By Geeta Padmanabhan

With Mamata Banerjee and Jayalalitha being sworn in chief ministers, nearly 380 million or 30% of the population will be governed by women [include UP under Mayavathi and Delhi under Sheila Dikshit]. It’s interesting that for decades women have been asking for a bill allowing 33% reservation of parliament seats for women. Life’s little irony!

Of the two results – in W. Bengal and Tamil Nadu – it was the one in Tamil Nadu that sprang a big surprise. News channels were way off the mark when they predicted anything from a DMK victory to a narrow lead for Jaya’s ADMK in assembly numbers. Just goes to show how these “scientific” polls done in AC-ed computer rooms and among a mere 6000 respondents are complete duds. The drivers, hawkers, maids and industrial workers were sure – amma would come back. They were worried about just one thing – the counting could be rigged. “She will win,” my maid said emphatically. “But a month between polling and counting… that worries me.”

Yet, the numbers are a surprise – 203/234. In all the interviews and analyses we were subjected to, it is Jaya alone who believed in these numbers. “My alliance will get over 200 seats,” she said, and one could see the interviewer smirking. I wonder where she is now – the interviewer, I mean.

So, how did the comeback queen, well, come back?

[1] Her campaign. She organised a youth wing, issued cards to them, asked them to find their own leaders. Once that got through, every week, she asked party leaders to organise street corner meetings in every town, every district. These were done from open trucks at public places and included all these new members. This was the training ground for the new recruits on how to reach out to the people. The speeches were meticulously written – by herself – describing local problems and attacking the local governments. These protests were recorded and broadcast on her Jaya TV and drew large audiences.

[2] In the month preceding the poll date she stormed the state – in a vehicle that dramatically opened at the top. One could hear audible gasps among the public when she emerged from the opening seated under a canopy. Tamil Nadu loves opening scenes; when the actor appears in the movie, he/she is greeted with whistles and applause.

[3] In every one of her election speeches she talked of the state – the state of the economy and law and order. She had stats to show how the power production had gone down, how the state debt had risen, how sand and granite were being mined illegally, how the prices had risen, the free rice was being sold in neighbouring states, rounding it off with the thundering announcement that in the middle of all this, the first family managed to prosper. She connected the “family’s” biz interests to why they were soft on Sri Lankan Tamils’ plight, to the Cauvery issue with Karnataka. It did help that she was once a very popular actor.

[4] She protested relentlessly, to the Election Commissioner. She explained how elections had been rigged in the past, how money got distributed, how the counting could go wrong, and what she wanted done. Amazingly, every one of her requests got accepted.

[5] She made a strategic alliance with another actor’s party – DMDK. The party had a 10% vote share in the previous election – a share that was cast against the ruling DMK. She gave them the 41 seats they demanded and kept for herself enough numbers to form her own government. “The people of Tamil Nadu will not like a coalition government,” she explained. Vijaykant (DMDK) too, saw the benefit of this alliance – he wanted DMK ouster and presence for himself in the assembly. The handshake paid off very handsomely for him. With 27+ seats now DMDK is the second largest party in the assembly and Vijaykant could be the leader of the opposition!

[6] Jaya knew that the last assembly elections were won because of the promise of freebies. Going for something free is deeply ingrained in the Tamil psyche- or why do shops announce “commissions” in gold buying! Even when you buy veggies you expect free sprigs of curry and coriander leaves – the “kosuru” without which no householder will pay the vendor! She waited for the DMK to announce the freebies, and doubled everything – they promised money, she promised gold. They promised free power, she promised cows and goats as well. Result: the “freebie” lure got neutralised.

[7] She put the 2G spectrum issue to the forefront by offering to support the central government unconditionally. Speaking calmly and in perfectly measured tones and with excellent diction she told a TV channel that she would see to it that the government did not fall if Raja got arrested and the DMK withdrew support. If she were seen as a crusader against corruption, could the Congress afford to lag behind? Raja was put behind bars and the spectrum issue became everyday conversation.

[8] She got help from NGOs. Several organisations went around campaigning against corruption – they printed booklets explaining the spectrum case, about land grabbing, environmental disasters coming out of the frenzy of building, about heritage sites being damaged by the Metro Rail project. I don’t know when a vast majority of people got educated on complex issues so thoroughly before elections.

[9] Tamil Nadu has a high percentage of educated voters. That may be because here politicos see education as business and any number of schools and engineering colleges are run using political profits. The young educated demographic know what is going on, and what to do.

[10] Jaya used her TV’s reach very well. [Did she hire a good PR firm?] In a series of talk shows, her anchors discussed economic issues in the state with experts, the spectrum case with all the players involved in TN and at the centre.

So it was all hard work and strategy. To dismiss the victory as the “people’s habit of seeking change” is to overlook the many pixels in the picture.

Jayalalitha has a very difficult task ahead “putting the administration back on rails”. We can only wish her the best. And hope she will set aside temptations of vendetta and concentrate on her mandated job.

Related posts:

1. Yeh Maya Hai Writes Geeta Padmanabhan -If there’s one thing that is predictable...
2. Winds of Change: 5 states in India go to the polls tomorrow Writes Geeta Padmanabhan - The excitement is palpable. Election results...
3. People Power Writes Geeta Padmanabhan -If you are a retiree in India...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Geeta Padmanabhan

The excitement is palpable. Election results in the five states that went to polls are to be announced tomorrow – Friday the thirteenth. These elections, though in just five states out of the 29, were remarkable for many reasons.

