California Propositions Thread

[The Ex-Factor]

I searched and didn't find a thread on this topic, so apologies if it has already been covered. Anyway, it's that time of year where Californians vote on the the referendums suggested by our state legislature, those beloved representatives of the people who would never put their own political ambitions over their constituents, and those ingenious, highly democratic, grass-roots initiatives driven by the brilliant people of our state! Oh wait....



Anyway, the best place I've seen so far for a breakdown of the 12 propositions on the ballot this year is SmartVoter.

Proposition 1A. Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train -- State of California (Bond Act)
    To provide Californians a safe, convenient, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving and high gas prices; to provide good-paying jobs and improve California's economy while reducing air polution, global warning greenhouse gases, and our dependence on foreign oil, shall $9.95 billion in bonds be issued to establish a clean, efficient high-speed train service linking Southern California, the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley, and the San Francisco Bay Area, with at least 90 percent of bond funds spent for specific projects, with federal and private matching funds required, all bond funds subject to an independent audit?

Proposition 2. Standards for Confining Farm Animals -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
    Shall certain farm animals be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around?

Proposition 3. Children's Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
    Shall $980,000,000 in general obligation bonds be authorized for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of eligible children's hospitals?

Proposition 4. Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment - LOL)
    Shall the California Constitution be changed to prohibit abortion for an unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent, legal guardian, or, in limited cases, substitute adult relative?

Proposition 5. Nonviolent Drug Offenses, Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
    Shall $460,000,000 be allocated annually to improve and expand treatment programs?

Proposition 6. Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
    Shall of minimum of $965,000,000 of state funding be required each year for police and local law enforcement?

Proposition 7. Renewable Energy Generation -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
    Shall government-owned utilities be required to generate 20% of their electricity from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable to private electrical corporations? Shall all utilities be required to generate 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025?

Proposition 8. Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment)
    Shall the California Constitution be changed to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry providing that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California?

Proposition 9. Criminal Justice System. Victims' Rights. Parole -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
    Shall notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole be required? Shall victim safety be a consideration for bail or parole?

Proposition 10. Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds -- State of California (Initiative Statute)
    Shall $5 billion in bonds paid from state's General Fund be authorized to help consumers and others purchase certain vehicles, and to help research in renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles?

Proposition 11. Redistricting -- State of California (Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute)
    Shall the authority for establishing state office boundaries be changed from elected representatives to a commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party selected from the registered voter pool in a multilevel process?

Proposition 12. Veteran's Bond Act of 2008 -- State of California (Bond)
    Shall a nine hundred million dollar ($900,000,000) bond be issued to provide farm and home aid for California veterans?

What is everyone's thoughts on this year's amendments? How much more money should California be spending considering our current perilous financial situation? Will the veterans bonds act garner less than 60% of the vote? Will the highly controversial ban on gay marriage pass? Will chickens in our farms be able to extend their limbs? Will someone please propose a proposition to ban Proposition 4 from ever being proposed again, ever?

All shall be decided on November 4th, but in the meantime we can talk about them here. What do you guys think?

[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.

[phk]

NO on the Bond measures.

[Alcon]

Proposition 2 is really going to confuse stoned people.

[The Ex-Factor]

You guys can vote no on Prop 12, but I'll be amazed if it fails:
http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2008/09/16/22/345-prop.xlgraphic.prod_affiliate.4.gif

[Torie]

NO on the Bond measures.

I am not sure California could sell them anyway. Nobody wants to buy California bonds right now. That is why the yield of municipal paper is going through the roof, pushing 6%, by far the highest rate I have seen in my experience.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

My votes:

Proposition 1A. - Meh, good idea but almost $10 billion...I'll say no for now, try it some other time.

Proposition 2. - Yes

Proposition 3. - Yes

Proposition 4. - No

Proposition 5. - Yes

Proposition 6. - No

Proposition 7. - Yes

Proposition 8. - No

Proposition 9. - Yes

Proposition 10. - Yes

Proposition 11. - Sounds like incumbent protection. No

Proposition 12. - No

[Citizen James]

I'm curious to hear comments on 11.   Although 7 and 8 get far more press, I think 11 is likely to be far more far reaching.

For what it's worth, my positions:

1A - lean No: too much outstanding bond debt right now.  The cost outweighs the potential benefit.  Of all the bond issues, this one strikes me as the closest to useful though.

2 - lean yes:  It seems reasonable to me to treat animals humanely - even those which are going to be slaughtered.  The opponents argument is laughably bad (OMG - if this passes everyone will get teh BIRD FLU AND DIE!!!!)

3- No - once again, we don't need more bonds right now.  Plus, I am usually wary of arguments of 'for the children'.   Why should the hospitals be focused on children?  Don't adults need healthcare too?  This strikes me as pork designed to pull on the heartstrings.

4.  No.  As it is fairly easy to get an initiative on the ballot, I suspect this one will keep turning up over and over again like a bad penny.  Not all kids come from supportive homes.  Some are afraid of their parents (and sometimes with good reason), and abused.   Forcing this would only make things worse.

