I'm interested in seeing the outcome of Prop 5 myself:
NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
Substantially shortens parole for certain drug offenses; increases parole for serious and violent felonies.
Divides Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority between two Secretaries, one with six year fixed term and one serving at pleasure of Governor. Provides five year fixed terms for deputy secretaries.
Creates 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.
Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increased state costs over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community.
State savings over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs.
Net one-time state savings on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that eventually could exceed $2.5 billion.
Unknown net fiscal effect on county operations and capital outlay.
I am, too. I'm voting yes on it. It also effectively decriminalizes marijuana possession across the state.
I'm also voting no on 6 and 9, which are basically boondoggles for the prison lobby.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
In a short, oversimplified nutshell, here's how I'm voting on the California propositions:
1A - Yes. I'm a strong supporter of the high-speed railway.
2 - No. Goes too far, doesn't belong in the Constitution.
3 - Yes. You all know my feelings on health care. More money for hospitals, yay.
4 - Fuck no. In a perfect world I'd be all for parental notification laws on abortion, but we're far from a perfect world.
5 - Yes. Reducing sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and increasing funding for rehab programs are good things.
6 - Hell no. I bet the prison lobby loves this one.
7 - Undecided. I need to do more research.
8 - Hahaha no.
9 - No. We already have some strong victim's rights laws in CA. We don't need more.
10 - Undecided. Need more research.
11 - Undecided. Need more research.
12 - Undecided. I want to go through the text and the arguments with a fine-toothed comb.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
In a short, oversimplified nutshell, here's how I'm voting on the California propositions:
1A - Yes. I'm a strong supporter of the high-speed railway.
2 - No. Goes too far, doesn't belong in the Constitution.
3 - Yes. You all know my feelings on health care. More money for hospitals, yay.
4 - Fuck no. In a perfect world I'd be all for parental notification laws on abortion, but we're far from a perfect world.
5 - Yes. Reducing sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and increasing funding for rehab programs are good things.
6 - Hell no. I bet the prison lobby loves this one.
7 - Undecided. I need to do more research.
8 - Hahaha no.
9 - No. We already have some strong victim's rights laws in CA. We don't need more.
10 - Undecided. Need more research.
11 - Undecided. Need more research.
12 - Undecided. I want to go through the text and the arguments with a fine-toothed comb.
In a short, oversimplified nutshell, here's how I'm voting on the California propositions:
9 - No. We already have some strong victim's rights laws in CA. We don't need more.
What does 9 do?
The stuff I don't have a problem with: expanding the number of people who have a right to be present at any criminal or parole hearing, requiring that the victim and family members be given ample notification when a hearing is going to be rescheduled, and requiring judges to take the safety of a crime victim or their family into account when setting bail.
Stuff I do have a problem with: requiring that judges allow victims to speak at any criminal hearing (not all hearings are appropriate for that), further restricting the ability of county and state government to schedule early parole hearings for certain inmates to alleviate prison overcrowding, requiring that every criminal be required to provide restitution and that restitution must always be paid before court fees and fines.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I got the big book with the language for all the Kalifornia ballot measures in it, but haven't gotten my sample ballot yet. Seems weird as it's usually the other way around.
Huh, I didn't actually remember posting in here before. In any case, in order to not clog up the American Presidency thread, here are some links to the amendments that are on the Florida ballot this year.
We've got 3 initiatives in Washington. One is making assisted suicide legal for terminally ill patients (with the obvious safeguards), and I'm for that. Another is increasing training requirements for nursing home workers (sure, why not) and another is something meant to reduce traffic congestion. My initial reaction was that it was kind of stupid because it wants to make the HOV lanes accessible during more non-peak hours... when we don't actually need it.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Very welcome to all the people getting info from my Florida post. Everyone else please do something similar for your state because tons of people read D&D but don't ever post.
Another is increasing training requirements for nursing home workers (sure, why not)
I'd be careful with this one. There's already a shortage of nurses and nurses' aids due in large part to lack of teachers for nursing programs. I don't know much about the Washington ballot measure specifically, it might be a good thing, or it might not... I wouldn't want to vote on it blindly, is all I'm saying.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Another is increasing training requirements for nursing home workers (sure, why not)
I'd be careful with this one. There's already a shortage of nurses and nurses' aids due in large part to lack of teachers for nursing programs. I don't know much about the Washington ballot measure specifically, it might be a good thing, or it might not... I wouldn't want to vote on it blindly, is all I'm saying.
Yeah, on further consideration, I really have no clue what the ideal number of training hours is, so I won't vote on it.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
My initial thoughts on the California propositions:
1A (High Speed Rail Bond): Yes. Infrastructure is good.
2 (Standards for Confining Farm Animals): No.
3 (Children's Hospital Bond Act): Yes. Hospitals + Infrastructure = Good.
4 (Parental Notification for Abortions): Hell no.
5 (Rehabilitation/Parole/Sentencing for Nonviolent Drug Offenses): Yes. Prisons are vastly overpopulated, and a large part of that is "drug crime"--minor drug offenses should see more relaxed sentencing, and rehabilitation has a tangible impact on recidivism rates.
6 (Police Funding and Increases in Criminal Penalties): No. Meh, I don't necessarily have a problem with increasing funding for police forces (I mean, it has a distinct correlation with reduced crime IIRC) but then the Proposition goes on to define new crimes and increase criminal penalties (many up to a life sentence). I don't think we need more people going into our jails.
7 (Renewable Energy 1): No. This and the other energy statute are the ones I'm least sure about; but from what I gather about 7 a lot of alternative energy producers and environmental groups are opposing it. As far as I can tell this is because it shuts out smaller competitors from the market (or something?).
8 (Ban on Same-Sex Marriage): Hell to the motherfucking nizzo.
9 (Victims Rights/Parole Stuff): No, and largely for the same reasons as Prop 6. While I have nothing against victims rights, the proposition bars early release for inmates and tightens up parole hearings--keeping people in prison for longer (even if courts think that they deserve to be let out).
10 (Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy): Yes. Like I said before though, this is one of the propositions I know least about. The only argument I've heard against it is that some of the money would go to one of its biggest sponsors (Boone Pickens), but I don't think this is some fucking stunning revelation so whatever.
11 (Redistricting): Yes. Gerrymandering pisses me off and it would be nice to have that change. Now, I don't think Prop 11 is some sort of panacea considering that existing legislators have a say in who becomes a "redistricting commissioner". On the other hand, it could shake things up a little and it doesn't really cost us anything.
12 (Veterans Bond): Yes. Pretty shitty time to be in the military right now, and I think the government doesn't really do enough to reward service.
Measure 54: amends constitution, allowing 18 year olds to run for school board (currently an inoperative clause.) Voting Yes.
Measure 55: changes redistricting procedure to allow legislators redistricted mid-term to finish their term representing the district as-elected. Voting yes.
Measure 56: changes constitution, repeals double majority requirement for property tax levies. Oregon currently requires that not only a majority of voters in regular elections support a tax increase, but that 50+1% of registered voters actually vote. This would remove the 50+1 percent requirement. Voting yes.
Measure 57: One of two crime-related measures on the ballot. See Measure 61, below.
Citizen petitions:
Measure 58: would prohibit Oregon schools from teaching "immersion" programs in any language but english for more than two years. I'm voting no. Also the first of several Bill Sizemore* sponsored measures on the ballot this year.
Measure 59: Allows taxpayers to fully deduct federal taxes from their state returns. Would be a huge blow to state revenue. I'm voting no. Another Bill Sizemore* measure.
