How do I spell relief?
E-L-E-C-T-I-O-N.
Election Day, specifically! You know, it's funny ... I used to be a political junkie. Crossfire? I was watching it. Talking politics with my college friends every single day? I was there. I used to watch the stock market every day, too, and try to figure out the source of today's half-percent drop.
Then I realised, at some point, that that was all just noise. Now I check my investments once a month just to see how they're doing, and I ignore the day-to-day market moves. Now I couldn't care less what today's latest poll says people think about Obama or what Outrage the blogosphere has dredged up today to show that Delaware's Republican candidate for the US Senate is still underqualified for office. Election Day is the only poll that counts, so today I'm paying attention.
Besides, after this we get a hiatus from all those campaign ads, which is reason enough to celebrate.
So, if you're curious (and if you live outside California, you may very well not be), here's how I'm voting:
Governor - Jerry Brown You know, if only Meg Whitman had spent $50 million of her own money ... maybe even $60 or $70 million. $150 million? This smacks too much of, "I became as successful as I could in business, and now I want to buy my way into something else." You can spend your money to buy companies or other toys, but a political office is not a toy.
Besides, if you walk through the state Capitol and look at the portraits of the state's governors on the wall, they're all the usual stodgy, formal, "look at me sitting in my office" sorts of things ... except for Jerry Brown's. His official portrait is a piece of abstract art. I like Governor Moonbeam. Bring on Moonbeam Two.
Senator - Barbara Boxer I'm not a huge fan of Barbara Boxer, so this is pretty much a vote against her opponent. Carly Fiorina is just way too Tea Party-line for me to vote for her. So I'm not.
Other state offices - Generally sticking with the incumbents, since they've done fine. For the race without an incumbent, the Attorney General, voting for the Republican, because he's a sensible fellow and has more gravitas than his opponent.
Prop 19 - Should the state make marijuana legal? - YES In < an earlier post> I'd gone through my pro and con reasons on this proposition, and came away ... undecided. Essentially, I was in favour of the idea but not this specific execution of it, and I was concerned about what might go wrong. Three things swayed me to the yes side: first, I'm basically an optimistic sort ... I can worry about what might go wrong for only so long before I start to realise that an attitude like that is all bathwater and no baby. Second, as I noted, there is no way to vote in favour of the concept but not this execution of it, and I support the concept. If I vote no, I likely won't get a later chance to vote yes. And third, the Los Angeles Times, which stridently opposes Prop 19, flooded its editorial page with so many arguments against Prop 19 that they ran out of good ones and descended to the level of "but think of the children!" ... and you can read only so many lame arguments against something before you start supporting it.
Prop 20 - Should the drawing of Congressional districts be given to an independent commission instead of the legislature? - YES I voted yes two years ago on the creation of a commission to draw the districts for the state legislature, because gerrymandering is now so easy that it's pretty much out of control. Letting legislators create their own districts to give themselves safe seats is fundamentally undemocratic. There is no reason why the same principle should not apply to Congress.
Prop 21 - Should the state's car tax be raised and the money be given to state parks? - NO I'm all in favour of state parks, but they should be a budget item like everything else. There's no reason to hamstring the state's finances with yet another initiative earmark like this.
Prop 22 - Should the state's ability to reallocate or borrow against local government funds be restricted? - YES Sacramento collects a lot of taxes on behalf of local governments, since it's far more efficient for businesses to have to file one sales tax return, one petrol tax return, etc. than it is to have every city try to collect its own taxes that way. Sacramento also is supposed to pay cities a fair sum every year to make up for revenues that cities have lost because of statewide restrictions on what they can charge for things (most notably property taxes). Sacramento has got into a bad habit lately of filling its budget gaps by collecting these funds and then ... just keeping them. Numerous cities are currently suing the state over this for breach of contract. I have to say that I agree with them.
Prop 23 - Should the state's law regulating CO2 as a pollutant be suspended? - NO I can fully understand why the Texas oil companies who are funding this proposition are doing so. Under current federal law, California is grandfathered in its ability to set its own pollution control standards (the so-called "California emissions"). Several other states, like New York, have piggy-backed on this and got permission to apply California's standards as well. On top of that, the Obama administration have said they would like to set a uniform national standard ... and match it to California's. California now wants to add CO2 to California emissions ... which, if it does, could eventually mean a drastic nationwide reduction in oil sales. But the proposed "suspension" of the law until the economy gets better is effectively a repeal disguised as something more moderate, as the standard required to re-instate the law is so strict it may not ever happen. And frankly, if the new CO2 law has any of the other adverse consequences that the oil companies are trying to scare us with, the legislature can modify or repeal the law without assistance from out-of-state corporate interests trying to buy their way into our state's law books.
Prop 24 - Should a state law allowing more flexibility on how corporations determine their income be repealed? - NO It's hard enough for this state to pass a budget without someone later putting their sour grapes onto the ballot like this. The legislature doesn't need any more Lilliputian strings put on it.
Prop 25 - Should the state be able to pass a budget with a simple majority in the legislature instead of a two-thirds special majority? - YES I can see the argument for a two-thirds supermajority to raise taxes, which this new law would retain. But a two-thirds supermajority to fund the state's basic operations lets a minority in the legislature hold the state over a barrel until it gets what it wants ... so we get late budgets and IOUs, year after year after year. Enough of that. A simple majority for a budget is the standard in almost every state in the Union (and for the Union itself) because it works much better than what we've got now. Let our legislators get some sleep.
Prop 26 - Should some revenues now classified as fees be reclassified as taxes? - NO State law says that imposing or raising a tax requires a two-thirds supermajority vote, but imposing or raising a fee requires a simple majority. Similarly, local taxes require a popular vote, while local fees can be voted on by the city council. A tax, broadly speaking, is revenue that can be spent on anything; while a fee is revenue that is dedicated to a specific thing that is related to what the fee is charged for ... so income tax is a tax while a charge on a concert promoter to pay for the extra costs of policing his event is a fee, even though they're both state revenue. The state currently counts as fees the money it charges to companies to ameliorate the negative impacts of that company's doing business (so, for example, a company that makes hazardous waste pays a fee to help clean up hazardous waste statewide). Some companies want those to count as taxes because the money isn't dedicated to cleaning up their specific mess and instead can be spent on related messes statewide, or doesn't have to be spent specifically on narrowly-defined clean up operations (the charge on lead, for example, pays not only for lead cleanup but also for health care for people suffering from lead poisoning). This is bullshit: if you make a mess, pay to help clean up ALL its consequences and don't make me vote on it.
Prop 27 - Should the drawing of state legislature districts be taken away from the independent commission created to do this and given back to the legislature? - NO This is being bankrolled largely by the California Democratic Party, which currently has a majority in the legislature and doesn't like the fact that it won't be able to draw nice safe seats for its members any more. You know what? Fuck you. This is proposition abuse at its worst. Legislators should not be able to vote themselves safe seats, period. And they shouldn't try to trick voters into letting them do it, period. Shame on the California Democratic Party. The Republican in my state assembly race is a pretty lame candidate, in part because of gerrymandering (you don't waste a serious candidate on a seat that's safe for the opposition), but you know what? I'm voting for him anyway, just to thumb my nose at you. Shame!
Although I'll grant, yes, if the Republicans had a majority they'd probably be doing the same thing, and they're not backing Prop 27 now only because they realise an independent commission is better than letting the opposition lock up more safe seats. Hey, politics is politics.
Right, now to go and vote!