Howdy hi.

I know there are a decent # of my fellow Californians who are of voting age. But to those who are not, this can be informative for you. I know those damn propositions are wordy, confusing and WTF so I'll try to put it in plain text. Some of you even go "WTF is this prop?" This is going to be a long post so it might end up in more than one post. Oh and I will be posting my opinion on the proposition and yea/nay. Some of these I am undecided on so I will ask for assistance on how to vote. So here we go!

PROPOSITION 1

A total of $9.95 billion in bongs bonds will be authorized for a high speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco.

• $9 billion will be used in construction of the high speed rail. This includes new railroad and trains.
• $950 million will be used to improve existing track along the route and in other cities. Also it will be used to construct the connecting facilities (stations).
• Operating costs could exceed $1 billion.

The proposal would build a high speed train system that connects from Los Angeles Union Station to San Francisco Transbay Terminal.

dalf's Take: Completely and totally unnecessary. THERE ALL READY EXISTS an intercity system along the state! Metrolink serves Los Angeles, Orange County, and has a terminus in Oceanside. Further still, Amtrak will take you from Bakersfield to Oakland in about a day. Proponents argue this will relieve traffic. No it won't. There is no traffic beyond L.A.! I've been up and down the state plenty of times where I know there isn't congestion along I-5/CA-99/US-101/CA-1 once you get passed L.A. This is unnecessary spending in a state where it HAS NO MONEY!

dalf is voting NO


Proposition 2
Requires all calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs to only be confined in a space no smaller that would permit them to sit, lie, and move all limbs freely. In other words, these animals would have larger spaces. There are exceptions like for rodeos, fairs, slaughterhouses, and research. There is an unknown fiscal affect to this measure.

dalf's take: To me, some PETA-like sap paid a visit to a farm and their bleeding-heart couldn't be satiated. So this proposition was drawn up. It's very unsubstantive propostion. I don't see any analysis that these measures will improve the quality of the animals and more importantly. Prices of any products that results from these animals and even products that come from the farms associated with these animals will go up as farms will have to either cut back on stock, or expand their infrastructure. In short, it's another satiate-a-bleeding-heart proposition

dalf is voting NO

Proposition 3
Children's Hospital Bond Act. Authorizes $980 million in bonds to be repaid from state's General Fund. It allows for construction, remodeling, improvement, and furnishing of children's hospitals.

• 80% of the funds ($784 million) directed at research for diseases like leukemia and other cancers, diabetes, and cystic fibrosis.
• Requires that children's hospitals meeting qualifications to provide high quality care for those on goverment programs (Medicare/Medicaid, etc)
• 20% ($196 million) goes to the University of California general acute care hospitals

dalf's take: Good idea in principle, poor implementation. My biggest beef is that it is ONLY for children's hospitals. I've been in some shoddy hospitals and heard horror stories. Why are they excluded for the said renovations and repairs? Yes yes DALF PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN! I feel that if we're going to improvize health care and/or medical facilities, let's do it for everyone. Let's not pick and choose who gets what upgrades. All that nice shiny health care is going to go by the wayside once you turn 18. Also, the state is flat *** BROKE. We don't have $980M to play around.

dalf is voting NO

Proposition 4
Minors (those under the age of 18) seeking abortions must have at least one parent or legal guardian notified 48 hours in advance of the procedure.

• This applies only to unemancipated minors. Those emancipated, no notification is required.
• If parent(s) or legal guardian is/are reported to law enforcement or Child Protective services, the option is available for the minor to notify other adult relatives.
• There are exemptions allowed for medical emergencies in which the mother's health is in jepordy or parental waiver.
• The Court may waive this notice if there is clear evidence that notification will endanger the minor.

dalf's take: This type of proposition has been attempted multiple times in the past. In all attempts, this is the most well-thought out one that covers every stipulation and scenario that could arise. All cases of where the minor could face great harm such as an abusive Bible-thumping father who would critically wound the daughter if she performed an abortion. I believe that parent(s) should be notified if their daughter wishes to undergo a potentially dangerous procedure. A poorly trained physician can result in grave medical problems or death.

dalf is voting YES

(continued on subsequent posts...)

I agree with your stances, so far.

