![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
California Special Election
- Prop 73: Waiting Period and Parental Notification before termination of a Minor's Pregnancy: NO
- While minors should be talking to their parents before getting abortions (or pregnant, for that matter), making it impossible for them to get abortions without doing so doesn't mean that they will talk to their parents; it means they're more likely to get dangerous and illegal abortions instead. If the people behind this measure really wanted to help minors, they should push for legalization of Plan B in conjunction with better sex education.
- Pro 74: Public School Teachers' Waiting Period for Permanent Status: NO
- Let's not confuse terms here: "Permanent Status" does not mean that a teacher is impossible to fire or somehow free to teach whatever the hell they want. "Permanent Status" means that you can actually plan to be working next year rather than waiting to find out if the school that you work for doesn't want to go to the bother of paying your benefits. Sure a probationary period is good and proper, and that's what the schools have now. Extending it to five years means that schools can have their teachers on pins and needles even longer, worrying how to make ends meet. This makes the teaching profession even less attractive than it already is.
- Prop 75: Public Employee Union Dues: NO
- Do unions need reforms? Hell, yes, they certainly do. But the image of the union as the great political machine is already a thing of the past. This is just another attempt by people with a lot of money to drive a wedge between unioin leaders and their members. Do not give in to this pettiness. If you want reform, become a shop steward.
- Prop 76: State Spending Funding Limits: NO
- There's a reason we don't put the power to make a budget in one person's hands: it's way too much power, dammit. If you don't like the way the current state congress drones are making up the budget, elect somebody else to do it. Allowing the Governor to "reduce budget appropriations of [his] choosing" is letting him design the budget. He's got enough power. Let him learn to use what he has instead.
- Prop 77: Redistricting: NO NO NO
- Do we have a perfect distrcting system at the moment? Of course not. But that's no reason to chuck it out and hand over the reins to three political appointees. Don't get me wrong, I work for Judges, and they're sterling creatures, but they're also political creatures. Do not be mistaken: we're not going to get Solomons here. This is a bald power grab by the Governor. NO NO NO.
As for Props 78-80, I really don't have enough information. 78 and 79 look remarkably similar, which is really never a good sign, and 80 looks like it could go either way.
Anywho, now go fill out those Absentee Ballots already.
no subject
And this is a failing on the part of the CA leg. and the Governor, not to mention the lack of more schemes on the part of the folks who propose initiatives. Perhaps this is a failing on my part, too, and the rest of California.
Still, my point was that while we need reform, the "solution" proposed would have put us in an even worse situation. We need reform, yes, but not change at any cost.
no subject
no subject
Show me a reasonable redistricting proposal, and I'll vote for it. Show me another committee, and I'll continue voting against.