As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Ballot measures, state races, and all that other downticket stuff
Jragghen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So most people are focusing on the Presidency and Congress right now, but there's a bunch of other stuff at the state and local level which is up, too.
11 states have Governor spots up for grabs, as well as two US territories.
It's also the first election after the redistricting from the census at the state level, so things have likely changed there as well - most commonly in favor of the party in power, but that's neither here nor there. Yaaay Gerrymandering!
But nationally, eyes will also be on a few propositions in a few states. To name a few:
Washington State's "Require 2/3rds vote majority to raise taxes" initiative
Washington State's "Legalize Marijuana" initiative
California's "End the Death Penalty" proposition
And a variety of gay marriage referendums across the states - feel free to add your own state's below.
I figured we've got a Presidency thread and a Congress thread, but we needed a catch-all for the smaller stuff which doesn't necessarily warrant its own discussion area. I'll be following up with a description of all of the California propositions as I've skimmed them (although there's a few which I wouldn't mind hearing interpretations on from other folks)
11 states have Governor spots up for grabs, as well as two US territories.
It's also the first election after the redistricting from the census at the state level, so things have likely changed there as well - most commonly in favor of the party in power, but that's neither here nor there. Yaaay Gerrymandering!
But nationally, eyes will also be on a few propositions in a few states. To name a few:
Washington State's "Require 2/3rds vote majority to raise taxes" initiative
Washington State's "Legalize Marijuana" initiative
California's "End the Death Penalty" proposition
And a variety of gay marriage referendums across the states - feel free to add your own state's below.
I figured we've got a Presidency thread and a Congress thread, but we needed a catch-all for the smaller stuff which doesn't necessarily warrant its own discussion area. I'll be following up with a description of all of the California propositions as I've skimmed them (although there's a few which I wouldn't mind hearing interpretations on from other folks)
Jragghen on
0
Posts
Amendment 1 is basically a Fuck You to Obamacare and an example of nullification at its finest.
Amendment 6 seeks to change the law so that Florida's abortion protections cannot be more strict than the Federal government's.
As the article says, our local weekly free paper, The Stranger, endorsed her in a primary race against Frank Chopp, and she got enough write-in votes to come in second (Seattle has an open primary, top two finishers go on to the general). Most of the politically-active serious progressives in this town fucking hate Frank Chopp, because he's a useless shitpile of a leader; he's the Harry Reid of Washington, especially on budgetary issues. He has rolled over for the Republican minority repeatedly on the budget for the past several years, and it has taken a serious fucking toll on the state.
Now, Kshama Sawant doesn't actually have a chance against Frank Chopp, don't get me wrong; but at least I won't have to hold my nose and vote for him again.
The major ones are:
1) Allowing collective bargaining for public employees, basically.
2) Repealing the odious Emergency Financial Managers law.
The ridiculous one requires some backstory.
So Detroit and Ontario are separated by the Detroit River. Unsurprisingly with the large industrial centers in SE Michigan and SW Ontario, a huge amount of goods flow between the two. At the moment, there is one bridge, the Ambassador Bridge, that connects Detroit and Windsor. Something like 25% of all trade between US and Canada crosses over this bridge. The toll to cross the bridge is $4.75. Unfortunately, there is too much traffic, it gets clogged, the bridge is 80 years old, and generally we need a new bridge. So the state of Michigan, Congress, and Canada have proposed one. Canada, who really needs a new bridge (being more dependant on us than we are on them, marginally), have offered to pay for the whole thing, in exchange for which the state of Michigan would receive no money from tolls until the thing is paid off. Sounds like a good deal, right?
Here's the thing: the Ambassador Bridge is privately owned. And the owner of the bridge doesn't want his near monopoly destroyed by a government bridge and has proposed building a second span. So he, being a billionaire, has used Citizens United to wage an endless war against the thing. There have also been a ton of dirty tricks (fake foreclosures, that kind of thing) associated with the bridge.
