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.

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

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

THE WORST PROPS …

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.

70— GAMING RIGHTS
Corrupt tribes running immoral businesses don’t need such pandering and perks.

71— FUNDING FOR STEM CELL RESEARCH
Just say no to mad scientists who today want dead fetuses and tomorrow will want cloned ones!

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?

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

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?

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.