‘No’ on (Almost) All . . .

On the June 2 ballot are nine propositions, including five put there by voter petition. This newspaper has editorialized before about how the initiative increasingly is the tool not of the citizen-activist, as it was intended, but the moneyed interest groups seeking to lock their own economic or political agendas into state law or the Constitution. Ballot propositions also are too often just another excuse for the Legislature not to do its job. Unfortunately, there are plenty of examples of such efforts in the coming election. All but two propositions are either unnecessary or would compound an existing problem. On all but these two, The Times recommends a “No” vote.

YES: Propositions 220 and 221. California’s Constitution provides that each county have municipal courts to handle the simpler civil matters and criminal misdemeanors, and superior courts to hear felony cases and more complicated civil matters. That division has become increasingly artificial--and administratively cumbersome--over time. Proposition 220 would amend the Constitution to encourage the trial courts to operate more efficiently by merging or consolidating.

If Proposition 220 passes and a majority of both the superior court and municipal court judges in a county agree, the municipal courts would be abolished and the superior court would have jurisdiction over all trials. Municipal court judges would become superior court judges.

Unlike initiatives that mandate one rigid approach up and down the state, Proposition 220 gives trial courts the flexibility to consolidate, on a county by county basis, if that’s what judges decide would best serve local needs.

The legislative analyst estimates that consolidation, by using judges, staff and equipment more efficiently, reducing the need for more judgeships, would save California taxpayers far more than the estimated cost of bumping up the salaries of municipal court judges.

As for Proposition 221, the Constitution gives the Commission on Judicial Performance the authority to discipline judges. The commission investigates charges of judicial misconduct or incompetence and if the charges are substantiated, the panel can impose a range of punishments, up to and including removal from the bench. Proposition 221 would amend the Constitution, specifically extending the commission’s authority to commissioners and referees--lawyers appointed by the local courts and authorized to act as judges in minor matters. The Constitution is silent on discipline for these officers because until recently they were infrequently used. About 360 commissioners and referees now pitch in across the state to unclog court calendars, most often in family law matters, small claims and traffic disputes. When these individuals act as judges, they ought to be subject to the same set of ethical and legal standards as judges.

NO: Proposition 219. This measure would require that the effect of any statewide or local ballot proposition, if approved by voters, would be applied uniformly. This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, is being put before voters apparently solely because of one incident in one California county. This is hardly a rampant statewide problem and there appears no compelling reason to amend the state Constitution.

NO: Proposition 222. This proposition appears to do one thing and actually does another. It provides that second-degree murder of a peace officer be punishable by 25 years to life in prison and under certain circumstances be punishable by life in prison without parole. But this provision is unnecessary, since it is virtually identical to existing law.

So why else is Proposition 222 on the ballot? The real reason is a little noticed provision: It would prevent persons convicted of murder from earning credits to reduce the sentence. Is it really in the interest of the state to take away its ability for this discretion under any circumstances? No.

NO: Proposition 223. It is formally titled the “Educational Efficiency Initiative” but it is known in education circles as “95-5.” The numbers indicate the uniform spending formula that 223 would impose on every school district in California. The intent is to limit each district, regardless of size or needs, to spending no more than a nickel of every dollar on district administration. The other 95 cents would go for direct classroom or campus expenses.

The initiative was written and put on the ballot by United Teachers-Los Angeles, the state’s largest local teachers union affiliate, and Mayor Richard Riordan. The goal is to force the Los Angeles Unified School District, which currently spends 7% on administration, to put more of the district’s budget directly into schools.

The measure provides very general and inexact definitions of what constitute administrative costs and “direct services to pupils, school site employees and school facilities,” which includes salaries of teachers, nurses, counselors, principals and others who give pupils “immediate and unbrokered services” That leaves too much open to interpretation. It also does not demand better student performance.

The hidden motivation is a money transfer from the big paychecks of administrators to the smaller paychecks of LAUSD teachers. Teachers are underpaid, but this convoluted formula is not the answer.

This initiative ironically would benefit its target, the huge Los Angeles Unified School District. The larger the district, the larger the bureaucracy, the easier to play games with budgets. This law would allow the L.A. district to engage in a shell game, hiding administrative costs while lumbering along as usual. Much smaller, and much better-run, districts would be punished.

NO: Propositions 224 and 225. These are two more measures that never should have occupied space on a statewide ballot. Proposition 224 imposes restrictions on state-funded design and engineering contracts. It would establish a complex bureaucratic system for comparing private bids against state costs of doing a job. The state Supreme Court has ruled on the key part of this issue, and any changes needed should be handled by the Legislature. Proposition 225 would declare it the position of the state that term limits be imposed in Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled that states cannot limit the terms of members of Congress.

NO: Proposition 226. This proposition would require employers and labor unions to obtain an employee’s permission before withholding wages or using union dues for political contributions. It sounds reasonable on the surface, but it must be considered as much in terms of its unadvertised consequences as its stated intention. One of those consequences could be that corporations would be pushed to seek permission from employee-shareholders before making any political or social donations, a loss to local culture and charities.

And with unions, there’s already a way to respond if members don’t like how union leadership spends members’ money: Vote them out.

There’s no doubt that putting the responsibility on union members to sign up in order to allow political contributions will mean, out of indifference, inertia or choice, that political fund-raising by unions will decline, possibly very substantially. And since money unhappily remains the mother’s milk of politics, the political equation could be radically skewed. That does not serve the democratic process.