Following is a list and brief description of the 26 sections that make up the electronic version of the "Special June Primary Election Insert" that was part of the eleventh issue of the Partisan, the newspaper of the California Peace and Freedom Party. The locations of the contents in the printed version, which also includes graphics that we do not attempt to reproduce here, are in parentheses.
What do you like or dislike about your job? Your answer may depend upon whether or not you belong to an employee organization or labor union. Union women and men of all races make more money, have better benefits, improved retirement plans and greater job security than non-union folks. That's just the facts. Because of the past struggles of union workers and the current threat of unionization, non-union workers are also better off than they would have been.
Whether you believe in unions or not, you must admit that they have been successful at improving the lives of their members, and to a lesser degree of workers in general. Unions fought for and won the eight hour day (recently removed by executive order in California), health care benefits, retirement plans, and civil service systems for government workers. The labor movement has problems and unions have made mistakes, but it is up to the members to solve their problems and to correct their mistakes.
Today, a new spectre haunts us. Undemocratic right wing forces are attempting to cripple the only effective mass organizations of the working class. Proposition 226 is designed to prevent labor unions and other employee organizations from putting up effective defenses against right-wing efforts.
While most of the money to support Prop 226 is coming from outside of California, the honorary chair of the campaign is Governor Pete Wilson, who raided his employees' pension fund for $1.3 billion, vetoed the Health Care Patient Bill of Rights, opposed an increase in the minimum wage and eliminated daily overtime.
From outside California, Indianapolis insurance executive J. Patrick Rooney, who wants revenge on unions who successfully stopped his efforts to privatize Medicare and Social Security; Grover Norquist, a foe of taxes on the rich who is upset with teachers' unions for defeating private school vouchers; U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich; and others have joined forces to, as Norquist said, "crush unions as a political entity."
Proposition 226 has two major provisions: prohibition on foreign contributions, except for ballot initiatives; and restricting use of union money for ballot initiatives and candidate contributions.
Foreign contributions are already against Federal law. Proposition 226 doesn't make any foreign contributions unlawful that are not already illegal.
Unions are already prohibited from using agency shop fees for political purposes. However, Proposition 226 would further restrict a union from using for political contributions or expenditures any part of dues or other fees unless a written authorization, on a form designated by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), has been received by the union from the employee within the last 12 months. The union and the employer would also be required to keep records of all authorizations or deduction requests, the dates and amounts of all deductions and the dates and amounts of all transfers to a political committee and the name of the political committee. By forcing you to report your political activities to your boss, your rights of privacy and confidentiality will be violated.
If Proposition 226 passes, unions will have to send out forms to each member each and every year asking for permission to use union money for political contributions, and will be forced by the government to keep records of all authorization requests, dates and amounts of all deductions and all transfers to political committees and the names of these committees. But corporations and other business entities won't need permission from their stockholders and members to give political donations.
Without understanding the real agenda of the far right, one could be confused and misled by their rhetoric about less government and more freedom. A closer examination reveals that the far right actually supports more and bigger government if it is designed to protect corporate exploitation. Corporate political contributions in 1996 totalled $677,442,423, while the total contributions of all unions and employee organizations were $60,352,761, a ratio of 11 to 1. If Proposition 226 passes on June 2, the playing field will be tilted even more in favor of big business.
The strategy of the right wing is simple and effective: "Divide and Conquer." In the guise of political reform, they exploit wedge issues like citizenship, race and now "union bosses" to defeat us. They secretly engage in class war by telling the big lie, "we will make everything better for you," while working to steal an even greater portion of the world's wealth for themselves.
Their plan is to privatize Social Security, Medicare, prisons, schools and even government itself. They are fighting to abolish workplace safety, minimum wage and overtime. They want to undermine union support for laws that protect our rights to organize and bargain. If unions lose this battle over Proposition 226, they will be forced to spend time and money complying with the new restrictions. There will be fewer resources to fight for issues that will make life better for us.
Working people of California -- Unite! You have everything to lose if you don't.
[C T Weber is State Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party and a Regional Director of the California State Employees Association, SEIU Local 1000.]
[A six panel cartoon by Mike Konopacki of Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons also addresses this issue. The first panel shows a paycheck (with eyes, nose, mouth and hands) pointing to a hole in its body and saying, "I got this one from a forced pay-cut!" In the second panel, the paycheck points to another hole and says, "That one is from when they busted my union!" The third panel shows the paycheck pointing to yet another hole, saying, "I got this hole over here when they contracted-out my job!" The fourth panel shows an elephant in a suit and tie telling the paycheck, "Great news! I've got a law here that will protect you, Mr. Paycheck!" In the fifth panel, the paycheck eagely asks, "You mean you've got something to patch me up?", to which the elephant responds, "That's right!" The final panel shows the paycheck with a gag labeled "paycheck 'protection' laws" taped over its mouth.]
The June 2 primary election is a mixture of the familiar and the new. The familiar, in that there are a number of important ballot measures, including yet another attack on California's immigrants and their families (this time aimed at their children) and measures important to labor.
It is new in that it is the first election under California's so-called "open primary" law. Peace and Freedom Party, together with the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian Parties, challenged the measure in Federal court, arguing that it violates the rights of the parties and party members to organize politically as they think best. However, the challenge was rejected in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento, and although that ruling is being appealed, it means that this election will be conducted under the new law.
The effect of the law is that all candidates, regardless of party, will be on the same ballot, and all voters, regardless of party, will be able to vote to select any party's nominee. For Peace and Freedom Party, in which there are contested races in five of the eight state-wide contests, this means that members of other parties will have the ability to influence or even determine the outcome of those races.
This means that it is especially important that members and supporters of the Peace and Freedom Party vote for Peace and Freedom Party candidates in the primary election, rather than succumb to "lesser-evilism" -- although judging from the campaigns the Democratic and Republican candidates have conducted so far, it is difficult to say that there is anything "lesser" about any of these evils.
It is also important that Peace and Freedom Party members and supporters turn out to vote NO on Propositions 226 and 227. The first of these is designed to break the political power (such as it is) of organized labor in this state by effectively preventing labor support for candidates and ballot measures important to working people. Consider, for example, the election two years ago: the California Federation of Labor organized the campaign to increase the state minimum wage. If, like the vast majority of Californians who voted, you believe that the increase in the minimum wage was a good (albeit inadequate) idea, you see an example of what Proposition 226 would prevent, and is designed to prevent.
