The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Ballot Measures have been voted on. California voters need to go jump in the Pacifc.
Dalboz
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
So, there's a possibility that I may simply abstain from the presidential race this year but still vote. Why? Because California has some really interesting ballot measures this year, and for once they all aren't all about floating bonds.
One interesting one that I'm keeping an eye on is Prop 8 (Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry). I'm opposed to this one, of course. But this isn't the first time this was proposed. Prop 22 passed in 2000, which formally defined marriage as between a man and woman in the California Family Code, and has been coming up against legal challenges ever since, especially starting in 2004. So this one will be interesting to see if much has changed in California in the last eight years since the last one was passed.
We've got Prop 4, which requires a two day waiting period from the time a doctor notifies a teenager's parents of her pregnancy before he allowed to perform said abortion.
Props 7 and 10 are the Renewable Energy and Alternative Fuel Vehicle bond acts.
And there's the incredibly convoluted Prop 11, which would create a 14 member commission for the purposes of redistricting. The weird thing about this is that it actually requires five members from the Democrats, five from Republicans, and four from neither party, so it's actually feeding the party system (arguably, the two-party system) into law for establishing district boundaries.
So, discuss and debate your local ballot measures here.
One interesting one that I'm keeping an eye on is Prop 8 (Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry). I'm opposed to this one, of course. But this isn't the first time this was proposed. Prop 22 passed in 2000, which formally defined marriage as between a man and woman in the California Family Code, and has been coming up against legal challenges ever since, especially starting in 2004. So this one will be interesting to see if much has changed in California in the last eight years since the last one was passed.
We've got Prop 4, which requires a two day waiting period from the time a doctor notifies a teenager's parents of her pregnancy before he allowed to perform said abortion.
Props 7 and 10 are the Renewable Energy and Alternative Fuel Vehicle bond acts.
And there's the incredibly convoluted Prop 11, which would create a 14 member commission for the purposes of redistricting. The weird thing about this is that it actually requires five members from the Democrats, five from Republicans, and four from neither party, so it's actually feeding the party system (arguably, the two-party system) into law for establishing district boundaries.
So, discuss and debate your local ballot measures here.
Dalboz on
0
Posts
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Also, am I misreading this, or do we currently require parental notifications for abortions?
And MTV, is that other one in California as well? I literally just started looking at the ballot for this year.
I like the idea of ballot measures in principle, but we (at least in Oregon) need to figure out a way to not clog the ballot with confusing ones every election. There are some interesting ideas kicking around, but none with what I'd call great legs.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Colorado_Definition_of_Person_Initiative_%282008%29
:x
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
"Yeah, like, Mark knocked me up and then jerked into a sock for nine months."
"I told him he had to get out, your honor, but he wouldn't go!"
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Florida and Arizona are doing the same sex marriage vote this November as well.
You know what's awesome about ballot initiatives in CA this year? No Indian casino shit.
Also, from the "totally meaningless but will still end up on every cable news show the next day if it passes" column: San Francisco has an initiative to rename the Oceanside Treatment Plant to the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.
That's just how we roll here. 8-)
Well, there has been one major change - the GOP royally fucking over the Hispanic population. The Knight Initiative passed in large part due to support in the Hispanic community (which, being predominantly Catholic, tends to skew socially conservative.) But they're not idiots, and they know that the people pushing Prop. 8 are the same people that were attacking them just a year ago.
That's getting pushed a lot of places (there's a push for this one up here in MT, too.) Again, it's an attempt to do an end run around Roe.
it was worded to ban "anything that resembles marriage" or some shit which, in addition to the part about marriage being between a man and a woman, was meant to make sure that gay folks couldn't get married or civilly unionized or best friends forever'd or etc etc. However, the way the legislation was worded it seemed as though it would ban marriage as well. silly texas. :P
This year I'm voting in Minnesota. The big one around here is some environmental protection thing. Frankly I'm not even sure what it does, but it's main opponent is the Taxpayer's league for the usual reasons
Thank God.
