Proposition 41 is the "Voting Modernization Bond Act of 2002". Basically, the state will issue $200 million in bonds, which will be given to various counties in order for them to upgrade their voting equipment to either optical scan (i.e. "fill in the circle") or touch screen systems (there are only three types of systems that can be used officially, the oldest being prescored "punch out" cards). Counties have to match $1 for every $3 they get from the state. This will cost the state $255 over 10 years, plus a few tens of millions for counties to maintain their new systems and train their operators.

The Pro argument boils down to this fact: 2/3rds of voters in the last election cast their votes on punch card systems, half of which have the same ambiguity problem that plagued Florida recounts in 2000. The systems are old and need to be replaced. The rebuttal is that these funds should come from legislative action, not new bonds -- bonds are expensive to pay back.

The Con argument is that the state government should spend its money wisely and come up with the funds from the taxes it already gets. They go on and on about the $8 billion overcollected last year and spent (mostly to pay for our electricity needs). They also YELL A LOT. The rebuttal boils down to "this is a bipartisan proposition and everyone supports it".

Ok, this one is a bit easier for me. Regardless of what this Proposition really does, if that was the best Con argument they could come up with then there isn't much of a reason not to vote for it. Bonds are debt, true enough. But they're a planned debt. Spend it now when it's cheaper, pay it back slowly while inflation almost keeps up with the interest rate, and at the end of the payback period you really haven't spent much more extra. I really can't see any cons to this other than it's a required payment for the state. But we're only talking about $200 million so I will vote for this Proposition.

Proposition 42. Transportation Congestion Improvement Act. Allocation of Existing Motor Vehicle Fuel Sales and Use Tax Revenues for Transportation Purposes Only. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Effective July 1st, 2003 and continuing until June 30, 2008 all revenues from gasoline taxes can only be used for transportation projects such as funding public transportation, street repairs and improvements, and state highway improvements. Some of the current taxes are used to fund various educational, health and social services. This Proposition would make sure that all fuel taxes are used for transportation purposes.

The Pro argument, once again resorting to LOUD WORDS TO MAKE THEIR POINT, seems to boil down to "we're paying fuel taxes, they should be used for our driving benefit". They cite the poor condition of state roads and cutbacks in bus service because of insufficient funding. The rebuttal points out that we're already spending $6.5 billion for transportation purposes. This is only going to add another $1.2 billion but it locks the state into spending that money in transportation rather than on perhaps more needed programs.

The Con argument is that we're locking our spending forever (of course they don't mention "or until another Proposition is passed repealing this one"). They cite September 11th (good grief, everybody cites September 11th as the reason to do this or that) and our need to use that money for security and protection. The rebuttal points out that this is only 1% of our state budget and that there are provisions to use divert this money during a state emergency (which we thankfully have very few of).

Amending the state constitution to force our state government to use funds in one way or another is the wrong approach. If you want more money for road improvement, lobby the state legislature and have them allocate more money when the state budget is drawn up. I think it's a real bad idea to tie the hands of our elected officials and then complain when they don't have the flexibility to get things done. Contrast this with my opinion of bonds, which in effect almost do the same thing since they're repaid from the General Fund. Hey, I don't like yellers, so I'm going to vote No on this one.