Proposition 227, which would ban bilingual education, is a frontal attack on the children of immigrant families. It is based on a lie -- that bilingual classes do not teach children proficiency in English -- and will have the effect of preventing children from learning English and increasing the anti-immigrant hysteria of those who attack children because they fail to learn Engliish. By preventing these children from learning English, it will ensure that they will be unable to secure decent jobs as adults.
So, Peace and Freedom Party members and supporters: it is more important than ever to vote for Peace and Freedom Party candidates in this primary, and it is important to turn out to resist these attacks on labor and on immigrants and their children (including their U.S.-born children).
If Proposition 227 passes, most immigrant children will be deprived of a decent education, and they will not gain proficiency in English. This is because bilingual education, which is a key element in teaching English proficiency, will be virtually eliminated.
I will attempt to explain why bilingual education methods are superior, but first I will deal with one of the many ludicrous features of Proposition 227.
The method Ron Unz and Gloria Tuchman (the primary proponents of Proposition 227) propose to produce English fluency is preposterous. In Article 2 of the initiative, they advocate a one year program of "sheltered English immersion" for children who "do not speak English or who cannot perform ordinary classwork in English." Children would not be grouped by age, grade or native language, but only by "degree of English fluency." Five year olds and ten year olds will spend one year in the same classroom learning English, supposedly because they are on the same level, whether or not they can read or write in any language, do math, understand ideas or spend more than twenty minutes on any task. After that year, they would be ready to work in a regular English language classroom at their grade level. This not plausible.
However, the real problem with 227 is not that students need more time to learn English at their grade level. Using a better method of English language instruction is not enough. Bilingual education which provides English language instruction as well as instruction in the child's native language is the best way to teach English language learners.
It is not too hard to understand the value of native language instruction for older students. If a high school student with limited English skills needs to learn history and chemistry, it makes sense to teach history and chemistry in the native language while also providing English language instruction. When the student has learned English, he or she will be able to perform experiments or recall dates in both English and in the first language.
What many people do not understand is that young children need to learn to read and write in their native language in order to become better learners in any language. It is easy to mistake fluency, the fact that smaller children often pick up everyday language more quickly and with better pronunciation than adults, for proficiency, or the ability to think, read and write in a language. Learning to read requires several skills; it is a synthesis, or combination, of letter-sound recognition, familiarity with syntax (the rules a language follows), and knowledge of the content or meaning of words and sentences.
For a child to put these skills together, it is necessary or important to be familiar with the sounds, syntax and vocabulary of the language. Obviously, the child will be most successful in learning to read and write in the native language. As the child learns more English, he or she will more easily learn to read English because the complex of reading skills is already in place.
A good bilingual education program begins with specialized English language instruction and instruction in subject areas in the child's native language, with a gradual transition to mainstream instruction in English. This transition can take five to seven years.
During the transition period, children who have reached an intermediate level of English fluency are placed in "sheltered English instruction," where they receive grade level instruction in appropriate subjects in English delivered by a teacher who is skilled in teaching students with limited English proficiency.
Genuine sheltered instruction differs from what Unz and Tuchman call "sheltered English immersion" in several different ways:
1. It is specifically grade level instruction, in specific subjects, not generalized language instruction to a mix of age groups.
2. It is used for students who have some fluency in English, not new learners.
3. It is used for as long as necessary before a child is placed in a mainstream English language class, not terminated after one year.
4. The classes can be composed of a mix of students of various levels of fluency, including native English speakers, as long as the needs of those newly learning English are fully recognized, rather than being confined to one degree of English fluency.
A long-term study of Navajo students at Rock Point, Arizona, shows the benefits of bilingual education. In 1971, the students at Rock Point were two years below the U.S. national norm in English reading, although they were receiving intensive special instruction in English. A new program started Kindergarten students with 80% instruction in Navajo and 20% in English. Reading was not taught in English until the middle of second grade. By sixth grade, 80% of instruction was in English and students were two years ahead of the national reading norms. Studies of other bilingual programs in the U.S., Canada, Italy and Sweden show similar results.
Article 3 of Proposition 227 provides a complicated waiver process for parents who want bilingual education for their children. It requires parents who may not speak English to contend with many layers of red tape. The waiver process also has three serious flaws. The first is that, younger children must already be proficient in English reading and writing skills to be eligible for the waiver, when bilingual education is most beneficial for students who have limited English skills.
The second flaw is limiting the waiver for non-English proficient students to those aged 10 or older. Although it appears that young children can learn a new language faster than older people, this is only because their pronunciation is better. According to the work of Steve Krashen in the late 1970s, in the early stages of new language acquisition teenagers and adults are better learners than elementary school children, and fourth to seventh graders are faster than first to third graders. Bilingual education would not be available to the young children who need it the most.
The third flaw is that for schools to provide native language instruction to children with special needs, they must go all the way to the state for approval.
Article 4 of Proposition 227, "Community based English Tutoring," provides $50 million to teach English "to parents or other members of the community who pledge to provide personal English language tutoring to California school children with limited English proficiency." This seems like a good idea, and learning English will in fact help the adults to function more easily in this country. However, it is important that the adults also continue to speak and read to their children in the language they know the best. Children need a solid foundation in the sounds, syntax and context, or vocabulary, of some language in order to learn to read, write and think in any language. They will get a much stronger foundation from their parents in the native language than they will in one the parents are just learning.
One of the reasons so many of our children, native English speakers as well as English learners, have so much difficulty in school is that they are not spoken to and read to regularly and in a meaningful and nurturing way. Encouraging adult immigrants to learn English is fine, as long as their children are not deprived of the richness of the vocabulary of their culture.
It is clear that bilingual programs help children learn English and enhance their education in general. Some of California's bilingual programs may lack the components which have made the model programs successful. Where this is the case, the programs should be improved, not eliminated.
Everyone who supports democratizing our electoral system should Vote NO on Proposition 225.
The term limits movement arose from voters' frustration with obstacles to change erected by America's stagnant electoral system. But term limits are frustrating as well, because they do not empower voters to exercise meaningful choices.
When politicians leave office, they usually hand-pick their own successors. Most districts are dominated by one political party with no real competition, even from the other major party. Everyone knows ahead of time who is going to win, so voter turnout is often low and nothing really changes.
