Share →
Buffer

For our friends in California who have busy and interesting lives, and better things to do than check for political tricks in fine print, we offer this common sense advice about the ballot they will face tomorrow statewide, and especially in LA County.

Many will unfortunately be fooled into Voting for things they would rather not if they understood them well. The propositions are a mine field of sweet sounding proposals with venom in their fine print.

Taken from our official Voter Guide, in the California Section:

 

US Senat and House

State Senat and Assembly

LA Country District Attorney

Proposition 30 – NO

Proposition 31 – NO

Proposition 32 – YES

Proposition 33 – YES

Proposition 34 – NO

Proposition 35 – NO

Proposition 36 – ?

Proposition 37 – NO

Proposition 38 – NO

Proposition 39 – NO

Proposition 40 – NO

 

  • US Senate

    • Elizabeth Emken (Elizabeth is energetic and perfectly qualified, but be satisfied that no one can be worse than her opponent Dianne Feinstein)
  • US House of Representatives

    • Interestingly, after voters stripped the legislature of the powers to draw congressional districts for their (Democrats) benefit, this will be the first general election with the new districts. Most districts have an election across regular party lines, a Democrat and a Republican candidate. I would highlight the importance of electing John Dennis over Nancy Pelosi in the new 12th congressional district (used to be the 8th).[break][break]Although Dennis is far from a typical Conservative Republican (who could never win in San Francisco), he would in some way continue to carry many of the principles of outgoing Ron Paul, the self proclaimed (and I must tend to agree) “Champion of Liberty”. Ironically, these very libertarian ideas resonate well in liberal San Francisco because they include legalization of everything (like drugs, gay marriage, etc) and ending foreign military interventions.[break][break]Any candidate from San Francisco will support very liberal social views, but the choice here is whether they come together with totalitarian socialism (Nancy Pelosi) or with consistent, coherent, free market, and Constitutional American principles (John Dennis). Most of the others are along party lines, though some districts do not have a Republican candidate, and some feature two Democrats on the ballot only. Let me know if you want an endorsement or opinion on any specific race not listed. The same holds true to State Senate and Assembly races.

    • District 25 – Howard Philip “Buck” McKeon[break][break]
    • District 30 – 
      • Howard Berman – An unusual race for The Lighthouse to have to call. Both candidates, Howard Berman, and Brad Sherman, are quite similar, though they reportedly despise each other. They are both Jews (both of Ashekanazi and hailing from Russian immigrants), Democrats and quite liberal. They also are in disagreement with just about everything the Lighthouse Keeper stands for. However, this unusual situation was caused by California’s new redistricting (after the 2010 Census) and new election laws. These two Democrats must face each other, and neither has the endorsement of the Democratic Parry.[break][break]Though Californians in District 30 have a poor choice, they obviously do not know that since they voted for these two gentleman. At this point, the least bad choice must be elected.[break][break]To be honest, despite their outward similarities, these two gentlemen are actually markedly different, in personality, motivation and core values. The choice is actually fairly easy. Brad Sherman is a disaster. He has done little outside of working in government where he has pushed his tax and spend policies. He is simply a far leftist, detached from reality and American values, though he can be vindictive and unpredictable.[break][break]Howard Berman on the other hand, is a more typical mainstream Democrat although with a better than typical innovative mind. He shuns the limelight, but is active in backroom discussions to get things done in the House. He is able to work with both parties, and understands the dangerous world we live in, the necessity of a strong military and a strong economy with free trade. We wish him well.
  • State Senate

    • District 27

      • Todd Zink – Todd is a decorated War Veteran and Marine Corps officer (who rose to Battalion Commander). He is an experienced attorney and is a praised prosecutor in the District Attorney’s Office where he is assigned cases of violent offenders in the San Fernando Valley. Todd has experience in the private sector, in government,  in law, in leadership positions and in complex administrative, economic, cultural, tactical and military matters that go along with being a battalion commander in counterinsurgency operations. Todd Zink’s values, and experience set him far apart from the usual do-nothing career bureaucrats that commonly fill California’s Senate and Assembly.
  • State Assembly

    • District 45

      • Chris Kolski – A real lover of liberty and free markets. Mr. Kolski is an immigrant and long time resident of the San Fernando Valley who lived the American Dream. He will champion small business and liberty, and help lower taxes, red tape, regulations and government burden. His opponent, Bob Blumenfeld is useless. Bob voted for 35 tax increases in 2009 alone. He has a near perfect 94% (out of 100) Liberal rating by Capitol Weekly.