In Dr. Qureshi, the country has a Chief Election Commissioner who believes in the rule of law – specially election rules of law. Like the grinning assassin, he smilingly went about supporting state chief electoral officers after demanding from them the strictest adherence to rules of conducting elections. What followed was nothing short of thorough education – for both the politicos and the public – on how elections should be conducted. The “model code of conduct” unfolded and was implemented, leaving us speechless. No wall graffiti, the State Chief Electoral Officer said, and white-washed those that got painted in the night. No street meetings blocking traffic, he said and sent the police to stop them. No buntings, no billboards, no convoys of politicians choking the roads, he said. The only avenue left to campaign was on a single vehicle and by going door-to-door, the old-fashioned way.

Flying squads could be called when party “functionaries” were caught distributing cash or kind. Distribution did not get stopped altogether, but news of capture of cash and freebies got splashed in the press, bad press! In one raid, Rs.5 crore was detected and deposited with the I-T department. In another, a book with names of the recipients neatly ticked off was taken away.

“People are not being allowed to do legitimate business,” said the ruling party. “Show documents for the cash and take it back,” said the electoral officer. “The district magistrates are harassing people,” said the ruling party. “They are strictly following our orders,” said the EO. “The government cannot carry on its business,” said the CM. “During elections, the government should remain suspended,” retorted the EO. “There is no colour, no conviviality this election,” said a union minister. “Elections are serious business,” said the EO. A union minister and a local bigwig assaulted a videographer and the revenue officer accompanying him (appointed to shoot pictures of cash transfers) and the revenue official promptly filed a case. The RO’s driver was murdered and the poor RO withdrew his FIR giving a different version of the scuffle. The case should be dismissed, said the union minister. “No,” said the court. “We are dealing with the first case. You can appeal again for the second case separately.” Ha.

The results will be announced tomorrow. History could be made if

[1] Mamata Banerjee wins West Bengal breaking the 33-year reign of a democratically elected communist government. This could leave the communist party with minimum presence in Indian governance.

[2] Jayalalitha comes back to power in Tamil Nadu. A lot of the underhand dealings of the last five years will come to light. The factions within the first family will be exposed. The equation between the Congress and the DMK will change. It will also put an end to freebie politics. Hopefully, sand/granite mining and land-grabbing will ebb. About the progress of the 2G spectrum case, can it be stopped now?

[3] If the left front comes back in Kerala. This state has always gone in for a change – that chain will be broken and the present chief minister’s credibility will be proven beyond doubt.

The winds of change are blowing elsewhere as well.

In J&K, for the first time in many decades a Kashmiri Pandit woman has been elected Sarpanch in a Muslim dominated area. Is this a beginning of integration?

In Andhra Pradesh, tribal women chased the MLA away (they threw mud on him) for not supporting them in their efforts to stop clay quarrying by private operators.

At the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, students refused to take the degree certificates (they stood and protested) when Union Minister for Environment came to deliver the convocation address. They didn’t want him to clear the Jaitapur nuclear project.

In Chennai, a small group of activists stopped sand quarrying at the Adyar estuary by quoting the rules and High Court judgments to the officials. The river was dug up in the night by a private operator with a bulldozer, but the officials have promised to restore the river.

The action will soon shift to the banning of Endosulfan nationwide. The Kerala chief minister has been actively campaigning for the ban. The infamous union minister for environment has made a statement that Endosulfan is not all that dangerous (he actually said it, guess he hasn’t seen the photographs of what it did at Kasargod in Kerala!) but the protests loom ahead.

Compare all this with Newt Gingrich’s announcement of his candidacy for next Presidential race and his ha-ha reason why he strayed from marriage. Dishwater!

Related posts:

1. The Last Word Writes a disgruntled voter - On a day when stock...
2. Working at the polls: California Primary – June 3rd By Vidya Pradhan What is the sound of ballot papers...
3. The Third Front Writes Geeta Padmanabhan - The Third Front is a wedding...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

At first glance, this seems reasonable. After all, why give illegal immigrants a reward for their behavior.  Even people with somewhat liberal proclivities have confessed to thinking this is not such a bad idea. But, apart from the history behind the reason for the Amendment in the first place ( see Wikipedia article here) this is a pretty bad idea.

I wasn’t quite able to explain coherently why, but the Intertubes came to the rescue, as usual. In a blog post in Swampland (the Time magazine blog) blogger Kate Pickert asks these questions, which provide a great deal of clarity to the debate. Read and realize, as I did, the consequences of revoking the 14th Amendment

If their U.S.-born children wouldn’t become automatic citizens, would illegal immigrants choose not to have children in America? Would revoking this American right under our current Constitution actually really change anything on the ground? Hospitals that now care for undocumented immigrant women would most certainly still do so, even if their babies were similarly illegal. Would states, which control their own schools, disallow non-citizens from attending? What would be the social consequences of having an entire generation of these children grow up in the U.S. without being educated? What if a child was born to an undocumented father and a U.S. citizen mother? What about an undocumented mother and a citizen father? How do you prove this? Will the federal government require paternity tests before granting citizenship?

The central question that comes to mind is – do we really want an uneducated, unemployable sub-class of citizens a generation from now? And just imagine the bureaucracy ( and, consequently, money) involved in determining who can be a citizen and who cannot. For people who decry big government and want no part of any kind of governmental intrusion in their lives, this is a pretty big hypocrisy.

Related posts:

1. Obama vs. MCain – Immigration By Vidya Pradhan  Despite the usual campaign rhetoric on immigration...
2. Presidential Candidates’ position on issues- Immigration By Rohini Mohan  With all the hype over the presidential...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Results Update: Money power prevailed on Tuesday as the candidates deep pockets won. But Prop 16, which had an early lead, ended up being defeated. Scroll down for results.

