Debra J. Saunders

Yes on Proposition 20, No on Proposition 27. Right now, Sacramento has authority to draw lines for California's 53 seats in the House of Representatives. In sum, the status quo has allowed politicians to pick their voters. In 2008, voters approved a good-government measure, Proposition 11, to put Assembly and state Senate redistricting in the hands of a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. Proposition 20 would put congressional seats under the new panel's jurisdiction.

Proposition 27 would kill the new Citizens Redistricting Commission before it even gets started. If you think politicians don't have enough arrogance and power, then vote yes.

No on Proposition 21. The measure is bound to appeal to voters, as it would add $18 to vehicle license fees and guarantee that the proceeds go to state parks. I get the appeal, but this measure constitutes ballot-box budgeting -- it's the sort of money grab for a popular service that has warped the budgeting process in Sacramento.

No on Proposition 22. See above, but with less popular beneficiaries, like redevelopment agencies.

Yes on Proposition 23. Don't be fooled by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. This measure isn't about overturning clean air regulations -- which other state laws protect. A state with an unemployment rate of 12.4 percent cannot afford the fees and regulations that will follow when California's new global warming law (AB32) takes effect.

No on Proposition 24. See above, but in this case, the so-called "Tax Fairness Act" would restore taxes that give employers reasons not to do business in California.

No on Proposition 25. Proponents argue that the measure would allow a majority of state lawmakers to pass a state budget -- while preserving the mandate for a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. Then why would public employee unions push for this measure?

No on Proposition 26. The ballot measure would require a two-thirds approval not of taxes, but fees -- which traditionally have required a majority vote because there is a relationship between the service and the charge. At The San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board endorsement interview, proponents utterly failed to demonstrate the need for changing the system. Consider this a special-interest grab in search of a nonexistent cause.

Don't forget to vote.

Debra J. Saunders

TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Debra Saunders' column. Sign up today and receive daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.