        Blumenfeld represents more of the same in California, an ever increasing burden on those who continue to try to succeed, in order to support an ever increasing group who gives up; more businesses leaving the state, more unemployment, more annoying laws, more state deficits and bankruptcies, more taxes, traffic, high gas prices and an unaffordable cost of living.
  • Los Angeles County District Attorney

      • Alan Jackson – This is another tough call. Would Jackie Lacey be facing many other potential candidates, we would be happy to endorse her. Jackie’s story is an impressive and even inspirational. She came from humble beginnings  her father a city cleaner and growing up in what in her own words was a gang plagued neighborhood. Jackie, encouraged by her parents, focused on education and attended UCI and USC Law School. She joined the DA’s office, rising through the ranks and eventually rose to become Deputy District Attorney under the well known and highly praised Steve Cooley. By all accounts she was a good administrator (of the largest county DA office in the country), and earned Mr. Cooley’s endorsement.

        What is the problem? There is someone better. Alan Jackson is a star attorney and prosecutor. Born in Texas, he moved to Los Angeles after his time in the Air Force and graduated from Pepperdine Law School. As a seventeen year veteran of the same DA office, he is currently Assistant Head Deputy of the Major Crimes Division. He is responsible for managing the elite trial teams, in addition to prosecuting his own cases. Twice named Prosecutor of the year, he has tackled the most complex cases, and the most violent felons; from wanted gang members to Hollywood Celebrities. He is well known for his respect for justice, and his ability to not be intimidated, easy enough in the legal and political world of the District Attorney’s Office.

         Jackie Lacey has not tried a case in 13 years, and has been an administrator for most of her career. Though she points to that as a great plus, liking it to the boss’ job… it is not. A deputy is not the same as the commander, and an administrator is not the executive. So while she has never been the head of the office who must take a “the buck stops here” attitude  she has been away from actual prosecuting for a long time. Jackson on the other hand, also has leadership, administrative and management experience in his own right by virtue of his present and past positions, but is an undisputed power in the courtroom. The District Attorney must be foremost an active attorney and a prosecutor. He must have clear goals and ideology. He must also know how to lead and manage a complex office, but he must not simply be an able administrator. Though Jackie efficiently carried out instructions under Steve Cooley, it was he that chose the path. An office under Jackie may have looked completely different and had completely different goals.

        Jackie herself complained that some of her opponents were good prosecutors but wanted to skip the managerial or administrative positions in the middle by going straight to the top. This is poor logic and a poorer complaint. It  show that large part of why she believes she should be the next DA is because she is next in line… she did the years, and the steps. It is of no doubt part of the reason why she got her ex-boss’s loyal endorsement, as she was loyal.  But this is how bad teachers in a public school system get seniority or tenure, by doing the years, not how voters should elect the next District Attorney.

        In addition, Jackie is haunted by a bit of controversy and scandal. She and her boss were in hot water for alleged Union busting. Though the mere implication of that in my book actually earns them both points, her reaction does not. Without getting into gory details, nor unproven accusations, it is sufficed to say that Jackie’s own words were less than impressive. At one point, she admitted that previous sworn testimony on the matter was wrong, changed it and blamed it on eating habits and sugar levels. Of course perjury from the DA cannot be accepted, though IF it was so in this case it was to protect her boss which is admirable in its own right. However, giving Jackie Lacey the full benefit of the doubt, and believing her own words, she loses quite a few points. A Deputy District Attorney who under oath, in such an important matter can give completely false statements because of her blood sugar levels at the time does not inspire much confidence. Her office decides millions of dollars and sends men and women to jail based on their testimony, and it is unlikely they can later claim their sugar level was off. Before any sworn testimony, especially important ones, a witness is asked thoroughly how they are felling and if there is any medical, emotional or other reason why they cannot give accurate testimony at the time.

