# California 2012 Ballot Propositions **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 4, 2012, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227 "2012-07-04T17:49:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/21 "2012-08-10T22:13:47Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Proposition 30. Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Yes. You defer to the elected officials everywhere except here? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 10, 2012, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/22 "2012-08-10T22:24:24Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You defer to the elected officials everywhere except here? It seems you already have a very clear answer to that question in his post. If you have a point to make, why don’t you actually make it? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/23 "2012-08-11T00:48:08Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Proposition 35. Human Trafficking. Penalties. Sex Offender Registration. Initiative Statute. No. Not because I’m a bleeding-heart sex-offender lover, but because I generally oppose ballot box-based legislation. So you don’t think this is absolutely necessary legislation? Where do you draw the line? And if you’re opposed to the idea of ballot initiatives you should simply leave that part blank rather than vote “no”. Looked up Prop 35 and looks like common sense: > [@](#): > > ``` > Increase prison terms for human traffickers. > Require convicted sex traffickers to register as sex offenders. > Require all registered sex offenders to disclose their internet accounts. > Require criminal fines from convicted human traffickers to pay for services to help victims. > Mandate law enforcement training on human trafficking. > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/24 "2012-08-11T00:56:14Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Looked up Prop 35 and looks like common sense: What a pointless comment. I mean, the proposition to abolish the death penalty “looks like common sense” to me. And yet you oppose that particular measure. You realize, i assume, that the political process is necessary precisely _because_ we don’t all agree about what constitutes “common sense” governance. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/25 "2012-08-11T02:17:02Z")
So it looks like the Water Bond did not make the cut. Ho hum. Would be nice to get infrastructure upgrades funded, but will also be nice to not be borrowing 11 billion at this time. > [@Iggy](#): > > 1. The FDA has jurisdiction. Not sure that California can regulate that which the federal government has jurisdiction over. Apply the logic in _Arizona v. United States_ (state cannot regulate immigration which is sole provenance of federal government) to say California cannot regulate this. The FDA \*does \*have jurisdiction, but so does the state: [Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, section 110380](http://www.cdph.ca.gov/services/Documents/fdbSFDCA.pdf): “The department may, when necessary, prescribe any packaging and labeling regulation for foods, drugs, devices, and cosmetics whether or not the regulation is in accordance with regulations adopted under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act.” It seems CA likes to assume direct responsibility for a lot of things, where other states just ride along with federal law when it seems sufficient. The National Organic Program for instance. Other states just work within it, but CA went ahead and established its own organic program (which mostly just duplicates the federal program) and took responsibility for enforcement. I can’t make up my mind on the GMO food labeling. On one hand: 90% of people seem to want it disclosed. 50 other countries have seen fit to do so. More info is good. And limiting the abundance of GM crops seems like a good idea to me (more for the mono-crop and super-weed factors IMO, than for the sexier health concern fears that they more often try to sell the labeling idea with). On the other hand: It might be better achieved with a model more like the Organic Program: voluntary certification to claim “no GMOs in this product” (ie [www.nongmoproject.org](http://www.nongmoproject.org)). If we label everything that “may contain” GMOs, the labels will be so abundant as to be almost useless. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Proposition 32. Prohibits Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Prohibitions on Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute. > No. I’m concerned that the _Citizens United_ decision would render this unconstitutional. I don’t wish to take the chance that on further review this could be held to handcuff unions but **not** corporations. I think you’ve convinced me to grudgingly vote No based on that argument. > [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Proposition 36. Three Strikes Law. Sentencing for Repeat Felony Offenders. Initiative Statute. Yes. My reasoning above notwithstanding, Three Strikes was one of the bits of ballot box-based legislation I was talking about, and what it really needs is to be repealed. I’m not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this case, however. Per post #17, since Three Strikes was implemented by voter initiative, it can only be amended the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/26 "2012-08-11T02:47:51Z")
9,10,11. No. We’re surviving with cut hours for state employees and fewer expenditures. I’m in the air on the education tax however. ---
