California Propositions- how are you voting, Dopers?

[DiosaBellissima]

Title says it all. Personally, I'm not sure yet on most of them yet, so feel free to sway me to your side with an explanation for why you're voting how you're voting :)

Linky to the propositions. (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/)

Proposition 19 Marijuana Legalize and tax marijuana

Proposition 20 Elections Congressional district lines to be re-drawn by a committee

Proposition 21 Taxes Increase vehicle license fees by $18 a year to fund state parks

Proposition 22 State spending State government prohibited from taking designated types of local funds

Proposition 23 Environment Suspend AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5%

Proposition 24 Taxes Eliminates three business tax breaks

Proposition 25 State spending State budget and budget-related legislation can be passed with a simple majority vote, rather than current 2/3rds requirement

Proposition 26 Taxes Voters must give permission before any new taxes can be imposed

Proposition 27 Elections Return task of redistricting to the California State Legislature (repealing Prop 11)

[Voyager]

Already voted, since I'm going to be out of town election week.

19: Yes. It probably won't make that much of a difference, but it might save some money and it is time to end the madness.

20 and 27 no. Let's give it a shot before we repeal it.

21: Yes. Cutting the license fees in the face of a revenue drop was stupid, and it will be nice not to get nickel and dimed when I go to a park.

22. No. We don't need more chains on what the state can do.

23. No and hell no.

24. Yes. Stupid compromise, let's get rid of it.

25. Yes. Again, it won't solve the problem, but it is a step in the right direction and might lead to another one to eliminate the current system where anti-taxers get twice the vote of people supporting taxes to balance the budget.

26. That is not quite an accurate title. What this is really about is that certain fees need only a majority vote, not 2/3. since I support a majority vote in general, no on this one.

[conway]

19: No. I totally support the legalization of marijuana, but I don't trust it to a ballot initiative.

20: Yes. A bi-partisan commission will be doing it for legislative disctricts this year, might as well do it for the congressional districts as well.

21: No. I love the parks, but this is just something else to hamper the legislature's ability to do their job.

22. No. See above.

23. No. I hope no one is fooled by this.

24. No. Let the legislature do it.

25. Yes. Maybe this will help ease the yearly stalements...nothing else has so far.

26. No. This would just create the same problems the 2/3 vote requirement has now.

27. No. This eliminates the commisson that's set to re-draw the legislative districts.

[kaylasdad99]

19. Yes. Gimme my hooch. Plus. I want to watch what happens then it bumps up against the federal idiocy where mj is concerned.

20. No. I'm pretty much done with the idea that California voters are emotionally equipped to act like grown-ups. I'm going with 27 and voting to take a little micro-managing power out of their hands.

21. Yes. What Voyager said.

22. No. What I said before about California voters being able to make mature decisions.

23. No. I'm persuaded by the argument that this is a repeal masquerading as a reform.

24. No. Much as I might sympathize with the notion that we can't afford to keep it now and fix it later, I would like to remain consistent with my position that California voters are too stupid to govern themselves hands-on.

25. Yes. We can't mustn't continue to allow an obstreperous minority to hold our budget-making process hostage year after year.

26. No. And the "Yes" commercials I've been hearing on the radio lately are so fucking dishonest that I wish I could also vote in a rider to punish the people who paid for them.

27. Yes. See my comments regarding 21.

[Icarus]

Here's where I come in every two years and decry the California Initiative process.....

My vote: NO on all. My principal is that I would only consider voting yes if "something is on fire" and voting yes will serve to put the fire out. None of these initiatives qualify.

Y'know, we elect our representatives, pay for them and their staff with our tax dollars - I say it's their job to decide these things. It's like I hire a gardener and he hands me the rake and pruning shears and says, "have at it!" (Well, actually he says something like, "ir a por ello.")

[kaylasdad99]

That's pretty much my feeling, too, Icarus, and I'm duly ashamed to be getting caught up in some of them this year.

But I'm still voting as I described.

[Icarus]

That's pretty much my feeling, too, Icarus, and I'm duly ashamed to be getting caught up in some of them this year.

But I'm still voting as I described.

Ah, you fell for their nonsense. It does take a steely resolve to resist.

[RandMcnally]

Prop 19: I voted no. I hate the smell of weed with a passion.

Prop 20: Yes

Prop 21: Yes. I don't go to the state parks but I'm willing to pay an extra 18 a year for upkeep.

Prop 22: I don't remember what I voted.

Prop 23 and 24: No

Prop 25: Yes. I couldn't think of any reason not to vote for it.