Meanwhile, many term-limited politicians become highly paid lobbyists. They write special interest legislation for new politicians who are too busy raising campaign money to do the job they were elected to do. Political power is transferred from elected legislators to professional lobbyists by term limits.
Term limits fail to change the nature of the winner-take-all system, which creates noncompetitive districts ("safe seats") for dominant political parties. People voting for losing candidates may feel their votes were "wasted" since their ballots elect nobody. They end up being represented geographically by someone they opposed politically. Supporters of California's 6 smaller ballot-qualified political parties are divided into 52 districts and therefore are denied any voice in Congress. Winner-take-all districts distort California's Congressional delegation by giving bonus seats to one party at the expense of all others. Term limits simply cannot do the necessary job of eliminating "safe seats."
The only way to eliminate "safe seats" and "wasted votes" is to modernize our elections by replacing single-member districts with multi-member districts. California should ask Congress to pass the Voters' Choice Act (H.R. 3068). It will allow each state to choose whether to elect its Members of Congress from multi-member districts by cumulative voting or proportional representation like most democracies in the world do.
The worst provision of this initiative requires the term limits voting record of California's Congressional delegation to be printed on the ballot. This exaggerates the importance of one issue above all other domestic and foreign policy legislation. Perhaps a chart reporting positions of all candidates on numerous issues would be appropriate for the ballot pamphlet. But it is unfair to give special treatment on the actual ballot to incumbents and not to other candidates.
Terms limits barely tinker with our broken election system. California's Elections Code needs a fundamental overhaul to enable democratization of our society. Every citizen could study how elections really work, and discuss with friends and neighbors how to more fairly structure our decision-making apparatus at all levels of popular government in the 21st Century. Term limits are a distraction which cannot empower American voters. Genuine election reform will make everybody's vote count.
To cure political stagnation, please learn more about proportional representation and other alternative methods of voting. Then contact your representatives at all levels of government to support legislation toward building a truly participatory democracy.
[Casey Peters, South State Chair of the Peace and Freedom Party, is active in the Campaign for Municipal Democracy.]
Gloria La Riva
2489 Mission St., Room 28
San Francisco, CA 94110
(415) 826-4828
sf@workers.org
http://www.workers.org
Marsha Feinland
1748 Shattuck Avenue, #116
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 845-7251
feinland@peaceandfreedom.org
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/feinland.htm
Regina F. Lark
10153 1/2 Riverside Dr., #374
Toluca Lake 91602
Phone: (818) 830-2794
Email: lark@scf.usc.edu
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/janbtucker
Jaime Luis Gomez
2140 Reservoir #7
Los Angeles CA 90026
(213) 484-5437
gomez@peaceandfreedom.org
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/gomez.htm
Marisa Helene Palyvos-Story
10153 1/2 Riverside Dr., #374
Toluca Lake 91602
Phone: (818) 830-2794
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/janbtucker
Israel Feuer
P O Box 24858
Los Angeles CA 90024-0858
(310) 473-3498
e-mail:
i_feuer_self-govt@sierrawave.com
C.T. Weber
9616 Caminito Tizona
San Diego CA 92126-4103
619-530-0454
Jan Tucker
10153 1/2 Riverside Dr., #374
Toluca Lake 91602
Phone: (818) 830-2794
e-mail:
76170.1432@compuserve.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/janbtucker
Robert J. Evans
1736 Franklin St., 10th floor
Oakland CA 94612
510-238-4190
e-mail:
evans@peaceandfreedom.org
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/evans.htm
Gary Kast
10153 1/2 Riverside Dr., #374
Toluca Lake 91602
Phone: (818) 830-2794
e-mail: gkastesq@aol.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/janbtucker
Tom Condit
1748 Shattuck Avenue, #249
Berkeley, CA 94709
(510) 845-7251
tomcondit@labornet.org
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/condit.htm
Gary R. Ramos
10153 1/2 Riverside Dr., #374
Toluca Lake 91602
Phone: (818) 830-2794
e-mail: harley64@aol.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/janbtucker
Ophie C. Beltran
10153 1/2 Riverside Dr., #374
Toluca Lake 91602
Phone: (818) 830-2794
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/janbtucker
Shirley Isaacson
6485 Zuma View Pl, #103
Malibu CA 90265-4481
310-457-6638
4th District
Maxine Bell Quirk
331 North Olive Street
Orange 92866
(714) 639-0565
3rd District
Ernest Jones
621 Jefferson Lane
Ukiah 95482
(707) 462-8373
beoden@inreach.com
lst CD
Gerald Sanders
915 - 39th Street
Oakland CA 94608
(510) 655-5764
9th CD
Ralph Shroyer
6331 Glade Ave #113
Woodland Hills CA 91367-1914
818-346-3334
ralph@themall.net
24th CD
Janice Jordan
P O Box 34196
San Diego 92163-4196
619-294-2121
49th CD
Brian Garay
P O. Box 2495
Mendocino 95460
707-964-1658
2d District
Marian 'Muffy' Sunde
936 1/2 South Serrano Avenue
Los Angeles 90006
(213) 365-1792
22nd District
Pamela Elizondo
P.O. Box 104
Laytonville 95454
(707) 984-9366
1st AD
Coleman C. Persily
206 Yosemite Road
San Rafael CA 94903
(415) 479-1731
6th AD
Irv Sutley
P O Box 174
Glen Ellen CA 95442-0174
(707) 579-5885
7th AD
John Honigsfeld
6485 Zuma View Pl, #103
Malibu CA 90265-4481
310-457-6638
41st AD
Nancy Lawrence
11676 - 3/4 Darlington Ave
Los Angeles CA 90049-4711
(310) 826-5096
42nd AD
Casey Peters
P O Box 741270
Los Angeles CA 90004
(213) 385-2786
e-mail:
kcpeters@ix.netcom.com
Los Angeles County, District 3
Marge Akin
20212 Harvard Way
Riverside 92507-6621
(909) 787-0318
makin@ucrac1.ucr.edu
Riverside County, District 5
My campaign will mobilize against the continuing attacks on immigrant, labor and welfare rights. As a bi-lingual Latina community and union activist, and longtime socialist, I am committed to fighting for all people's right to a decent life -- to full employment, health care, housing, a safe environment, education and childcare, and to a society free from racism, sexism and anti-lesbian/gay/bi/trans bigotry. I first became active as a student, defending affirmative action which had made it possible for me to attend college. As the Peace and Freedom Party candidate for governor in 1994, I was the only candidate invited to speak at the 200,000-person Los Angeles immigrant rights march.
