AS we do each election, the Post shares our thoughts with readers on the sometimes deliberately confusing realm of propositions on which voters must cast their "yes" or "no." This Nov. 4 election is no different. If anything the list of measures is more daunting than it has been in years.

There are an even dozen statewide measures that are included in a handy little 144-page booklet that voters have already received from Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Sixty of the pages are filled with tiny type showing every arcane word in the various proposals. In addition to this massive homework assignment, you will be getting a more slender volume from the county Registrar of Voters telling about the several important county propositions.

We'll talk today about six of the state measures and deal with the remainder and county proposals in coming weeks.

High-speed rail

The biggest state gorilla in the polling booth this time is put on the ballot by the Legislature. It's an initiative called "high speed rail bonds" and it bears the designation Proposition 1.

It wants you to OK the sale of general obligation bonds totaling $9.95 billion, which will be the down payment on a massive new rail service between Los Angeles and the Bay Area. The route apparently will come north, cross into the county over the Pacheco Pass and go through San Jose en route to San Francisco. A link to serve Oakland has also been mapped.

The rail service is supposed to get someone from one

metro area to the other in about two and half hours at speeds approaching 200 miles an hour. Similar rail services work well in Asia and Europe. It has a romantic kind of nostalgia for rail buffs but would do relatively little for the commute problem that afflicts both regions.

The stated costs seem astronomical and when you factor in interest over 30 years and the likelihood of over-runs on the entire project, the voters could be putting California's credit rating down the toilet on this measure alone.

Add to the condition of the American economy right now and voters would be taking a huge risk on this scheme. We recommend a "no" on Proposition 1.

Confining animals

Proposition 2 wants to give laying hens, pregnant pigs and veal calves more space to end what some animal advocates call inhumane treatment. The opposition, mainly from the affected agricultural industries, see it as a total wipeout of the California egg producers and could lead to some health problems that are now better monitored. There are veterinarians on both sides. Since very few of us are in the know when it comes to the truth of these predictions, our hunch is to play it safe and vote "no."

Childrens hospital bonds

Proposition 3 was put on the ballot by the supporters of a group of California hospitals which do an outstanding job of treatment and research on behalf of children. But it is a real question whether now is the time for another billion dollars ($9.8) to go alongside the money voted in 2004 which is only half spent. There is also a kind of narrow focus here, when Californians should be looking at the broad gauge picture of health care in the state. We'd suggest a "no" vote.

Parental notification on abortion

This one keeps coming back even though the state Supreme Court has knocked down one law like this in 1997. It is clearly one of the most controversial on the ballot. Voters have rejected this before. We would assume parents close to their daughters would be informed naturally and decide together how to deal with it. But it is an effort to get the government to intrude into personal family relationships and decision-making. We'd suggest a "no" vote on Proposition 4.

Non-violent drug offenses

Proposition 5 would change the criminal justice system for those non-violent drug offenders who pack our jails where they get a post-graduate training in more serious crimes. We believe with the former warden of San Quentin that this measure will cut our prison populations, provide rehabilitation and free up significant funds now going into the ever-expanding and costly prison system.

The solid proven logic of diversion for these kinds of offenders warrants a "yes" vote on Nov. 4.

Law enforcement funding

Proposition 6 is a clone of the measure which the schools managed to achieve from the voters, a guaranteed slice of the state's general fund. It would set aside about a billion each year ($965 million) which the Legislature couldn't touch and send it to a variety of law enforcement departments and local and county levels. It is a poor way to run a general-purpose government. To induce voter support the measure throws in a bunch of new crimes and increased penalties for old crimes, assuming the scare tactic will gain it votes.

We'd suggest a "no" vote on Proposition 6.

We'll take a look at measures 7 through 12 next week.