California Voter Guide
I was going to write one up, but my colleague at RedState, Kira Davis, has already written one — and I can’t say I disagree with any of it.
I just have this to add: please, please, PLEASE vote against Proposition 57. If you care about the safety of our society, it’s important. (I say this knowing that the polls show it will pass comfortably. All I can do is tell you what’s right.) It will defang important sentencing enhancements, and it most assuredly is not targeted at non-violent criminals, notwithstanding its deceptive title. More details here.
Also: vote against the repeal of the death penalty (Proposition 62), even though this one is already likely to fail. And vote for Proposition 66, which would get the death penalty working again.
I am not opining on judges this time around, so please don’t ask. I may not ever do that again; we’ll see. But not this time.
Do read Kira Davis’s guide. It’s quite good.
It was pretty cool to read through the whole thing and think: yup, that’s how I’m voting too.
Let me know if you think I’m wrong about anything. There’s still time! I’m not an early voter.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/7/2016 @ 11:23 pmPlease vote No on 60. The law (a) is so broad that it would apply to two couples who film themselves and then swap the tapes with each other, and (b) creates a *private right of action* for people who see videos that don’t have evidence of condom use to sue the producers — while putting the burden of proof on the producers to prove they used condoms rather than on the people suing to prove they didn’t.
It’s a terrible law.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/7/2016 @ 11:27 pmThat’s Kira’s take and that’s how I will be voting: no on 60.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:02 amKira is wrong about Prop. 59 in that it doesn’t actually do anything; it certainly doesn’t authorize the state legislature to ignore a federal court decision.
It’s an *advisory measure* which asks the legislature to use all of its constitutional authority to get the court decision changed. But because it’s *advisory* it’s nonbinding; it creates no new rule of law, and nobody can be sanctioned for not following the request.
The CA Supreme Court should not have allowed it on the ballot.
[I’m voting no, but I want to call out the bad analysis. :)]
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:05 amI am, incidentally, *baffled* by the polls that show something like 20% of voters voting yes on both 62 and 66.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:09 amYeah, I should have said I do not necessarily endorse all the analysis, but I agree with all the recommendations.
Patterico (115b1f) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:16 amI saw that a couple days ago and it matched my choices exactly.
I see that Prop 61 (price controls on all drugs (except those sold by the measure’s author!)) is backed by Bernie Sanders. That’s really all anyone needs to know it’s nonsense.
After seeing the absolutely lawless operation of “medical marijuana” sales, I am not inclined to support Prop 64. I also wonder how you can impose an excise tax on an illegal good.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:56 amPlease vote No on 60
I’m gonna vote NO on the basis of “It doesn’t seem to be my business.”
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:57 am“I think its revealing that the medical marijuana industry is very much opposed to this prop.”
Maybe that’s a good reason to vote for it, considering what utter slime those people are. Did you know they rat out growers to the cops who want to, um, bypass their buyer’s cartel?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 1:05 amlast chance to vote against Obama’s legacy. Also your last chance to vote against California making Spanish the official language.
If you vote for cankles this opportunity will never come again. Obamacare will die of it’s own weight eventually, but cankles will be giving it monthly injections and stuffing it into a girdle for public appearances for a long painful time before it gives up the ghost.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:34 amLike a bloated whale carcass on a beach in San Francisco, Big Gov will forbid towing it out to sea, opting instead for a liberal application of explosive, so that rancid whale blubber coats the entire area indiscriminantly.
papertiger (c8116c) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:45 am“5.I am, incidentally, *baffled* by the polls that show something like 20% of voters voting yes on both 62 and 66.”
I believe the term is “idiots” (I’d say morons but I enjoy Ace’s site).
I am voting yes on 56 however. I’d normally knee-jerk vote against it because it is a tax but the “No on 56” campaign has annoyed me enough to want to dig it in and twist it. Schools don’t get their cut! Wah, wah, wah.
As an aside, my wife died of lung cancer from smoking. I’d vote for an outright ban on the filthy things in a heartbeat but making them into a cash-cow for the state certainly won’t make them go away. I also think that encouraging smokers to switch to e-cigs is a plus both for their health and to reduce the annoyance factor for non-smokers so taxing them more is the wrong thing to do.
