Editor’s Note: The following are letters to the editor written by Pitman High School students as part of a Mock Election Unit in U.S. Government classes.
Prop 32 will not benefit the general public
Dear Editor,
Look around, Proposition 32 will not help, or benefit ‘We The People.’ Proposition 32, which aims to restrict political contributions by unions and corporations, is presented as a cover to reduce special interest in politics. This proposition is basically flawed and will not benefit the general public for several reasons. Proposition 32 unequally targets unions while leaving significant loopholes for corporations and wealthy individuals. Unions that represent the collective interests of workers rely on political funds to advocate for labor rights, fair wages, and safe working conditions. By restricting their ability to contribute to political campaigns, Proposition 32 silences the voice of working-class citizens, undermining their ability to influence policies that directly impact their lives. corporations can still give their influence through independent fund committees and other means, maintaining their significant sway over political decisions and power. By restricting the ability of unions to collect funds for political purposes, it ignores the voice of working people in political processes. This imbalance could lead to a political landscape where corporate interests take over, making the democratic principle of equal representation sick. For a fair and equal political system, it's crucial to reject Proposition 32.
— Jayden Bradley
Prop 35 is all about managing the government’s spending
Dear Editor,
Are you tired of waiting MONTHS for an urgent appointment? With Proposition 35, you won’t need to wait for months on end for that appointment. Not only will you get into your appointment faster, but also many more people can get the help they need. Proposition 35’s main purpose is to enforce the government’s spending and stop taking funding out of medical facilities. Every 15 years, $30 billion is taken out of hospitals and because of this many hospitals in California are restricting services, including labor and delivering services. This cause has been placed on hold for far too many years, and without having any increase in price and managing the government’s spending, why not vote yes? I believe that people should vote yes on Prop 35 since it’s all about managing the government’s spending and making hospitals more accessible to everyone.
— Hailey Carmo
Prop 3 assures our right of choice
Dear Editor,
Proposition 3 stands for the people’s right to wed who they want, as it would repeal the wording in California’s Constitution that limits marriage into being exclusively between a man and a woman. This change will only be in the language, for the act of same-sex marriage will remain legal despite the outcome. Not to ruffle your feathers, but if penguins can be gay, we can too. This Proposition is not opening the gates for child or incestuous marriages, as detractors would say. Altering the language in a document does not diminish the preexisting laws we have to protect people from harm. This false equivalence is to distract you from the fundamental right being taken away— the stated ability for two consensual parties to marry. Our state’s Constitution’s language should reflect the inclusivity of marriage between willing parties. Vote YES on Proposition 3, and instill our rights as a people to assure our right of choice and opportunity, maintaining our motto of liberty and justice for all. As the land of freedom, our California Constitution should reflect our integral values accurately.
— Guadalupe Gonzalez
Despite its flaws, Prop 2 will help students
Dear Editor,
As a student in California I feel like my state is failing me in many ways, but one of the most significant is in my education. Prop 2 might have what it takes to fix these problems despite its apparent flaws. While the Prop, which gives $10 billion in bonds to schools across California, has some flaws, it is an important measure to ensure that students across the state have an adequate education. The Prop will allow schools across California to modernize their facilities. Despite apparent pros, there are flaws that I believe the Prop should address. 1) It doesn't address problems with education that deal with systemic issues and lack of methods to teach the material. 2) The law can be better balanced to account for the disparity between counties, even with the measures already put in place for equal distribution between places of lesser affluence and high affluence 3) The tax dollars required for such a Prop is a lot for taxpayers to repay. If the prop’s budget was on a smaller scale, focused on poorer areas of California, and fixed systematic issues in our education, then I’d feel more inclined to vote yes on Prop 2.
— Wesley Hayes
We need to stand up for basic human rights
Dear Editor,
Do you think slavery still exists? Do you think forced labor is a good form of punishment? Prop 6 amends the California Constitution to remove current rules that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary labor to punish crime. This will cause a potential increase or decrease in state systems based on the effect of our votes. Voting yes means involuntary labor would not be allowed as punishment for crime. State prisons would not be allowed to discipline inmates that refuse to work. Voting no would mean involuntary labor would continue to be allowed as punishment for inmates. I am outraged at the idea that people should have to do labor against their will as a punishment. Prisoners should have the option to volunteer to help shape their community. A form of a reward for those who frequently help out should be enforced. This slavery has become so normalized because we are so closed off to the idea that prisoners are people too. None of us would enjoy forced, unpaid labor. No courts explicitly order forced labor as a part of criminal sentencing, it's standard practice to force incarcerated people to perform labor. We need to stand up for basic human rights and get rid of this absurd idea of “punishment.”
— Annabelle Cabral
Vote ‘No’ on Prop 32 and ‘Yes’ on Prop 36 for businesses’ sake
Dear Editor,
I am enraged by California’s anti-business restrictions that make it difficult for businesses to be profitable. Hundreds of businesses have relocated or lessened their operations in California because of their impractical standards. California is ranked 48th in the country for the best State Business Tax Climate and 48th for the most expensive energy costs per kilowatt hour (kWh). Combined with the most business regulations for a state, it's no wonder why businesses are leaving. Laws should be passed to promote business growth to strengthen our economy and offer more financial opportunities.
Fortunately, voters have the opportunity to make California more feasible for businesses by voting on Proposition 32 and 36. Proposition 32 will raise the minimum wage to $18 by Jan. 1st, 2025, which realistically will only raise prices and cause companies to cut jobs. Proposition 36 addresses the issues that Proposition 47 caused. Since Proposition 47, theft has spiked which made it difficult for businesses when their products are being stolen. Proposition 36 would place a penalty on recurring theft that will likely prevent crime and remove the incentive of no punishment for stealing. Thus, for the businesses, vote “No” on Proposition 32 and “Yes” on Proposition 36.
— Jacob Costa
