Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Zod's handy dandy California voters guide

Old 11-06-05, 05:56 PM
  #1  
DVD Talk Ruler
Thread Starter
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,179
Zod's handy dandy California voters guide

Going to the polls on Tuesday and not sure how to vote? Here's Zod's handy dandy voter guide to tell you how to vote. I expect a lof of what I suggest here to actually wind up going the opposite way, but that doesn't change the way I will vote.

----

Prop 73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor's parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
Defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."
Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor's maturity or best interests.
Mandates various reporting requirements.
Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
Requires minor's consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
Permits judicial relief if minor's consent coerced.


Yes Reason: Why I'm personally FOR abortion I do think the parents of a minor having one should at least be notified. If you have to sign off from the school nurse to give your kid an aspirin in school I think you should be notified if your daughter is having an abortion. A minor can always go to a judge to get the notification waived if she can convince the court it is in her best interest. There's lots of good arguments on both sides of this issue, but this is my opinion on it.

----

Prop 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Increases length of time required before a teacher may become a permanent employee from two complete consecutive school years to five complete consecutive school years.
Measure applies to teachers whose probationary period commenced during or after the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
Modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations.


Yes Reason: Besides the fact that I don't see why teachers should be treated different from anyone else by getting tenure (which basically means they can't be fired), I see nothing wrong with waiting 5 years for them to get it. 2 years seems like hardly enough time. Further, I think a school principle should have the right to fire teachers without getting embroiled in a whole long drawn out process with the districts. For a state that's 35th in the country in education, and with HALF the state budget going towards it - someone somewhere isn't doing their job very well. I think it's time we reward good teachers and stop giving more incentives to just getting in and doing a crappy job.

---

Prop 75 : PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Prohibits the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form.
Restriction does not apply to dues or fees collected for charitable organizations, health care insurance, or other purposes directly benefitting the public employee.
Requires public employee labor organizations to maintain and submit records to Fair Political Practices Commission concerning individual public employees’ and organizations’ political contributions.
These records are not subject to public disclosure.


Yes Reason: I do not believe in forcing union members to pay for political contributions WITHOUT their consent. As it stands now they take automatically without consent, and employees can "opt-out" however they still need to pay the money it just doesn't go to political contributions. With this law passed unions would actually have to convince their members they are working in their best interest and union members would "opt-in". That seems like the best way to do things in my opinion. As someone who once was forced to join a union who used my union money to advertise against a candidate I wanted to win, this is an easy decision for me.

---

Prop 76: STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Limits state spending to prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth.
Changes state minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98); eliminates repayment requirement when minimum funding suspended.
Excludes appropriations above the minimum from schools’ funding base.
Directs excess General Fund revenues, currently directed to schools/tax relief, to budget reserve, specified construction, debt repayment.
Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce appropriations of Governor’s choosing, including employee compensation/state contracts.
Continues prior year appropriations if state budget delayed.
Prohibits state special funds borrowing.
Requires payment of local government mandates.


Yes Reason: Repeating what I said about prop 74, California is 35th in the nation in education. We've been throwing gobs and gobs of new money at the problem and now education is HALF our budget and still there is no improvement. If it were up to the teachers unions, if we gave 100% of our budget to education and still were at 35th they'd still want more. What this bill does is cap the amount of money being given the schools based on revenue growth and no more. As it stands now for years where there isn't as much revenue growth the school still has their hand out for MORE - meanwhile our roads and infrastructure is deteriorating. Let's let the schools learn to balance their budget like everyone else.

---

Prop 77: REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Amends process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts.
Requires panel of three retired judges, selected by legislative leaders, to adopt new redistricting plan if measure passes and after each national census.
Panel must consider legislative, public comments/hold public hearings.
Redistricting plan effective when adopted by panel and filed with Secretary of State; governs next statewide primary/general elections even if voters reject plan.
If voters reject redistricting plan, process repeats, but officials elected under rejected plan serve full terms.
Allows 45 days to seek judicial review of adopted redistricting plan.


