California Propositions 2008

Four weeks until the election and California voters have a full slate of issues to consider. Have you done your homework yet? Here is a list of the propositions and how the parties stand on them.

1A: Bond for high-speed train from SoCal to NoCal and Sacramento. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
2: Requires enclosed farm animals to have at least minimal movement. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
3: Bond for children’s hospitals. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
4: Requires minors to notify parents before having abortions. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
5: Increases drug treatment programs, shortens some paroles. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
6: Requires minimal budget expenditure on law enforcement. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
7: Increases renewal energy requirements of electrical power generation. Dems: NO. Pubs: NO.
8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
9: Increases victims’ rights at parole hearings. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
10: Bonds for subsidies and research of fuel-efficient vehicles and technology. Dems: NEUTRAL. Pubs: NO.
11: Creates non-legislative redistricting commission. Dems: NO. Pubs: NEUTRAL. Arnold: YES.
12: Bond for home and farm loans for veterans. Dems: YES. Pubs: YES.

Sources: Official Voter Guide, Republican Party, Democratic Party, Arnold.

Comments, anyone? I’ll post my personal opinions next. Not sure if this better for GD or IMHO, but since it’s politics, I’ve put it here.

Here’s what I think of the issues. I’m a Republican from the libertarian wing, so I don’t follow either party exactly.

1A: I don’t typically like government-funded initiatives, but investment in infrastructure is one place where state support is useful. Definitely yes.
2: Why is this being put to the voters? Can’t the legislature do its job and handle this itself? That said, I see nothing unreasonable about it, so a reluctant yes.
3: Why do children’s hospitals need special funding? I don’t see the return on investment here. If there’s a problem with hospitals, it needs to be fixed with general healthcare reform, not long-term debt. Simple no.
4: They keep putting this on the ballot. I don’t like the government sticking its fingers into people’s lives. Definitely no.
5: If we need this program, it should be done through the normal legislative process, not via long term debt. Definitely no.
6: California does not need more budget restrictions. It’s already hard enough to balance the thing with the mandatory expenditures we already have. Definitely no.
7: I don’t see what the problem is with this one. I’ll have to read more about it. But, provisionally yes.
8: Again with government meddling. Definitely no.
9: Another initiative that the legislature should be doing itself. Just no.
10: Yuck. I don’t like subsidies, even for things I’m in favor of. Especially if entails long-term debt. Probably no.
11: Arnold tries to put through another redistricting reform. This time both parties are against it (before it was only the Dems). After the first one, the parties had a chance to do it in a way they liked. But instead they’ve stalled. Entrenched interests gain too much from the current system and they don’t want to change. Definite yes.
12: More subsidies paid for by long term debt. Simple no.

In my opinion both parties have given up on budget and electoral reform. They both try to push through subsidies for their favorites without considering the costs. They have both failed to come up with redistricting reform.

I’m neither Dem nor Repub either, but I’m definitely pretty damned far to the left, politically. So it surprises me that my votes are pretty much exactly in line with Pleonast. I might change my mind on 5, but I need to read about it more intensively.

My default position on these is NO, just so you know.

1A YES. I actually did some work for the High Speed Rail Authority.
2 YES. My wife has done a lot of work in support of this bill, similar bills exist in other states.
3 NO
4 NO
6 NO
7 NO. This is actually well within my field of work and folks might be surprised to know who is against it, besides the large utilites and publicly owned utilties…Environmentla groups such as the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Deense Council.
8 NO
9 NO
10 NO, but I will read up on this one more extensively
11 YES. I’ve always favored re-districting to be taken out of the hands of the legislators.
12 NO

1A: Bond for high-speed train from SoCal to NoCal and Sacramento. Dems: YES.
Pubs: NO.
kaylasdad99: Is high-speed rail really the future of anything? They have four weeks to persuade me that it is. Otherwise, NO.

2: Requires enclosed farm animals to have at least minimal movement. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
kaylasdad99: If I see some reliable science showing that this makes the food supply safer instead of just more expensive, I’ll consider it. Otherwise, NO.

3: Bond for children’s hospitals. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
kaylasdad99: Who could be against children’s hospitals? Well, that’s kind of a fallacious approach to take. I think NO, just to register my distaste at being subjected to this type of manipulativeness.

4: Requires minors to notify parents before having abortions. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
kaylasdad99: As the father of a pubescent daughter, I trust that we’re raising her to feel safe enough to confide in us, even when she screws up. I don’t need to be protected against the consequences of my own ineffective parenting. NO.

5: Increases drug treatment programs, shortens some paroles. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
kaylasdad99: Really the legislature’s job. NO.

6: Requires minimal budget expenditure on law enforcement. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
kaylasdad99: Budget restrictions have long proven themselves to be a bill of goods that California voters have bought, with no thought given to the Law of Unintended Consequences. NO.

7: Increases renewal energy requirements of electrical power generation. Dems: NO. Pubs: NO.
kaylasdad99: I smell a rat. NO.

8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
kaylasdad99: This one is just so objectively and inarguably wrong that anybody who votes against it should get two votes, so they can vote against it twice. And the converse condition should apply to anyone who votes for it. NO.

