Prop 45 is generating huge amounts of "No" adverts and crap through my letterbox. That's a sure fire sign that some vested interests don't like it and thus a good candidate for voting "Yes" on.
I sat down with my sample ballot and the great internet machine. Here's how I see it ... 1 - Yes (Everyone is for it.) 2 - Yes (Everyone is for this one too.) 45 - Yes (More power to the Insurance Commissioner!) 46 - No (This is the most asinine proposition in years.) 47 - Yes (My local police chief is opposed. I think I'll vote yes.) 48 - No (I'm just plain opposed to casinos.) @Smurfquake was undecided about 2. He should be for it. And he was in favor of 48. I'm happy to cancel his vote.
I think I'm in favor of every single question on here, but once the ballot comes, of course the language is going to throw a kink into what I think. So, I think I'll just spend my stomach-flu-determined day tomorrow researching this garbage on the web. I swear, I have never not been underprepared for the vote despite very sincere efforts.
Some people are saying that 45 will interfere with implementation of Obamacare. I wonder if that will get some Republicans to vote Yes.
Yes on 1 and 2, No on the rest. I was conflicted on 47 (I agree that some felonies targeted by this proposition should be lowered to misdemeanors, but others should remain felonies. For example, some types of theft, like stealing guns, should remain felonies regardless of the cost of the gun.) There has to be a better way to get around the three strikes law.
Maybe, but I would advocate limiting strikes, including the third one, to certain types of very serious crimes. Not all felonies are created equally, and the three strikes law was created because there was a problem in California. There are in fact certain types of crimes which if a person commits several times they should remain in custody, and society should be protected from the whims of an overly lenient judge. I think there are plenty of lenient judges in California, but I would say only a few types of crimes should qualify as strikes. The current law overreaches by a lot.
Is the problem still there? If we were to stop putting people away after three felonies, would the crime rate skyrocket again? That seems to me to be the barometer of whether or not the law deserves to be in place.
Well, I can argue that because of the three strikes law some dangerous criminals are behind bars and not committing crimes, so that's a positive. But by the same token, many other people are behind bars now who arguably should have been released sooner, and that is unacceptable. And it's hard to quantify, but savvy District Attorneys know how to use the threat of a strike to get people to plea bargain, when perhaps they might have fought the case otherwise. People might think they have a shot to fight a case, but the threat of a strike leads them to not want to take the risk. So yeah, the three strikes law should not exist in its current form. But I do think in the case of certain specific violent crimes a form of it could be beneficial in order to protect society from overly lenient judges who give breaks to violent criminals with priors.
I'd say limit the assignment of strikes to those violent crimes that truly warrant it. In theory those crimes already carry long prison sentences, but judges can and do sometimes get creative with minimum sentences, concurrent sentences, credits for time served, credits for programs etc.
Just yesterday I papered over my paint station with Prop 45 mailers. The thick glossy paper is great for protecting my table from airbrush spray and is easy to wipe clear of dust.
The thing is, this is basically the health care version of Prop 103, and that worked well for car insurance. Yes, this means I've just started doing research on this stuff now.
Sadly for California trial lawyers and Indian Casino operators, they wont get their bonanza. But on the bright side, a lot of Californians charged with felonies woke up today accused only of misdemeanors.
... bump ... Shouldn't we talk about the proposed “Sodomite Suppression Act” (PDF)? No, it probably won't make the ballot, but still it raises some issues: California proposal to legalize killing gays hard to stop -- Sacramento Bee Part of me thinks this is good. More shit like this and maybe we'll smarten up and get rid of the initiative process in general. Or at least make it much, much, much harder to get crap like this on the ballot.
That's what I say! If our representatives in Sacramento did their job as they are supposed to, they would have already suppressed sodomites. We wouldn't need the initiative process. Joking, joking.
Unless you live in CA you probably shouldn't meddle into our affairs. I think in 2016 a Marijuana legalization bill will be on the ballot. In 2010 I voted yes I will probably vote No in 2016.
... bump ... I don't know where else to post this. I guess this is the best place, but it's a local not a state initiative. State of Jefferson secession initiative fails to qualify for ballot in Nevada County. Well, I guess that's one less thing on my ballot. (Nevada County isn't even in the historical State of Jefferson!)