# 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:** 5
**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, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/81 "2005-11-08T22:31:52Z")
> [@panamajack](#): > > 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): > > 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. I always read the whole damn things. In California, that’s made easier by the fact you get that booklet prior to the election with the ballot propositions _in toto_, along with arguments for and against. Of course, some of the propositions take pages to print. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/82 "2005-11-09T00:01:29Z")
> [@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. A doctor can give your child any kind of treatment without informing you. Any legal behavior on behalf of the doctor is protected by the ETHICAL doctrine of doctor-patient confidentiality and has nothing to do with parents be you 4, 14 or 40! Different laws might say different things, but doctor-patient confidentiality is one of the things our society holds very dear! If the only thing that’s stopping you from finding out your daughter is having an abortion is that there’s now law requiring somebody to inform you, you don’t deserve to know this! Your daughter has a reason not to tell you, and you have to respect that reason because your daughter is a human being! Minors might have their rights trampled left and right because they can’t vote and it’s fun to torture people who can’t fight back, but it’s going to stop somewhere. It’s going to stop at patients rights. I bet you’re thinking “But I’d really love to know if my daughter is having an abortion”. ASK HER! The age of majority is not some magic age where you suddenly gain the ability to make decisions for yourself. No, the age of majority is an age at which we hold a person legally responsible for all of their decisions and no-one else. Up until the age of 18, it’s not that we, as a society, don’t trust the person to make rational decisions for themselves. Quite the opposite, we make YOU, the PARENT, also responsible for your child’s actions and well being. People feel too goddamn entitled to having all these laws and tools and programs and schools to make that responsibility smaller. Make somebody else responsible for their children. Fuck that. You don’t get that. I’ll fight tooth and nail to make sure parents are responsible for their children, and part of that responsibility is knowing what they are doing. There’s a billion reasons a teenager, be she 13 or 17 would not want to tell her parents she’s getting an abortion. Every single one of them valid by definition. If she doesn’t want to, that’s enough. That’s your problem. No the states, not your daughters, not the doctors. You have done something right (if the abortion is the result of an accident, and she does not want to worry you about her health) or you have done something wrong (she does not want you to know because that will affect her life, and she can’t defend herself against you), but it’s for you to sort out. Stop trying to grab more legal tools to make parenting easier. It’ll cause way more problems than you think. ---
**Author:** ![Campion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/4491bb/32.png) [@Campion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Campion)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/83 "2005-11-09T01:35:07Z")
> [@DSYoungEsq](#): > > 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. The comparison didn’t make sense to me. Thanks for the explanation, but I still don’t see how they are equivalent. Theoretically, one can make the argument that _everything_ is connected to Prop 13 if it’s fiscal. That’s a bit facile, because the issue isn’t “too little money,” the issue is “my stuff is more important than your stuff.” Show me a state with a massive budget (other than California) and I’ll show you a state that still fights over where to spend the money. For the record, I voted against everything. Some of the votes were easy: 73-78 for basically the reasons **Exploding Kitchen** gave. No on 79 and 80 because I disagree with 79’s methodology (there’s got to be a better way) and 80 because I have more faith in the market than in the government. Also, I’m perfectly content sending a message to the legislature that calling a special election because they can’t get along is inappropriate. Are you listening, Mr. Governor? And I voted against the school board incumbent because of her creepy letter-writing campaign. Over the past week, I got three nearly identical letters sent to me (personalized!!!) by “parents” in the district, extolling her virtues. Yes, I’m contrary. ---
**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 9, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/84 "2005-11-09T02:21:50Z")
> [@groman](#): > > A doctor can give your child any kind of treatment without informing you. Any legal behavior on behalf of the doctor is protected by the ETHICAL doctrine of doctor-patient confidentiality and has nothing to do with parents be you 4, 14 or 40! > Different laws might say different things, but doctor-patient confidentiality is one of the things our society holds very dear! Ummm . . . no. It’s not about confidentiality but consent. A minor cannot go and get a medical treatment without parental concent unless the situation is life threatening. ---
