damnum absque injuria

June 29, 2004

November Ballot Initiatives

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:43 pm

Daniel Weintraub has the numbers on November’s ballot initiatives. Boifromtroy has his recommendations; here are mine.

59. Tenatively, yes. More sunlight on government information is generally a good thing. Tentative only because I’m not sure what’s wrong with the existing law.

60. Sure, why not. I’d rather we didn’t vote to mess with the primaries at all, but if we must, then at least vote for this one as a defensive measure against the uncommonly silly Proposition 62.

61. No. Ever notice how these bond measures always target the tear-jerkers rather than the less popular programs government doesn’t even ask us about funding? This time it’s children’s hospitals. Call their bluff.

62. No. This is the constitutional version of Proposition 198, the silly “blanket primary” law we tried in the 1990s, which resulted in Gray Davis becoming the governor. Probably a bad idea for other reasons, too. Let the parties select their own candidates. If you don’t like their candidates, no one’s stopping you from voting for an independent.

63. No. Another soak-the-rich proposal, which is a great idea if your objective is to get all rich people to leave California and stop paying taxes here.

64. Yes. The Legislature should be doing this on their own, but too many of them are in the pockets of the trial lawyers. No one should be allowed to sue unless they were harmed by the allegedly unfair business practices.

65. No. It’s all well and good to say local governments shouldn’t lose funding, but sometimes money is tight and something has to give.

66. No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Are you out of your freaking mind? No! Unless, of course, you’re a career criminal yourself, or are planning on moving to a neighboring state and want state state’s criminals to relocate here. In that case, vote yes, by all means. Otherwise, vote hell no.

67. No. Unless, of course, you were on crack and voted yes on 66. In that case, you’d better vote yes, as the increased crime rate will also result in the need for expanded emergency room care.

68. Yes. Ever wondered why Nevadans don’t pay state income tax like we do? This is why. Gambling is, for all intents and purposes, a tax on stupid people. Right now, under the newly negotiated compacts, only 10% of the revenue goes to the state. This initiative would bump the percentage up to 25% and allow non-Indians to participate.

69. No. Collecting DNA samples from people convicted of violent offenses is a no-brainer. Collecting it from any adult charged with any felony is not. If this were a bill by the Legislature, I might say pass it now and amend it later. Unfortunately, initiative statutes are difficult to amend, so we’d best tkae a pass on this one now and vote for a better version later.

70. Bo-ring! I like 68 better. Why let the injuns have all the fun? For many years, we screwed them over, only to have them return the favor in the past decade or so. Time to quit playing this back and forth game and start allowing gambling by the same rules for all. But if that’s too much to stomach, this one is probably better than nothing.

71. Neutral. I have no strong opinions on stem cell research. If you oppose it, vote no. If you mildly support it, still vote no, it’s not cheap. But if you’re a big fan who is mad at George Bush for defunding it, then vote yes. It’s better than voting for John Kerry.

72. No. This is a referendum on SB 2, which a “no” vote would repeal. Thus, the people who got this thing on the ballot want you to vote “no,” while those who wanted to keep it off the ballot want you to vote “yes.” Got that? No? Exactly.

10 Responses to “November Ballot Initiatives”

  1. Patterico's Pontifications Says:

    Initiatives Numbered . . . Start the Chant: NO ON 66!
    Dan Weintraub says the initiatives have been numbered — 59 through 72. The one you will hear me talk most about here is 66 — the dangerous pig-in-a-poke initiative designed to water down the Three Strikes law. (For information on…

  2. The Lonewacko Blog Says:

    Just based on the blurbs:

    64. …authorize only California Attorney General or local public officials to sue on behalf of general public to enforce unfair business competition laws.

    I say no. I’m sure there are abuses (I’m not up on the current abuses, but I guess that’s one of the reasons this is here), but there should be an incentive to sue for damage done to the general public. For instance, by companies that hire illegal aliens. Other suits for unfair competition might have been filed on behalf of those companies directly injured, but I’d still like to leave this open.

