quote:

---

66: Yes (far too many things in CA qualify as felonies)

---

I must be misunderstanding you. Wouldn't that be a reason to vote against it?
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
A Yes on 66 amends the three strikes law.

No
yes
no
62: no
63: no (Mental Health exacerbates other problems, and I believe that in a community, those who are lucky should help out those who are unlucky. Maybe if I knew more, I'd vote yes, but I don't knnow where the money is going.)
64:No
65:no
66:yes
67:No
68:no
69:no
70:no
71:Yes
72:Yes

[ November 02, 2004, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
D'oh! I was confusing 66 and 69!

Good thing I already voted.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Good Lord. Do people in California draw up Propositions for EVERYTHING?
 

---

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
 
Is it a function of the constitution? I know in Alabama, a bunch of things that concern only one county or city have to be voted on state wide. We have to vote on whether or not Greene county can form a school system, for example.
 

---

Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
 
Yes! And if it doesn't pass we just put them on the ballot again! And again! And again!
 

---

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
 
In 1976, we cut property taxes through a proposition. It was a big blow to political infrastructure of the state, from schools to roads, and in the 80s and 90s, propositions were the way that rich ideologues subverted the legislature by buying enough signatures put measures on the ballots. Bonds have to go to a public vote, but most of the other propositions are driven by a special interest with enough resources to buy a space on the ballot but not enough of an argument to get through the senate.

Now, it's California politics on both sides. It's not a corrupt system, but it doesn't make me feel good that California politics chose this road.

[ November 02, 2004, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
When there is a large field of candidates, Prop 62 does the opposite of what it is supposed to do: it selects for the least moderate candidates.

The proposed system is similar to that in France, in which two of the three most-despised-despised-by-the-public-as-a-whole candidates LePen and Chirac got the most votes in the primaries because they strongly attracted extremists.

In the general election, Chirac won over LePen by 82%to18% cuz all of the opposition parties decided that election of (or even a good showing by) the nutcase LePen would embarass France in front of the world.

[ November 02, 2004, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
 

---

Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
 
I hear the Madison area ballots had a proposition for a city pool. Green Bay's had nothing.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
I don't think there are any propositions on our local ballot, either.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Madison has a proposition on whether we can include lakeshore park property to be considered for a public pool site. (Wisconsin State Journal editorial, Capital Times editorial) In the past, lakeshore park property was set aside from such use.

That's it, though. I am aghast at California's list.

[ November 02, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Oregon doesn't even get that proposition, Sara. We're completely unpropositioned.
 

---

Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
 
Not only are there state-wide propositions, but if you live in San Francisco, Berkeley, Oakland, etc. there are always several county/city propositions.

Here's what I have with me so I can vote this evening when I get off work:

--165 page voter information guide from the state (this covers the propositions)

--A 21 page supplement to the guide for stuff that didn't make it into the original guide (another propisition)

--An approximately 30 page sample ballot and voting guide from Alameda Country (no page numbers)

BTW, I'm pleased to see that all the California Jatraqueros who have posted so far have been quite conservative in voting yes on the various propositions. I think that's a wise course of action, and I can only hope that the rest of the voters in the state do the same -- I fear they won't.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
It's like nobody asked you to dance.



There's always the option of dancing with yourself.

I knew not of the pool proposition until I voted. I was asked to dance, but I didn't know how. This caused a small amount of consternation in my voting booth, but I think fast on my feet, and I think I covered for it well.
 

---

Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
 
Or it's like nobody asked you to play.

There's always the option....
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Didn't Cyndi Lauper ... oh, never mind.



(Hi, Papa. Happy Election Day! I am on my fourth hour of nausea and holding steady.)
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Results: (Linky)

1A: Yes
59: Yes
60: Yes
60A: Yes
61: (I think this one needs 67% to pass?)
62: No (probably) -- What happens if this and 60 both pass, anyway?
63: Yes
64: Yes
65: No
66: Very tight
67: No
68 and 70: No
69: Yes
71: Yes
72: Very tight



Oh, and Zal, I entirely agree. The number of horribly-worded propositions which pass and then get overturned in the courts is simply obscene.

[ November 03, 2004, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: rivka ]
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
rivka, why would you be in favor or DNA testing for arrests? Don't you think that would lead to abuses?

or is that just me mixing up all those props again....lol...?

Kwea
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Kwea, I voted against 69, but it passed. (My last post was results, not how I voted.)
 

---

Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
 
Ahhh...it will be overturned on Constitutional issues I bet..including Dags favorite...the no-so-well defined right to privacy!

Kwea
 

---

Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
 
Those are the results; you can see how she actually voted above.

Edit: you two beat me to it.

[ November 03, 2004, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Bekenn ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Nope - if it's overturned it will be based on the good ol' 4th amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizures.

"Probable cause exists where the facts and circumstances known by the officer and supported by reasonably trustworthy information leads to the reasonable belief that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested or a specifically described item subject to seizure will be found." This standard is NOT satisfied by automatic DNA testing at arrest.

The likely tact defending the law will be the need to have a sure means of identifying a person who has been arrested and checking for warrants. Fingerprints are used for that now, but there's been studies about the unreliability of fingerprints.

Lots of nitty-gritty legal issues to have fun with in this one.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
 
Prop 69 scares the hell out of me, truth be told.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I wouldn't go that far; but I think it's dreadful, and hope it gets zapped by the courts.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
Looks like it didn't need 67%. I never remember if that's for bond issues? Propositions that raise taxes?

Somebody help me here . . .
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
We're like that in Florida: we ammend our constitution for everything, because it's easier to get a crappy law passed by putting it before the shee--er, voters, than through the legislature, who might, after all, be in someone else's pocket instead of yours.

Cynical?

Who, me?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
We don't do that.

We make the voters vote on it AFTER the Legislature does, sometimes.
 

---

Posted by Bekenn (Member # 6602) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam613
You mean that some propositions require a supermajority, and not everyone knows which ones they are??? What kind of state do you live in??

---

Confusion.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*grin* That too.

Ok, having failed to Google the answer, I asked my mom. We need a supermajority for any proposition that raises property taxes. This includes bonds which are "local general obligation bonds," and is due to the (in)famous Proposition 13, passed back in 1978.

Twenty Years Later

Another view
 

---