He's also managed to get this on the ballot:
The stupid one is our good friend the 2/3 majority for tax increases.
But the hilarious one is this. So we got on the ballot a proposal to require energy companies in Michigan to produce 25% of their electricty by renewable sources by 2025. Renewable being wind, solar, biofuels, and hydropower under this definition. Additionally, they couldn't hike rates by more than 1%/year to meet that requirement. This isn't the funny part, the funny part is this.
Naturally the energy companies formed a PAC to opposed this. And I mean that literally, the PAC has something like 14 total donors, and has raised about $6,200,000. About $6,100,000 of that came directly from the two major energy companies in the state. This is still not funny yet. Here's the funny bit:
They named the PAC the "Clean Affordable Renewable Energy for Michigan Coalition" or C.A.R.E.
Proposition 30 - Straight-up "increase taxes to help balance the budget and prevent planned school cuts." Estimated revenues of $6 billion. Incomes of $250k-$300k would have a marginal increase of 1% on those dollars, $300k-$500k would have a marginal increase of 2%, and over $500k would increase by 3%. (Current marginal income tax rate on all income over $48k is 9.3%. This would establish new tiers). Additionally, state sales tax would increase by $0.0025 per dollar. Taxes would remain in place until 2018.
Proposition 31 - One of those I need to look into further, but it appears to push down $200 million of sales tax revenue from the state budget to local budgets.
Proposition 32 - This year's wolf in sheep's clothing. Unions and corporations would not be able to use "money deducted from an employee's paycheck" for political purposes. It does not stop SuperPACs from out of state, and it exempts a lot of certain categories (real estate, insurance companies, etc) - it's basically a "prevent unions from political ads" proposition, while allowing businesses to still do so, just with a few extra hoops to jump through. I don't have TV anymore, but I already saw two ads in favor of it (it's bankrolled by some deep pockets, as you might suspect) while I was getting my hair cut. Don't be surprised if this is emulated across the country.
Proposition 33 - Allows auto insurance companies to consider previous 5 years of insurance for discounts, even if they're under another company, but raises the amount that they're allowed to charge on those who weren't driving/didn't have insurance during some of those years. Once more, will have to look more closely at it, but this is similar to something which was defeated 2 years ago, so I suspect it's got similar flaws.
Proposition 34 - Ends the death penalty in California. Estimated savings of $130 million annually from not having to deal with it, $100 million of which will go to law enforcement agencies, hypothetically to aid investigations of homicide and rape.
Proposition 35 - Another one of those I'll have to read into in more detail. Looks like increased penalties to those convicted of human trafficking, but the "no" arguments seem to be pointing to some gaping holes through which sex offender registration will get even broader in nature (ie, the quote in the "con" side says that if a woman who does 'erotic services' helps to pay for her son's college education, he could go on the sex offender registry. I'm not sure if that's hyperbole or accurate).
Proposition 36 - Revises 3-strikes law to require the third strike (requiring life imprisonment) to be a violent offense. Revises sentencing of non-violent third strike felons who are currently serving a life prison sentence.
Proposition 37 - Require labels on all genetically modified foods.
Proposition 38 - Increased marginal tax rates for education for the next 12 years, with funds going to help pay off debt for the first four. Too many tiers to list out on this one, but it starts at $7,316. Total new revenues of $10 billion in the first year, supposed to scale from there. Don't have kids, but this one seems a bit too much straight up "add new spending and revenues with it" instead of trying to pay for what we've already gotten, and I've seen too many "for the children!" props pass in the past, so I'm kinda eeh on this one.
Proposition 39 - Requires multi-state businesses to pay income taxes based off percent of sales in CA. Half of the first five years' revenue goes to clean/efficient energy (whatever that means). Currently, said businesses can choose whether to pay based off of one of two methods - location of sales, property, and employees, or location of sales only (ie, if I understand correctly, 1/4th of the company's income are in CA, but only 1/10th of the company's employees are in CA, they can currently pay income tax only on the 1/10th instead of the 1/4th. Cursory understanding, I need to look more closely into this). I will admit to a knee-jerk reaction toward yes because the "Con" side's argument used the phrase "job creators."