Measure 60: Mandates that teachers' pay and retention be determined by "classroom performance" and [who is] "most qualified." Those two terms are not defined in the measure. I'm voting no. This is Bill Sizemore* measure #3.
Measure 61: The second half of the crime-measure double whammy.
Basically, what happened is that former state legislator and gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix has been pushing this bill for almost a year. It mandates pretty draconian sentences for property crimes (even first time offenses), and would require substantial new prison construction and spending. The legislature, in special session last winter, attempted to compromise with Mannix by referring a compromise bill, which is Measure 57. Mannix wasn't happy enough with that, though, and pushed ahead with his own initiative. Both are on the ballot, and assuming both pass, the one receiving more votes will take effect.
The legislature's bill will also impose new sentences and new spending, but it is substantially less draconian and spends a good deal of money on treatment and other alternatives to incarceration. It's the better bill, and it should come out on top. The situation has created a dilemma for a lot of progressives, who in a vaccuum would oppose both bills, and feel as though they are being forced to vote for Measure 57 to avoid the more draconian bill. I will probably vote yes on 57 and no on 61, but I haven't decided yet.
Measure 62: Would require that 15% of Oregon Lottery revenue be devoted to law enforcement and crime prevention. I'm voting against this.
Measure 63: Allows homeowners to make home improvements costing less than $35,000 without first obtaining a building permit. Bill Sizemore* measure #4. I'm voting against this, basically because Sizemore is a douchebag, and because a bunch of smart people seem to think this bill will create problems.
Measure 64: "Prohibits money collected with the use of public resources from being used for political purposes." This, basically, is a union-busting measure that would prevent them from using membership dues in their political advocacy. Bill Sizemore* #5. I'm voting against it.
Measure 65: Arguably the most interesting measure on the ballot, measure 65 would give Oregon an "open" primary, as opposed to the current partisan primaries. This means that the top two vote-getters in the primary election would advance to the general, regardless of party affiliation. It's being supported by a laundry list of Oregon political luminaries, including former Gov. Kitzhaber (whose name is basically solid gold in the state.) It's being opposed by basically every organized political party, including minor parties like the Greens and the Independent Party (yes, they're a party in Oregon.)
The argument in favor is basically "fuck political parties"; make the primary nonpartisan and let voters decide. It's not a bad idea, and there are some states that already do it this way. Arguably it provides voters in currently "safe" legislative districts with more choices.
There are a couple of arguments against it; the one that persuades me is cost. An open primary in Oregon would mean that campaigns would have to go full bore basically from January to November. This would massively increase the financial cost of running for office, deterring candidates who work full time, have less money or who are seen as less viable. As someone who spent the recent primary working for a comparatively underfunded legislative candidate, this is already a problem. No need to make it worse. Most states that do have open primaries hold them closer to the general election; Washington State's open legislative primary is held in August, which allows campaigns to start later. Measure 65 doesn't move Oregon's primary from mid-May.
I'm going to vote against 65, for the cost reason and because while it's a neat idea, I don't think it will actually do a very good job of solving the problems our elections suffer from: mostly, the influence of money. I actually tend to think that this measure would exacerbate them.
*Bill Sizemore information below
Sizemore is basically a giant douchebag of a conservative activist, whose approach is to put a wide variety of misleading or vague measures on the ballot every cycle, in hopes of getting one or more of them to pass. He's has limited success with this in the past, and along the way has gotten himself and his signature-gathering firm into some legal hot water. He currently operates under various legal sanctions, which he seems to be circumventing rather easily with the help of a couple out-of-state sugar daddies. Frankly he could sponsor a measure supporting rainbows and puppy dogs and I would probably vote against it. Fuck him.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
OK, this year Michigan only has two proposals on the ballot:
Proposal 08-1:
A LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE TO PERMIT THE USE AND CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA FOR SPECIFIED MEDICAL CONDITIONS
The proposed law would:
· Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
· Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
· Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
· Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.
Proposal 08-2:
A PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE STATE CONSTITUTION TO ADDRESS HUMAN EMBRYO AND HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH IN MICHIGAN
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
· Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.
· Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
· Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
· Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.
I'll be voting yes to both. Yes to Prop 1, not because I care personally but because I just want kids to shut the fuck up about the man; yes to Prop 2 because it's actually a good idea and will help to keep the bio-research industry here and hopefully allow med students to stay in the damn state for a good job.
California Prop measures are generally terrible ideas. It would take an unbelievably strong case for me to vote yes on any of them in general. Prop 8 will be watched across the country though.
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.
I hate this shit, it seems like every election I have to vote down gambling measures.
Other Ohio Issues:
Issue 1 – Petition Deadlines
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
In June 2008, the Ohio General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution 3 - a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution to change the filing deadlines for future statewide ballot initiatives. If approved, HJR 3, or Issue I, as the initiative will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot, will require individuals or groups seeking to file constitutional amendments, initiated statutes, or referendums to file such petitions not later than 125 days before an election.
Currently, petitions for such issues must be filed not later than 90 days before an election for constitutional amendments and initiated statutes and not later than 60 days before an election.
The Ohio Ballot Board, on August 7 prescribed the official language to be voted on at the November 2008 election, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, and the arguments supporting and opposing Issue I.
If Issue I is approved, it will go into effect immediately.
Issue 2 – “Clean Ohio” Bond Program
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
At the request of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly has placed HJR 5, better known as the “Clean Ohio” program for environmental conservation and revitalization on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Clean Ohio, which will be Issue II on the November 2008 ballot, is a $400 million bonds program that will permit the State of Ohio to use such funds for conservation and environmental revitalization efforts. The preservation and conservation of farmland, park and recreation areas, forest, water, and natural resources are among those areas potentially covered under the Clean Ohio program. Clean Ohio would also permit funds raised to be used for urban revitalization and environmental clean up efforts in urban areas.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the official ballot language to be used November 4, 2008, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, as well as the formal arguments for and against the Clean Ohio initiative.
Issue II - Clean Ohio - will become effective immediately if approved by Ohio voters.
Issue 3 – Water & Private Property Protection
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
The Ohio General Assembly earlier in 2008 passed Amended Substitute Joint Senate Resolution 8. This resolution places a Constitutional Amendment on the November 4, 2008 to provide private property protections for landowners for the water under or flowing through that landowner’s land. State Issue 3 vests private property owners and Ohio municipalities and political subdivisions with certain property rights to groundwater and nonnavigable waterways situated on and/or under that private property owner's land subject to certain limitations.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the formal ballot language, the formal ballot explanation, as well as the official arguments for Issue 3 and against Issue 3. If Issue 3 is approved by Ohio voters, the Constitutional Amendment will become immediately effective.
Issue 5 – Payday Lending Reforms
Referendum
***Issue 5 Not Certified to Ballot Pending Final Signature Review***
The Ohio General Assembly, with support of Governor Ted Strickland, recently passed Substitute House Bill 545. The law, enacted in June 2008, makes various changes to Ohio’s Check Cashing Lending Laws, commonly known as “payday lending”. The new law caps interest and fees on short-term loans to 28 percent APR, down from the 391 percent APR for an average two-week payday loan under the prior law. The referendum seeks to overturn a single provision in HB 545, which effectively would allow payday lenders to continue issuing loans with the higher rates and fees. A ‘yes’ vote on Issue 5 would cap interest rates on a payday loan at 28% APR. A ‘no’ vote would allow payday lenders to continue charging rates and fees that equal 391 % APR on a typical two-week loan.
