We are coming upon that time of the year when voters are deluged with direct mail and television advertising aimed at convincing them one way or another on a particular election issue. There are several measures on this November's ballot that warrant clear understanding, but one measure in particular, Proposition 9, deserves immediate attention.

In simple terms, for the state's electricity customers and taxpayers, Proposition 9 would be a disaster. The initiative was drafted by Harvey Rosenfield, author of the 1988 car insurance initiative, Proposition 103. Proposition 9 implies that it will only slightly modify the new competitive electric market. In reality, Proposition 9 is an outright assault on the taxpayers and consumers of this state.

Proposition 9 would dismantle California's open and competitive electric energy market just as it is getting under way, resulting in higher electric rates and higher taxes. Equally troubling, due to poor drafting, the measure could result in significant funding reductions for such key services as education, police and fire protection - and could trigger higher taxes by invalidating more than $6 billion in bonds already sold.

Proponents may not have intended to draft a flawed measure, but the reality is that Proposition 9 risks default on more than $6 billion in private bonds that have already been sold to refinance a portion of capital costs incurred during the era of government-regulated utility monopoly. The bonds are designed to provide consumers and taxpayers with more than $1 billion in immediate savings on their utility bills.

The State of California pledged through legislation and contract that it would "take no action to impair the bonds, unless it made adequate provision for the bondholder." Proposition 9 would constitute a state action that interferes with that pledge, and taxpayers would be on the hook for the $6 billion.

In addition, the state's largest bond counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, says "Proposition 9, if approved by the voters and sustained by the courts, could adversely affect the ability of California local governments to sell their own bonds, notes, certificates of participation and other financial instruments." This could increase the costs on all public projects that rely on local and state bonds - costs that must be borne by taxpayers.

Despite our improved economy, passage of this misguided initiative would cause a massive ripple effect throughout California, negatively impacting the state's promising economic recovery and future vitality. Companies considering relocation to our state could take their business elsewhere to avoid the turmoil of a disrupted, chaotic market for essential electric power.

Under Proposition 9, the new competitive market that has brought lower electric rates to all consumers would be replaced with bureaucratic red tape, legal entanglements, and the old government-regulated monopoly. Proposition 9 is bad for consumers, bad for business, bad for California's economic recovery, and bad for taxpayers. I urge you to join the hundreds of statewide and local organizations in voting NO on 9 in November.

Allan Zaremberg is president of the California Chamber of Commerce.