The Election
Tuesday’s election was a loss and a big disappointment. There is no way to spin it or twist it any other way (except for the resounding failure of the firefighter’s union power grab proposal in Orange County).
What went wrong? Here are some of my thoughts:
Some mistakes were made early on in the process that made the election more difficult. The budget initiative (Proposition 76) was not what it should have been and had drafting issues. The attacks on the “three judge panel” that helped kill the redistricting initiative (Proposition 77) could have been avoided with a larger panel and more controls. Because the reform package was put together with great haste, it was not as comprehensive nor as appealing as it could have been.
Note that all eight initiatives failed. The two initiatives that were promoted by liberal interests, Proposition 79 to socialize prescription drugs and Proposition 80 to re-regulate the electricity market, actually lost by the greatest margin. So, this was not a repudiation of just conservative proposals. It was a rejection of all proposals. The “no” side was able to communicate and deliver voters with a simple vote “no” on all reforms message.
$250 million: That’s roughly how much money was spent to urge “no” votes. Conversely, there was only about $50 million spent on the “yes” side. It is hard to win an election when you are outspent 5-to-1. Most of that money was from unions against the governor. And because Proposition 75 failed, they will be able to raise their dues and do it again in 2006.
Perversely, part of the reason that “the sequel to the recall” failed is because of the success of the original. Two years ago the electorate was motivated by a nearly bankrupt state, a tripling of the car tax, drivers’ licenses about to be given to illegal aliens and a sinking economy. Since then the state’s credit rating is much improved and deficits are reduced; the car tax increase was repealed; drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens has been repealed and consistently vetoed; and the economy is growing again. People may not have seen the need to enact reforms that they were told were “radical” and “dangerous” if they feel things are not that bad.
That last point is significant. This state is in way better shape than it was two years ago.
Let’s lick our wounds and learn from our mistakes and prepare for the next fight.
And don’t ever give up on California.
John Campbell
State Senator
R-Irvine
Well, that was a lot of money spent for no immediate effect.
In the wake of the across-the-board defeat for the propositions, it should be interesting to see how Sacramento resolves its upcoming challenges in 2006 with the ongoing structural deficit.
Democrats will want tax increases. Republicans will seek to hold the line.
Gov. Schwarzenegger either will muddle through with more temporary debt, or he’ll go to war against one side or the other,supporting tax increases or spending cuts.
The governor’s 2006 re-election chances will be determined by what path he takes and how he takes it.
One thing I know for sure: In politics, defeat is usually a temporary condition.
Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman
Most movie sequels, no matter how good they are, die at the box office.
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s political sequel, no matter how well intentioned it was, died at the ballot box.
With all due respect, governor, I suggest you pick a new agent or some new political advisers.
Denny Freidenrich
First Strategies LLC
Laguna Beach
Moderates from both parties simply didn’t show up to vote last Tuesday. California will now resume its slide toward political correctness, liberalism and love for the lowest common denominator.
Too many tax-revenue producing companies, both large and small, now have left the state. In addition, thousands of entrepreneurs have moved to Arizona, New Mexico and other states where unions, Democrats and politicians don’t yet control society.
To you moderates out there who didn’t vote, be prepared to have your taxes increased as well as to possibly lose Proposition 13 protections.
Dig out your boots from the closet, you will be knee-deep in the consequences of this election for some time to come.
Barry M. Gold
Irvine
Election Overload
From October through November 2006, Orange County may have to conduct a total of seven separate elections. That’s an average of one election every 22 days.
A typical election cycle involves a primary and general election every two years. Odd-numbered years normally have no elections at all. This election season, however, hardly is normal.
In addition to last week’s special election called by the governor, there was a special Oct. 4 election and now an upcoming Dec. 6 runoff for the congressional seat recently vacated by Chris Cox.
If top vote-getter John Campbell wins, the governor would call another special election to fill his State Senate seat, requiring both a primary and run-off election. It is unclear whether this could or would be tied to the June primary.
And the June primary will be followed by next November’s general election.
This spate of elections is partly due to the unusual circumstances of a midterm congressional resignation (Cox’s) and last week’s special election for the propositions.
Expect more special elections, however, as termed-out officeholders scramble for new positions and political longevity.
More reasonable term limits, say 12 years for any office, would limit this ongoing political musical chairs.
Chris Norby
Orange County Supervisor
Fourth District
Lawsuits
My friend Maryann Maloney makes a valid point about the potential for abuses of the legal system in her letter regarding “Scariest Lawsuits” in your Oct. 31 edition.
The American legal system, to be sure, is an imperfect mechanism for dispute resolution, but just as Winston Churchill made a similar observation about democracy as a form of government and asked his audience to consider the alternatives, one could say the same thing about the civil justice system.
There are appropriate remedies for frivolous lawsuits, including claims for malicious prosecution, abuse of process, and recovery of attorneys’ fees when provided for by statute or contract.
As one who has represented parties in civil cases for more than 34 years (and happens to be politically conservative), I can attest to the many positive effects of meritorious lawsuits, including better-designed highways, safer products, higher standards of medical care, greater accountability in business transactions and a more humane workplace.
Further, such lawsuits can be an effective alternative to government regulation of those individuals and companies who consider themselves to be “above the law.”
And, as Tocqueville observed nearly two centuries ago, jury service breeds respect for the law and an appreciation for equitable conduct. The very notion of due process, including rules of evidence, the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, pretrial discovery and final argument based on applicable law, is designed to assure a search for truth.
The answer to abusive lawsuits is not wholesale reform of our legal system, but a public debate regarding increasing the standards required for lawyers to represent parties in civil actions.
The U.S. is one of the only industrialized countries that does not require formal apprenticeships for attorneys as a condition of representing clients in court or arbitration. It is time that the legal profession be required to emulate the medical profession by requiring a mandatory apprenticeship and specialty certification for trial attorneys.
William M. Crosby
Barnes, Crosby, FitzGerald & Zeman
Irvine