YES Reason: According to polls these California legislature has the lowest approval rating in the state (yes, worse than the governor) and this initiative would redistrict area based on recommendations provided by 3 retired judges picked at random and then the voters would get the vote on the new district lines. As it stands now the legislature draws up the districts in a pathetic display of jerrymandering on both sides. It's time for that to stop.

----

Prop 78: DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Establishes discount prescription drug program, overseen by California Department of Health Services.
Enables certain low- and moderate-income California residents to purchase prescription drugs at reduced prices.
Authorizes Department: to contract with participating pharmacies to sell prescription drugs at agreed-upon discounts negotiated in advance; to negotiate rebate agreements with participating drug manufacturers.
Imposes $15 annual application fee.
Creates state fund for deposit of drug manufacturers’ rebate payments.
Requires Department’s prompt determination of residents’ eligibility, based on listed qualifications.
Permits outreach programs to increase public awareness.
Allows program to be terminated under specified conditions.


NO Reason: See prop 79. In short prop 78 was the drug company's answer to Prop 79. Even though I don't really trust the legislature in this state to do the right thing, I trust the drug companies even less. From my take on this prop 78 would usurp the effectiveness of prop 79. There is a reason this initiative was put forth BY the drug companies.

----

Prop 79: PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Provides for prescription drug discounts to Californians who qualify based on income-related standards, to be funded through rebates from participating drug manufacturers negotiated by California Department of Health Services.
Prohibits new Medi-Cal contracts with manufacturers not providing the Medicaid best price to this program, except for drugs without therapeutic equivalent.
Rebates must be deposited in State Treasury fund, used only to reimburse pharmacies for discounts and to offset costs of administration.
At least 95% of rebates must go to fund discounts.
Establishes oversight board. Makes prescription drug profiteering, as described, unlawful.


YES As I mentioned on Prop 78 I'm not really wild about the state doing negotiations for us, but I sure trust them more than the drug companies. There for enforceable drug discounts for the state. I'm all for drug companies making a profit, but we are getting ripped off and I mean BADLY. It's time for the state to step in and negotiate down the the prices for all of us. 8-10 Million people would get their drugs cheaper under this plan. Not bad I say.

---

Prop 80: ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Subjects electric service providers, as defined, to control and regulation by California Public Utilities Commission.
Imposes restrictions on electricity customers’ ability to switch from private utilities to other electric providers.
Provides that registration by electric service providers with Commission constitutes providers’ consent to regulation.
Requires all retail electric sellers, instead of just private utilities, to increase renewable energy resource procurement by at least 1% each year, with 20% of retail sales procured from renewable energy by 2010, instead of current requirement of 2017.
Imposes duties on Commission, Legislature and electrical providers.


NO Reason: I see no reason that this should pass. Not allowing costomers to switch from private utilities to other providers takes away competition and thus higher energy costs. I don't see how this initiative helps any of us citizens of California. I like the renewable energy idea of the initiative, but not enough to cut off freedom of buisnesses to choose cheaper providers.

---

Now you can go vote

Last edited by General Zod; 11-06-05 at 11:31 PM.
General Zod is offline  
Old 11-06-05, 08:28 PM
  #2  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth ....
Posts: 4,669
Send a message to Arnold and vote NO on all the measures. Tell Arnold to go back to Sacramento and work with the legislature to do the people's business. We are a representative democracy. Legislating by initiatives on these relatively minor issues is a waste time and money.

Edit: I will grant that Prop76 is major reform but I would rather the legislature and governor work on budgeting rather than by initiative. That is what they were elected to do.
chowderhead is offline  
Old 11-06-05, 09:15 PM
  #3  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
I'm gonna open the SF Comical on Monday and see what they recommend. On Tuesday, I will vote 99% opposite of them.
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-06-05, 09:29 PM
  #4  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,684
Send a message to the Legislature and vote YES on all the measures (except for a couple). Tell the Legislature to go back to Sacramento and work with the governor to do the people's business.
X is offline  
Old 11-06-05, 10:18 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,200
Originally Posted by chowderhead
Send a message to Arnold and vote NO on all the measures. Tell Arnold to go back to Sacramento and work with the legislature to do the people's business. We are a representative democracy. Legislating by initiatives on these relatively minor issues is a waste time and money.