        Given all this, Cooley’s endorsement has to be suspect, as he himself must feel pressure to return loyalty so well given (which is fine, but we must consider it). Finally, other than Cooley’s endorsement, much of the rabble that endorses her does her no favor. LA County Federation of Labor and a host of Unions, Antonio Villaraigosa, Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters and worse; they cannot possibly want the same things that Steve Cooley wanted. Either these and others endorse her simply because she is a woman and black (in which case it does not reflect badly on Jackie at all but rather on them), or there is something that they know about her goals and ideology that we do not. These questions together, and Mr. Jackson’s stellar record put him over the top. He is our choice for Los Angeles District Attorney, and we wish the equally impressive Jackie Lacey all the best in the future. The Lighthouse hopes to find she proves that some of her more radical leftist fans had no reason to support her at all, and to be able to endorse her in a future race.
  • Ballot Measures

    • Proposition 30– Jerry Brown’s Sales and Income Tax Hike

      • NO

    • Proposition 31– Two Year State Budget Cycle –  STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE

      • NO

        At first glance, Prop 31 was a shoe-in for a “YES” endorsement. So far, the parties publicly opposing it are mostly unions (teachers and other state worker unions) and the California Democratic Party. Likewise, the California GOP, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. At worse, it seems like one of those propositions very common in California; an Oh well proposition. In that contest, Prop 31 certainly would deserve support.

        It is not a perfect plan, and seems to add more bureaucracy in attempting to relieve California’s fiscal problems when they require a true top-to bottom overhaul. However, the proposition has some real benefits. It would actually finally give a Governor some power in the face of the spending crazed Assembly (Arnold Schwarzenegger would have surely loved this).

        A President has an Army, a CIA, the State Department, Defense Department, and can rule over foreign relations, diplomacy, and war (though Congress has to declare wars, the President as Commander-in-Chief commands the army the declaration of war has not recently ever been used) . Additionally, his internal control of a country is augmented by powerful Federal Agencies, and even his ability to spend money is not completely controlled by Congress as it is the independent Federal Reserve (whose Chairman is appointed by the President), and the Treasury Department directly under the President that CREATE money.

        On the other hand, what is a Governor? California’s Governor cannot invade Nevada; he cannot conduct diplomacy nor control an Army or Navy. The State government (thankfully) also has no power in creating money. So a State government is little more than the budget. It is able to tax, borrow and spend. The only thing in addition to this fiscal factor is of course legislation. A state government is a budget, and a collection of laws making many things illegal. That is basically it, and all of that is controlled by the legislature. The Governor, especially in a state like California, is completely powerless and though he tends to draw the ire for all the state’s failings, he has little real power to change anything.

        Furthermore, whatever powers are left for the governor as the internal Executive are drastically reduced by being under the Legislative, Judicial and Executive power of the Federal government. Schwarzenegger for example, could not even “turn on the water” in the famed Salinas agricultural belt after morons from (federal) Fish and Wildlife decided to turn it off and ruin a massive amount of California’s agriculture and economy. So prop 31 partly fixes this problem. Additionally, it forces the State legislature to strive for a balanced budget, curtails their ability to spend,  creates a more efficient process by enacting a two year budget cycle, and passes a great deal of power and funds from the state level down to the local level.  Still, something about the language and some of the major donors were bothersome. The answer lies in the text:


        …the people declare that the purpose of state and local governments is to promote a prosperous economy, a quality environment, and community equity. These purposes are advanced by achieving at least the following goals: increasing employment, improving education, decreasing poverty, decreasing crime, and improving health.


        This paragraph radically alters the stated mission of government in California and the US. We tend to think it is to secure our “inalienable rights… life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. The litigation nightmare that prop’s 31 statements can create is hard to imagine, and their precedent could be the last straw in any semblance of freedom left in California. When the goals of government are “AT LEAST” to improve education, increase employment, decrease poverty, decrease crime and improve health (not to mention making a “quality environment” and “community equity”), there is little that the government cannot do, and a great deal that it must be FORCED to do. These statements, though perhaps nice sounding, are extremely un-American, socialist and dangerous.

        After finding the real hidden “gems” in the fine print o the document, it is easy to see why the “homeless billionaire” Nicolas Berggruen and his institute are the main supporters and donors. Berggruen, who lives only in hotels and has no private home, is a dual German-US citizen whose institute sponsors global governance movements. He astutely shies away from words that could label him as either left or right wing (always claiming to be bi-partisan), but he clearly has an overarching agenda of global jurisdiction. His language recalls language of Agenda 21. Wonderful sounding terminology that really means nothing but intrusive government, loss of liberty, and loss of national sovereignty. Nicolas I assume, dreams of a world as unpatriotic as he is.