    67: Wasn’t this put on the ballot by signature gatherers claiming it was for 9/11, when in reality the money goes to what it says in the blurb?

    Regarding bond measures, remember the $10 billion education bond from last election? It’s not enough; once all the schools built using that bond have been built, they’ve determined that they’ll still be short 35,000 seats.

    If that hadn’t been passed, it might have caused a lot of people to wake up to the fact that we can’t continue to be the safety valve for corrupt third-world countries.

  3. Xrlq Says:

    Remember the Trevor Law Group? This law was their bread and butter, and still is for other groups that aren’t as well known. It has nothing to do with protecting the public, and everything to do with getting rich by proving (or worse, falsely claiming) minor violations of arcane laws where no one got hurt and someone stands to get rich. It’s one of the main reasons so many businesses want to leave California, while almost none want to come here.

    I don’t know that you can sue companies for hiring illegal aliens, under this law or otherwise. Do you? If so, why isn’t that happening right and left?

  4. The Lonewacko Blog Says:

    this and its update.

    You tell me why no lawyers aren’t raking in the millions – perhaps billions – off similar suits.

  5. Hugo Says:

    I am happy, XRLQ, to report that we are in complete agreement on Prop 69. And nothing else.

  6. Xrlq Says:

    Interesting, I didn’t know you could bring RICO suits on that basis. Note, however, that both of these suits were brought by parties who alleged they were the victims of the unlawful activity, and could not have been brought by a random private party purporting to act on behalf of the public at large. At the federal level, such cases would likely be unconstitutional, as violatative of Article III (Michael Newdow’s meddling with the Pledge, for example). At the state level, they’re not necessarily unconstitutional, but they are bad policy.

  7. Mike Says:

    Good grief. 14 propositions (and 5 more lined up). Doesn’t our highly-professional legislature do any work?

    I notice they’ve cooled it a little on bond issues. Good idea.

    When they were going around for signatures, 68 and 70 (the Indian gambling measures) were mutually exclusive. I don’t know if that’s still true.

    I’m still undecided on the “3-strikes” one. When it first came in, a lot of bad guys left for other, more agreeable states, which is a definite plus.

    But it seems like the current law isn’t hitting where it should.

    About RICO: has that law ever, ever, ever been used against the thing it’s named after? Ever?

  8. Clark Says:

    I widely agree with your various recommendations, Jeff.

    I as you would strongly support 69, IF it took DNA from CONVICTED felons.


    66— 3-SRIKE REPEAL
    Kicks felons who are a menace to society back out on the streets on technicalities. As a further outrage releases criminals ALREADY SENTENCED! On this last point alone it should go down to defeat.

    Corrupt tribes running immoral businesses don’t need such pandering and perks.

    Just say no to mad scientists who today want dead fetuses and tomorrow will want cloned ones!

  9. Clark Says:

    I’m waiting for Angry Clam to weigh in.

    I’ll be sure to put a big red “X” through any initiative he drops an F-bomb on.

  10. aphrael Says:

    I haven’t read them, so am unwilling to commit, but based on my vague impressions:

    59. Yes. More public access to government information and documentation is always a good thing.

    60. No. The legislature trying an end-run around the voters is never a good thing.

    61. No. Bond measures aren’t a good thing right now.

    62. Yes. I liked Proposition 198, as did the majority of the state’s voters; this is the closest thing we can get to it, so we should give it a shot. It should be mostly irrelevant at the state level, but it could be critical in local elections in heavily gerrymandered districts.

    63. No opinion.

    64. No opinion.

    65. Yes. This measure goes overboard and is too restrictive. But something has to be done; the cities, counties, and local districts are getting raped by the state.

    66. No opinion.

    67. Yes.

    68. Uncertain.

    69. No. Basically the same reason as you.

    70. Uncertain.

    71. Uncertain.

    Nice UI, btw.


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.