State Issue 5, the Payday Lending Referendum, is not yet formally certified to the 2008 ballot. Issue 5 is pending signature validation by Ohio county boards of elections to ensure sufficient valid signatures exist for its placement on the ballot and final certification by the Secretary of State's Office. Final certification or rejection for failure to meet Ohio's requirements for statewide ballot issues is expected in early October 2008.
I'm going to vote no on Issue 6 and yes to the others.
I-985 is the traffic congestion measure. I agree with a lot of the principles in it but I think there's too many ill-fitting specifics. I like the idea of opening carpool lanes off peak hours, but we don't need legislation to do this (it already happens on 405 and parts of 520) and I don't think setting specific times is the right thing to do -- for example peak hours on the Seattle Eastside are more like 7-10 and 4-7 due to Microsoft commuting patterns. Synchronizing traffic lights can be helpful in certain areas, but I think the call on this should be left up to local jurisdictions instead of being a statewide requirement. Against
I-1000 is the assisted suicide measure. Since this is a sensitive topic, I'm spoilering my opinion to avoid derailing the thread:
For me, the key issue on this is whether safeguards are in place, and I'm pretty satisfied with what the initiative contains. Only the patient themselves (not someone with power of attorney) can make the call; two oral and one written request are required; and the opinions of two physicians are required to determine that the patient is in fact terminally ill, competent, and voluntarily making the request. Insurance policies may not be conditioned on requests for lethal medication. For
I-1029 is the long-term caregiver certification proposal. It sets a training requirement in hours but has exemptions for those providing unpaid care to immediate family members and certain classes of caregivers who can pass the state exams without training. It also adds requirements for criminal background checks for caregivers. I'm generally in favor of more training for this sort of thing, but I see the point that in some areas where training's hard to get it may limit availability. I need to do some more thinking on this.
Any other California voters care to elaborate as to why Prop 2 is a bad idea? I saw Feral and Hilger were both against it, but it doesn't sound like too bad of an idea to me.
My understanding is that it's anti-factory farming.
The Wiki page has some interesting things to say:
Raising birds outdoors jeopardizes public health
The threat of an Avian Influenza, or Bird Flu, epidemic remains very real, with outbreaks occurring all over the world, including the United States.Most human cases have been linked to contact with infected birds, but health experts worry the virus could mutate into a form that passes easily among humans, sparking a pandemic that some say could kill millions of people and overload health care systems.
Since hens housed in cage-free and free-range housing systems have access to the outdoors, it substantially increases their risk of exposure to Avian Influenza (AI), Exotic Newcastle Disease, and other diseases from wildlife species of birds, according to the United States Animal Health Association, just as it increases their chance of exposure to Salmonella.
This bit actually does seem weird:
Appointees of humane societies can enforce the law
One of the lesser known effects of Proposition 2 would be the use of law enforcement powers by organizations and groups. Under California Corporations Code Sections 10400 – 10406: "Corporations for the prevention of cruelty to… animals… may be formed under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law... by 20 or more persons, who shall be citizens and residents of this state." [70]. Furthermore, under California Corporations Code 14502, "a humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, shall be eligible to apply for an appointment of any individual as a level 1 or level 2 humane officer, the duty of which shall be the enforcement of the laws for the prevention of cruelty to animals."[71]. Corporations Code 14502(C)(3)(b): The humane society or society for the prevention of cruelty to animals shall recommend any appointee to the judge of the superior court in and for the county or city and county in which the humane society is incorporated... [1]a humane society can appoint any indifividual to to act as a humane officer ... "the judge shall review the matter of the appointee's qualifications and fitness to act as a humane officer and, if he or she reaffirms the appointment, shall so state on a court order confirming the appointment. The appointee shall thereupon file a certified copy of the reviewed court order in the office of the county clerk of the county or city and county and shall, at the same time, take and subscribe the oath of office prescribed for constables or other peace officers."[72]
Seems that empowering local hippies to enforce animal cruelty laws might not be a good idea?
I guess that is bad. I find it unfortunate (and a little depressing) that allowing the birds to be outside increases the risk of salmonella and bird flu
Also not a fan of deputizing (possibly) PETA folks.
California Prop measures are generally terrible ideas. It would take an unbelievably strong case for me to vote yes on any of them in general. Prop 8 will be watched across the country though.
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.
I hate this shit, it seems like every election I have to vote down gambling measures.
Other Ohio Issues:
Issue 1 – Petition Deadlines
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
In June 2008, the Ohio General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution 3 - a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution to change the filing deadlines for future statewide ballot initiatives. If approved, HJR 3, or Issue I, as the initiative will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot, will require individuals or groups seeking to file constitutional amendments, initiated statutes, or referendums to file such petitions not later than 125 days before an election.
Currently, petitions for such issues must be filed not later than 90 days before an election for constitutional amendments and initiated statutes and not later than 60 days before an election.
The Ohio Ballot Board, on August 7 prescribed the official language to be voted on at the November 2008 election, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, and the arguments supporting and opposing Issue I.
If Issue I is approved, it will go into effect immediately.
Issue 2 – “Clean Ohio†Bond Program
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
At the request of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly has placed HJR 5, better known as the “Clean Ohio†program for environmental conservation and revitalization on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Clean Ohio, which will be Issue II on the November 2008 ballot, is a $400 million bonds program that will permit the State of Ohio to use such funds for conservation and environmental revitalization efforts. The preservation and conservation of farmland, park and recreation areas, forest, water, and natural resources are among those areas potentially covered under the Clean Ohio program. Clean Ohio would also permit funds raised to be used for urban revitalization and environmental clean up efforts in urban areas.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the official ballot language to be used November 4, 2008, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, as well as the formal arguments for and against the Clean Ohio initiative.
Issue II - Clean Ohio - will become effective immediately if approved by Ohio voters.
Issue 3 – Water & Private Property Protection
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
The Ohio General Assembly earlier in 2008 passed Amended Substitute Joint Senate Resolution 8. This resolution places a Constitutional Amendment on the November 4, 2008 to provide private property protections for landowners for the water under or flowing through that landowner’s land. State Issue 3 vests private property owners and Ohio municipalities and political subdivisions with certain property rights to groundwater and nonnavigable waterways situated on and/or under that private property owner's land subject to certain limitations.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the formal ballot language, the formal ballot explanation, as well as the official arguments for Issue 3 and against Issue 3. If Issue 3 is approved by Ohio voters, the Constitutional Amendment will become immediately effective.
Issue 5 – Payday Lending Reforms
Referendum
***Issue 5 Not Certified to Ballot Pending Final Signature Review***
The Ohio General Assembly, with support of Governor Ted Strickland, recently passed Substitute House Bill 545. The law, enacted in June 2008, makes various changes to Ohio’s Check Cashing Lending Laws, commonly known as “payday lendingâ€. The new law caps interest and fees on short-term loans to 28 percent APR, down from the 391 percent APR for an average two-week payday loan under the prior law. The referendum seeks to overturn a single provision in HB 545, which effectively would allow payday lenders to continue issuing loans with the higher rates and fees. A ‘yes’ vote on Issue 5 would cap interest rates on a payday loan at 28% APR. A ‘no’ vote would allow payday lenders to continue charging rates and fees that equal 391 % APR on a typical two-week loan.