**Author:** ![denquixote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9bd4f/32.png) [@denquixote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/denquixote)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/27 "2012-08-11T04:24:01Z")
Doesn’t anyone else think that 9 is unconstitutional? Doesn’t the Federal government regulate interstate commerce? What about the freedom to travel? ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/28 "2012-08-11T06:09:48Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > What a pointless comment. > > I mean, the proposition to abolish the death penalty “looks like common sense” to me. And yet you oppose that particular measure. > > You realize, i assume, that the political process is necessary precisely _because_ we don’t all agree about what constitutes “common sense” governance. **kaylasdad99** said he was opposing it because it was a ballot measure rather than any opposition to the policies despite support other ballot measures. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/29 "2012-08-11T06:14:06Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > **kaylasdad99** said he was opposing it because it was a ballot measure rather than any opposition to the policies despite support other ballot measures. Which makes your comment even less relevant. If he were actually opposed to the policies themselves, at least your “common sense” comment might have been on point. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/30 "2012-08-11T14:42:20Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > You defer to the elected officials everywhere except here? I believe it would be nice if elected officials had the power to impose a tax. It’s my understanding that in California, they don’t have that power, unless it’s ratified by a plebiscite. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/31 "2012-08-11T14:45:15Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > So you don’t think this is absolutely necessary legislation? Where do you draw the line? And if you’re opposed to the idea of ballot initiatives you should simply leave that part blank rather than vote “no”. If it’s that necessary, the legislative body has the power to enact it. P.S. Why the FUCK would I desert the field by abstaining on ballot propositions? I’m trying to IMPEDE the process, not stand aside and pretend it has nothing to do with me. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/32 "2012-08-11T16:20:18Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I believe it would be nice if elected officials had the power to impose a tax. It’s my understanding that in California, they don’t have that power, unless it’s ratified by a plebiscite. Ignorance fought. The California Legislature REALLY cannot impose a tax? ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/33 "2012-08-11T16:35:17Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Ignorance fought. The California Legislature REALLY cannot impose a tax? Doing some checking, I appear to have overstated the case. The Legislature can’t do it unless they get 2/3 supermajority in both chambers. The initiative process calls for a simple majority of the voters. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/34 "2012-08-11T16:49:38Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Doing some checking, I appear to have overstated the case. The Legislature can’t do it unless they get 2/3 supermajority in both chambers. It’s a legacy of 1978’s Proposition 13, and is possibly one of the worst outcomes of any electoral decision in the history of ever. What it did was essentially put in place a ratchet effect, whereby the legislature can reduce or eliminate taxes with a simple majority, but needs a supermajority to impose or increase taxes. That supermajority is basically impossible to achieve, and at the same time members of the legislature (both Democrat and Republican) have, over the years, continued to pass spending measures, because the people of California (even, in many cases, those who whine about taxation and government spending) still want the government to spend money on a whole bunch of things that are important to them. Aside from the difficulty of raising revenue, the legislature is also handcuffed, in some cases, when it comes to spending. Voters often pass ballot measures that dictate where money will be spent, and this means that the legislature has less and less discretion over how to spend, and less ability to move money around to fill holes or divert resources to needed areas. I understand that some people say they don’t trust politicians, but in many cases i don’t think they’re any less trustworthy than the chuckleheads who vote in California elections. We elect them to govern, and then refuse to let them do it. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/35 "2012-08-11T17:39:06Z")
