|
| THE
SPECIAL ELECTION OF NOVEMBER 2005 |
 |
The cost of the special election in November 2005 approximates $50 million. This is not a wise use of taxpayer money; money that can better be saved or applied toward California’s financial solvency. The justification of this very costly special election was to return power back to the people. In brief, the three special election issues were as follows:
|
1. Freeze state spending if a budget is not agreed upon by the end of the fiscal year. The realities of when such a decision could take effect is June 30th the following year. This would be the exact same time the law would be in forced if passed in a regular election, i.e., June of 2006. So why did the Governor spend taxpayers’ money?
2. Requiring 5 years instead of 2 years for public school teachers to qualify for tenure. Teacher tenure seems most appropriately left at the local, employer level. Tenure needs to be a function of merit demonstrated by capability, not merely the passage of time. Nevertheless, had the voters passed this initiative it could not have taken effect until September 2006. This is the same implementation time of the primary, a regularly scheduled election. Why is the Governor spending taxpayers’ money this way?
3. Redistricting, viz. redrawing district boundaries. Re-drawing of district lines is a commendable, age-old idea. Yet, according to the Secretary of State, even if approved by the people it could not take effect until sometime in the future, the same implementation date that a June 2006 election would dictate. The question remains why is the Governor spending taxpayers’ money this way?
The most reasonable explanation as to why the Governor spent taxpayers’ money on a special election was to circumvent the intent of the Fair Political Practices Act. This can best be understood by recognizing that there are categorical limits in the amount a candidate may receive from a given donor; and there are limits on how much money a candidate may spend on a given campaign, excluding self donations. The Governor used the 2005 special election to legitimize many public appearances, not in the name of “vote for me as Governor,” but rather, “vote yes on the special election issues.” However, one may recall Rod McKuen’s statement, “the medium is the message.” The Governor was actually the message.
It is no wonder people are suspicious and mistrusting of those in public service who are politicians and not statesmen. It should also be noted that the other state politicians seemed to tacitly endorse this outrageous special election expenditure by not pointing out that such an expense was unnecessary given the time constraints on implementation. When other lawmakers fail to point out such poor judgment, they too, cost the taxpayer, consequently their motives are also suspect. If other politicians in Sacramento were unaware of the unnecessary special election, it points out shortsightedness on the part of our elected officials. Those in public office are elected to protect and serve. Protecting the taxpayer from unnecessary costs by considering the possible outcomes of decisions ought to be a prerequisite of public office.
You can now draw your own conclusions as to the motivation behind the special election.
|
| |
Prayerfully cast your vote
I have heard man’s “logic”: “Follow the money.” “Go for name recognition.” “Don’t vote for the best person; vote for someone who has a ‘chance’ to win.”
I, as recently as in the last primary election, fell prey to this thinking. Because my God is kind to me, with His grace, I came to understand the error of my thinking. |
| |
2 Chronicles 7:14  back to top
If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. |
|
