Propositions

After reading through the wording of the propositions, considering the advice given by The Times and many television commercials, it is evident that all of them are badly and incompletely written. This sums up to one conclusion--vote no on all of them! MARVIN S. LUNTZ Los Angeles

SACRAMENTO - Responding to complaints from businesses, Gov. Jerry Brown is proposing an overhaul of California's 26-year-old landmark clean water and anti-toxins law that he said is being misused by "unscrupulous lawyers" filing lawsuits. At issue is the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act, or Proposition 65, approved by voters in 1986. It requires product manufacturers, retailers and property owners to post signs warning the public if goods or premises contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer or birth defects.

Cartoonists sift through mountains of information, mine the deepest layers of the mediasphere, seeking to strike that one golden nugget of truth and then extract it and amalgamate it into irony. Pat Oliphant used the headline-grabbing Chilean rescue to undercut underhanded underground business. In a lighter vein, Matt Davies blasted the cast of caricatures hoping to be elected this fall. And Jeff Koterba's undersized rescue vehicle conveys a metaphorical message that doesn't augur well for financial markets.

SACRAMENTO --  Brett Schoenhals thought he was following the law by putting one of California's all-too-familiar warnings in the bar of his Coffee Table restaurant in Eagle Rock. Soon after he posted the sign, “This facility contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm,” Schoenhals got a letter from a lawyer saying he was representing an irate patron who wanted to see more warnings. Invoking the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, or Proposition 65, the lawyer threatened a lawsuit.

Re "Closer look at 4 measures," Column, Oct. 29 The near-unanimous support for Proposition 40 and the fact that its own sponsors have abandoned it, coupled with the murky and costly effects a "no" vote would bring, provide a rare insight into our electorate. When all the votes are counted, we will not have a consensus on redistricting in California; what we will have is a precise tally of the percentage of citizens who have the slightest understanding of the propositions on which they are voting.

There are nine statewide propositions on the ballot that cover a range of subjects, including car fees, global warming and marijuana use: Proposition 19 ? Marijuana What it would do: Make it legal to use marijuana in California. Supporters say regulating and taxing the sale of marijuana would help raise money for cash-strapped local governments and save tens of millions of dollars per year on the costs of jailing and supervising marijuana offenders. As with alcohol, the legal age for buying marijuana would be 21, and it would still be illegal to drive under the influence.

Proposition: Passed/Failed 30 - Gov. Brown's tax plan: Passed 31 - State budget, other government issues: Failed 32 - Payroll deduction for politics: Failed 33 - Auto insurance rates: Failed 34 - Repeal death penalty: Failed 35 - Human trafficking: Passed 36 - Ease three-strikes law: Passed 37 - Genetically modified food labeling: Failed 38 - Tax for education: Failed 39 - Corporate taxes: Passed 40 -...

There is no way the average voter can assess the financial impact of the various propositions included on the Nov. 7 ballot. Also, one cannot believe the TV ads by both sides of a proposition. I suggest voters do as I am and vote no (except for Prop. A) on all propositions. Maybe such actions would stop voters having to rely on silly ads for information and save the exorbitant ad dollars, which could be used for helping the poor and homeless. WILLIAM H. DUDLEY Encino

The Supreme Court, hearing arguments on the emotionally charged issue of gay marriage for the first time, appeared willing Tuesday to restore marital rights to gays and lesbians in California but uncomfortable with legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide. The justices sounded sharply divided as they considered Proposition 8, California's ban on gay marriage, and wary of going too far, too fast. None of them spoke up for a sweeping ruling that would require every state to change its marriage laws.

WASHINGTON - As lawyers debated gay marriage inside the Supreme Court on Wednesday, activists outside delivered speeches, cranked up boom boxes and hoisted hand-made signs. "Kids do best with a mom and dad," one said; "Jesus had two dads, he turned out OK," another declared. Advocates for same-sex marriage turned out in larger numbers than supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal benefits to legally married gay couples and was before the court. But the crowd of hundreds was smaller than the raucous gathering for Tuesday's arguments on California's ban on same-sex marriage.

It's hard to remember an initiative campaign that tore California in two as painfully as Proposition 8 did. The state might as well retire the number 8 when it comes to propositions; it will long be associated only with the 2008 measure that took the right to wed from gay and lesbian couples, on the same ballot that helped elect Barack Obama president. Proposition 8, which shamefully wrote a ban on same-sex marriage into the state Constitution, was a backlash against the defining civil rights struggle of this era: the quest for equal rights for homosexuals.

WASHINGTON - Four years ago, many gay rights advocates shook their heads when super-lawyers Theodore B. Olson and David Boies announced they would challenge California's ban on gay marriages in federal court and take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. It was too risky, the skeptics said. Voters in state after state were rejecting same-sex marriage, and no federal judge had said such bans were illegal. One liberal legal scholar called the lawsuit a "Hail Mary" pass. But now that Proposition 8's ban on gay marriage is set for a hearing Tuesday before the Supreme Court, the lawyers and activists who started the case think they may be on the verge of a historic victory.

WASHINGTON - Certain law partners no longer call Theodore B. Olson for lunch. Old friends no longer come to dinner at his sprawling house in the woods near the Potomac. One of his best friends died in December, somewhat estranged. All since Olson - the conservative legal hero, crusader against Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton, defender of George W. Bush - signed on to fight for same-sex marriage in California, a battle that he will take to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday when he challenges Proposition 8, the state measure that banned gay marriage.

Supporters of same-sex marriage are both pleased and perplexed by the friend-of-the-court brief the Obama administration has filed with the Supreme Court in the Proposition 8 case. They're pleased because Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argues that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional and that the court should examine it with “heightened scrutiny” because  (among other reasons) gays and lesbians have suffered discrimination. They're perplexed because, having massed this heavy constitutional artillery, the brief doesn't insist that same-sex couples everywhere in the country have a constitutional right to marry.

WASHINGTON - The lawyers challenging California's Proposition 8 urged the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to rule that gays and lesbians across the nation deserve an equal right to marry, ratcheting up the pressure on the Obama administration and the justices. Rather than seek a narrow win based on the special situation in California, the legal brief argues that marriage should be available as a constitutional right to all loving and committed couples. "We believe this is a matter of fundamental rights," said Washington attorney Ted Olson shortly after filing his legal brief with the high court.

The top budget official at Los Angeles City Hall warned Thursday that a defeat of a sales tax hike on the March 5 ballot could lead to a wide array of budget cuts, including closures of city swimming pools, elimination of crossing guards, reductions in graffiti cleanup and 500 fewer police officers. In a 48-page report titled "City at a Crossroads," City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana described cuts to public safety as "unavoidable" if Proposition A is rejected. The city is facing a budget shortfall of nearly $220 million and Proposition A, if passed, would erase the vast majority of it. Santana repeated a warning from LAPD Chief Charlie Beck that staffing could be rolled back to roughly 9,500 officers if Proposition A is rejected.