Edit: I will grant that Prop76 is major reform but I would rather the legislature and governor work on budgeting rather than by initiative. That is what they were elected to do.
I hear this a lot in my state as well. The initiative process is a form of checks and balances, and I would wager that CA needs those in place even more than my state. Personally, I think there are a lot of hot issues that politicians simply will not touch because they see it as a lose/lose proposition in getting re-elected. The initiative process does a great job of letting legislators finally hear what the people they are suppose to represent have been yelling. It also seems a great way to take the lobbyist power out of the process, except for the obvious advertising they are then forced to do.
kvrdave is offline  
Old 11-06-05, 10:26 PM
  #6  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,684
I love the initiative process. For one thing, it brought about Prop. 13 which was something the entrenched politicians would never do. The people knew best.
X is offline  
Old 11-06-05, 11:42 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Bronkster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: AnaheimLand, SoCal
Posts: 14,774
I don't mind the initiative process for what it is, but I'm really getting frustrated by the way the initiatives are written! Bottom line for me: if I can't make sense of it, or if it appears that there are too many "hidden" possible results, I vote no. Of the initiatives listed, the only one that seems to be a clear yes or no concept is 73 (abortion notification). The others all seem to be a money/power grab of some sort with implications we won't realize until it's too late.

Granted, I ain't the sharpest hammer in the sack, but I try to read up on these things and form a semi-educated opinion. How does the average person deal with it when it's so damn confusing?
Bronkster is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 12:04 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Ruler
Thread Starter
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,179
Originally Posted by Bronkster
How does the average person deal with it when it's so damn confusing?
Well now isn't that a silly question? You use Zod's handy dandy California voters guide!
General Zod is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 12:55 PM
  #9  
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 2,830
hey Zod, i voted by absentee ballot this morning and having just read your post, i see our Y's and N's match up perfectly. in LA we also had the opportunity to vote down (i hope) the LA unified school district's request for more money. i voted no because they still haven't spent the money they were given last year.
Cygnet74 is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 01:44 PM
  #10  
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 224
I agree with you except on Prop. 79. This is a bad, bad, bad proposition. Vote NO now. First, it only deals with drug prices for the "poor." Don't you think those of use with insurance will end up paying for this in our premiums? Second, and worse, it brings back the "private attorney general" actions that allow lawyers to sue without having a client. We Californians got rid of those in the last election, and this is the lawyers trying to use a backdoor route to get them reinstated. Nothing good comes out of the private attorney general actions unless you are the lawyer.
jhagler is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 02:14 PM
  #11  
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Democratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
Posts: 22,995
Here are the SF Comical endorsements.

No on Proposition 73: A clash of rights
Yes on Proposition 74: Pass/fail tests for teachers
No on Proposition 75: Paychecks and 'payback'
No on Proposition 76: A flawed formula
Yes on Proposition 77: A fairer way to draw lines
No on 78; Yes on 79: Prescription Drugs
No on Proposition 80: Never say Never
Summary of State Propositions
S.F. Propositions
No on Proposition F: SF Firehouses
No on Measure M: Genetically engineered crops (Sonoma)
Myster X is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 02:27 PM
  #12  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,684
Originally Posted by Myster X
Here are the SF Comical endorsements.

No on Proposition 73: A clash of rights
Yes on Proposition 74: Pass/fail tests for teachers
No on Proposition 75: Paychecks and 'payback'
No on Proposition 76: A flawed formula
Yes on Proposition 77: A fairer way to draw lines
No on 78; Yes on 79: Prescription Drugs
No on Proposition 80: Never say Never
Summary of State Propositions
S.F. Propositions
No on Proposition F: SF Firehouses
No on Measure M: Genetically engineered crops (Sonoma)
If a newspaper states a position but there's nobody reading it, does it make an endorsement?