**Author:** ![groman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/73ab20/32.png) [@groman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/groman)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/85 "2005-11-09T02:47:38Z")
> [@SaintCad](#): > > Ummm . . . no. It’s not about confidentiality but consent. A minor cannot go and get a medical treatment without parental concent unless the situation is life threatening. Are you sure about that? When I was a minor I most definitely called my doctor, made appointments and even gotten prescriptions without my parents ever knowing. Unless I am remembering wrong. I suppose the fact that our shared insurance paid for it and they saw the statements might have had something to do with it. (and the fact that it was the family doctor, already established as such). The only things that required consent had little consent forms. Anyways, if there is in fact a law requiring parental consent to perform medical treatment that’s pretty ridiculous. The only consent that should be required is the patient’s and only the patient’s. ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/86 "2005-11-09T05:37:07Z")
[Interim update](http://vote2005.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/00.htm): ```auto 20.7% ( 3648 of 17657 ) precincts reporting as of Nov 8, 2005 at 9:26 pm 73 Y Minor's Pregnancy 1,221,724 51.7 1,144,122 48.3 Map 74 Y Teacher Tenure 1,198,620 50.3 1,188,119 49.7 Map 75 Y Public Union Dues 1,285,568 54.0 1,097,082 46.0 Map 76 N Spending/Funding 1,017,383 42.7 1,363,002 57.3 Map 77 N Redistricting 1,080,452 45.8 1,278,317 54.2 Map 78 N Rx Drug Discounts 1,010,120 43.0 1,338,197 57.0 Map 79 N Rx Drug Rebates 887,296 38.0 1,445,945 62.0 Map 80 N Electric Regulation 798,758 34.8 1,492,741 65.2 Map ``` ---
**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 9, 2005, 5:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/87 "2005-11-09T05:39:46Z")
Beware of early results, especially if they’re close. More and more people are voting absentee, and those don’t get fully counted for a few days, usually. I saw estimates of as many as 25% of voters using mail-in ballots. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/88 "2005-11-09T06:01:28Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Beware of early results, especially if they’re close. More and more people are voting absentee, and those don’t get fully counted for a few days, usually. Apparently those, or some of them anyway, are actually about the first counted. From today’s Chronicle: \*Absentee voters are likely to be older, whiter, more conservative and more Republican than those who cast their ballots at the polls, said DiCamillo. That means the first rush of absentee ballots, which will be released minutes after the polls close at 8 p.m., will provide an early indication of how the final tally is likely to go. "Those absentee voters are Schwarzenegger’s target audience,’’ DiCamillo said. "If (his initiatives) are ahead in that first cut, he’s got a chance. If they’re behind, it’s over.’’\* From here: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/08/MNGKAFKND21.DTL&hw=dicamillo&sn=001&sc=1000](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/08/MNGKAFKND21.DTL&hw=dicamillo&sn=001&sc=1000) - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![Syntropy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/65b543/32.png) [@Syntropy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Syntropy)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/89 "2005-11-09T06:09:27Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Beware of early results, especially if they’re close. More and more people are voting absentee, and those don’t get fully counted for a few days, usually. I saw estimates of as many as 25% of voters using mail-in ballots. That, and reports seem to vary from source to source. [KTVU.com](http://www.ktvu.com/politics/5264134/detail.html) is currently reporting prop 73 as split down the middle (more or less): > [@](#): > > California Prop. 73 Abortion Notification > Candidate Votes Percent Winner > Yes 1,399,307 50% > No 1,397,074 50% whereas ABC affilliate KGO just reported the measure passing by about 10 thousand more than what’s showing above. ---
**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 9, 2005, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/90 "2005-11-09T06:32:26Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > \*Absentee voters are likely to be older, whiter, more conservative and more Republican than those who cast their ballots at the polls, said DiCamillo. That means the first rush of absentee ballots, which will be released minutes after the polls close at 8 p.m., will provide an early indication of how the final tally is likely to go. **Whiter**? I didn’t know there were degrees of whiteness. 🙂 I hope they meant that early voters, as a group, contain a higher percentage of “white people” than polling day voters. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/91 "2005-11-09T06:37:20Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > **Whiter**? I didn’t know there were degrees of whiteness. 