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 
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.
-
No. We don’t need more chains on what the state can do.
-
No and hell no.
-
Yes. Stupid compromise, let’s get rid of it.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
No. See above.
-
No. I hope no one is fooled by this.
-
No. Let the legislature do it.
-
Yes. Maybe this will help ease the yearly stalements…nothing else has so far.
-
No. This would just create the same problems the 2/3 vote requirement has now.
-
No. This eliminates the commisson that’s set to re-draw the legislative districts.
-
Yes. Gimme my hooch. Plus. I want to watch what happens then it bumps up against the federal idiocy where mj is concerned.
-
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.
-
Yes. What Voyager said.
-
No. What I said before about California voters being able to make mature decisions.
-
No. I’m persuaded by the argument that this is a repeal masquerading as a reform.
-
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.
-
Yes. We [del]can’t[/del] mustn’t continue to allow an obstreperous minority to hold our budget-making process hostage year after year.
-
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.
-
Yes. See my comments regarding 21.
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.”)
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.
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.
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 does a good job at breaking down the factors for consideration.
How would you vote if there was an initiative to end the initiative process?
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.
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
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.
I would vote NO - I stand by my principles. 
Now, if there were and initiative written as “Continue the initiative process as is…”
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.
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…
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
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.)
Looks like Prop 19 is going down. Sorry, other-kind-of-Dopers