My campaign opposes Prop 227, which would ban bilingual education, and Prop 226, which attacks the political rights of unions and their members. I am running a vigorous campaign, as I did in 1994, bringing Peace and Freedom Party's program to as many Californians as possible.
I call for halting prison construction, saving Headwaters Forest and Ward Valley, and taxing corporations, not working people. My campaign supports Native sovereignty. I oppose US intervention abroad and the blockades of Cuba and Iraq.
It is not so much a question of which politicians are in office; the problem lies in the system itself. Capitalism is based on profit above all, not on meeting the needs of the people. All the wealth of society has been created by us, the working people. We should share this wealth and control it -- that's socialism. What's needed is a mass movement -- only when people are organized and united in action can we achieve real change. I work every day to build such a movement.
My campaign is a grassroots effort. We need your support, participation and donations.
Gloria La Riva for Governor, 2489 Mission, #26, San Francisco, CA 94110 (415)826-4828, e-mail sf@workers.org.
[An uncaptioned photo by Bill Hackwell shows Gloria La Riva]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
The governor's race is a referendum on education, and all of the "major" candidates are running on the same platform:
As a teacher running for governor, I will bring our real needs to the table:
As an elected Rent Board Commissioner in Berkeley, I will also bring to the forefront California's housing crisis: sharply rising rents, decrease in subsidized housing, gentrification of previously affordable neighborhoods. We need to restore and expand rent control and have a campaign for statewide protection against evictions.
I work every day to educate our children and help tenants keep their homes. I also escort women getting safe and legal abortions, march against U.S. imperialist foreign policy, and for equal rights, labor solidarity and the preservation of mother earth. But my greatest priority is building a movement for fundamental change.
We who do the work can share the fruits of our labor. We can protect the earth -- the source of our future -- from the rapacious greed of those who think they own it. We can free ourselves of prejudice and move freely around our world. This is my vision of socialism. But socialism is not an edict declared by an enlightened leader, spread by an army of missionaries. We must educate and organize ourselves and all other working-class people, so that all may democratically decide how to take power, and what to do with it.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Marsha Feinland]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
I feel strongly about the need to humanize California's spending priorities. I believe the doors of education and health care should be open to all our residents. I believe everybody has the right to a decent job with decent wages. And I believe we are entitled to clean, safe environments.
Members of diverse groups must be entitled to full acceptance in every aspect of social and economic life, including the right of same-sex marriage.
We can have full employment for all, and we don't need to work sixty-hour weeks. As head of the Commission on Economic Development, I will focus on spreading employment by creating a thirty hour work week. This would help families. I will develop democratically controlled, worker-owned cooperatives to build affordable housing, which will meet a real need and generate jobs.
Undocumented residents who would otherwise be recognized as California residents must pay nonresident fees to our public colleges and universities. The basic rights of prenatal health care are being denied to many of our unborn citizens. The flow of capital across borders is a very natural occurrence, as is the flow of labor. I shall strive to eliminate the legal hardships imposed on people migrating across our borders in search of a better life.
As a Regent of the University of California and a Trustee of the State University system, I will strive to ensure that every resident of California be allowed to pursue a college education free of charge. We must increase university capacity to allow enrollment of every qualified student. A more fully educated population can only be an asset to our state. A society that continues to live off increasingly discontented communities will only rot and decay.
* * * Gomez for Lt. Governor * * *
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Jaime Luis Gomez]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
As a member of the Peace and Freedom Party, I will bring to the office my on-going dedication to the party's stated purposes: self-determination for all nations and peoples; quality health care, education, and transportation; women's reproductive rights; ending discrimination based on sex, race, sexual orientation, age, or disability; and the restoration and protection of clean air, water, land, and ecosystems.
The Lt. Governor of California sits on a number of governing councils, acts as Governor of the State when the current Governor is absent from the state or is unable to carry out the duties of office, and presides over the business of the State Senate. As a voting member of the State Job Training Coordinating Council, I would ensure that all Californians had equal access to both traditional and occupational education to allow them to succeed in the growing, global market. As a member of both the UC Board of Regents and Chairperson of the Trustees of the California State University systems, I would work for affordable education and greater access to scholarships for students beginning college later in life. As director of the Commission for Economic Development, I would enact measures to encourage the growth of new business from women and people of color; I would also crackdown on the proliferation of sweatshops and the unhealthful and unfair employment practices of corporate California. In addition, I would encourage corporate California, both private and public, to offer domestic partnership benefits to same-sex and non-married couples. I envision a state that does not incorporate "family values" but instead adopts an attitude toward "valuing families." The love and commitment people share with each other should not be based on a heterosexual, patriarchal model. Allow Californians to envision for themselves their own model of family life.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Regina Lark]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
Attention: All voters sapient and sentient! I voice an appeal to reason -- Exercise uncommon sense during election season. Don't just surrender, or squander, your vote for self-seeking politicians and time-serving bureaucrats (or sundry demagogues, ego-trippers, sectarians, opportunists). Make your vote really count by nominating someone missioned, who stands for something meaningful, in public service. As your Secretary of State, I'll work to truly empower all Californians, through fairer election procedures, adequate impartial information, enhanced voting alternatives, by implementing real reforms. This misnamed "open primary" won't suffice -- nor mere 100-word statements! I welcome your inquiries ... I solicit your support ... Thanks!
P.O. Box 24858
Los Angeles, CA 90024
(310)473-3498
E-Mail:
i_feuer_self-govt@sierrawave.com
Web Site:
www.sierrawave.com/i_feuer_self-govt
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Israel Feuer]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
I propose elections where each party receives representation based upon its actual voter support to insure more diversity in California government. This is known as "proportional representations."
As working mother and member of the United Food and Commercial Workers (AFL-CIO), I'll ensure that the Corporate Division cracks down on companies for tax nonpayment. I will demand that cities stop issuing business licenses to suspended corporations. For years the Los Angeles Police Commission has allowed four suspended corporations -- all owned by the same person -- to do business even though they owe millions in back taxes to California. I will send the list of suspended corporations to each government agency in California and demand that they stop licensing them to do business!
I'll help unions with neutral card checks -- to determine worker support for representation rights through the elections division. The AFL-CIO has made a key demand on all politicians to support neutral card checks without NLRB elections and our feminist-labor slate supports it.