It is a measure of our relative levels of peace and prosperity that we are so apathetic about voting, especially in primaries. That, and California’s horrendous habit of putting everything up to public referenda, abdicating the legislature’s responsibility to the voters. No wonder voters typically close their eyes (and minds) and blindly vote no on everything. Or stay home.

The trouble is, if you, as an informed voter, choose to stay out of the election process, then you hand over an enormous amount of power to the crazies on the fringe (one reason why the Tea Party is such a potent threat is that THEY VOTE!!!)

So go vote on Tuesday and here’s a quick primer to help you make up your mind on the various propositions and candidates up on the ballot.

PROPOSITIONS

Summary

Proposition 13 – Vote YES. Result: YES
Proposition 14 – Vote YES  Result: YES
Proposition 15 – Vote YES  Result: NO
Proposition 16 – Vote NO    Result: NO
Proposition 17 – Vote NO   Result: NO

Proposition 13- Voting Yes makes it easier for builders, developers, and property owners to make earthquake retrofits to their property without worrying that the retrofits will raise the value of the property and therefore, property tax.

Voting No preserves the status quo.

VOTE YES.

See, that was an easy one. You do want buildings in California to be safer, right?
Back to top

Proposition 14 – Voting Yes changes the primary process for a bunch of state positions, including Governor, and national positions, including Senators and Congress representatives. Basically, all voters would have all candidates on the ballot, and instead of the Democratic Party winner duking it out with the Republican Party winner in November, it would be the top two vote getters. In theory, you could have 2 Democratic candidates or 2 Republican candidates squaring off the in the general elections.

In theory this sounds rather nice, because we have seen how primaries can make even reasonable candidates tack hard left or hard right as they try to appeal to their base in the primaries. This way, you’d probably have candidates try to stay centrist in their positions in order to attract as many voters of either party.

In practice, the party affiliations would still show up on the ballot, so registered members of each party are probably going to vote along party lines anyway. And the successful candidates are usually the ones with the most money.

Still, I like the prospect of having candidates trying to appeal to a wider audience than the extreme elements of their base, even if it means that in today’s gerrymandered districts one party could get completely shut out of the general election. (Yes, you could have Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore vying for Senator and then you can stay home!). Third party candidates have been complaining that they will be shut out of the ballot process in November, but when did they have a chance anyway.

I am inclined to VOTE YES.
Back to top

Proposition 15 – Voting Yes on this proposition lifts the ban on public funding for political campaigns. It also establishes a public funding system for the Secretary of State position. You might call this a trial balloon for future public funding for other legislative races. Here’s how it will hopefully play out:

Once this proposition goes through, a system of public funding will be established for the Secretary of State position. Funds for this system will not come from taxpayers; rather, a higher fee on lobbyists and voluntary contributions will create the capital fund. Candidates eligible for public funding will have to prove they are serious contenders by collecting a certain number of signatures. They also prohibited from spending any more money than they are allotted.

If this works out, other legislative races have the option of going for public funding, since the ban has been lifted by this proposition.

This measure also expires in 2019, so we will have time to see how it works in 2014 and 2018.

Absolutely VOTE YES. Any step that moves us towards public campaign finance is a welcome step.
Back to top

Proposition 16- Have you seen any ad urging you to “Vote No” for this proposition? No? Didn’t think so. This proposition has been bankrolled and shamelessly promoted by PG&E, whose massive ad budget has simply drowned out the opposition.

Voting Yes on this proposition means that local governments would need approval from two-thirds of the voters before they can use alternative means of providing electricity services to their constituents. Since PG&E pretty much has a monopoly on electricity services at this time, and getting a two-thirds vote on anything is pretty much impossible, this is nothing but a blatant attempt to preserve the monopoly.

PG&E has been putting up really misleading ads that this is about our “Right to Vote,” but requiring an absolute majority is a subversion of the democratic process, and leads to minority rule, as can be seen from the gridlock in the U.S. Senate over the last year with filibuster threats by the Republicans for every little initiative.
Also, many townships with independent electricity contracts, like Palo Alto, currently have much lower electricity rates and this measure would make it much more expensive for them to expand service to new homeowners.

This is a bad proposition put up by a greedy power company. Opponents have not had any money to put up a spirited campaign so it up to us to educate ourselves and defeat it.

VOTE NO!!!
Back to top

Proposition 17 – Voting Yes changes insurance law to allow companies to penalize or reward drivers based on whether they have had continuous insurance coverage or now, regardless of which company they had coverage with. Supposedly, a surcharge to switch coverage is eliminated, and discounts can be offered by insurance companies if the driver maintains continuous coverage.

However, currently drivers in California do not pay a surcharge to switch companies. So this proposition’s claim to remove the surcharge is redundant. However, this proposition does add penalties for coverage lapse. If there was any period of time of 91 days or more in the last five years where you did not pay an insurance premium, you could be hit with heavy penalties, even if your driving record is blemish free or even if you never had a car.
Prop 17 is almost completely funded by Mercury insurance. Enough said.

VOTE NO.

CANDIDATES:

Governor

Republican: Steve Poizner. Supports gay rights, abortion rights. Fiscal conservative. Hard-working insurance commissioner. Result: Meg Whitman blew Poizner out of the water.
Democratic: Jerry Brown. Result: Jerry Brown comfortably.

US Senator

Republican: Tom Campbell. Supports gay rights, gun control and abortion rights. Fiscal conservative. Result: Carly Fiorina won by a big margin.
Democrat: Barbara Boxer. Result: Boxer.

