Times Endorsements

These are The Times’ recommendations for nine statewide ballot initiatives and state and Los Angeles County nonpartisan races being decided in Tuesday’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. 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.

Los Angeles County Sheriff: William A. Baker. This is the most important county race, for a job that manages 6,600 deputies and the nation’s largest county jail system. The 20-year incumbent, the ailing Sherman Block, has been reactive in his decision making and has shown more lassitude than leadership in a department that is riddled with financial and operational flaws. It is time for him to be retired by voters. The man who seemed at first to be his strongest opponent, Chief of Field Operations Lee Baca, damaged himself badly with flip-flops, misstatements and lack of judgment on campaign issues. Baker, who retired from the department as a chief of field operations in 1995, has a strong department record, including some genuine heroism, and good community-policing credentials. He would do well in the job, especially if he were to choose strong supporting staff.

Los Angeles County Supervisor, 1st District: Gloria Molina. 5th District: Zev Yaroslavsky. Both incumbents are among the more talented local elected officials. Molina and Yaroslavsky are intelligent and committed people who work hard for their constituents.

Los Angeles County Assessor: No endorsement.

Los Angeles Superior Court

Contested and open seats

Office No. 22: Superior Court Judge Alexander Williams III.

Office No. 43: Superior Court Judge Gary Klausner.

Office No. 51: Municipal Court Judge John D. Harris.

Office No. 69: Municipal Court Judge James Anthony Kaddo.