My position on ballot measures is thus: Unless you absolutely WOW me with your argument, I will vote no. Because I cannot really understand the legalese of the measure, and I really do not trust you. Not that I trust the guys running counter-ads. Most of these things are very complex and possibly dangerous and should be left to the legilsature. I _will_ be voting to repeal the Death Penalty. Because I am opposed to the DP on principle and this: > [@](#): > > A 2011 study by former prosecutor and federal judge Arthur Alarcón indicates that California has spent approximately $4 billion to execute 13 people since the death penalty was reinstated. The Alarcón report also indicates that implementing the death penalty in California costs $184 million dollars per year more than implementing sentences of life without the possibility of parole Save us 184 Million per. Can anyone debunk this? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/36 "2012-08-11T17:50:02Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > Unless you absolutely WOW me with your argument, I will vote no. Because I cannot really understand the legalese of the measure, and I really do not trust you. Not that I trust the guys running counter-ads. Most of these things are very complex and possibly dangerous and should be left to the legilsature. While i think that the whole ballot initiative thing has become overused, and i’ve argued in this very thread that more stuff should be left to the legislature, it is actually possible to come to a reasonable understanding of what each proposition will do by reading the summaries prepared by the Legislative Analyst. These summaries are non-partisan, and in my experience they do a pretty damn good job of explaining what it is that the proposed measure will actually do, without the cheerleading of the proponents or the doom-and-gloom prophecies of the opponents. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/37 "2012-08-11T20:20:56Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > While i think that the whole ballot initiative thing has become overused, and i’ve argued in this very thread that more stuff should be left to the legislature, it is actually possible to come to a reasonable understanding of what each proposition will do by reading the summaries prepared by the Legislative Analyst. > > These summaries are non-partisan, and in my experience they do a pretty damn good job of explaining what it is that the proposed measure will actually do, without the cheerleading of the proponents or the doom-and-gloom prophecies of the opponents. I think ballot initiatives are like the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. They are great if used judiciously, and done when the legislature refused to act in the face of overwhelming public sentiment. But like the filibuster, now every group with an ax to grind proposes a ballot initiative. Hell, Florida has its anti-smoking provision in its constitution now. If you smoke in a prohibited place, you are just committing a petty civil infraction, but you, sir, are violating the Constitution! And they’ve boxed themselves in with a super-majority requirement. In 2002, the anti-smoking law (which prohibited smoking in restaurants, but allowed it in bars, and further decreed that no political subdivision could pass stricter laws) was forward thinking for its time, but is outdated as most places are outlawing smoking in bars. If Florida ever wants to do that, they need a 60% approval vote of the whole population. No other place, that I’m aware of, would require such a showing to enhance an anti-smoking law. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/38 "2012-08-11T20:50:54Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > It’s a legacy of 1978’s Proposition 13, and is possibly one of the worst outcomes of any electoral decision in the history of ever. I’m sorry \<_ **kaylasdad99** hangs head in shame_\>. Hey, it was my first major statewide election! They talked all fancy to me! I got confused! If it helps, I boycotted the movie _Airplane!_ to atone for my error. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [August 11, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/39 "2012-08-11T22:30:48Z")
I’d like to mention something in the case of #8. When I was very young, I was in the company of some real hippies. You know, the straight-up “frankenfoods” type. “GMO is evil!!!” You know the drill. If it weren’t for them, I’d support #8 wholesale. But you know what? I don’t. I can’t. The fact is that GMO foods have virtually no negative impact, and all that it is is speeding up natural selection by artificial means. The protesters of GMO foods are among the most ignorant, misled anti-science idiots I have ever met, and the _only_ effect this legislature could have is strengthening their cause against the same anti-progress morons that think that the MMR vaccine causes autism. ---
**Author:** ![PigArcher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/bcef8e/32.png) [@PigArcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PigArcher)\ **Post date:** [August 13, 2012, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227/40 "2012-08-13T02:40:05Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Looked up Prop 35 and looks like common sense: Then you might want to read [this](http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2012/07/i-despise-human-trafficking-but-i-oppose-the-badly-drafted-prop-35/): > [@](#): > > Perhaps the saddest thing about Prop 35 is that by expanding and diluting the meaning of “human trafficking,” it makes it easier for police and prosecutors to ignore the real thing, where it occurs. Why is that? It’s because once relatively minor activities get lumped into the category of “human trafficking,” police and prosecutors can get credit for fighting “human trafficking” by pursuing those minor violations Looks like an unnecessary and potentially damaging law. Definite “No” vote. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-2012-ballot-propositions/627227.md?page=3)