        One would hope Californians, unlike him, are not homeless. The GOP has made a mistake in backing this proposition; and they would do well to support a true constitutional reform of California’s government or at the very least similar reforms as suggested by Proposition 31 without the “New Age” globalist mumbo jumbo. As much as I’d hate to be in agreement with the state worker’s unions who oppose this proposition solely based on the loss of power and revenue they would suffer in the short term, the dangerous fine print within the proposition requires a firm “NO” vote, lest the same hapless unions suddenly find themselves in control of every aspect of Californians’ lives. Berggruen and his crew, are more sophisticated and intelligent than that tired old group, though they share much more that initially meets the eye.

    • Proposition 32– The “Paycheck Protection” Initiative – POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PAYROLL DEDUCTION. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE
      • YES  – A major step in breaking the stranglehold Unions have on California government.

    • Proposition 33– Automobile Insurance Persistency Discounts Initiative – AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES. PRICES BASED ON DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

      • YES –  A small step for freedom, and will lower the great majority of driver’s car insurance premium.
    • Proposition 34– The “Death Sentence” Initiative.

      • NO– The use of fiscal arguments by the left (in times of economic hardship) in order to end the death sentence is incredibly hypocritical. Firstly, the death sentence is so expensive due to leftist opposition to it. It is very rarely carried out and so ends up costing as much as life sentences combined with prosecution for the death penalty. Secondly, any cost attributed to the death sentence is insignificant compared to the massive budgets the same left refuses to decrease even by a penny.

        California is not going to fix its fiscal issues by ending the death penalty. However, it could slightly improve the situation by actually carrying it out; if cost cutting is the goal, nothing would save more money (in this issue) than actually carrying out the death penalty. Obviously, there is more here than just economic factors. Certain grievous crimes deserve capital punishment. There is no doubt that the system requires an overhaul, but Proposition 34 is not it.

    • Proposition 35– “Ban on Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery”

      • NO – This Proposition is typical of the trickery legislatures use to fool voters to do their bidding. Who would vote against banning human trafficking right? Obviously, Human Trafficking and Sex Slavery are already illegal, both at the Federal and State levels. If all this proposition wanted to do is ban these activities, it would not exist in the first place since they are already banned.

        What this proposition actually does is enlarge the power of the police state, further limit freedom, enrich the law enforcement agencies that are supporting it (essentially bribes), and further some extreme feminist ideologies. The proposition broadens the definition of human trafficking to an absurd extent (for example, those caught with pornographic photos of minors, who were never in any contact with the victims or necessarily had any knowledge about them can be charged with human trafficking). It also increased fines and penalties and directs them to victims (who are now financially encouraged to bring on accusations) and law enforcement agencies directly (also a dangerous incentive to deviate from justice).

        Real human traffickers are scum who should be punished and already are under a host of laws. If a proposition simply wanted to stiffen those penalties, I could be all for it, but using that horrible crime as an excuse to charge an ever increasing number of people with it and other sex crimes not only “cheapens” the gravity of real human trafficking but potentially submits lesser offenders to extreme and disproportionate punishment.

        California sex offender law is ALREADY far too broad, where both an 18 year old boy who had consenting relations with a 17-year-old girl, and a 40-year-old man who rapes young boys are both considered “sex offenders” and subject to the same regulations and restrictions in daily life (outside of prison that is).

        A terrifying glimpse into the true intentions of the authors of prop 35 is that it would prohibit the entering of certain evidence in sex related crimes. Evidence of the alleged victim’s sexual activity and past would be banned from ever seeing the inside of a courtroom or being heard by a jury of an accused’s peers. Very often, the entire evidence of a sexual crime is the testimony of the alleged victim. It is a great injustice if the accused does not even have the right to question his accuser’s credibility.

        Proposition 35 is California politics at its worse, a title that no one could possibly disagree with, and a completely different set of goals in fine print. Human trafficking and many other related crimes are already illegal, as they very well should be. Sadly, the California GOP jumped on the bandwagon on this one, and did not have the stomach to oppose such a “nice sounding” proposition. They also were not able to stand against their usual allies in law enforcement who stand to benefit financially from this proposition.

