The Lesser-Known Props.

[xkai]

In addition to the massively propaganda delegated to Propositions 64, 65 and 68 there are actually 12 other propositions on the November general election.

These are:

Prop. 59 - Allowing public's right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials.

Prop. 60 - Election rights of political parties (All parties top-picks advance to general election)

Prop. 60A - Surplus property tax would be used to help pay off the $15 billion worth of bonds thta Proposition 57 allowed.

Prop. 61 - Children's hospital projects; grant program; bond act.

Prop. 62 - Anti-Prop. 60, only top 2 in primaries advance to general election.

Prop. 63 - Mental health services expansion (More funds to counties to develop mental health programs, creates commission, requires state to develop mental health programs, imposition 1% additional state income tax who have more than $1 million in taxable income)

Prop.66 - Limitation of "Three Strikes Law" (Readjustment of legal definition of felonies and serious felonies, and makes "Three Strikes" apply only to such actions, allows re-sentencing of persons with sentences to agree with the new adjustments, increases child sex-offense punishments)

Prop. 67 - Emergency Medical Services. (Adds a 3% surcharge rate on phones in California to help pay for the loss of revenue by hospital emergency rooms, limits surcharge to $0.50 on home phones, not applicable to cells or business)

Prop. 69 - DNA Database - Demands all felons to have their DNA in a state database by 2009.

Prop. 70 - Tribal Gaming Compacts (Demands that state issue renewable 99-year gaming compact on demand by federally-recognized tribes, casinos taxed based on current state corporate tax rate which cease if non-tribal casinos are allowed, requires off-reservation impact assessments)

Prop. 71 - Stem Cell Research (Establishes "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" to regulate stem cell research, and funding via grants and loans for such research and research facilities, constitutional right to allow stem cell research, oversight committee to govern Institute, authorizes $3 billion of general obligation bonds to finance Institute at an annual limit of $350 million, allow state General Fund monies to issue bonds)

Prop. 72 - Health Care Coverage Requirments (Provides individual and dependent health care coverage for employees working for large to medium employers, employers must pay 80% of coverage cost, employers must pay for health coverage or pay fee to medical insurance board that purchases primarily private health coverage)

[m15rules]

I am a little sick and tired of hearing about indian gaming and out of state gambling interest. If fact the people who supported prop.68 yesterday decided to stop the commercials, because they were confusing the voters. I would guess that one out of every three commercials deals with gaming interest. It's a great way to deceive people who focus on the commercial and not on the facts(that one has to research). My advise to all the voters is to carefully read the fine print at the end of the commercials either supporting or against a certain proposition. You will always find the people supporting the ad or if you can't read or catch the fine print, you can always, at least see one of the supporters and investigate their motivation (example, an ad supported by the league of women voters).

Regarding prop. 66 and the three strikes law, I am concern with the high number of felons who will be let go if this prop. passes. In fact, I heard a debate on 97.1 Conway and Steckler show when the spokesman for the proposition debated a district attorney (I guess Orange County) on the number of people who will be free and the acts that would change the law. Don't get me wrong people who steal a dvd three times should not go to jail for a long time, but people who have commited 1 or 2 serious crimes(rape,assault) and later steal a video should indeed be given a long sentence.
I think we should look closely at the proposition since every prosecutor in the state whether they are Democrats or Republicans are all against this proposition.

[xkai]

Originally Posted by m15rules

Regarding prop. 66 and the three strikes law, I am concern with the high number of felons who will be let go if this prop. passes. In fact, I heard a debate on 97.1 Conway and Steckler show when the spokesman for the proposition debated a district attorney (I guess Orange County) on the number of people who will be free and the acts that would change the law. Don't get me wrong people who steal a dvd three times should not go to jail for a long time, but people who have commited 1 or 2 serious crimes(rape,assault) and later steal a video should indeed be given a long sentence.

I think that's the point of this law, the jails are full of people who have done stupid things and are stuck in jail for life.

The following felonies no longer count if the proposition passes:
* Attempted burglary
* Conspiracy (multiple people planning) to commit assault
* Nonresidential arson resulting in no significant injuries
* Burglary of an unoccupied residence
* Threats to commit acts that would result in significant personal injury
* Participation in felonies committed by a criminal street gang.
* Unintentional infliction of significant personal injury while committing a felony offense.
* Interfering with a trail witness without the use of force or threats and not in the furtherance of a conspiracy

[zoedragon]

Looks like I have a lot of homework to do! I admit haven't even opened my voter's pamphlet yet. I usually go through each prop, research it, then mark yes or no because I might forget later. I get confused by numbers easily.

