NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there are 16 propositions on the ballot, I’m finding that I’m having a hard time reading them all … so I’m relying a bit more on recommendations. I was hoping some of you might have some justifications (I’m less interested in votes, and more interested in reasons).

Here is a list of the Propositions:
1A: Protection of Local Government
59: Public Records, Open Meetings. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
60: Election Rights of Political Parties. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
60A: Surplus Property. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
61: Children’s Hospital Projects. Grant Program. Bond Act. Initiative Statute.
62: Elections. Primaries. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes Above $1 Million. Initiative Statue.
64: Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws. Initiative Statute.
65: Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
66: Limitations on “Three Strikes” Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment. Initiative Statute.
67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding. Initiative Statute.
70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
72: Health Care Coverage Requirements. Referendum.

Note I should add that the reason 60 and 60A were split was due to a court order, because the two issues were unrelated (I believe that 60A was a rider designed to get yes votes).


OK, now here is what the political parties (Democratic, Green, Libertarian, and Republican) and Sac Bee are recommending:

# // D // G // L // R // S //
1A // Y // - // - // Y // N //
59 // Y // Y // Y // Y // Y //
60 // Y // Y // Y // Y // ? //
60A // Y // - // Y // Y // ? //
61 // Y // N // N // N // N //
62 // N // N // N // N // Y //
63 // Y // Y // N // N // N //
64 // N // N // Y // Y // N //
65 // - // Y // Y // N // N //
66 // Y // Y // Y // N // Y //
67 // N // N // N // N // ? //
68 // N // N // - // N // N //
69 // N // N // N // Y // N //
70 // N // - // N // N // N //
71 // Y // - // N // N // N //
72 // Y // Y // N // N // N //


Since I’m asking for other people’s opinions, I’ll pencil in what I’ve already filled out.
1A : Y
59 : Y
61 : N
62 : Y
65 : A
70 : N
71 : N

I’m kinda starting to make up my mind on some of these other props. For example, I actually kinda like the basic idea behind 68, even if everybody seems opposed to it. While I don’t care for gambling, I don’t see it ever going away. The Bee’s article was actually very interesting: http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/10882703p-11800265c.html and I’d encourage you to read it (it swayed my Prop 70 vote). But at the same time, in the case of 68 part of me wonders if allowing the existing card rooms the ability to cash in on slot machines (which is self-serving) is a bad or good thing? I’m leaning in favour of 66 and 60A.

I’ll be reading the other props, but wanted to sort of see if anybody had strong reasons for or against any of the props.

It would be kinda nice if this could be a civil thread.

10kMichael

No on 71? What the hell?

YES on 71!

Having registered too late for the general elections...um...no comment?

No on 71? What the hell?

YES on 71!

Oh, I'm in favour of stem cell research, but I'm basing my vote on a brilliant editorial from the Sac Bee.

Governor Gray Davis vetoed several state legislature bills authorizing use of general fund money to provide research grants, these were bills supported by assembly and senate Democrats (his own party). Arnold has gone ahead and approved these same laws when they came across his desk (opposing the Republican party position on this issue).

Anyway, the Bee talked about how the legislature is using not bond money, but general fund money to do the same thing and that the prop is unnecessary. I think that is a sound argument.

Anyway, I do agree, stem cell research is important. :)

66 is a good idea, the original 3 strikes law is flawed and our prisons are being overloaded with minor felons warehoused for life, 66 just limits the strikes to violent crimes. 69 isn't a good idea, for one it requires DNA sampling of anyone arrested for a felony, not convicted and that's for any felony, not just violent crimes. To invasive and not likely to stand up to court challenges anyway. I still haven't read most of the fine print on all of them but I'm leaning torward yes on 71, and 72 and no on 68 and 70. As for the rest, I generally vote for funds for worthwhile social programs (61, 63, 67) and, although there is none this round, no on funds for prisons (we already have more people in prison in this state than every country in the world except the US as a whole and China). I still haven't really looked at the rest, I generally don't make a final decision till I see my sample ballot.

waaaaahhaaaahaaaaa you guys live in Sacramento......110 degrees in the summer ain't right!!! (I grew up in Folsom, so I hate the whole thing).