Prop 26: No. I vote for the people in office because I want them to do whatever needs to be done. Plus, the chances are that most won't ever vote a new tax on themselves and as much as I hate them, taxes need to be paid.

[B. Serum]

Prop 19: No
Prop 20: Yes
Prop 21: No
Prop 22: No
Prop 23: Emphatic No!
Prop 24: No
Prop 25: Yes
Prop 26: No
Prop 27: No

I had read the legislative analysts' description of the measures as well as the always hyperbolic arguments and counter arguments of the proponents and opponents included in the voter kit. From there I made my decisions (which differed from what is above)...

Then I went to all the major California newspapers (L.A. Times, S.F. Chronicle, Sacramento Bee and San Diego Union-Tribune) to read their endorsements of the propositions. There was near-unanimity in all the newspapers' proposition endorsements — the only one I recall is the SacBee's split with the others over Prop 21. The newspapers' analyses gave context that I didn't get from the legislative analysis and provided measured and sober arguments that the hyperbolic proponents and opponents weren't giving in the voter's kits or their websites.

They also caused me to take a second look at my own biases, namely: I DO think pot should be legalized, I want to help protect State Parks and tax breaks for big businesses feel evil to me. But they also made me think about that when pot is legal, it has to be done in a legislatively sound way, that while parks are treasured, so are other public services like schools and as much as liberal me hates the shenanigans pulled by Big Business, California's jobs situation is particularly precarious these days.

All-in-all, I think the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-times-endorsements-june2010,0,5969868.htmlstory) does a good job at breaking down the factors for consideration.

[Yookeroo]

Here's where I come in every two years and decry the California Initiative process.....

My vote: NO on all. My principal is that I would only consider voting yes if "something is on fire" and voting yes will serve to put the fire out. None of these initiatives qualify.

How would you vote if there was an initiative to end the initiative process?

[Chronos]

Here's where I come in every two years and decry the California Initiative process.....

My vote: NO on all. My principal is that I would only consider voting yes if "something is on fire" and voting yes will serve to put the fire out. None of these initiatives qualify.

Y'know, we elect our representatives, pay for them and their staff with our tax dollars - I say it's their job to decide these things. It's like I hire a gardener and he hands me the rake and pruning shears and says, "have at it!" (Well, actually he says something like, "ir a por ello.") Except, the way things are structured, can't some of these things (now) only be addressed by initiatives? I'm an outsider here, but it looks to me like 25, for one, is precisely intended to let the legislators hold onto their own shears.

[Stan Shmenge]

Proposition 19 YES It's not perfect, but we need to start this fight.

Proposition 20 YES It's not perfect, but again, it's a start.

Proposition 21 YES They are closing state parks, something must be done.

Proposition 22 YES It is time to stop the state from raiding local coffers.

Proposition 23 YES It should never have been law in the first place. It is a job killer, and will do almost nothing for the environment, even if you buy the premise, which I do not.

Proposition 24 NO We have one of the harshest business climates in the country as it is

Proposition 25 NO Great, make it easier to spend but still impossible to tax. Like we need MORE deficits here.

Proposition 26 YES

Proposition 27 NO

[calgreg]

As usual, it is difficult to determine if Yes means NO and visa versa.

For example, Proposition 23 Environment Suspend AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act" until unemployment falls below 5.5%

A businessman recently poured $5 Million into advertising for Green technology. Well, turns out he sells solar panels and maybe could care less about the environment. I think this is the Prop that may have the most effect on the population in the future. But it is so clouded by the horrible reality of politics.

[Icarus]

How would you vote if there was an initiative to end the initiative process?

I would vote NO - I stand by my principles. :D

Now, if there were and initiative written as "Continue the initiative process as is......"

[iamthewalrus(:3=]

I'm voting yes on 19, mostly just cause I think it'll be interesting, and it's definitely time to run a statewide experiment on the subject.

I was considering voting yes on 25, but writing out my reasoning here convinced me otherwise.

[Morgenstern]

I'm voting yes on 19, mostly just cause I think it'll be interesting, and it's definitely time to run a statewide experiment on the subject....



I'm Yes on 19 too. I see a renewed interest in CA as a tourist/vacation destination after it passes. Plus, let the state tax it and reap the benefits of the additional income.

[Icarus]

I'm Yes on 19 too. I see a renewed interest in CA as a tourist/vacation destination after it passes. Plus, let the state tax it and reap the benefits of the additional income.

Which will be offset by the cost of border enforcement..........

[Nametag]

My general policy is to vote "no" on initiatives; I make exceptions when given the opportunity to kick back against the ridiculous policies of the past. I read the measures carefully, to guard against unintended consequences and skullduggery, and generally find myself in favor of increasing taxes.

