http://ca.lp.org/article_399.shtml:
Proposition 13: VOTE YES
Constitutional Amendment prohibiting the reassessment of property values due to seismic retrofitting work
Proposition 14: VOTE NO
Initiative establishing “Open Primaries” (also called “Top Two Balloting”)
Proposition 15: VOTE NO
Initiative creating a public campaign finance system for Secretary of State elections
Proposition 16: No Position Taken
Constitutional Amendment requiring a two-thirds majority to establish public electricity providers
Proposition 17: VOTE YES
Initiative allowing auto insurance companies to charge based on continuity of insurance coverage
TRC2010 is not perfect. Neither was Prop 215. It is a good step and that is what it boils down to with me. I had hoped that the Jack Herrer petition would get backing (He is missed). It did not.
This proposition moves the ball forward a good distance.
It does not explicitly levy a tax. It allows for taxes but does not put it in federal or state hands it puts it in the authority of the county governments; which is at least close to the voters and far more accountable than the former two. Local voters will have the say in what that tax looks like if it is set.
All the harassment of patients ends. In one vote, the busts are over for individuals. No more worrying about having to take medicine with you .
No more database.
The harassment of potheads ends.
Everybody gets to breath a little more freely, regardless of whether or not they partake in smoking marijuana.
The tax potential not withstanding the proposition moves the ball forward for freedom and against the prohibitionist approach to the drug problem.
@28 Don’t make assumptions about my past.
LG,
We need more people like us in the party…who have had real experience with the state at its worst.
I have suggested a “what has government done to you?” campaign for LPHQ. Maybe some states/locals want to start it first?
Gene , no offense but you speak like an intellectual who has never had the benefit of sitting in a jail cell . Ya ,we all know taxes are theft , but the theft of our very freedom is a far greater evil. If it saves people from cages , I say tax it , then move on to repealing the taxes . This all or nothing anarchist attitude is disheartening , when THERE ARE PEOPLE ROTTING IN CAGES .I just dont get it ( spoken from someone who adone time and seen others souls die slowly living in a cage for selling weed , acid , etc) get off the high horse , there are people that need saving
Hmm, how about you ask all the people sitting in jail for marijuana if they would rather have the ability to pay a tax instead?
And what does it matter if the taxes on alcohol and tobacco are already there – you could be working to “repeal” them – by putting people in jail instead. Yeah.
Desert @17:
The difference is that the LP and LPCA platform both call for the leglaization of MJ, and there is no mention of either about electrical markets.
The taxes on alcohol and tobacco are already there.
The tax on marijuana is *not* present at this time, so I refuse to add any new taxes which will give one single additional penny to any level of government in California.
If you vote no you have not voted against the right to imprison, which remains. All you are doing then is removing a choice for those who would prefer to pay the tax to going to jail. Which is most people.
Let’s look at it from the other direction. If you don’t pay a tax on alcohol, you can go to jail. Does that mean we should make alcohol illegal? How about tobacco? ETC
And if you don’t pay that tax?
The threat of jail is ever present. I will not vote for *anything* which retains the power to imprison someone.
Granted maybe not for everyone, but that should be their choice to make, not someone else’s. Those who would rather go to jail than pay a tax are admirable. Those who would force others to go to jail rather than have the option to pay a tax instead, not so much.
It’s a better choice than sitting in jail.
A tax is not a choice, Paulie.
WTF? A choice to pay a tax or possibly land in jail, versus jail and no choice at all. That should be easy. Vote YES. I may be headed that way to campaign for it.
Can’t and won’t support the marijuana legalization bill in November. No taxes or regulation on weed. people complain about people in cages? Well, don’t pay your pot tax or don’t follow a regulation and the cage awaits.
So what’s the difference between not endorsing 16 because it’s not a perfectly written initiative, and endorsing the Marijuana Taxation Initiative because it’s not a perfectly written initiative… I absolutely will not vote to impose any new taxes on anyone anywhere, so this Libertarian will not support it.
Exactly
It is just a two way race now. 3rd parties are gone.
Early Results in CA:
9.0% ( 2,068 of 22,894 ) precincts partially
or fully reporting as of June 8, 2010, at 8:54 p.m.
13- Property Taxes and Seismic Retrofit of Buildings YES (774,388 85.6%) no (130,587 14.4%)
14 – Primary Election Participation YES (557,027 60.5%) no (364,551 39.5%)
15 – California Fair Elections Act yes (377,362 42.2%) NO (514,998 57.8%)
16 – Local Electricity Providers YES(477,422 51.9%) no(442,649 48.1%)
17 – Auto Insurance Pricing YES (506,804 54.9%) no (417,467 45.1%)
big big problem for me . while I know taxation is wrong , were talking about letting people sit in cages while we cling to our purist philosophy… cant do it . I support taxing if it means people will quit going to jail , sorry , hafta…
LPCA endorsed it several months ago. It’s better than nothing and it has its problems, but if we wait for the perfect initiative it’ll never get done.
However, the version on the ballot was actually well-thought-out by the proponents in its details, including some modifications from the original draft that I’m aware of, and while it isn’t perfect, it is the compromise proposal most likely to pass.