The San Francisco Chronicle, published by Hearst Corp., posted a 16.4 percent tumble in circulation as the newspaper slashed back on less profitable, heavily discounted and giveaway circulation subsidized by advertisers.
X is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 03:23 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth ....
Posts: 4,669
Originally Posted by X
If a newspaper states a position but there's nobody reading it, does it make an endorsement?
It is still the 12th largest circulated newspaper in the country and it is by far the largest paper in the Bay Area probably combined. Even still, it had a large drop in paid circulation though I suspect that like me, many people in the Bay Area, switched to reading the paper online. Why pay when you can read online anytime for free?
chowderhead is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 03:51 PM
  #14  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Here is my thoughts on each, and how I already voted by absentee ballot:

Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 73: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR'S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Yes Reason: Why I'm personally FOR abortion I do think the parents of a minor having one should at least be notified. If you have to sign off from the school nurse to give your kid an aspirin in school I think you should be notified if your daughter is having an abortion. A minor can always go to a judge to get the notification waived if she can convince the court it is in her best interest. There's lots of good arguments on both sides of this issue, but this is my opinion on it.
No because I feel that in this case, it isn't the parent's right. The woman has the right to do what she wants with her body and her unborn child. Even if the parents decide to put the baby up for adoption, the girl still has to go through the pregnancy, and that is not fair. Girls shouldn't have to go to a judge to get the notification waived. What are the chances the parents won't find out about it that way, anyway? In my mind, if the girl trusts her parents, she'll tell them beforehand. If she doesn't, she won't, and those are the girls I'd want to protect.


Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 74: PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS. WAITING PERIOD FOR PERMANENT STATUS. DISMISSAL. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Yes Reason: Besides the fact that I don't see why teachers should be treated different from anyone else by getting tenure (which basically means they can't be fired), I see nothing wrong with waiting 5 years for them to get it. 2 years seems like hardly enough time. Further, I think a school principle should have the right to fire teachers without getting embroiled in a whole long drawn out process with the districts. For a state that's 35th in the country in education, and with HALF the state budget going towards it - someone somewhere isn't doing their job very well. I think it's time we reward good teachers and stop giving more incentives to just getting in and doing a crappy job.
A big Yes on this. In my opinion, high school teachers shouldn't get tenure, period. I understand why professors get it in university systems. Usually they have to publish many papers and books that display their mastery of a subject in order to get tenure, no matter how long they've been there. There is no standard for high school tenure other than time. And from what I've read, the standards for firing a teacher are based on two consecutive bad evaluations. So it's not like the school can just up and fire anyone they want.


Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 75 : PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNION DUES. RESTRICTIONS ON POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS. EMPLOYEE CONSENT REQUIREMENT. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Yes Reason: I do not believe in forcing union members to pay for political contributions WITHOUT their consent. As it stands now they take automatically without consent, and employees can "opt-out" however they still need to pay the money it just doesn't go to political contributions. With this law passed unions would actually have to convince their members they are working in their best interest and union members would "opt-in". That seems like the best way to do things in my opinion. As someone who once was forced to join a union who used my union money to advertise against a candidate I wanted to win, this is an easy decision for me.
Yes for every reason you stated. I completely agree with you.

Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 76: STATE SPENDING AND SCHOOL FUNDING LIMITS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Yes Reason: Repeating what I said about prop 74, California is 35th in the nation in education. We've been throwing gobs and gobs of new money at the problem and now education is HALF our budget and still there is no improvement. If it were up to the teachers unions, if we gave 100% of our budget to education and still were at 35th they'd still want more. What this bill does is cap the amount of money being given the schools based on revenue growth and no more. As it stands now for years where there isn't as much revenue growth the school still has their hand out for MORE - meanwhile our roads and infrastructure is deteriorating. Let's let the schools learn to balance their budget like everyone else.
No for one simple reason: It gives the governor too much power. I don't like the idea that every governor from now until the end of the world having the ability to slash budgets unilaterally.



Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 77: REDISTRICTING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
YES Reason: According to polls these California legislature has the lowest approval rating in the state (yes, worse than the governor) and this initiative would redistrict area based on recommendations provided by 3 retired judges picked at random and then the voters would get the vote on the new district lines. As it stands now the legislature draws up the districts in a pathetic display of jerrymandering on both sides. It's time for that to stop.
No for two reasons: 3 people with the power to redistrict the whole state? And judges for that matter? What do the courts have to do with redistricting? I understand they're retired judges, but I still say no way. This gives three people way too much power. Also, the way this law is written, once the judges draw the new lines, they go into effect immediately. Only after they go into effect do we get to vote on them. That makes less than no sense. There might be a problem with how we currently district, but this is no solution.


Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 78: DISCOUNTS ON PRESCRIPTION DRUGS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

NO Reason: See prop 79. In short prop 78 was the drug company's answer to Prop 79. Even though I don't really trust the legislature in this state to do the right thing, I trust the drug companies even less. From my take on this prop 78 would usurp the effectiveness of prop 79. There is a reason this initiative was put forth BY the drug companies.
No because of what you said. 79 mandates the drug companies to work with the state to lower the price of prescription drugs for the people who qualify. In 78, it's completely voluntary.



Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 79: PRESCRIPTION DRUG DISCOUNTS. STATE-NEGOTIATED REBATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
YES As I mentioned on Prop 78 I'm not really wild about the state doing negotiations for us, but I sure trust them more than the drug companies. There for enforceable drug discounts for the state. I'm all for drug companies making a profit, but we are getting ripped off and I mean BADLY. It's time for the state to step in and negotiate down the the prices for all of us. 8-10 Million people would get their drugs cheaper under this plan. Not bad I say.
Yes also for the reasons you stated.


Originally Posted by General Zod
Prop 80: ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS. REGULATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

NO Reason: I see no reason that this should pass. Not allowing costomers to switch from private utilities to other providers takes away competition and thus higher energy costs. I don't see how this initiative helps any of us citizens of California. I like the renewable energy idea of the initiative, but not enough to cut off freedom of buisnesses to choose cheaper providers.
No again because I agree with you.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 04:17 PM
  #15  
DVD Talk Ruler
Thread Starter
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,179
Originally Posted by Suprmallet
No for two reasons: 3 people with the power to redistrict the whole state? And judges for that matter? What do the courts have to do with redistricting? I understand they're retired judges, but I still say no way. This gives three people way too much power. Also, the way this law is written, once the judges draw the new lines, they go into effect immediately. Only after they go into effect do we get to vote on them. That makes less than no sense. There might be a problem with how we currently district, but this is no solution.
I'm cool with the other disagreements I just wanted to bring this one back up. There isn't going to be 3 judges for all of California, it is 3 judges selected from a pool of judges for EACH district. If it were just 3 judges doing the whole state I would agree with you, that's not what this is. Not only that but in the way the 3 judges are picked for each district is extremely fair. First off they must not have held a partisan political office, change party affiliation since thier judicial appointment, or received income over the past year from specific political sources. Then they are randomly selected from a pool of 24 judges (of which the democrats and republicans have equal representation) down to 12. Then 4 different legislative leaders (2 majority and 2 minority) can dismiss one for any reason. With the remaining left over the 3 are randomly chosen from that list. After that they have to pledge they will not run for office in the districts they are chosen to draw up nor accept an public jobs in those districts over the next 5 years. Seems pretty democratic to me. Again, I understand the commerical make it sound like 3 baffoon judges deciding the whole state.. but the real story is much better.
General Zod is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 04:24 PM
  #16  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Even with all that, I don't think it's a good idea.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 04:54 PM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milford
Posts: 989
Have you seen the electoral map? better that 3 impartial judges draw the lines than incumbants. As they've got it drawn now, there's slim chances they'll ever be defeated because they just draw the lines into places that are friendly to them.

