# California Special Election 2005 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 23, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555 "2005-10-23T20:04:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/61 "2005-11-08T00:54:35Z")
I just received of those phone calls—the recorded message asking you to vote a certain way in the election. Surprisingly, it was from John McCain! The only issue he weighed in on was Prop 77, the redistricting. He is strongly in favor of it. I was going to vote for it anyway, but I thought it was interesting that a Pol from another state would get involved. I personally think this is the easiest decision to make. Incumbents already win reelection way to often. How can anyone possibly be against this? Think about it. It CAN"T be any worse. What could possibly be worse than the lnes be drawn (and selectiing the voters) by the person who is trying to get reelected? Am I missing something? I mean aside for the argument some have that ALL props are bad. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/62 "2005-11-08T01:41:45Z")
> [@guizot](#): > > Almost every one of these initiatives was sponsered by a “special interest”; exactly what Scharwzenegger said he was against. What a hypocrite. The teacher thing is ridiculous. It’s very easy to be a bad teacher and keep your job, be it two or five years. I should know–after 15 years in public education in California. The tenure system is not the issue. The best teacher ever will not pass tenure if he or she is not politically alligned with his or her principal. The worst teacher ever will keep his or her job if he or she can kiss the principal’s ass. The problem is not the time to get tenure. > > Why do principals become principals? Because they’re bad teachers who want to get more money for doing nothing but pushing paper and towing administrative lines. Well, there are some good principals, but the majority of principals are idiots–paper pushing fools who don’t have a clue about effective education. Every time I had to talk to a principal I had to dumb down my vocabulary. One principal of mine even admitted that the only reason he had his position was for political reasons–he’d donated a lot of money to the school board member of our district. And assistant principals (“vice principals”) are even more lame. When you find out how little time they’ve spent in the classroom–and they typically are the people who evaluate teachers–it’s just ridiculous. Both principals and vice-principals don’t know shit about effectiveness in the classroom. The only thing they know is bureaucratic politics. Anybody who really cares about educating stays in the classroom. I was encouraged to become an administrator and I said, “NO, NO and NO.” > > What, Arnold, you think making a teacher wait three more years is going to make a difference? Jesus Christ, you don’t know shit about education, do you? You’re just putting on a meaningless show. You’re trying to make your pointless govenorship meaningful. I’d like to see you in a classroom, teaching poor kids. I doubt you’d be capable. You’d be a complete failure. You’ve done nothing to help this state, and the only reason you’re governor is that you starred in some really bad movies. Really bad, those movies were. Well, you became governor because there are so many stupid people in this state. So I guess an idiotic public deserves an idiot for a governor. Well, maybe you’re not an idiot; maybe you’re just taking advantage of people. Either way, it’s shameless. As a member of the education system, this is the silliest, frankly most assinine rant I’ve read in a while. Most principals are dedicated professionals who step up to fill a slot that, frankly, I can’t imagine most people wanting, even given the higher pay. Parents make their lives miserable, teachers usually cause them headaches, kids are kids, and their own bosses (superintendants) are no picnic to deal with, either. Contrary to your assertion, “tenure” isn’t just handed out to people the principal likes; I work in a school where the principal gave a teacher “tenure” despite some misgivings about her abilities because there was no specific reason not to that had shown up. Upon receiving it, she promptly lost what professionalism she had, and as a result, the principal is forced to document what he can in the hopes of someday being able to have her removed. Trust me that she was never an ass-kisser, nor were her politics in some sort of mythical alignment with his. :rolleyes: If you are in the education system as a teacher yourself, I’d suggest getting a new job. You sound quite bitter about it. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/63 "2005-11-08T01:49:32Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I just received of those phone calls—the recorded message asking you to vote a certain way in the election. Surprisingly, it was from John McCain! He’s been appearing in TV commercials endorsing prop 77 for some time now. I have to admit my first response was: Hey, this is our election! ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/64 "2005-11-08T01:50:02Z")
> [@BobT](#): > > Wow, I don’t venture into GD very often. I’m even more surprised to have people agree with me. > > The California initiative process is one of the state’s worst aspects of government. Instead of bribing the legislators, they fleece people into signing some incredibly complex initiative that they have little hope of understanding. > > Is it really democracy when a sizeable percentage of people just sign an initiative petition just to make the person bugging them in the parking lot of Target go away? **Bob** , as a former Californian, I share your disgust with the initiative system there. I wanted to maim someone the year we had the multiple competing insurance reform initiatives (anyone still talk about how much they “saved” under Prop. 103?). Still, the initiative processin California is driven primarily by the refusal of the State Legislature to actually solve issues. Run by the Democrats for the Democrats and their pocket special interests (can we say Trial Lawyers? I thought you could…), they often end up totally unable to address issues that are important; the automobile insurance pricing situation of the 1990’s was a classic example. The initiative process resulted from the efforts of the Progressive Republicans in the early 1900’s, and was necessitated by the same cause: refusal of the state’s legislators to address reform issues. It’s a hard won privilege that is all-too-often abused any more. But really, do you see the State Legislature passing a law to hand over redistricting to some other body? Or do you prefer to have a total lack of competitive elections? :eek: ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/65 "2005-11-08T02:00:54Z")
