Voter Edumacation
Now that I'm back in the land of "let's legislate everything by ballot initiative," preparing to vote requires extensive cliff notes, spread sheets and stealth agenda de-coder rings. Earlier this evening, I dressed up as a Yes on Prop 72 fact sheet and presented the following at a fundraiser. Help, I have sunk to the depths of election geekdom and I can't get up.
If you don't get paid to cull through the stacks of progressive slates, or if you want to be just like me, here's my slate. I went to tonight's event hoping there would be some consensus on 70 (casino gambling) but no such luck. Thoughts?
OK, here you go! The Lunamania Slate...
Complete State Propositions
59 YES
Ensures public access to government information and processes.
60 YES
62 NO
60 and 62 are related. The one with the most votes wins. To make a long story short, 60 maintains the current primary system and ensures candidates from smaller parties will appear on the general election ballot. If 62 were to pass, only the top 2 vote getters would appear on the the general ballot.
60A NO
Requires proceeds of state surplus sales to go to payment of bond debt. These are resources that would otherwise go the general fund.
61 YES
Authorizes $75 million in bonds for capital improvements at children's hospitals. Proponents say you are eeeeeeeeeeevil if you vote against building hospitals for sick children. 1/5 of funds go to acute care hospitals run by the UC system. The remainder goes to nonprofit children’s hospitals which are typically outside of the big private hospital chains.
63 YES
Tax the rich to fund mental health services.
64 NO, NO, NO
64 would deny individuals and advocates the right to enforce consumer protection laws that prohibit fraud and other unfair business practices. Consumer protection laws would be amended to so that only government entities can sue companies engaged in unfair business practices. There are more evils to this proposition, but just vote no.
Nike, Safeway, General Motors, Citigroup are big supporters. Opponents include, MALDEF, the UFW and the APA Legal Center.
1A YES and 65 NO
1A and 65 are related initiatives protecting local govt funding sources from reductions by the State. Budgeting by ballot initiative is a real problem for the numbers impaired (like me,) but as I understand it, 1A would provide local governments with more stable sources of funding. 65 was what local govt was pushing before all sides came together to propose 1A. Note, the Bay Guardian urges no on both. The Greens say yes. Other progressive slates don't take positions.
66 YES, YES, YES
Amends 3 strikes laws so that only "serious and violent" crimes would trigger enhanced sentencing.
67 NO
Estimated $500 million in revenue for privately run hospital chains with only $25 million set aside for community based clinics.
68 NO
68 is the racetrack and card club lobby attempt to break into the casino gaming industry. Also requires tribal casinos to pay 25% of gaming revenue to state.
69 NO, NO, NO
Requires mandatory DNA samples from people arrested or convicted of violent felonies and certain crimes. Note, you don't even have to be convicted of the crime. In effect, this would create a state database of young men of color. To add insult to injury, the database would be funded by increasing fines for traffic stops and tickets.
70 NO(?)
68 and 70 are the gaming initiatives. 70 preserves the tribal monopoly on casino gambling, but requires revenue sharing (8.8%) and increased contributions by tribes seeking to expand. Tribes would be relieved of taxes if the state were to allow non-tribal interests to ruin casinos.
I'm not a huge supporter of raising revenues via gambling and just don't know enough about the compacts with each tribe. To confuse matters, HERE, UNITE and several enviro groups supported the initial compacts because they include provisions that require tribes to remain neutral in any workplace organizing efforts and to comply with state environmental regulations. However, Cal Labor Fed urges a no vote. So does the Bay Guardian.
I'm leaning towards NO. Thoughts?
71 NO
As I see it, there are at least 2 ways to frame this issue. First, where do we stand on the ethics of stem cell research? A debate with strong analogies to the "fetus is a life" argument." Second, what are our budget priorities? Do we really want to spend $3 billion on stem cell research? (over $6 billion after interest.)
Opponents argue that all the money will go to publicly unaccountable biotech and pharmaceutical companies--true that; the money would be better spent on expanding basic health care coverage--true true; it's manipulative to use Christopher Reeve in the ads...RIP Superman.
Proponents argue that in light of the political controvery surrounding stem cell research, this is the only way to ensure secure stem cell research funding. Also, that this will place CA at the forefront of the biotech industry and we will all benefit from the trickle down. Mmm...remember those dot com days?
The polls show it's likely to pass and $6 beeeelion is a lot of money, I'm going to vote no.
72 YES, YES, YES
Requires medium and large employers to provide health insurance for their workers or contribute to a state fund that will provide health insurance for the workers. Protects workers from rising health care costs by requiring employers to pay at least 80% of the premium.
I've dedicated the last 8 weeks of my life to this campaign--VOTE YES dammit.
Oakland
Measure Y YES with reservations
Secures funding for violence prevention programs, but also puts more cops on the streets. This is a compromise measure after failure of Measure R. Given it's a compromise, some folks don't support it. Nancy Nadel and Barbara Lee support it.
Measure Z YES
Makes prosecution of marijuana crimes a low priority.