Attorney General

Democrat: Kamala Harris. Smart, competent, female. What’s not to like? Result: Harris
Republican: Steve Cooley, Harris’ counterpart in Southern California. Result: Cooley

Mercifully, Orly Taitz, who, unbelievably, was contesting for Secretary of State, lost. For full results see here.

Picture courtesy Theresa Thomson via Creative Commons.

Related posts:

1. Working at the polls: California Primary – June 3rd By Vidya Pradhan What is the sound of ballot papers...
2. Results of propositions on the ballot in California Here are the results of the propositions on the ballot...
3. California Special Election – Propositions on the ballot The peculiarity of California is that the state constitution places...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

If, like me, you’ve been following the HCR drama with great interest but little understanding, here is a graphic representation of what reform is going to mean for the country courtesy The Wonk Room.

What next for passage of the HCR Act? The house bill and the senate bill have to be merged in conference and the resulting bill will have to be approved once again by both bodies before it goes to the President for his signature.

The Wonk Room, once again, looks at the difference between the bills and suggests improvements that can be added in the merging process here.

Related posts:

1. What will Health Care Reform mean for you? Ignore the nonsense you've been reading about death panels and...
2. Yes We Can At long last, a developed country has agreed that access...
3. Obama vs. McCain – Health Care By Vidya Pradhan  Health care has always been the domain...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Californian budget process has always been a mess. Faced with an unprecedented financial crisis, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democratically-controlled State Legislature passed an austerity budget in February that closed California’s $42 billion shortfall through a combination of cuts to social services and education, and tax hikes.

The peculiarity of California is that the state constitution places an extraordinary burden on voters to make legislative decisions. Some of the budget measures passed by Sacramento have to be voted on by the electorate in order for them to take full effect. On Tuesday, voters will head to the ballot box to decide the fate of Propositions 1A through 1F.

Despite an aggressive push by the governor, turnout is expected to be low even though these propositions directly and immediately affect Californian residents and impact the ratings of California state bonds. If you are a registered voter and have not yet cast your vote, I urge you to read through the following information and make the trip to your polling place tomorrow.

Here is a summary of my recommendations on the various propositions on the ballot in November.

Proposition 1A – Vote YES
Proposition 1B – Vote YES
Proposition 1C – Vote YES
Proposition 1D – Vote YES
Proposition 1E – Vote YES
Proposition 1F – Vote YES

Proposition 1A – This measure changes the state budgeting practices. In a complicated way it attempts to do the following -

- Increase the size of the “Rainy Day” fund: This makes it possible for the legislature to divert more funds from the General Fund into a reserve when revenues are good. The idea is to stabilize the spending over lean and good years. The state would look at historic trends in revenue and when the current year’s revenue went over those trends the money would have to be put in the reserve fund.

- Spending out of the reserve fund would be restricted to certain causes.  If Prop 1B passes some of the reserve fund would go to education to ameliorate some of the cuts to K-12 spending this year. After spending on education or if Prop 1B fails those funds would be used to pay down debt or spending on infrastructure.

- The Governor gets the authority to make further spending cuts without legislative approval on two matters – spending on general state operations and cost-of-living adjustments to programs in the budget( not salaries.)

- State tax increases that were put in place in February would not expire in 2010-2011 but would continue till 2012-2013.

Arguments: Opponents argue that the proposition is full of loopholes and there was not enough transparency in the drafting process. They also suggest that this measure gives the Governor too much power to cut spending, even in good years. However, the status quo has hardly been working for California. Any attempt to even out revenues over good and bad years can only be beneficial to residents. Also the emphasis on restoring funding to education outof the reserve fund has this mother of two cheering.

My opinion: VOTE YES.

Back to top

Proposition 1B: Currently, Proposition 98 establishes a minimum funding level for education. However, loopholes in the law allow for the minimum funding to be calculated by a different formula if revenues are low. The legislature can also override Prop 98 in bad years and provide less than is required by law. When spending is less than mandated, a future obligation (called a “Maintenance factor obligation” ) is created to provide those funds. As of now, this obligation is around $1.4 billion.

Prop 1B allows for the creation of a “Supplemental Education” obligation of $9.3 billion starting 2011-2012. Funds for these come from Prop 1A. These payments are supposed to take care of the Maintenance Factor Obligation that will keep increasing for the next couple of years becaue of the cuts in education spending.

Arguments: The measure does not deal with the underlying problems in Maintenance Factor Obligation calculation or the ability of the legislature to override prop 98. What it does is restore some of the cuts that have been made this year in education, with payments starting in 2011-2012. The idea is that some money will be diverted to the “Rainy Day” fund under Prop 1A and can be used for education in the future.

It is not a well-written law but provides for immediate help ( even if it starts 2 years from now!) to schools and community colleges providing Prop 1A passes.

My opinion: VOTE YES.

Back to top

Proposition 1C: Changing the state’s operation of the lottery. Under current law, 50% of the state’s lottery revenues have to go back as prizes and spend no more than 16% on operating expenses. 34% of the funds go to educational institutions ( a very small part of overall education funding). Funds cannot be used for any other purposes.

This measure allows the state to give away a higher percentage to winners ( presumably to attract more lottery revenues), reduce the operating expenses to 13% and no longer dedicate the remaining funds to education( the shortfall would be made up from the General Fund).

More importantly, the measure would allow the state to borrow against future profits from the lottery, upto $5 billion of which is already in the state’s budget right now. The borrowing would be paid off by future lottery profits.

