Times Endorsements

These are The Times’ recommendations for nine statewide ballot initiatives and state and Ventura 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.

VENTURA COUNTY

Superior Court Judge: Gary Windom. Both Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Kevin McGee and Deputy Public Defender Windom have impressive qualifications. Because about three-fourths of Ventura County’s current Superior Court judges are former prosecutors, we believe the public would be better served by a wider range of perspectives on the bench. Windom would provide that independence and variety.

Supervisor, 2nd District: Frank Schillo. Incumbent Schillo has done a good job, most notably by challenging county bureaucracies to work more efficiently and offering innovative if sometimes farfetched ideas for solving tough problems.

Supervisor, 4th District: Judy Mikels. Incumbent Mikels has made her mark by emphasizing regional concerns and demanding accountability from county departments.

School Superintendent: Charles Weis. Incumbent Weis has worked out most of his public disputes with the philosophically divided school board, and good things are happening in our schools. His challenger offers no dramatically different ideas or programs.

Auditor-Controller: Stephen Maulhardt. Challenger Maulhardt offers a fresh perspective and an energetic alternative to incumbent Tom Mahon, 75, who has worked in the department since 1970. Maulhardt promises to be more aggressive in auditing county agencies and updating the office’s technology and procedures.

Assessor: Dan Goodwin. Of the seven candidates vying for this post, we believe Goodwin has the best combination of public and private-sector experience, fresh vision and enthusiasm for the job.