The propositions generating the most interest are 16 and 17, which are both dressed up in language designed to appeal to consumer interests, when in fact they will greatly benefit the sponsors — PG&E for Proposition 16 and Mercury Insurance for Proposition 17.
The framers of California's initiative process would never recognize how easy it is today for wealthy individuals or corporations to place virtually any self-serving measure they want before voters by paying millions of dollars to companies whose only job is gathering signatures for the ballot.
Here are more details on the propositions 16 and 17, and why we strongly recommend a vote against them on June 8.
Pacific Gas & Electric has bankrolled this proposition, which, if approved, would force a public agency to obtain a two-thirds vote of the electorate before it could enter the retail power business. Without obtaining approval, cities could not form municipal utilities or community-wide clean electricity districts called community choice aggregators, which could be used to sell energy generated by wind or photo voltaic systems.
At this time, no city in The Almanac's circulation area has shown any interest in forming its own utility to sell power. But in our view, if municipalities wish to sell clean energy, and their constituents are willing to pay for it, they should not be stopped by an initiative that will tie their hands.
Small municipalities that might go into the power business are hardly a threat to PG&E. Nevertheless, the giant utility has spent millions of dollars on generally misleading advertising to promote its passage.
We urge voters to defeat this special interest initiative that would do nothing to lower energy prices for consumers while giving PG&E a major tool to control competition from local utilities.
A vote for this proposition is a vote for Mercury Insurance, the company that has spent more than $10 million to skirt a provision of Proposition 103, the landmark consumer initiative passed in 1988 that rolled back California insurance rates and set strict guidelines on factors insurance companies could use to set auto insurance costs for consumers.
Under current law in California, an insurance company can offer longtime policy holders a persistency discount to its own customers, but under the terms of Proposition 103, auto insurers can't offer that same discount to new customers who had continuous coverage for some period of time but from a different auto insurance company. Proposition 17 would give insurance companies the right to offer such discounts to customers of other insurers who have not let their policies lapse for more than 90 days in the previous five-year period.
But opponents of the measure fear that the roughly 20 percent of all drivers in the state who do not qualify for persistency discounts — those who have been out of the market or who temporarily lost coverage — will be forced to pay a substantial surcharge when they come back into the market.
This measure's prime sponsor, Mercury Insurance, is no favorite of state regulators. In fact last month, a story in USNewswire said: "The California Department of Insurance (CDI) [on April 12] said that Mercury Insurance Company, the sponsor of Proposition 17, has overcharged and discriminated against California customers for over 15 years, including failing to deliver discounts required by state law and imposing unlawful surcharges."
That's enough for us. We believe consumers were well-served by Proposition 103, which should not be muddied by changes proposed by Mercury or other insurance companies. Please vote no on Proposition 17.
This is largely a housekeeping measure that will simply allow owners of buildings being seismically retrofitted to avoid a reassessment for tax purposes.
We urge a yes vote on this measure.
This measure would end partisan primary elections and place all candidates on the June ballot. Only the top two winners, regardless of party affiliation, would advance to the November election. Supporters say it would promote moderation and take power away from strident party officials, but in two states which have tried it, it had little effect on promoting moderation. Another likely impact: third party candidates would rarely make it to the November runoff, which could severely hamper their ability to campaign, debate and take on major party candidates.
We think such a major change in the electoral system needs more study, and urge a no vote on Proposition 14.
Dubbed the California Fair Elections Act, this proposition would test public funding of political campaigns in races for Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018. The funds used would be raised from fees assessed on lobbyists and from voluntary contributions to the candidates during the campaign.
It is time to assess public funding of election campaigns. We urge voters to support Proposition 15, which will provide a good test of this process.