        It may very well be true that law enforcement needs to do a much better job in enforcing these laws, but none of that has anything to do with this grotesque proposition. It will simply put many legitimate and “gray area” individual and businesses that engage in some sort of consenting pornography or adult entertainment across the table from 15 year + prison sentences and massive fines to enrich their accusers and the agencies that prosecuted them. Almost all of them will of course, when facing such odds, plea bargain and pay the fees that enrich everyone involved. Justice will not benefit, and neither will the true victims of human traffickers who are real underworld criminals and do not readily have assets for courts, victims and police to seize.

        In fact, a great portion of people affected might be (mostly Hispanic) divorced parents who neither understand nor exactly follow the custody orders of state courts, and end up taking their children somewhere when not formally in right of custody. Proposition 35 targets these and many other situations, and not the human trafficking one imagines from movies, which already is and should remain, clearly illegal.

    • Proposition 36– Amending the “Three-Strikes Law” –

      • Will leave this one a “?” for now. Input appreciated. There is no question that the US and California have incarceration rates unheard of in the civilized world. There is an obvious over-incarceration rate for more minor crimes, but the same is not true for major crimes, and not even true for repeat offenses. That is why there is also no question that the “Three-strikes” law has helped reduce crime in California (along with other factors) which was out of control in the 90′s.

        The exact effects of this new proposition are still unclear. Those on the left continuously trying to repeal the three-strikes law teamed up with more fair-headed factions and came up with a more reasonable bill. At first sight, it seems to correct a flaw in the three-strikes bill when it comes to non-serious and non-violent felonies. Respectable people such as Steve Cooley support it. However, as usual, the devil is in the details. The cost savings as advertised seem to be far overblown. There is only 8-9 thousand people total serving under the third strike provision for felonies.

        Even releasing all of them would not be very significant in California’s overpopulated prison system, but it would surely endanger society. The authors emphasize how it would do far from that since it only applies to non-serious and non-violent felonies. The vast majority of three strikers were convicted of serious and/or violent felonies. The touted cost savings would be further reduced by the necessity to re-apprehend, retry, and re-incarcerate released offenders who will commit further crime (not to mention the economic and moral impact of their crimes themselves), and by the jump in litigation that will occur when many of these inmates file motions for early release. There is no question that the three-strike rule can in some cases be excessive.

        However, the interesting thing is as it stands, the courts and prosecutors already have a large leeway in how to implement it. It is not true, as is often cited by the left, that a 19 year old boy automatically receives a life sentence for stealing a slice of pizza when it is his “third strike”. You have a long chain of events required: the DA electing to prosecute the crime as a three-strike offence, a jury of peers who agree and find the accused guilty, a court which also agrees and chooses to sentence the suspect as a third-strike offender, and finally an unsuccessful appeal by the convicted felon to a different court.

        Of note is that there isn’t any law enforcement agency (so far) supporting the proposition and many opposing it. In addition, most District attorneys also oppose it (with notable exceptions like Steve Cooley). Perhaps most disturbing of all, is that George Soros is a major funder of the proposition. Where there is Soros, there is almost unquestionably evil…. So though proposition 36 looks reasonable at first glance, there remain some disturbing factors about it. There may be hidden agendas in the fine print that perhaps is mostly targeted to drug crime. It is still unclear to me if it will change the definition of what are “serious” and/or “violent” felonies which is at the heart of the issue. It also will definitely not fix California’s overpopulated prison system, and might just delay a better and truer reform. The Lighthouse jury on this one, is still out…
    • Proposition 37– Mandatory Labeling of Genetically Engineered Foods. – GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS.  LABELING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

      • NO – Yet another burdensome bureaucratic requirement on agriculture, small businesses and food grocers of all sizes. It will lead to more litigation and lawsuits, and puts small food retailers in danger of massive liabilities. “Genetically Engineered” sounds like a simple enough term, but it is not. Virtually everything we eat is “genetically engineered” in some way or other as man has domesticated, plants and animals for millennia.

        Through selection, cross breeding, and interbreeding we have developed subspecies, strains and varieties of plants and animals that are different from their wild counterparts. In large part, these are responsible for the massive increase in agricultural productivity which allow the world’s population to be fed. For example, traits that man has always searched for in agricultural plants are higher yields per acre, lower water consumption, bigger tastier fruit, and pest and disease resistance.