I haven't dug through all of the props yet. It's right there at my feet...I could just reach down and....anyway, keep up the analysis and I'll try to catch up.

OK, as a 25 year old, post-graduate educated (whatever that's worth) progressive Democrat, here goes:

1A - Yes. Local funds pay my salary, damnit.
59 - Yes. Secret government bad. Open government good.
60 - Yes. More parties in government good.
60A - Yes. Less money to pay in my and my children's future good.
61 - Yes. Hospitals good. Improving quality of life good.
62 - No. Want to vote for a candidate in the primary? Register in their party.
63 - Yes. Taxes on rich people help improve quality of life. My dad is going to kill me.
64 - No. Give me real tort reform by the people for the people, not businesses.
65 - No. Poorly written.
66 - Yes. Three strikes law is racist and poorly applied. Bouncing a check should not get someone 20 to life.
67 - Yes. San Jose just saw one of its three public hospitals close, leaving its poorest citizens without health care. My cell phone can stand an extra buck a month.
68 - No. Screw the race tracks.
69 - No. You may not collect my or anyone else DNA for a speeding ticket, jaywalking, or anything else, Big Brother. Go eff yourself.
70 - Yes. Let the red man eff the white man right in his genocidal... ear. They can have all the monopolies on casinos they want.
71 - Yes. It's a venture capital gamble on the future technology boom - biotech here we come.
72 - No. Almost voted yes, but I don't think the costs to the state will outweigh the benefits. It'll really just serve to cut that state pie a little thinner.

That's all of them.

Just for good measure: President/VP - Kerry/Edwards, Senator - Barbara Boxer (I liker her a lot. Feinstein can suck it.) My Rep's not up for reelection yet, and y'all don't care about the state and town level elections. :)

Funny you should bring this up, I just did the statewide initiatives at my blog. (http://incertus.blogspot.com) There's a lot to wade through, and the only places I'm really stuck are on the gaming initiatives. I'm tempted to just sit them out.

Funny you should bring this up, I just did the statewide initiatives at my blog. (http://incertus.blogspot.com) There's a lot to wade through, and the only places I'm really stuck are on the gaming initiatives. I'm tempted to just sit them out.

Well, the Sac Bee article also makes it sound like prop 68 is being pushed along by card-rooms (which is what you wrote in your blog). Anyway, read the Bee link I provided. I'm waffling on that one, but you may find what you need to push you over.

And a bit of advice / my opinion ... Arnold actually is a moderate Republican. The casino positions he is supporting is due to some back room money coming from the tribes, but in general I wouldn't vote for or against anything just because of him. Oh, now if it were Bush giving recommendations, I actually would be tempted to "spoil" him ... but in the case of the props there are plenty of opinions both ways so that you can avoid letting our actor leader sway us either way. :)

On the phone tax, is that on land-lines or mobiles or both? My only concern isn't the money it will cost me, but what it might to do poor families. If I think that this is a regressive "tax", I'll likely be voting no. If it is a progressive "tax", then you'll see me swing the other way. I just haven't really found enough about that yet.

Some reading material http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/

1A - Yes
59 - Yes
60 - Yes
60A - Yes
61 - No
62 - Yes
63 - Yes
64 - No
65 - No
66 - No
67 - Yes
68 - No
69 - Yes
70 - No
71 - Yes
72 - Yes

I vote no on all propositions. No one gets Pepe Dominguez's dollar. I think I voted yes on one of em in the Arnold election, but that's it.

I vote no on all propositions. No one gets Pepe Dominguez's dollar. I think I voted yes on one of em in the Arnold election, but that's it.

In that case, I highly recommend you pay attention to props 1a and 65. They both are promoting more accountability to Pepe Dominguez's dollar! ;)

Just read up on those two, you might find yourself wanting to vote yes a second time.

Also, everyone remember to vote NO on the "compassionate release" one, if it's on there.. they're tryin to let dying inmates out of prison early.. we gotta put the foot down on that.

Some reading material http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/

71 - Yes


Two thoughts ...

First I completely trust the league of women voters! Normally I would try and catch their debates on TV (the local capture gets time on community TV), but lately I've been spending too much time here! :)

Second aside from 71, the decisions I have already made, are in agreement with your list. I'm not completely locked into 71, though I'm still pretty convinced by what I thought was an excellent SacBee article.

