By Dianne Anderson

It’s that time again to head for the polls, but this year could leave folks wondering just what happened to all that voting energy that marked the strongest turnout in decades under the Presidential election.

On second thought, it’s just the primaries.

Community groups and churches normally turn to the League of Women Voters to get nonpartisan input on translations for often confusing ballot measures, and what it all means in terms of fiscal and social impact.

This year, interest has waned.

Gloria Anderson, president of the San Bernardino League of Women Voters, said that if voters aren’t into party politics, there’s not a lot of impetus to go to the polls. Some of it may be because the ballot has more of the same old thing, big companies entering the political process, and strong on self-serving propositions.

Proposition 13:

No one has submitted arguments against Proposition 13, which allows homeowners and agencies to make earthquake improvements and retrofitting without triggering property tax reassessments.

Proposition 14:

Proposition 14 has strong support and opposition on both sides of the issue.

Unless a candidate states which political party they’re affiliated with, voters wouldn’t be able to tell by looking at the ballot. If Proposition 14 passes, there could be a list of candidates with no party designation.

Voters appear tired of the current way primaries are being handled, with 60 percent polled in a statewide survey by the Public Policy Institute of California showing interest in changing the format to a system that lets voters cross party lines. Candidates also do not have to show their party affiliation if they choose.

Opponents say the downside is that the top two vote-getters in the race could both be Republican or Democrat in the general elections.

Organizations supporting Proposition 14 argue that it broadens voting choice, allowing voters to choose either party. Those against say it will limit diversity because the general election could wind up with either two Democrats or two Republicans.

Proposition 14 opponents include the California Democratic and Republican parties, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party and the NAACP. LWV has not taken a position on the proposition.

“You could have two Democrats, two Independents, any combination. But it’s the people who get the most votes, the top two vote-getters,” Anderson said. “It’s supposed to have less partisan people elected, but there’s no guarantee that will happen.”

Proposition 15:

LWV supports a Yes vote on Proposition 15, a campaign finance bill that calls to end the state ban on public financing for political campaigns of Secretary of State candidates.

If passed, the pilot program would allow candidates for the Secretary of States office to voluntarily opt for public financing, paid for primarily by raising the license fee and shifting costs to lobbyists from $25 that they now pay every two years to $700 that they would pay ever two years.

Set to start with the 2012 and 2016 elections, Anderson said this bill was  passed by the legislature as part of the Clean Money campaign that LWV has been involved in for many years. The League also disagrees with the argument against Proposition 15, that it would raise taxes with no accountability, which provides millions of tax dollars to fund campaigns.

“No, it doesn’t,” she said. “They just hope that people will buy into it. They’re counting on people’s fear of getting their taxes raised, and they’ll believe it.”

Most people will bypass the fine print of the text of the measure, about ten pages long, she added.

Supporters of Proposition 15 include the California Democratic and Republican parties, California Common Cause, California Clean Money Campaign, the League of Women Voters of California and the Sierra Club of California.

Anderson said that she was shocked at a recent survey showing that 80% of contributions on average to legislators come from outside of their district, and that the contributions are coming from big state organizations and agencies that want favors.

“This is a campaign finance foot in the door kind of thing because we haven’t gotten anywhere on passing any sweeping campaign finance reform, and with the Supreme Court’s decision that unleashes corporations worldwide to contribute without any restrictions, it’s really difficult.”

Proposition 16:

The League has also come out against Proposition PG & E measure, a piece of special interest legislation funded entirely by Northern California PG&E.

“They are trying to stamp out any competition. There are communities in California trying to provide their own electricity at a cheaper rate because they don’t pay taxes, the investor-owned utilities like PG&E and Edison do pay taxes. So it wipes out the possibility of a local government providing electricity at a cheaper rate.”

Opponents argue that cities with their own utilities can offer cheaper rates, and the service is just as good.

“It’s [Proposition 16] definitely an attempt to have a monopoly on utilities,” she said. “If it passes, it would require a two-thirds vote and we know problems that causes, rather than the majority vote to get the local service.”

Proposition 17:

Proponents argue that this Proposition, supported with millions from Mercury Insurance, will help give drivers a discount on their automobile insurance.

Opponents argue that it would impact people who switch to Mercury, who supposedly would then be allowed to bring their continuous coverage discount with them. But, continuous coverage is only applied to people who have a lapse of 90 days or are overseen in the service. For example, someone in an accident who couldn’t drive for a year would be liable for a surcharge for not having coverage. Or, someone in the military, who didn’t use a car for years, would also be liable for a surcharge.

Put simply, the nonprofit advocacy, Campaign for Consumer Rights, begs the question on their website, www.stoppro17.org, “When was the last time an insurance company spent millions to save you money?”