5.Lean no.  This is a tough one.  Though I generally prefer sending addicts to rehab over jail; the provision of lowering marijuana possession to a misdemeanor strikes me as going too far.

6. No.  Mandatory funding tends to make for trouble.  Especially when it takes from the general fund.

7. No.  Hopelessly flawed.

8. No.  The legislature actually passed legislation several times, but the governor vetoed it claiming the courts should decide.   They did, now his party is complaining.   Contrary to the whining of it's proponents, the law does not force churches from marrying any couple they don't want to - for any reason they don't want to ranging from rational (not members of the faith) to insane (sinister left handers, mixed race couples, whatever...).

9.  undecided/lean no.  I'm still mulling this one over, but for some reason the pro arguments are annoying (rule of thumb - anyone WHO YELLS MUCH OF THEIR POSITION probably has a rather weak position).  I'll probably have to read through the fine print on this one.

10. No - once again, this is not the time for more bonds.

11. lean yes - Looking over it, they seem to have dotted all their i's and crossed all their t's.  I'm open to rational counterarguments though.

12 - No.  Once again, not the time for bonds.

[The Ex-Factor]

Just a heads up, Proposition 10 was introduced/backed by T. Boone Pickens.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-ed-10prop19-2008sep19,0,2773298.story

You know, the guy who was behind the Swiftboating video? Apparently he owns a natural gas fueling company that would directly benefit from the passage of Prop 10. Bad bad idea to help him out, guys.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The opponents argument is laughably bad (OMG - if this passes everyone will get teh BIRD FLU AND DIE!!!!)

     Are they seriously arguing that?

[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.

[Citizen James]

The opponents argument is laughably bad (OMG - if this passes everyone will get teh BIRD FLU AND DIE!!!!)

     Are they seriously arguing that?

Pretty much.  From the official rebuttal to the argument for prop 2:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's how I'm planning on voting.

1. Yes, better in the long run.
2. Yes
3. Lean yes
4. No
5. No idea
6. Lean no
7. Lean yes
8. No
9. No idea
10. No idea
11. No
12. No

[Lunar]

My votes:

Proposition 1A. - Meh, good idea but almost $10 billion...I'll say no for now, try it some other time.

Actually, it's 30+ billion, but the federal government and private firms are paying 3/4ths of it.  Even forgetting that, it's actually less than half the cost of building an equivalent amount of freeways/airport extensions.  CA gets a sick deal.

[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?

[Verily]

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.

[Sbane]

My votes:

Proposition 1A. - Meh, good idea but almost $10 billion...I'll say no for now, try it some other time.

Actually, it's 30+ billion, but the federal government and private firms are paying 3/4ths of it.  Even forgetting that, it's actually less than half the cost of building an equivalent amount of freeways/airport extensions.  CA gets a sick deal.

Who operates it and do the taxpayers get a share of the profits?

[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.

[Хahar 🤔]

Proposition 11. - Sounds like incumbent protection. No

Nothing can protect incumbents more than the current system.

[jimrtex]

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?

1.  It requires compliance with the Voting Rights Act.  Race, ethnicity, language, party registration, voting patterns, etc. of voters should be disregarded in drawing district lines, but the VRA requires that they be taken into account.

2. It leaves congressional redistricting in the hands of the legislature.  It has a convoluted procedure to ensure that the members of the redistricting commission don't have a conflict of interest, and then leaves congressional redistricting in the hands of those who have an inherent conflict of interest.  The legislators were elected from districts which were created by the corrupt process that the initiative  seeks to cure.  Ambitious legislators may seek to run for Congress.  It also requires that the legislature and the commission coordinate their activities, so that the legislature may end up being overly influential in the drawing of the district lines.

3. The selection process for the commission may not work.   It requires that would-be members apply beginning in January 2010 (or xxx0).   Political parties will encourage persons to submit their applications for all 3 potential pools, Democrat, Republican, and neither.   They will want partisans who are registered with their own party, and seek sleeper agents, who do not have a party registration or are registered with the opposite party.  There may be relatively few ordinary citizens who apply.  Given the lengthy selection process, people who might be excellent commissioners may simply not bother applying.   Even if they are the most qualified, they might get knocked out by a party leader in the legislature, or miss out during a random selection phase.

Applicants will be screened by a panel of 3 auditors, who will be randomly selected such that there is one Republican, one Democrat, and one neither.   Presumably the auditors will have professional training so that they will not bias the process.  But if so, why is it required that there be one from each party? 

The auditors will choose the 20 Democrats, 20 Republicans, and 20 neithers who they believe are most qualified.   But the applicants of the 3 types may not be of equivalent quality.  Taking the 20 "best" of each will not equalize that quality, especially if there are differing numbers of applicants in each group.

The 4 political leaders of the legislature will then each be permitted to strike 2 persons from each pool, leaving 12 persons in each.  Then 3 Republicans, 3 Democrats, and 2 neithers will be selected by lot.  These 8 will then choose 2 more from each of the remaining 8 or 9 in the pools.

[Хahar 🤔]

Compliance with the VRA is required?

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

[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?

[jimrtex]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[Torie]

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.