Proposition 40 - Keeps the current State Senate districts. Going to have to do research on this. (edited for clarification. Submission was to throw out, but the way it got put on the ballot, "yes" means keep existing ones)
Anyway, it's a bunch of 'em, and quite a mix. Really hope 32 doesn't pass, but I fear it will. Really hope 34 and 36 DO pass, and I think 34 at least has a decent shot.
Current leans, but as noted, I need to look into some more and I'd like to hear others' input on them:
31 - N
32 - N
33 - N
34 - Y
35 - N
36 - Y
37 - Y
38 - N
39 - Y
40 - ?
So you're saying he's got a bridge to sell you?
I really hope this doesn't keep catching on elsewhere. I mean seriously, campaigning against it should be easy.
"SEE CALIFORNIA'S BUDGET PROBLEMS? LOOK AT IT. YOU WANT TO CAUSE THAT. IT'S BAD. DON'T DO IT."
(Yes, California's got a lot more mixed up about it causing the budget problems, but let's be serious - it certainly hasn't helped allow us to deal with the problem in the slightest)
Also I hope Michigan looks at California and decides to smother that 2/3 majority for tax increase things.
As for my neck of the woods.
No ballot initiatives at the local level but VA has two amendments up for consideration.
(warning PDF)1. Eminent Domain Measure to limit its uses
I'll probably vote yes on this one. I'm just checking up a few things to make sure there is no possible way for this to end up being a problem. I'm a little concerned about "lost profits bit" and that this could hose urban renewal projects dealing with blighted areas.
(warning PDF)2. Can the General Assembly delay up to a week the reconvene or veto session (regarding the session of the GA that meets to deal with vetoes or suggested amendments
I'm on the fence with this one. I don't want to inconvenience people's ability for religious expression. At the same time this was passed by the VA legislator to make things more convenient for them, so I'm kind of tempted to to tell them to go fuck themselves by voting no.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
Mostly boring except Question 6 which is currently enjoying a 57-36 lead.
Edit: Oh and question 4, but the only polling done on that one was back in January, and it had a 49-48 lead in favor.
PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
We've had a number of fights about the gay marriage measure, as the secretary of state has attempted to change the wording on the ballot to more accurately reflect what it would do (deny rights), but the courts have pretty much struck him down and said that the legislature can name their ballot measures whatever the heck they want.
EDIT: Oh, I guess he's actually tried to change both, but I'm not sure how the change to the title of the voter ID measure has worked out...
The Maxine Doogan quote is, as far as I can tell, hyperbole. There's nothing in the bill that would force her son to register as a sex offender. (Edit: but sex crime law is a bit tangled so it's possible I've missed something.)
However, that doesn't mean that everything is okay. Regardless of Prop 35, her son is already committing a criminal act by accepting financial support from her under California law. He would not be required to register as a sex offender - neither current law nor Prop 35 require it - but he could be arrested. That's a particularly extreme case, but it is a problem if you're in a household with a sex worker or if you provide transportation, protection, or professional services to a sex worker.
Prop 35 does force you to register as a sex offender if you provide transportation, protection, or professional services to an underaged sex worker or if you accept any money from an underaged sex worker.
Keep in mind that the majority of underaged sex workers are not victims of human trafficking and do not have pimps. The majority are impoverished, homeless, or otherwise destitute are trying to stay alive. Many of them live in areas where there aren't sufficient social services to support them. Many of them are escaping abuse - sometimes abuse committed by employees of the social services institutions meant to protect them.