Arguments: This measure does not impact education funding as the shortfall is supposed to be made up by the General fund. In a time of financial crisis, this is a simple way to get some much needed funds right away against the hope that the economy will improve in future years. The success of the measure hinges on the improvement in lottery ticket sales due to the higher payout.

My opinion: VOTE YES.

Back to top

Proposition 1D: Protects Children’s Services funding and helps balance the state budget. There is a law on the books ( Proposition 10) that allows for diverting a portion of tobacco taxes towards the First % program that deals with development programs for children up to the age of 5. The funds go to state and county commissions every year and any unspent amount is carried over to the next year.

As it happens the commissions are sitting on an unspent fund of about $2.5 billion which as of now cannot be used for any purpose other than the First 5 program.  What this new proposition does is allow for a temporary redirection of these unspent funds to other state health and human services for young children that do not fall under the First 5 program. This ensures that those vital services don’t get cut at a time of economic uncertainty.
Arguments: The biggest argument against this proposition is that it diverts money from the First 5 program. However, since these are unspent funds that the various commissions are sitting on, there is no reason why these funds cannot be used right away in other places where they are needed. This is also a temporary measure whose effects will disappear after 2013-2014.

My opinion: VOTE YES

Back to top

Proposition 1E: Temporary reallocation for Mental Health Services funding. Helps balance state budget. Currently, Proposition 63, also known as the Mental Health Services Act, provides state funding for mental health programs through an income tax surcharge of 1% of income over $1 million. The funds are used for a variety of mental health services such as care, education and early intervention and cannot be reduced or diverted as the law stands now.

The new proposition allows for temporary redirecting ( 2009-10 and 2010-11) of some of the funds towards the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment program (EPSDT), which services Medicare beneficiaries under age 21. That way, funds for EPSDT don’t have to come form the General Fund at a time of fiscal crisis.

Arguments: While this proposition takes money away from the Prop 63 beneficiaries, currently unspent funds of $2.5 billion are sitting in state coffers under Prop 63. The idea is to temporarily be able to use this money at a time of fiscal crisis to fund another mental helath services program that would otherwise suffer.

My opinion: VOTE YES.

Back to top

Proposition 1F: Prevents increases in salaries of elected officials during budget deficit years. Salaries of elected officials in California are set by the California Citizen’s Compensation Commission based on several factors. The financial condition of the state is not one of them. in addition Proposition 6 prevents reduction of salaries during lean years.  This Proposition amends the Constitution to prevent the commission from raising the salaries during a deficit year( when the General Fund ends the year in a deficit.

Fiscally, the proposition does not have a huge impact. However, it is hoped that the potential impact of lower salaries for elected officials will  make them work harder towards balancing the budget!

Arguments: This is a largely symbolic gesture that ensures that politicians will not continue to get wage increases while their constituents suffer. If it makes you feel good, by all means vote for it.

My opinion: VOTE YES

Back to top

Related posts:

1. Propositions on the ballot in California in November This is my take on the various propositions on the...
2. Results of propositions on the ballot in California Here are the results of the propositions on the ballot...
3. US Midterms 2010: Propositions on the ballot: Results Update Midterm elections generate low interest among less partisan voters, who...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Proposition 6 – Increase in funding for police – Failed
Proposition 7 – Forces utility companies to meet renewable energy standards – Failed.
Proposition 8 – Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry – Appears to have passed. Opponents are still waiting for absentee ballots and provisional ballots to be counted before giving up. Ironically, on a day when we celebrate a civil rights triumph on the Presidential ballot, we take away a civil right granted to another minority. Very sad.
Proposition 9 - More rights for victims of crime – Passed
Proposition 10-Support for alternative energy vehicles and natural gas initiatives – Failed.
Proposition 11-Redistricting voting precincts to avoid gerrymandering – Appears to have narrowly passed.
Proposition 12-Easy loan access for veterans – Passed.

To see all the results from local elections, check out the Secretary of State’s website here.

Related posts:

1. Propositions on the ballot in California in November This is my take on the various propositions on the...
2. California Special Election – Propositions on the ballot The peculiarity of California is that the state constitution places...
3. US Midterms 2010: Propositions on the ballot: Results Update Midterm elections generate low interest among less partisan voters, who...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

His already close race received another inadvertent jolt recently. In the Sixth District, Republican Michelle Bachmann’s campaign was badly hurt when she made a statement asking for “media investigation” into members of Congress for their “Pro” or “Anti” American views. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) decided to pull money out of her campaign and flood the neighboring districts instead.

I spoke to Ashwin on a hurried phone conversation squeezed into the candidate’s tight schedule.

Given your on-the-ground experience in Iraq, what is your sense of what we should do there?
AM: I think there are many brave people on both sides building a better country. The Iraqi judicial officers and soldiers were the bravest people. The US bears some responsibility to leave Iraq in a better shape than when we went in and not abandon it. I favor a strategic and gradual withdrawal from Iraq. I am not happy about a fixed timetable like other people but we don’t have the resources to stay there indefinitely. We should be responsive to conditions on the ground.

What is the climate for immigrants in Minnesota?
AM: I was born in Boston and moved all over the country growing up till the family settled in Minnesota. The people in Minnesota are decent and kind. Minnesota is accepting of people from all different backgrounds.

What is your biggest challenge this election season?
AM: The biggest challenge is taking complicated ideas about complex issues and trying to transform them into 30 second sound bites; trying to share my ideas in the kind of mass media-driven market that exists today.

