counter point - It's also free money for the state and also I like to sports gamble from the comfort of my own bed/couch
Proposition 1: Putting abortion safeguards in the California constitution: Don't think we need an explanation for this one Propositions 26 and 27: Legalizing sports gambling, two ways: After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal law banning state-regulated sports betting, two big-spending interests stepped up with California legalization proposals. Prop. 27 would allow Californians to bet on sports and other competitions online, but only through certified gaming tribes and large, well-established online betting companies - yes to this. It's also good money for homeless/public housing. Prop. 26, supported by some of the state’s tribal governments, would only legalize sports betting in-person at tribal casinos and designated horse tracks - no too limiting Proposition 28: Set aside school funding for arts and music: who doesn't want their kids to be edumucated on Arts & Music? Proposition 29: Kidney clinic rules, third time a charm? Go ******** yourself Proposition 30: Millionaires paying for electric cars: easy yes Proposition 31: Reconsidering a flavored tobacco ban: I don't like when the govermnet tells us we're not allowed to buy things. Even if it's bad for us. So yea, remove the ban
I would imagine the legislature gets to choose how to integrate the two? I'm not sure how things work in CA, but up here in WA, these public initiatives don't actually re-write the laws, they just deliver a bill to the legislature to pass in the next session. There have been a couple of instances where the WA legislature has made modifications to the bill introduced via this process, but, for the most part, the WA legislature just rubber stamps the bill and passes it through.
In the past when there have been two propositions with conflicting terms, if both passed, the one which got more votes would take effect. Here's an article with some examples: https://calmatters.org/economy/2022/06/sports-betting-california/ This gives examples from 2016 where there were dueling plastic bag propositions and dueling death penalty propositions. If I wasn't heading out to pick up my kid from school, I'd look back in this thread to see if we talked about it back then.
OK, I went back and looked at the propositions for 2016. Man, we were so innocent back then. Hey, I'm going to vote to make porn actors wear condoms while I also vote for Hillary Clinton! And then it got super dark after that - suddenly we didn't care so much about whether porn actors were wearing condoms any more. For the specific dueling propositions back then, both issues (plastic bags and the death penalty) had one proposition pass and the other one fail, so we didn't come across any situation where two conflicting propositions passed. Could sports gambling be the one that finally answers this question? Come back in two months to find out!
Too bad we don't use the WA method. Then we could have had the death penalty for people who use plastic bags.
Gosh, I'm kind of rethinking things. Now, I feel like I don't want 26 or 27 to pass at al. I also just saw a Newsom ad against 30. I voted for him but don't always agree with him, so I'll need to examine that more.
Not an initiative, but Cali has decriminalized jaywalking https://www.latimes.com/california/...ng-decriminalized-in-california-under-new-law
It doesn't decriminalize under all conditions, rather it says you can cross outside of designated crosswalks if a "reasonable" person would consider it safe. So no stepping out in front of a car, or sprinting across 4 lanes of traffic. It's also worth noting that US is one of the few countries that has jaywalking laws. In many other countries, pedestrians can cross willy nilly as long as it is safe to do so.
You know I was kidding, right? In general, the pedestrian had the right of way, period. Even though jaywalking is not legal in some places (most), the pedestrian priority doesn't demonstrate that pedestrians cross willy nilly. The CA law, in what ever form, is the same to me.
OK, not to thread cop, but this thread is about propositions. Speaking of which, the HTML version of the voter's guide is up now - propositions and the arguments for and against can be found here: https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/index.htm I still haven't gone through and decided how I'm voting on each one. We get our ballots in the mail in a week or two, so my wife and I will spend an evening with a bottle of wine, and the political ads we've been getting in the mail, and the internet, and go through the ballot. I know you non-Californians are super jealous because it sounds so great, I can hardly wait. General California wackiness discussion can go in the main forum, in "The California Thread" which mostly talks about how close forest fires are getting to Knave's house. A discussion on the relative merits of jaywalking would fit right in there. Link: https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/the-california-thread.2089502/
So my family finally sat down and went through the ballot. I won't bore you with our local city council and school board races, other than to say that when the mayor shows up at the Eagle Court of Honor for my kid's Scout troop, I'm more likely to vote for them. Similarly, when choosing between two Democrats for our open House of Representatives seat (CA-15, Jackie Speier is retiring), I'm picking the guy who shows up at the farmers market. Retail politics in action. But this thread is about propositions, so here's what the Murfquakes chose. Proposition 1 - putting abortion rights in the state constitution - easy yes. Props 26 and 27, the sports gambling. We both agreed that Prop 27 was a no - if anyone's going to get that sweet, sweet California sports gambling money, it's not going to be these out-of-state companies. For Prop 26, it was a very close decision. We're basically OK with the existing level of gambling in California - it's not something we do - so adding sports betting to existing tribal casinos and horse racing places isn't a big change. We ended up choosing yes on 26, mostly as a prisoner's dilemma kind of thing - if 26 and 27 both pass, we would rather have 26 take effect, and if 26 passes, it won't be a big deal for us. Prop 28, require funding for arts in public schools - easy yes for us. It's not funded (i.e. it spends money without raising taxes) so it's not clear where the money will come from, but we have a surplus at this time, so that's a question for future us to deal with. Prop 29, the kidney dialysis thing - ******** no, and if there was a "no and please stop asking" option we would have chosen that. Prop 30, raising taxes on rich people to help fund EVs and charging infrastructure - yes. We were kind of thrown when Newsom came out against this one a few weeks ago, but not enough to change our minds. So what if it helps rideshare companies? It helps EVs in general, which is good for our stock portfolio, I mean, the planet. It's good for the planet. Prop 31, uphold the legislator-passed ban on certain flavored tobacco products - yes for us, and if there was a "yes, and please stop asking because this is why we elect legislators, to handle this routine stuff so we don't have to", we would have chosen that.
In Santa Clara County they have a parking structure across the street from the Criminal Court and the main jail. The city of San Jose had the bright idea of building a bridge to cross the street from the third floor of the parking structure. At street level there is a traffic light, but they don't have a pedestrian crossing. Needless to say, it's jaywalking paradise for county employees, prospective jurors, and the general public. Nobody wants to take the elevator to the third floor in order to cross the street. Even the cops are seen jaywalking on a daily basis. Sometimes prospective jurors ask me if it's okay to cross the street. I tell them you can either go to the third floor or jaywalk like the rest of us. Invariably they choose to jaywalk. I guess now it's become legal. They might as well put a crosswalk.
Just to be clear.. It's still illegal to jaywalk if a person does so in a dangerous manner, ie, walks out in front of a car or the like. This just makes it so cops can't stop and ticket/arrest someone that crosses an empty street.
Anyway, most people in California tend to jaywalk by walking behind the cars, not in front. It seems to work better.