I'll pass that site along though, because it really does seem well organized.

Thanks!

In that case, I highly recommend you pay attention to props 1a and 65. They both are promoting more accountability to Pepe Dominguez's dollar! ;)

Just read up on those two, you might find yourself wanting to vote yes a second time.

I'll consider it.. but those injuns gotta be stopped. :sniper:

Second aside from 71, the decisions I have already made, are in agreement with your list. I'm not completely locked into 71, though I'm still pretty convinced by what I thought was an excellent SacBee article.

I'll pass that site along though, because it really does seem well organized.

Thanks!Your welcome. Glad that you like the site.

I would be more comfortable with Prop 71 if it were a pay as you go funding instead of paying 6 billion dollars to only spend 3 billion on the research. But I support stem cell research and don't think that I'l be in Cali for another 30 years so let them spend as they will.

On the phone tax, is that on land-lines or mobiles or both? My only concern isn't the money it will cost me, but what it might to do poor families. If I think that this is a regressive "tax", I'll likely be voting no. If it is a progressive "tax", then you'll see me swing the other way. I just haven't really found enough about that yet.
The phone tax is on all phones, but it's really small amount of money, and it's capped, so it'll never get ridiculously large.

When it comes to the medical stuff, none of them really address the basic problem, which is lack of a single-payer universal system, but these propositions are better than nothing, so I'm for them. I'm also leaning toward yes on 70 right now, partially because Arnold doesn't like it, but partially because it seems like the better of the two propositions.

I would be more comfortable with Prop 71 if it were a pay as you go funding instead of paying 6 billion dollars to only spend 3 billion on the research. But I support stem cell research and don't think that I'l be in Cali for another 30 years so let them spend as they will.

That was the logic the Bee used. I wish it had cited the appropriations bills that already did this at a 1:1 ratio. Stem cell research sounds like a good idea to me as well, but part of the reason Props 1A and 65 exist is IMHO because local governments are overtaxed in order to support a bond for everything.

I say this, and I *always* vote in favour of veterans issues.

The phone tax one is the most crooked one out there.. the cash goes some place unrelated to the purpose. No joke. Like 1% goes where they want you to think..

OK, here mines as a 26 demo/libertarian gay asian male.

1A - Yes.
59 - Yes.
60 - Yes.
60A - Undecided.
61 - Yes.
62 - No.
63 - Yes.
64 - No.
65 - No. really poorly written.
66 - Yes. This law should be gone about 4 years ago.
67 - Yes.
68 - No. I dont gamble
69 - No. Too big brother
70 - No
71 - Yes.
72 - No.

... I'm still undecided on a few of these. Namely 67 and 72. I find it interesting that the political parties are all opposed to 67 (though probably with very little passion). I'm also a bit unsure of the finacial impacts that would be associated with 72 on small businesses, which I generally would like to support. I've not read the text on these two yet and will tonight.

But other than that (and deciding on a President and US Senator) my sample ballot is now penciled in.

I'm actually looking forward to working the polls tomorrow, and I'm hoping the day goes by with no major complications ... maybe a spoiled ballot or minor mix up in the roster, but I'm hoping to getting a chance to see what they are forecasting as a larger voter turnout! :)


There is one issue that I was flipflopping on, but as I started thinking about it, I decided to vote no: 66 -- Three Strikes.

I actually feel that convictions should be left up to a judge who is familiar with the history of all of the priors of a person convicted of a crime. While three strikes can be too extreme in some circumstances, I don't like the idea that this law will be retroactive. But at the same time, I don't know if those felons current convicted on the three strikes laws had strikes from prior to the passage of the original law used against them. I also was concerned that burning down somebody's property if they aren't there is no longer going to be considered a violent crime ... to me, setting property in California means you don't have control of where that fire will go and that is life-threatening. Furthermore, I don't really believe that somebody who would attempt to burn somebody else's stuff is really that concerned about the physical well being of others. I found it very scary that this crime was being "lessened", and I do have my doubts about the proposal now.