Tell me, in a 30 second sound bite, why you are running for office.:)
AM: I am running because we have the greatest country in the entire world. We need the courage to come together and courage to change; change the economic policy, restore oversight over the financial policy, balance the budget, aim for energy independence. We need investments in education and a responsible end the Iraq war.

What is the most important issue for your constituents?
AM: The economy is the only issue in this state.

Are you being helped by the coattails of the Democratic grassroots movement this election?
AM: My district is kind of unique in that it is very educated. The coattail effect is very minimal.

What are your internal polls showing?
AM: That we’re up by 4. It is going to be a very, very tight race.

If the $150 million raised by Senator Obama is making you leery of any more donations to the Presidential race, help out Ashwin Madia by donating at http://madiaforcongress.com. Down ballot races help elect more Democrats to Congress and give the president a clear mandate to achieve a progressive agenda.

Related posts:

1. Harmeet Dhillon – Candidate for State Assembly Harmeet Dhillon is one of the up-and-coming members of the...
2. Ravi Johal – candidate for Washington Hospital Board of Directors Ravi Johal has been living and working in Fremont as...
3. Fremont City Council candidate – Vinnie Bacon In honor of the upcoming elections, WNI is starting a...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

In addition to the Californian Propositions, there are also a couple of local measures on the ballot in Fremont.

Measure MM – if passed by a majority of the electorate (50% + 1), this measure will increase the City’s Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) rate from the current rate of 8% to a new rate of 10%, effective January, 1, 2009.
The proposed tax is a general tax, which means the monies raised will be used for general governmental purposes, including such essential services as police, fire, and street and park maintenance. Hotel/motel visitors who stay in the City’s hotel and motels for a period of 30 days or less pay the tax in addition to the room rate.
Based on the current estimates, a 2% increase could generate approximately $800,000 in new revenue for the General Fund for a full fiscal year. Anu Natarajan, Fremont City Council member, is one of the sponsors of this bill.

“This is an easy fix for our budgeting problems and long overdue,” says Anu. “Fremont is still at 8% whereas cities around us have moved to a 10% Transient Occupancy Tax(TOT). 90% of the revenue is likely to go to fund public safety programs.”

The only argument submitted against this measure is whether the city can be trusted to use the monies properly. Given the budgetary constraints every city is facing in this economic environment, it seems like a poor argument and given that even the Fremont Marriott has no problems with this tax, this should be a no-brainer.

My recommendation – Vote YES.

Measure WW – Measure WW, an East Bay Regional Park District (”District”) bond measure, seeks voter approval to authorize the governing Board of the District to cause general obligation bonds to be issued and sold in a principal amount not to exceed $500,000,000 at interest rates within the statutory limit.

The measure’s purposes are to finance the District’s completion of its Regional Park District Master Plan by acquiring and improving regional parks, trails and recreation facilities.

Opinion – On the face of it, anything that increases park land sounds like a good idea to hikers and nature lovers. However, a couple of issues give me pause. One is that 25% of the bond amount goes, not to the EBRPD,  but to places like the Oakland Zoo and municipalities. It also puts a future interest and principal repayment burden of a billion dollars without any proposal to generate revenue.

Also, I hear rumblings of discontent from hikers and environmentalists who complain about the stewardship of the EBPRD and the bloated salaries of the officers. ( the starting salary of a gardener us supposed to be $50,000!) One comparison I read about was that the EBPRD spent 143 million dollars in 2006 compared to the 344 million dollars spent by the entire California Park System. Also, of the 153 square miles under the control of the EBPRD, a very small percentage is open to the public now.

My recommendation – being unsure of the value of this measure, I am going to go for default option on any such measure or proposition – NO.

Related posts:

1. California Special Election – Propositions on the ballot The peculiarity of California is that the state constitution places...
2. US Midterms 2010: Propositions on the ballot: Results Update Midterm elections generate low interest among less partisan voters, who...
3. Propositions on the ballot in California in November This is my take on the various propositions on the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This is my take on the various propositions on the California ballot on November 4th. While most of us are pretty sure of our vote for the Presidential candidate, these various measures are equally important and impact our lives in a more immediate and significant way. Do take the time to read up on them.
Here is a summary of my recommendations on the various propositions on the ballot in November.

Proposition 1 – Vote YES
Proposition 2 – Vote YES
Proposition 3 – Vote NO
Proposition 4 – Vote NO
Proposition 5 – Vote NO
Proposition 6 – Vote NO
Proposition 7 – Vote YES
Proposition 8 – Vote NO
Proposition 9 – Vote NO
Proposition 10-Vote NO
Proposition 11-Vote YES
Proposition 12-Vote YES

Proposition 1: Prop. 1 asks voters to approve the issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds. This would partially fund a $40 billion, 800-mile high speed train under the supervision of the California High-Speed Rail Authority. ( Matching funds from the federal government is a possibility.)

The train would run between San Francisco and Los Angeles, with Anaheim, California, designated as the southern terminus of the initial segment of the high-speed train system. Estimates are that the train system would be completed in 2030, and that it would take passengers between San Francisco and Los Angeles in about 2 hours and 40 minutes.

Voting YES would give the state the authority to sell bonds for the amount of 9.95 billion dollars and use the funds to begin construction of the high-speed rail system. The state is likely to ask voters for the remaining funds in later years.
Voting NO means the state cannot sell these bonds.

Opinion: The two main objections to this bill, to which the opposition has been quite half-hearted, seems to be as follows –
-         Given the current state of the economy, we shouldn’t be spending money on a rail system rather than education, health care etc. And anyway, what makes you think the California government is capable of handling a project like this?
-         Environmental concern over the fact that the path of the proposed system might take away some parks and refuges.
However, the taxpayers do not take a direct hit because the state is selling debt which will be picked up by lenders throughout the world. The taxpayer impact will be during the servicing of the loan.

