California Special Election

[erikred]

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.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

The more i stay in Califnordia, the more i lean towards voting 'no' on every proposition, no matter what it's about.

special= retarded?

[lara7.livejournal.com]

This "special" election seems "special" in the same way the Special Olympics is special.

[tagryn]

As someone voting exactly the opposite, except perhaps on 73, we're probably going to disagree about most everything here.

A point, though: the one you're most strongly against, 77, actually has the most bipartisan support; even Kos supports it, which is very unexpected coming from a guy who opposes everything Repubs put forth on general principle. Without 77, I don't see there being much chance of "elect(ing) somebody else to do it" as you propose in 76, since the gerrymanders are drawn up to keep incumbents of *both* parties in place.

[abazureonna.livejournal.com]

seventy eight (http://smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/78/)

seventy nine (http://smartvoter.org/2005/11/08/ca/state/prop/79/)

a comparison sponsored by folks in favor of 79 says:
http://www.voteyesonprop79.org/comparison.htm

a comparison sponsored by folks in favor of 78 says:
http://www.calrxnow.org/comparison.html

as a disclosure of potential bias, i'm voting no on 78 and yes on 79.

here's why: 79 is not sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and 78 is. prop 79 will also apply to more people. the pharmaceutical industry doesn't care for 79, because it could stand to lose a lot of money by being told that they either must offer drug discounts, or their product will be removed from the medi-cal formulary. now, it'd be bad if "fine, remove it, then", which is what proponents of 78 are saying, but that is a huge bluff, because those companies would stand to lose even more money by losing such a huge deal. pharmaceutical companies already get money from the government in the form of grants to research helpful drugs, but they have not been held accountable for making those drugs available to the populace. sure, it's a business, but if they're gonna play like that, then perhaps they ought to stop receiving any government funding whatsoever.