Having read through all the propositions, their analyses, rebuttals, etc., here’s where I am at the moment (subject to change once my husband and I sit down and hash these things out together, which we always do, so that we can basically vote as a “family”, since he’s a non-citizen and can’t cast his own votes, but haven’t done yet with these).:
1A - Yes. At first this struck me as a bit “elitist,” in that the more affluent communities will have the better funded police & fire departments, parks, libraries, etc. A part of me believes that just because, say, Compton, isn’t as well-to-do as Redondo Beach, doesn’t mean that residents should have to suffer with less adequate police and fire protection because fewer businesses exist to support such services with their tax dollars and residents are too poor to provide enough tax revenue, either. I like the idea that there’s a “central pot,” so to speak, from which funds are distributed based on every community’s needs. However, it seems that’s not really the way it’s been working anyway, and everyone seems to be FOR this, so there must be some merit to keeping the money in the community it’s generated by, so I defer to the “experts” and vote Yes.
59 - Yes. I’m all for access to information – this was a no-brainer.
60 - Yes. The way I read this one, if the Green Party, for instance, is on the Primary ballot, then the Green Party candidate who receives the most Primary votes MUST be allowed to appear on the actual election ballot. Why that’s not the case now, I have no clue, but it only seems fair to me. The arguments against it seem to be based on nothing more than slippery slope possibilities that haven’t even happened. Just because it doesn’t “prevent… schemes from being imposed in the future,” doesn’t mean it isn’t good on its own merits for exactly and only what it proposes to do. And I like what it proposes, so therefore my ‘yes’ vote.
60A - Yes. The “anti” is yet another one of those “what it does is good to a point, but it doesn’t do enough, so vote no on the whole thing,” nonsense. So it doesn’t “force” the state to sell off excess assets – so what? At least if they DO sell them, the proceeds have to be used to pay down the interest on outstanding bonds. Win/win, as far as I can tell. So those opposed, who want to see the state be forced to sell the assets that would generate this revenue, by all means, put a Proposition on the next ballot to call for it. If you do, I’ll vote ‘yes’ on that one, too.
61 - Yes. As a bleeding heart liberal, this should’ve been a no-brainer, too, but I did waffle back and forth on it a few times before deciding on my ‘yes’ vote. I don’t much care for the idea of the state taking on so much more debt at this point. But without a reasonable healthcare alternative for so many families without coverage, we really don’t have much choice. Prop 72 might be an alternative, but I’m undecided on that one (see below), so I’m voting to take care of our immediate needs with this one.
62 - No. Good lord this one sounds like a major clusterfuck, if you ask me. Bad, bad idea, and it seems both the Dems and GOP agree.
63 - No. While it would seem as though I’d fall the same way on this one as I did on 61, I chose my ‘no’ vote based on fiscal reasons. It’s not that I don’t see a need for the type of services this proposition calls for, it’s that I don’t like how they’re going about getting the funding for it. As opposed to favoring Kerry’s rollback of Federal taxes on the top 1 or 2% of the wealthiest citizens, this one actually increases taxes and allocates them directly for this project, then freezes the funding level even if revenues from that source fall at any point in the future. It’s a good idea with poor implementation, so I’m going to say ‘no’.
64 - No. While I’m all for finding a way to prevent shady lawyers from being able to perpetrate unethical shakedowns, I’m against trying to do so in a way that also curbs honest citizens and interested groups from exercising their rights under the existing laws. I say find a different way to achieve the goals of this one.
65 - No. The original proponents say this one is moot if we vote ‘yes’ on 1A, which I’m planning on doing, so that makes my vote here ‘no’.
66 - No. I’m breaking with the Dems on this one (sorry, guys). I generally tend to vote more in line with Republicans on issues of crime and criminal justice anyway (usually vote for the Republican prosecutors, etc.), and this one is no exception. I agree that our “Three Strikes” laws could use some tweaking, but I think this proposal tweaks too hard and could potentially cause too many problems and cost too much money. Try again next time.
67 - No. No, no, no. Leave my damn phone bill alone, thankyouverymuch. 'Nuff said.
68 & 70 - No. Lots of anger from both sides surrounding these 2 proposals, and frankly, I don’t like either of them. On the one hand, it doesn’t seem fair that Indian gaming isn’t taxed like other California businesses. On the other hand, Indian nations are sovereign, and therefore not subject to our tax system. It’d be nice if we could all find a way to work together for the common good of all parties, and neither of these props sound like they’ll do anything towards that end. They’re filled with “tit for tat” language that I find childish and offensive. Apparently Governor Arnold is in the process of, or has already, cut some kind of deal with the Indian tribes that would afford the state some revenue from Indian gaming. Seeing as how I don’t like the language or outcome of either of these propositions, I’m all for trusting the Gov to do the negotiating on behalf of the state and strike a bargain on his own.
69 - Undecided, leaning No. I’m all for collecting DNA on convicted criminals for a national database. But I’m extremely uncomfortable with allowing collection of DNA samples on people who are merely arrested and not even charged with anything yet, let alone convicted. The more I think about it, the more I lean heavier towards ‘no’.
71 - Yes. No-brainer.
72 - Undecided, leaning Yes. On the one hand, I’m against forcing business owners to have to provide healthcare coverage for employees, let alone having the government dictate at what percentage they have to provide coverage. It seems to me as though the government is taking on the role of Union Leader on this subject, and “negotiating” on my behalf, when it might not be to my benefit to have my employer forced into mandatory healthcare coverage. On the other hand, the state does have a right (and an obligation) to protect its assets on behalf of all its citizens, and it’s bleeding money and resources (no pun intended) providing healthcare to employed, but uninsured individuals and families. While businesses may leave the state, and small businesses may be forced to lay off employees in the short term if this thing passes, the long-term ramifications of not passing it could potentially be a lot more devastating, with more and more businesses deciding to drop healthcare benefits entirely and more and more people becoming uninsured. I don’t like the coercive nature of it, but I don’t like the potential consequences of not passing it, either. Feh.
