Our no-nonsense Lindsay Lohan Voters Guide Britney Spears to the February ballot initiatives Paris Hilton

They said you weren’t smart enough.

They said you wouldn’t read this.

They said you weren’t interested in what really matters Britney Spears’ restraining order.

They said you were obsessed with trivial celebrity and entertainment news Anna Nicole’s baby daddy to care about the things that really matter Free Katie Holmes.

What they didn’t count on was your commitment to doing what is most important in American life Grand Theft Auto Halo: Exercising your right to vote whether that involves Guitar Hero community college bonds or rating the Torture Porn Super Vixens.

That’s why we’ve built this District Voter Guide for the upcoming Feb. 5 elections. We know that, deep down, what you really do care about are term limits, fuel taxes, Tony Parker cheating on Eva Longoria.

So, here you go. We’re as sure that you’ll do your duty as we are that the upcoming season of Lost will feature impenetrable story lines and lots of closeups of that chick who has kinda funky teeth but is still kinda hot. And isn’t that what makes America Heath Ledger great?

PROPOSITION 91: ENSURE FUEL TAXES GO TO TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS
YES! . . . WAIT . . . NO! . . . WAIT . . . KINDA!
Would prohibit using certain motor vehicle fuel taxes from being used for anything but transportation purposes.

WHAT WE THINK As you can imagine, any proposition that brings up the hot-button topics of motor fuel taxes and transportation projects is bound to spark passionate argument, and Prop. 91 has done just that. Witness the incendiary language Prop. 91 supporters deployed in this year’s California Voters’ Guide: “Prop. 91 is NO LONGER NEEDED [their emphasis]. Please VOTE NO. Voters passed Proposition 1A in 2006, accomplishing what Prop. 91 set out to do. Prop. 1A stopped Sacramento politicians from taking our gas tax dollars and using those funds for no-transportation purposes. Prop. 91 is no longer needed. VOTE NO.” As you’d expect, this caused the No on Prop. 91 people to fire back in the very same Voters’ Guide: “No argument against Proposition 91 was submitted.” Brutal.

WHAT THE PEOPLE WHO WRITE THE IMPENETRABLE STORY LINES FOR LOST THINK Clearly the people who once supported Prop. 91 now believe the proposition is unnecessary . . . or do they? Does this have something to do with the tangerine-scented cow skull found near the hypoglycemic contortionist? Or, could it be tied to the discovery of the medallion—the clown medallion? The point is Prop. 91 is not needed . . . or is it? It’s not. Or perhaps it’s not not needed. The point is they’re all in Purgatory, right?

PROPOSITION 92: ESTABLISH COMMUNITY COLLEGE TUITION
YES!
The cost of tuition at community colleges would be set—and, in many cases, rolled back—to $15 a unit, and future increases would be limited.

WHAT WE THINK Affordable education is disappearing, and the consequences have been drastic. When the legislature doubled community college fees, enrollment dropped by 305,000. Opponents of Prop. 92 complain that this measure locks new spending into California’s constitution without coming up with a way to pay for it. Our opinion: Finding the cash for education is a good assignment for our state legislators. Our suggestion: Take it out of the state prison budget. Then again, there’s also the very real possibility that Prop. 92 will pay for itself: A recent study showed that wages for students who earn a community college vocational degree jump from $25,600 to $47,571 in three years. We’re assuming most of those people won’t be going to prison.

WHAT THE CLOVERFIELD MONSTER THINKS Grrrrr. Grrrmmahem, excuse me. Had something in my throat—he was delicious. Now, to business. I support anything that strengthens a community college system that has long served as a haven for those who either can’t afford or don’t qualify under the narrow standards of four-year universities—universities that are prone to refuse admittance based solely on the fact that someone tests poorly or is a giant, killer monstro-harbinger of the apocalypse. Also, math has never been my “thing.”

PROPOSITION 93: AMENDMENT TO LEGISLATORS’ TERM LIMIT LAW
NO!
Tweaks the current term-limit rules for state legislators in two ways. The first reduces from 14 to 12 the number of years a state legislator can serve. The second removes restrictions on how those years can be served, permitting legislators to spend up to 12 years in either the Assembly or Senate or a combination of both. Previously, legislators were limited to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate.

WHAT WE THINK There’s a sneaky, self-serving loophole in Prop. 93 that’s big enough to drive an incumbent’s political career through—a special exception that, in fact, seems to be the principle reason the thing has made it to the ballot. Prop. 93 does not fully apply to present office-holders, and current legislators will be permitted to serve 12 years in whatever house they presently occupy, regardless of prior legislative service. Translated, the measure’s supposed term-limit restrictions will actually enable 42 termed-out incumbents to run for office again. The chief beneficiaries of this exemption will be Prop. 93’s two principal proponents: Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez and Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata, who will be termed out unless Prop. 93 passes. A victory for Prop. 93 would allow Nuñez to serve six more years and Perata to serve four more years. (In fact, the original language of Prop. 93 was actually withdrawn and re-written so that Perata would be included.) Some incumbents will be able to serve up to 20 years. Term limits have been a failure in California since they were initiated in 1990 via Prop. 140—just look at the accomplishments of last year’s legislative session, if you can find any, and the disastrous condition of the state’s finances. If you’re really seeking to limit the terms of entrenched and unresponsive politicians, the solution is to create a system in which legislators have to earn their seats by forcing them to compete in independently drawn districts—rather than the non-competitive zones the Democrats and Republicans have drawn for themselves. The loophole included in Prop. 93 reveals exactly what kind of people these arbitrary term limits have attracted to the leadership of the California legislature. Vote no and throw the scumbags out.