9: Increases victims’ rights at parole hearings. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
kaylasdad99: Criminal justice is not supposed to be about revenge. It is supposed to be about public safety. NO.

10: Bonds for subsidies and research of fuel-efficient vehicles and technology. Dems: NEUTRAL. Pubs: NO.
kaylasdad99: Not the right year or economic environment for this one. Maybe another time, when we’re a bit more flush. NO.

11: Creates non-legislative redistricting commission. Dems: NO. Pubs: NEUTRAL. Arnold: YES.
kaylasdad99: Speaking of bills of goods, let’s reverse term limits and do this at the same time. What’s that? There’s no proposition on the ballot to reverse term limits? Then, NO.

12: Bond for home and farm loans for veterans. Dems: YES. Pubs: YES.
kaylasdad99: Why do I hate America? I dunno, I guess I just do. :rolleyes: Public subsidies should be to serve demonstrated public needs. NO.

Number 2 was put on the ballot via petition signatures, not by the legislature.

1A Wavering. It is a good idea, but the state is broke and it is a terrible climate for this kind of thing.

  1. Yes
  2. Yes. A more immediate need than 1A.
  3. No and hell no. There should be a three strikes and you’re out law for initiatives.
  4. Yes. Not a money initiative, and looks like it would save money on prisons.
  5. No. We don’t need yet another reduction in the freedom of state government to set budgets.
  6. No.
  7. No. Hurray for Jerry Brown for calling this initiative what it is. I haven’t yet seen one non-asinine argument for it.
  8. No. It looks like these rights are already there. The person pushing this had a bad experience before those rights were increased. He seems upset that people can’t go into the courtroom wearing T-shirts with the faces of the victim to try to sway the jury, and doesn’t get why this is a bad idea.
  9. Another good idea we can’t afford.
  10. No, because I don’t trust Arnold.
  11. Yet another thing that’s good which we can’t afford. No.

This is the make more money for Boone Pickens initiative, right? Let’s make everyone use lots of natural gas, which he just happens to have a big stake in.

Have you seen some of our gerrymandered districts?
Plus, Arnold would have no personal say in any redistricting.

I didn’t mean to imply that it was put there by the legislature. I was complaining that this sort of issue is better addressed by them. Send big issues to the voters. Policy wonkery is what we pay the legislature for.

This is a renewable energy initiative not a “clean” energy or domestic energy one. Natural gas does not qualify.

I guess I have a favorable view of Arnold, but mostly I trust neither state political party. This proposition screws them over, so I’m in favor of that. The Dems don’t like it because they’re the ones forcing the voters into safe districts where our votes are meaningless. The Pubs are not for it because they realize that a fair redistricting would make most districts competitive, which is not good for them in a Dem-majority state. Arnold is for it because the only reason he got elected was he got to skip the primary system which currently favors the partisan extremists. This may not be a perfect setup, but our current districting system is truly bad.

I’m voting NO on all of them except 11. Anything that screws over the parties is OK by me.

Let me preface my remarks by saying the following: I am an opponent of the ballot initiative, I believe most of California’s problems can be traced right back to one proposition or another. That said, I find it has its uses, mainly when the legislature won’t due there jobs for fear of committing political hari-kari.

1A: Bond for high-speed train from SoCal to NoCal and Sacramento. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

Maybe.

2: Requires enclosed farm animals to have at least minimal movement. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

No. This is one of those bills that just smells of an unspoken agenda.

3: Bond for children’s hospitals. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

Yes.

4: Requires minors to notify parents before having abortions. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.

No. I suspect this showed up as a 2fer with prop 8.

5: Increases drug treatment programs, shortens some paroles. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

Yes. This is one of those situations I referred to above. This is one the legislature could easily decide but for fear of being tagged soft on crime. Drug treatment and drug courts make sense.

6: Requires minimal budget expenditure on law enforcement. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.

NO. Mandates is partially what got us into this budget mess.

7: Increases renewal energy requirements of electrical power generation. Dems: NO. Pubs: NO.
NO. It seems everyone but the authors of the bill is against this one.

8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
No. Gay couples should have the right t fuck up there lives just as much as straight couples.

9: Increases victims’ rights at parole hearings. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
No. The system is already too politicized.

10: Bonds for subsidies and research of fuel-efficient vehicles and technology. Dems: NEUTRAL. Pubs: NO.

This should be the purvue of the Federal Government not California.

11: Creates non-legislative redistricting commission. Dems: NO. Pubs: NEUTRAL. Arnold: YES.

Yes.

12: Bond for home and farm loans for veterans. Dems: YES. Pubs: YES.
Yes.

1A: Bond for high-speed train from SoCal to NoCal and Sacramento. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

I’m on the fence. This is like how I really should hang on to the money I was saving for new TV. Would love to have it, but now’s a bad time.

2: Requires enclosed farm animals to have at least minimal movement. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

No. Just because this stuff should not be on the ballot.

3: Bond for children’s hospitals. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

No. Can’t afford it.

4: Requires minors to notify parents before having abortions. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.

