To see all the November 2008 endorsements from The Daily Californian, click here.

Proposition 1A

By allowing the state to sell $9.95 billion in bonds, Proposition 1A lays the initial tracks necessary in the planning process to ultimately construct a high-speed rail system connecting the major cities between San Francisco and Los Angeles. With similar systems proven to be successful in Europe and Japan, it's time for California to hop on board.

At first, the steep price tag attached to the project is alarming. But for each dollar invested from bonds, the initiative calls for matched federal and private spending. The high-speed rail system is also expected to create more than 400,000 permanent jobs. It's also a plus for the environment, eliminating more than 12 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year.

Rising airfares, bumper-to-bumper traffic and a lack of reliable public transportation make travel up and down the state a hassle for students. Vote Yes on Proposition 1A to make the journey easier.

Proposition 2

It's probably tempting to write off Proposition 2 as another emotional plea by animal rights activists attempting to win support with vivid descriptions of heartless farm practices. But it's actually a modest and reasonable initiative that simply seeks to allow certain farm animals to have more room to move around in their cages. And changes do not have to be made until 2015, providing ample transition time and quelling the fear that this new system will drive farmers out of the state.

The proposal is backed by various experts in the agricultural industry who know first-hand that hens cannot survive in cages with dimensions smaller than that of a sheet of paper. Cramming thousands of animals into too little space jeopardizes food safety, increasing the feasibility for contaminants like salmonella to spread.

Birds deserve a little more leg room. Vote Yes on Proposition 2.

Proposition 3

It's difficult to deny anything to children lying in hospital beds with life-threatening illnesses or injuries, but that's not the only reason to vote for Proposition 3.

In November 2004, the state's children's hospitals turned directly to voters for approval to sell $750 million in bonds through Proposition 61. But this time, they made an effort to turn to the legislature first. It was only after they were shot down by the state senate that they were forced to resort to the ballot box.

The initiative would allow the state to sell $980 million in bonds to improve its eight regional and five University of California children's hospitals, including expanding facilities to house more patients and purchasing the latest equipment to treat babies born prematurely.

While children's hospitals should not have to rely on voters for financial support, we're the last resort in this case. Vote Yes on Proposition 3.

Proposition 4

Similar initiatives appeared twice on the ballot in the past three years, but maybe proponents will get the message this time. The state constitution should remain as is: A minor's parent or guardian should not have to be notified before she can get an abortion.

Proposition 4 would require doctors to notify the parents at least 48 hours prior to the procedure. But there can be good reasons why a teen doesn't want to involve her parent in the first place. Cases of rape or incest are some of the most extreme.

While the minor could apply for a judicial waiver, forcing a scared pregnant girl to argue her case before a judge only compounds the situation. In a last ditch effort, she may even turn to back-alley abortions or cross state lines.

The safety and privacy of young women are at stake. Vote No on Proposition 4.

Proposition 5

While those who committed the crime should do the time, there needs to be an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarceration. This initiative aims to improve drug treatment programs for nonviolent criminal offenders. More rehabilitation programs would also be instated for those already in prison.

Proposition 5 will likely shave away at the slice of the state budget spent on prisons every year. Instead of locking them up with the rest, those who commit nonviolent crimes may be given an opportunity at the drug treatment route instead. The fear that an offender will be able to use addiction as an excuse for a laundry list of nonviolent crimes is unfounded, as a judge has the final say in whether the offender is permitted to enter a rehabilitation program.

Provide inmates and parolees with treatment services while saving the state budget. Vote Yes on Proposition 5.

Proposition 6

With the state already spending about $10 billion each year to keep its overcrowded prison system running, it will take much more than just futilely throwing more money at the system to resolve the problem.

Indeed, this initiative is nothing more than an unnecessary drain on the budget when other areas, such as education, could definitely benefit from more green. Proposition 6 would require an additional $365 million to be spent by the state on specific local law enforcement. Funding would be allocated to criminal justice programs that have yet to be proven effective.

To undertake California's prison catastrophe, one practical approach would be to focus on crime prevention instead of retribution. Increasing the severity of punishments under Proposition 6 is not way to deal with the issue.

Don't let the "Tough on Crime" label of this initiative fool you. Vote No on Proposition 6.

