No argument against Prop. 65 submitted for ballot (CA)

San Diego Union-Tribune ^ | July 13, 2004 | By Ed Mendel

[So Cal Rocket]

SACRAMENTO – Opponents did not submit a ballot argument against Proposition 65, the initiative to protect local government funding that has become a key sticking point in a state budget deadlock.

A spokesman said that Secretary of State Kevin Shelley has not made a decision about whether to extend the July 6 deadline for submitting ballot-pamphlet arguments for the November election.

"The matter is still under consideration," said Doug Stone, a Shelley spokesman.

Ballot pamphlets usually contain arguments for and against propositions, with rebuttals for each. Stone said he could not recall if a controversial initiative has ever appeared on the ballot without an opposition argument.

An official of one of the school groups that opposes the initiative expressed surprise when told that no argument against Proposition 65 had been submitted.

"You're kidding me," said Kevin Gordon, executive director of the California Association of School Business Officials. "I hope he extends the deadline, because we would really consider submitting an argument."

Proposition 65 would prevent the state from taking local government property-tax revenue, blocking a plan to take $1.3 billion from cities, counties and special districts to help balance a new state budget.

Schwarzenegger made a deal with local government officials to take $2.6 billion from local government over two years in exchange for supporting a different ballot measure that would prevent future state raids.

But Democratic legislators oppose the governor's measure, arguing that it would limit state revenue options in future budget crises and prevent sales-tax reforms needed to improve local planning decisions.

As talks remained stalled, Democrats planned a "drill" common to deadlocks: putting a budget up for a vote that will be blocked by Republicans. Then each side will blame the other for leaving the state without a budget since the new fiscal year began on July 1.

[So Cal Rocket]

Another potential instance of Democrats changing the rules of the game after the fact.

[glorgau]

No, this is no different from the pot heads in Nevada forgetting to submit petitions in time for the election. These people don't have drugs to blame. Somebody just plain messed up.

[newzjunkey]

If he extends the deadline, the People need to remove his hide from office just like we did with his ex-boss, Gray Davis.

Remembering 2000, the Dems seem to really have a problem with political DEADLINES, don't they?

Will keep an eye on this here in CA.

[heleny]

Although numbering propositions with very long numbers is cumbersome aond confusing, isn't it also confusing that there already exist laws that are associated with certain numbers?

For instance, "Prop 65" warnings appear in supermarkets, gas stations, on leaded glassware, etc. to warn that certain chemicals CA knows to be harmful may be present.

Propositions 13 and 8 are strongly related to taxes and property taxes. People may remember 22 (definition of marriage), 187 (illegal alien benefits), etc.