I don’t live in California, but from an outsider’s point of view, I do find some of California’s ballot initiatives inefficient. Is there wide support for having so many decisions put up to the voters instead of the legislature?
There doesn’t need to be wide support. The state constitution has been set up to allow lawmaking by this process. Powerful interests have hit upon a formula for obtaining from an easily-manipulated electorate* the things they desire, which have proven too difficult and expensive to obtain from a professional legislature.**
Yes, the process needs to be scrapped, or reformed to make it much more resistant to abuse, but the only way for that to happen would be by changing the state constitution. I don’t see a lot of hope that we’re likely to be able to do this in my lifetime.
- I’ll concede that the electorate may only be easily-manipulated relative to the legislature.
** And thanks to term limits (which I’m proud to say I voted AGAINST), the very concept of a professional legislature is dying out in our state.
I’d like to learn more about that point of view, but that blog is terrible. Is there a summary of that argument in less than 4600 words?
I haven’t had time to read all of these closely, but here’s some more:
http://sexandthe405.com/why-you-should-vote-no-on-prop-35/
http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Another-California-Ballot-Initiative-To-Be-Wary-Of-484953.html
There doesn’t appear to much organized opposition, but here’s Twitter and FB accounts for one group:
https://twitter.com/OpposeProp35
For the record, I have no involvement with this group.
Given that the current anti-trafficking hysteria pretty much entirely driven by conservative anti-sex zealots who continuously lie and distort the issue, this is almost certainly a bad proposition. But it’s pretty much guaranteed to pass since very few people actually understand the issues and no one wants to be perceived as supporting traffickers.
Prop 32 is a big, fat, Republican lie, akin to “right to work,” and I urge you to vote NO.
This is just a way to curtail the primary way labor unions have to finance their fight against the destruction of labor protections and rights while exempting sole proprietorships, Real Estate Investment Trusts, LLCs, LLPs and a host of other types of businesses while pretending to be “fair and balanced” because they put the word “corporations” in there along with labor unions.
Don’t be tricked! Vote NO on Prop 32.
There are a few issues:
First, the laws of the state are such that it is not all that difficult for a concerned party to obtain the necessary signatures to put a proposition on the ballot.
Second, there are a few cases of propositions wihich MUST be put to the voters, even after the legislature has approved them, such as bond issues and tax increases.
Third, once a proposition has been passed into law, it can only be changed by another proposition voted in by the people, as in the case this time where the Three Strikes law is proposed to be modified.
As for the question about whether there is wide support, that’s hard to say. I think most people are annoyed with the length of the ballot, and especially a lot of people don’t like “ballot-box budgeting”, but the basic idea of the proposition remains popular.
Actually, i’d amend that a bit.
It’s not that difficult for a concerned party with at least a million dollars to pay signature collectors to put a proposition on the ballot.
As California’s population has increased, so has the number of signatures required for a ballot initiative. For a regular initiative statute, you need signatures totaling at least 5% of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election to get your initiative on the ballot. For constitutional amendment initiatives, it’s 8%. Those percentages currently work out to just over 500,000 signatures for a regular initiative, and just over 800,000 for an amendment.
Peter Schrag notes in his book California: America’s High-Stakes Experiment, that money is the key force behind getting a proposition on the ballot.
Back in 2003, when California recalled Governor Grey Davis, it cost about $1.50 per signature to collect signatures (with that number rising to as much as $5 as time runs out and more signature collectors need to be sent out), and these collection campaigns always need to collect considerably more than the required amount, as Schrag notes, “to allow for duplicates and unqualified signers.” There’s a pretty decent chance that the Davis recall wouldn’t have even made it onto the ballot if Darrell Issa hadn’t funneled about $2 million of his own money into the effort.
I’m not defending Davis here, or even arguing that the recall was wrong. It’s just one example, though, of how money is a key factor in the initiative process, to the extent that it has essentially pushed aside the Progressive-era, anti-corruption ideals that brought the ballot initiative to California in the first place.
Just now ready to start researching ballot initiatives. Will check back for Dopers opinions as I’m educating myself.
From fist read they all seem fairly straightforward and not particularly confusing, which has not always been my experience.
Anyway, here’s the list for anyone who wants to discuss. I’ll add to the discussion as I educate myself more.
30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
31 State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
32 Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.
33 Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
34 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
35 Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
36 Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
37 Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.
38 Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.
39 Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
40 Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.
Merged duplicate threads.