Recently, I exposed the L.A. County District Attorney's typical negligence in child support enforcement which has led to hundreds of thousands of single custodial parents receiving no child support whatsoever. After a court order was supposed to increase my child support payments by $75 monthly, the District Attorney instead removed the wage garnishment that had been in place instead of increasing it. After I issued a press release, they put it back on, but forgot to install the increase.
This kind of ineptitude reinforces the feminization of poverty, which I fight as a member of the National Organization for Women. As Secretary of State, I'll compare the list of child support non-payers to the officers of corporations filed with the secretary of state to help District Attorney family support units track down these deadbeats.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Marisa Palyvos-Story]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
Current party chair and elected state union leader CT Weber is running for Controller. Weber joined Peace and Freedom Party in 1967, and in 1968 was a delegate to the founding convention in Richmond, California, the national convention in Ann Arbor, Michigan, and the official state convention in Sacramento.
CT was president of the Long Beach Chapter 1968-1970 and 1978-1982; South State Chair 1970-1972 and 1992 and 1994; State Chair 1972-1974 and 1996-1998; San Diego County Chair 1986-1992; and Parliamentarian 1994-1996.
CT organized the Second Peace and Freedom Party Convention and Celebration in Long Beach (1970) where 400 members worked to rebuild the shattered party; Coalition National Convention in Dallas, Texas (1971) where 200 activists created the People's Party and nominated Benjamin Spock for president; 1974 state convention in Sacramento where 200 delegates debated and voted to become a feminist-socialist party; and 1992 convention in San Diego where 200 delegates nominated Ron Daniels for president, leading the New Alliance Party to cease its efforts within Peace and Freedom Party.
CT has worked to expand democracy, create unity, and bring new people into the leadership of the party. He organized complete or near complete slates for state legislature and U.S. House in 1980 and 1982 in the Long Beach area, and in 1988, 1990 and 1992 in San Diego County. CT himself was a candidate for Controller 1970, Governor 1974 (lost in close four way primary), Assembly 1984, U.S. House 1986, and Board of Equalization 1990.
In order to reestablish activity in Long Beach, CT promoted weekly folk music nights and a monthly newsletter at the Peace and Freedom House. He then convinced the party to establish the Long Beach Free Clinic in 1969, Free Store, free legal service and soupline in 1970.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows C.T. Weber]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
Our feminist-labor slate is running to revitalize PFP.
The existing leadership -- exemplified by Feinland, Condit, Evans, and Gomez -- have run our party into the ground.
Less than 25 people attend state meetings out of a party of nearly 70,000 members.
Our "leaders" pretend they have something to do with membership growth that is entirely caused by the "motor voter" law and has nothing to do with their feeble efforts.
Their concept of affirmative action for party candidates was to recruit Gomez -- who has pledged not to campaign -- to run against the first upfront Lesbian to run on our statewide ticket since 1978 because they were embarrassed that the feminist labor slate was running four Latinos. This is an insult to both Latinos and Gay people.
Our slate Is 50% Latino, 50% women, 50% NOW members because we did real outreach to expand PFP's appeal. The leadership's slate is mostly white and male because affirmative action is okay for everybody except themselves.
While people from the leadership camp get up at party "central committee" meetings and make nonsensical statements like "we are the new Bolsheviks," we actually put together a slate that has labor union experience across the board: I am human rights chair and County Federation of Labor Delegate of L.A. Newspaper Guild (CWA, AFL-CIO); Ophie Beltran was active with Teamsters for a Democratic Union, Gary Ramos was a UAW shop steward, Gary Kast is ex-teamster, and Marisa Story is in United Food & Commercial Workers (UFCW). Gloria LaRiva, who our slate is endorsing, is ITU-CWA.
Two years ago, when I placed second of four candidates in the presidential primary, my Partisan statement, like this one, was so critical of party leadership that they conveniently made sure the Partisan arrived after the election was over.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Jan Tucker]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
The top Democratic Attorney General candidates all promise in their ballot pamphlet statements to kill Californians. I am absolutely opposed to California's death penalty and, as Attorney General, will do everything possible to end its use. The California Department of Justice will truly seek justice, and not state killing of the poor.
Attorney General Lungren has directed civil and criminal actions at marijuana buyers clubs, trying to thwart the will of California voters who overwhelmingly approved the medical marijuana initiative. The Democratic candidates have refused to say where they stand. As Attorney General, I will cease all legal attacks on medical marijuana and will protect Californians against efforts to use federal law against doctors and providers.
I will use the office of Attorney General to protect Californians rights of privacy and will prosecute illegal police conduct. California voters recognize the need for this protection; four years ago, on a campaign calling for defense of Constitutional rights, I led the Peace and Freedom Party ticket with over 270,000 votes.
The Attorney General takes an oath to defend the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of California. Defense of unlawful police conduct and of clearly unconstitutional laws, violates that oath.
The poverty and the feelings of despair, hopelessness and powerlessness created by the present economic system are the leading causes of both violent and property crimes. If the Attorney General is to be more than top cop, and is instead to help protect the public, those causes must be addressed.
I will protect Californians by fighting for labor rights, for increased pay, guaranteed jobs or income and decent housing for all. And I will fight for a new economic system, collectively owned and democratically managed by all working people.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Robert Evans]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
Bio. born L.A. Cal. 1952. 2 children. Active in Peace Movement 1966-1968. UCLA 1974, Southwestern U. 1978 (Night), worked my way through law school (full time truckdriver-Teamster). Lawyer since 1979. Represents working class, small business people. Registered P&Fer since 1970.
Why hasn't the A.G. been a force for cleaner government? Corporate interests "own" California government. Laws are broken to accomplish this. No one profiting by corruption will overturn it.
Why didn't CA go after Tobacco?
County District Attorneys are stepping on people all over the state, violating rights and even committing crimes . WHO WILL PROSECUTE THE PROSECUTORS? We need in the A.G.'s office a division to investigate and prosecute crimes by local prosecutors, with an 800 number. Lets make law enforcement responsible for flagrant abuses.
The A.G. should not prosecute drug offenses. Period. End C.A.M.P. Making addictive drugs illegal only makes them expensive, which means more theft crimes to support habits. Interdiction just raises the price making even more burglaries, purse snatchings, robberies. Even in prison they are obtaining heroin. So how can we keep it out of a free society. We can't, but trying to stop it makes us all less free. Drug prohibition places us all at greater risk of theft crimes and violence. I do not want my mother's purse snatched again because some misguided legislators want to stop a junkie from doing what he wants to do to himself. Legalization is the only solution. We can tax it and support free treatment by its taxes. We could provide free treatment for everyone who wanted it just with savings from prison construction and maintenance thereby unnecessary). Marijuana prosecution is obscene.