No. These people need to give up already.

5: Increases drug treatment programs, shortens some paroles. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.

Not sure. We probably can’t afford that either.

6: Requires minimal budget expenditure on law enforcement. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.

No. And my husband works in law enforcement. But, as others have said, it’s hard enough to pass a budget as it is.

7: Increases renewal energy requirements of electrical power generation. Dems: NO. Pubs: NO.

You know, I’m saying No on all this stuff because I’m on the boat with we need to stop legislating by ballot.

8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.

No. I would support Proposition 86, wherein supporters of this are evicted from the state. There are plenty of places in the US where they can go and be backward and bigoted. Can’t we please leave California to the Godless Heathen Liberals?

9: Increases victims’ rights at parole hearings. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.

No.

10: Bonds for subsidies and research of fuel-efficient vehicles and technology. Dems: NEUTRAL. Pubs: NO.

No, but I’m sad about that.

11: Creates non-legislative redistricting commission. Dems: NO. Pubs: NEUTRAL. Arnold: YES.

Yes.

12: Bond for home and farm loans for veterans. Dems: YES. Pubs: YES.

No. Again, we po.

That’s the way I start, too. While I like having the initiative process available to us, I think it is grossly overused. At this point, I’m negative on all of them. I may go for the redistricting idea, but I need to understand it better.

I just want to jump in here quickly and point out that Arnold actually supports NO on 8. I guess he’s against gay marriage but supports the CA Supreme Court’s decision, or something like that.

I am voting NO on all.

I generally oppose the initiative concept.

While there is an upside for some interest group or another for each of these initiatives if they are voted in, I don’t see an increased downside for anyone if they all lose.

No. Prop 8 would change the CA constitution. I don’t know if he is personally for or against SSM, but one can be against it, but still not support embedding a ban in the constitution. I think that was McCain’s position on Bush’s plan to do the same to the US constitution.

Is there an online cite for this? It sounds like his position in the past, but it seems like he is only actively campaigning on Prop 11. See my link in the OP. But it’s certainly possible he’s gone on record and decided not to push it.

1A: Bond for high-speed train from SoCal to NoCal and Sacramento. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
Enthusiastic yes. 2.5 hours and fifty bucks from SF to LA? With the commute to the airport, that is faster than flying. We’re going to have to do this eventually, so we might as well do it now. It’s good for business, good for tourism, good for the environment and good for me.

2: Requires enclosed farm animals to have at least minimal movement. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
No. I hate animals. But really, why is this on the ballot? I do like the counter-argument though- OMG we are going to have to ship eggs from Mexico and we’ll all get bird flu!

3: Bond for children’s hospitals. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
No. I hate children. Lets have some real health care reform instead of random patchwork stuff with emotional appeal. I think adults need hospitals just as much as kids do.

4: Requires minors to notify parents before having abortions. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
God no. I hate fetuses more than I hate children.

5: Increases drug treatment programs, shortens some paroles. Dems: YES. Pubs: NO.
Yes. It seems like a good step towards reigning in the excesses of our war on drugs.

6: Requires minimal budget expenditure on law enforcement. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
No. Let the people we pay to write budget write the budget.

7: Increases renewal energy requirements of electrical power generation. Dems: NO. Pubs: NO.
No. Don’t you love it when everyone is against something?

8: Eliminates right of same-sex couples to marry. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.**
No.

9: Increases victims’ rights at parole hearings. Dems: NO. Pubs: YES.
No. Call me cold hearted and evil, but I find victim’s rights advocates to be the most grating of special interest groups. Justice isn’t about individual emotions, the “nobody will ever understand our pain” thing is smug, obnoxious and probably not a great part of a healing process. Making new laws isn’t going to give these people what they are looking for.

10: Bonds for subsidies and research of fuel-efficient vehicles and technology. Dems: NEUTRAL. Pubs: NO.
No. I’d much rather see us beef up our public transportation system using technology that exists today (see 1A.)

Fuel efficient vehicles would be nice, but wanting something to happen doesn’t mean it will. We’ve been looking for a vaccine for AIDS for decades and still- nothing. We have plenty of tools on our hands to start fixing our transit problems, and I think we ought to exploit those to their fullest before we start spending money on technology that doesn’t exist and may never exist.

11: Creates non-legislative redistricting commission. Dems: NO. Pubs: NEUTRAL. Arnold: YES.
No.

12: Bond for home and farm loans for veterans. Dems: YES. Pubs: YES.
No. I really like how they promise this will benefit (among others) WWI vets. Are there even any of those left, much less any that are, uh, buying any farms?

I am not sure how many of you actually read the voter guide on prop 12. It doesn’t cost taxpayers anything. The bonds are repaid by the veterans repaying their loans. The state has such a program but has a cap on how much it can loan out, it’s worked out very well so far but eligibility is limited.

I’m very surprised at how many “no’s” there are here. I’m not trying to change anyone’s vote, I was thinking this measure was going to pass easily, but perhaps the voting public will just see it as “more taxpayer expense” and will vote no based on that alone, when in fact that’s not the case.