Proposition 7

When power companies and environmental groups, as well as labor and business organizations put aside their differences to unite in opposition, it's safe to conclude there's something inherently flawed with the proposition.

On the surface, the intentions behind the measure seem to stay true to the trend of going green. How can environmentalists say no to renewable energy? But closer scrutiny reveals an unrealistic plan that doesn't take the capabilities of the state into account. For instance, the proposal would mandate the state to slash its electricity use in half by 2025. And with its harsher penalties for electric companies that can't meet those demands, it could conceivably drive those firms out of the state.

State law already sets a goal of using renewable energy resources to generate 20 percent of California's electricity by 2010. Vote No on Proposition 7.

Proposition 8

A look back into history reveals instances when certain groups were denied basic civil rights-from the acceptance of the "separate but equal" segregation of races in schools before 1954 to the ban on interracial marriage in California before 1948. In hindsight, those were undeniably dark times. And years from now, we will look back at this moment and think the same.

The scare tactics used by proponents are shamelessly spurious. Note that Proposition 8 makes no mention of changes to the curriculum taught in classrooms or to the tax-exemption status of churches.

Don't let the language of the proposition trick you: If it passes, the state constitution would be amended to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. It would trump the ruling made by the California Supreme Court in May that struck down Proposition 22, the ban on gay marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental right for everyone. Vote No on Proposition 8 to continue to give same-sex couples the right to tie the knot.

Proposition 9

Grossly playing to the public's sympathy for the victims of crime, Proposition 9 attempts to win votes by painting them as helpless targets who suffered unnecessarily at the malevolent hand of wicked criminals. Even the argument made in favor of Proposition 9 that appears in the Official Voter Information Guide is nothing but a sob story designed to evoke the human emotion.

But step back to analyze the logic of this Constitutional amendment. In order to protect victims' rights, it would stop offenders from leaving prison early to relieve overcrowding despite current law permitting the practice for nonviolent offenders. More restrictions are placed on the parole process as well. Estimated to cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars each year, this is certainly not the time to add these extra provisions to system.

The rights of victims and their families are already adequately protected under California's Constitution and laws. Vote No on Proposition 9.

Proposition 10

Not only is Proposition 10 a vague proposal for funding, but it also screams brazen self-interest. Its main proponent is T. Boone Pickens, a Texas oilman who founded a company that supplies natural gas for cars and trucks.

If Proposition 10 passes, it would allow the state to sell $5 billion in bonds for more programs supporting alternative fuels and renewable energy, especially on rebate programs for vehicles that use fuel other than gasoline.

In theory, gradually weaning Californians off their gasoline supply should be a goal for the near future. However, the fiscal impact of Proposition 10, which is expected to cost the state about $335 million per year, is unnecessary amid the budget crisis.

The ends may appear green and dandy, but the means by which to achieve those ends is blackened with blemishes. Vote No on Proposition 10.

Proposition 11

Finding a fair method for redistricting has resulted numerous visits to the drawing board, but this approach finally appears to be a solid solution. It effectively takes the responsibility out of the hands of state legislators, who have been abusing the tactic for years to devise safe districts that would guarantee their reelection.

Instead, this initiative amends the state constitution, handing the task over to a 14-member redistricting commission composed of registered voters who are required to draw the new maps in a process that welcomes public input. In addition, the commission must follow particular sensible rules, such as keeping "communities of interests" together, while simultaneously creating competitive districts.

When underhanded gerrymandering is tolerated, democracy slowly diminishes. Strip politicians of this self-serving device. Vote Yes on Proposition 11.

Proposition 12

When our economy took a nosedive, unpredictability reigned in the housing market. But the least California veterans deserve is stability, and they should be able to obtain low-interest loans to put a roof over their heads.

Proposition 12 would allow the state to sell bonds to provide more money for the Cal-Vet program, which has provided loans for more than 400,000 veterans to buy homes for decades. The $900 million to be sold in bonds will be enough to cover the loans of about 3,600 veterans.

The ongoing program has had the vote of Californians for years. Based on prior experiences, there is no expected cost to the state because veterans' mortgage payments have made up for the debt in the past. Adding funding to the Cal-Vet program is just one way to honor the men and women who have sacrificed our country.

Thank veterans for their services. Vote Yes on Proposition 12.

Tags: ELECTIONS 2008 COMMENTARY, DAILY CAL ENDORSEMENTS