Voters Reject Community College Funding and Change in Term Limits, Approve Gambling Deals

Results of the Feb. 5 Presidential Primary Election showed voters rejecting changes in term limits and community college funding, and approving the Indian Gambling compacts negotiated by Gov. Schwarzenegger and four Southern California gaming tribes.

Prop 92: community college funding increase loses

Prop. 92 would have increased guaranteed funding for community colleges and K-12 schools by about $300 million annually and reduced student fees from the $20 to $15 a unit level. It was put on the ballot by the California Federation of Teachers and endorsed by the California Labor Federation because it would have provided a stable source of funding for and increased access to community colleges. It was opposed by the California Teachers Association, which argued that Prop. 92 would take funds away from public schools and the UC system. The measure failed on a 57 to 43 percent vote.

Prop. 93 – term limits change rejected

California voters rejected the measure to cut legislators’ time in office to 12 years from the current 14. Prop. 93 would have allowed lawmakers to serve all 12 years in one house or a combination of terms in the Senate and Assembly. The current term limits law passed by voters in 1990 allows legislators to serve three two-year terms in the Assembly plus two four-year terms in the State Senate.

Prop. 93 was proposed by the Democratic leadership in the state Legislature and supported by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Some critics charged that the measure was an attempt by Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President pro tem Don Perata to retain their positions, as the measure would have given them and some other legislators two more terms beyond this year, when they are termed out under current rules. At the time it was proposed, some critics said that Núñez was also accused of making a deal with the Governor to back the Indian Gaming compacts in exchange for Schwarzenegger’s support for Prop. 93. In the end, voters seemed to respond to charges put forward in the ad campaigns against Prop. 93 that it was a blatant power grab to enable Perata and Núñez to “continue their lavish lifestyles.” While, in this writer’s opinion, the end of the Perata- Núñez era is not a great loss for labor, the failure of Prop. 93 will mean that recently elected legislators who are strong labor allies will be seeking higher office even as they try to gain experience and put forward legislation. We can also expect to see more of our allies competing against each other as their Assembly terms end and Senate seats open.

Opponents of Prop. 93 raised about $7 million, with $2.5 million spent by Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, about $2 million from the state prison guards union and $1.5 million from the Virginia –based U.S. Term Limits. Supporters raised about $13 million. The measure lost on a 54 – 46 percent vote.

With the defeat of Prop. 93, leadership in the legislature is set to change. Sen. Darrell Steinberg of Sacramento was chosen by his Democratic colleagues to succeed Perata as Senate President when his term ends. Steinberg is a former labor lawyer who previously served in the state Assembly. Núñez will remain speaker until the end of the legislative session. The Democratic caucus will vote March 11 on who will replace Núñez. Candidates include Assembly Majority Leader Karen Bass and San Francisco Assembly member Fiona Ma.

Props 94 – 97, Indian Gaming Compacts

All four ballot measures to approve the Indian Gaming Compacts negotiated by Schwarzenegger passed by a 56 to 44 percent vote. The measures were put on the ballot after a signature gathering drive led by the Hotel Workers union to put the compacts before voters as referenda. UNITE-HERE and the California Labor Federation urged a ‘No’ vote because the compacts don’t include language that would allow card-check elections for unionizing the casino workforce. As semi-sovereign entities, the gaming tribes are not subject to federal and state regulations governing workplace issues like occupational health and safety and the right to organize unless specifically included in the agreements.

The compacts allow for a massive expansion of casino gambling and the addition of 17,000 new slot machines in exchange for a larger share of revenues going to the state than in some previous compacts. Voters seemed to buy the argument put forward in a multi-million dollar TV ad campaign featuring Gov. Schwarzenegger that with a looming budget deficit, the state would benefit from the potential $9 billion in funds from casino gambling over the next 10 years. The state’s Legislative Analyst had concluded that revenue from the gaming compacts would not be as high as claimed by the gaming tribes, who themselves determine their “net win” gambling revenues that the state’s share is based on.

Opponents of the gambling deals included the California Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, United Food Commercial Workers Western States Council, and several smaller California Indian Gaming tribes. Opponents argued that the compacts unfairly benefit four tribes. They would make billions in profits while the deals fail to protect casino workers. The four tribes have a history of denying affordable health care to their employees; a study conducted by a UC Riverside Professor of Economics found that Agua Caliente’s health coverage was so expensive that 56 percent of the dependent children of casino workers were forced onto taxpayer-funded health care programs.

- Paul Burton

Members of UNITE-HERE Local 2 worked the phones to try to defeat Props. 94 - 97.