State Issue 5, the Payday Lending Referendum, is not yet formally certified to the 2008 ballot. Issue 5 is pending signature validation by Ohio county boards of elections to ensure sufficient valid signatures exist for its placement on the ballot and final certification by the Secretary of State's Office. Final certification or rejection for failure to meet Ohio's requirements for statewide ballot issues is expected in early October 2008.
I'm going to vote no on Issue 6 and yes to the others.
I'll be voting yes to both. Yes to Prop 1, not because I care personally but because I just want kids to shut the fuck up about the man; yes to Prop 2 because it's actually a good idea and will help to keep the bio-research industry here and hopefully allow med students to stay in the damn state for a good job.
Where are all these students going? The same thing happens in Massachusetts (student flight) I've heard similar complaints from the southern New England states, NY, PA and IL. Prop 1 is irrelevant because its in violation of federal law. Prop 2 I'd support.
Why do some states feel the need to have 10 initiatives and others (much more sensibly) have 1-4 that people can actually consider and form an informed position on?
California Prop measures are generally terrible ideas. It would take an unbelievably strong case for me to vote yes on any of them in general. Prop 8 will be watched across the country though.
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.
I hate this shit, it seems like every election I have to vote down gambling measures.
Other Ohio Issues:
Issue 1 – Petition Deadlines
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
In June 2008, the Ohio General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution 3 - a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution to change the filing deadlines for future statewide ballot initiatives. If approved, HJR 3, or Issue I, as the initiative will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot, will require individuals or groups seeking to file constitutional amendments, initiated statutes, or referendums to file such petitions not later than 125 days before an election.
Currently, petitions for such issues must be filed not later than 90 days before an election for constitutional amendments and initiated statutes and not later than 60 days before an election.
The Ohio Ballot Board, on August 7 prescribed the official language to be voted on at the November 2008 election, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, and the arguments supporting and opposing Issue I.
If Issue I is approved, it will go into effect immediately.
Issue 2 – “Clean Ohio†Bond Program
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
At the request of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly has placed HJR 5, better known as the “Clean Ohio†program for environmental conservation and revitalization on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Clean Ohio, which will be Issue II on the November 2008 ballot, is a $400 million bonds program that will permit the State of Ohio to use such funds for conservation and environmental revitalization efforts. The preservation and conservation of farmland, park and recreation areas, forest, water, and natural resources are among those areas potentially covered under the Clean Ohio program. Clean Ohio would also permit funds raised to be used for urban revitalization and environmental clean up efforts in urban areas.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the official ballot language to be used November 4, 2008, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, as well as the formal arguments for and against the Clean Ohio initiative.
Issue II - Clean Ohio - will become effective immediately if approved by Ohio voters.
Issue 3 – Water & Private Property Protection
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
The Ohio General Assembly earlier in 2008 passed Amended Substitute Joint Senate Resolution 8. This resolution places a Constitutional Amendment on the November 4, 2008 to provide private property protections for landowners for the water under or flowing through that landowner’s land. State Issue 3 vests private property owners and Ohio municipalities and political subdivisions with certain property rights to groundwater and nonnavigable waterways situated on and/or under that private property owner's land subject to certain limitations.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the formal ballot language, the formal ballot explanation, as well as the official arguments for Issue 3 and against Issue 3. If Issue 3 is approved by Ohio voters, the Constitutional Amendment will become immediately effective.
Issue 5 – Payday Lending Reforms
Referendum
***Issue 5 Not Certified to Ballot Pending Final Signature Review***
The Ohio General Assembly, with support of Governor Ted Strickland, recently passed Substitute House Bill 545. The law, enacted in June 2008, makes various changes to Ohio’s Check Cashing Lending Laws, commonly known as “payday lendingâ€. The new law caps interest and fees on short-term loans to 28 percent APR, down from the 391 percent APR for an average two-week payday loan under the prior law. The referendum seeks to overturn a single provision in HB 545, which effectively would allow payday lenders to continue issuing loans with the higher rates and fees. A ‘yes’ vote on Issue 5 would cap interest rates on a payday loan at 28% APR. A ‘no’ vote would allow payday lenders to continue charging rates and fees that equal 391 % APR on a typical two-week loan.
State Issue 5, the Payday Lending Referendum, is not yet formally certified to the 2008 ballot. Issue 5 is pending signature validation by Ohio county boards of elections to ensure sufficient valid signatures exist for its placement on the ballot and final certification by the Secretary of State's Office. Final certification or rejection for failure to meet Ohio's requirements for statewide ballot issues is expected in early October 2008.
I'm going to vote no on Issue 6 and yes to the others.
What's issue 6? Or did I miss it?
A yes on 6 would change Ohio's constitution to allow a casino in one of our counties. So it's a pro-gambling measure.
California Prop measures are generally terrible ideas. It would take an unbelievably strong case for me to vote yes on any of them in general. Prop 8 will be watched across the country though.
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.
I hate this shit, it seems like every election I have to vote down gambling measures.
Other Ohio Issues:
Issue 1 – Petition Deadlines
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
In June 2008, the Ohio General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution 3 - a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution to change the filing deadlines for future statewide ballot initiatives. If approved, HJR 3, or Issue I, as the initiative will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot, will require individuals or groups seeking to file constitutional amendments, initiated statutes, or referendums to file such petitions not later than 125 days before an election.
Currently, petitions for such issues must be filed not later than 90 days before an election for constitutional amendments and initiated statutes and not later than 60 days before an election.
The Ohio Ballot Board, on August 7 prescribed the official language to be voted on at the November 2008 election, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, and the arguments supporting and opposing Issue I.
If Issue I is approved, it will go into effect immediately.
Issue 2 – “Clean Ohio†Bond Program
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
At the request of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly has placed HJR 5, better known as the “Clean Ohio†program for environmental conservation and revitalization on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Clean Ohio, which will be Issue II on the November 2008 ballot, is a $400 million bonds program that will permit the State of Ohio to use such funds for conservation and environmental revitalization efforts. The preservation and conservation of farmland, park and recreation areas, forest, water, and natural resources are among those areas potentially covered under the Clean Ohio program. Clean Ohio would also permit funds raised to be used for urban revitalization and environmental clean up efforts in urban areas.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the official ballot language to be used November 4, 2008, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, as well as the formal arguments for and against the Clean Ohio initiative.
Issue II - Clean Ohio - will become effective immediately if approved by Ohio voters.
Issue 3 – Water & Private Property Protection
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
The Ohio General Assembly earlier in 2008 passed Amended Substitute Joint Senate Resolution 8. This resolution places a Constitutional Amendment on the November 4, 2008 to provide private property protections for landowners for the water under or flowing through that landowner’s land. State Issue 3 vests private property owners and Ohio municipalities and political subdivisions with certain property rights to groundwater and nonnavigable waterways situated on and/or under that private property owner's land subject to certain limitations.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the formal ballot language, the formal ballot explanation, as well as the official arguments for Issue 3 and against Issue 3. If Issue 3 is approved by Ohio voters, the Constitutional Amendment will become immediately effective.
Issue 5 – Payday Lending Reforms
Referendum
***Issue 5 Not Certified to Ballot Pending Final Signature Review***
The Ohio General Assembly, with support of Governor Ted Strickland, recently passed Substitute House Bill 545. The law, enacted in June 2008, makes various changes to Ohio’s Check Cashing Lending Laws, commonly known as “payday lendingâ€. The new law caps interest and fees on short-term loans to 28 percent APR, down from the 391 percent APR for an average two-week payday loan under the prior law. The referendum seeks to overturn a single provision in HB 545, which effectively would allow payday lenders to continue issuing loans with the higher rates and fees. A ‘yes’ vote on Issue 5 would cap interest rates on a payday loan at 28% APR. A ‘no’ vote would allow payday lenders to continue charging rates and fees that equal 391 % APR on a typical two-week loan.
