Propositions

Throughout California, teachers can barely make a photocopy or check a school mailbox these days without getting slapped by competing campaign slogans over a controversial teacher quality initiative. The issue has pitted teachers against each other. Some hold quiet conversations in campus corners, avoid volunteering for union phone banks and keep their heads down when the subject arises in the faculty lounge.

Calling a special election, with propositions that will only be noticed by special interest groups, is a travesty of the democratic process. The people who have called for this election realize they have lost the intellectual and moral arguments, so they resort to trickeries to get their radical views voted into law. Politicians should stop distorting election procedures to disrupt our duly elected representatives from running our government....

At a gilded moment that seems eons ago but was only mid-June, I wrote with great enthusiasm about the special election campaign then in the offing. The campaign, I observed, was bound to be a rich source of manna for famished newspaper columnists. In contented reverie, I anticipated spending the next few months snoozing in the yard "while ripe nuggets of electoral hypocrisy fall upon me from the skies, like pellets of guano." I wasn't disappointed. Who could be?

Re "Gov. Vows More Ballot Efforts," Nov. 3 Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has attempted to govern by pushing his reform ideas into the voting booth. But wait: Then why do we need any politicians at all? The answer is simple. We elect officials who represent the voters who get a salary to work for us. We didn't elect this governor to throw hissy fits by way of special elections; no wonder nothing is getting done in Sacramento. The price tag is extremely high for Californians on this special election.

Re "Voters Reject Schwarzenegger's Bid to Remake State Government," Nov. 9 As an Orange County teacher, I am very happy with the election results. The sad thing is that I believe Propositions 74, 75 and 77 all had merits. If 74 had included an improved review-and-assistance process for new teachers, I might have voted for it. If 75 were a law to give all union members the right to opt out of political contributions, replacing the mishmash of rights that exists, I'd have been on board If 77 designed a broader panel of judges along with representatives from both parties and community interest groups, I'd have been a lot more comfortable with it. As it is, it seems a majority of voters understood that the governor's populism is barely even skin deep.

I voted "no" on practically every initiative, but I am not jumping up and cheering because they were defeated. The media and political spinners will be telling us nonstop that the "voters" decided this or that, and that a message was sent to Sacramento. The truth is the vote was very close, and this entire expensive "special" election turned out to be a waste of time and resources. There is no message here, just a state full of people who want their elected leaders to do the work they were elected to do -- and stop making millionaires out of political consultants.

Just two days after our money- and time-wasting special election, The Times reported that Nissan would move from the L.A. area to Tennessee ("Nissan to Leave Southland," Nov 10). Instead of fighting over a bunch of stupid propositions, the governor, the state legislators, local officials and unions should have been worrying about losing our economic base and the high cost of housing and education. Lorraine Geittmann \o7Redondo Beach \f7

Fourteen propositions will appear on California's election ballot this fall, allowing voters to decide, among other things, whether to fund $3 billion for stem cell research and whether to require the collection of DNA from convicted felons. One proposition initially on the ballot, a $9.95-billion bond measure to start construction of a high-speed train connecting Los Angeles to the San Francisco Bay Area, was withdrawn by the Legislature until the fall 2006 election.

The Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 earlier this week to support Proposition 71, a November ballot initiative that would allow California to sell $3 billion in bonds to fund stem cell research to try to cure Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other diseases. Supervisor Mike Antonovich opposed the measure.

One proposition on the state's Nov. 2 ballot seeks to curb the perennial problem of state government raiding local government coffers -- to the tune of an estimated $40 billion over the last 12 years -- while another would force people arrested in felony cases to turn over DNA samples, whether or not they were convicted on any charge. In most other election years, these initiatives probably would be considered major proposals, prompting heated debate and garnering considerable media attention.