You should have already gotten your sample ballot. The “sample ballot” part is only 9 pages long.
I’m voting for a city councilman merely because he lists his experience as “retired cobbler.” That has to be a step up for the givernment.
53: NO. Don’t make it even harder for CA legislature to do its damn job.
54: Probably NO. Don’t make it even harder for CA legislature to do its damn job.
56: YES.
57: YES. I don’t know why the NO argument is saying it will release violent offenders.
59: YES. As has been said, “Fuck Citizens United.”
60: NO. Apparently has something that will allow anyone to sue the actors and cause grief for them. I haven’t really looked into what the heck that is. But it seems everyone is against it, so I guess NO it is.
62: YES. It’s bad to kill people.
63: YES.
64: YES.
65: Probably NO. It’s heavily promoted by some plastic bag manufacturers and is seen as a way to kill 67.
66: NO. There seems to be uncertainty about whether it will jeopardize 62.
67: YES.
I don’t consider it “grouchy”, but I, too, start out with a default “no” on any initiative unless there is a real good reason to vote yes. Most initiatives are stoopid. I will, however, be voting YES to ban the death penalty and to legalize pot.
I’m in CA too. The outcome on props always surprises me. Some of them, anyway.
I remember voting against the death penalty. It stayed with flying colors. I thought that would be closer. Then there’s the one that made chicken cages upgraded with paint and size. I voted absolutely no on that one. Yet, it passed with flying colors too. Then of course, there’s Prop 8. I was stunned watching that outcome.
This year may be nothing new, but I can’t wait to vote and see what happens.
I am voting yes on 61. I know the airwaves are flooded with concerned-looking veterans asking people to vote no, but at the bottom of the TV screen it shows that the ads are funded by Pfizer and Merck. That says a lot.
According to this article, and this one, drug prices for the VA would not go up at all, so it looks like a typical ad campaign to appeal to people’s emotions rather than review facts.
*Prop. 61 would direct California to pay no more for medications for patients it covers through state health programs than the prices paid by the DVA, which could cut prices for those patients by up to 40 percent - and save the state billions of dollars in drug purchases.
To head off that nightmare for the drug profiteers, the industry is pouring money up to $100 million into California to flood the airways and social media with a misleading campaign of deceit and scare tactics.*
and…
Just to make sure everybody knows they’re serious, the drugs companies are promising to increase costs to veterans, even though the measure says nothing on the subject. Their No on 61 commercials make other claims that are simply untrue–unless the drug companies decide to take “revenge.”
Yes, that’s the one i am not sure on. It has pluses and minuses.
That’s about the only one I’m not certain on. I’m voting yes because non-VA drug prices are set by the market, more or less, so I don’t see how the drug companies could raise them just because of the state negotiating better. If they could, they would anyhow, as we’ve seen.
As for 56, yes and damn yes. The heavily funded campaign against it is a damn lie. And I hate that lying teacher in the ads so much that I’d introduce her to Donald Trump.
Generally, I tend to vote “no” on initiatives that are within the power of the legislature to enact as law. However, sometimes I have to treat this as a guideline, rather than a had-and-fast rule. Proposition 62 is one of those cases where the electorate has the opportunity to do something which the legislature SHOULD have done every year since 1978.
Other than that, I guess I’ll go “Yes” on everything that involves a tax being enacted (I don’t see any taxes to which I strenuously object), and NO on the rest
What about Prop 61?
Is there any polling available, particularly on 62 and 64 ?
As I said, if it’s within the Legislature’s power to enact it, I want them to do their fucking jobs and enact it. So, “No.”
Allow me to dispel that uncertainty for you. If they both pass, the effect on the one that passed with fewer votes will be that it is not enacted.
Quick 'n dirty illustration: There are five voters. Prop 62 passes 3-2. Prop 66 passes 4-1.
Ultimate result: Prop 66 is the law. Prop 62 is not.
I see.
That’s if they contradict each other - and technically, they don’t.
66 says, “Any death sentences have to be handled in this way.”
62 says, “There are no death sentences.”
Nothing in 66 says, “There must be death sentences available.”
Besides, I am pretty certain that, if 62 passes, and 66 passes with more votes, then this will happen:
1a. Governor Brown will announce that, “in accordance with Proposition 62,” all death sentences are commuted, in which case there will be appeals that Proposition 66 overrules Proposition 62 in this instance;
1b. A court will rule that Proposition 66 takes precedence, in which case any number of death row inmates will appeal that Proposition 62 does, and their death sentences are no longer valid;
2. The state Supreme Court will rule that Proposition 66 does not prevent the portions of Proposition 62 that are not in direct conflict from taking effect, including the abolition of existing death sentences;
3. The US Supreme Court will probably refuse the case on the grounds that “it’s a State of California matter”; if they do hear it, it will end up a 4-4 split (or 5-4 against the death penalty if Clinton is elected and has enough support in the Senate to get a justice appointed).
