Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: California's Nov. ballot will have at least 17 statewide measures

  1. #1

    California's Nov. ballot will have at least 17 statewide measures

    California's November ballot will have at least 17 statewide measures and possibly up to 20.

    These 17 are on the statewide ballot:

    Prop. 64 - Recreational marijuana

    California looked poised to become the first state in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana six years ago with Proposition 19. But opponents tore into its detailed provisions and exploited vague areas of the measure that could have been spelled out more clearly. Now comes a new measure allowing adults 21 years and older to possess, use and share up to an ounce of marijuana. The campaign is supported by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and funded by billionaire activist Sean Parker. Opponents so far have highlighted a provision allowing people with certain drug felony convictions to apply for a license under the measure.

    Prop. 53 - Revenue bonds

    Posing a threat to Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to build two tunnels to divert water beneath the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the south, this initiative would require voter approval before the state could issue revenue bonds for any project costing more than $2 billion. The initiative is backed by Dean Cortopassi, a wealthy Stockton-area farmer, and supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The measure is opposed by Brown, state business and labor groups and by the California Democratic Party.

    Prop. 62 - Death penalty repeal

    Four years after California voters narrowly rejected an end to the death penalty, advocates are trying again. Led by former “M*A*S*H” star Mike Farrell, the measure would abolish capital punishment and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Supporters such as Netflix CEO Reed Hastings and Laurene Powell Jobs, widow of Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, contend that executions are costly, inhumane and bound to kill wrongly convicted people. It should be a close decision again, as a January Field Poll showed voters nearly evenly divided between repealing the death penalty and speeding up the process.

    Prop. 66 - Death penalty speed-up

    Stalled by legal challenges to its lethal drug cocktail, California has not executed an inmate since 2006. Former professional football player Kermit Alexander, whose relatives were murdered three decades ago by a man now on death row, is tired of it. Backed by law enforcement groups, he is pushing an initiative that would speed up the death penalty by putting the California Supreme Court in charge of an expedited appeals process. If both Alexander’s measure and another seeking to abolish capital punishment pass in November, whichever receives more votes would become law.

    Prop. 58 - Bilingual education

    In 1998, California voters passed a proposition banning public schools from teaching English learners primarily in their native language. Now Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, wants to repeal sections of that initiative and bring back bilingual programs, which supporters argue is just as effective at educating students as moving them into full-time English instruction right away. The measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature’s majority Democrats, over the objections of original proponents like Silicon Valley software entrepreneur Ron Unz, who mounted a brief run for U.S. Senate this year to bring attention to the effort. But it could be a very quiet campaign, as neither side has yet raised any money.

    Prop. 63 - Ammunition restrictions

    Ahead of a 2018 gubernatorial run, Newsom is pursuing a high-profile gun control initiative. The proposal would institute background checks for ammunition purchases, prohibit the possession of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, mandate reporting of lost and stolen guns, and establish a process to seize firearms from those prohibited from owning them. Gun rights and law enforcement groups oppose the measure, arguing it would do nothing to prevent criminals from obtaining weapons and ammunition via the black market or theft, but they have been vastly outraised in a state with the strictest gun policies in the country.

    Prop. 55 - Income tax increase

    Four years after voters approved temporary tax increases, they will be asked to extend a portion of those higher taxes for more than a decade. The measure would extend by 12 years higher income taxes on individual filers earning more than $250,000 a year, funding education and health care programs. It is supported by the California Teachers Association, Service Employees International Union and California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. The California Chamber of Commerce opposes the measure.

    Prop. 56 - Tobacco tax

    With the industry still reeling from a historic set of anti-smoking laws, a coalition of labor unions, medical associations, health advocates and one billionaire environmentalist are taking another shot at tobacco. The proposal raises taxes on cigarettes by $2 a pack, to $2.83, and similarly taxes other tobacco products, as well as e-cigarettes and vaporizers. The industry has mounted well-funded opposition campaigns in defeating past tax increase efforts, but this time will face far deeper-pocketed foes.

    Prop. 67 - Plastic bag referendum

    The plastic bag industry is fighting a statewide ban on single-use bags passed by the California Legislature two years ago. Out-of-state plastic bag companies launched a referendum shortly after the bill passed, effectively suspending the law from going into effect. Dozens of cities and counties have enacted their own local bans, but the bag industry is spending millions in hopes of overturning the statewide ban.