I'm curious about Prop 71 and what "stem cell research" is. It sounds familiar, but why does this particular research need government regulation and funding?

[PandaMoOo]

I recommend smartvoter.org for research. It's pretty good so far.

Prop 66:

A YES vote of this measure means:
The current "Three Strikes" sentencing law would be amended to require that a second and third strike offense be a serious or violent felony, instead of any felony, in order for the longer sentences required under Three Strikes to apply. The state would be required to resentence "third strikers" whose third strike was nonviolent and nonserious. In addition, prison sentences for specified sex offenses against children would be lengthened.

A NO vote of this measure means:
Current sentencing law would remain in effect, requiring offenders with one or more prior convictions for serious or violent felonies to receive longer sentences for the conviction of any new felony (not just a serious or violent felony). In addition, prison sentences for certain sex offenses against children would remain unchanged.

There's a big confusion over the Three Strikes Law. I did a speech on it awhile back and got a lot of details, first the first two crimes must be relatively violent... stealing DVDs won't count unless its over $500 or something. And the three strikes law is ONLY AN OPTION OF THE JUDGE AND JURY. It is not forced.

Something like... 90% of the people sentenced 25 years to life by the three strikes law have already served 10 years in prison. If someone who served 10 years in prison is still committing crimes, I don't want them back in society for at least 25 more until they're weak and frail. I think California needs a big reform in the jails along the lines of crushing the jail guard union that is stealing so much money and inproving reform success in jail.

I think there are a lot of people who may have been shafted by the Three Strikes Law, but I still think as it is, it does a good job and the ends justify the means. Pehaps more public awareness would get more jurys to understand the reason for it. The second strike for instance, has its sentence doubled... not many people know that.

I like how this prop tries to protect the children and sexual predators. I know rape and incest destroys peoples lives, but it's an emotional appeal and not a logical one. Sex offerenders on average get longer sentences then second degree murders, talk about destroying someone's life.
Average Term for 1999 in california: Second Degree Murger - 16.4, Rape - 26.3, Sodomy-16.8 Lewd Act with Child-12.7, Oral Copulation-27.7.
Does anyone else find this downright alarming?!? Damn emotional laws and judgements and props, not rational.


I will vote no on prop 66.

http://smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/66/
http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/ publications/misc/cinc/4system.pdf

[jamarquez]

Originally Posted by xkai

In addition to the massively propaganda delegated to Propositions 64, 65 and 68 there are actually 12 other propositions on the November general election.

I don't know WHY you mentioned 64 and 65 those two are not getting propaganda I think....The major ones are 68 70 71 and 72

Prop 65 is a local gov't issue and with Prop 1A there is no need for prop 65 (doesn't matter how you vote on 65)....

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Looks like I have a lot of homework to do!

Yeah!, this is TO much for us to know and read about. I think we should have a prop that LIMITS the amount of Prop's on the ballot

[xkai]

Originally Posted by jamarquez

I don't know WHY you mentioned 64 and 65 those two are not getting propaganda I think....The major ones are 68 70 71 and 72

I was thinking of the ones that had put out TV ads, and those were the ones I thought of immediately, so I apologize if I missed a few...and it's also a bit subjective.

[PandaMoOo]

Originally Posted by jamarquez

Yeah!, this is TO much for us to know and read about. I think we should have a prop that LIMITS the amount of Prop's on the ballot

Imagine what some of the lesser educated Californian's think about all these props? Props are a GREAT idea for the people who care about politics enough to vote... there should be a "i don't know enough to vote" option on ballots.

[zoedragon]

Props 60 and 62, they're opposing each other. I wonder, is it possible that BOTH can be passed? That would hilarious. But anyway, on a more serious note, what are the good and bad things about having only the top two candidates advance to the general election? Or vice versa?

Here's how I see it so far. If all chosen candidates get to go to the election, then we have a lot more choice. A lot of votes that would have been for the top choice would be diverted to the other guys. It would give the smaller guy a better chance to win.