Also, proponents argue that early adoption of a high-speed rail system means getting to be ahead in line to get the state’s share of matching funds from the federal government.
The project is also sure to generate thousands of jobs, a major positive given the current state of the economy. It is also good for the environment in the long run. Here is a good site to get more information about this project.

My recommendation: Vote YES.

Back to top

Proposition 2: Requires certain farm animals to be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around. Limited exceptions apply.

Voting YES would mean that beginning 2015, these laws would apply to pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal and egg-laying hens.

Voting NO would maintain the status quo.

Opinion: The opposition to this proposition is that Californian producers will not be able to comply and so our meat and eggs will start being imported from Mexico and therefore we have a higher likelihood of being sickened by salmonella. Ridiculous.

My recommendation: This is a no-brainer. Vote YES.

Back to top

Proposition 3: Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.

Voting YES would allow the state to sell bonds for this amount.

Voting NO would maintain the status quo.

Opinion: The main opposition to this, as before, is that this more debt that California cannot afford and would impact the taxpayers when the loan principal and interest have to be repaid. Also, the way this proposition is worded, the money may go to any acute hospital so long as it treats children. There is an emotional argument to be made to support this bill. But there is some evidence that Prop 61, with the same goal, that was passed in 2004 to the tune of $750 million, still has to finish disbursing the entire amount. Given that, it seems unfair to taxpayers that they should have to take on another loan.

My recommendation: Vote NO.

Back to top

Proposition 4: The initiative would prohibit abortion for un-emancipated minors until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent, legal guardian or, if parental abuse has been reported, an alternative adult family member.

Voting YES would put this law into the state constitution.

Voting NO would preserve the status quo.

Opinion: As the parent of a young girl, there is enormous temptation to say yes to a law that would force my child to let me know in case she needs to take the drastic step of having an abortion. But I found this excellent op-ed in the L.A. Times where the author took the trouble to read through the entire proposition and consulted with legal experts.  This is the conclusion she came to –

Here is my version of how an honest summary of Proposition 4 should read:

Proposition to Curtail Abortion for Teenage Girls:
* Do not allow minors to obtain abortions behind their parents’ backs.
* Create an undue burden on physicians, with miles of red tape and severe repercussions for a misstep in filing notifications, reports, etc.
* Make sure pregnant teens go through humiliation and exposure.
* Create a pretext for taking the matter of abortion to court.
* Add vague clauses regarding “court relief” and “coercion,” which could warrant further litigation.

While I did not delve into the proposition myself, I did take the time to read her long and detailed article and agreed with her conclusions. I do not want girls to be afraid of going to doctors on their own and seeking medical advice rather than rely on backdoor abortions. I do not want girls in situations where there has been abuse within the family to be coerced by parents into making one kind of decision. This particular proposition keeps coming up in ballots under various avatars and has always been defeated.

My recommendation: Vote NO.

Back to top

Proposition 5: Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses. Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.

Voting YES would mean less people would be imprisoned for minor drug offences and granted parole earlier if incarcerated. Possession if less than 28.5 grams of marijuana would have a lesser penalty than under current law.

Voting NO would keep the status quo.

Opinion: Even though the basic premise of the law sounds like it is letting recreational drug users get off with a slap on the wrist, it seems like the text of the law makes it possible for judges to let criminals off easy if the crime was a result of drug use. That, to me, is a significant difference. Also Proposition 5 expands on Proposition 36, passed in 2004, which has proved to be not particularly successful. Only 24 percent of people “completed treatment; 42.7 percent were re-arrested on a drug charge within 30 months. Overall, treatment-eligible offenders were more likely to be re-arrested for new drug, property and violent crimes than similar offenders in the pre-36 era, UCLA researchers found.” Proposition 5 also makes it easy for criminals to claim to the court that the crimes were the result of drug use and therefore be eligible for treatment programs instead of incarceration. Check out this editorial in the L. A. Times.

My recommendation: Vote NO

Back to top

Proposition 6: Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index. Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses.

Voting YES will increase spending on law enforcement as per the bill.

Voting NO will maintain the status quo.

Opinion: This is a huge funding initiative at a time when California is suffering a fiscal crisis. Two things stand out – the fact that the bill has a CPI index-linked increase built in and that the revisions to the criminal law make it possible for judges to sentence prisoners for even longer stays in prisons, driving up costs further. The money for this proposition would have to be diverted from other social programs.

My recommendation: Vote NO.

Back to top

Proposition 7: Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.

Voting YES would mean that all electricity providers in California, whether private or public, would have to produce a certain percentage of their electricity from renewable energy sources.

Voting NO would mean preserving the status quo.

Opinion: On the face of it, it seems eminently reasonable. So why have I been seeing so many No on 7 ads? Turns out the biggest opposition to this bill is from, you guessed it, utility companies who have put in big bucks to defeat this proposition.

This is a complex bill that can be looked at from two aspects –

Centralized production vs. distributed production of renewable energy – Does it make more sense for utility companies to be the vanguard for renewable energy production or should we look at localized use of solar panels on roofs which would eliminate future chokepoints of energy transmission?

Global impact vs. local impact – Putting the utility companies’ feet to the fire would force them to move to alternative sources of energy which is good on a global scale. Opponents argue that this proposition is not good for small business owners because it would forbid projects that generate less than 30 megawatts of power from inclusion in the utilities’ requirement. That is, if a small business owner put solar panels on his rooftop and sold the power to the utilities, they couldn’t count it towards their 20% goal; which in turn would make them less inclined to support such initiatives by giving rebates and leasing rooftops.

