The Times’ choices

One way or another, California will change with the outcome of today’s election. The Times supports five of the six special ballot measures as prudent steppingstones to guide the state from its severe and potentially disastrous budget dysfunction. Los Angeles voters also will pick their city attorney and round out their City Council and Community College District board. The Times endorses selectively:

Proposition 1A: Yes. The state needs the revenue -- and could use the fiscal discipline -- provided by this measure. It would establish a “rainy day” reserve fund for fiscal emergency and a cap on spending, and would extend a vehicle license fee increase through 2012-13, a 1-cent sales tax increase through 2011-12, and a state income tax increase through the 2012 tax year.

Proposition 1B: No. Unlike the other propositions, 1B provides no revenue now or in future years, so it does not address the state’s shortfall. Instead, it provides a formula to assure that schools are made whole after current cuts -- whether or not they have the greatest need.

Proposition 1C: Yes. $5 billion now is a good reason to back this lottery-securitization measure. It would trade future gambling revenues, which so far have proved disappointing, for cash up front and the flexibility to modernize the lottery to make it more productive.

Proposition 1D: Yes. Again, the reason is revenue: This measure diverts to the state budget five years’ worth of tobacco tax money that voters in 1998 allocated to the “First 5” preschool and child services programs, allowing them to operate on their surplus while assisting children and families with other funding.

Proposition 1E: Yes. As with 1D, this measure brings in revenue, funneling to the state budget two years’ worth of “millionaires’ tax” money that voters called for in 2004 to pay for mental health programs. Patients will be assisted with other funding, and in any case would likely be more hurt by necessary spending cuts if this money is not added to the budget.

Proposition 1F: Yes. Proposition 1F blocks lawmakers’ pay increases when California is running a deficit. It may be more symbolic than pragmatic, but there is sense in halting some increases, however small they may be, when the state is short of cash.

Los Angeles city attorney: Carmen Trutanich.

Los Angeles City Council, District 5: David T. Vahedi.

Los Angeles Community College Board, seat 2: Angela J. Reddock.

Los Angeles Community College Board, seat 6: Nancy Pearlman.

For The Times’ endorsements in their entirety, go to latimes.com/voteorama.