Arizona has some stupid ones... like the one that will make voter initiatives require a majority of REGISTERED voters to win, not ACTUAL voters. :/

Proposition 5

Nonviolent drug offenses, sentencing, and parole

• Allocates $460 million of the state's budget to expand and improve nonviolent drug treatment programs for those convicted of said crimes.
• Courts have limitations placed upon them to incarcerate offenders committing certain drug crimes, break treatment, or parole
• Creates a 19 member board to direct parole and treatment
• Costs could exceed $1 billion however savings could exceed the same amount due to reduced prison occupation.

dalf's Take: This is a very convoluted proposition that is quite extensive. It involves creating a three track system which I don't fully understand. It seems to group which type of offenders are eligible for certain types of rehabilitation programs. For parolees, they have reduced parole times. I'm leary of rehabilitation efforts. For those who have experienced this or know people who have gone through rehabilitation, is it effective? Will they return to their former habits? However, it does create A LOT of bureaucracy

dalf is UNDECIDED (but leaning no)

Proposition 6
New funding for law enforcement, and new statues on penalties and laws

• $965 million each year is allocated to law enforcement agents such as local police departments and sheriff departments. Funding also include for district attorneys, jails and juvenile probation facilities.
• Makes approx. 30 revisions to California Criminal Law most of which cover gang-related offenses.
• Costs include an increase of $500 million annually because of the increase in prison population.

dalf's Take: I like to throw the book at criminals. I have a very eye-for-an-eye mentality so this proposition is VERY appealing to me. However, the fiscal costs are a big anchor. I don't see new spending but it does allocate a rather substanial chunk of dough from the General Fund. Most definitely other will take the sacrifice. Also the project increase in costs of $500 million annually isn't good for a state who's credit rating is in the ****ter.

dalf is voting YES (so far).

With two of the largest metropolitan areas in the whole country located within our borders, with by far the highest population among states, with all the ridiculously high land values, super rich people, big time technology firms, and all the taxes it boggles my mind how this state is so broke.

That's what you get for electing the Govinator.

Thanks for making this thread. I am one of those fellow CA voters and I will be brutally honest in admitting that I did not know about many of these =_=

I'm waiting for your writeup on the (sadly?) most publicized and "controversial" Prop 8, though.


That being said my first inclinations seem to be the exact opposite of yours >_<

Prop 1: Yes
Prop 2: Undecided, leaning yes
Prop 3: No (I agree w/ you)
Prop 4: Undecided ... this is a tough one for me as I don't think I have enough perspective but I'm tending towards no
Prop 5: No
Prop 6: Yes (I agree)

Proposition 7


Renewable Energy Generation for producers of electricity.

• Requires utilities included publically owned utilities to generate 20% of their power from renewable resources. This standard only applied to privately owned utilities
• Also requires that both private and public utilities generate 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025
• Renewable energy includes things like solar power, wind, geothermal.
• Decreases the time needed to get approval for renewable energy plans.
• Cost increases can include $3.4 million annually for regulatory practices. Potential cost increases of the price of electricity on the consumer

dalf's Take: I agree with the idea that we REALLY REALLY need to start getting better technology for renewable energy sources. We have got to break off from coal and definitely oil especially. Natural gas is cleaner burning but in finite supply. The are some major factors in this proposition that I don't find too kosher. One is cost. If it's a few cents per kilowatt-hour, I'd be down for the increase. But if it's a real big impact on the consumer, no way. Also, we do have some high standards for clean energy in place, all ready. Furthermore, 20% by 2010 seems way to quick. We're practically done with 2008 and that gives all utilities ONLY ONE YEAR to meet these demands. No sir, not liking the prop.

dalf is voting NO

PROPOSITION 8
Amends the state constitution so that marriage is only recogized by the State of California as between a man and a woman.

dalf's Take: The proposition you all have probably been waiting for. It is the gay-marriage ban proposition take two. First, some background: In March of 2000, CA voted in Prop 22 in which pretty much the same thing was done. Earlier this year, San Francisco challenged the proposition and started allowing same-sex marriages. This lead to the California Supreme Court ruling that Prop 22 violated the state's constitution and therefore illegal. AS IT STANDS NOW, same-sex couples can marry and achieve the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage.

This proposition pisses the everliving hell out of me. I cannot believe this is on the ballot. Why is this even an issue right now? Seriously. Of all the all the problems this state is having THIS IS A PROMINANT ISSUE?? Oh and let me tell you the "Yes On 8" crowd is using all their might and muscle to get this passed. It is their life-charge to make sure "them ******s" don't get married at all PRAISE JESUS! And now we want to legislate morality yet again. There is no fiscal, logical, or unethical reason to allow them the same benefits as a heterosexual marriage. This is straight up imposing Christianity as law nothing more, nothing less. **** off you Bible-thumpers. **** the hell off all of you. I've had to deal with your kind for the better part of last four years. I'm tired of it. Really. To those Christians who practice their religion as it should--you know--shows love for mankind regardless of how much and what they've sinned and lets God sort that **** out, I have no beef with you at all. I know some people like that and they are awesome. Evangelicals can kiss my non-hairy white ***.

dalf is voting: **** NO

Done for tonight on the propositions. Still left are 9 - 12.

I'm going to vote yes on Prop 8, not because of the content of the proposition, but because I don't like the fact that Conan and the Supreme Court can say "**** you" to the voters and overturn our first vote.