The proponents of Prop 7 argue that that objection only arises from a misinterpretation of the law. They are happy to go on record in court documents stating that the initiative’s authors and supporters have no intent to change current law on energy producers.

Perhaps the confusion arises because the bill is not well written. But it is still an effort in the right direction.

The fact that utility companies are opposing this bill gives me pause. The fact that this bill specifically prohibits utility companies from passing on any fines from non-compliance to the customers makes me cheer.

My recommendation: Vote YES.

Back to top

Proposition 8:: Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Voting YES means amending the California Constitution to invalidate same-sex marriage.

Voting NO means preserving the status quo and allowing the marriage of same-sex couples in California.

Opinion: Gay marriage is one of those issues which are trotted out every single election year. I’ve always been suspicious that it is one of those mechanisms by which the party faithful (and no prizes for guessing which party) are motivated to show up at the polls. Ever since the California Supreme Court recognized gay marriage, the alarm and agitation is much more pronounced and real. It has been impossible to avoid the ads on television which allege that very little kids will be taught that marriage means “daddy marrying daddy” and “mommy marrying mommy” in school.

The irony is that because of the media blitz of the anti-gay-marriage crowd, my own little daughter is now exposed to this issue, which otherwise she absolutely would not have in school or home.

Is the allegation true?

Here are the facts –

There’s not one word in 8 about education. In fact, local school districts and parents—not the state—develop health education programs for their schools. No child can be taught anything about health and family issues against the will of their parents. California law prohibits it. I know this as a parent of 2 children in public schools. And nothing in state law requires the mention of marriage in kindergarten.

The ads are pure smear, which does more to put me off this proposition than anything else. By forcing their smears down my kids’ throats ( before I was ready to have a conversation with her at the appropriate time)by advertising in family-friendly TV programming, they have earned my disgust.

Voting yes on Proposition 8 takes a right away from another human being, a right that in no way diminishes the rights of fellow human beings or harms them in any way. Voting yes means children of existing gay families could lose the right to health care. Voting yes means existing gay families could lose the legal protections afforded married couples, including the right to visit their spouse in the hospital, the right to take over the legal affairs of their spouse if they become incapacitated, etc. Voting yes is a step backwards from the civilized notion of equality. To those who espouse “family values” I have this to say – by opposing gay marriage, you are preventing a whole section of society from entering into the same bond of commitment that you consider so important.

My recommendation: Vote NO.

Back to top

Proposition 9::Among other provisions, this requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole. Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.

Voting YES means crime victims would have additional rights.

Voting NO means preserving the status quo.

Opinion: The rights proposed in Prop 9 are already in the law. These would now be enshrined in the California constitution. In addition, the law would mean that prisoners could not, under any circumstances, be released before their sentence was over. Given the overcrowding in California’s prisons, this would further increase the burden on the state’s prison system. The rights demanded for victims in this bill can also be granted by the legislature without going to this level.
In a twist that can happen only in America, the proponent of this bill( and Prop 6.) is a man named Henry Nichols, who is facing drug and fraud charges in a stock-backdating scandal that could land him in prison.

My recommendation – Vote NO.

Back to top

Proposition 10: Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology. Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.

Voting YES means the state could sell bonds for the amount of $5 billion for this purpose.

Voting NO preserves the status quo.

Opinion – T. Boone Pickens is the brains behind this bill. T. Boone Pickens, the oilman turned greenie is the driving force behind this bill which gives 58% of the money collected as rebates to hybrid and natural gas-using vehicles. T. Boone Pickens is also the primary investor in Clean Energy Fuels, a publicly traded company that spent $3 million to put Proposition 10 on the ballot. The company is the nation’s largest provider of natural gas for transportation. Many of the natural gas vehicles would fill up at its stations.
The conflict of interest in this bill makes me very uncomfortable. Also this seems to be a gambit to make taxpayers cough up some more money to give rebates to people driving fuel efficient cars. In this era of high gas prices, it seems like an unnecessary reward.

My recommendation – Vote NO.

Back to top

Proposition 11: Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14 member commission.
Requires government auditors to select 60 registered voters from applicant pool. Permits legislative leaders to reduce pool, then the auditors pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total.

Voting YES means boundaries for state senate, assembly and board of equalization districts would be drawn up by a new commission made up of California registered voters.
Voting NO means preserving the status quo.

Opinion – Gerry-mandering, or drawing up electoral districts to suit particular constituencies and particular politicians is a pernicious fact of politics. In many states it is the Republicans who do it, in California, it is the Democrats. Making the process more open and reflective of the real situation on the ground would mean that moderates would have a better chance at winning some of the local races.

My recommendation – Vote YES.

Back to top

Proposition 12: This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes. Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.
Voting YES means the state would be able to issue $900 million in bonds to provide for veterans’ farm and home purchases.
Voting NO means preserving the status quo.
Opinion – The state is responsible to pay back the bond loan but it in turn gives low-cost loans to veterans and previous such loans have had a history of being paid back in time. The state has never incurred a bad debt in such programs in the past.
My recommendation – Vote YES.

Back to top

Related posts:

1. Results of propositions on the ballot in California Here are the results of the propositions on the ballot...
2. California Special Election – Propositions on the ballot The peculiarity of California is that the state constitution places...
3. US Midterms 2010: Propositions on the ballot: Results Update Midterm elections generate low interest among less partisan voters, who...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.