of populist reform, the means by which lobbyists with paid signature gatherers usurp the legislature, or an easy way for spineless politicians to avoid voting on dicey bills during an election cycle. But one thing is indisputable: The measures themselves are often so complex, confusing, and even downright deceptive that it’s hard to know what you’re voting on.

Thus, our prop pop quiz: We ambushed several commuters outside an East Bay BART station and had them read a ballot initiative and decipher what they thought it meant. No, not the quickie summaries or the exclamation-point-laden “pro” and “con” arguments — we made them chew through the actual proposition texts printed conveniently and microscopically at the end of the voter information pamphlet. Behold the result.

Proposition 62 — Primary Elections

Ben Bush, telemarketer, Oakland

It’s an open primary initiative, so even though I’m a registered Democrat I could vote Republican in the primary. That seems to be the gist of it. You would still only get to vote for one candidate. You don’t get to, like, vote for the Republican and the Democrat and the Green. It’s hard to say whether or not it seems like a good idea. It seems like sort of a substitute for runoff voting. It’s got ballot propaganda built into it where it’s saying how great Prop. 62 is more than it’s talking about anything about it.

Alexis Crist, office assistant, Piedmont

[It says] basically that you could vote in a primary like in the Republican primary even if you weren’t registered as Republican or the Democratic primary if you weren’t registered as Democrat. It was also trying to increase voter turnout. I don’t really know how it would do that, but it kept on saying that it would.

The reality
Prop. 62 is a little more complicated than a “blanket primary” or “open primary” system, which lets voters select their favorite candidate regardless of party affiliation. But the confusion is understandable — voters approved such a system in 1996 under Prop. 198, but it was tossed in 2000 after the state Supreme Court ruled blanket primaries unconstitutional.

As is, California primary voters must vote within their party in partisan races, and each party’s winner advances to the general election. Under Prop. 62, voters could cast a ballot for any candidate in partisan primary races — the presidential race is exempt — and the two top vote-getters, regardless of party, would advance to November. That means two Dems or two Republicans could face off in the general election. Third parties are unlikely to make it that far.

Proposition 60 — Primary Elections

Luqman Rashada, filing clerk, Oakland

It just said to give everybody an equal chance. That’s what I get from it.

Q: Do you mean to give the candidates an equal chance? Or the voters?

Well, wait, is this about the voters or the candidate? Hmmm. I’m confused.

Katherine Palau, English teacher, Oakland

My assumption is that this has to do with you don’t have to be a Republican or Democratic candidate. These are partisan offices, which mean that you are either one party or another, right? But it’s whoever gets the highest number of votes, and if they were of the Green Party then they should be on the ballot. Is that right? I’m confused.

Q: If a student handed this in, what would you say?

I would say, “Vague and convoluted; what are you talking about?”

Isaac Lipfert, telecom worker, Oakland (no picture available)

It’s very simple, actually. It’s saying any political party that participates in the primary election, which to my understanding is only the Democrats and the Republicans, has the right to participate in the general election. Oh! Now I’m looking at it and it says, “A political party that is participating in the primary election for a partisan office has the right to participate in the general election for that office.” Why would there be a primary election for a partisan office and then a general election for a partisan office? Presumably there must have been some sort of reason for this to come up. So maybe I don’t actually understand it.

The reality
Prop. 60 is essentially a trick question. It merely proposes, in complex terms, to keep the election system exactly as is. Opponents deride the measure as a “poison pill” built to counteract Prop. 62 if it passes; supporters say it will ensure that each party gets a chance to duke it out in November.

Proposition 64 — Business Lawsuits

Svea Vezzone, art gallery exhibit director, Berkeley

It looks like it’s just restricting fraudulent declarations on filing lawsuits in the business place. Or maybe that your lawyer can’t lie for you.

Maria Gabriela Cajina, student, Oakland

It has to be a serious offense in a business or in some position in which you want to create a lawsuit and that it is necessary. Because it’s bad for us to have so many lawsuits, it’s costing us so much money for courts and paying everything. It’s like, “Be aware and be serious in your lawsuit — don’t just give us something petty.”

The reality
This proposition’s intent becomes clearer once you realize who its backers are. Anyone can currently file a lawsuit alleging that a company violated state laws prohibiting fraudulent or unlawful business acts, even if he or she is not personally or financially harmed by those violations. Prop. 64 would allow only the state Attorney General or public prosecutors to file such lawsuits on behalf of the public, and they would have to show that their clients were personally injured or suffered a material loss. Lawsuits filed by private attorneys would have to meet the more-stringent requirements for class-action suits.