🙂 > > I hope they meant that early voters, as a group, contain a higher percentage of “white people” than polling day voters. Hey, now - cut 'em a little slack. This _is_ the Chronicle afterall. They should be congratulated on achieving even a semblance of coherence :D. - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/92 "2005-11-09T06:46:50Z")
> [@Maureen](#): > > That, and reports seem to vary from source to source. [KTVU.com](http://www.ktvu.com/politics/5264134/detail.html) is currently reporting… My cite was the CA Secretary of State elections site. This is the source that news reporters would use. > [@John Mace](#): > > Beware of early results, especially if they’re close. Yes, of course. I just thought some timely data might be welcome, hence my moniker of “interim”. In later news, it appears Prop 73 and 74 have seen reversals, with the No side coming from behind. Prop 75 is still in Yes territory, but the margin has narrowed from 4 to 1 points. ```auto 42.5% reporting: 73 N Minor's Pregnancy 1,640,712 49.4 1,676,571 50.6 Map 74 N Teacher Tenure 1,597,861 47.7 1,745,602 52.3 Map 75 Y Public Union Dues 1,696,555 50.9 1,641,148 49.1 Map 76 N Spending/Funding 1,346,635 40.3 1,987,155 59.7 Map 77 N Redistricting 1,438,132 43.5 1,867,545 56.5 Map 78 N Rx Drug Discounts 1,375,052 41.8 1,910,959 58.2 Map 79 N Rx Drug Rebates 1,278,835 39.2 1,982,052 60.8 Map 80 N Electric Regulation 1,125,414 35.1 2,077,715 64.9 Map ``` ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/93 "2005-11-09T06:54:25Z")
73, 74, and 75 started with narrow early leads, but no precincts from Los Angeles, a Democratic Party heavyweight, had been reported yet. Now that LA is finally chiming in, the percentages are swerving to the NO vote. ---
**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 9, 2005, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/94 "2005-11-09T06:56:20Z")
In other news, it looks like the SF handgun ban proposition passed. Have any other cities been able to ban handguns completely and have that survive a court test? And “the no military recruiters allowed in SF public schools” also passed. Gotta love San Francisco! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/95 "2005-11-09T07:07:37Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > 73, 74, and 75 started with narrow early leads, but no precincts from Los Angeles, a Democratic Party heavyweight, had been reported yet. > > Now that LA is finally chiming in, the percentages are swerving to the NO vote. Actually, it looks like the East Bay and Stockton have been is turning out the NO votes, not LA, as LA County is only showing 8.5% reporting. When LA gets is ass in gear, we should see NO votes across the board. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/96 "2005-11-09T07:12:10Z")
Are all seven of these Ahnuld’s babies? Help me to interpret the results. Are all seven going south? How much additional time did he want to add to teachers’ trial period before tenure is granted? Didn’t NYC ban handguns too? ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/97 "2005-11-09T07:19:44Z")
POPULOUS REPUBLICAN COUNTIES San Diego County 56.4% reporting Orange County 38.1% reporting Riverside County 64.8% reporting Fresno County 97.8% reporting Placer County 100% reporting Shit, Los Angeles isn’t even awake yet, and these propositions are going down. Good nitght, Arnold. ```auto Propositions Yes Votes Pct. No Votes Pct. 73 N Minor's Pregnancy 1,986,680 49.3 2,039,982 50.7 74 N Teacher Tenure 1,912,953 47.1 2,144,921 52.9 75 N Public Union Dues 2,015,523 49.7 2,035,909 50.3 76 N Spending/Funding 1,615,650 39.9 2,431,383 60.1 77 N Redistricting 1,718,036 42.7 2,297,138 57.3 78 N Rx Drug Discounts 1,677,329 42.0 2,310,511 58.0 79 N Rx Drug Rebates 1,542,768 38.9 2,413,145 61.1 80 N Electric Regulation 1,351,054 34.7 2,537,008 65.3 ``` ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/98 "2005-11-09T07:20:36Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > Are all seven of these Ahnuld’s babies? No. Props 74-77 are Schwarzenegger’s > [@](#): > > Are all seven going south? Possible. 73 & 75 may be too close to call, the rest are leaning No. Lots of time for a turnaround at this point. > [@](#): > > How much additional time did he want to add to teachers’ trial period before tenure is granted? 2 -\> 5 years. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/99 "2005-11-09T07:33:45Z")
If I were a california voter (I’m not) I’d vote NO on everything except the redistricting measure. I realize that measure may possibly hurt the democrats and I understand that Arnie is doing this to help the Republicans, but I still believe as a matter of pure principle that legislators should NOT be able to gerrymander their own districts. ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2005, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555/100 "2005-11-09T07:38:24Z")
Thanks, **squeegee**! Since I’m in Tennessee, I don’t know much about California’s business. I just keep an eye out for what its national implications might be. Do you know if the Governor really said that nurses are paid too much? I don’t remember my source for that. It might have been IMUS. Just curious if you had heard anything. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/california-special-election-2005/327555.md?page=6)