Costly, unnecessary election | TheUnion.com

Back to: Opinion

Costly, unnecessary election

Why would Arnold choose to spend 50 to 80 million bucks he admits Californians don’t have to hold a special election that could have been included only seven months later during the scheduled June primary? Because election law forbids him from campaigning both for his power-grabbing initiatives while running for re-election. Perhaps he also expects low turnout, which typically favors the initiatives.

In Nevada County alone, it is expected to take $210,000 from other services. We’re plagued with costly special elections because wealthy partisans refuse to let the state government operate the way it is intended. This special election will break campaign-funding records and then we turn right around and do it again for the primary. At what point do we settle down, let the system go to work on our problems, and let the rest of us go back to a normal life and take a break from politics? Even if the initiatives are worthwhile, and I think they are, can’t we think responsibly and address them in six months at no extra cost? Politics in California is reaching obnoxious phone solicitor status. I urge everyone to send the message not to waste our money and time.

Mark Selverston

Nevada City