> [@Campion](#): > > > [@guizot](#): > > > > Prop 13 happened before my time, but 76 seems to me the modern-day version. > > Can you explain this? Thanks. Yeah, me too. Proposition 13 (Exhibit A in **BobT** ’s case agasint all propositions, by the way) limited the tax money that could be raised through property taxes. It also rolled back the rate of such taxes and the assessments at the time. The current proposition attempts to deal with the relatively common result of Proposition 13: The Legislature and the Governor get into pissing matches over what they think is “too little money.” It’s usually not, of course, but given the dynamics of a state legislature run by Democrats for several decades, it’s not too surprising that this is the outcome. Not certain that a Republican legislature with a Democratic governor would be better, mind you… So they are not the same at all, but they are related in a way. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/66 "2005-11-08T02:01:36Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He’s been appearing in TV commercials endorsing prop 77 for some time now. I have to admit my first response was: Hey, this is our election! That was my reaction too. “Hey Johnny (McCain, not you), you have a whole state of your own to play with stay out of mine”. ---
**Author:** ![DiosaBellissima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a8b319/32.png) [@DiosaBellissima](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DiosaBellissima)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/67 "2005-11-08T05:09:45Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > He’s been appearing in TV commercials endorsing prop 77 for some time now. I have to admit my first response was: Hey, this is our election! Yeah, I’m rather confused as to what the hell McCain has to do with…well anything here. McCain \*totally \* served Wapner! It’s ON. 😃 And anybody- what the hell is going on with 80? ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/68 "2005-11-08T05:20:57Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > NO on **73**. Would require 48-hour parental notification before a minor could have an abortion. This is a personal issue, the state should stay out of it. Easy vote for me. So a doctor can’t give your minor daughter an a aspirin or pierce her ears without your permission but he can suck a fetus out of her uterus without you ever knowing about it? I think our priorities are out of place. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/69 "2005-11-08T05:30:24Z")
> [@aamco](#): > > NO on **74**. Are superintendants clamoring for extra years to decide? This Proposition will not change the criteria for hiring/firing teachers, nor will it introduce any oversight, nor will it provide incentives for good teachers. This is purely a political jab, making public school teachers fight for their own jobs. This is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s personal vendetta against teachers for having the gall to ask him to keep his promises (when he “borrowed” $2 billion from the schools last year). Actually it’s a continuation of his vedetta against teachers for being so active against him during the recall election. It may be petty, but the first rule of politics is: if you’re going to be vocal about your political views, make sure you’re on the winning side. ---
**Author:** ![Exploding\_Kitchen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Exploding\_Kitchen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exploding_Kitchen)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/70 "2005-11-08T10:22:29Z")
I’m voting: 73: No. Why add regulations to a specific medical procedure when other state laws already cover it? If you don’t want minors having medical procedures done without notification/allowing them to override a parent’s wish for a medical procedure, have the current law repealed and a new one writted. Law bandaids suck. 74: No. Public school teachers in CA don’t get real, college-like tenure in the first place, and arbitrary numbers help nobody. Face it, for a lot of districts in CA, it’s hard enough to get teachers as it is. Extending the amount of time it takes to get some measure of job security certainly isn’t going to help with the recruiting of good teachers. 75: No. I wouldn’t actually mind this prop, except the advertisements the pro-75 people have been running are complete and utter lies (hi, union members can already opt-out, they aren’t forced at all) and that pisses me off. 76: No. Principle vote. Worried enough about the budget to make a prop on it, not worried enough to force the state to spend a metric @#$%load of money for a special election in an off-year. 77: No. I don’t like people having their paws in any part of government where they aren’t accountable to the populace, even if it is a well-meaning initiative. District fixing needs to be fixed, but this isn’t the right way. 78: No. Expecting pharma companies to reduce prices on their own out of the kindness of their hearts with a nice proposition is abso@#$%inglutely stupid. 79: Yes. I don’t agree with a some of the prop, but I happen to work with the poor elderly a lot (I’ll be driving quite a few of them to the polls tomorrow), and giving a large customer like MediCal the ability to negotiate prices will end up saving these people money in the long one. Even if some of the more expensive ones are dropped, overall, money will be saved for both the state and those seniors. 80: Yes. Deregulation gave us price fixing and rolling blackouts. Worst experiment the state has ever made. And if you’re in the Antelope Valley area, Steve Fox for College Board. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/71 "2005-11-08T18:09:05Z")