If 30 doesn’t pass I’ll very likely be out of a job next semester, so I’m definitely voting Yes on that.
I was neutral about moving from California last year; my wife hated the place but after a lifetime there I had a tolerance for its… I almost said “faults.” You know what I mean.
But after 18 months of watching the place disintegrate from across the country, I mumble a wholly secular equivalent of “Thank god,” every time the subject comes up. Seeing yet another long list of ballot props was one such occasion.
Yo to this. GMO foods are no better or worse than corn having been artificially selected for larger ears over hundreds of years. By all means regulate it, but it is not, in itself, bad.
Can someone tell me how they’re defining human trafficing for the purpose of the initiative? Makes all the difference, to me at least.
Car pooling?
30 Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes.
This is the tax of millionaires prop, along with a slight increase in sales tax. Its not permanent and most of us won’t feel the sales tax increase, but those making over $250000 are going to have to pay more. If you make more than that, then fuck yeah, you should pay more. The money from this is to help our schools, which everyone should be voting for
31 State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
No.
This is a weird prop that will probably create an extra layer of bureaucracy smaller than counties and bigger than cities. Cities and towns would be able to pool their resources together to create their own regulations and ignore state ones.
32 Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.
No.
This is an unabashed union-busting proposition. It wants to claim that it prevents unions and corporate donations to candidates directly, but really, only unions do that. Corporations, owing to SuperPACs, have no restrictions that matter.
33 Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.
No.
A similar bill was rejected 2 years ago. This one is pretty much the same thing. It tries to raise insurance rates on new and lapsed drivers to fool others into thinking they got a discount
34 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
Yes.
Its about time we got rid of the death penalty.
35 Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
No.
We already have laws against human trafficking. Plus, this prop would expand the definition of a sex offender into something too broad.
36 Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
Yes.
People shouldn’t get 25 to life if the 3rd strike is a minor offense.
37 Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.
No.
I really don’t care about genetically modified foods. I want my giant ass watermelons. I have no problems with eating GMO foods.
38 Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.
Yes, sorta…
This or Prop 30 will be law if both are passed. This is the worse version of prop 30. They are both designed to help schools, but this one does it a little bit worse.
39 Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.
Yes.
This eliminates the tax break that encourages companies to move their jobs out of state.
40 Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.
[/QUOTE]
Yes.
A yes vote would uphold the redrawn districts, which we just voted on a few years ago. I voted for that one, and I think that after 2 years of work, we shouldn’t just abandon it. There’s no reason to vote against it unless you hated the new districts. We’ve already redrawn it, getting rid of the law doesn’t eliminate the old law, it just forces us to redraw again.
The opposition to this prop has quit campaigning against it.
(referring to Proposition 40)
This is because the main reason for getting it on the ballot was to get California’s Supreme Court to bring the old district boundaries back for this election; when they didn’t, the people who put it on the ballot (so they could be rejected with a “no” vote) decided that the best option was to keep the new lines in place. (I think the alternative is for some appointed panel to redraw them.)
I am convinced that “reconsidering (i.e. overturning) Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission” has been added to “upholding Roe v. Wade” as the litmus tests for Obama’s Supreme Court nominees - and assuming the Democrats control the Senate (which seems likely, at least until the end of 2014), there isn’t much the Republicans can do about it.
The state legislature has nothing to do with drawing districts any more - now, all districts, including for the U.S. House of Representatives, is done by a bipartisan panel, the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. A “yes” vote on 40 “confirms” this panel’s district lines for the state Senate; a “no” vote would have them redrawn by a different panel (of retired judges, I think).
I notice several posters supporting both 30 & 38. Keep in mind these are competing propositions, and only one can take effect. If both pass, the one that gets more votes takes effect and the other one gets rejected.
Also, 40 is a referendum, not a proposition. “Yes” means keep the boundaries that were decided upon; “no” means throw them out and start over again, wasting more money.
Yeah, RIGHT?
What ARE YOU Thinking??? You DO realize the “government” is run by the capitalists corporations RIGHT? Voting is the last ditch effort to Stop them in their own game.
Vote YES on 37! We do not give them license to ‘do what they want’ our FOOD. We demand food labeling!
& No, they do Not do that already… What 'classifies as: “Natural”, “Fat Free”, “GMO free” & “Organic”, etc. has all been watered down to mean little or Nothing as to what we are asking for. LABEL FRANKENFOOD! let us Know what is in our food. THEN We can Choose!