Oh-No! I’ve talked myself out of voting yes. Rats! Curse you Red Baron!
mark (ca18be) — 11/8/2016 @ 5:42 amKira is wrong on 65. And Kira reaches the right conclusion on 67, but doesn’t understand what has happened.
Prop 67 is a referendum on the plastic bag ban. The grocery industry supported the plastic bag ban because there was a major giveaway to them in the ban – if you didn’t bring enough of your own bags, and you needed paper bags from the store, those would be at least 10 cents apiece, anf the store keeps all the money.
The governor didn’t undo the ban. California voters signed a referendum petition that stopped the law from taking effect until the people got to vote on whether to approve or reject the law. That’s Prop 67.
Prop 65 has no effect if the ban is rejected. If the ban passes, then Prop 65 would, if it also passes, take the 10 (or more) cents per paper bag away from the retailer and give it to the state. That wouod be a powerful message to every lobby considering supporting bad legislation in return for a special interest giveaway to their members. We, the voters, can take that special interest giveaway away from you.
Prop 65 deserves a YES vote. Grocery stores shouldn’t be rewarded for supporting and helping pass government restrictions on their consumers’ choice.
BTW, if you’re in L.A., the legal newspaper Metropolitan News-Enterprise (www.metnews.com) publishes detailed evaluations and endorsements for judicial races. I recommend checking it out.
Nick M. (d6362a) — 11/8/2016 @ 7:54 amSome number of people, I guess, will vote to retain California’s death penalty and to shorten the appeal timetables, while simultaneously voting for Clinton-Kaine. If elected, either would surely nominate more judges to the federal bench — within California’s judicial districts, and to the Ninth Circuit and SCOTUS — that will not be bound by California state law and its timetables.
Still, the state can and should do what is doable on its own, if it intends to both keep a death penalty and to constitutionally administer it. With the current half-hidden conspiracy to litigate each death sentence throughout the entire natural lifetime of each defendant so convicted, even streamlining the state-court part of the process would surely be a help. And unless a death penalty law is actually being administered in a non-arbitrary fashion — meaning with enough regularity and certainty that actual execution is a real and imminent prospect — it still can’t pass muster under current SCOTUS precedents. I’ll be interested to read how this turns out, and thanks for posting about it, Patrick.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/8/2016 @ 10:20 amPer Baletopedia:
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/8/2016 @ 10:22 amEr, Ballotpedia. I guess I shouldn’t worry about misspelling made-up words as long as the link works.
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/8/2016 @ 10:24 amBTW, that condom regulation simply exports jobs out of California, often out of the US entirely. Otherwise, it has zero net effect on the thriving porn industry — for which start-up costs are miniscule, in which competition is intense, and which the internet makes entirely possible to produce and distribute from anywhere in the world. This regulation is California Nanny-Statism at its most braindead. I don’t need to know that it could also sweep overbroadly to know that it’s a very stupid and statist idea, but you’re surely right that those are also good reasons to oppose it, aphrael. 😀
Beldar (fa637a) — 11/8/2016 @ 10:34 amBeldar – the good news is it looks from polling like it is going to fail.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 10:40 amA least it wasn’t Balletopedia.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 11:15 amThe ballot summaries are written by Democrat hacks and give their side about 10%.
The ballot summaries for the “early parole for non-violent inmates” prop and the one to kill English-immersion are total lies, as the is anti-gun prop, which does FAR MORE than it says on the ballot.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 11:19 amThe CA Supreme Court should not have allowed it on the ballot.
Indeed. And what a can of worms. Next up, D.C. vs Heller.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 11:23 amProp 56 is just a stalking horse for more sin taxes. Booze, marijuana up next. You should expect SIGNIFICANT sin taxes passed on pot after it gets legalized.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 11:27 amProp. 64 already encodes significant taxes against marijuana, and explicitly authorizes local governments to impose even higher taxes.
I voted against Prop. 63. I’m culturally anti-gun, but the measure seems clearly unconstitutional to me, so however much I might like the policy, I feel ethically compelled to vote against.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:04 pmKevin M: I’ve argued Prop. 59 with more people than any other issue except the Presidency.