I'll use the platform to further progressive goals. Please vote for me.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Gary Kast]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
Gary Ramos was a United Automobile Workers (AFL-CIO) shop steward and union activist at the General Motors plants in South Gate and Van Nuys until the company downsized them out of existence. Since then, he has been a private investigator and is licensed by the California Bureau of Security & Investigative Services.
As a private investigator, Ramos has important experience in all aspects of insurance related litigation issues, including vehicle/personal injury investigations, workers compensation, and business fraud investigation. He has hands on experience at combating both insurance fraud and unethical practices by insurance companies, having worked both sides of the fence, for plaintiffs and defendants.
Ramos will halt Insurance Department attacks on motorcycle clubs which are wasting hundreds of thousands on useless prosecutions: one paid "Judas" received thousands of taxpayer dollars to entrap law-abiding motorcycle enthusiasts. Insurance Commissioner Quackenbush instigated these prosecution efforts for political publicity. As a private detective, Ramos regularly investigates police abuse throughout East Los Angeles and has campaigned against civil rights deprivations by police and sheriffs.
Ramos supports DMV non-profit auto insurance with either "pay at the pump" financing through gasoline taxes or premiums paid to DMV upon yearly re-registration of vehicles, either of which will save enormous administrative costs and bring down insurance prices. He supports single-payer health insurance with the Insurance Commissioner negotiating HMO and reimbursement policy prices for all Californians. He will seek to criminalize insurance sales by non-admitted carriers in California, to make private investigator fees for combating insurance fraud fully recoverable in civil and administrative actions, and prohibit auto insurance premium rating based on anything other than driving record. Ramos endorses the National Organization for Women's drive to require auto insurers to allow a "mileage-only option" to provide lost-cost premiums for people who travel less than average.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Gary Ramos]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
Ten years after the passage of Proposition 103, insurance company redlining in property and automobile liability insurance continues, and giant HMOs dominate our health care system.
We know from the experience of Canadians that public-sector automobile and health insurance are cheaper and better than our bloated corporate bureaucracies can provide.
Our present system of auto insurance charges drivers in cities higher rates because of traffic congestion caused by suburban commuters. It makes the cost of just owning a car so high in comparison to operating costs that it's cheaper to use it than to take public transportation.
We need a state auto insurance fund, covering basic liability and property damage and financed by a surcharge on gasoline at the service station pump. Those who use their Honda three times a week to go to the grocery store and the laundromat will pay less for insurance than commuters with sports utility vehicles, not more as they now do. It would be environmentally responsible, charging people for the fossil fuels they used instead of for owning a car.
We need a single universal system of quality health care, financed by the state without insurance company red tape and overhead. Public insurance is cheaper and delivers better service than corporations can provide. It doesn't need million-dollar CEOs, television advertising, or stock dividends.
We can't make fundamental changes in our greed-driven society just by voting every two years. We need to work with our friends, our neighbors and our fellow workers to figure out what society really needs and how we can get it.
We owe each other promises as members of society -- to heal the sick, to care for the aged, to educate the children. It's time to build a democratic working-class movement which will keep those promises.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Tom Condit]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
I am running on a feminist/labor slate of Peace & Freedom Party candidates including Regina Lark (Lieutenant Governor), Marisa Palyvos-Story (Secretary of State), Gary Ramos (Insurance Commissioner), Gary Kast (Attorney General), David Delano Blanco (Controller), and Jan Tucker (Treasurer). We support Gloria LaRiva for Governor.
Our slate applauds the AFL-CIO demand that elected officials support the right of workers to unionize through neutral "card checks' by community leaders.
I support congressional sanctions against Turkey for blockading Armenia and atrocities against Kurds and against other human rights abusers.
I oppose NAFTA and "fast track' without protecting union rights and environmental safeguards, as a former activist with Teamsters for a Democratic Union and as a current officer of the Workers Organizing Committee.
As a longtime member of the National Organization for Women, I have a long-term reputation as a clinic defense activist. I will seek federal legislation to strengthen FACE -- the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act -- making it easier to bring civil suits against clinic blockaders and disrupters.
The leadership slate of PFP has blocked efforts to diversify our party's candidate slate. They adopted a bizarre position on Armenian affairs in 1994 making racist statements about Armenians at a party executive meeting, exclude younger people from party affairs, and refuse to do affirmative action outreach to many diverse communities of Californians we need to reach out to. They are proposing futile by-laws amendments which are plainly contrary to the established law of "Green Party vs. Jones" in an effort to block our slate from winning party nominations. They have recently conducted party executive committee meetings without notice to officers, including the chairperson, in order to avoid party democracy at all costs and to plan a "rump" convention of the party in order to stack the leadership after this election.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Ophie Beltran]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
I'm so pleased that the Peace and Freedom Party is still alive and that I can still run as a candidate in this socialist party. Over my many campaigns hundreds of people have told me that they recognized my name on the ballot and that they voted for me.
Four years ago I also ran for this same office, State Board of Equalization. The Democrat was the winner, elected to a four-year term, but he served only two years, getting himself elected to the U.S. Congress. I'm different. I've worked for the Los Angeles schools for thirty years.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Shirley Isaacson]
I've worked in the field of education most of my life. Education is what my campaign is about. It's obvious neither I nor the P&F Party possess the financial resources to compete for power with the Plutocracy, rather than the Democracy, which controls our country. As our schools remain basically in the clutches of Special Interests which promote only the conventional wisdom, only the electoral campaigns are left to offer the hope of meaningful political education sorely needed by the public. Public financing of campaigns, and proportional representation rather than "winner take all" are essentials to achieve this goal.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Ralph Shroyer]
I am running uncontested in my district but I feel it is very important to let my fellow Peace and Freedom Party members know where I stand on the issues and my political philosophy. I believe America needs nothing short of a working class led revolution, dynamic and based in love. I believe in a Party that is democratic in nature. I agree with our platform top to bottom. I believe our party is the only hope for working class people. We need to show California we are capable of the task.
I want to thank all the youth of Malibu for their willingness to register as voters in the Peace and Freedom Party to help me become a candidate for State Assembly. Young people hold a strong sense of fairness, and a respect for candidates of opposition political parties.
