PANORAMA CITY, Calif. — The Libertarian Party of California (LPC) has taken a position on the November ballot initiatives. It supports the governor's reform initiatives – Props. 74-77 – and opposes Props. 78, 79 and 80. The LPC took no position on Prop. 73.

"The governor's reform initiatives are good for California and for its citizens," said Aaron Starr, chairman of the Libertarian Party of California. "More reform is necessary, but they all are a step in the right direction.

"As for the competing prescription drug initiatives, each would mean either higher overall drug costs or higher taxes, and probably both. You are supposed to vote for Prop. 78 to stop the passage of Prop. 79. We see no point in playing that game.

"And finally, Prop. 80 is not a viable solution to whatever perceived problem its sponsors are trying to solve. California's regulatory environment is ultimately responsible for there being insufficient electrical generation and distribution capacity in the state, and has brought California's primary energy companies to the brink of bankruptcy—and beyond. More government is not a fitting solution to a government failure.

"Interfering with markets is ineffective at best, and may cause disastrous economic distortions at worst. The only way to deal with so-called market problems is to let the free market work it out itself. It always has, and the energy and pharmaceutical markets are no different."

The LPC took the following positions on ballot initiatives:

Prop. 73 (Parental Notification): No position.

Prop. 74 (Teacher Tenure): Yes.
Our government-run education system is failing students. Holding teachers to the same standard required of most workers is a step in the right direction. Assuming that teaching is such a special occupation that, unlike almost all others, its practitioners actually deserve the special job protection of becoming a "permanent employee," then it is not unreasonable to require teachers to demonstrate real proficiency over a period of five years before tenure is granted.

Also, if teaching really does stand out in this way from all other occupations, then it is fair to expect its practitioners to stand up to strong critical review and to be able to improve to an acceptable level if found wanting. The job is too important to be left to those who are just getting by.

Prop. 75 (Paycheck Protection): Yes.
Currently, public employee union members are unfairly forced to support political efforts that they may oppose. The current system makes it very difficult for such union members to opt-out. Prop 75 changes the system to one where members must give their permission in advance. This common sense measure gives back individual union members control over how their dues are spent. This measure does not apply to private sector unions, nor should it.

Prop. 76 (Live Within Our Means): Yes.
This measure would somewhat control politicians' appetite for spending more money than they have by capping spending to a limit of the average outlay of the last three years. This initiative would force politicians to adhere to spending limits that are adjusted for inflation and population growth. It is a simple and fair requirement, and not a tax cut but a modest tax cap. Although it could provide even tougher protection against runaway spending, this measure is better than the safeguards taxpayers have now.

Prop. 77 (Redistricting): Yes.
As most California voters know, the state Legislature has created electoral districts where it is virtually impossible to oust an incumbent or elect a representative from a different party. In the 109 seats contested in the 2004 General Election, not one incumbent lost office. Essentially, politicians choose their voters instead of the other way around – an obvious conflict of interest.

This measure is an effort to take the politicians and politics out of district border creation. It will create an impartial districting team, to which anyone, including the Legislature, can suggest a redistricting plan. The team will submit the best plan to the people in the form of an initiative. In the end, it will be the people, not the Legislature or the panel of judges, who will decide how district boundaries are to be drawn.

Props. 78 and 79 (Prescription Drug Prices ): No.
Nearly 40% of the nation's biotechnology companies and employees are based in California. Instead of penalizing businesses who invent and produce medicine, let them continue to deliver the widest and best choice of medicine in the world, and at the best value.

Make no mistake, any discount forced upon drug companies would be shouldered by their (other) customers, employees and shareholders—and the taxpayer. These propositions would limit incentives to research medicines or to start new drug companies. The state bureaucracy would be the largest beneficiary. Both measures are bad medicine for California.

Prop 80 (Energy re-regulation): No.
Forget for a moment that the California energy industry never was fully deregulated, this measure would return the state to the system that already proved it didn't work. The bad old days of brownouts and endless rate hearings by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) would come back to haunt taxpayers. That approach did not work then, and it won't work now.

What's necessary is not partial regulation, but full deregulation. By taking away choice from the energy consumer, this measure would limit competition. Moreover, it would place additional burdens on energy companies with little if any benefit.

Additional links:
November 2005 Ballot Guide
Op-Ed regarding prop. 80