    Prop. 65 - Plastic bags II

    Grocers call it big plastic’s revenge, while the industry says it’s simply creating good public policy. Whatever the motive, the plastic bag industry has coupled the referendum to overturn a statewide bag ban with a ballot measure to divert profits from bag sales away from grocers and into an environmental fund.

    Prop. 59 - Citizens United

    In a measure with no legal force, this question asks voters whether elected officials should “use all of their constitutional authority,” including proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, to reverse the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial Citizens United decision on campaign financing. That court ruling held that First Amendment free-speech protections prohibit limiting independent campaign expenditures by corporations and labor unions. The measure was placed on the ballot by the Democratic-controlled Legislature, with many Republicans opposed.

    Prop. 61 - Drug price caps

    The initiative would prevent the California government from spending more on a prescription drug than the lowest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Michael Weinstein, head of the sponsoring AIDS Healthcare Foundation, believes it will immediately lower drug prices for some Californians, then have what the campaign calls a “cascade effect” on prices broadly. Critics, led by drug manufacturers, are prepared to mount a well-funded opposition campaign. They say it excludes the vast majority of residents, will lead to more bureaucracy, and ultimately do little to lower prices for anyone.

    Prop. 60 - Condoms

    Is porn safe for performers? That’s the central question informing this measure requiring adult film stars to wear protection. Its proponent, AIDS Healthcare Foundation head Weinstein, points to repeated instances over the last decade of performers testing HIV-positive. The film industry insists those transmissions occurred outside of regulated shoots and argues its suggested protocol of regular testing has worked well. Mandating condoms, opponents warn, would drive shoots underground or out of state.

    Prop. 57 - Criminal justice

    In a sweeping effort to reduce prison crowding and ease effects of California’s fixed-term sentencing standards, the initiative would make some nonviolent felons eligible for early parole and give the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority to award credits for good behavior. The initiative is backed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed – and later came to regret – more rigid sentencing standards when he was governor before, from 1975 to 1983. Brown has millions in his campaign account, but it remains unclear how much opponents, led by the California District Attorneys Association, can muster.

    Prop. 51 - School construction bonds

    The $9 billion borrowing measure is the first statewide school bond measure to go before voters in a decade. Developers, school builders and school officials led the campaign to put the bond issue before voters after multiple attempts to do the same in the Legislature failed to advance. Brown, who has sought to minimize the state’s involvement in local school construction, has criticized the measure. But supporters say it would meet a crucial need for more state school construction money and prevent steep hikes in local fees on new homes to make up the difference.

    Prop. 52 - Hospital fees

    Seven years after lawmakers first approved the charge, the measure would lock into place the quality assurance fee on hospitals. Supported by hospital groups, the fee saves the state general fund several hundred million dollars annually as well as helps pull down several billion dollars in federal money that helps pay for Medi-Cal and other programs. Last month, lawmakers voted to extend the fee another year. Supporters, led by the California Hospital Association, say they want the ballot measure to eliminate any questions about the fee’s future. There is no opposition.

    Prop. 54 - Legislative transparency

    Perhaps no individual has played a larger role in California politics in the past decade than Charles M. Munger Jr. The Stanford physicist, who has given millions to Republican candidates and other causes over the years, has teamed up with former GOP lawmaker Sam Blakeslee to change how the Legislature conducts its business. Lawmakers could not pass any bill that has not been in print and published on the internet for at least 72 hours. It also requires the Legislature to post videos of all of its proceedings.

    The Legislature may add up to three more measures, including a $3.1 billion bond "to finance a parks, water, climate, and coastal protection and outdoor access for all program" (AB 2444) and a $3 billion bond for affordable housing (SB 879).
    Last edited by tsai3904; 07-05-2016 at 10:10 AM.

  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    So, let's see...

    Don't care - don't use government education
    Don't get it??
    Hell no!

    How'd I do?
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  4. #3
    Tax measures on local ballots:

    Alameda County
    -$580 million bond for affordable housing
    -City of Oakland: $600 million bond for infrastructure and affordable housing

    Bay Area - Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco Counties
    -BART: $3.5 billion bond for capital improvements
    -AC Transit: $96 per parcel tax extension

    Los Angeles County
    -0.5% sales tax increase
    -1.5  cents per square foot parcel tax for parks
    -L.A. Community College District: $3.3 billion bond
    -City of Los Angeles: $1.2 billion bond for affordable housing
    -City of Santa Monica: 0.5% sales tax increase

    Sacramento County
    -0.5% sales tax increase

    San Luis Obispo County
    -0.5% sales tax increase

    Santa Clara County
    -$950 million bond for affordable housing
    -0.5% sales tax increase

    Santa Cruz County
    -0.5% sales tax increase

    Ventura County
    -0.5% sales tax increase
    Last edited by tsai3904; 07-23-2016 at 08:01 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by tsai3904 View Post
    Other measures that may be on your local ballot:

    Bay Area
    BART's $3.5 billion bond for capital improvements

    Alameda County
    $580 million bond for affordable housing

    Los Angeles County
    Metropolitan Transportation Authority's 0.5% sales tax increase (would increase county's base sales tax rate to 9.5%)

    Santa Clara County
    $950 million bond for affordable housing
    Much easier...

    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #5
    Communist peoples republic. F that place.
    Last edited by kfarnan; 07-01-2016 at 02:36 PM.

  7. #6
    Op-Ed: California Has a Bloated, Unsustainable Death Penalty

    With two death penalty propositions on the November ballot, Californians are reexamining capital punishment. For fiscal conservatives, it should be a simple matter of dollars and cents.

    California’s death penalty has cost taxpayers over $4 billion since 1978, according to a 2011 study. Death penalty experts Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Professor Paula M. Mitchell estimate that “capital trials cost on average an additional $1 million more than non-capital cases,” and “often cost 10-20 times more than murder trials that don’t involve the death penalty.”

    Let those numbers sink in. What have California’s taxpayers gotten for their $4 billion investment? Thirteen executions and three wrongful capital convictions. Meanwhile, the capital punishment system doesn’t adequately protect society and is a harmful and traumatic process for murder victims’ families.

    So what exactly makes capital case trials so much more expensive? To begin with, capital cases have a minimum of two attorneys working on each side (for both the defense and the prosecution) rather than one per side typically found in most non-capital cases. Capital cases generally have multiple investigators and experts and an extended jury selection process. Furthermore, death penalty trials are much longer, and capital proceedings have an additional sentencing trial, which is unique to death cases. The initial trials are where the largest portion of the added cost is usually found, not in the appeals, as is often believed.

    Additionally, the appeals process is very complex and expensive. Outside of the courtroom, the cost of housing death row inmates heaps a heavy burden on the shoulders of the California taxpayer as well. Housing them costs an additional $90,000 annually per inmate. After crunching the numbers, it is starkly apparent that California’s death penalty system is yet another example of a bloated and unsustainable government system.

    With California’s November elections quickly approaching, there are two ballot initiatives that deserve further investigation before any votes are cast—Proposition 62 and Proposition 66. Prop. 62 would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the option of parole (LWOP). Additionally, those serving LWOP would be required to work and pay restitution to the families of their victims. Prop. 66, on the other hand, would do quite the opposite. Prop. 66 would keep the death penalty in place and attempt to shorten the appeals process.

    The effects of instituting Prop. 62 would be largely beneficial—millions of dollars would be saved annually and California would no longer risk executing an innocent person. Meanwhile, former death row inmates would still be safely kept off of the streets under their new LWOP sentencing. Conversely, Prop. 66 would not only result in more of the same in terms of a huge financial burden, but the initiative could also have dangerous repercussions for those sentenced to death. By speeding up the appeals process Prop. 66 would heighten the potential of executing innocent people. Although costly, the lengthy appeals process has been put in place in order to ensure that those sentenced to die for their crimes are in fact guilty.

    It has taken up to 17 years to release a wrongly convicted person from California’s death row. Since 1989, 68 individuals in California have been wrongfully convicted of murder and later exonerated. State-sanctioned killing is a matter that should not be taken lightly. When a life is on the line, there is no acceptable margin of error.

    The choice between these two propositions is clear—one will save California taxpayers millions of dollars each year, while the other will cost California taxpayers millions. To put this into real terms, the State’s independent Legislative Analyst determined Prop .62 will save $150 million annually. That’s $150 million a year that could be put to better use. That money could be returned to the taxpayers or it could be redirected into funding for education, public safety or crime prevention—all of which would positively impact far more lives than California’s current spending on the death penalty.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts