Arnie and the Electrical Utilities

October 26, 2005 10:40 AM

California Special Election Prop. 80: Electric Service Initiative

Does anyone have any idea who's behind this Proposition? I'm not finding much on it except the general stuff at the League of Women Voters. It's not a hot enough topic to generate the discussion that the other Propositions are getting.

posted by small_ruminant to law & government (14 comments total)

It's apparently backed by a consumer group called the Utility Reform Network. The SF Chronicle opposes it very strongly; they say "it doesn't belong on the ballot."

Their point is that it would limit the ability of the State ever to implement cost-reducing measures with regard to utility bills, and they note that the CPUC opposes it unanimously.
posted by ikkyu2 at 11:46 AM on October 26, 2005

arguments in favor of Prop 80. It's a bit confusing.
posted by aberrant at 12:09 PM on October 26, 2005

TURN is pretty legit, actually. It's a progressive outfit, so it's no surprise that the corporate-biased Chron would oppose anything coming from TURN.
posted by majick at 12:19 PM on October 26, 2005

Yeah- I don't trust the Chron too much. I can't find anyone I do trust on this thing, and it's not a topic I know anything about.
posted by small_ruminant at 12:21 PM on October 26, 2005

From same pages as aberrant links to, here's a long list of orgs that are in favor of prop 80 and have endorsed it. If you have an opinion on these orgs (many labor, grassroots, community groups etc) this might give you some sense of who the players are and what's at stake.
posted by cushie at 12:25 PM on October 26, 2005

it would limit the ability of the State ever to implement cost-reducing measures with regard to utility bills [emphasis added]

That is a curious claim - this is an initiative, not a constitutional amendment.

More to the point: this U.C. Berkeley website seems to have an excellent collection of links to newspaper articles (for example, I checked the SF Guardian position; they're for the proposition) and other resources.
posted by WestCoaster at 12:33 PM on October 26, 2005

good resources. Thank you.
posted by small_ruminant at 1:13 PM on October 26, 2005

I've decided to vote NO on every single initiative. We should not be having this election at this time.

The initiative process in California is seriously broken. It was originally adopted in a time of intense corruption that lessened the common persons representation in the Assembly. Big Money in California especially the Railroads had the whole body in their pockets. At that time ballot initiatives brought by petition were the best way to get reform.

Now however a reversal has occurred. Most initiatives are not a result of grassroots movements they are a result of big business using deceptive language and pushy paid agents to go out and gather enough signatures to get a bill that serves their interests on the ballot. They then spend billions on misleading advertising to win at the ballot box. Arnold took a page from the same play book with the recall. There were allegations that he even broke the law by using out of state persons to gather signatures. Same pattern.

Now take a look at who's paying for all this now. It looks like Big Pharma and Energy are the Twenty-First Century Railroads. They are using the similar monopolistic practices under the protection of a corrupt government.

Normally when I vote I do study the initiatives and will occasionally vote yes but this time I'm pissed and I want everyone to go back to the drawing board. The first real reform I would like to see is barring paid signature gatherers. Next, cap political advertising.

And while I'm on a roll, I want real redistricting reform! A degree of fairness could be brought back to the political process if the practice of manipulating district borders to the advantage of one party or the other is reigned in. It's a fairly simple idea: place a limit on the area to border length of districts to have a mandated maximum value. I want that nation wide but will settle for starting with California. If it is successful here it can serve as a model.
posted by Mr T at 2:07 PM on October 26, 2005

You can't be the real Mr T. The real Mr T ain't got no time for jibba jabba.
posted by ikkyu2 at 2:21 PM on October 26, 2005

place a limit on the area to border length of districts to have a mandated maximum value

what does this mean?
posted by small_ruminant at 3:00 PM on October 26, 2005

I take Mr T's suggestion to be that we make a rule regarding the ratio of district area / perimeter. Placing an upper bound on that number would mean that districts have to be shaped more like a rectangle or circle than like a sprawling protuberant blob.

You can see current district maps here. And I checked, protuberant is totally a word.
posted by gorillawarfare at 3:33 PM on October 26, 2005

another excellent voter guide is at speakoutca.org - it reflects many of the progressive organizations in california. this is a crucial statewide election, and turnout is expected to be very low, unfortunately.
posted by judith at 8:35 PM on October 26, 2005

Thank you gorillawarfare, that is exactly what I mean. It is the terrible 'gerrymander'.
posted by Mr T at 10:38 PM on October 26, 2005

Good resource- thanks, judith!
posted by small_ruminant at 9:19 AM on October 27, 2005