The big key to remember is that legally local regulation cannot mean local prohibition. Lots of established law on that one from the porn industry. San Diego and San Bernardino Counties seem to keep forgetting that in their perpetual losing battle against Prop 215.
I certainly hope the LP CA uses that same thorough decision-making when it comes time for the Marijuana Taxation initiative coming up in November, and comes to the right position that it should be opposed. Legalizing something just to submit it to a patchwork of regulation and taxation on a locality-by-locality basis is a loophole so huge you could drive Arnold’s Hummer through it. The measure is hideously written and will cause far more problems than it purports to solve.
Brian,
Fair question. Mainly because until they’re voted on they’re for internal consumption. I do see at least a blog for it in the future.
Mr. Seebeck-
Thanks for the extra info. Why are more detailed analyses not posted along with the recommendations on the CA LP website? It would make the recommendations page infinitely more useful than a simple Yes/No list.
I have made calls to
As for the analyses themselves, once they are voted on, I make them available to anyone who asks. Simply email me. Bear in mind that the reasons for the recommendation are not necessarily the reason for the votes.
Not overworked here, just undertimed. I’ve learned over the years to pick the spots. 🙂
As for the others:
13: pretty straightforward, support because it saves property owners tax money for investing in legitimate safety upgrades and equity.
14: discussed here intensely.
15: oppsoe because it simply tilts the playing field further against minor parties and independents. Also not truly equitable public funding of elections.
17: support because it opens up the option for coverage continuity discounts but doesn’t require it. Some concerns over a possible increase in rates for some people, but never borne out in other states AFAIK.
As for the report, it’s done on a prop-by-prop basis, simply because different ones qualify at different times through different means. Right now there are still some 7 dozen props in various stages of the process to qualify for November, plus whatever else the legislature throws on, so it’s keep an eye on the ones in the pipe and analyze the ones that qualify.
BTW, I always insist that the recommendations be discussed by the XC. I can be wrong, and I’m never willing to place my own recommendations and analyses forth as LPCA writ without proper discussion. The one time they did that I threw a fit over it, but I wasn’t on the XC at the time either.
MS@2
I said you were overworked. Thank you for the more detailed anal ysis. Is there more we should know on any of the others? Is your report published anywhere we might see it?
For some reason I was thinking it was Tuesday already.
Thanks, fixed.
Today’s election? I thought that the election was tommorrow.
I am that Legislative Analyst, and “Power” has no idea what he/she is talking about, probably because they weren’t at the meeting where this was decided.
I’m also the only member of that XC with experience in dealing with a rural electric association (REA) and their issues in obtaining energy for their clientele, which is a far diffferent process that dealing with urban public or private electricity providers who tend to have their own generation plants.
The recommendation I presented to the LPCA XC was either “Oppose” or “No Position” with reasons for both. I also included why a “Support” position was not warranted unless the initiative had been written differently.
The reason I recommended an “Oppose” position was straightforward: there is a huge loophole in the initiative. That loophole has the public vote only apply to fossil and nuclear fuels, and not to the more expensive renewables, which BTW these utlities are under current mandate to increase use of by 2020 in California anyway. That loophole means that the public vote doesn’t have to be taken for expansion of service using renewables, at a higher cost to the current consumer than cheaper sources that are subject to the vote. The net result is that the providers will simply ignore the public vote, declare the expansions with all renewables, and promptly raise everyone’s electric rates to match, without a voice of the people. Had the initiative been written to require a public vote on all energy expansions, regardless of source, then the recommendation would have been to support it.
The “No Position” argument was an acknowledgment that the public vote was an improvement, however very slight and symbolic, over the current system.
In appliaction in rural areas, it would be rather simple: a REA that currently provides service suddenly has its power supply cut off by a provider seeking to expand their service into their area while conveniently putting out an expansion call. The rural customers, faced with losing their power with the REA or keeping it by jumping to the power raiders, vote predictably to keep their power. Net result is the REA goes out of business and competition is stifled.
As for the reason a “No Position” was taken, it was rather simple. “No Position” is the default position going into votes like these. I present the report and the recommendation, and the recommendation is moved on and seconded. It takes a 2/3 vote to adopt the recommendation. In this case the 2/3 was not reached, and no motion was made to support the measure, so the official position stayed at “No Position”.
BTW, I voted No on 16. The key to our energy future lies in decentralization of the generation process down to the site level, with the grid use being reversed to funnel excess generation where it’s needed instead the current centralized plant-to-site operation we see now that creates rolling blackouts on high-energy-use days. Prop 16 does nothing to work to that solution, and it does nothing to keep customers’ rates in check.
California’s overworked legislative analyst missed a few tihings. One notable example is that Prop 16 sets back a free market in energy.
The proposition is billed as giving voters more choice, but in reality what it does, is it forces all negotiations a community might make for power into the voting booth, basically stopping communities from negotiating at all and locking in current providers.
It’s net result is to make the energy market less free and more regulated… favoring exclusively the semi-monopolistic power providers. It is another step towards fascist economic policy, not away from it.