Supporters say Prop. 64 will protect small businesses from frivolous “shakedown” lawsuits; opponents say it protects giant corporations from being sued over environmental, public health, and consumer protection issues — they point out that its financial backers include Bank of America, Microsoft, and Blue Cross of California, all of which have been sued under the unfair competition law.

Proposition 71 — Stem Cells

Vincent Wiley, welder, Oakland

I think it’s supposed to establish a bond to establish funds for stem-cell research, to form an institute that’s supposed to regulate with the bonds where the money went and what the research is supposed to be about. It’s supposed to establish some kind of board with elected members. I think it said it would not research cloning.

Tara W., Emeryville, dental technician (no picture available)

First they’re talking about enacting a bond for stem-cell research by establishing an institute, but then at the same time they’re talking about funding other scientists from other places. So the money is going to two separate places. They don’t know whether or not to make an institute dedicated to this, or if they’re going to fund the scientists already here to do the research. Or are they going to have the scientists move from where they’re doing the research at and have them go to one central area? I know they mentioned the scientists. They talked about an institute. [long pause] And then they was talking about … maybe I did misread it and it didn’t say nothing about scientists.

Parviz Yaz, florist, El Sobrante

The government has to fund $295 million per year for stem-cell research.

Q: Does it say what kind of science it will support, like cloning or research for certain diseases?

Just for certain diseases: HIV, AIDS, and other stuff.

Q: Does it tell you anything about how long the law will last?

I guess it will last forever. I think so. I don’t know how long.

The reality
We cheated: Since Prop. 71 is eight pages long, we just had people read the introductory first page. This prop would issue up to $3 billion in bonds over ten years and establish an institute to fund research on human embryonic stem cells, undifferentiated cells derived from an early embryo that can theoretically be induced to grow into any type of tissue. Ultimately, researchers hope, these cells can be cultivated to replace body tissues damaged by diseases and accidents. Its backers, largely medical researchers and patient advocacy groups, say the research supported by this initiative could improve life for millions of people and save billions in future health-care costs.

Opponents include some progressive groups and women’s rights advocates who say they support stem-cell research, but insist Prop. 71 is the wrong way to go. They call it a cash grab that mainly benefits the drug companies and venture capitalists backing it. Although the institute it creates would be governed by an “Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee,” opponents say its backers’ list of prospective appointees is stacked with reps from medical research universities, biotech companies, and patient advocacy groups — hardly neutral parties — and that the government would be prohibited from overseeing how the funds are spent.

Procedurally speaking, Prop. 71 does have some unusual provisions: It would amend the state constitution to create a “right to conduct stem-cell research,” and bar any changes to the law until three years after it passes. After that, any amendments would require a 70 percent supermajority of the legislature, and support of the governor.

As far as science fiction goes, Prop. 71 funding could not be used for attempts to clone a person, but the law would fund researchers using “somatic cell nuclear transfer” — the technique that brought us Dolly the sheep — to create cloned embryos from which stem cells can be derived. Critics claim this will lead to human reproductive engineering. Too late: The technique has been legal in California since the fall of 2002. This law would simply fund the work — and rather generously so.

Proposition 72 Employer Health-Care Coverage

Jason Manuel, bohemian, Oakland

It sounded like they’re trying to make another health-care plan available to people who aren’t exactly happy with the health-care plan they have through their employers, and making it available to people regardless of income or tax bracket.

Q: Does it tell you anything about who will run the plan?

It doesn’t say anything like that. It just says that there’s an alternative if people need it.

Gwenyth Tripp, artist, Oakland

It would create a system whereby employers would pay a user fee to the state in order to provide health insurance for people who don’t otherwise have health insurance.

Q: Does that apply to all employers?

Any employer, unless they provide proof of health coverage.

The reality
Originally passed as a Senate bill, it was set to take effect this year, but was then put on hold because of a state referendum. Now the bill will take effect only if voters approve Prop. 72. The initiative would increase the number of Californians who get health bennies through their employer.

Starting in 2006, businesses with two-hundred-plus employees would have to make a choice: provide a private plan for workers and their dependents, or buy into a state-run plan funded by the private employers. The businesses would pay 80 percent of the fee, and workers would pay the balance. In 2007, the law would expand to include companies with 50 to 199 employees, but the insurance would not extend to workers’ families.

Prop. 72’s critics say it is too expensive, calling it a “health tax” on employers. They worry that workers with private coverage may lose benefits if their employer switches to the state’s plan, or that it will create a “government-run” health-care system. Supporters counter that it will extend health benefits to as many as 1.1 million uninsured people, including part-time workers, and that it won’t mandate a government-run system — it will merely set standards for coverage and how much employers must pay.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

East Bay Express E-edition East Bay Express E-edition
19,045FansLike
14,592FollowersFollow
61,790FollowersFollow
spot_img