> [@Exploding Kitchen](#): > > I’m voting: > > 73: No. > 74: No. > 75: No. > 76: No. > 77: No. > 78: No. > 79: Yes. > 80: Yes. I am voting exactly the same on all propositions, for just about the exact same reasons. ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/72 "2005-11-08T18:52:24Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Wha? No. It comes down to whether or not a young woman should have her right to privacy protected or not, and whether or not she should be allowed to make a decision regarding her body on her own or not. I agree that her “adult bf/pimp” shouldn’t be making her decisions for her. But it’s still her body and her decision. You are effectively taking her choice from her and making it her parents’ choice. As a parent myself, I have more faith in the parent’s capacity for decision making than any adult bf/pimp/molester/prom date…and that’s if the parents actually make the decision for her which is not always the case. I would like to think that the mother especially would be the best supportive person a daughter could have in the whole world…quite possibly a mother who’s had an abortion herself and would be the best ally in helping her cope with the pregnancy…abortion or no abortion. If the parents are not of this caliber, then the minor does have an out through the court system…and I would think that the courts would realize that this is a time sensitive issue and not postpone this for months…that would be useless. ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/73 "2005-11-08T19:06:37Z")
Whoosh. My point was, you made it sound as if every girl under the age of 18 who presents for an abortion is probably there because her irresponsible pimp boyfriend is forcing her to have one. Either that, or her slimeball father raped her. > [@Yeticus Rex](#): > > This comes down to the numbers of adults boyfriends/molesters controlling the minor girlfriends/girls decision on abortion versus the number of parents abusing their daughters. I believe the former is higher. When in actuality, the most likely scenario is: girl becomes pregnant, makes her own choice as to whether or not to have the procedure performed, and then carries out that choice. Can you explain to me why you feel she shouldn’t be given the responsibility to make her own choice? As, that is effectively what passage of this law would mean. Also, her right to privacy under the Privacy Act of 1974 is now being negated; the physician _must_ inform her parents of her diagnosis, even against her wishes. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/74 "2005-11-08T19:53:44Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > I am voting exactly the same on all propositions, for just about the exact same reasons. Ditto, though since I went to the ballots this morning, I must apply the past tense… ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/75 "2005-11-08T20:14:25Z")
I voted for 75. I was originally planning to vote NO on all of them, but a friend of mine who’s a teacher convinced me otherwise. Basically, his argument was that, while you can opt _out_ of union membership, many people don’t know this, and it should be an opt-in organization in the first place. For those interested, you can see our discussion in the comments on [this entry in my weblog](http://www.evilblog.net/wordpress/?p=800). A slight hijack: Are there any polls available? Which of these are expected to pass? ---
**Author:** ![jsc1953](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5daacb/32.png) [@jsc1953](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jsc1953)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/76 "2005-11-08T20:40:00Z")
> [@iamthewalrus(:3=](#): > > A slight hijack: Are there any polls available? Which of these are expected to pass? Lots of polling has been done; **none** of the propositions were leading as of the last one I read (4-5 days ago). Looks like the election may be a complete waste of time. A general rant on California politics: Nothing will get better until the constitution is amended, so that a budget can pass with a simple 50% majority. This is why we deadlock every year, and wind up sweeping all differences under the rug. The proposition process is a joke. Hiram Johnson is spinning in his grave. You gotta love proposition advertising, though. Every proposition has lopsided backing – the voter will be barraged by ads saying “NO ON 99!!!” for 3 months prior to the election…then 2 days before, a few feeble “yes on 99, if it’s not too much trouble…” commercials will appear. This is what passes for a reasoned debate on the issues. And every proposition, if you believe the advertising, is only on the ballot for the benefit of one or more of the following EEEEVILLLL groups: Bureaucrats Trial-lawyers Unions “Politicians” Out-of-state Interests ---
**Author:** ![Yeticus\_Rex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/a698b9/32.png) [@Yeticus\_Rex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yeticus_Rex)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/77 "2005-11-08T20:53:13Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > Whoosh. > My point was, you made it sound as if every girl under the age of 18 who presents for an abortion is probably there because her irresponsible pimp boyfriend is forcing her to have one. Either that, or her slimeball father raped her. > > When in actuality, the most likely scenario is: girl becomes pregnant, makes her own choice as to whether or not to have the procedure performed, and then carries out that choice. Can you explain to me why you feel she shouldn’t be given the responsibility to make her own choice? As, that is effectively what passage of this law would mean. > > Also, her right to privacy under the Privacy Act of 1974 is now being negated; the physician _must_ inform her parents of her diagnosis, even against her wishes. I’ve been whooshed?!? :smack: The daughter still has the responsible decision to abort or not; the prop doesn’t ask for parent’s permission or position on the matter. She can still approach the court to show that informing the parents could be dangerous to her. I just think that the parents would be more helpful than harmful in assisting their daughter through this period in her life, just like other medical or surgical procedures that she may have experienced through the years…YMMV. You