Proposition 19: Yes - reversing an idiotic policy
Proposition 20: No - no extending an idiotic policy
Proposition 21: Yes - reversing idiotic grandstanding policy
Proposition 22: No - general policy on not monkeying with state finances
Proposition 23: No - sneaky bullshit
Proposition 24: Not sure about this one - it's tempting from the "raise taxes" standpoint, but it's very specific and narrowly targeted, which is usually a bad sign in an initiative. On the other hand, that's because it repeals a very narrow tax law, one which does appear to only benefit multistate corporations doing business in California. The 2008 changes look like minor changes in tax accounting practices, but they're a little strange. Carrying back losses? "Sales only" proportioning on multistate businesses? Transferring tax credits to affiliates? I'm-a thinkin' "Yes."
Proposition 25: Yes - reversing an idiotic policy of long, long ago
Proposition 26: No - no extending an idiotic policy
Proposition 27: Yes - reversing an idiotic policy, before it does any damage

[Patch]

I figure if 19 passes, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon are going to arrest a lot more people crossing the border with weed in their car as they try to take it home, or are stupid enough to think that it's no big deal in those states either. (Dunno what it's like in Oregon, but I've read a news article about aggressive drug searches in Arizona on travelers.)

[Mr Smashy]

Looks like Prop 19 is going down (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop19-poll-20101023,0,2940971.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29). Sorry, other-kind-of-Dopers

[ripopgome]

Looks like Prop 19 is going down (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-mew-prop19-poll-20101023,0,2940971.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+latimes%2Fmostviewed+%28L.A.+Times+-+Most+Viewed+Stories%29). Sorry, other-kind-of-Dopers

While I do think 19 will be defeated (boo), I think the polls are highly unreliable on this kind of issue. Most people tend to want to appear "more moral" or however you'd like to describe it, and tell pollsters whatever they think the "high road" is. And a lot of people think the 'high road' is to keep all drugs illegal. When they go into the privacy of the voting booth, I think more people than would like to admit it, will vote for it. But I don't think it'll end up being enough to pass it. Which, as a taxpayer in CA, seems really sad, because it seems like it'd only help California: fewer people locked up for petty drug offenses, less wasted energy by police, less money going to drug cartels, and maybe some new tax revenues to boot. Sigh.

[Pleonast]

I've been too busy this year to do a proper read-through of the propositions. At a minimum, I see what the two (http://www.crp2010.org/) parties (http://www.cadem.org/vote?id=0007) and the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-times-endorsements,0,7118503.htmlstory) endorse.


19 Legalize marijuana. Republican Party says No. Democratic Party says Neutral. LA Times says No.

I'm going to vote Yes. It's not perfect, but it's a step in the right direction (more limited government).


20 Congressional redistricting. R says Yes. D says No. LA Times says Yes.

I'm definitely voting Yes. The parties have entrenched themselves for too long by carving their own districts. I'm not sure why the Democrats are against it. They're the biggest party, they have the most to gain and least to lose. Unless the party is more important that a fair representation of the people.


21 Vehicle fee for state parks. R says No. D says Yes. LA Times says No.

I'm probably voting Yes. I like public parks and a smaller budget deficit.


22 No state borrowing local funds. R says Neutral. D says No. LA Times says No.

I'm probably voting Yes. I'm tired of budgeting gimmicks and this stops one of them.


23 Suspends global warning law. R says Yes. D says No. LA Times says No.

I'm going to vote Yes. The longer we delay change, the more painful it's going to be. We need to be moving towards the lower-carbon economy. The longer we take to get there, the less advantage we'll have.


24 Repeals tax relief. R says No. D says Yes. LA Times says No.

Maybe Yes. A smaller budget deficit is good. But this should be part of the regular budget process. I could easily flip.


25 Budget requires majority. R says No. D says Yes. LA Times says Yes.

Definitely Yes. It doesn't go far enough--raising taxes should also require only a majority. I'm not sure why the Republicans are against it. Let the Democrats do whatever--if it's bad they'll pay for it in the next election (and not in safe seats assuming Prop 27 fails).


26 2/3rds vote for fees. R says Yes. D says N. LA Times says No.

Definitely No for me. I'm fed up with 2/3rd requirements for simply running the state. Let the majority part do their thing and then let them face the voters for it.


27 Repeals citizen redistricting commission. R says No. D says Yes. LA Times says No.

Definitely No. Both parties look bad this year. Republicans are (finally) okay with allowing fair districts but want to keep the government paralyzed by maximizing minority control. Democrats want to maximize majority control, and don't want to give up their safe seats so they can maintain it easily. Pure power grabs by both of them. And both want to keep their current entrenched positions. Blech!

