October 28, 2004
My ballot - Final!
Updated! Final ballot below.
Comments/criticism welcome.
California Propositions:
(All require a simple majority to pass, but some conflict. If two conflicting measures both achieve simple majority, the one with the most "Yes" votes becomes law and the other is disregarded. Conflicting pairs are: 1A and 65, 60 and 62, 68 and 70.)
- Proposition 1A (Protection of Local Revenues): Yes
Forces the state to share more tax revenue with local government, allows local govenments to resist unfunded mandates from the state. Pretty much everyone agrees this is a good thing.
It's not actually nearly as strong as it could be (compare to Prop 65 and to current law), but it helps local governments without immediately devestating the state budget.
CONFLICTS with Prop 65 - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 59 (Public Records, Open Meetings): Yes
The least controversial measure this year, 59 elevates current sunshine laws to the state
constitution and directs courts to interpret liberally in favor of the public's right to know.
- Proposition 60 (Rights of Political Parties): NO (see my later post)
CONFLICTS with Prop 62 - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 60A (Sale of Surplus Property): No (see my later post)
- Proposition 61 (Childrens' Hospitals):
No? Yes
I'm suspicious of bond measures, especially the really feel-good ones. This is a pretty small bond issue, so maybe we can afford it, and health care is important, I guess.
Why do the non-profit-corporate hospitals get 250% as much money per hospital as the UC hospitals, though? Do they really deal with so many more children, or are they the major sponsors, or what?
- Proposition 62 (Open Primaries): Yes (see my later post)
CONFLICTS with Prop 60 - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 63 (Mental Health Services): No
I'm torn. This is a bad way to structure taxes or to write laws,
but mental health services are a significant public good and are
traditionally underserved. Voting No - I don't like these laws that micromanage the state budget. 63 would put these significant new funds into mental health and tie up existing allocations to mental health, preventing ever lowering mental health spending rates - something we may someday want to do.
- Proposition 64 (Unfair Business Competition Laws): No
I have to admit, now I'm just voting No mostly by default because I'm tired.
The Unfair Business Practices law in question needs to be amended; it's been abused by unscrupulous lawyers. Groups that like to sue in the public interest (ACLU and so on) are opposed, saying it would make their jobs harder. I suspect for any serious suit they can find other grounds, and I think the harm to businesses from the frivolous suits may be significant. Anyway, the responsibility for prosecution of suits in the public interest would generally fall to government: AGs and DAs under 64, and the fees recouped from such cases would go into the AG/DAs budgets for consumer protection. (Currently these funds are not restricted?) Here we're both giving up some rights to sue and we're micromanaging revenues. The former's borderline-okay, the latter's not.
- Proposition 65 (Stricter Protection of Local Revenues): No
Prop 65 was proposed by local governments, but later they compromised with the state to recommend Prop 1A instead.
This older proposition would mandate much stricter protection of local revenues, including
not being able to lower some taxes without a vote of the people. Apparently, 65 would create
a giant hole in this year's state budget because it's retroactive to the start of the year or something. Everyone says to vote no.
CONFLICTS with Prop 1A - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 66 (Three Strikes Reform): Yes
After reading all the cases for and against 66 I was torn and leaning hard toward a No, but in the end I'm more moved by the miscarriages of justice under current law than the threat to public safety should 66 pass.
- Proposition 67 (Emergency Medical Services Telephone Tax): No
There are too many frickin' phone taxes - they're like half my phone bill!
This proposed tax is only marginally related to 911 or anything phone-related.
Ridiculous. The tax is capped for residential and low-income users, but not for mobile or business phones, for which it would be significant.
- Proposition 68 (Non-Tribal Gambling): No
68 would be a windfall for racetracks and card clubs, not for the state.
CONFLICTS with Prop 70? - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 69 (DNA Collection):
Yes? No
Initiative statutes can't be modified except by later initiatives,
so they have to be very carefully written.
69 casts too wide a net in DNA-printing all felony arrestees and in only giving one chance to appeal - even to those not charged or found not guilty at trial.
The current DNA database, on the other hand, only contains those convicted of the most serious felonies. (Thanks to Patterico for pointing that out.) We should build a bigger database, but 69 is not the way.
- Proposition 70 (Tribal Gambling Contracts): No
70 would lock us into 99-year contracts, and one source says the
tax provisions might be overturned, leaving us with nothing.
Tribes support it because it's a better deal for them than making a
contract with the Governor.
CONFLICTS with Prop 68? - if both pass, the one with the most votes wins.
