Now that California sends mail-in ballots to everyone, I figure I should do my usual recommendations a little earlier than usual. Keep in mind a couple of things:
- I don't like ballot initiatives because they lock things into the state constitution that shouldn't usually be locked in. So my standards are high for a Yes vote.
- I especially hate ballot-box budgeting. It's a cancer.
- I believe the point of ballot initiatives is to give grass roots activists a chance to pass legislation opposed by moneyed interests. However, modern initiatives are largely the handiwork of corporations and the ultra-wealthy. I will almost never vote for an initiative sponsored primarily by businesses or billionaires.
That noted, here are my recommendations:
Proposition 1: YES. This initiative places certain abortion and other reproductive rights into the California constitution. I doubt it makes much difference, but you never know. And to me it qualifies as something I'd like to have locked in forever.
Proposition 26: NO. This is one of a pair of initiatives regarding sports gambling. Prop 26 adds sports gambling, dice games (such as craps), and roulette to the menu of games allowed at tribal casinos. Four privately owned horse racing tracks (Santa Anita, Del Mar, Los Alamitos, and Golden Gate Fields) would also be allowed to provide in-person sports gambling. This is the last thing that needs to be locked in forever via constitutional amendment, and my preference anyway is for California to simply legalize online sports gambling with no strings attached.
Proposition 27: NO. This one allows online sports gambling, but only if it's affiliated with a California tribe. That's completely ridiculous.
(Note that these two propositions are sponsored by different tribal groups, which has turned them into wars between big and small tribes. Also, both allocate some of the profits to various good causes, which is getting a lot of attention even though it's hardly a central issue. One thing they have in common is that both initiatives provide money to problem gambling programs, which is pretty damn cynical if you ask me.)
Proposition 28: NO. This proposition requires the state to provide funding for arts education that's equal to at least 1% of the funding required for public schools. It's the worst kind of ballot box budgeting.
Proposition 29: NO. This is the third time that health care unions have placed a measure on the ballot requiring dialysis centers to have physicians or physician-equivalents on the premises during all opening hours. It's unnecessary and everyone knows it. Are they ever going to give up on this?
Proposition 30: NO. California has a goal of selling only electric vehicles by 2035:
For cars in general, California's goal is to have 100% of sales of new cars be electric by 2035. A complete switchover probably won't happen until 2050 or so as older cars bought before 2035 are gradually junked and replaced with new electric cars.
However, the goal is far more stringent for rideshare companies: their fleets are required to actually complete 90% of the switchover by 2030. But where will the money come from to do this?
Prop 30 adds a 1.75% tax on income over $2 million, with the money dedicated to helping people and businesses make the switch to electric.¹ It's primarily funded by Lyft, which wants public money to fund electric rideshare vehicles instead of paying for them themselves. In addition to this sketchiness, California is already pushing the limits of taxing the wealthy and probably needs to stop. Then again, California's wealthy are pretty damn wealthy, so they can probably afford it.
¹It would also fund charging stations, and a bit of the money would go to wildfire prevention, which is getting a lot of play in ads even though it's only 20% of the program. Also worth noting: California already has a program to help low-income drivers buy new low-emission vehicles.
Proposition 31: YES. This is a referendum on a law passed a couple of years ago to ban the sale of flavored cigarettes. The law itself seems sensible to me, since flavored cigarettes are largely used to hook children, and in any case it's a law, not a permanent part of the constitution. Funding for the opposition comes, naturally enough, from Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.
Kevin's rule of thumb on CA props is similar to mine---hard NO unless there is a really good reason for a YES. Always important to look for the money interests behind the props!
Same here. Some of the worst things about California government are the products of ballot initiatives.
Kevin keep in mind that MASS passed Romey care that insured all children in MASS were insured health wise. They paid for it through and enormous tax on smokes. I believe a pack of menthol cigs in MASS is near $16 a pack and $170 a carton.
Let the market take care of banning cigs through taxes like Romney did and use the money for a good purpose.
That first "insured" should have been "ensured". Normally this could be ignored, but this IS a comment about "ensurance", right?
In Wisconsin we've got two referenda. Question 1: Let's ban semi-automatic weapons. Answer: Yes. Question 2: Marijuana. Answer: Yes. Should be fun to see the results.
I agree with Kevin, with two corrections:
1. If I see too many commercials against a proposition I smell a rat. Right now the rat is prop 29. Groups who genuinely care for patients don't have so much money. In this case there is also the lie in the opposing arguments: The doctor or nurse practitioner needs to be on the premises; the prop does not say the person should not do work when there is no emergency. Hiring nurse practitioners as shift leaders is all that's required. I'll vote yes. They have already tried but o what? I think they have a case and at any rate they lot three times not because their idea is bad but because they got steam rolled by corporate money.
2. Let's not exaggerate aesthetic considerations like the purity of the constitution. I grew up in Switzerland where initiatives are taken an awful lot more seriously and have been in use since 1872. They make the constitution a bit messy but the country has never faced a crisis because of that messiness.
Why is the higher level of care needed at dialysis centers? Have there been any stories about substandard care and injuries, harm, or death at dialysis centers as a result of a lower level of care? Are you aware of any?
If there aren't any such horror stories, why is the higher level of care needed?
Iowa has one referendum,
Could be worse, they could have just called for secession but they didn't. --Because they're serious and sober adults.
1. I see that the "well regulated militia" justification has mysteriously vanished into the ether.
2. Maybe this is just standard terminology in the Iowa constitution (although I suspect not), but any time I see the word "sovereign" in the context of states or states' rights, I hear echoes of some especially bad moments in American history.
That was my thought.
I grew up in IA, and for the past decade I have been sadly watching the gradual Mississippification of my former home.
Well, that's where the Clan was born, after all.
I live there around the time of 2008 Obama (and met Biden 1 on 1 there) and it was a purplish blue state then. I remember my profs running downtown to celebrate the SCOTSIA ruling on gay marriage in 2009.
If Prop 28 were so reprehensible, somebody could have submitted a ballot argument against it. Since they didn't, they obviously don't care that much about ballot box budgeting. I favor arts education funding in general, so with that kind of anemia from the opposition, I'd feel like a patsy voting against this. Yes.
Baltimore City has a ballot item,Question K, to impose term limits on all elected city officials, including the mayor, city council president and members, and a few others. It is almost entirely funded by the chairman of Sinclair Broadcasting, which owns over 100 mostly conservative TV stations that are Fox affiliated. David Smith, the chairman, paid over $350,000 to collect the signatures, and now that opposition is being voiced, has paid about $150,000 additional for campaigning for his amendment. Smith doesn't live in the city and the local station he owns regularly bashes the city. I have mixed feelings about term limits, but agree with Kevin, multi-millionaires should not create the laws.
Back in the 90s Tom Monaghan (pizza mogul and ultra-rightwing Catholic) spent lavishly trying to get my Michigan home town's* gay rights clause repealed. The first time the voters rejected his effort. The second time his group had the thing worded in a very deceptive way-- and the voters still turned it down.
* Also the town where he founded the first Dominos; maybe he had a feudal lord's attitude about the place.
Why is there a Proposition 1 followed by Proposition 26?
Could it be for the same reason that California abandoned the traditional, each election's propositions are numbered 1, 2, 3, ... because, decades ago, voters were inclined to reflexively vote YES on any Proposition 13?
In other words, to guide the dull-minded electorate down a particular path? Of course it is.
If the ballot is prepped because the electorate is stupid, which it appears to be, then why bother with any of this voting stuff? Or if we are going to continue to have elections, stop these "clever" manipulations and replace it with honest pay-for-your-votes.
In Massachusetts we’ve got a ballot initiative to establish a higher tax bracket for incomes above 1 million. That’s right, the supposedly progressive Commonwealth of Massachusetts currently operates with a flat state income tax. I’ll be voting yes.
Pingback: Ballot props recommendations – update | Civilized Conversation