Times Endorsements

These are The Times’ recommendations for nine statewide ballot initiatives and state and Orange County nonpartisan races being decided in today’s election. On all but two issues we recommend “No” votes.

Propositions

Proposition 219. Application of Ballot Measures: NO. This corrects a non-problem, requiring that all statewide ballot measures be applied uniformly to localities. This issue came up only once and absolutely does not need a ballot measure.

Proposition 220. Superior and Municipal Court Consolidation: YES. This would allow superior courts and municipal courts in any county to merge or consolidate, essentially abolishing separate municipal courts. It would increase the courts’ efficiency, and the proposition is wisely flexible, allowing judges in each county to decide what they need. It would raise municipal judges’ salaries to match superior court pay. Because a change in the state Constitution is required, the measure must be approved by voters.

Proposition 221. Discipline of Subordinate Judicial Officers: YES. Also a constitutional revision. Lawyers are increasingly appointed by local courts to act temporarily as judges, mainly in family law matters, small claims and traffic disputes, to unclog the courts. They ought to be subject to the same legal and ethical rules as judges when they act as judges. This measure would bring them under the same body that disciplines judges.

Proposition 222. Peace Officer Murder, Sentence Credits: NO. This appears to do one thing and actually does another. It duplicates existing law in providing that second-degree murder of a peace officer be punishable by 25 years to life in prison. But it has a lesser-understood “stealth” provision that would prevent all persons convicted of murder from earning credits to reduce the sentence. It’s not in the interest of the state to take away this discretion in every circumstance.

Proposition 223. Spending Limits on School Administration: NO. The intent is to limit each school district to spending no more than a nickel of every dollar on district administration. The proposition would be likely to benefit big districts, where administrative costs are easier to hide, at the expense of better-run small districts. Los Angeles teachers believe that 223 would add to their paychecks. A worthy cause, but the wrong way to pursue it.

Propositions 224 and 225: NO. Two more measures that never should have occupied space on a statewide ballot. Proposition 224 imposes a complex bureaucratic bid system on state-funded design and engineering contracts, an issue that should be handled by the Legislature. Proposition 225 would declare it the position of the state that limits be imposed on congressional terms, which the U.S. Supreme Court has already said that states cannot limit.

Proposition 226. Political Contributions by Employees, Union Members, Foreign Entities: NO. Requires employers and labor unions to obtain an employee’s permission yearly before withholding wages or using union dues for political contributions. It would have unadvertised consequences like tipping the political playing field by causing union clout to decline. As long as money is the mother’s milk of politics, the political equation could be radically skewed. Corporations could be pushed to seek permission from employee-shareholders before making donations, a loss to local culture and charities. This measure does not serve the democratic process.

Proposition 227. English Language in Public Schools: NO. There is plenty wrong with the way bilingual education is practiced in Los Angeles schools and elsewhere, and the Legislature is certainly to be faulted for not dealing with the problem until it was too late. But Proposition 227, no matter how well-intended, is not the way to fix things. It is simply too rigid, mandating a one-year immersion English course statewide for most limited-English students. The method of instruction should not be determined by ballot measure. The proposition also requires no accountability, one of the flaws of the current system.

Nonpartisan Races

State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Delaine Eastin. Eastin, the incumbent, has to some degree been hobbled by the nature of the job, which doesn’t allow the superintendent to act unilaterally. But Eastin has good, strong reform ideas, plus considerable political skill for dealing with the Legislature, something her rivals lack.

ORANGE COUNTY

Sheriff-Coroner: Paul M. Walters. Walters is chief of the Santa Ana department, the county’s largest city police agency. He has earned national recognition for is innovative approaches to policing and has the strong backing of the law enforcement community, including the Assn. of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the men and women he will command if elected.

District Attorney: Anthony J. Rackauckas Jr. He has the experience as lawyer, prosecutor and judge to do a good job. All things considered, it is time for a change in the district attorney’s office and for new and able leadership from the outside. Rackauckas promises to provide that fresh vision.

County Board of Supervisors:

2nd District. No recommendation at this time.

4th District. No recommendation at this time.

5th District. Thomas Wilson. The appointed incumbent has shown that he deserves a full term. He has grown on the job and withstood the fires of the El Toro controversy with his sensible approach and attitude.

Assessor: James S. Bone.

Auditor: David E. Sundstrom.

Superior Court:

Office 1. Gail A. Andler, incumbent.

Office 9. Stephen Sundvold

Office 21. John Watson, incumbent.

South Orange County Municipal Court:

Office 1. Ronald P. Kreber, incumbent.

Superintendent of Schools: John F. Dean.

Board of Education: Sheila Meyers and Elizabeth Parker.

Public Administrator: William A. Baker.