HomestoryBallot Initiative › Op-Ed - Jamie Court: No On Prop. 33

News Story

Op-Ed - Jamie Court: No On Prop. 33


Click here to view the original Op-Ed commentary.

Answer just one question, and you'll know how you should vote on Proposition 33: Should you pay more for your car insurance if you stopped driving for a time because you couldn't afford a car, didn't own one or lived for awhile in a city where you didn't need one?

The insurance billionaire behind Prop 33 has spent $16 million to trick you into answering yes. Don't be fooled.

Prop. 33 would make Californians who drop their auto insurance coverage for good reasons pay more when they get back on the road.

Even people with perfect driving records would be punished under Prop. 33, just because they chose not to drive. That's just not fair.

Ninety-nine percent of the money for Prop. 33 comes from one insurance industry executive, George Joseph, chairman of Mercury Insurance.

But when has an insurance industry billionaire ever spent millions to save you or me money?


Twenty-four years ago, voters passed an initiative to ban insurance companies from charging drivers more just for having a break in coverage.

If Prop. 33 passes, Californians who drop their insurance to recover from a serious illness, workers who commute on public transit, students who don't drive while at school and those who chose to stop driving to save money in this recession will all pay more for car insurance when they need to drive again.

It doesn't make sense to charge drivers more who follow the law. As one conservative newspaper editorial board recently asked: What other company gets to charge me more today because I didn't buy their product yesterday?

Voters rejected an almost identical measure at the ballot two years ago that was sponsored by the same insurance billionaire. Let him know that no means no. Reject this deceptive attempt to raise rates on good drivers. Vote no on Prop. 33.