FOLLOWING last week's editorial, let's take a brief look at the second half dozen of the propositions which are on the ballot for the Nov. 4 election.

Proposition 7 is sort of a classic case of a good idea taken up by a multi-millionaire who hopes to bring about dramatic change with the signing of a big check. This follows on a series of such lawmaking by a single wealthy individual that generally gets rejected by voters. There's another example in Proposition 10 by T. Boone Pickens, the Texas natural gas advocate.

Proposition 7 is the brainchild of well-meaning Arizonans John and Peter Sperling, who created the fabulous money machine called the University of Phoenix which grants degrees via the Internet. They have a special interest in the huge arrays of solar energy collectors that are beginning to be built in the desert. They are convinced this technology could provide all of the electricity California needs.

To get there, they've put together a complex initiative measure which will force all electricity providers to step up the amount of renewable energy to 20 percent by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and half five years after that.

To meet those targets, the utility companies could only credit really big installations rather than the rooftop projects homeowners have been moving toward.

Opponents to this measure are strange bedfellows: most environmental groups alongside all the big private utilities (who paid the $30 million for the big campaign against

The problems we see is that it locks in technologies that are still evolving and locks out some that haven't even been thought of. This is exactly the kind of legislation that should not require another ballot measure to correct.

Although the idea is great, doing it this way has all kinds of pitfalls, potential lawsuits and hazards in the details. We'd recommend a "no" on Proposition 7.

Proposition 8 is the ever-returning gay marriage issue on which some signature gatherers had made into a guaranteed income source. It would specifically overthrow a California Supreme Court decision that found a previous proposition unconstitutional. The court said everyone has a basic right "to establish a legally recognized family with the person of one's choice."

Opponents to this measure include Gov. Schwarzenegger, both of California's U.S. senators, Barack Obama and many others. Improvements in civil rights are difficult to attain and slow to come along. They are often not popular. This measure deserves a "no" vote.

Proposition 9 is another attempt to change a wide range of criminal justice details under the guise of protecting the rights of victims. It gives victims and families a role in the way justice is meted out and in the parole system. But society's efforts to have an even-handed approach sometimes require being arms-length from the emotional impact which crime victims suffer.

Here again, the initiative process enshrines detailed procedures in the constitution that can only be changed with another initiative. We'd suggest a "no" on Proposition 9.

Proposition 10 could well win the gold medal for being the worst abuse of the initiative process on the entire ballot. This is the gift of T. Boone Pickens who is the world's 131st richest man and who would love to see Californians push him up higher on the list.

This measure would force the state to sell $5 billion worth of bonds to reward anyone who converts or buys a vehicle to use natural gas instead of gasoline. A big truck, for example, would get a $50,000 rebate.

It all sounds great but in the fine print you will find that a limited number of hybrids will get a $2,000 rebate but a natural gas car picks up $10,000. In his generosity, Mr. Pickens will extend the higher rebates to hydrogen or 100 percent electric vehicles.

Most of the money will go for cars and trucks that won't last as long as the $10 billion California will be paying back in principal and interest over the next 30 years. We're for a resounding "no" vote on Proposition 10.

n Proposition 11 is another attempt to get a better system than we have now to delineate district lines for legislative districts. California's widespread unhappiness with the lawmakers we have is due in part by the tendency for them to be more extreme either to the left or the right of voters. That has taken place, some academics feel, because of allowing the legislature to design its own districts.

The proposal voters have this election is a compromise in many ways. As such it is hardly a perfect solution. The sponsors include the League of Women Voters, AARP, Common Cause and the state Chamber of Commerce. They've patched together a way that an independent commission with input from the legislative leaders will draw the boundaries.

A goal will be to preserve communities of identity instead of the chopped up gerrymanders that we now have in much of the state. It won't change a vast number of districts that have traditional loyalties to one party or another. But it is hoped that more moderate candidates will be able to rise in a less polarized set of districts.

While it won't solve the problem of congressional districts (specifically excluded) and it won't end the annual budget stalemate, it might begin the process of making legislative districts more responsive to local communities. We'd recommend a "yes" on Proposition 11.

Proposition 12 is a $900-million bond issue for the Cal-Vet Home loan program. This program has been paid for by the loan programs aimed at rewarding the state's veterans for the service. It has worked effectively and economically. We join with every member of the Legislature (which put the measure on the ballot) in suggesting a "yes" vote on Nov. 4 on Proposition 12.