[B. Serum]

23 Suspends global warning law. R says Yes. D says No. LA Times says No.

I'm going to vote Yes. The longer we delay change, the more painful it's going to be. We need to be moving towards the lower-carbon economy. The longer we take to get there, the less advantage we'll have.


Am I missing something? Your explanation would suggest you would want to vote "No."

[Pleonast]

Am I missing something? Your explanation would suggest you would want to vote "No."
Heh. I somehow mispelled "No" as "Yes". :smack:

[bienville]

Please don't worry that I'll be offended if you answer like you're addressing a stupid person. I've been trying to educate myself with my own research, but I think I would benefit from reading some conversational Doper discussion.


24) I really don't have a sophisticated grasp on the intricacy of Tax Legislation. I'm good on "Add (or Increase) a Tax"/"Remove (or reduce) a Tax", but I am cloudy on "allow businesses to lower their tax liability".

What was the recent legislation that the proposed repeal addresses. When was it passed- have we seen the consequences/results yet?

What kind of businesses did this legislation affect?

Was the legislation controversial to begin with, or does the call for repeal come only from hindsight/regret?


20) and 27) I would really like it if someone could contrast these two for me. I seems like they're opposite of one another: if you're for one, you'd be against the other. What am I missing?

I like the idea of anything that shakes up "safe districts". I want incumbents to actually have to work for reelection, rather than having the Democrat automatically win the highy Democratic district while the Republican automatically wins the Republican district.

It seems to me that allowing them to draw their own districts all but guarantess the scenario I want to see averted.

Thus, I am inclined to say "Yes on 20" and "No on 27". Have I oversimplified it though? Worse yet, have I completely misunderstood it? If a "bienville, these measures don't do what you think they do" is in order, please have at me.

Big Question Mark: As described on my sample ballot:20: Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state redistricting costs.

27: Fiscal Impact: Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of these costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.

What makes these two Measures so very different in terms of fiscal impact?

[Nametag]

20 and 27 are addressed at different types of districts; Congressional vs. state legislature, respectively.

Prop 24 repeals some specific changes in tax law; I discussed my thinking briefly in my post above; I strongly suggest you read the legislative analysis (http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/24/analysis.htm), which will explain the effects on tax law. IMHO, the changes repealed by 24 reduced the fairness of the system.

The first law allows businesses to write back losses -- previously, businesses that had losses could sort of average out the loss with large gains in later years; the new law lets them apply the losses to prior gains, retroactively monkeying with state revenue. It's true that the old law sucks for companies whose best years are behind them, but I really don't think that's the big push behind the change.

The second law allows multistate businesses to calculate the percentage of their income that is taxed by California based on sales percentages alone; previously, they had to (and still can choose to) use a formula which takes sales, property, and payroll into account. A company that, say, is based mostly in California but makes most of its sales elsewhere could dramatically reduce
its tax burden by choosing the sales option.

The third law allows businesses that earn tax credits share them with other businesses in the same "unitary group." The thing is, businesses that split up that way often use their "we're different businesses" status to take advantage of laws that treat them differently, so I'm not in favor of letting them have it both ways.

[bienville]

Thanks, Nametag!
Your explanation of 24 makes me lean toward repealing the tax breaks since they're so narrowly targeted. Generally, something that narrow makes me think "special interest".
However, I do still feel I might go with my stand-by of "if you don't fully understand the measure, vote no". I wonder who pushed for the breaks to begin with, whether it was just a push from those who would directly benefit, or if there was legitimate argument that the breaks would more widely provide benefit to the State by attracting large employers to base here.

You yourself aren't very emphatic on your "Yes" vote described above.

We'll see if anyone else adds to the discussion.



I think my original interpretation of 20 and 27 was correct, that they apply to the same basic principle (just applied to different legislative bodies) from opposite angles.
So, that puts me at Yes on 20, No on 27.

If 20 passes, does that mean the Congressional redistricting authority transfers to the already existing commission that handles State Legislative redistricting? Or is the "Recently Authorized 14-member redistricting commission" a separately created commission that would specifically work on Congressional districts?