State Issue 5, the Payday Lending Referendum, is not yet formally certified to the 2008 ballot. Issue 5 is pending signature validation by Ohio county boards of elections to ensure sufficient valid signatures exist for its placement on the ballot and final certification by the Secretary of State's Office. Final certification or rejection for failure to meet Ohio's requirements for statewide ballot issues is expected in early October 2008.
I'm going to vote no on Issue 6 and yes to the others.
What's issue 6? Or did I miss it?
A yes on 6 would change Ohio's constitution to allow a casino in one of our counties. So it's a pro-gambling measure.
Would there be the taxing of these casino's revenues?
C-44: Currently, the MT Constitution does not allow state pension funds to be invested in the stock market. This initiative would change that to allow for 25% investment in stocks. I'm of two minds on this. One one hand, allowing investment of government pension funds may allow the nest egg to grow faster, and the state can use control of investments to invest in companies that benefit the state. On the other hand, look at the last couple of weeks. This one's going to need pondering.
LR-118: Renews the university mill levy until 2019. This one's a no-brainer - yes.
I-155: Expansion of MTCHIP. Basically, this will do in MT what the feds failed to last year. Again, yes.
More interesting are the ones that failed, because they show that we're actually not a bunch of backwards rednecks (remember, we were the first state to elect a woman to Congress!):
CI-99: CA Prop. 13 comes to MT. Yeah, that's worked so well for CA.
CI-100: Would define that life begins at fertilization. This is the product of one Rick Jore, our only third party state legislator (he's with the Constitution Party). See kids, this is why people don't vote third party.
I-156: Isn't that nice, they wanted to kneecap unions under the guise of "open government". Basically, it would prohibit any organization working for the state from getting involved politically. Looks nice on paper, but in reality, it's meant to make it impossible for state employee unions to do any sort of political advocacy.
California Prop measures are generally terrible ideas. It would take an unbelievably strong case for me to vote yes on any of them in general. Prop 8 will be watched across the country though.
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.
I hate this shit, it seems like every election I have to vote down gambling measures.
Other Ohio Issues:
Issue 1 – Petition Deadlines
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
In June 2008, the Ohio General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution 3 - a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution to change the filing deadlines for future statewide ballot initiatives. If approved, HJR 3, or Issue I, as the initiative will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot, will require individuals or groups seeking to file constitutional amendments, initiated statutes, or referendums to file such petitions not later than 125 days before an election.
Currently, petitions for such issues must be filed not later than 90 days before an election for constitutional amendments and initiated statutes and not later than 60 days before an election.
The Ohio Ballot Board, on August 7 prescribed the official language to be voted on at the November 2008 election, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, and the arguments supporting and opposing Issue I.
If Issue I is approved, it will go into effect immediately.
Issue 2 – “Clean Ohio†Bond Program
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
At the request of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly has placed HJR 5, better known as the “Clean Ohio†program for environmental conservation and revitalization on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Clean Ohio, which will be Issue II on the November 2008 ballot, is a $400 million bonds program that will permit the State of Ohio to use such funds for conservation and environmental revitalization efforts. The preservation and conservation of farmland, park and recreation areas, forest, water, and natural resources are among those areas potentially covered under the Clean Ohio program. Clean Ohio would also permit funds raised to be used for urban revitalization and environmental clean up efforts in urban areas.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the official ballot language to be used November 4, 2008, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, as well as the formal arguments for and against the Clean Ohio initiative.
Issue II - Clean Ohio - will become effective immediately if approved by Ohio voters.
Issue 3 – Water & Private Property Protection
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
The Ohio General Assembly earlier in 2008 passed Amended Substitute Joint Senate Resolution 8. This resolution places a Constitutional Amendment on the November 4, 2008 to provide private property protections for landowners for the water under or flowing through that landowner’s land. State Issue 3 vests private property owners and Ohio municipalities and political subdivisions with certain property rights to groundwater and nonnavigable waterways situated on and/or under that private property owner's land subject to certain limitations.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the formal ballot language, the formal ballot explanation, as well as the official arguments for Issue 3 and against Issue 3. If Issue 3 is approved by Ohio voters, the Constitutional Amendment will become immediately effective.
Issue 5 – Payday Lending Reforms
Referendum
***Issue 5 Not Certified to Ballot Pending Final Signature Review***
The Ohio General Assembly, with support of Governor Ted Strickland, recently passed Substitute House Bill 545. The law, enacted in June 2008, makes various changes to Ohio’s Check Cashing Lending Laws, commonly known as “payday lendingâ€. The new law caps interest and fees on short-term loans to 28 percent APR, down from the 391 percent APR for an average two-week payday loan under the prior law. The referendum seeks to overturn a single provision in HB 545, which effectively would allow payday lenders to continue issuing loans with the higher rates and fees. A ‘yes’ vote on Issue 5 would cap interest rates on a payday loan at 28% APR. A ‘no’ vote would allow payday lenders to continue charging rates and fees that equal 391 % APR on a typical two-week loan.
State Issue 5, the Payday Lending Referendum, is not yet formally certified to the 2008 ballot. Issue 5 is pending signature validation by Ohio county boards of elections to ensure sufficient valid signatures exist for its placement on the ballot and final certification by the Secretary of State's Office. Final certification or rejection for failure to meet Ohio's requirements for statewide ballot issues is expected in early October 2008.
I'm going to vote no on Issue 6 and yes to the others.
What's issue 6? Or did I miss it?
A yes on 6 would change Ohio's constitution to allow a casino in one of our counties. So it's a pro-gambling measure.
Would there be the taxing of these casino's revenues?
There would be, starting at 30%. However if any additional casino's are built in the state and are taxed at a lower rate, then the new casino would be allowed to match that rate. Indian Casino's from my understanding do not pay taxes so through a loophole in the way the amendment is written, the casino that would be built could have the potential not to pay any taxes.
Beyond the tax issue, I'm mostly anti-gambling. Casino's and gambling do far more harm than good and I don't see the need to have one in Ohio. If I had my way, I would get rid of the State lottery as well since it's basically just a tax on the poor.
So, MT. C-44: Currently, the MT Constitution does not allow state pension funds to be invested in the stock market. This initiative would change that to allow for 25% investment in stocks. I'm of two minds on this. One one hand, allowing investment of government pension funds may allow the nest egg to grow faster, and the state can use control of investments to invest in companies that benefit the state. On the other hand, look at the last couple of weeks. This one's going to need pondering.
I would lean towards no because of the obvious one in the news right now, but also consider what the fund currently does: it acts a source of capital to shore up the government/banks which benefits both the government/banks and the employees by providing stability and it does not end up a source of corruption. Someone would need to be in charge of that money and if its in the stock market there's always a danger of abuse.
Any other California voters care to elaborate as to why Prop 2 is a bad idea? I saw Feral and Hilger were both against it, but it doesn't sound like too bad of an idea to me.
It's a very broadly sweeping proposition that, if we were to decide it goes too far, can only be overturned or amended by a future proposition. It's too much too soon for me.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Well the stock market isn't doing so hot, but the pension's actuaries are going to be well aware of this and even though they're given the ability to invest in the stock market, don't necessarily have to do so, or certainly not up to the full 25%.