        These improvements tended to be slower and more gradual than they are sometimes today due to technological advances in genetic engineering, but the principle remains the same, we continue to look for traits (in effect genes) that are beneficial. Without it, not only could we not feed the world population, but cats, dogs, chickens, donkeys, cows, the countless breeds of dogs that we love and even goldfish and Koi would not exist.

        All genes are made up of the same deoxyribonucleic acid bases (DNA) bases (4 of them), and all are perfectly edible. There is no “gene” regardless of its source that can potentially be harmful when eaten. Digestive systems care not what genes encode for but treat them all as the same DNA matter that is quickly broken down in the digestive system. Any altered or added genes are insignificant compared to the massive amount of DNA our food contains. Each cell contains DNA and most of our food, be it from plant, animal (fungi, bacteria or anything else) is made up of cells. We ingest DNA of all types continuously and have done so for our entire existence.

        In any event, over 90% of the US’ corn and soybean crop are considered Genetically Engineered. Corn and soybean are ingredients in the great majority of our food products, making almost everything liable to be labeled “Genetically Engineered”. Again, it would not even be clear what would actually NOT be Genetically Engineered under this proposition. So what interest do the sponsors have in labeling everything as GE? Well, simple, the proposition calls for such an incredibly large and illegitimate exception to the rule, that even if you supported mandatory labeling of GE products, you should not support this proposition. The text exempts:

certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages.



Firstly, the exemptions are so broad and unclear that anyone supporting the mandatory labeling should oppose this proposition. More importantly, the major exemption of course is “certified organic”. This of course is simply absurd. As long as you did not use pesticides on your crops, they can be as Genetically Engineered as you like, and do not have to be labeled as such. What is the possible logic in that?

First of all, it deceives the consumer who now thinking mandatory GE labeling exists, will naturally assume products NOT labeled GE are not, when in fact most of them will be. Organic crops are very often genetically engineered since this is one of the very BENEFITS of genetic engineering, increasing disease and pest resistance so that pesticides are not required. This is a special interest proposition by people who wish to control the food market by legal barriers and monopolies.

Already they increasingly control who and what can be labeled as “organic” and now this will simply increase their power exponentially. With all the non “certified organic” products being labeled as Genetically Engineered, (scary sounding stuff), the certified organic monopoly will be able to increase prices on their products that will be DECEITFULLY not marked as Genetically Engineered even they are. This proposition is extremely hurtful to your average farmer, to the food industry as a whole, the small businesses all along the chain from farm to your table (wholesalers, distributors etc) and especially your small retail grocers.

What is wrong with freedom? If people want to buy non GE foods, let companies who wish to provide such products do so and label them. They will undoubtedly require much more land and resources to yield less of a poorer quality stock, and in turn would be much more expensive. If that has a market, so be it. This is the way “organic” started in the first place, free from government control.

Jews for example, though a small minority of the US population, have no problem only purchasing “Kosher” products without any government mandate to label foods as either Kosher or not Kosher. We need a lot less laws, not more, voting “YES” on proposition 37 is a disaster for California and a further bonanza for certain government backed special interests. See further discussion.

    • Proposition 38– State Income Tax Increase to Support Public Education

      • NO – Simple enough, it’s a State Income Tax INCREASE.

    • Proposition 39– Income Tax Increase for Multistate businesses

      • NO – Despite its nice sounding title: Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute. – This one is a definite “NO”.
    • Proposition 40– REDISTRICTING. STATE SENATE DISTRICTS. REFERENDUM.

      • NO – In 2008 and 2010 voters took away the redistricting powers from the legislature which was a very good move. For too long, the Democratic controlled State legislature had retained at or near two-thirds majority by manipulating their districts. Some of the districts were absurd in their geographic shapes.

        The Citizen’s committee that was supposed to make the new maps, and put an end to this, for some reason or another failed miserably. The new maps, are even more highly geared towards the Democrats and will be in place for 10 years. The voters were clear in the previous elections; they wanted fair, simple district maps that would represent the people of California proportionally and equitably. The commission failed, and destroyed some of the last few districts where Republicans could count on for seats.

        Basically, it leaves California as one of the US states with the most Republicans in the nation (if not the most), with almost non existing Republican representation. Voting “NO” will not help very much, but neither will voting “YES”. “NO” will at least be a bit more interesting.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Online Marketing at OnToplist.com
%d bloggers like this: