posted
62: No 63: No 64: Yes 65: No 66: No (Don't mess with 3 strikes. This prop will let out thousands of repeat offenders!) 67: No 68: No 69: No (DNA samples if you're convicted. Not just arrested!!) 70: No (Torn on this one) 71: No (I support stim cell research but I'm against using gov't money for research in general) 72: No
Generally, I'm against anything that issues Bonds. People see Bonds and think that means they never have to pay for them. This is the same mentality that causes people to get into credit card debt and never get out.
Also I'm against anything other than roads/courts/police/prisons that spend money. Once they pass one of those it never goes away. Eventually we'll collapse under their weight.
Anyway looks like all we disagree on is the DNA sample one.
1A: No 59: No (more red tape, for no good reason) 60: No 60A: No (and I agree with your reasoning, doc) 61: No (I'm against bonds in general, and this is a terribly-written proposition) 62: No (didn't we say no to this a few years ago?!) 63: Yes (I was on the fence about this one, but I did eventually vote yes) 64: No (this actually makes a whole lot of lawsuits more difficult, and is not nearly as straightforward as its proponents claim; link) 65: No 66: No WAY! 67: No 68 and 70: No (we actually already HAVE a new agreement with the tribes) 69: No (I'm with Pixiest on this; plus, why is THIS our financial priority?) 71: No (we had a whole thread on this one) 72: No (bad idea, and poorly written)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
1A: No 59: No 60: No 60A: Yes (It doesn't do much to help, but at least it's something) 61: No (can't afford it, and it makes poor financial sense, anyway) 62: No (and, yes, we've had this one crop up again and again and again...) 63: No 64: Yes 65: No 66: Yes (far too many things in CA qualify as felonies) 67: No 68: No 69: No 70: No 71: No 72: No
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
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??
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I must be misunderstanding you. Wouldn't that be a reason to vote against it?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