I'm actually surprised that any pension fund would not already have stock investments. Ours does, but has 70 year funding timelines and even large downturns, if not permanently disastrous, are not going to have a significant effect on our fund.
Well the stock market isn't doing so hot, but the pension's actuaries are going to be well aware of this and even though they're given the ability to invest in the stock market, don't necessarily have to do so, or certainly not up to the full 25%.
I'm actually surprised that any pension fund would not already have stock investments. Ours does, but has 70 year funding timelines and even large downturns, if not permanently disastrous, are not going to have a significant effect on our fund.
It's not that they didn't want to, but that they were actually forbidden to do so in the Constitution.
So I'm looking at the ballot measures in Louisiana and am some what clueless about most of them.
Anyone have any opinions about them?
Wow that's inside baseball stuff.
Do other states provide a pro and con argument by the sponsors of the bill and someone representing the opposition? One side makes an argument about why it should be enacted, the other why it shouldn't so there's a bit more of an informed decision.
So I'm looking at the ballot measures in Louisiana and am some what clueless about most of them.
Anyone have any opinions about them?
Wow that's inside baseball stuff.
Do other states provide a pro and con argument by the sponsors of the bill and someone representing the opposition? One side makes an argument about why it should be enacted, the other why it shouldn't so there's a bit more of an informed decision.
In our guide, not only do they have that, they even have a rebuttal of those sections.
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
To sum up:
SB 295 makes it easier for the goverment to instigate eminent domain property seizures in minority and low-income areas.
HB 461 makes it easier to take the seized property and give it to people who will develop it.
Call me crazy but the idea of those two working in concert is terrifying.
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
Translation: They're trying to get rid of all those pesky minorities.
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
To sum up:
SB 295 makes it easier for the goverment to instigate eminent domain property seizures in minority and low-income areas.
HB 461 makes it easier to take the seized property and give it to people who will develop it.
Call me crazy but the idea of those two working in concert is terrifying.
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
Translation: They're trying to get rid of all those pesky minorities.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Hmmm now where in Louisiana might they want to seize property against the will of the owners, especially 'blighted' property, and give it to developers?
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
Translation: They're trying to get rid of all those pesky minorities.
SB 295 makes it easier for the goverment to instigate eminent domain property seizures in minority and low-income areas.
HB 461 makes it easier to take the seized property and give it to people who will develop it.
Call me crazy but the idea of those two working in concert is terrifying.
Saying that this combo is terrifying is like saying water's a little wet.
And honestly, I would not have thought of that just looking at the measures.
So I know to vote no on those.
That still leaves things like No. 2 which says that extraordinary sessions of the legilature have to be proclamed a week in advance. I don't know if that is shortening the time period? Extending it? Creating one? Is it good to require this? Bad? I have no idea.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Christ, the only relevant thing I could find through Google was this:
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
Translation: They're trying to get rid of all those pesky minorities.
SB 295 makes it easier for the goverment to instigate eminent domain property seizures in minority and low-income areas.
HB 461 makes it easier to take the seized property and give it to people who will develop it.
Call me crazy but the idea of those two working in concert is terrifying.
Saying that this combo is terrifying is like saying water's a little wet.
And honestly, I would not have thought of that just looking at the measures.
So I know to vote no on those.
That still leaves things like No. 2 which says that extraordinary sessions of the legilature have to be proclamed a week in advance. I don't know if that is shortening the time period? Extending it? Creating one? Is it good to require this? Bad? I have no idea.
The way I look at that it would really inhibit the legislature in a time of crisis.
"Okay the world's exploding! Also there's a typhoon! We need to get the government moving!"
"Alright... gimme a week."
Of course, this is somewhat dependent on the definition of "Extraordinary sessions of the legislature".
Hi I'm Vee!Formerly VH; She/Her; Is an E X P E R I E N C ERegistered Userregular
edited October 2008
Regarding the California Props 7 and 10: Prop 7 seems to have every organization in the state against it (including both the Republican and Democratic parties, incidentally), which makes me very wary of it. Prop 10 allocates too much money without offering enough of a guarantee of actual change for the environment.
They both sound okay on the surface, but when I'm not entirely sure which way to go on a Proposition, my instinct is to vote "No" and save the money. California's already in debt, we don't need to make it worse.
Posts
I am, too. I'm voting yes on it. It also effectively decriminalizes marijuana possession across the state.
I'm also voting no on 6 and 9, which are basically boondoggles for the prison lobby.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
1A - Yes. I'm a strong supporter of the high-speed railway.
2 - No. Goes too far, doesn't belong in the Constitution.
3 - Yes. You all know my feelings on health care. More money for hospitals, yay.
4 - Fuck no. In a perfect world I'd be all for parental notification laws on abortion, but we're far from a perfect world.
5 - Yes. Reducing sentences for nonviolent drug offenders and increasing funding for rehab programs are good things.
6 - Hell no. I bet the prison lobby loves this one.
7 - Undecided. I need to do more research.
8 - Hahaha no.
9 - No. We already have some strong victim's rights laws in CA. We don't need more.
10 - Undecided. Need more research.
11 - Undecided. Need more research.
12 - Undecided. I want to go through the text and the arguments with a fine-toothed comb.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
What does 9 do?
The stuff I don't have a problem with: expanding the number of people who have a right to be present at any criminal or parole hearing, requiring that the victim and family members be given ample notification when a hearing is going to be rescheduled, and requiring judges to take the safety of a crime victim or their family into account when setting bail.
Stuff I do have a problem with: requiring that judges allow victims to speak at any criminal hearing (not all hearings are appropriate for that), further restricting the ability of county and state government to schedule early parole hearings for certain inmates to alleviate prison overcrowding, requiring that every criminal be required to provide restitution and that restitution must always be paid before court fees and fines.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
thanks.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I'd be careful with this one. There's already a shortage of nurses and nurses' aids due in large part to lack of teachers for nursing programs. I don't know much about the Washington ballot measure specifically, it might be a good thing, or it might not... I wouldn't want to vote on it blindly, is all I'm saying.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, on further consideration, I really have no clue what the ideal number of training hours is, so I won't vote on it.
1A (High Speed Rail Bond): Yes. Infrastructure is good.
2 (Standards for Confining Farm Animals): No.
3 (Children's Hospital Bond Act): Yes. Hospitals + Infrastructure = Good.
4 (Parental Notification for Abortions): Hell no.
5 (Rehabilitation/Parole/Sentencing for Nonviolent Drug Offenses): Yes. Prisons are vastly overpopulated, and a large part of that is "drug crime"--minor drug offenses should see more relaxed sentencing, and rehabilitation has a tangible impact on recidivism rates.
6 (Police Funding and Increases in Criminal Penalties): No. Meh, I don't necessarily have a problem with increasing funding for police forces (I mean, it has a distinct correlation with reduced crime IIRC) but then the Proposition goes on to define new crimes and increase criminal penalties (many up to a life sentence). I don't think we need more people going into our jails.
7 (Renewable Energy 1): No. This and the other energy statute are the ones I'm least sure about; but from what I gather about 7 a lot of alternative energy producers and environmental groups are opposing it. As far as I can tell this is because it shuts out smaller competitors from the market (or something?).
8 (Ban on Same-Sex Marriage): Hell to the motherfucking nizzo.
