Throughout the past week, The Daily’s Editorial Board took a stance on five of the propositions on this year’s ballot, as well as on the gubernatorial election. Because we couldn’t cover every measure in the election, we attempted to focus on those we felt to be most controversial and relevant to the student body. While we hope that we covered each issue in depth, explaining what’s at stake and giving counterarguments to our position, we realize that many of the propositions in question are far more complicated than can be summarized in 600 words. We urge readers to examine each issue further before coming to a decision. But we hope that the following editorials are a helpful starting point and that readers will consider the arguments presented in each.

NO ON PROP 85

Voting yes for Prop 85 will not make abortion illegal in the state of California. But it will effectively eliminate the option of an abortion for many who desperately seek one. Instead of obtaining an abortion performed by a medical professional, pregnant teens may risk dangerous procedures rather than risk having their parents notified.

If the intent of Prop 85 is to create a deterrent for errant teenagers, consider that many teenagers with unwanted pregnancies probably did not consider the consequences of their actions until it was too late. It is unlikely that Prop 85 would seriously impact the decision-making process of teens. If it creates any dread or remorse, it will only do so after the fact, when the damage has already been done.

The reality is that Prop 85 will inordinately affect teenagers who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. Some of us may be particularly sympathetic to their plight, while others may condemn their decision as irresponsible and chalk it up to weak moral fiber or unfortunate social conditions. Whatever the case, we cannot help but realize that the proposition will affect the individuals who can least afford to bear its consequences.

YES ON PROP 86

Smoking, which will kill an estimated one billion people in the next century if current trends hold, is still the leading cause of preventable disease and death in the United States.

Studies have shown that raising the price of cigarettes is both the best way to keep them out of the hands of minors and an effective incentive for adults to quit. According to projections, the tax would reduce cigarette consumption by more than a quarter. The end result? An estimated 700,000 kids wouldn’t become adult smokers, hundreds of thousands of premature deaths would be prevented and the state would save some $16.5 billion in health care costs over the long run.

Health care costs would decline partly because taxpayers would pay considerably less for medical costs due to smoking and partly because the estimated $2.27 billion dollars of revenue generated by the proposed tax would go toward improving California’s health care system: health insurance for needy children, emergency services for the uninsured, nursing education, tobacco prevention programs and disease research.

While spending mandates may indeed exceed revenues and the pilot costs of new programs could prove steep, the state can potentially save billions from reduced health care costs over the long run because smoking-related health problems will presumably decrease. It is difficult to see whether the state will come out ahead, but the overwhelming positive health consequences make Prop 86 a risk worth taking.

YES ON PROP 87

Prop 87 has set an ambitious goal to reduce the use of petroleum in California by 25 percent within 10 years. Of the $4 billion in revenues generated by the proposed tax, 26.75 percent will be reserved for grants to California universities to improve economic viability and accelerate the commercialization of renewable-energy and energy-efficient technologies. Such grants will help spur the technological innovations and breakthroughs required for a wide-scale adoption of alternative energy.

The measure also offers incentives for consumers and state and local governments to buy alternative-energy vehicles — including flex fuel, hybrid and electric cars — that emit less pollution; $600 million of the revenues generated by the tax will be used to replace pre-1987 diesel school buses.

A serious concern held by many voters is that the proposition would result in an increase in California’s gas prices, which are already among the nation’s highest. However, the California State Attorney General has confirmed that Prop 87 makes it illegal for oil companies to pass new costs onto consumers by raising gas prices.

The Board feels that cost concerns are outweighed by the overwhelmingly positive consequences that can be expected from Prop 87. By injecting $4 billion into alternative energy research, California can lead the nation and the world in the effort to reclaim a clean and healthy atmosphere.

NO ON PROP 89

Proposition 89 would not provide a “clean money” reform to campaigns. If the proposition passes, legal battles and attempts by donors to find holes in the regulations will begin, and even if it worked as planned, it would not make a worthwhile difference.

Recent years have already seen a swing toward independently wealthy candidates who finance their own campaigns, and the proposition is only likely to increase that likelihood. It promises to give equal funding if all candidates accept the public financing and give up to four times this amount if one candidate is running against another who is privately financed. But if the privately wealthy opponent keeps spending, the candidate who took public money is capped, and cannot spend more — effectively ruining his or her ability to compete. Even worse, candidates who choose private funding can still receive contributions from parties, interest groups and PACs, just in smaller amounts, meaning lots of small groups will form without much overall change in cash flow.

Another issue is charging businesses and financial institutions with the tax for the funding. Placing the entire burden in these areas is helpful in garnering the type of mass public support a referendum needs, but it is still unfair.

The system of campaign finance in the U.S. clearly needs help, but Proposition 89 is simply not going to work. There are too many ways to get around it, and it may be unconstitutional.

NO ON PROP 83

In 2001, Iowa passed a residence restriction similar to that in Prop. 83, but the prosecutors who once advocated it have recently reversed their position, citing the expense and overall ineffectiveness of the regulations. It has caused unintended consequences, such as pushing sex offenders to rural areas which are less equipped to monitor and police them, as well as leading some sex offenders to not register and instead go “underground.”

The Stanford Center on Criminal Justice conducted a report when the law was proposed in the legislature earlier this year, estimating that large sections of cities like Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco would be off limits to sex offenders with a 2000 foot ban. It is little wonder, then, why so many cities have signed off on the referendum: they can ship their sex offenders off for someone else to worry about, and state funding will then have to pick up the tab.

It is always difficult to argue against better protection of children. Nobody wants to be labeled as on the side of sex offenders. However, it is significant that the same law was proposed multiple times in the state legislature and never even made it out of committee hearings, let alone to a full vote on the floor. The “Yes on 83” campaign claims this is due to ultra-liberals with extreme views, but it is more likely that veteran lawmakers (even in California) know a mess when they see it.

Schwarzenegger for Governor

Many progressive Stanford students would argue that no incumbent Republican at any level of government deserves to keep his or her office this year. This is a valid argument for many races around the country, but not when it comes to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unlike our national leaders, the governor has generally been respectful of the voice of the people, and his conservative appeal presents a real opportunity to break the divisive stalemate on crucial issues like education policies and global warming. Over the past year, he has demonstrated a willingness to compromise that seems to be more than just a gimmick. He deserves another term as governor.

Since the humbling defeat of his special election propositions in 2005, the governor has begun to admit his mistakes in other areas, and he has been working well with Democratic legislators. His appointment of Democrat Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff was a masterstroke that led to a more balanced focus on the issues.

For his part, Schwarzenegger needs to know that more will be expected from him this time around. If he regresses back into “girlie men” talk or hides inside an economic cocoon, he will find his recent advances disappear like so many tracks in the sand. He needs to be a true independent, even if he there is still an “R” next to his name.