WHAT THE WOMAN ADVISING MANDY MOORE ABOUT HER FILM CAREER THINKS There are certain things that just make sense, you know, like when Mandy asked me if she should make License to Wed. “Mandy,” I told her, “the American people will never get tired of Robin Williams pretending to be gay.” And that’s the way I feel about term limits, they’re always going to be popular, you know, just like Diane Keaton, or have you forgotten about a little blockbuster Mandy was in with her called Because I Said So, a film that one reviewer said was “a romantic comedy that will make you hate both romance and comedy . . . oh, and also women.” Cha-Ching! There are two things the American people are always going to want to see: term limits, and sexy parts for actresses in their 60s. Just look at Ian McKellan.

PROPOSITIONS 94, 95, 96 AND 97: AMENDMENT TO INDIAN GAMING COMPACT
YES, PLEASE
We begin at the beginning, with the fact that these initiatives would raise the taxes on casinos run by California’s four biggest Indian tribes in exchange for permission to build bigger, badder gambling resorts on Indian land.

WHAT WE THINK The federal government sees each of the Big Four tribes (or “bands,” as they are formally called, the Pechanga, Morongo, Sycuan and Agua Caliente) as a sovereign nation; taxing them is like taxing, I don’t know, Holland. Their sovereignty dates back to a time when the federal government confiscated Native American territories, herded the inhabitants onto marginal land elsewhere and declared them independent nations—good night, good luck, sorry about the small pox, massacres and buffalo. It was a convenient relationship: We got to keep their real estate, they got to keep their poverty. And then, beginning in the late 1970s, the Indians began acting like real nations, leveraging their status as free nations to create casinos to satisfy the nearly bottomless appetite for gambling of the non-natives who lived nearby. Suddenly, the U.S. government and the states weren’t so clear on the idea of sovereignty; they sought to regulate and tax the Indian casinos. The Indians might reasonably have fought back; perhaps studying their interactions with our military and courts dating back hundreds of years—and eager not to piss off state officials who build the roads that lead the gamblers to the reservations—the Indians wisely decided to pay the tax and mostly shut up. Now, under Propositions 94, 95, 96 and 97, they’re willing to pay even more to help us achieve a careful balance between our prissy disdain for vice and our pragmatism; the new agreement also allows the state greater latitude in spending the Indian money, which is nice. Even though we have no ethical claim to this money, we could sure use it. We should do the polite thing and just say thanks.

WHAT WE THINK, COMPLETELY OPPOSITE The campaign against these initiatives is funded by people who don’t like the competition from the Big Four tribes—Vegas casinos and California racetracks, against whom, as people with vices of our own, we’ve got nothing. But if there’s a real reason to oppose these four propositions, it’s this: If you’re a Native American who values the sovereignty of the Indian lands, 94, 95, 96 and 97 set a bad precedent. Any future judge looking at the four props would rightly conclude that Native Americans don’t even recognize their own sovereignty—that in backing the new compact with California they implicitly recognized the right of California to regulate Indian nations.

WHAT BOLLYWOOD SUPERSTAR AISHWARYA RAI THINKS I will tell you once again, I AM NOT THAT KIND OF INDIAN!

MEASURE E: LONG BEACH CITY COLLEGE CONSTRUCTION BOND
YES!
Asks Long Beach property owners to pay a $440 million construction bond that will enable Long Beach City College to make improvements on its two campuses, both to modernize aging facilities and to expand them for anticipated surges in enrollment. Actually, this Measure E extends a $176 million assessment that voters approved in 2002 on another Measure E, which has allowed annual levies of up to $19.97 on every $100,000 of a home’s assessed value. The old Measure E is expected to be paid off by 2034. The new Measure E extends that to about 2050.

WHAT WE THINK This is the kind of nuts-and-bolts investment in the future that a city has to suck up and pay for every once in a while.

WHAT THE GUY WHO DOES THE VOICE-OVERS FOR ALL THE MOVIE TRAILERS THINKS [Dark shadowy images. Quick cut to a sword in a scabbard; sound of that sword drawn.] In a world where a $440 million construction bond will enable Long Beach City College to make improvements on its two campuses, he refused to go along. [Cut to a bright, sunny day, thousands standing on an empty battlefield. A lone horseman rides into the shot.] “They can take our $176 million assessment that voters approved in 2002, but they can never take . . . OUR FREEEEDOM! . . .s to allow annual levies on every $100,000 of a home’s assessed value.” Mel Gibson. Mandy Moore. Ian McClellan. Measure E. This time, it’s personal . . . personally modernizing aging facilities and expanding them for anticipated surges in enrollment.

SUPER TUESDAY TUES FEB 5 | POLLS OPEN 7AM-8PM | FREE | 18+ | USA.GOV

Tags: Britney Spears, California, elections, Long Beach, mandy moore, paris hilton, propositions, super tuesday, voting guide