may think I’m putting too much faith into the parents, but I have seen on 5 occassions that the parents were helpful and none where the parents were harmful towards their respective daughters. I wish every parent could read this before they find out that their daughter is pregnant. From Deborah Davis - [http://www.pregnancy.org/article.php?sid=1686](http://www.pregnancy.org/article.php?sid=1686): > [@](#): > > Listen carefully to everything your daughter has to say. She may be scared, excited, or both. She may be more terrified of your reaction than she is of the pregnancy itself. She might be deeply confused about what to do about the pregnancy. Or she may be excited but afraid to express her excitement to you. Whatever your relationship has been like, you now have an opportunity to build or rebuild trust. It’s fine to share your own feelings honestly, but be careful not to overwhelm her with your own fears or harsh judgments. She’s probably got plenty of her own! Give her time to talk. It’s a good time to find out how she’s doing, how she’s feeling, and to just absorb the news. Respectfully ask for information: how did she confirm the pregnancy? Has she had any prenatal care? How is the father of the baby reacting to the pregnancy? And a crucial question: What kind of support does she think she will need from you? She may not know yet-and you may not be able to answer yet, even if she does. But it’s helpful to raise the question, so both of you can begin to think about it. > > **Once you’re over your initial reaction** … > > Especially early in the pregnancy, your daughter may be considering a variety of options-keeping the baby, abortion, or adoption. While you may have strong feelings about what your daughter should do, she must be free to make her own decision. If she is uncertain, she might find it helpful to consult with a counselor, or, if she has a strong religious affiliation, with a rabbi, priest, or minister. Don’t be surprised if you find that you need to get some counseling for yourself. If it’s hard for you to let her make her own choice, you may need to talk about your feelings with your own counselor. If your daughter is in her second or third trimester, abortion is less of an option, but she may still need time to consider her other choices. Some young women do not decide until they go into labor or even after the baby is born what they wish to do. Legally, she has a right to decide. Coercing her into a decision that she may later regret could result in a breach in your relationship with her that could be very difficult to mend. > > Depending on her age, level of maturity, the involvement of the baby’s father, and other factors, she may need you to assist her with a number of things: setting up and driving her to counseling or prenatal appointments or, if she’s interested in ending the pregnancy, to an appointment at a clinic that does abortions. ---
**Author:** ![gazpacho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6f9a4e/32.png) [@gazpacho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gazpacho)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/78 "2005-11-08T21:02:11Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > So a doctor can’t give your minor daughter an a aspirin or pierce her ears without your permission but he can suck a fetus out of her uterus without you ever knowing about it? I think our priorities are out of place. I beleive that currently a doctor can give your minor daughter an aspririn without parental consent. From the voter guide analysis section > [@](#): > > Prior State Legislation > In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. Based on this law and later legal developments related to abortion, minors were able to obtain abortions without parental consent or notification. > > In 1987, the Legislature amended this law to require minors to either obtain the consent of a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. However, due to legal challenges, the law was never implemented, and the California Supreme Court ultimately struck it down in 1997. Consequently, minors in the state currently receive abortion services to the same extent as adults. This includes minors in various state health care programs, such as the Medi-Cal health care program for low-income individuals. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/79 "2005-11-08T21:18:48Z")
Yes on 75 (Screw the unions - opt-in is the only fair way) Yes on 77 Yes on 80. A resounding No on all the rest, and a rejection of everybody up for re-election to my school board. ---
**Author:** ![panamajack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/47e85d/32.png) [@panamajack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panamajack)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/80 "2005-11-08T21:44:58Z")
There seems to have been concern about a certain part of Prop 73 (the notification waiver petition). Excerpts from the text of the proposition (bolding added): > [@](#): > > An unemancipated pregnant minor shall appear personally in > the proceedings in juvenile court and may appear on her own behalf or > with counsel of her own choosing. The court shall, however, advise her > that she has a right to court-appointed counsel upon request. The court > shall appoint a guardian ad litem for her. **The hearing shall be held by > 5 p.m. on the second court day after filing the petition** unless extended > at the written request of the unemancipated minor, her guardian ad > litem, or her counsel. If the guardian ad litem requests an extension, > that extension may not be granted for more than one court day > without the consent of the unemancipated minor or her counsel. The > unemancipated minor shall be notified of the date, time, and place of > the hearing on the petition. > > … > > (i) If the judge fails to rule within the time period specified in > subdivision (g) and no extension was requested and granted, the > petition shall be deemed granted and the notice requirement shall > be waived. I doubt at this point if it’ll change anyone’s mind (and I also doubt this one will pass) but it might put some people’s minds at ease. Personally, I no longer vote YES on anything without reading the entire text of it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555.md?page=5)