By redrawing the districts, the politicians will actually have to worry about pleasing more than just their base, which will make them accountable to a wider population, rather than just their hard-core base as it stands now.
Chaos is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 05:13 PM
  #18  
Banned by request
 
Supermallet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Termite Terrace
Posts: 54,156
Well, I've already voted no on it, so no point trying to change my mind.

I still don't see how having us vote on the new districts AFTER they've changed helps matters.
Supermallet is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 05:36 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth ....
Posts: 4,669
Originally Posted by General Zod
I'm cool with the other disagreements I just wanted to bring this one back up. There isn't going to be 3 judges for all of California, it is 3 judges selected from a pool of judges for EACH district. If it were just 3 judges doing the whole state I would agree with you, that's not what this is. Not only that but in the way the 3 judges are picked for each district is extremely fair. First off they must not have held a partisan political office, change party affiliation since thier judicial appointment, or received income over the past year from specific political sources. Then they are randomly selected from a pool of 24 judges (of which the democrats and republicans have equal representation) down to 12. Then 4 different legislative leaders (2 majority and 2 minority) can dismiss one for any reason. With the remaining left over the 3 are randomly chosen from that list. After that they have to pledge they will not run for office in the districts they are chosen to draw up nor accept an public jobs in those districts over the next 5 years. Seems pretty democratic to me. Again, I understand the commerical make it sound like 3 baffoon judges deciding the whole state.. but the real story is much better.

WRONG: It is not three judges for each district. It is three retired judges for the entire state of California:
Prop 77 Analysis They cannot take into consideration party affliation in determining districts so it is not clear if it will lead to competitive districts anyway. This measure is rushed onto the ballot. I rather it be a commission of more than 3 people. Why can't we wait until the census is done in 2010 to have a better redistricting plan when we will have a better idea of the 3+ million more people that moved to California since 2000.

Edit: once the three judges agree to a map, it goes to the voters for approval. Currently, they need to draw one up before the June primaries in 2006. We vote yes or no in June. If yes, then the map goes into effect for November of 2006. Imagine if you are a candidate in 2006. It will be utter chaos to figure out which district you are in and to run. It cannot be done. We need something better.

Last edited by chowderhead; 11-07-05 at 05:41 PM.
chowderhead is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 06:57 PM
  #20  
DVD Talk Ruler
Thread Starter
 
General Zod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Santa Clarita, CA
Posts: 21,179
Originally Posted by chowderhead
WRONG: It is not three judges for each district. It is three retired judges for the entire state of California:
I'm just not seeing that in the text of the initiative. You may indeed be correct, but if so this line taken directly from the text of the initiative makes no sense:
A retired judge selected to serve as a Special Master shall
also pledge, in writing, that he or she will not run for election in
the Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, or Board of Equalization
districts adjusted by him or her
Wouldn't this say in the state of California instead of states drawn by him or her? It certainly says to me that there may be different judges drawing up different district lines.

Assuming, for arguments sake, that it is just 3 judges for the whole state then it certainly concerns me that it is an aweful lot of responsibility and power for just them and I agree that perhaps this bill should probably have been drafted better. I still would prefer these 3 trying to draw up districts in a non-biased, non-political way than what we have now which is completely jerrymandered. Besides, we get to vote on it - it's not like it kicks into effect automatically.

Originally Posted by chowderhead
We vote yes or no in June. If yes, then the map goes into effect for November of 2006. Imagine if you are a candidate in 2006. It will be utter chaos to figure out which district you are in and to run. It cannot be done. We need something better.
I think 5 months of time to get your campaign targeted is plenty.