In my race, I'm the only minor party candidate opposing the Democrat and the Republican, even though California has eight parties now. So, we were the first "minor" party, and sometimes still the only one.
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
[In theory, the Board of Supervisors, like all city and county positions in California, is "non-partisan." In reality, this is a myth, as was pointed out by Alameda County Supervisor, and Oakland mayoral candidate Mary King, who attacked the leading candidate for mayor, former governor Jerry Brown, when it was learned that he was "former Democrat" Jerry Brown, as well, having reregistered "Decline to State."]
[Peace and Freedom Party has always supported its activists, such as Casey and Margie, in campaigns for "non-partisan" office, confident that they will present our Party's program regardless of the presence or absence of party labels on the ballot.]
"Would you consider one County Supervisor for every two million people to be local representation?," asks Casey Peters, Los Angeles charter reform activist and South State Chair of the Peace & Freedom Party. "Why are just five Supervisors above separation of legislative and executive and Grand Jury-appointing powers? Too few politicians are too powerful in governing nearly ten million people in the most diverse metropolis in the world."
Peters is one of three challengers to incumbent Zev Yaroslavsky in the June 2, 1998, nonpartisan Primary Election. Casey's campaign calls for proportional representation elections of at least 15 Supervisors and of hundreds of neighborhood councils throughout Los Angeles County. A Coalition Against Police Abuse supporter, Peters proposes locally elected Sheriff review boards. Casey wants the hundreds of county hospital beds slashed by the incumbent replaced with community health clinics.
As a Bus Riders Union activist, Peters demands direct election of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board. Casey criticizes "Wrong Way Zevvy" for two decades of supporting subway boondoggles over modern buses and regional light rail.
In 1997, Casey Peters garnered 40% of the vote for Los Angeles Charter Commissioner despite being outspent by 25-to-1. You can help Casey's campaign by calling (213) 385-2786 to volunteer or by sending a donation to Campaign for Municipal Democracy, PO box 741270, Los Angeles CA 90004.
Riverside County management has forced a weak sweetheart contract down the throats of about half the county's workers, as the weaker of the two county employee unions capitulated to management demands for take-aways. Peace and Freedom Party member Margie Akin, the only opponent of the incumbent Supervisor in the Fifth District, is campaigning to keep management from forcing the same bad deal on the other major union representing county workers. Her campaign also stresses environmental protection, affordable childcare, and opposition to privatizing public services for the benefit of profiteers.
Margie will spend less money on her campaign than her opponent -- for one thing, she refuses corporate campaign contributions. But working people are contributing to her campaign, and local politicos are starting to realize that she has a chance to win.
Riverside County had a majority of women on the Board of Supervisors four years ago, and they were generally rated the Board's most effective and sensible members. Today there are no women, and the Board is widely seen as a group of opportunist incompetents. Dr. Margie Akin is a highly-regarded university lecturer in anthropology, but her ballot statement says "Aside from academic credentials, my experience as a working-class wife and mother helps me understand some problems better than the gentlemen now on the Board."
Membership in a smaller party may not hurt Margie in the election in her particular district. Margie's son Alexander Akin ran for County Board of Education in the same area in 1992, receiving 47% of the vote while also being elected to the Peace and Freedom Party State Central Committee.
[An uncaptioned, uncredited photo shows Margie Akin]
Note to ReadersThis issue of The Partisan includes statements submitted by all but one of the Peace and Freedom Party candidates for statewide office in the upcoming primary election (his ballot pamphlet statement is used instead) and a number of candidates for district or local office. The statements are those of the candidates themselves, published as submitted without any attempt to verify their accuracy. There is only one statement of candidates for each of the offices of Controller, Treasurer, and U.S. Senator because only one Peace and Freedom Party candidate filed for each of these offices. |
California currently has two levels of trial courts. There is one Superior Court in each county, which hears trials in felony cases, family law cases, juvenile and family law matters, and in other "more serious" civil cases. The Municipal Court hears preliminary matters in felony cases, misdemeanors, and "less serious" civil cases (including such "less serious" cases as those in which landlords try to throw people out of their homes).
Proposition 220 would provide for the consolidation of these two court systems, abolishing the Municipal Court (and turning all current Municipal Court judges into Superior Court judges, with resulting pay raises of nearly $10,000 per year) and providing for one county-wide court. Or maybe it wouldn't. Because whether it goes into effect in a given county is dependent on separate votes of all the county's Superior Court judges and all the county's Municipal Court judges. And that is the reason Peace & Freedom Party urges a "NO" vote on Proposition 220.
Whether "court consolidation" is or is not a good thing is arguable. It depends to some degree on where you live: since Municipal Court judges are elected from the court's district and not, at least in larger areas, county-wide, if you live in a more liberal area you probably have "better" judges than you'd get from a county-wide election. By the same token, if you live in a more conservative area of a county in which there is a larger population of more liberal voters, your "local" judges might improve.
But the real issue is that Proposition 220 is fundamentally undemocratic, in that a decision which should be made by all the voters is delegated to a small, elite group. Because of this undemocratic nature of the proposal, we urge a "NO" vote.
The ballot argument in support of Proposition 221 is signed by prosecutors. In spite of that (a fact which might give one pause), Peace & Freedom Party urges a "YES" vote on Proposition 221 (although we must confess to being even less concerned about it than about Proposition 220).
The California courts currently have various "subordinate judicial officers," with titles such as court commissioner or referee. They are hired by, and are answerable to, the judges of the courts in which they serve. They perform such functions as hearing small claims court cases and traffic cases in Municipal Court; in Superior Courts, they serve in family law and juvenile departments, where they often make important decisions and are the only "judges" seen by any of the people brought into those courts.
California's judges are subject to discipline by the state's Commission on Judicial Performance. That body can hear complaints against judges and, if they are upheld, can privately or publicly reprimand them or, in the most serious cases, remove them from office. Proposition 221 would make "subordinate judicial officers" also subject to the authority of the Commission on Judicial Performance.
In reality, the threat of action by the Commission is not a significant one. Judges are not disciplined for making erroneous decisions, for example, or for denying people their Constitutional rights. But there have been cases where, for example, repeated sexual harassment of lawyers and court employees have led to removal of judges from office.
A little bit of review is better than none, and for that reason we urge a "YES" vote on Proposition 221.
