California Propositions Thread

[cannonia]

Is it a wise decision to issue any new bonds right now?  Those things can't be getting any cheaper, and I've heard of a few special districts and cities with bond issues that failed to attract bidders.  Add to that Arnie's warning that the state might need an emergency loan from the Fed to cover operating costs.

Someone please tell me how passing these bond measures would NOT be setting us up for disaster.

[cannonia]

1A - Lean No - I don't think bonds are a good idea right now.
2 - Lean No - If there are any problems with the economy, we should not burden it with feel-good legislation.
3 - Lean No - I don't think bonds are a good idea right now.
4 - Meh.
5 - Lean No - need to read it through, but there's usually a reason why some group wants money spent through initiative process.
6 - Lean No - need to read it through, but there's usually a reason why some group wants money spent through initiative process.
7 - Lean No - didn't like rolling blackouts and don't want more.
8 - Yes, but I'm having trouble caring.
9 - Lean No until I figure out what it actually does.
10 - Lean No - Seems silly
11 - Lean Yes - Redistricting is broken and *someone* needs to fix the process
12 - Lean No - I don't think bonds are a good idea right now.

[cannonia]

Why all the hate for Prop 11?  It's the best idea for a redistricting commission I've read yet.  Are there any particular flaws or loopholes in it that everyone dislikes?

[cannonia]

Why all the hate for Prop 11?  It's the best idea for a redistricting commission I've read yet.  Are there any particular flaws or loopholes in it that everyone dislikes?

Personally, I'd rather it contained no Democrats or Republicans. I'd probably vote for it anyway, but that provision irritates me.

The text of the measure actually refers to the party with the most registered voters, the party with the second most, and then voters who are not in either of the two largest parties.  When the Greens and Libertarians rise to power, it wouldn't be necessary to make any amendments.

[cannonia]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

[cannonia]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

The initiative should state that race, ethnicity, language, age, citizenship, or registration status of residents should not be taken into account when drawing districts.  Draw reasonable boundaries and let someone else take the state to federal court for violating the VRA.  No reasonable person would want to subject 14 of his fellow Californians to the creepiness of having to account for racial voting patterns.

But the worst part of the initiative is leaving congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.  Almost half of the current congressional delegation previously served in the legislature.  You have to complex process to choose the commission, with all kinds of restrictions on who may be a member so as to avoid even the whiff of political influence, and then leave congressional redistricting in the hands of body that is too corrupt to draw legislative district boundaries.

Are you sure congressional redistricting is left to the legislature? If so it would make me 10 times more likely to vote for it. I would want fair congressional redistricting as well only if the rest of the country did it as well. I do think better districts need to be created in California but I am not sure this is the answer. The prop is hopelessly confusing. 8 random citizens, who have voted in 2 of last 3 general elections, are selected and then they select 6 more or something. Also no relatives of politicians or lobbyists are allowed. It sounds great on paper maybe but how are they going to implement it. Oh well.

I think critics are letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.  The proposition only applies to state legislative districts, and it is a complicated process for picking the commission, but there's no downside to passing the proposition.  On the other hand, there won't likely be any reform if this one fails like the last one.

[cannonia]

The prop does not apply to congressional redistricting. Trying to create competitive districts in Calif at present however, is a rather futile exercise. Folks of different political persuasions seem to prefer not to live near each other in California.

Maybe in SoCal, but the Sacramento suburbs are a real mixed bag.  Look at Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, North Highlands, Arden-Arcade, Rosemont and the Pocket area for examples.  Elsewhere in the Central Valley and even the East Bay there are a lot of close areas.

[cannonia]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

Ugh. In that case, count two new votes against Prop 11.

I'm not a fan myself, but are you saying the state should ignore federal law?

It only aplies to congressional districts. And for those, yes, nullification seems just fine.

No, see for example Garza vs. County of Los Angeles.  Mind you, the 9th Circuit is talking about county supervisorial districts.  Federal courts have also ruled on the validity of state legislative districts.

Nullification is a dead doctrine.  If the redistricting plan violates federal laws (whatever their merits), then it will be tossed out.  VRA compliance is not a defect in the proposition; it's a benefit that the commission will have proper legal assistance in the process.

[cannonia]

Since at least the days of Willie Brown, the Legislature has been a top-down affair in which the leadership has absolute control of the agenda.  I'm sure you haven't forgotten the incident a month or so back where the Assemblywoman's office was transferred outside of the Capitol building because she had the temerity to withhold her vote on the budget until her district's water needs were addressed.  The State Legislature is essentially a party organ, leaving no room for the professionalism (or really even independent thought) on the part of the members.

Also, I realize you're engaging in hyperbole regarding the budget, but I have to point out that the man most well-regarded for his knowledge of the state budget is none other than your favorite Republican state-senator-turned-congressional-candidate.

And you do realize the budget and the economy are different, right?  Anyway, I agree that Prop 13 is bad policy, but I certainly think it's better than no restriction on increasing property taxes.

[cannonia]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

[cannonia]

This won't be a victory for what you're advocating, which I certainly agree with--it will just be a victory for those who oppose equal rights for gays.

Or the idea of "group rights" in general.

So, say, you opposed public transportation being funded by the government.  You'd support an initiative to keep blacks off public transportation, just because it would be less ridership?  It would be more important to score points on a political issue that will never 'win' than to right a blatant form of societal discrimination?

Nope, never said anything like that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not of that view either.

[cannonia]

Then you'll explain to me what the distinction is.  Why is the example I gave unacceptable, but denying equal marital rights to gays perfectly fine?  In both instances, you'd be doing the same thing:  revoking a right, and re-enforcing discrimination, to move toward an ideological goal that isn't on the horizon.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not of that view either.

I'm glad, but that doesn't take away my original point:  this is ineffective ideological purism vs. an actual move away from governmentally-enforced bigotry.  And a vote of "yes" gives that view, not ours, the victory.

Marriage is an institution based on practical, not ideological concerns.  Your view of it as bigoted treats homosexuals as a group rather than as individuals.  I have the same concerns about this as about affirmative action.  Contrast those to laws that prohibit discrimination against an individual.

[cannonia]

Marriage is an institution based on practical, not ideological concerns.  Your view of it as bigoted treats homosexuals as a group rather than as individuals.  I have the same concerns about this as about affirmative action.  Contrast those to laws that prohibit discrimination against an individual.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument.  How are they being less discriminated-against as individuals?

How are you relating affirmative action, here?  Are you arguing that equality is not desirable, because forcing equality (affirmative action) is bad?  I don't think that analogy makes any sense either, unless your objection to affirmative action is something other than the standard "it's not meritocratic."

They are both rights/benefits conferred by group status.  California marriage law before the court decision treated individuals identically, regardless of member ship in any particular group.