The majority are also boys, which is additionally problematic for a couple of reasons. One of them, irrelevant of Prop 35, is that California's Romeo & Juliet exemption that protects young couples from prosecution for statutory rape if they're within 3 years of age of each other does not apply to oral and anal sex. Anal sex is still called "sodomy" in California law if you are a 20-year-old male in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male, you can be prosecuted for sodomy with a minor. The other problem, which is relevant to Prop 35, is that many of these boys are on the streets to escape homophobia or were ostracized by homophobic communities. However, many of the private charity services for them are run by religious organizations, where they would be subject to further homophobic treatment. It's more attractive to shack up with a partner, who might be older. Again, that partner is a human trafficker under Prop 35.
I also unilaterally oppose all expansions of the sex offender registry system. Any proposed law that adds to the number of people in the sex offender registry is an automatic 'no' for me.
I'm voting no on Prop 35.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Unfortunately, I can't extract the YouTube link at the moment - it would be much appreciated if someone could.
Danke.
That's a remarkably uncharitable reading of my post.
Not all religious charities are homophobic. However, many are.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
where are you guys finding the information for your ballots? I tried ballotpedia, and the googles, and it looks like there aren't any ballot issues in Delaware?
i can be so dumb at this.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Delaware_elections,_2012
U.S. Senate (1 seat)
U.S. House (9 seats)
State Executives (3 state executive positions
State Senate (21 seats)
State House (41 seats)
Ballot measures (0 measures)
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This is, of course, to say that while there may exist religious charities that are not homophobic, they are so far outnumbered by ones that are that they don't really bear mentioning. They're an outlier.
Delaware does not have a referendum system.
That makes sense. Good for them. Referendum systems suck. Fuck direct democracy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
so i was reading it correctly.
now i have to go figure out what district i'm technically in for state senate and house. although i didn't have to vote on those in the primary. anyway, to the internets!
Edit:
Well shit. both of those districts are going to the Republicans. State House, no democrat filed to run and the republican is fairly tea flavored. As for state senate, that guys' been in office since I graduated high school. he's pretty well loved and respected and is not tea flavored. Or at least he wasn't last time I was home.
edit edit: Upon further reading, the democratic candidate for state senate dropped out of the race the day after the primary and so the republican is unchallenged. The republican who, according to my current reading, backed newt gingrich for the primary. Fuck.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
California's kinda awesome and mails everyone in the state these Voter Information guides. Only have the ballot measures one so far (none of the downticket races yet....I'm assuming there's downticket races this year, but in retrospect, I don't really know). Has a quick reference guide, then multi-page overviews for each one, with an additional 2/3rd page for the "pro" and "con" sides to each argue their side, and the remaining 1/3rd page of the opposite side to rebut their argument.
Also has the full text of the proposed laws.
Actually, a thought occurs. Can any other Californians confirm/deny - do we need 2/3rds majority for any of the ballot initiatives which involve increased spending to pass now? Hoy.
e: No, wait, the 2010 one was just something for the legislature, still.
The thing is, some of the concept behind it is sound. Eminent Domain shouldn't be used to transfer say no blighted private property to a business, so that they can improve their profits. It's kind of ironic really, in some ways this amendment isn't very pro-business at all.
The areas that are concerning are:
1) It mentions lost profits, I don't think it's wise to try to determine how much profit a business is losing when some sort of infrastructure improvement is needed and the use of eminent domain is required. This could be particularly concerning when you get the courts involved and it's a local government fighting a large corporation over what is just compensation. This is a sticky point because I feel that just compensation should include the value of the property being taken and nothing else because it's harder for people to pull numbers out of their ass in regards to how much that property is worth.
2) As I mention, I'm a little worried this could tie the local government's hands in regards to urban renewal. I suspect you would get cases of people living in blighted areas, that refuse or can't invest the money to fix up things and now the locality will just have to deal with it.