Question is, is this a good thing? Do we want the votes to be more scattered? I would think the majority of the votes would go towards the top two candidates anyway, so would it even make a difference?

[PandaMoOo]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Props 60 and 62, they're opposing each other.

Yeah they do oppose eachother. This is a hot item in democratic/Nader Campaigns. See... last few years now we've had three candidates running, the normal two and someone who gets 1-3%. The problem is that last election in Florida, Nader cost the democratics the victory because Nader's views are similiar to that of the democrates. If there were no Nader, then democrats would have won. (They really did win on the recount, but it's too late... Gore would have won the first time around.)

How this relates to california: Everyone is mad at Nader because he "can not win." And screws up the voting by partitioning off the democratic vote, thus giving republicans an advantage. So... the two props I am guessing are people at ends with eachother trying to put Nader On the Ballot, or Off the Ballot so republicans don't get in.

In my opinon, it would be nice to have a third or fourth or fifth choice, but often times elections are about who you DO NOT want in office, more then they are about who you DO want in office. So having multiple choices, although good, partitions off votes and could make the less dominant ideas of the country/state not heard. (i hope that was clear, thats the big issue.)

Nader speaks some good talk too... I'd vote for him, if only in the same step I could still vote against Bush. But I can't, i'm undecided as to what to do with the props relating to this candidate monkey business.

[jamarquez]

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

Imagine what some of the lesser educated Californian's think about all these props? Props are a GREAT idea for the people who care about politics enough to vote... there should be a "i don't know enough to vote" option on ballots.

I like that

[zoedragon]

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

Imagine what some of the lesser educated Californian's think about all these props? Props are a GREAT idea for the people who care about politics enough to vote... there should be a "i don't know enough to vote" option on ballots.

Yeah I'd definitely use that option for some of the props. In the past I'd research all of them and make decisions, but there would be a few that I STILL don't know enough about to make an informed decision. Rather than be a bad voter and just picking one (like a test-taker hoping to have a 50% chance of getting the answer right on a true-false question) I normally leave those blank. Having an "I don't know" choice would help those who feel the need to not leave any blanks.

[zoedragon]

I'm starting to "do my homework" on these propositions, starting with 1A. The argument against it states, "It locks in the local sales tax rate in the Constitution, preventing the Legislature from ever lowering it." This is a strange statement to make. How many ammendments have we seen that have been re-ammended or repealed? And if the local sales tax can't be lowered, then they can't be raised either. That can't be all bad.

[zoedragon]

I'm on question number 66 of my prop research homework. So now I'm ready to address this 3-strikes measure...

Originally Posted by PandaMoOo

I like how this prop tries to protect the children and sexual predators. I know rape and incest destroys peoples lives, but it's an emotional appeal and not a logical one. Sex offerenders on average get longer sentences then second degree murders, talk about destroying someone's life.

I gave this some thought and found myself disagreeing. Given a choice to be in the same room with a convicted (non-serial) murderer and a sex offender, I would pick the murderer. I'm making a distinction here between serial killers, who are some of the sickest people on earth, and one-time murderers. It's my opinion that most non-serial murderers killed in the heat of argument or even defense. A lot of these people regret what they did and probably wouldn't do it again. Sex offenders on the other hand are mentally ill. They see sex with children or forced sex with anyone as acceptable behavior. I'm afraid of these people and don't want them anywhere near me or my family. I would welcome a longer sentence for these people.

I'm still undecided about this prop though. Some people deserve a second chance, but at the same time there are people who would qualify for this second chance who do not deserve it. Given this indecision I tried to decide based on which was more expensive. On one hand you have the need for more prisons to retain the criminals held by the stricter 3-strikes law. On the other hand you have the need to resentence all the criminals to adjust for the ammended 3-strikes law. Are there any points I am missing that might help me decide?

[PandaMoOo]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

I gave this some thought and found myself disagreeing. Given a choice to be in the same room with a convicted (non-serial) murderer and a sex offender, I would pick the murderer. I'm making a distinction here between serial killers, who are some of the sickest people on earth, and one-time murderers.

I haden't thought of that. I do agree, sexual predators seem like they are more likely to commit additional crimes because of their emotional behavior, and thus need more time to reform then most murderers. I think there needs to be a special reform system for sexual criminals ... counseling/etc needs to be done. I once heard of a previous sexual molester who now turned normal... he said "I still feel those weird urges, but I have to tell myself everytime that I can't act on it, because I'll be ruining that kids life; and I don't want to do that." That to me, is the right approach... but a difficult one to convince every criminal to believe, and to make sure they truly believe it... but good point, i agree now... sexual crimes need more prison time because they are harder to reform.

