Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Prop. 50 is unfair
and unnecessary

Proposition 50 official ballots state it is “in response to Texas partisan redistricting.” A comparison of Texas with California shows that Proposition 50 is neither needed nor fair.

Related Articles

Letters: San Jose’s minimum wage should be a living wage

Letters: Left-wing billionaires are pushing Proposition 50

Letters: Will California data centers cut their water use during a drought?

Letters: Tricky numbers make AI centers seem thirsty

Letters: Federal law would help fire safety in California

Neglecting third parties, in the last presidential election, Texas voted 43% Democrat (Kamala Harris) and California voted 40% Republican (Trump), which are similar values for their respective minority parties. In the U.S. House of Representatives, California now has 17% Republicans (9/52) and Texas has 34% Democrats (13/38), twice the proportion.

If Texas’ redistricting changes five seats as expected, Texas’ Democratic proportion will drop from 34% to 21% (8/38), which is still higher than California’s 17%. Proposition 50 is not needed for fairness.

If California’s Proposition 50 also reverses five seats, California’s proportion of House Republicans would drop from 17% to 8% (4/52), which is unacceptably low. Note no on Proposition 50.

David Berti
Moraga

Letters’ Prop. 50
arguments lack nuance

Re: “Prop. 50 would worsen under-representation” and “Plainly speaking, Prop. 50 is unfair” (Page A6, Oct. 14).

Both writers have some valid points; however, some nuance might have strengthened the power of their arguments. Gov. Newsom says he regrets having to endorse Proposition 50, whereas Arnold Schwarzenegger says two wrongs do not make a right.

Combining these thoughts, and looking for a good direction, I posit the following: Imagine being a passenger riding on a bus loaded with people. It is illegal and dangerous for a rider to grab the steering wheel under most circumstances.

Imagine now that the bus starts to veer into oncoming traffic, or is headed over a cliff. The driver may have fallen asleep or is trying to commit suicide. It would be unconscionable for a passenger not to grab the wheel and try to save many lives.

This may well be a good comparison to the background and details of Proposition 50. Please think carefully … then vote accordingly.

Richard Bartlett
Orinda

Porter’s debacle shows
a lack of leadership

Re: “Porter’s meltdown opens door for Padilla” (Page A7, Oct. 15).

As many people did, I witnessed the clip of Katie Porter’s interview with Sacramento journalist Julie Watts and was appalled by her inability to handle a reporter’s questions. If she can’t even cope with a reporter, how is she possibly going to be able to manage the State of California?

She has lost my support and my vote. I’ll now be supporting Xavier Becerra or, perhaps, Alex Padilla should he choose to run.

Peggy Moyers
Oakland

Time for Oakland to
require healthy options

I am part of the Oakland HOPS (Healthy Option at Point of Sale), a youth-led initiative working to set a minimum nutrition standard for products sold at checkout.

As an Oakland resident and student-athlete, I see how much our society pushes unhealthy food onto us. It is difficult to find healthy options in corner stores near school. Passing Healthy Checkout would be putting Oaklanders’ health first.

We’ve spent the past five years collecting data, hosting focus groups, meeting with residents, businesses and city leaders. This isn’t just about food, it’s about long-term health. It’s about real choice, not the illusion of choice surrounded by sugar and salt.

Oakland has the chance to become the second city in the nation to pass this kind of policy. We believe that change is possible. We’re ready. The community is ready. Is our City Council ready?

Ashley Trousdell
Oakland

Federal employees need
work, not pink slips

Re: “Judge halts firing of federal workers” (Page A1, Oct. 16).

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston’s ruling to temporarily halt the Trump administration from firing federal workers during the government shutdown was a wise action and a great victory for working families, including many here in the Bay Area.

Federal employees across local agencies have endured weeks of uncertainty, anxiety and deepening financial hardship as bills go unpaid and savings are depleted. Receiving layoff notices and being locked out of their work accounts with no one around to help them is both disrespectful and unfair. The administration appears focused on using federal workers as leverage against Congress rather than resolving the shutdown responsibly.

Our dedicated civil servants deserve dignity and respect, not to be treated as pawns in political strategies. The courts must continue standing against reckless administrative stunts that cause unnecessary harm to innocent people.

Alexandros Silva
San Ramon

U.S. leaders choose
posturing over solutions

The current government shutdown is one more example of how those whom we have placed in power over us care more about that power than the security, safety and prosperity of their citizens.

The current video requested to be played at TSA counters by the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, blames the Democrats for the government shutdown. Apparently, it is more important to posture and confront (to gain political points) than to work toward a resolution of this intentionally manufactured crisis.

We live in a democracy that is supposed to be about learning to live with each other and finding a middle ground that is, at least, tolerated by most. Instead, the current political climate, from the top of the government down, promotes power-grabbing over all else. Those we have trusted to lead need to work together for the common good.

Randall Klein
Martinez