3) It doesn't look like it'll tie the hands of local governments or the state from using this tool to do needed improvements. I'm still checking this last point, this is a deal breaker if it really does tie their hands. I can sympathize with having property taken but if part of it is needed to make a road safe or get a piss of critical infrastructure up, well tough cookies and welcome to living in society. Sometimes the greater good means you have to part with something.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
So that seems to imply that, as corporations are viewed more critically, undecideds will probably break more towards No.
Death Penalty is currently winning 45/42.
Prop 31 is probably going to fail - it's currently 21/40.
Can't find any other polling as of yet.
e: 30 is up 55/36, 38 is down 41/44, 37 is winning 3-1 right now, 39 is winning 45/39.
All in all, those poll results sound good. I mean, I want 35 to fail but it clearly won't. Have you seen anything about 36 (three strikes) yet?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Nothing in Field Poll, but I just found this website:
http://www.cbrt.org/initiative-survey-series-2012/
It doesn't match most of the other numbers I found, so I wouldn't hold my breath, but they have 36 winning. Also have 35 (not surprisingly, given how these things tend to go) BLOWING OUT No.
And sorry if I wasn't clear - "keep the death penalty" is currently winning, not "yes" on that measure. So "No" is currently winning on 34 according to Field Poll.
And yeah, 30 is winning, but it's pretty soft and trending downward. Ballotpedia has two more recent ones than those I found, at 52/40 and 51/36 - still seems probable to pass, but it's getting into that threshold where it'll be below 50% yes, and if memory serves, undecideds tend to go to No in general (when in doubt, maintain the status quo).
e: looks like CBRT is online poll.
"We believe in the people and their 'wisdom' as if there was some special secret entrance to knowledge that barred to anyone who had ever learned anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
1) Explicitly moves authority for establishing charter schools to a state agency from the local school boards. This is mostly to fix a constitutional hole that removed this ability from the charter school commission that was created in 2008. Given the state's hate-boner for unions, I can't imagine this one not passing.
2) Lets the state government sign multi-year leases on property. This seems pretty meaningless either way.
Definitely some weird amendments down here in FL. In addition to nullification and abortion restrictions we've got an amendment to allow the state treasury to give money directly to churches.
twitch.tv/tehsloth
Yup. Eyman really needs to get eaten by a sasquatch. His initiatives contribute nothing but misery to this state.
Tim Eyman's yearly horseshit.
Haven't really formed an opinion on this one yet.
Referendum to affirm the legislature's decision to allow same-sex marriage.
There's already a thread about this in D&D. The basics are legalizing minor possession of marijuana for adults, taxing the shit out of it, and creating DUI laws specific to certain levels of marijuana impairment.
There are also four Senate Joint Resolutions and Advisory Votes that are basically budgetary, concerning things like letting a petroleum tax expire, B&O tax deductions, allowing WSU/UW to invest public funds (putting tuition where it belongs: in the stock market), and changing the advisory level of the state's debt limit from 9% to 8%. Fuck if I know on any of them. Gotta do some research.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
AZ is looking to go to a top-two election system, 58-33-9
CO in favor of legalizing marijuana, 47-38-15
MD in favor of vetoing same sex marriage law (and therefore the poll is AGAINST same sex marriage), 49-39-12
MA in favor of euthanasia, 68-20-12; medical marijuana 58-27-15
MI keeping emergency managers, 42-46-12; adding collective bargaining to constitution 48-43-9; some health care thing (?) 55-27-18 (Chamber of commerce opposed, so I assume this is a good thing); bridge thing passing 47-44-9. No info on the tax thing.
MN banning same-sex marriage, 48-47-5 (this one's close)
MT establish state policy on corporate political contributions and start US Constitutional Amendment process to overturn Citizens United passing 53-24-23 (funny fact - corporate contributions were illegal in MT for 100 years until Citizens United overturned it); Some thing which looks to be overturning medical marijuana is winning 44-31-25 (?)
September 17-23, 2012 USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 66% 20% 14% 1,504
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.