[Campion]

I come out the opposite way on 24: I'm an emphatic no. (I will admit that I have been influenced by the "Yes on 24" campaign, which is to my mind so unutterably stupid that it made me question the whole proposition before I'd even read it.) As I read 24, while it does create a somewhat more favorable tax situation for certain businesses who lose money (i.e., it allows them additional leeway in offsetting losses), I think two big picture issues are important here. First, this was the legislature's decision, and I think it's a terrible idea for the electorate here to micro-manage legislation through propositions. Second, also big-picture, California is generally pretty unfriendly to business. We have very liberal employment laws, taxes are high, cost of living is high, etc. And right now we're hurting economically. I don't think we should hand the keys to the kingdom to businesses, but I do think we should be mindful of trying in a limited way to make things a bit more attractive to businesses to stay in California. So I'm a strong no on 24.

I'm also no on 19 (too vague, too costly to enforce and defend); no on 21 (I'm not micro-managing the budget; once we do this once, we're going to have a ton of special interests trying to tie our budgetary hands); no on 22 (ditto); no on 23 (no reason to delay); no on 26 (I'd like to see the legislature have to legislate), and no on 27 (opposite of 20).

I'm yes on 20, since all it does is keep Prop 11 from 2008 in effect. I'd like to let the new committee have at least one shot at drawing redistricting lines before we get rid of it.

I'm also yes on 25, since I'm sick and tired of Sacramento not doing their job. Pass the damn budget, don't blame the fella across the aisle, and if you don't do your damn job you don't get your damn paycheck. Seems fair to me.

[bienville]

Thanks, Campion, for your thoughts on 24. I could still go either way.

The tax breaks, as described by Nametag, sound like the kind of thing I wouldn't have supported in the first place- they sound like "cake and eat it too" kinds of breaks.

But even though I may not have supported the breaks in the first place, I also don't like the idea of adding so much hindrance on the system ever getting anything done. One side gets something / the other side tries to repeal it ad infinitum.

[Stuffy]

I normally vote no on all props. This year I'll be voting yes on 19 and 25.

[Pleonast]

Number 5 at my polling place. Thank goodness the ads have stopped.

[bienville]

After some wavering I ended up "No" on 24.

I don't much like these tax breaks- to repeat the phrase I used earlier, the specifics sound too much "cake and eat it too".

Still, I hate that we have so many ballot measures each election- enact/repeal, enact/repeal, enact/repeal is not productive. If we don't allow the system to function, there's no hope that the system will ever work.

[Pleonast]

For posterity, the results with 96% of the precincts in are:

No 19 Legalize Marijuana in CA, Regulate and Tax 46.2% vs 53.8%
Yes 20 Redistricting of Congressional Districts 61.2% vs 38.8%
No 21 State Park Funding. Vehicle License Surcharge. 42.0% vs 58.0%
Yes 22 Prohibit State From Taking Some Local Funds 60.9% vs 39.1%
No 23 Suspend Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32)38.7% vs 61.3%
No 24 Repeal Allowance of Lower Business Tax Liability 41.6% vs 58.4%
Yes 25 Simple Majority Vote to Pass Budget 54.9% vs 45.1%
Yes 26 2/3 Vote for Some State/Local Fees 52.7% vs 47.3%
No 27 Eliminate State Redistricting Commission 40.6% vs 59.4%

[YogSosoth]

Us Californians love our clean air. Thank goodness 23 did not pass

Idiots who think of global warming as a scam get to breathe whether or not such global warming bills are passed because so much work has already been done to combat it. They try to have it both ways. Those guys on the radio, John and Ken, are insufferably pompous about calling it the Global Warming Final Solutions act, as if it's implementation was Nazi-like.

It's clean fucking air. We all want to breathe, not just now, but in the future. I don't care if it costs money, I want our pollution standards to be the highest in the country. The days of my youth where many a school day was lost due to LA smog alerts are pretty much a thing of the past. LA no longer has the worst pollution in the country (just worst traffic), that distinction is held by cities in Texas. I will support any and all global warming and anti-pollution bills

[Nametag]

Well, great. Give "control" of the budget back to the legislature, but suck even more money out of it. Fuckin' morons. And with the redistricting, it's going to get worse. At least #23 went down, we got our officers in, and picked up a couple of seats in the Assembly.

[Pleonast]

And with the redistricting, it's going to get worse.
The redistricting reform, plus the new primary system, is what gives me hope that things will get better. But we'll see soon enough after the 2012 elections.

[suranyi]

I'm pretty happy with the proposition results, overall. I'm very happy that Prop 25 passed and that Prop 23 failed; they were among my top priorities this election, along with governor and senator.

The only one I'm really unhappy about is that Prop 26 passed.

All the others, while I had opinions about them and voted a certain way, I'm not really invested in their outcome one way or another.

[Yookeroo]

Idiots who think of global warming as a scam

Republicans?