If you're feeling a bit overwhelmed by the state propositions on the ballot this year, we share your pain.

The Nov. 4 menu features a dozen of these propositions. Lawmakers placed two of them on the ballot. The rest came from special interests that gathered the required signatures.

Like sweets in a bakery window, several of these propositions are tempting. Thus you may be inclined to vote "yes" on a grab bag of these propositions, assuming that someone else will pick up the bill.

Think again. This year, California faces an economic and political crisis unlike any in its modern history. Voters need to recognize the severity of this crisis and say "no" to all measures that could worsen the state's budget situation or push agendas unrelated to the state's broken governance.

They also should reflect on the original rationale for "direct democracy." In 1911, California Progressives added initiatives to the constitution to blunt the power of railroads and other moneyed interests. The initiative was conceived as a way to enact political reforms that elected lawmakers couldn't, or wouldn't, act upon.

Yet over the years, the powerhouses that were once targets of initiatives took control of the process. That's why we have initiatives on the ballot this year sponsored by out-of-state billionaires and groups that want the constitution to specify the size of chicken cages. The initiative industry is out of control, and voters need to send it the strongest possible message.

In that spirit, this page urges a "no" vote on all but one of the propositions. The exception is Proposition 11, which would reform how the state draws legislative districts every decade.

Currently, lawmakers have the power to draw their own districts, ensuring that incumbents are re-elected and that the status quo stays in place. Proposition 11 would end this conflict of interest and create a new independent commission to handle redistricting.

Prop. 11 is aligned with the original intent of direct democracy. All the other measures either fail that test or would worsen the state's budget crisis.

PROPOSITION 1A

Summary: Would provide nearly $10 billion in bonds for a high-speed rail network that would initially link the Bay Area, the Central Valley and Southern California.

Why we oppose it: Since this proposition was placed on the ballot by lawmakers, it meets one of our tests. Yet until California fixes its chronic budget deficits, it can't afford to increase its debt for projects that, while desirable, are not of vital necessity. In addition, the rail system that supporters are touting may not be as high-speed as advertised. Potential conflicts with freight service lines could make trains slower than those found in Europe or Japan.

This is a tough call. The state needs clean alternatives to air travel and freeway travel, and the Central Valley needs the economic development that could result. But if it passed, this proposition would take $647 million annually from the general fund that, without a tax increase, would have to come from other services. That's money the state can't promise. Vote "no"

PROPOSITION 2

Summary: Sponsored by the Humane Society, this proposition would outlaw caging practices that prevent farm animals from lying down, standing up, turning around or extending their limbs.

Why we oppose it: California doesn't have much of a pork or veal industry, so this measure would mainly affect caging of egg-laying hens. Supporters make persuasive arguments that current practices in the egg industry are inhumane. Unfortunately, the vagueness of the Prop. 2 ballot language has led some cage-free egg producers to oppose the measure, fearing their current practices would be outlawed.

While the Humane Society campaign has helped highlight conditions for farm animals, this proposition could prompt many egg producers to relocate to outside states and Mexico, and ship eggs back to California. Such an outcome would do little to help the condition of animals and could do real harm to a small but important segment of the state's farm sector. Vote "no"