Proposition 222 is a continuation of the failed "lock'em up forever" theory which has been seen as the "solution" to crime for over a decade. It eliminates the 15% credit which a person convicted of second degree murder can earn against his sentence (which may be as "low" as 15 years to life, but which generally is much higher) before being eligible for parole. Also, a person convicted of second degree murder of a police officer would be sentenced to life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
The sad fact is that, in today's political climate, these changes make no difference; prisoners with "life tops" are simply not being paroled. In reality, whether the sentence is 15-to-life, 20-to-life, 200-to-life, or life without parole, the result is the same.
However, in spite of the fact that, until there is a change in California's political climate, this measure will have no real effect, the theories which underlie it are so fundamentally wrong, and so fundamentally destructive of our society, that Proposition 222 must be opposed on principle.
Violent crime will be reduced when we reduce society's violence. By approving of such violence, our society declares that violence is legitimate. Whether it be the violence of life-time incarceration or even execution of prisoners or the "clean" slaughter of hundreds of thousands by technologically sophisticated weapons, as was done to Iraqi civilians, our society's declaration that state violence is proper leads to the conclusion that individual violence is likewise proper. If government properly kills hundreds of thousands of innocents to achieve its own goals, why is an individual not justified in killing another person who has done, or who threatens to do, harm to him?
Thus, society's violence of life-time imprisonment, execution and war, rather than deterring violent crime, create a climate which justifies, in the eyes of the perpetrator, individual violence. Reduction in violent individual crime must start with the end of violent state crime, whether by police, by jailors, or by the army or air force.
Reject violence by voting NO on Proposition 222.
[A cartoon by Jonik shows a prison scene, with a guard watching while one prisoner pushes a clothes rack full of jackets and another two prisoners are putting things in boxes labeled "Microsoft Windows". A fourth prisoner sits at a table, writing, "Dear Mom, You'll be glad to know, I finally found a job."]
"The private sector can do it more cheaply than those government employees." How often have we heard those words, or ones like them, from "taxpayers' associations," construction industry executives, and others who support turning work done by public employees over to private profiteers? Proposition 224 gives them an opportunity to show that it's true: the cost of construction-related work really would be compared to the cost of the same work by "private industry," and the work would not be contracted out unless "private industry" really could do it more cheaply than public workers.
And guess what? "Private industry" is against it. When it comes down to it, they don't want for their costs to be compared with civil service workers.
Proposition 224 would require that, before contracting out certain construction-related services (engineering, architecture, and the like), a government agency would have to compare the private profiteers' cost with the cost of doing the work "in-house," by public employees. The main criticism of Proposition 224 is not one that you'll see in the ballot arguments against it (for they are written by those who want to see work contracted out, regardless of the cost) is that it does not go far enough: it is limited to "professional" type construction-related work (although it saves jobs for the public employee assistants and staff of architects and engineers and the like), and is not a blanket restriction on contracting out.
But it's a foot in the door, and would demonstrate the voters' preference for work being done by public employees where they can do it more economically; it could perhaps be broadened in the future. And what about that "if"? Can public employees do the job more economically? Well, you can figure out what the private profiteers think the answer is: they're putting their resources into defeating Proposition 224 even though work would still be contracted out if it could be done more efficiently by the "private sector."
The fact that work would still be contracted out if the "private sector" could do it more cheaply put the lie to the arguments of opponents that the measure means "higher taxes." The jobs are going to be paid for by tax dollars in any event; the question is whether those tax dollars will go to private profiteers when public workers could do the same job more safely and at a lower cost. Paying more money to the "private sector" for doing the same work does not translate into "higher taxes."
Proposition 224 is a small but significant step toward protecting public sector jobs against the continued encroachment of privatization and contracting out. Vote YES on Proposition 224.
[An accompanying cartoon by Mike Konopacki of Huck/Konopacki Labor Cartoons shows a ship, the "S.S. Union Jobs" broken in half and starting to sink. One tiny figure asks another, "Iceberg?", to which another answers, "Contracting out."]
The Peace & Freedom Party urges a YES vote on Proposition 223. This measure prohibits school districts from spending more than 5% of their funds on administrative costs. It was put on the ballot by the United Teachers of Los Angeles (UTLA).
Proposition 223 was triggered by the situation in districts such as Los Angeles and Oakland, where classrooms are starved for resources while central bureaucracy and administrative salaries soar into the stratosphere. This uncontrolled bureaucracy leads to cronyism and corruption.
P&F support for the measure was decided after a lengthy debate and a close vote on our State Central Committee. Opponents argued that small districts would have a very difficult time meeting the 5% guideline. The statewide average for administrative costs is 7.3%. Proponents countered that there were too many small districts, and they should consolidate.
The Peace & Freedom Party calls for federal funding of schools on an equal basis instead of fighting over crumbs. We support Proposition 223 as a step toward democratization of school management.
Tens of thousands of San Francisco tenants may be driven from their homes if Proposition E passes in the June election. The landlord-sponsored initiative would end rent and eviction control on 50,000 apartments in buildings with four or fewer units.
With the supply of affordable housing rapidly shrinking, and over 200,000 tenants in California facing the loss of Section 8 housing, the effects of Measure E on San Francisco's poor and working-class communities would be catastrophic. Already the Board of Supervisors has adopted a procedure to pass all bond costs through to tenants.
Landlords and real estate speculators have already poured more than $150,000 into the campaign for Proposition E, and more is on the way. They hope to make a fortune evicting present tenants and gentrifying San Francisco neighborhoods. Tenant groups are geared up to fight this vicious attack, but will be vastly outspent. Vote NO on San Francisco Proposition E.
Suppose a ballot measure proposed a new sales tax to fund a new program, one which you might actually get something from. But, suppose that, like Peace & Freedom Party, you've always been against the sales tax because it falls heaviest on the poor. So you were going to vote against it. But suppose it also said you wouldn't get any of the benefits, although you'd still pay the tax, unless you had voted for it. That might make you vote for it, just so you wouldn't have to pay for nothing.
The authors of Proposition 172, which was on the November, 1993 ballot thought of that. They proposed a new statewide tax what would only benefit counties that had voted for it.
Proposition 219 would prohibit this sort of scheme, by providing that state and local ballot measures will have the same effect in every county or political subdivision, regardless of the vote in that county or subdivision.
Peace and Freedom party urges a YES vote on Proposition 219.
Get your own Free Home Page