- Proposition 71 (Stem Cell Research): No
I don't think the state can afford to take on any additional bond debt right now.
Otherwise, I like the concept.
- Proposition 72 (Employer-Provided Health Insurance, Referendum): Yes
I admit, it's a job-killer, but I think universal health coverage should be our goal; 72 brings that closer. Lots of regulations are job-killers.
Too, since 72 is a referendum on statutes enacted by the legislature, it can be amended by the legislature to resolve problems, unlike statutes created through the initiative process, which can only be amended by another initiative.
Los Angeles City
- Los Angeles City Measure O (Water Clean-up Bonds): Yes
They make it sound important, and I'm all for clean water anyway.
Not sure what percent of the vote this requires.
Los Angeles County
- Los Angeles County Measure A (Sales Tax - Law Enforcement): Yes
The LAPD at least is too small, and while sales tax has problems as a regressive tax and
incentivizing retail over other types of growth, 8.75% is not too high. Local governments
are struggling under increased state and federal mandates and the bad economy.
Proposition 1A may help too.
(Requires a 2/3 majority to pass.)
- Superior Court Judge #18 (Escobedo/Campbell): Escobedo
- Superior Court Judge #29 (Jones/Gomez): Jones
- Superior Court Judge #52 (Priver/Gutierrez): Priver
She's supposed to be more qualified.
- Superior Court Judge #53 (Zeidler/Lopez): Zeidler
Near-universal opinion seems to be that Zeidler's better-qualified.
(Actually, I voted for Lopez by mistake, but it's not one I feel strongly about. Lopez is okay too, so it wasn't worth the hassle of getting a new ballot.)
- Superior Court Judge #69 (Meyer/Groman): Groman
Both candidates well-qualified. Groman has a more judge-like experience, and displays a more liberal bent in her candidate statements, Meyer is an experienced prosecutor and shows more of a law-and-order leaning. Some say Groman did not work well with lawyers in a previous post in Inglewood, but I think the deputy DAs I'm voting for above and the recent ascendancy of the law-and-order-and-safety impulse need to be balanced, so I'll vote for the more liberal Groman.
Further judicial-related reading:
My opinions on the above come heavily from endorsements, I admit, and from light position-reading and web-searching. The trend of the LA Times and MetNews seems to be based almost solely on experience rather than policy, with the MetNews perhaps having a more conservative bent. The LA Weekly and various LA Democratic organizations have more varied and less explained endorsements. The LA Jewish Journal has some background, and smartvoter.org has candidate statements and links to some candidate websites.
Boring/Obvious Races:
- Assembly District #42 (Fredrix/Koretz): Koretz
- Congressional District #30 (Elizalde/Waxman): Waxman
- US Senate (Boxer/Jones):
Gray? (the Libertarian) Boxer
Boxer's annoyed me a couple of times, and I like the libertarians' social-libertarian stances, but their laisse faire economics are totally round the bend. I'd consider a Green candidate if there was one, but -eh - Boxer'll do.
- US President (Kerry/Bush): Kerry
Other peoples' endorsements:
(The newspapers below have non-editorial articles that may also help, but I'm mostly linking to their endorsements pages.)
Impartial analyses:
Update, Nov 3: closing comments now that it's all done - not that I don't want to hear what people have to say, but to prevent spam.
Posted by betty at October 28, 2004 12:12 PM
| TrackBack
I'm curious about your tentative yes on prop 69 ... on initial read it seems like possible good idea but la weekly's comments on it made me think twice, in regards to the potential for abuse. I get freaked out at the thought of giving up so much personal info in the name of safety and this prop makes me hedge a little. What are you thinking about this one?
I think 69 is susceptible to abuse.
I find it hard to imagine the DNA itself being used for nefarious purposes, but I worry about arrest powers being abused for the purpose of getting a suspect's DNA.
I think law enforcement abuses can be fairly well contained by the courts, however I learned something new today that has me leaning back toward a No on 69: our state constitution seems to specify that Initiative Statutes cannot be amended by the legislature without approval of the voters. (Article II, Section 10 (c)) Am I reading that right? If lawmakers can't amend propositions, we have to have really high standards for our votes.
Borderline as this law is, I'd be willing to pass it if the legislature could amend problem areas, but absent that check, I will vote No.
I'd be willing to see a less expansive, more carefully crafted DNA-printing law should be considered.
I've updated the post with more of my reasoning.
For Prop 71 (stem-cell research), I just don't think we have the money. The state is in a really ugly situation fiscally, and every bond measure that's not absolutely necessary makes it worse.