My reason for voting against it, even though it’s only advisory, is that it appears to me that, by asking every elected officeholder to use all of their constitutional authority to undo _Citizens United_, the measure implicitly asks the state legislature to petition for an Article V convention and asks our congressional delegation to vote for one.
I think an Article V convention is a terrible idea, because there’s no way to constrain it to a single subject, and because there’s no way to *enforce* the current constitution’s rules about amendment procedure. Sure, the document has a particular set of rules, but so did the Articles of Confederation … and the Constitutional Convention ignored those rules, so why do we assume that an Article V convention would be contained by the current rules?
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:06 pmThe schools don’t get their cut argument re: Prop. 56 is … bizarre.
Prop. 56 only really makes sense if the point is to force smokers to internalize an externality – eg, if we think that smoking imposes costs on the rest of society which aren’t factored into the cost of tobacco products, then taxing it to push the cost back onto the user makes *economic* sense.
But that only works if the money is (mostly) used to combat the cost imposed on the rest of society!
Prop. 56 *as exempt from Prop. 98* makes way more economic sense than Prop. 56 would if it weren’t exempt from Prop 98.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 12:09 pmDon’t blame you on the judge bit. Given what you do professionally, antagonizing a judge could
Bar Sinister (f5ce19) — 11/8/2016 @ 1:02 pmlead to problems.
I didn’t need a California Voter Guide. I wrote in Zombie Adolf Hitler for President, and I voted no on every lat initiative and proposition. I am fed the f*** up with the abuse of the initiative process in this state. I am sick of beggings masquerading as bonds that never seemingly get paid off. I am tired of taxes promised for one use that they never go to. I have had enough of a state legislature that hasn’t the nads to do it’s job, and make the hard decisions.
Bill H (971e5f) — 11/8/2016 @ 2:43 pmIn some cases the legislature is in a bind because the voters have denied them the ability to make decisions.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 2:58 pmIf you’re talking about California, those are crocodile tears.
Colonel Haiku (a7e08c) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:00 pm#28 aphrael “In some cases the legislature is in a bind because the voters have denied them the ability to make decisions.”
—–
Thank God!
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:11 pmaphrael,
The problems with Prop 59 extend to the substance. How in the world do you restrict speech rights for some corporations and not others? The NY Times is a corporation. So is the Sierra Club.
The other side of Citizens United wanted to impose prior restraint on a BOOK because it spoke about a candidate for election. If they can do that, then all effective political speech is subject to government approval and the 1st amendment’s core function is nullified.
The Supreme Court looked at that and tried to find a way to only restrict *some* and found that impossible, or if possible ripe with mischief. The dissenters, of course, were on board for the mischief.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:26 pmI have had enough of a state legislature that hasn’t the nads to do it’s job, and make the hard decisions.
If this legislature made the decisions the really wanted, someone would be by with the new owner of all your stuff.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:28 pmCruz Supporter, at 30: fair enough, *but* it seems unreasonable to complain that the legislature isn’t making decisions itself when it has been denied the authority to do so.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:30 pmKevin M – fair enough, AND if i’m arguing with people that are opposed to Citizens United, the argument I’ve stated here at least has a chance of convincing them that the proposed cure is worse than the perceived disease.
aphrael (3f0569) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:31 pmaphrael, we don’t want them to do their “job” because they do a job on the taxpayers.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 11/8/2016 @ 3:54 pmThe CA legislature is a full-time position. And for all the fake crying by liberals about “special interests” and “lobbyists” having too much influence, that’s what you get when Sacramento is open like a 7-Eleven.
The position should be reduced to part-time.
Sacramento is damn close to that now, Kevin. You know as well as I that there has been no effective opposition party at the state level for 20 years, now. Ahhhhnold folded like a cheap suit at the first opportunity, and we got Jerry v2.0 as a result.
Bill H (971e5f) — 11/8/2016 @ 4:21 pmAnd besides, what good is an initiative process that is an almost guaranteed rubber stamp for the Legislature? I have no confidence in the process. The last time we actually scorer was Prop 13, and the left has been agitating against that ever since.
Bill H (971e5f) — 11/8/2016 @ 4:24 pmShould be “scored”.
Bill H (971e5f) — 11/8/2016 @ 4:26 pm