Reasons to bother

CALIFORNIA, LAND of the perpetual election, seems almost a land apart this campaign season. We’re peripheral to the passionate battle for control of Congress. The Republican governor is so completely outpacing his Democratic challenger in the polls that voters of any party might well figure, “Why bother?” We vote so often in this state that it seems more like a chore than a privilege.

But every election is important, and this year’s bond measures are an important investment in the state’s future, a step toward repairing and rebuilding our highways, ports, water systems and other crucial infrastructure.

Elections often put forward at least one stealth proposition that would damage California far beyond the immediately obvious. This year’s is Proposition 90, touted by its backers as a protection against unreasonable government taking of private property. That we might have supported, but Proposition 90 goes far beyond sensible eminent domain reform by making it extremely difficult for government to protect the environment or preserve our quality of life. A zoning change or a pollution regulation would become prohibitively expensive because landowners could sue over the effects on their real estate values. Proposition 90 is a Trojan horse and arguably the single most important item on Tuesday’s ballot. The Times again strongly urges a “no” vote.

Here is a summary of all our other recommendations:

U.S. senator: Dianne Feinstein. California’s senior senator has stepped up against Bush administration overreach in the war on terror.

Governor: Arnold Schwarzenegger. The governor has put some early missteps behind him and shown himself to be a business- and environment-friendly leader who builds productive partnerships with the Legislature.

Lieutenant governor: John Garamendi. A strong track record as insurance commissioner makes him the best choice to do something with this do-nothing job.

Secretary of state: Bruce McPherson. Appointed to the job early last year after the turmoil and scandal of Kevin Shelley’s tenure, McPherson has brought competence and stability as the state’s chief elections official.

Controller: John Chiang. The experienced tax attorney and Board of Equalization member is easily the best choice to audit government and keep an eye on the state’s purse strings.

Treasurer: Bill Lockyer. He would bring a deep understanding of government to the task of managing California’s investments.

Attorney general: Jerry Brown. We look forward to a return to Sacramento by the older and wiser former governor, who has an unparalleled background for the office of top lawyer.

Insurance commissioner: Steve Poizner. The tech entrepreneur shows creative skill and leadership that should serve insurance consumers well.

Proposition 1A: No. We already have an excise tax on fuel for transportation infrastructure, and we’ve already taken the unwise step of diverting the sales tax on gasoline solely for transit purposes. We shouldn’t restrict lawmakers from using that money to get us out of the next budget jam.

Proposition 1B: Yes. Investing in our highways and ports is long overdue, and this $19.9-billion bond measure moves us toward erasing our backlog of repairs and construction.

Proposition 1C: No. Housing costs have skyrocketed, but this $2.85-billion bond is not the right way to put housing within reach of those who currently cannot afford it.

Proposition 1D: Yes. Californians have already spent billions to make up for the decades’ worth of schools we didn’t build, but we still have more ground to make up.

Proposition 1E: Yes. Arguably the state’s most dire need is repair of delta-area levees. This $4.1-billion bond protects the drinking water of millions of Southern Californians.

Proposition 83: No. Protecting children against sexually violent predators is a good idea. Preventing such predators from finding a place to live, and keeping them hooked up to GPS satellites for life, is not.

Proposition 84: Yes. Another water bond measure, this one would enhance flood control, help clean up contaminated groundwater and protect watersheds.

Proposition 85: No. This is yet another attempt to require parental notification before a girl can obtain a safe abortion. Proposition 85 would punish only those pregnant girls unlucky enough to have dysfunctional families and unsupportive parents.

Proposition 86: Yes. A cigarette tax to fund healthcare is at best a temporary fix to our broken health system, but it would improve the health of all Californians by reducing smoking.

Proposition 87: No. Despite the promises of Hollywood stars and retired politicians, this tax on oil producers undermines powerful market incentives to develop alternative fuels.

Proposition 88: No. Even the supporters of this ill-conceived plan to tax every property owner $50 to pay for education have backed away from it.

Proposition 89: No. This attempt to create a public financing system for political candidates founders because it requires only corporations to pay for it, then prevents them from fully participating in campaigns.

Proposition 90: No. It goes far beyond eminent domain reform and would undermine sensible environmental and zoning regulation.

Board of Equalization District 4: Judy Chu. An exceptional state legislator who will serve the state well on the elected tax board.

Los Angeles Superior Court judges: Hayden Zacky, Daviann Mitchell, David Stuart, Bob Henry.

Supreme Court justices: Yes on all.

Court of Appeal justices: Yes on all.

City of Los Angeles:

Proposition R: No. Extending City Council term limits is good, but circumventing the city’s Ethics Commission is not.

Proposition H: Yes. A $1-billion housing bond, with debt paid by property owners instead of from the general fund, is a creative way to address homelessness and help those unable to afford a dwelling.

Proposition J: Yes. A technical fix to a fire station bond that will make it less expensive to build needed facilities.

*

On the Web: For the complete list of Times endorsements, see latimes.com/endorsements.