Also, today at work the resident "Annoying Political Activist" was hassling me about voting again. I had already told her I was planning on voting, but she's extremely persistent in giving me the details of the propositions (even when I tell her I am busy and don't have time). I asked her to give me a list of how she was going to vote. She asked, "So you're just going to vote the same as me?" I replied, "No, I am going to vote the exact opposite and cancel you out of the system."

I'm voting no on 8 because it pisses me off more than the Supreme Court decision el oh el


Edit: Also, the ads supporting 8 piss me off to no end.

I can see that argument honestly. But from where I stand, if the original proposition violated the state's constitution then it was an unlawful law and should have been struck down. I would have some major issues if this was a constitutionally sound law and was just overturned because Conan and the Supreme Court hated it, yeah that's bad. Honestly, I did vote for Prop. 22. I didn't do it for religious reasons either. I had a "**** THEM FAGS!" attitude when I was 18. I have learned the error of my ways.

Even then, I would still vote no if this were a new law. It's legislating morality. It's increasing the size of the government. Something that I thought us conservatives championed. Now if conservatives don't champion that anymore, let me know so I can quickly tell people I'm not a conservative.

We have Prop 102 this year, which does the same thing as Prop 8. Except gay marriage is already illegal, and we already voted on almost the same proposition in 2004 (or 06) and it didn't pass then. Except this time, the Yes camp has raised $6.9 million dollars and the No camp has raised $400k.

Super lame.

Conservatives champion that. The trick is that republicans are not conservatives. The real conservatives - which is the Libertarian party now - don't give a **** who marries who.

We passed a version or prop8 two years ago here. I voted no, but it still passed by like 80-20. It included language to prevent the state from even creating a facsimile of marriage for gay couples, which is clearly discrimination - it outlaws civil unions when the people involved happen to be ****ing each other.

Where is this? And it passed by that much? Dang.

That's the reason the first one here failed.



The new one just says:



It will probably pass.

Fortunately, marriage is irrelevant to pretty much everything. Especially love.

Not really actually. I've heard people being denied visitation rights because they were not legally "married." Also, they do not get the same tax benefits as would a "normal" married couple would be. They would have to file separatly.

The visitation thing, sorry, I don't believe you.

The tax thing, meh. If you get married to save a few bucks you have strange priorities. Although it is quite strange that the government would give benefits to someone who's married over someone who's not.

Wow, you have some more exciting Amendments than my state does.

Utah Constitutional Amendment A: Minor changes to the progressions of power in the state(you know, when the governor gets killed the lieutenant governor takes over, etc etc). The biggest changes is that under the Amendment, if the Lieutenant Governor is unable to perform his duties, the Governor picks a new on and he must be approved by the Senate. Before the Governor just appointed someone. The rest is just BS rewording. I'll be voting against this just because I think it's retarded they're making an Amendment out of this crap.

Utah Constitutional Amendment B just allows more than tobacco court settlements and donations to be added to the state trust fund. I'll be voting for this.

Utah Constitutional Amendment C pushes back the opening of the legislature one week. This does two things. First, the legislature no longer opens on MLK day and it allows more time between the release of the financial report for Utah and opening of the legislature. The legislature still works the same amount of days. I'll be voting for this.

Utah Constitutional Amendment D requires the legislature to draw district lines, etc, no later than the next legislative session after the federal census is released. I'll be voting yes.

Constitutional Amendment E allows the state in invest the education fund into stocks and bonds. I will be voting **** no!

However, what's interesting is the person running for Governor for the Libertarian party. His name is "Superdell" Dell Schanze. He's a local celebrity here because he ran a small chain of computer shops and his commercials were fairly amusing. This guy also probably has ADHD and really needs some ritalin. He's been in a little trouble with the law recently, concerning brandishing a weapon. However, this is his statement in the booklet we're given.

"SUPERDELL is your only choice because YOU didn't file. Huntsman [the current governor] took away your freedoms and raised taxes more than any governor in the history of Utah. Springmeyer [the Democratic challenger] has admitted that he doesn't care about the constitution. The definition of the word insane is voting for the same people expecting change.

"There is no question that Dell Schanze is different. There are only 3 people on the ballot and SUPERDELL is the only one that is NOT socialist. If you are unsure then fill your heart with love, completely open your mind and pray to God earnestly. You can't afford to get this wrong and you will be held accountable for your choice."

That last sentence is incredibly creepy. That's besides that this guy is on crack. The last four years have been good years under Huntsman. Despite the rest of the nation's economy tanking, ours has remained pretty good because of some of the stuff he did. And I voted for the other guy.