Only in ways the proposers didn't intend. In vitro fertilization would become illegal for instance. Abortion and contraception would still be protected by Roe v Wade. Its just stupidity
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
it ads a salestax to be used to fund dnr stuff and parks and stuff and also the arts. its kind of a hodgepodge of groups that are coming together to share a tax increase. I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head, but that's the general idea.
edit for more info:
I'm undecided, but will probably vote in favor. We have a strong tradition here of raising taxes, until Pawlenty decided to change them all into 'fees'
Thank god.
Seriously, why do they think we're stupid up here? People tend to forget that we were the first state to elect a woman to Congress, after all.
Well, that helps explain Rick Jore.
corn lobbyists?
new state musical?.... wait that was oklahoma.
I live less than an hour north of the 'Montucky' border and I can always smell the craziness in the air.
Everytime I cross the border at Sweetgrass, my truck is always searched. It's guaranteed. It's turned into a running joke now really. Everyone will be in Great Falls, drinking and having a great time and I'm stuck in fucking customs trying to convince them that I don't have a pound of coke shoved up my ass.
Yeah. I looked at the sec states website and I didn't see anything about it. Did some google searches and the most I've been able to come up with is just a list of the names on the ballot. I'm not finding anything else.
What state do you live in? Googling '2008 [state] ballot measures' would probably get you there.
Also all sorts of advocacy organizations publish voter's guides that seek to pollute your mind with their propoganda.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Thanks for the heads up. I just read the ballot language itself and I'm not impressed:
I'm probably going to be voting against this one. I'm in favor of government spending on all of these things in general, but here's my sticking points.
1. Sales taxes suck. They are regressive and nickel and dimey.
2. If you want my money, you could at least have the common courtesy to tell me exactly what you plan to do with it.
3. There are better things we can do to help the environment, most notably some form of control of carbon emissions. Shit like this allows politicians to vote down such measures because "well we already passed that other thing"
4. Most of these umbrellas have specific areas that I'm not a big fan of. Spending on parks and museums? sweet. Spending on more land for hunters? fuck off. I suppose this is really just an extension of #2.
stupid use tax
Personally I've seen a bunch of ads with prominent Democrats including Obama, Clinton, Wexler, etc touting their opposition to the amendment and also tackling it as not just a gay thing but also hitting how much it would hit seniors with different living arrangements. I think that may be making a difference.
Amendment #1 - Repeal "Alien Land" Law
http://www.tampabay.com/incoming/article821389.ece
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=2&aID=49809
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/aug/18/me-land-law-amendment-targetsvestigesofracism/
Amendment #2 - Gay Marriage Ban
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=3&aID=49809
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Marriage_Amendment_(2008))
http://www.sptimes.com/2008/02/02/State/Gay_marriage_on_ballo.shtml
Amendment #3 - Energy/Hurricane Tax Break
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=4&aID=49809
Amendment #4 - Conservation Land Tax Break
http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/feb/11/na-property-tax-break-proposal-could-save-natural-/
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=5&aID=49809
Amendment #6 - "Working Waterfront" Tax Break
http://southflorida.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/08/25/story8.html
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=6&aID=49809
Amendment #8 - Community Colleges
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Amendment_8_(2008))
http://floridatrend.com/article.asp?page=7&aID=49809
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/miami-dade/story/697429.html
Statewide Ballot Question 1
State Personal Income Tax
This proposed law would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for all categories of taxable income for the tax year beginning on or after January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.
The personal income tax applies to income received or gain realized by individuals and married couples, by estates of deceased persons, by certain trustees and other fiduciaries, by persons who are partners in and receive income from partnerships, by corporate trusts, and by persons who receive income as shareholders of “S corporations” as defined under federal tax law. The proposed law would not affect the tax due on income or gain realized in a tax year beginning before January 1, 2009.
