My wife and kid filled out their ballots this evening - my kid's first election since he turned 18 earlier this year. Here's what they decided for the propositions: 2 - yes 3 - yes 4 - yes 5 - yes 6 - yes 32 - yes 33 - yes 34 - no 35 - yes 36 - no They're kind of soft touches on the bond issues and the things that sound good like "eliminate slavery!". For 33, they decided to vote for it, since this measure doesn't actually implement rent control, it just frees local governments to choose rent control if they want to. It's not like San Mateo County or the city of San Carlos is super eager to implement rent control. I asked my kid if he knew what rent control was, and he actually gave a pretty lucid description of the pros and cons based on his economics class - go higher education! I did my Nevada ballot and there was one interesting thing, but that's off topic for this thread, so I'll go post about it in the State Races thread.
This is mine. I was a bit undecided on 5 and 35, but this is what I finally came up with. 2 - School bonds - yes, 3 - same sex marriage - yes 4 - water/climate bonds - yes 5 - lowering tresshold on passing certain bonds - no 6 - ban jail slavery - yes 32 - higher minimum wage - no 33 - rent control - no 34 - no idea what it does - no 35 - renew insurance tax - no 36 - tougher criminal penalties - yes
On prop 5, I think it's good to have a higher treshold on passing bonds. Usually I vote yes on bonds because the ones they send to the voters tend to be to cover things we can't say no to, (like this year schools and water). But I think sometimes the legislature when passing the budget avoids making tough decisions by leaving things they must cover to bonds that are easier to pass, so they can cover other pet projects and less important/appealing items they want to cover. In general, I will probably keep voting yes on most of the bonds they send to us, but on principle I voted no on 5, because I figure that if a bond is worth passing, I think it should pass with the higher threshold. On prop 35, I decided to vote no because I tend to dislike creative taxes that are passed so they don't have to use more straightforward taxes and budgeting to pay for things that must be payed for. While it's a nice "poetic justice" idea to have insurance companies pay for Medical, in practice all it does is raise our insurance. Just have the state budget cover MediCal, as it should if it's a priority, and cut other less important spending to do it if you must, and don't get sneaky on us voters because we'll be the ones paying it anyway. If this proposition doesn't pass, they'll still have to cover MediCal.
I'm more and more opposed to the initiative process because it's so abused and now so distant from what it was intended to be. That's why I increasingly default to a "no" vote on everything in the absence of a compelling reason to vote "yes". So, I'm fairly persuaded by Kevin Drum's recommendations, since he might be even more jaded about the initiative process than I am. https://jabberwocking.com/how-to-vote-on-californias-initiatives/ I haven't filled out my ballot yet, but I'll do that and drop it off later this week.
I'm torn on the initiative process. As you said, it can very easily be abused as it bypasses the legislature to the unwashed masses who tend to be uninformed on almost all issues. That being said, I kind of like it because it can be a way for citizens of a state that is dominated by one party to pull back some of its more extreme positions. As an example, the initiatives in solidly Republican states that brought back the right to abortion, or initiatives in purple states that took the creation of initiatives away from the legislature and put it into the hands of an independent commission.
I suppose that if they had the initiative process in China people there might be willing to vote to end jail slavery too. So yeah, it's not all bad, just mostly bad.
I miss picking up the week's Pacific Sun free alternative paper and voting how they tell me. Anyway, 2 - yes 3 - yes 4 - yes 5 - yes 6 - yes 32 - yes 33 - yes 34 - no 35 - no 36 - no P - yes
Prop 36 approved in California, higher penalties for some crimes. 1854028698804007044 is not a valid tweet id
It doesn't surprise me at all. This is how most voters saw it: "These assholes care more about making a convicted prisoner's life easier than making my life better."
Interesting to see how out of step left the posters here truly are with not only the nation but even within California.
California also passed Prop 8 in 2008, and I am proud to have been at odds with that one. As the great Reverend Brown once said: “If loving the Lord is wrong, then I don’t want to be right.” I guess being at odds with popular opinion is now a vice and not a virtue. Weird how that happens.
I mailed mine in long ago due to ADA concerns. Was a bit worried that I never got that call from some random young guy saying they recieved it (and accepted it or rejected it), but I found my answer on the web. Prop 2 - Yes - Issue $10 billion in bonds to fund construction and modernization of public education facilities (I would really appreciate some of this earmarked for ADA things, but I'm not sure how doable that is, especially with Trump taking over). Prop 32 - Yes - Increase the state's minimum wage to $18 per hour Prop 33 - Yes - Repeals Costa Hawkins Rental Housing Act Prop 34 - No - Requires health care providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care Prop 35 - Yes - Permanently authorizes a tax on managed care organizations to fund Medi-Cal programs Prop 36 - No - Increase penalties for certain drug crimes and theft convictions and allow a new class of crime to be called treatment-mandated felony Prop 3 - Yes - Repeal Proposition 8 and establish a right to marry (geez . I need to be more up on politics) Prop 4 - Yes - Issue $10 billion in bonds to fund state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects, energy projects, and flood protection projects (Well, heck yeah! Infrastructure and emergency management? All in as long as the9 money is spent well). Prop 5 - Yes - Lower the vote threshold from two-thirds to 55% for local bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure Prop 6 - Yes - Remove involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime from the state constitution. (Just seemed like something that didn't need to be in the constitution, per se. Have state law beneath that handle that so things can better be reversed if need be? I dunno.)
Just because I don't want to start one for Washington state.. Up here in Washington, we had 4 measures funded by a local Conservative billionaire that is trying to use their money to counter Washington's Democratically controlled state government. Only one of which is going to pass. 1. Initiative 2066 repeals a law passed by the WA state legislature that required the largest power company in the state to stop providing incentives to consumers to start using natural gas and, instead, to educate consumers on electric alternatives. It also required them to provide a report to the state on their progress on reducing natural gas usage. The Yes campaign advertised this as an energy freedom thing, ie people should have the freedom to choose whatever energy source they want and not be forced to stop using natural gas, and that the state was going to come in and yank your natural gas powered appliances out of your house. This is the measure that is going to pass as it is currently ahead 51-49 and there isn't enough votes in King County to change the result. 2. Initiative 2109 repeals a capital gain tax on capital gains of over $250k/year for stocks, bonds, precious metals, and artwork. The law excludes sales of real estate, 401k, cattle, etc. The Yes campaign advertised this as a backdoor into implementing a state income tax. This one is getting curb stomped 36-64. 3. Initiative 2117 repeals Washington's cap and trade carbon tax. The Yes campaign focused on the Governor saying the tax would not be visible to consumers, but in reality it has resulted in about 50c a gallon tax on gas. This one is getting curb stomped 38-62, 4. Initiative 2124 repeals Washington's long term care insurance that all WA employers are required to deduct from their employees paychecks to pay in home care providers (often family members that were unpaid previously). The Yes campaign advertised that this was just the state stealing money from people's paychecks for something most people wouldn't really need. This one is a little closer than the other two rejections and is losing 45-55.