Endorsements on California Propositions 59-66
The title of this one is Public Records, Open Meetings, Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Basically, California state law is pretty good about openness in governance and being able to get to state documents. This puts the laws in the Constitution. Since I'm a fan of openness in government, I'm supporting it.
This amendment would ensure that any candidate receiving the most votes from a party that holds a primary will be guaranteed a spot in the general election. Opposition to this is basically the big two parties further consolidating their hold on a two party system. I'm voting for this one.
This one will dedicate money from the sale of surplus state property purchased with General Fund revenue to the repayment of the bonds that Arnold suckered so many people into earlier this year. I voted against those bonds because I felt they only pushed off the problem to future taxpayers, so if there's a way to make up for that by paying them off early, I'm all for it. How about we sell off some of your Cohibas, Governor?
This one will let bonds to pay for the construction, renovation and equipping of children's hospitals in the state. Easy yes vote on this one.
This one was put on the ballot in response to Prop 60 (or vice versa, I don't really remember), but the end result is this--it would make the primaries open and would limit the choices on the general election ballot to two. No dice. I'm voting against.
This proposition combines two of my favorite initiatives--funding health services for the least fortunate and popping people who make over a million a year to do it. I'm voting yes.
This one is titled "Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws." It's bullshit. California law allows for private people to bring suit against any company who is engaging in unfair business practices, even if they don't fit the qualifications for class action. The law may need remedying, but it doesn't need this. This is a giveaway for business--it denudes the private citizen of the chance to take action when law enforcement regimes won't. I'm voting no.
Proposition 65 has been abandoned by its supporters for Proposition 1A, and I can see why. 1A is better written. Basically, it allows local governments to hold on to the local tax money they collect, instead of turning it over to the state which then reimburses them, the way it's done now. As it stands, localities get screwed because the state basically say "we need the money worse than you" and local services get shut down as a result. If 1A passes, the state can still grab the money, but it has to be for a fiscal necessity and requires a two-thirds vote by the legislature. Sounds good to me.
This one modifies the state's three strikes law to require that the third felony be a violent one to warrant life imprisonment. This is an easy one. Vote yes.
I'll hopefully be back tomorrow night with the rest of the statewide initiatives.