The Times’ endorsement logic

The Times has endorsed in Tuesday’s election, as it does with each election, not for the purpose of telling voters to just trust us instead of thinking for themselves, but for the opposite reason -- to research the issues and think through each of the decisions the same way voters do (when they have the time and resources) and to offer our reasoning along with our conclusions. Over the last three months, we have rolled out our recommendations on most of the major ballot questions. Here’s a recap of our analysis:

On bonds, it is useful to imagine the ballot as a trip to the supermarket with a shopping list and a credit card. Is the bond measure on the list -- the things we as a state have thought about and planned for -- or is it an impulse buy that plays to our appetites without feeding our needs?

Proposition 1A, which would authorize bonds for a high-speed rail system, looks a lot like an impulse buy but has long been planned as an integral part of an infrastructure program, alongside the measures for roads, bridges, schools, water projects and housing we approved two years ago. Similarly, Proposition 3 would shore up the state’s network of children’s hospitals that Californians will pay for -- now, in debt service with this bond issue, or later, with even higher payments to bail out the county hospitals that must handle juvenile patients if specialized children’s hospitals can’t do their jobs. Proposition 12 helps veterans buy homes and has virtually no effect on the state budget because the mortgage payments pay off the debt. So, although we are skeptical about bonds, The Times is ready to support propositions 1A, 3 and 12.

As for local bonds, Measure Q, a $7-billion school bond, is more a grab-bag crafted for political needs than smart planning for education. Voters should skip it and let the schools put forward a more responsible bond for the next trip to the store. Measure J, a community college bond, is a better deal and deserves support. On taxes, the additional half-cent sales tax contemplated by Measure R may hurt, but not as much as doing without the transportation projects it will provide. Los Angeles Measure A, a parcel tax for anti-gang programs, would undermine the city’s progress on contract oversight.

Now back to the state initiatives. We found it relatively easy to say no to three criminal justice measures. Proposition 5 is well meaning but poorly drafted, and instead of diverting drug users from jail to treatment, it would undermine addicts’ incentives to participate in court-ordered rehabilitation. Proposition 6 is the latest wrongheaded “tough-on-crime” measure that would clog already overcrowded prisons and remove billions of dollars from the unbalanced state budget. Proposition 9 plays on sympathy for crime victims to sweep away much of the state’s parole program.

We sympathize with the goal of Proposition 2, to mandate more humane treatment for chickens in California’s commercial egg industry, but as drafted it would simply outsource the birds’ misery. We would still buy and eat eggs produced by chickens in horrible conditions, but they would now come from out of state.

Backers of Proposition 4 would impose on girls who seek abortions a new quandary -- whether to tell their parents (a mandate voters here have rejected twice in the last five years) or turn them in for child abuse. Proposition 8 would turn back the clock on marriage, banning same-sex couples from exercising this basic right. These are oppressive, mean-spirited measures, and both deserve sound rejection.

Propositions 7 and 10 are supposedly “green” initiatives, but they are so off-kilter that most major environmental organizations oppose them. Proposition 10 is also a bond, and it’s a pure impulse buy; it would provide rebates to get car buyers to purchase hybrids that already are selling like crazy without public subsidies.

Proposition 11 would take away politicians’ power to draw their own district lines.

All endorsements are available in full at latimes.com/elections.

President: Barack Obama.

Los Angeles Superior Court:

Office No. 72: Hilleri Grossman Merritt

Office No. 82: Cynthia Loo

Office No. 84: Pat Connolly

Office No. 94: Michael J. O’Gara

Office No. 154: Michael V. Jesic.

L.A. County supervisor, 2nd District:

Bernard C. Parks

California measures:

Proposition 1A (high-speed rail bonds): Yes

Proposition 2 (cage size mandates for chickens): No

Proposition 3 (children’s hospital bonds): Yes

Proposition 4 (parental notification of minor’s abortion): No

Proposition 5 (drug offender diversion and rehabilitation): No

Proposition 6 (new crimes and penalties): No

Proposition 7 (renewable energy mandate): No

Proposition 8 (same-sex marriage ban): No

Proposition 9 (new rights for crime victims’ families): No

Proposition 10 (alternative fuel bond): No

Proposition 11 (redistricting reform): Yes

Proposition 12 (veterans’ mortgage bonds): Yes

City of Los Angeles:

Measure A (parcel tax for gang programs): No

Measure B (housing law update): Yes

L.A. Community College District:

Measure J (construction bond): Yes

L.A. Unified School District:

Measure Q (construction bond): No

L.A. Metropolitan Transportation Authority:

Measure R (sales tax increase for transportation projects): Yes

Los Angeles County (unincorporated areas):

Measure U (utility user tax update): Yes

Orange County:

Measure J (pension reform): No

California State Senate, District 19:

Hannah-Beth Jackson