California Propositions

Well, we're getting close to Election Day. Are you registered? Do you know where your polling station is?

Let me start by saying that I do not think one should vote on a particular issue if you do not know anything about it, nor do you care. This is not a test where you might get something right by filling in every question. A casual yes or no will rob someone else of their vote that has purpose behind it.
Now, please do not take that to mean only vote when you have a burning need. If you know about an issue and have ANY interest in the outcome, vote and be counted! If you really want a particular person in office, or DO NOT want someone else in office, vote for or against. But voting is not only a right but a responsibility -- exercise it well.

Let's recap the first three...

Proposition 1 has been replaced by 1A. I do not see any real differences and still say NO.
Proposition 2 I said YES, but regard as a pretty lightweight issue. I may end up not voting at all on this issue, as per my rant above.
Proposition 3 I said NO.

Proposition 4 is the Waiting Period and Parent Notification law.
This is a tough issue because it deals with abortion, which already splits the electorate. As a parent, albeit of boys, I have considerable sympathy for the pro side. The possibility of my sons having surgery with my wife or I not being notified makes me cringe.
But -- I have to look at the possible consequences, and I realize that not all families are exactly a functional, cohesive unit. My wife has worked with troubled teens who come from bad home situations -- and some girls would honestly and literally fear for their lives if they has to tell their parents they were pregnant.
Now, let's be clear, Prop 4 has language saying that there are alternatively -- telling a different family member or getting a waiver from a court. But let's try and live in the real world -- what girls are going to be able to navigate through the court system? If they have a bad family situation, are they going to trust an aunt or grandmother?
I say NO.

Proposition 5 is the parole and rehab issue.
There is a LOT of language behind this law. I come away fairly impressed.
To those who do not know me, let me be clear -- I am a big fan of consequences for one's actions. Jailtime has to be an option for determent to work. Yet, drug offenses are in a different baliwick. When someone is addicted, I think we have to consider some alternatives. Californian's spend so much on incarceration as it is, and our jails are so crowded, that we have to go a different direction.
This bill seems to be specific enough to a range of behaviors that it will not be mis-used, and it leaves real determent as a last option, or for repeat offenders.
I say YES.

Proposition 6 is the Police funding and Criminal penalties law.
I don't feel this is necessary to spend a lot of time on. For me, the item that sways me is codifying a number of gang related offenses. I feel this gives the court system additional weapons by allowing more and specific charges. Plea bargaining seems to be the way defendants manage to lessen their consequences; so the more specific charges that can be leveled against them, the better from the rule of law.
I say YES.

Proposition 7 is the Renewable Energy bill.
To my great surprise, I am in favor of this bill. Normally, I would look for protections for the consumer (none) and real audits for the monies to be spent (some, but not great).
Here's my position: every election cycle we bitch about how we want alternative energy solutions. And yet no bill or law seems perfect because we want it all: we want to force those nasty coal and gas companies to invest more in green energy, we want consumers to do what is right, even if it's more expensive, we want government to run leaner and yet to promote renewable energy.
WE CAN'T HAVE IT ALL. And thus we have to make a decision at some point that it's worth some higher prices, some annoyances, and some additional government cost. A major debating point for the presidential candidates has been alternative energy and both are for it. But is anyone under the illusion that it will be free?
By forcing demand higher for alternative energy sources, companies will slowly start allocating more resources towards finding better solutions. As more of these solutions come into the markets, costs will come down and at some point match and compete with the costs for electricity produces through coal.
We will face higher costs, as consumers. But this is one case where the end justifies the means. I say YES.

Proposition 8 eliminates gay marriage by codifying marriage in the State Constitution as being between one man and one woman.
I, a straight man, am married to a straight woman. Oddly enough, my marriage is just as strong now as it was prior to May 16, when the state Supreme Court overturned the ban on gay marriages.
So I am a little non-plussed when Prop 8 supporters say they are protecting, defending, and strengthening MY marriage.
Now, California does have a domestic partnership law, but that does not cover contingencies that spouses take for granted.
The line of attack I am frankly surprised that supporters have not used is that if we allow two people of the same sex to get married, why should not more of any sex? (bigamy, polygamy)
That might be opening the floodgates!
Regardless, beyond being what I consider an abuse of amending the Constitution, I fail to see how this "protects" marriage for anything but discrimination.
I say NO.

Prop 9 is the Victim's Right Act -- I say YES.
Again, this issue is not something that will be debated on it's merits; you will feel it is good or not. Even the Con arguments in the Voter Information Guide acknowledge it is "well-meaning" and only feel situations covered by this are already covered by Prop 8 in 1982.
I have not compared the two word for word -- but going solely by the wording of this Act, I approve.

Proposition 10 is the Alternative Fuel Vehicles law.
I have to come down on the nay side. This bill appears to be aimed at non-hybrid (gasoline/electric) types of vehicles. Although perhaps good in the long range view, I think this gives too much to that spectrum of vehicles that the market is already discounting. I would prefer to see the subsidies and benefits to hybrids -- which have already made some inroads on consumer choices. I say NO.

Prop 11 is the Redistricting Act.
Finally! I truly enjoy the squawking that both parties are doing against this law.
This would create a commission that mandates inclusion of Democrats, Republicans, AND independant/non-affiliated voters. They could not have been political candidates, a lobbyist, or large political donor within the last ten years.
They would be charged with drawing the congressional districts every ten years. No more gerrymandering!
I say, wholeheartedly, YES.

Proposition 12 is the Veterans' Bond Act.
This allows up to 3600 veterans the opportunity to receive loans for home purchases. Since 1921, this program, when funded, has been totally self-supporting.
The only anti-12 argument presented is that we should limit it to veterans who served in combat, instead of all veterans.
I say YES.

And there you have it. VOTE!
Regards,
Trond