In Print

 

PDFs of recent issues of Reviewer Magazine in print:

#50,

#49,

#48,

#47,

#46,

#45,

#44,

#43,

#42,

#41

#40,

#39,

#38

 

:::

My California 2016 Ballot General Election Handbook

California General Election 2016 Voter Guide. Available on Ebay...

California General Election 2016 Voter Guide. Available on Ebay…

I can’t wait till this ordeal is over.

by Reviewer Rob

So glad the November 8 mail-in voter deadline/day at the polls is finally tomorrow. Man it’s been a long year. By this time Wednesday we’ll have a good idea about how the next four years will go. And I’m not even going to wade into that mosh pit here at this point. Maybe I’ll deal with that in print later. Much later. For now I’m just happy I’ve done my part and can sit back and watch the show with a clear conscience.

So, I’m going to hang onto my election 2016 book. At 224 pages on newsprint I feel like it’s representative of a real big tipping point in American history. To add to the ephemera I’m going to insert my vote by mail instructions booklet that came with my mail-in ballot. While filling out the ballot I marked it with which state measures I chose to support or not, as well as all the various candidates, and I’m just thinking I want to keep it safe and bag it for future reference.

P.S. let me add that I voted straight Democrat this time around. Of course. For the non-party affiliated type choices I picked the one who had a previous job title that made them sound like they held Liberal Democratic ideals. And I shied away from incumbents if it was a non-obviously Democratic coin-toss.

#election2016

Some of the measures and how I voted:

California Proposition 51, Public School Facility Bonds (2016)

 [I voted “Yes”, because TAX THE RICH, especially to fund public education.]

The California Public School Facility Bonds Initiative, also known as Proposition 51, will be on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1]

A “yes” vote supports the state issuing $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges.
A “no” vote opposes the state issuing $9 billion in new debt to fund the improvement and construction of education facilities.

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary is as follows:[3]

  • Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-12 public school facilities; $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities; and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities.
  • Bars amendment to existing authority to levy developer fees to fund school facilities, until new construction bond proceeds are spent or December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier.
  • Bars amendment to existing State Allocation Board process for allocating school construction funding, as to these bonds.
  • Appropriates money from the General Fund to pay off bonds.[5]

The shorter ballot label summary is as follows:[3]

Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K-12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.[5]

California Proposition 56, Tobacco Tax Increase (2016)

[I voted “Yes”, because smoking sucks so fuck smoking and smokers.]

2016 measures
California Proposition 56, the Tobacco Tax Increase Initiative, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute.[1]
A “yes” vote favors increasing the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.
A “no” vote opposes increasing the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes.

Initiatives to increase taxes on tobacco products are also on the ballot in Colorado as Amendment 73, Missouri as Proposition A and Amendment 3, and North Dakota as Measure 4 in 2016.

California Proposition 60, Condoms in Pornographic Films (2016)

[I voted “No” because Jesus H. CHRIST stop picking on the porn industry! Fuckin A if you’re worried about HIV then tax big religion and get the medicine for profit lobbyists to agitate for funding for a vaccine or a cure. Gah!]

Proposition 60, the Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.[1]

A “yes” vote supports requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups.
A “no” vote opposes this measure requiring the use of condoms and other safety measures during the filming of pornographic films.

Ballot title

The ballot title is as follows:[2]

Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.[3]

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary is as follows:[2]

  • Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse.
  • Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections.
  • Requires producers of adult films to obtain state health license, and to post condom requirement at film sites.
  • Imposes liability on producers for violations, on certain distributors, on performers if they have a financial interest in the film involved, and on talent agents who knowingly refer performers to noncomplying producers.
  • Permits state, performers, or any state resident to enforce violations.[3]

The shorter ballot label summary is as follows:[2]

Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.[3]

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 60 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact statement

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state’s legislative analyst and its director of finance.

The fiscal impact statement is as follows:

  • Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars per year.
  • Increased state costs that could exceed $1 million annually to license and regulate adult film production and to enforce workplace health and safety rules. These costs would be offset to some extent by new fee revenue.[3]

Full text

The full text of the initiative measure is available here.

California Proposition 62, Repeal of the Death Penalty (2016)

[*Edit — I voted YES to repeal the death penalty.* I voted “Yes”. Way back in the 1980’s when I first began to vote I was a believer in the death penalty. Both my parents were card carrying Republicans, members of the local Lions Club, all that. Time was when I thought being that hard on crime was the only answer. But it turned out that the justice business applies this harshest of punishments with undue vigor mainly against the poor and dark skinned. So, yeah, I voted against the death penalty and to repeal it this time.]

California Proposition 62, the Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.

A “yes” vote supports repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the maximum punishment for murder.
A “no” vote opposes this measure repealing the death penalty.
There is another death penalty related measure, Proposition 66, that will appear on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California. If both measures pass, the one with the most “yes” votes would supersede the other.

California Proposition 64, Marijuana Legalization (2016)

[I voted “Yes”, duh. Weed is a highly controllable and taxable resource and should not be illegal. It’s insane that it’s a schedule one drug as far as the Feds are concerned. That needs to change next.]

California Proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. Supporters refer to the initiative as the Adult Use of Marijuana Act.

A “yes” vote supports legalizing recreational marijuana for persons aged 21 years or older under state law and establishing certain sales and cultivation taxes.
A “no” vote opposes this proposal to legalize recreational marijuana under state law and to establish certain sales and cultivation taxes.[1]

California Proposition 66, Death Penalty Procedures (2016)

[I voted “No”. Turn the page on the ballot pamphlet and you’re immediately faced with a measure that asks you to speed up the death row execution process. Kinda dumb to vote yes on this if you voted Yes on 62, but there it is. No need to lube up the gallows if your goal is to dismantle them. One more weird thing on this strange and historic election cycle.]

California Proposition 66, the Death Penalty Procedures Initiative, is on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. Supporters refer to the measure as the “Death Penalty Reform and Savings” Initiative.[1]

A “yes” vote supports changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences.
A “no” vote opposes changing the procedures governing state court appeals and petitions that challenge death penalty convictions and sentences and favors keeping the current system for governing death penalty appeals and petitions.

Proposition 66 is designed to shorten the time that legal challenges to death sentences take to a maximum of five years.[2]

There is another death penalty-related measure, Proposition 62, that will appear on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California. If both measures pass, the one with the most “yes” votes would supersede the other.

Overview

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title is as follows:[4]

Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.[5]

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary is as follows:[2]

  • Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences.
  • Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions.
  • Establishes time frame for state court death penalty review.
  • Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals.
  • Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.
  • Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons.
  • Increases portion of condemned inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution.
  • States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.[5]

The shorter ballot label summary is as follows:[2]

Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.[5]

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 66 was identical to the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection.

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state’s legislative analyst and its director of finance. The statement is as follows:[4]

  • Unknown ongoing fiscal impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences.
  • Near-term increases in state court costs—potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually—due to an acceleration of spending to address new time lines on legal challenges to death sentences. Savings of similar amounts in future years.
  • Potential state prison savings that could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually.[5]

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

California is always a deciding factor in any general election.

California is always a deciding factor in any general election.

You must be logged in to post a comment.