The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would reduce the state personal income tax rate to 2.65% for the tax year beginning on January 1, 2009, and would eliminate the tax for all tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2010.
A NO VOTE would make no change in state income tax laws.
Question 2
Possession of Marijuana
SUMMARY
This proposed law would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties, to be enforced by issuing citations, and would exclude information regarding this civil offense from the state's criminal record information system. Offenders age 18 or older would be subject to forfeiture of the marijuana plus a civil penalty of $100. Offenders under the age of 18 would be subject to the same forfeiture and, if they complete a drug awareness program within one year of the offense, the same $100 penalty.
Offenders under 18 and their parents or legal guardian would be notified of the offense and the option for the offender to complete a drug awareness program developed by the state Department of Youth Services. Such programs would include ten hours of community service and at least four hours of instruction or group discussion concerning the use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs and emphasizing early detection and prevention of substance abuse.
The penalty for offenders under 18 who fail to complete such a program within one year could be increased to as much as $1,000, unless the offender showed an inability to pay, an inability to participate in such a program, or the unavailability of such a program. Such an offender's parents could also be held liable for the increased penalty. Failure by an offender under 17 to complete such a program could also be a basis for a delinquency proceeding.
The proposed law would define possession of one ounce or less of marijuana as including possession of one ounce or less of tetrahydrocannibinol ("THC"), or having metabolized products of marijuana or THC in one's body.
Under the proposed law, possessing an ounce or less of marijuana could not be grounds for state or local government entities imposing any other penalty, sanction, or disqualification, such as denying student financial aid, public housing, public financial assistance including unemployment benefits, the right to operate a motor vehicle, or the opportunity to serve as a foster or adoptive parent. The proposed law would allow local ordinances or bylaws that prohibit the public use of marijuana, and would not affect existing laws, practices, or policies concerning operating a motor vehicle or taking other actions while under the influence of marijuana, unlawful possession of prescription forms of marijuana, or selling, manufacturing, or trafficking in marijuana.
The money received from the new civil penalties would go to the city or town where the offense occurred.
A YES VOTE would replace the criminal penalties for possession of one ounce or less of marijuana with a new system of civil penalties.
A NO VOTE would make no change in state criminal laws concerning possession of marijuana.
Question 3
Dog Racing
SUMMARY
This proposed law would prohibit any dog racing or racing meeting in Massachusetts where any form of betting or wagering on the speed or ability of dogs occurs.
The State Racing Commission would be prohibited from accepting or approving any application or request for racing dates for dog racing.
Any person violating the proposed law could be required to pay a civil penalty of not less than $20,000 to the Commission. The penalty would be used for the Commission’s administrative purposes, subject to appropriation by the state Legislature. All existing parts of the chapter of the state’s General Laws concerning dog and horse racing meetings would be interpreted as if they did not refer to dogs.
These changes would take effect January 1, 2010. The proposed law states that if any of its parts were declared invalid, the other parts would stay in effect.
A YES VOTE would prohibit dog races on which betting or wagering occurs, effective January 1, 2010.
A NO VOTE would make no change in the laws governing dog racing.
Personally, 1 is a clear no, 2 and 3 I will consider but I default to no on these things.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This happens every time. The school district desperately needs money. I know from firsthand experience. The teachers tend to suck, the infrastructure sucks, the 'special needs' facilities are one step short of short-bus boot camp. So they do need the money, and the whole town knows it. If the school district would ask for any reasonable figure, the town would be happy to give it to them. The school district then proceeds to make that reasonable request.
Then they tie some other request to it that basically involves turning the schools into that palace from Aladdin, and make it so that if they can't get the zomgheug pile of money, they don't get the reasonable request either. They inevitably end up getting no money at all. Next year they ask for even more money and the cycle repeats.
Watertown citizens have $560,000 to hire new custodians and teachers. Watertown citizens do not have $22.3 million to build expansions for half the district, where those new teachers would be placed.
And these are the people that RUN these schools.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+