9 (Victims Rights/Parole Stuff): No, and largely for the same reasons as Prop 6. While I have nothing against victims rights, the proposition bars early release for inmates and tightens up parole hearings--keeping people in prison for longer (even if courts think that they deserve to be let out).
10 (Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy): Yes. Like I said before though, this is one of the propositions I know least about. The only argument I've heard against it is that some of the money would go to one of its biggest sponsors (Boone Pickens), but I don't think this is some fucking stunning revelation so whatever.
11 (Redistricting): Yes. Gerrymandering pisses me off and it would be nice to have that change. Now, I don't think Prop 11 is some sort of panacea considering that existing legislators have a say in who becomes a "redistricting commissioner". On the other hand, it could shake things up a little and it doesn't really cost us anything.
12 (Veterans Bond): Yes. Pretty shitty time to be in the military right now, and I think the government doesn't really do enough to reward service.
Legislative referrals:
Measure 54: amends constitution, allowing 18 year olds to run for school board (currently an inoperative clause.) Voting Yes.
Measure 55: changes redistricting procedure to allow legislators redistricted mid-term to finish their term representing the district as-elected. Voting yes.
Measure 56: changes constitution, repeals double majority requirement for property tax levies. Oregon currently requires that not only a majority of voters in regular elections support a tax increase, but that 50+1% of registered voters actually vote. This would remove the 50+1 percent requirement. Voting yes.
Measure 57: One of two crime-related measures on the ballot. See Measure 61, below.
Citizen petitions:
Measure 58: would prohibit Oregon schools from teaching "immersion" programs in any language but english for more than two years. I'm voting no. Also the first of several Bill Sizemore* sponsored measures on the ballot this year.
Measure 59: Allows taxpayers to fully deduct federal taxes from their state returns. Would be a huge blow to state revenue. I'm voting no. Another Bill Sizemore* measure.
Measure 60: Mandates that teachers' pay and retention be determined by "classroom performance" and [who is] "most qualified." Those two terms are not defined in the measure. I'm voting no. This is Bill Sizemore* measure #3.
Measure 61: The second half of the crime-measure double whammy.
Basically, what happened is that former state legislator and gubernatorial candidate Kevin Mannix has been pushing this bill for almost a year. It mandates pretty draconian sentences for property crimes (even first time offenses), and would require substantial new prison construction and spending. The legislature, in special session last winter, attempted to compromise with Mannix by referring a compromise bill, which is Measure 57. Mannix wasn't happy enough with that, though, and pushed ahead with his own initiative. Both are on the ballot, and assuming both pass, the one receiving more votes will take effect.
The legislature's bill will also impose new sentences and new spending, but it is substantially less draconian and spends a good deal of money on treatment and other alternatives to incarceration. It's the better bill, and it should come out on top. The situation has created a dilemma for a lot of progressives, who in a vaccuum would oppose both bills, and feel as though they are being forced to vote for Measure 57 to avoid the more draconian bill. I will probably vote yes on 57 and no on 61, but I haven't decided yet.
Measure 62: Would require that 15% of Oregon Lottery revenue be devoted to law enforcement and crime prevention. I'm voting against this.
Measure 63: Allows homeowners to make home improvements costing less than $35,000 without first obtaining a building permit. Bill Sizemore* measure #4. I'm voting against this, basically because Sizemore is a douchebag, and because a bunch of smart people seem to think this bill will create problems.
Measure 64: "Prohibits money collected with the use of public resources from being used for political purposes." This, basically, is a union-busting measure that would prevent them from using membership dues in their political advocacy. Bill Sizemore* #5. I'm voting against it.
Measure 65: Arguably the most interesting measure on the ballot, measure 65 would give Oregon an "open" primary, as opposed to the current partisan primaries. This means that the top two vote-getters in the primary election would advance to the general, regardless of party affiliation. It's being supported by a laundry list of Oregon political luminaries, including former Gov. Kitzhaber (whose name is basically solid gold in the state.) It's being opposed by basically every organized political party, including minor parties like the Greens and the Independent Party (yes, they're a party in Oregon.)
The argument in favor is basically "fuck political parties"; make the primary nonpartisan and let voters decide. It's not a bad idea, and there are some states that already do it this way. Arguably it provides voters in currently "safe" legislative districts with more choices.
There are a couple of arguments against it; the one that persuades me is cost. An open primary in Oregon would mean that campaigns would have to go full bore basically from January to November. This would massively increase the financial cost of running for office, deterring candidates who work full time, have less money or who are seen as less viable. As someone who spent the recent primary working for a comparatively underfunded legislative candidate, this is already a problem. No need to make it worse. Most states that do have open primaries hold them closer to the general election; Washington State's open legislative primary is held in August, which allows campaigns to start later. Measure 65 doesn't move Oregon's primary from mid-May.
I'm going to vote against 65, for the cost reason and because while it's a neat idea, I don't think it will actually do a very good job of solving the problems our elections suffer from: mostly, the influence of money. I actually tend to think that this measure would exacerbate them.
*Bill Sizemore information below
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Proposal 08-1:
The proposed law would:
· Permit physician approved use of marijuana by registered patients with debilitating medical conditions including cancer, glaucoma, HIV, AIDS, hepatitis C, MS and other conditions as may be approved by the Department of Community Health.
· Permit registered individuals to grow limited amounts of marijuana for qualifying patients in an enclosed, locked facility.
· Require Department of Community Health to establish an identification card system for patients qualified to use marijuana and individuals qualified to grow marijuana.
· Permit registered and unregistered patients and primary caregivers to assert medical reasons for using marijuana as a defense to any prosecution involving marijuana.
Proposal 08-2:
The proposed constitutional amendment would:
· Expand use of human embryos for any research permitted under federal law subject to the following limits: the embryos --
-- are created for fertility treatment purposes;
-- are not suitable for implantation or are in excess of clinical needs;
-- would be discarded unless used for research;
-- were donated by the person seeking fertility treatment.
· Provide that stem cells cannot be taken from human embryos more than 14 days after cell division begins.
· Prohibit any person from selling or purchasing human embryos for stem cell research.
· Prohibit state and local laws that prevent, restrict or discourage stem cell research, future therapies and cures.
I'll be voting yes to both. Yes to Prop 1, not because I care personally but because I just want kids to shut the fuck up about the man; yes to Prop 2 because it's actually a good idea and will help to keep the bio-research industry here and hopefully allow med students to stay in the damn state for a good job.
Unfortunetly Ohio does: Issue 6.
I hate this shit, it seems like every election I have to vote down gambling measures.
Other Ohio Issues:
Issue 1 – Petition Deadlines
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
In June 2008, the Ohio General Assembly approved House Joint Resolution 3 - a proposed amendment to the Ohio Constitution to change the filing deadlines for future statewide ballot initiatives. If approved, HJR 3, or Issue I, as the initiative will appear on the November 4, 2008 ballot, will require individuals or groups seeking to file constitutional amendments, initiated statutes, or referendums to file such petitions not later than 125 days before an election.
Currently, petitions for such issues must be filed not later than 90 days before an election for constitutional amendments and initiated statutes and not later than 60 days before an election.
The Ohio Ballot Board, on August 7 prescribed the official language to be voted on at the November 2008 election, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, and the arguments supporting and opposing Issue I.
If Issue I is approved, it will go into effect immediately.