Originally Posted by zoedragon

On one hand you have the need for more prisons to retain the criminals held by the stricter 3-strikes law. On the other hand you have the need to resentence all the criminals to adjust for the ammended 3-strikes law. Are there any points I am missing that might help me decide?

Did you notice one of the clauses in the Prop was to retry all previously convicted criminals to see if their 3rd strike is legitimate? That would have huge short term cost impacts. Courts cost more then jails, and jails cost a lot.

[zoedragon]

Ok I'm done reviewing my prop decisions. I've got a couple of undecided ones, feel free to express your opinions on them (or any props for that matter) Here's what I've got, and why:

1A - Protection of local revenues - YES - Because locals know where money is needed more than a 3rd party.

59 - Public access to records - YES - Because we have a right to know darnit!

60 - Top vote-getter of each party goes to general election - YES - Because it's better to have too many choices than too few. Smaller political parties would be completely pointless.

60A - Surplus property sales to be used for bond payments - YES - We have to pay for these bonds SOMEHOW.

61 - Childrens hospital projects - YES - It's expensive, but all kids deserve a chance at a normal life.

62 - Only top two vote-getters go to general election, regardless of party affiliation - NO - The same two parties are going to get their candidate in anyway, why close it off for the small guy?

63 - Mental health services expansion - NO - True it's taxing millionaires and not me, but no provisions are made to have a spending reserve. Spending programs are based on projections, and if tax income drops due to millionaires moving away and whatnot, then those spending program will still be in place and will trickle down to us, the middle class. I'm not firm on this decision, if anyone has an opposing view.

64 - Limits unfair business lawsuits to only those who can demonstrate injury - NONONONO - Are they kidding? Big businesses would find it child's play to disprove any injury you might have suffered as a result of their business practices. This is a proposition to protect MONEY.

65 - Something about local funds and the state - NO - 1A is already replacing this one, so what's the point?

66 - 3 Strikes Ammendment - UNDECIDED - Overcrowded jails and second chances vs. keeping criminals off the streets... I'm confused.

67 - Phone tax for emergency medical funding - NO - Have you seen all the taxes and fees on the phone bill?? It's already an extra $10 a month on top of the regular phone service charges. There's already a "Surcharge A" and "Surcharge B". When I call the phone company asking about what the heck these are, they say it's the state taking the money. All I need now is a "Surcharge C". No thank you.

68 - Non-tribal gambling - NO - See my prop 68 thread for why.

69 - DNS samples from all felons - YES - I'm a big fan of CSI and having an expanded DNA database would make their jobs a lot more efficient.

70 - Tribal gaming compacts - NO - Same as 68.

71 - Stem cell research - NO - $6 BILLION dollars for this? And it takes the ability to regulate this spending away from the governor and the legislature. I think the pharmaceutical companies are behind this, that's why the price tag is so huge.

72 - Health care coverage requirements - UNDECIDED - On one hand health care coverage is expanded to a lot of people who need it. On the other hand it's placing a huge financial responsibility onto the state. Existing companies that have good health care coverage for their employees may end up switching to the cheaper government-supported system, which might mean crappier choice of doctors for us.

Whew, and there you have it. Have YOU done YOUR homework yet?

[jamarquez]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

Ok I'm done reviewing my prop decisions. I've got a couple of undecided ones, feel free to express your opinions on them (or any props for that matter) Here's what I've got, and why:

WOW, you and me are about the same, I already marked mine and I have almost the same things you have.

I'm also perplexed about how to vote on 66...
and A (1/2 cent sales tax increase for LA county only)
I'm going to vote early on those touch screens in West Covina this year, because I'm not going to have enough time to vote on Election Day (I'm being a Poll worker this year ) Can you believe it, I have to be there from 6:30 am - 8:30 pm

[Steven]

Originally Posted by zoedragon

I'm curious about Prop 71 and what "stem cell research" is. It sounds familiar, but why does this particular research need government regulation and funding?

How often do you read news? Stem cell research has been covered by the media for years. Here is some information on stem cells.