Last edited by General Zod; 11-07-05 at 07:01 PM.
General Zod is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 07:42 PM
  #21  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: The L.A.
Posts: 18,122
Originally Posted by X
I love the initiative process. For one thing, it brought about Prop. 13 which was something the entrenched politicians would never do. The people knew best.
I think Prop 13 was a terrible mistake. For one, a lot of those property taxes went to the local school districts. After Prop 13, school districts lost that tax revenue and became dependent on the state government (& fed). This dependence didn't come without a cost.
DodgingCars is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 08:19 PM
  #22  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 3,164
Originally Posted by DodgingCars
I think Prop 13 was a terrible mistake.
The only mistake with Prop 13 is that it should never have covered commercial property.
WCChiCubsFan is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 08:27 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Earth ....
Posts: 4,669
Originally Posted by General Zod
I'm just not seeing that in the text of the initiative. You may indeed be correct, but if so this line taken directly from the text of the initiative makes no sense:


Wouldn't this say in the state of California instead of states drawn by him or her? It certainly says to me that there may be different judges drawing up different district lines.

Assuming, for arguments sake, that it is just 3 judges for the whole state then it certainly concerns me that it is an aweful lot of responsibility and power for just them and I agree that perhaps this bill should probably have been drafted better. I still would prefer these 3 trying to draw up districts in a non-biased, non-political way than what we have now which is completely jerrymandered. Besides, we get to vote on it - it's not like it kicks into effect automatically.


I think 5 months of time to get your campaign targeted is plenty.

Read section 1a) in the pdf file of the text of 77. It says a panel of special masters composed retired judges shall adjust the boundary lines of the Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts ...
pdf of the text of 77


Personally, it is a moot point since this proposition is heading for defeat.

I urge everyone to vote NO of all the propositions. Send Arnold a message to get back to work.

Edit: Vote NO of 74. It is a sneak attack on a woman's right to choose. It changes the language of California state law to "define abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."
Prop 74 is a stealth proposition

Second Edit: You don't get 5 months. Primaries are in June of 2006. Do you know where the boundaries are for you to run? What about all those public hearings they need to do and the court challenges (i.e. different language circuited in petitions vs. submitted to Attorney General). There is no way this gets ratified, survives court challenges, judges selected, public hearings and input across the state, and submitted for approval for the June 2006 and leave candidates and voters to know which district they are in. Utter chaos.
Anyway, moot point because Wapner, et al took this measure down. The befuddled looking "judges" and the closing shot of a MAP OF TEXAS was VERY effective!

Last edited by chowderhead; 11-07-05 at 08:49 PM.
chowderhead is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 08:28 PM
  #24  
X
Administrator
 
X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1987
Location: AA-
Posts: 10,684
Originally Posted by WCChiCubsFan
The only mistake with Prop 13 is that it should never have covered commercial property.
Possibly.

Just as old people were being forced out of their houses due to unconstrained tax increases, businesses may have been forced out of the state. But I don't think the negative effects of unconstrained pre-Prop 13 tax increases were as dramatically bad on commercial property owners as they were on home owners. And commercial property doesn't turn over as quickly as homes in order to get a new tax basis.
X is offline  
Old 11-07-05, 09:30 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 3,164
Originally Posted by X
Possibly.

Just as old people were being forced out of their houses due to unconstrained tax increases, businesses may have been forced out of the state. But I don't think the negative effects of unconstrained pre-Prop 13 tax increases were as dramatically bad on commercial property owners as they were on home owners. And commercial property doesn't turn over as quickly as homes in order to get a new tax basis.
At the time people were losing their mortgage free homes because they could not pay the property tax. There is no evidence that businesses were leaving the state because of the property tax burdens.

Remember when I refer to commercial property I'm also including Hotels, Motels and apartment complexes. There was big talk that if 13 passed rents would go down, hotel rates would roll back etc. Real big surprise that generally across the board rent and hotel rates didn't go down.

As far as leaving, it's not as if an apartment complex or hotel can just up and leave.
WCChiCubsFan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.