Issue 2 – “Clean Ohio” Bond Program
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
At the request of Ohio Governor Ted Strickland, the Ohio General Assembly has placed HJR 5, better known as the “Clean Ohio” program for environmental conservation and revitalization on the November 4, 2008 general election ballot. Clean Ohio, which will be Issue II on the November 2008 ballot, is a $400 million bonds program that will permit the State of Ohio to use such funds for conservation and environmental revitalization efforts. The preservation and conservation of farmland, park and recreation areas, forest, water, and natural resources are among those areas potentially covered under the Clean Ohio program. Clean Ohio would also permit funds raised to be used for urban revitalization and environmental clean up efforts in urban areas.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the official ballot language to be used November 4, 2008, the official explanation of the measure for Ohio voters, as well as the formal arguments for and against the Clean Ohio initiative.
Issue II - Clean Ohio - will become effective immediately if approved by Ohio voters.
Issue 3 – Water & Private Property Protection
Constitutional Amendment
Qualified to the Ballot
The Ohio General Assembly earlier in 2008 passed Amended Substitute Joint Senate Resolution 8. This resolution places a Constitutional Amendment on the November 4, 2008 to provide private property protections for landowners for the water under or flowing through that landowner’s land. State Issue 3 vests private property owners and Ohio municipalities and political subdivisions with certain property rights to groundwater and nonnavigable waterways situated on and/or under that private property owner's land subject to certain limitations.
The Ohio Ballot Board recently approved the formal ballot language, the formal ballot explanation, as well as the official arguments for Issue 3 and against Issue 3. If Issue 3 is approved by Ohio voters, the Constitutional Amendment will become immediately effective.
Issue 5 – Payday Lending Reforms
Referendum
***Issue 5 Not Certified to Ballot Pending Final Signature Review***
The Ohio General Assembly, with support of Governor Ted Strickland, recently passed Substitute House Bill 545. The law, enacted in June 2008, makes various changes to Ohio’s Check Cashing Lending Laws, commonly known as “payday lending”. The new law caps interest and fees on short-term loans to 28 percent APR, down from the 391 percent APR for an average two-week payday loan under the prior law. The referendum seeks to overturn a single provision in HB 545, which effectively would allow payday lenders to continue issuing loans with the higher rates and fees. A ‘yes’ vote on Issue 5 would cap interest rates on a payday loan at 28% APR. A ‘no’ vote would allow payday lenders to continue charging rates and fees that equal 391 % APR on a typical two-week loan.
State Issue 5, the Payday Lending Referendum, is not yet formally certified to the 2008 ballot. Issue 5 is pending signature validation by Ohio county boards of elections to ensure sufficient valid signatures exist for its placement on the ballot and final certification by the Secretary of State's Office. Final certification or rejection for failure to meet Ohio's requirements for statewide ballot issues is expected in early October 2008.
I'm going to vote no on Issue 6 and yes to the others.
Magic Online - Bertro
First read:
I-985 is the traffic congestion measure. I agree with a lot of the principles in it but I think there's too many ill-fitting specifics. I like the idea of opening carpool lanes off peak hours, but we don't need legislation to do this (it already happens on 405 and parts of 520) and I don't think setting specific times is the right thing to do -- for example peak hours on the Seattle Eastside are more like 7-10 and 4-7 due to Microsoft commuting patterns. Synchronizing traffic lights can be helpful in certain areas, but I think the call on this should be left up to local jurisdictions instead of being a statewide requirement. Against
I-1000 is the assisted suicide measure. Since this is a sensitive topic, I'm spoilering my opinion to avoid derailing the thread:
I-1029 is the long-term caregiver certification proposal. It sets a training requirement in hours but has exemptions for those providing unpaid care to immediate family members and certain classes of caregivers who can pass the state exams without training. It also adds requirements for criminal background checks for caregivers. I'm generally in favor of more training for this sort of thing, but I see the point that in some areas where training's hard to get it may limit availability. I need to do some more thinking on this.
The Wiki page has some interesting things to say:
This bit actually does seem weird:
Seems that empowering local hippies to enforce animal cruelty laws might not be a good idea?
Also not a fan of deputizing (possibly) PETA folks.
Where are all these students going? The same thing happens in Massachusetts (student flight) I've heard similar complaints from the southern New England states, NY, PA and IL. Prop 1 is irrelevant because its in violation of federal law. Prop 2 I'd support.
Why do some states feel the need to have 10 initiatives and others (much more sensibly) have 1-4 that people can actually consider and form an informed position on?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
A yes on 6 would change Ohio's constitution to allow a casino in one of our counties. So it's a pro-gambling measure.
Magic Online - Bertro
Would there be the taxing of these casino's revenues?
More interesting are the ones that failed, because they show that we're actually not a bunch of backwards rednecks (remember, we were the first state to elect a woman to Congress!):
There would be, starting at 30%. However if any additional casino's are built in the state and are taxed at a lower rate, then the new casino would be allowed to match that rate. Indian Casino's from my understanding do not pay taxes so through a loophole in the way the amendment is written, the casino that would be built could have the potential not to pay any taxes.
Beyond the tax issue, I'm mostly anti-gambling. Casino's and gambling do far more harm than good and I don't see the need to have one in Ohio. If I had my way, I would get rid of the State lottery as well since it's basically just a tax on the poor.
Magic Online - Bertro
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It's a very broadly sweeping proposition that, if we were to decide it goes too far, can only be overturned or amended by a future proposition. It's too much too soon for me.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm actually surprised that any pension fund would not already have stock investments. Ours does, but has 70 year funding timelines and even large downturns, if not permanently disastrous, are not going to have a significant effect on our fund.
It's not that they didn't want to, but that they were actually forbidden to do so in the Constitution.
Anyone have any opinions about them?
Wow that's inside baseball stuff.
Do other states provide a pro and con argument by the sponsors of the bill and someone representing the opposition? One side makes an argument about why it should be enacted, the other why it shouldn't so there's a bit more of an informed decision.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In our guide, not only do they have that, they even have a rebuttal of those sections.
Louisiana voters will consider two initiatives, both dealing with government seizure of private property. SB 295 would eliminate restrictions on eminent domain seizure of property deemed "blighted," a designation that is often applied to minority-owned and/or low-income property regardless of its condition. HB 461 would smooth over paperwork requirements associated with the transfer of government-seized property to new owners.
There must be like eight or nine different Pro and Con statements on each of the ballot intitiatives.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
To sum up:
SB 295 makes it easier for the goverment to instigate eminent domain property seizures in minority and low-income areas.
HB 461 makes it easier to take the seized property and give it to people who will develop it.
Call me crazy but the idea of those two working in concert is terrifying.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Translation: They're trying to get rid of all those pesky minorities.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Saying that this combo is terrifying is like saying water's a little wet.
Hmmm now where in Louisiana might they want to seize property against the will of the owners, especially 'blighted' property, and give it to developers?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
And honestly, I would not have thought of that just looking at the measures.
So I know to vote no on those.
That still leaves things like No. 2 which says that extraordinary sessions of the legilature have to be proclamed a week in advance. I don't know if that is shortening the time period? Extending it? Creating one? Is it good to require this? Bad? I have no idea.
The way I look at that it would really inhibit the legislature in a time of crisis.
"Okay the world's exploding! Also there's a typhoon! We need to get the government moving!"
"Alright... gimme a week."
Of course, this is somewhat dependent on the definition of "Extraordinary sessions of the legislature".
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
They both sound okay on the surface, but when I'm not entirely sure which way to go on a Proposition, my instinct is to vote "No" and save the money. California's already in debt, we don't need to make it worse.