Re "Texting drivers are on notice," April 26
I work in a luxury department store on Wilshire Boulevard in Beverly Hills. One afternoon I got
stopped and ticketed for talking on my cellphone
while on a side street behind the store. My earpiece wasn't charged and was not in use. I was clearly guilty
and promptly paid the ticket.
However, day after day as I walk on Wilshire, I am utterly amazed (and furious) at the vast number of folks still talking on their cellphones. I do not see anyone being stopped and cited.
This could be a virtual goldmine for the state. But I conclude from reading the article that the purpose of these high-priced tickets is to maintain safety, not increase revenue. Right.
Making every vote count
Re "A test of the open primary," Editorial, April 25
Of California's new open primary, you write that it is "the system by which Los Angeles residents have long selected their leaders, including the mayor." In fact, our mayor is elected by the "double vote" system. It bans party labels and requires a second vote only if no candidate wins a first-round majority.
By contrast, the new open-primary system allows party labels, and it requires a second vote between the top two vote-getters from the first round, even if one of them had a majority. Unless a district is overwhelmingly of one party or the first-round vote of one party is badly split, this system should nominate a Republican and a Democrat, as in the past.
Reformers hope those candidates will be more moderate. I am skeptical. Primary voters have long been fewer and more partisan than general election voters, many of whom rely on primaries to narrow the field.
The writer is a political science professor at UCLA.
The important job of the May 17 primary to decide who will compete for outgoing Rep. Jane Harman's seat is to produce the candidates whom a majority of the voters prefer as their final candidates. If it doesn't do so, it has failed.
To reliably produce those candidates, the final reform required is to make the primary a "majority preferential voting" (forced ranking) primary, and stop when it has revealed the two candidates with the highest vote tallies. The remaining question would then be to decide on how many levels of ranking to allow.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder
Re "Prop. 8 supporters say judge's ruling should be voided," April 26
If a judge in a committed same-sex relationship should recuse himself from this case because of his assumed bias, then logic demands that judges in committed heterosexual relationships also recuse themselves, as they might be biased as well. But Proposition 8 supporters prefer the latter bias.
Indeed, maybe all judges in committed relationships of any kind should recuse themselves because, on the basis of the premise in the request to have the decision overturned, only judges with no relationships seem to have the required degree of impartiality.
The perception of bias depends on where you stand on the issue and how far you want to stretch your argument, which, in this case, seems to be "to the point of breaking."
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine law school, argues that requiring U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker to have recused himself from the gay marriage case based on his ongoing same-sex relationship would be like arguing that "black judges cannot decide race discrimination cases or female judges preside over cases involving sex bias."
Indeed, a black judge should not preside over a case in which the issue would be that blacks cannot be judges, and a female judge should recuse herself if the issue were that females cannot be judges. However, that is a far cry from arguing that they should not decide cases involving general race or sex-discrimination questions. Here, the issue would directly determine whether Walker could marry his partner.
There should be a very simple rule with all articles related to Proposition 8. Replace the term "gay" with "black" and the term "marriage" with "segregation." I do feel that the phrase "Judge Walker had a duty to disclose he was black and step down before deciding whether a ban on segregation violated the federal Constitution" is more informative about the viewpoints of the initiative's sponsors.
Taking sides on pensions
Re "Voters favor pension limits," Times/USC Dornsife poll, April 25
When discussing reforming public pensions, it would be helpful for the public to realize how different the particulars are in all of them. Some cities have their employees pay very little, whereas the California State Teachers' Retirement System requires a chunk to be taken out of employees' monthly paychecks.
As a community college professor, I have contributed almost half a million dollars to this pension fund over 40 years, and those funds have also been invested wisely. Not all public employee groups are alike.
California's public workers have a pretty good deal. To put it into perspective, for a private worker to generate income equivalent to a modest annual pension of $40,000, the private worker would have to accumulate about
$1 million to withdraw at a generally "safe" rate of 4%.
How many individuals can realistically accumulate $1 million on a modest salary? The secret is out: The DMV is the place to be.
As a retired Santa Barbara County employee, I was willing to work in the public sector for half the amount I was offered to do similar work in the private sector. You may ask, "Why would you do such a thing?" I sacrificed pay because of the benefits that the private sector couldn't come close to matching.
If voters want pension limits, they should match the amount of pay similar workers earn in the private sector. Anything less would not be fair.
Re "Those snoopy iPhones," Editorial, April 23
Your bizarre justification for Apple's iPhone privacy invasion — that "law-abiding citizens" have nothing to worry about and "unless you lie to your spouse … there's not much in consolidated.db to get worked up about" — gets this story sadly wrong.
For one, it smacks of bad dialogue from a scene with the secret police: "If you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide." It pains me to read this defense of another corporate incursion into our civil liberties. It is not just about guilt or innocence but the idea that our definition of freedom is being reworked.
Re "GOP wannabes," Opinion, April 21
In the 1950s and '60s, the ranks of presidential hopefuls included Dwight Eisenhower, Adlai Stevenson, John Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Lyndon Johnson and Barry Goldwater. Today they include Sarah Palin and Donald Trump. Need I say more?