As a political science major in college, an employee of a public affairs firm and a political junkie (read: nerd) I am familiar with the history of scare tactics in political campaigns. I know that in 1964, voters were urged by Lyndon Johnson’s campaign to vote for Johnson because the “stakes were too high.” (Here, “stakes”=a nuclear holocaust rudely interrupting the flower picking of an adorable child). I know that in 1988, voters were encouraged not to vote for Michael Dukakis because doing so risked making them susceptible to horrific scenarios involving African-American convicts, rape and murder. I know that these ads were as successful as they were despicable. Those that have taught me these things that I know have relayed the information as a warning, as the example of how even dedicated and otherwise decent people can stoop to unimaginable lows when a race they care about hangs in the balance. The package of ballot initiatives placed on the May 19 special election ballot raises an interesting question, which got me thinking of these infamous examples of political campaigning: when is it okay to scare people to the polls?

As a young Democrat who was born in California, who went to public schools in California, who drives on California’s roads and who is planning on living in California for the foreseeable future, I am quite frankly terrified of the repercussions of Propositions 1A-1F failing. The likely scenario facing Californians if Prop. 1A-1F do not pass is a genuinely scary thing and I am afraid that those aware of these grave consequences will shy away from communicating the importance of approving these measures because doing so may seem to some like standard scare tactics.

The proposition of facing dramatic further cuts to essential services provided by our state, when we are already seeing the drastic impacts that budget cuts have on each California citizen, simply put, is terrifying! Artificially generating fear in order to win votes is reprehensible, but ignoring and downplaying the truly terrifying scenario that awaits every citizen of California if these initiatives do not pass because you don’t want to be accused of fear-mongering is just as counter-productively misleading.

This is a special election in the middle of a year that has already asked some voters in the state to venture to their polling place multiple times and will continue to hold elections to complete a perpetual game of political musical chairs. It is unfortunate that it virtually requires a team of vaqueros to get voters to the polls in municipal, primary and non-Obama related elections, but that is the state of the democracy in which we live. The expected low turnout for this special statewide election makes every vote all the more important. If 50%+1 of the voters who show up to be counted on May 19 do not understand the gravity of the budget situation in our state, if the majority of those voting do not approve the package of initiatives placed on the ballot as the result of budget negotiations in Sacramento, we are all in a lot of trouble.

The doomsday scenario was laid out in a Los Angeles Times article earlier this month:

“The six ballot measures include several that would combine to pump nearly $6 billion into the state's 2009-10 spending plan. Even with that revenue, the plunging economy has already dug a potential $8-billion hole in next year's budget. If the propositions fail, the state could face a $14-billion deficit that would grow by an additional $16 billion if Proposition 1A doesn't pass, according to the nonpartisan legislative analyst's office.”

Thanks to Prop. 13, the Legislature needs 2/3 majority to approve new taxes, and the cannibalistic fringe Republicans are revenge-by-way-of-recall hungry enough to make the 2/3 vote necessary to close this gap with sensible levies an impossibility. Assembly Speaker Karen Bass put it bluntly in the same Times piece: "If these initiatives do not pass," she said, "we are looking at cutting $14 billion in programs."

$14-billion!?! $14-billion!?! In what world is cutting $14-billion in essential state services not terrifying? Casting a vote which will result in an additional $14-billion in cuts from state programs such as higher education, public schools, transportation, the prisons and healthcare, all programs that are already confronting crises due to insufficient funding, is unconscionable. These essential programs wait blindfolded and smoking cigarettes while a firing squad readies and aims. People voting “no” on May 19 may as well yell “fire” instead.

Those that oppose the package of initiatives seem eager to cut off their collective nose to spite their face. I agree that there are flaws a plenty within each of these measures. There are flaws in the series of events leading up to the slim approval of the initiates in the legislature. There are flaws in how the measures propose to narrow our budget gap. There are legitimate reasons not to be head-over-heels in love with these initiatives. What there is not, however, is sufficient cause to oppose the result of a compromise when the consequences of opposing it would be catastrophic. Propositions 1A-1F may be imperfect, but they are imperative to the future of our state.

This election absolutely cannot be a referendum on the legislature. We should all be upset that the ideological entrenchments of Sacramento legislators got us into this mess in the first place. We should all be mad that gerrymandered districts have allowed the furthest-reaching flanks of each party to elect representatives who will vote without foresight or conscience because term limits encourage them to act as if they are applying for their next job and not as if they were sent to Sacramento to be responsible representatives of their constituents. We should all be upset. What we should not do is vote down these propositions because we don’t like who put them on the ballot. There needs to be systemic change in the way our state operates, but that is not what the May 19 election is about. We will have our opportunity to demonstrate our frustrations when we are asked to vote for our state representatives in 2010, doing so now would be catastrophic.

The Democratic majority in our state needs to make some noise. There is an election on May 19 and if we don’t show up and approve Propositions 1A-1F, we are going to swan dive from the precipice of the frying pan, head-first into a raging inferno from which I am not entirely sure there is a foreseeable escape. If for no other reason than you are scared of what will happen if you don’t, please vote “yes” on Propositions 1A-1F on May 19.