So, having failed to tell us how to vote in the last election, the insurance companies are now trying to tell us why we voted for Proposition 103 ("Insurers Want All Provisions of Prop. 103 Struck Down," Part I, Dec. 20).
No, it is not clear that 103 was preferred and 100 defeated solely because of the rollbacks; 100 was more likely defeated because it was backed by the trial lawyers and, along with the insurance law changes, prohibited any no-fault system and barred any regulation of attorney fees. Proposition 103 was the only insurance proposition seen as being "untainted" by association with either the trial lawyers or the insurance companies.
Setting aside the rollback (which I doubt most voters expected to see anyway), 103 gives us an elected insurance commissioner, an independent consumer-assistance agency and, most important of all, the requirement for an insurance company that claims it must raise its rates to remain solvent to prove it by opening its books.
But then, I suspect that last reason is the real reason we were bombarded with $74 million worth of poor-mouthing, and why we will no doubt continue for the next year or so listening to such specious arguments as this one.
Presumably the state Supreme Court will prove no more gullible than the rest of us.
KATHRYN E. SHAPERO