As for Propositions 65 and 67, note that 65 specifically says that it does not take effect unless the ban is implemented (i.e. 67 passes). However, there’s a way around it; 67 bans “point of sale” plastic bags - it says nothing about putting them near the entrances and letting the customers take them for free (the charge for, say, paper bags also applies only at the point of sale). It also specifically says that the plastic bags in the produce section are exempt; is it the market’s fault that they just happen to start looking like the ones they used to put your groceries in?
Also, 59 is pretty much moot, as there are already multiple proposed amendments to the US Constitution allowing for campaign finance limits and not treating corporations as people in various stages of Congress.
Here’s how I stand right now, although “now” and “on election day” can be two different things:
51 - No; California has enough taxes as it is
52 - Yes; at least this tax that we have does something
53 - No; too much red tape involved
54 - Yes; this opens the curtain to Sacramento without being too restrictive
55 - undecided; does this tax force too many people/companies out as it is?
56 - Yes; mainly because it adds a tax on E-cigarettes, although it doesn’t say just what it is
57 - Yes; this mainly fixes problems in the juvenile court system
58 - undecided; not sure if this allows something like “have an all-Spanish-speaking class and teach them in Spanish if they learn better that way” (I remember a story once about parents in a heavily-Spanish school area demanding that the school hire a principal that spoke Spanish)
59 - No, as the parts of it that aren’t moot are technically unconstitutional (you can’t force a Representative to vote a certain way)
60 - No; pardon me for asking, but is it that big of a problem?
61 - No; this is going to backfire on the veterans much more than help Californians
62 - No, but I have always been a death penalty supporter, even though, the last I heard, a legal loophole prevented them in California anyway (something about there having to be a particualrly certified physician present, but the certifying board said that anyone acting in that
capacity automatically and immediately loses his certification)
63 - Yes; it’s not up to me to say what parts of it are unconstitutional
64 - Yes; is it going to make the state THAT much different than what it is now?
The only problem I can see is, something like this:
“Show me the tax stamp that authorizes that marijuana you have”
“First, you show me the Fourth Amendment-mandated warrant that gives you the right to ask that question”
65 - No; the grocers should keep the money, or at least put it in the state General Fund, rather than an “environmental fund” of some sort
66 - No; this is asking for more people to slip through the cracks
67 - No; a charge on them might be a better idea, and besides, there are loopholes
I also support the soft drink taxes (San Francisco, Berkeley, and Albany, I think) - at least, the ones that also tax fountain drinks, which I think is the real intended target. I know San Francisco’s does; I’m not sure about the other two.
[60 Adult Films. Condoms.]
Maybe the porn filmmakers of Nevada & other states, to try to limit their competition based in California?
It’s probably sponsored by Big Rubber (the condom lobby).
Bernie Sanders has filmed a yes on 61 ad, though I haven’t seen it. I have seen a Yes on 61 billboard from AARP. The NO ads, with all of the veterans talking about dire stuff, offends me as a veteran, especially since they’re paid for by Big Pharma, who are basically telling us, “Vote No or else we evil Pharmas are going to be FORCED to raise the price of drugs. Because, reasons.”
51: NO. This measure is a construction industry cash grab, and relies on “first-come, first-serve” allocation for projects instead of need-based allocation.
52: Yes. Matching funds are good.
53: No. Anything endorsed by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association can’t be good.
54: Dunno. Sounds good, but… Charles Munger Jr. Fuck that guy.
55: YES. California has a few good years, and the idiot tax-cutters act like it will last forever.
56: Yes.
57: Yes.
58: Yes. Prop 227 was a travesty.
59: YES. So was Citizens United. Yes, I know it doesn’t really do anything.
60: No. The idea’s not bad, but I don’t like the methods or the proponent.
61: No. I’m in favor of drug price controls, but this isn’t how you do it, plus it’s from the same asshole as Prop. 60.
62: Yes. I’m not opposed to the death penalty, but we apparently can’t do it right.
63: Yes.
64: Yes.
65: NO! Poison pill from the plastics industry.
66: No.
67: Yes.
O.K., I’ve made my way through the ballot and made my decisions, although I have not yet received my absentee ballot.
The lucky winners that will receive a “Yes” vote from me are:
State Proposition 63 (firearms and ammunition)
State Proposition 67 (plastic bag ban)
San Francisco Proposition V (soda tax)
The San Francisco measures are particularly crazy this year – about half of them had me exclaiming “oh, hell no!”