I vote no on all propositions. No one gets Pepe Dominguez's dollar. I think I voted yes on one of em in the Arnold election, but that's it.
Surely voting No on 66 would end up costing you more taxes to support petty prisoners.

Surely voting No on 66 would end up costing you more taxes to support petty prisoners.

That is a perfect example of why people should avoid issuing blanket statements. ;)

Today I was talking to a friend, and he said he was voting in favour of Prop. 66 because he felt it was wrong for many reasons. Among those, he insisted several times that sending somebody to jail on a third offense for a non-violent crime is a waste of tax payer money.

I've heard this argument many times, and I was confused on this issue so I looked up what the State of California had to officially say on this subject:

http://www.corr.ca.gov/ParoleDiv/Handbook/Three_strikes.asp


Q. What crimes are "strikes?"
A. A list of the serious and violent crimes are found in Penal Code (PC) Sections 667.5(c) and 1192.7(c).

Q. Does your new felony conviction have to be serious or violent for you to be punished under "Three Strikes?"
A. No. Any new felony conviction may be sentenced under "Three Strikes" if you have been previously convicted of two or more serious or violent felonies. This means that if you have two prior "strike" convictions, you may be sentenced to a minimum of 25 years to life for any new felony state prison conviction.


It looks to me that if you have committed two previous violent or serious crimes, that any felony will result in having you sent to prison.

That I do not support. I think that is too extreme.

However, I also don't like how the current prop 66 rewrites what serious and violent crimes are.

From the State's official voter guide (http://www.voterguide.ss.ca.gov/propositions/prop66-analysis.htm):



Attempted burglary
Conspiracy (multiple people planning) to commit assault
Nonresidential arson resulting in no significant injuries
Threats to commit criminal acts that would result in significant personal injury
Burglary of an unoccupied residence
Interfering with a trial witness without the use of force or threats and not in the furtherance of a conspiracy
Participation in felonies committed by a criminal street gang
Unintentional infliction of significant personal injury while committing a felony offense


People convicted of these crimes would still go to jail, that doesn't change ...

But some of these crimes I still consider serious, particularly arson (which I mentioned before) and interfering with trial witnesses or treatening to commit criminal acts that would result in serious injury.

I do not like how the original law did *not* grandfather felons, but I also do not like how the current law would have no grandfather clauses as well. Though I may change my vote, I really am not happy with either situation. :(

I can relate, Mikitivity, but the way I look at it right now is this: the current law is an abomination, because it allows some DA running for reelection the chance to look tough on crime at the expense of a three time loser who isn't violent. That's an abomination in my eyes, so even though I don't like the very things you pointed out, I'm still voting for the Prop.

I can relate, Mikitivity, but the way I look at it right now is this: the current law is an abomination, because it allows some DA running for reelection the chance to look tough on crime at the expense of a three time loser who isn't violent. That's an abomination in my eyes, so even though I don't like the very things you pointed out, I'm still voting for the Prop.

Well it looks like the prop passed and the changes will be made. To be honest, I was more disappointed by other outcomes, but also realize that everything voted on in California is temporary. New propositions will be on the ballots in a matter of years and I think until things change that our governments (local and state) need to change.


Here are some interesting experiences from working the polls. (I've been working the polls since 1998, and in California, that means I've worked many elections!)

This year I had more absentee ballots hand carried than I've had before, I had more spoiled ballots than I've had before, and a slight increase in provisional ballots. Granted I've never worked the same exact precinct in more than one election (my assignment changes from precinct to precinct), but the feel of the various precincts have been largely the same.

The things that I also noticed this year: 4 different "bloc captains" or "party precinct contacts" (or whatever they want to call themselves) were coming by and reading the street index. These people were actually very polite, but very eager to get the vote out. One voter complained that a woman phoned her claiming to be her friend, though she had never met this other woman. The "friend" was a bloc captain and was phoning to remind her to vote. The voter was an absentee voter, but few of my county precincts mark absentee voters has having voted on these indexes (sp?).

The major change this year was the number of Republicans and Democrats that actually wore campaign buttons or t-shirts into the polling place. That is illegal, and some of them were rude about this when we told them that was illegal. I don't see how people who are so active in a campaign can seem to believe that the laws that say no electionering withing 100 ft of the polling place don't apply to them!