There is nothing more grand than deciding on how your money is to be spent by random strangers.
Proposition 8 has most likely the shortest legal text in the voter guide. Proposition 8 makes a marriage of one man and one woman as the only recognized form of marriage in California.
I am voting no on Proposition 8. I believe it is a form of discrimination.
Currently, the state requries public utilities to use renewable sources of energy of up to 20% of their capacity by 2010. Proposition 7 is hoping to tack on two more deadlines to the current deadline–40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
The opponents of Proposition 7 argue this measure was hastily thrown together to be voted on the November ballot. I agree with them. Tacked at the end of the measure, there is power given to the Energy Commission to sell or lease property to private bidders for generation and/or transmission of renewable energy. Whose property is this and why only to private bidders?
There is just too much information to digest right now. The original deadline has not come to pass yet; in two years, we can revisit this topic again.
Proposition 6 will set aside one billion dollars to be spent on state and local justice programs. The proposition also calls for harsher penalities to gang-related crimes, methamphetamine sales, and vehicle theft.
A billion dollars is needed for this proposition? Really?
So it would cost us a billion now to extend the penalties and five hundred million later to rectify our mistakes (see Proposition 5). Why should it matter if a crime is done when in a gang or not? Each person should be treated accordingly on an individual basis. A murder is a murder no matter if it is gang-related or not.
Proposition 5 will shorten the prison terms for certain drug offenses. There is a rehabilitation program thrown in there somewhere and a creation of a panel to oversee the changes. Oh, it will also cost taxpayers $460 million annually to support this program.
I am a firm believer of the saying, “if you do the crime, you do the time.” Everyone has a choice when confronted with drugs. They could choose to use the drugs with the knowledge that they will become addicted and may go to prison or they could not. I am not paying to fix their problems if they choose poorly.
Currently, any unemancipated minor can have an abortion without notifying their parents or legal guardians. In the proposition, an unemancipated minor is a female under the age of 18 who has not entered into a valid marriage, is not on active duty in the armed services of the United States, and has not been declared free from her parents’ or guardians’ custody and control under state law.
Passing Proposition 4 will require the doctor to notify the parents or legal guardians either through phone or postage mail 48 hours before the procedure with a few exceptions.
Notification will be not be needed if the mother’s health is at-risk, the parent or legal guardian has waived the right of notification, the court has recognized the minor as being mature enough for the decision or the parents/legal guardian is abusive toward the child.
This sounds like a reasonable proposition. This is not stopping the abortion, it is just giving the parents or legal guardian a heads up on what is about to happen.
Proposition 3 asks of the California populace for permission to sell general obligation bonds up to $980 million in order to construct, expand, remodel, refurnish, and equip children hospitals. Seeing as how I just wrote a post to vote no on the animal cruelty proposition, it would be horrible for me to vote no on this one as well. But, I will be voting no. The reason?
On November 2004, voters passed Proposition 61 which sold $750 million worth of general obligation bonds for the same purpose. It has taken four years for roughly $400 million to be awarded to eligible hospitals. There is still $300 million sitting somewhere in the coffers collecting dust. Why do we need to add on another $980 million to the surplus when the state is already in debt? When they run out in three years, they can put this proposition back on the ballot.
Proposition 2 will require farmers to provide enough space for a pregnant pig, veal bovine and an egg-laying hen to lie down, stand up, turn fully around and stretch all its limbs without touching its enclosure at the risk of a fine up to $1000 and/or 180 days in jail.
My carnivorous spirit cringes at the amount of concessions we provide an animal that will be consumed in the near future. Don’t get me wrong, I do not support the actions of certain farmers that beat their livestock or carve them up for fun. But, really. The sole purpose of the livestock is to be food for us. They are not pets (which I think is cruel unto itself). There are already enough state laws covering the cruelty of animals.
Proposition 1A proposes constructing a high-speed passenger rail system stretching from Sacramento to San Diego. Twelve years and $60 million worth of studies have already been invested by the state to determine the feasibility of such a construction. This measure will sell bonds worth up to $9.95 billion to fund even more studies and the construction of the system.
The existence of a high-speed train will create jobs, reduce air pollution and our dependence on oil. Suggested travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles will be just under three hours, clocking in at two hours and forty minutes. A trip from San Francisco to San Joe would only be thirty minutes which is the amount of time sometimes to travel across the City.
Continue reading
Shall it be City policy to encourage the School Board to reverse its decision to terminate JROTC and to continue to offer JROTC in San Francisco public high schools?
In a previous election, the JROTC program was given a termination date of this year. This proposition is on the ballot in hopes of reversing that decision so the JROTC program can remain as an option for students in high school.
Some say the JROTC teaches discipline and leadership skills to young people while others feel the program is just a recruitment drive by the military.
I have no preference either way.
Shall it be City policy that its elected representatives in the United States Senate and House of Representatives vote against any further funding for the deployment of United States Armed Forces in Iraq, except for funds to withdraw troops?
Not sure how this proposition affects the City directly. This one is pretty much up to your beliefs. Voting yes does not force our representatives to vote against funding the army. The proposition is just to make a statement against the war in Iraq.