Prop 9 – CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide…

• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
• Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
• Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
• Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
• Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

My Opinion: I probably won’t spend a ton of time on any of the remaining props, but I like this one. The reduction in parole hearings sounds like it’s well overdue and could save money. I read this at ballotpedia:

Proposition 9 would save money because under the current system, taxpayers are spending money to fund hearings for criminals who have little chance of release. For example, supporters of Prop 9 argue, “‘Helter Skelter’ inmates Bruce Davis and Leslie Van Houten, followers of Charles Manson, convicted of multiple brutal murders, have had 38 parole hearings in 30 years. That’s 38 times the families involved have been forced to relive the painful crime and pay their own expenses to attend the hearing, plus 38 hearings that taxpayers have had to subsidize.”

I also like the idea of the victim’s families having increased rights during bail and parole hearings.

Bottom Line: Tom McClintock supports this one. Murderers shouldn’t be released on bail without letting the victims family know.

I am voting YES on Prop 9.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 9.

Prop 8 – ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide…

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

My Opinion: I think the most important thing to understand is what this fight for protecting marriage is really about. It’s not about rights, because domestic partnerships in California already give same-sex couples the same rights as straight couples (it can’t be the exact same because of some Federal laws), but for all intensive purposes it’s the same. They can make health care decisions, they can take the other person’s name, and all the “death” things like wills are included. Go read the list, and then tell me there is something really important that same-sex couples are being denied.

Instead, this is really a battle about the validity of same-sex marriage. Back in 2000 the people of California voted that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, and a narrow decision by seven people overturned the will of an entire state.

Like I said before, this is not a battle for rights. Same-sex couples have all the rights they could need. This is a battle fought by proponents of gay marriage to normalize their behavior in the eyes of society. If the state permits same-sex marriage, then it’s just as valid/normal/beautiful as heterosexual marriage. If the law acknowledges it, then gay marriage is on an equal platform with traditional marriage. Nevermind the traditional roles of the family and the unique gifts that a man and a woman bring to the table. Nevermind an institution that has seen mankind through thousands of years of struggles. Now a gay marriage is just as good as a straight one.

I think that does two major things. The first is that it radically changes an institution that a huge majority of Americans believe in (and against their will when the courts get involved). The second is that by recognizing gay marriage and traditional marriage as equals according to the law, all hell can then break loose. For those of you that think there can be no repercussions, read the following taken from an awesome article by Frank Turek:

A federal court recently denied parents the right to know when homosexuality was being discussed in their Massachusetts schools because gay marriage is now legal there.  Also in Massachusetts, a Catholic adoption agency was forced to close its doors rather than provide children to homosexual couples as the state now demands.  In New Jersey, a Christian ministry was investigated for refusing to conduct a same-sex ceremony.  In California, a doctor was sued for refusing to artificially inseminate a lesbian.

There will be wide reaching implications if this proposition fails, and it will have nothing to do with rights. Gay marriage will be placed at the same level as traditional marriage, and anyone who objects won’t have a leg to stand on.

Bottom Line: This is not a ‘civil rights’ issue. Domestic partnerships allow gay couples to have 99% of the freedoms that straight couples have. Marriage does not need to be redefined. If it is, don’t be surprised when the values of the homosexual community are forced on your places of worship or the education of your children. Don’t say it won’t happen, because it already has.

I am voting YES on Prop 8.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 8.

Prop 2 – STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS

My Summary: I’ll take this straight from the voter guide: “Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.”

My Opinion: First of all, I think there is a clear distinction between humans and animals. Animals shouldn’t be tortured, but I don’t think they are equivalent to humans. So is there really a problem with animal treatment? From what I’ve read California law already calls for the humane treatment of animals, so I’m leery of why we need a ballot proposition to fix this “problem.” A ballot proposition seems like a stupid way to address this. Why not do it in the legislature where the politicians could work with poultry and dairy farmers? Personally, I think it’s somewhat of a power grab by animal rights activists. An ad on tv shows a forklift rolling a cow over on the ground. Obviously that’s unacceptable, and it’s probably against California law right now, but why do they show that in the commercial when the bill is about animal housing? To tug at your heart strings and make the farm, dairy, and poultry people look evil. That’s disingenuous.

I actually find the economic effects more compelling. I’ll copy and paste a couple I found at Ballotpedia:

A May 2008 study by Promar International that was commissioned by opponents to Prop. 2 estimated the fiscal impact of the measure on the California agriculture industry and consumers. This study concluded:

* 95% of the California egg industry and accompanying economic output would be lost by 2015.
* The total current economic output of the industry is $648 million and 3,561 jobs.
* Egg production costs would increase by 76%.

There was also a UC Davis study that estimated the cost of eggs would increase by 25%, but it would be a mute point because most of the egg producing farms would just move out of state. Overall the impact to the California economy would be a big negative. Instead of getting our eggs from our local economy, we would get more from out of state than we do now, and possibly Mexico.

Bottom Line: I don’t think an issue like this should be decided by a poorly worded proposition. If the legislature thinks this is a big issue, then they can duke it out and make some laws (that’s their job!).

I am voting NO on Prop 2.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 2.

As the first in a series of posts, let me give you a little background on what we’re doing, and where I come from when I decide how to vote on ballot measures.

Everyday for the next 12 days Geeky Weekly and I will post about the props in order at right around 6 pm. Now I’ve got a baby, and I know Geeky Weekly has a life, so if they don’t come at precisely that time, you’ll have to forgive us. We’re posting these completely independent of each other, so it will be interesting to see if there are any differences of opinion.

Before I post about Prop 1A, let me give you a little background on my approach. For the most part, if a ballot measure has the word “bond” anywhere in it, I usually vote no. In case you don’t know how bonds work, it’s basically the government taking out a loan. They sell the bonds now at a certain price, and then pay them back later with interest. I’m not sure if all bonds are sold at the same promised interest rate, but as you’ll see in this post, the bond measure for Prop 1A costs twice as much as it should (because of interest). I understand that for some “big” projects it makes sense to take out a loan, much like a homeowner doesn’t usually buy a house outright, but takes a loan and makes payments. The problem with California selling more bonds, is that we’re broke! Until Sacramento makes healthy spending decisions, there is no way I can support a bond measure that will saddle us with moe debt in the future.

Beyond bond measures, most propositions are either social issues or “fluff.” For the social issues, I of course lean to the conservative side, so you won’t be surprised there. For the “fluff” factor, anybody and their mother can get a proposition on the ballot, and I can’t remember seeing one in the last eight years that makes government bureaucracy smaller. So unless something about it strikes me as an important issue, I’m probably a no on anything that just adds to the size of government because some self-interest felt it needed to be on the ballot.

With all of that being said, here are the main places I’m looking to for how to vote. A great resource for a conservative point of view is Tom McClintock. You can also read the pro and con arguments in the Voter Guide. I’m even looking at the LA Times, but mainly because it lists a lot of donors, which can be a good indicator of whether or not I agree.

Now on to the props!

Prop 1A – SAFE, RELIABLE HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN BOND ACT

My Summary: This would authorize the sale of $10 billion dollars in bonds to help fund a bullet train between Orange County and San Francisco. The estimated cost of the actual train is $45 billion.

My Opinion: There are a couple problems with this, the first being that it’s a bond measure. The $10 billion dollars in bonds will end up costing $20 billion. As a state we already have over $100 billion in bond debt, so should we really approve more? My other problem is, do we really need this? Like many in So Cal I’m stuck thinking about how far I want to live from work because the freeways are so congested, but instead of fixing that issue we’re trying to spend money on a bullet train? Are there that many people that need to commute between San Fran and LA? I highly doubt it. My last big problem is, I can’t find where the other $35 billion dollars is supposed to come from. From the voter guide: “Section 8(e) says the bond funds are “. . . intended to encourage the federal government and the private sector to make a significant contribution toward the construction…” So they want they state to go further into debt, when they don’t even have the rest of the money to complete the project? The whole thing sounds like a joke.

Bottom Line: This is a prime example of why the government is so pathetic at accomplishing anything. Until Sacramento can balance the books, I refuse to support bond measures. The proponents of the prop claim that it won’t raise taxes, but don’t be fooled. If it weren’t for the $100 billion in debt we are right now, there would be no budget crisis. The ballot measure itself might not raise taxes, but when it saddles the state with debt, someone will have to pay for it. Right now I don’t trust the politicians in Sacramento to cut anything, and when push comes to shove, the only alternative is to raise taxes.

I am voting NO on Prop 1A.

Make sure you visit Geeky Weekly for his take on Prop 1A.

Prop 87 - Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute

My Summary: Straight from the voter guide: "Tax of 1.5% to 6% (depending on oil price per barrel) on producers of oil extracted in California. Prohibits producers from passing tax to consumers."

My Opinion: More taxes! Once again, higher taxes are a bad thing. How producers would be prohibited from passing it on to consumers, I have no idea. It’s simple economics, as Tom McClintock points out: "When you tax something, you get less of it and the price goes up." These taxes would supposedly go to researching alternative fuels and such. My opinion on this topic is this: private business will handle it. If it is economically feasable to use alternative fuels, private business will be there to turn a profit. Aside from private business, the only alternative fuel policy I would support is a government sponsored, nationwide program like Brazil has done with ethanol. Little pet projects like this prop are just a waste of money.

Bottom Line: I went 26 days between my last two fill-ups, so I don’t think gas prices or alternatives are really that necessary. If Toyota can turn a profit with a Prius, they will. If not, it doesn’t make any sense.

I am voting NO on Prop 87.

2006 California Election Page