One of the big arguments I've heard locally are about couples that have been cohabiting for decades with no official marriage or union (or one not recognized by the state), then a tragedy occurs and one partner is denied any legal rights in matters involving hospitalization or funeral arrangements for the other partner.

California sucks but i'm still moving there

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Judicial review exists so that the courts can say "**** you" to the voters when the voters try to take away rights.

Yes, but the purpose of a democracy (even though we're more of a republic) is that the voters at large make the decisions, not a few old guys in robes, even if it is the decision to take away rights.

[quote=Justice Robert Jackson in West Virginia v. Barnette]The very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.[/quote]

SC's most interesting amendment was whether or not the legislature should have the right to change the constitutional age of consent to something other than 14 years old.

I just watched some of the yes on prop 8 ads

Oh god they were awful

So if the voters support a movement to kick all blacks out of a state, that's okay? As long as it passes a vote?

That's precisely why we DON'T have a pure democracy ... everyone from Jefferson to Madison agreed that "mob rule" was not the way to go, hence why we have elected officials as a buffer between our votes and the final outcome.

Yes, because people are stupid and vote based on skin color and singular non-issues.

My problem are not the elected officials, but the non-elected officials (especially those that are difficult positions to be removed). Everyone from school district superintendents to a city's administrator to the Supreme Court Justices are people who wield authority in a matter they see fit, with no way for the people to do anything about it.

In short, I dislike politicians (yes, a blanket statement), and feel that there should be term limits for every public office (executive, legislative, and judicial). We vote for judges on a local level, why not on a federal level as well?

Thomas Jefferson stated that amongst mans inalienable rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". as far as i am concerned, spending your life with(getting married to) the person you love, tending to them in their times of need(being able to visit in the hospital) and making arrangements for that person when they die, fall squarely within that phrase(life, liberty...).

Notice you are only allowed to pursue happiness, you can't actually be happy.

And now to continue the Propostions

Proposition 9

Criminal Justic System, Victim's Rights, Parole.

• Requires the the victim be notified for input during criminal justice process which includes bail, pleas, sentencing, and paroles
• Makes it so the victim's saftey is a consideration in determining bail or parole
• Increases the number of people permitted to testify on victim's half.
• Reduces number of parole hearings prisoner is entitled
• Victims are to receive written notification of constitutional rights
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

There is a lot in this proposition. One of the things is that the constitution is to be amended so that the courts' sentences must be carried out and not substantially diminshed by early release policies to reduce overcrowding. In other words, a sentence must be carried out despite if there are policies to reduce overcrowding. It also directs that funding must be provided for the prison and prisoner's full sentence.

The time permitted by a life-term prisoner increases from 1 to 5 years to 3 to 15 years. Also, increases the number of participants testifying with the victim against the prisoner

dalf's take: People say this is for victim's rights and what not. In reality, it's for victim's revenge. Something I'm not tooo opposed. This is to counter all the feeling that prisoners have been getting it pretty good of late. I don't have any hard feelings on this one but I do like it.

dalf is voting: YES

Proposition 10

Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy

• Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers purchase high fuel economy vehicles or other alternative energy vehicles including natural gas
• Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy production, chiefly solar.
• Funding is provided in $5 billion in general obligation (GO) bonds.
• Costs: $10 billion/year over 30y to pay off principle and interest costs of bonds. Payments of $335 million per year. Potential increase in revenues from sales tax from 2009 to 2019. Potential increase in license fees from same period

If your vehicle uses high fuel economy or other alternative fuels, namely natural gas, you can potentially get a rebate depending on the size of the vehicle. If you own a 25,000 pound (~11,340 kg) purchased brand new, you could get a rebate from the State of California for up to $50,000. If you buy the same vehicle once used, you get $35,000. There are rebates for other sized vehicles and other fuel sources as well. These rebates come from the $5 bllion GO bonds that the state is authorized to use.

dalf's take: This is also known as the T. Boone Pickens Proposition as he is the driving force behind this proposition. He owns a corporation called Clean Energy Fuels Corporation--a natural gas provider. This proposition would GREATLY benefit his company. To me, it's a crock of ****. This is mainly to advance the pocket-books of one man's corporation. I want alternative fuels to rise. We BADLY need to get off of oil. However, a broke state and a shady proposition isn't the way to do it. Good idea, very poor implementation.

dalf is voting: NO

I did some reading on these

I found the Sierra Club opposes both 7 and 10, so there goes any credibility there

Honestly 2 seemed backed by genuine experts in whatever field would be behind a proposition like this--the "con" view in the pamphlet view turned me off when it threatened that letting chickens go outside would cause a bird flu epidemic. So I think I'll save the whales lol.

Also, all the prisons oppose 9 because, according to them, it creates a ****load of duplication of laws and bureaucracy, and makes very little actual change. I was actually for it at first but now I'm not so sure.