Here is how you should vote, if you live in California.
President: George Bush (explanation here).
Senator: James Gray, Libertarian. Boxer is certain to be reelected. Bill Jones is as liberal as one can be without being a Democrat, or Arnold Schwarzenegger (but I repeat myself). In races which are unlikely to be close, I tend to vote for the Libertarian, particularly when the Republican is only barely such.
Proposition 1A: Yes. The state has been raiding local government revenues to pay for things that the state shouldn’t be doing anyway. No reason not to stop that, except that it might mean higher taxes from the state legislature. I actually favor that, because people should not be under the illusion that they can keep getting free stuff. If they expect the state to feed them and clothe them and wipe their asses for them and read them bedtime stories, then they should expect to pay the state for it. So, yes on 1A.
Proposition 59: Who cares? The text of this proposition says “Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any portion of this Constitution.... This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records,” and so forth. There’s nothing here. Voting yes makes no difference. So vote no.
Proposition 60: No. I’m sick of these open primary schemes. Leave it alone, for godsake. Prop. 60 does little that current law doesn’t do. So leave the current law in place. Vote no on Prop. 60.
Proposition 60A: Yes. I see no reason not to require the legislature to pay for certain things when it sells surplus property. Now, Prop. 60A does not require the state to sell this property at all, and heaven knows, it probably won’t. But we can all hope. Yes on 60A.
Proposition 61: No. Bond initiatives are tax increases. The commercials claim that they don’t raise taxes, but they do, just on your children and grandchildren. In that sense, they are even more immoral than a tax increase which at least takes money from people who vote for it. In this case you would be voting to take money from people who have literally no say in the matter—future generations. No matter how good the intentions (and children’s hospital projects are about as good as you can get) this is still theft, and wrong. Vote no on Prop. 61.
Proposition 62: No. Messing with the primary system is annoying. It’s bad enough as it is. Allowing voters to vote for any candidate in the primary would allow Democrats to choose the Republican candidate, and Republicans to choose the Democratic candidate. Why? The primary exists to allow members of a party to put their “best” candidate forward for the general election, and to make sense of their own views, as a party. This proposition would throw that into chaos and essentially turn the primary into the general election. Republicans have the right to decide for themselves who their candidate is, and Democrats have the same right, and so does everyone else. Something like this was already declared unconstitutional, and rightly so. This is just another shot at a violation of the First Amendment. Vote no on 62.
Proposition 63: No. This is a tax increase, and therefore theft, to pay for mental health services, something that the government has no legitimate authority to do. Government exists to protect people from crime and invasion by enemies, and to adjudicate disputes in courts of law. It does not exist to provide health services, or whatever else people don’t want to pay for. It is wrong to steal money from your neighbor to pay for mental hospitals. Vote no on Prop. 63.
Proposition 64: Yes. As I’ve explained before, current law allows you to sue businesses for an “unfair business practice” even when you have not been harmed in any way. This has led to a rash of frivolous lawsuits, increasing costs to consumers, and stifling the California economy. Although opponents of Prop. 64 continue to lie* about what it would do, all that it would actually do is restore the traditional requirement that a person suing another person prove that he was actually harmed. That is all. But that alone would be a great step toward protecting businesses in this state from unfair lawsuits. Vote yes on Prop. 64.
Proposition 65: No, I guess. The voter pamphlet says 1A replaces 65.
Proposition 66: No. There are already enough safeguards in place to allow judges to issue light sentences for persons convicted of minor crimes. Prop. 66 would gut the “Three Strikes” law which has already proven to be a successful curb on crime in this state. Vote no on Prop. 66.
Proposition 67: No. Emergency services are among the few things that government really ought to do. But paying for it with another tax increase is not necessary. The state should cut spending from programs which it has no business running in the first place, rather than increasing our taxes again. Vote no on Prop. 67.
Proposition 68: Yes. These Indian gambling ones are tough for me. There is no such thing as “paying your fair share,” because nobody has the right to a “fair share” of your money. And gambling should be legal anyway, because nobody has a right to tell you that you can’t gamble with your money if you want to. But on the other hand, the Indian tribes like their monopoly on gambling. They like prohibiting me from gambling anywhere but at their casinos. Still, on balance, I’m for more gambling, and this proposition would allow more gambling. So, I say yes, what the hell.
Proposition 69: No. There’s a reasonable argument to be made for both sides, here. What troubles me about this initiative is that it would take DNA samples from people who are merely arrested, not just from people who are convicted, or even tried. Current law already allows people to be fingerprinted when they are merely arrested, and there would seem to be no reason that DNA should be any different from fingerprints—it’s just more accurate. The advantage is that such collections would help fight crime. Nevertheless, under recent Supreme Court decisions, you can be arrested for anything—or even for nothing. The expansion of arrest authority, combined with the expansion of searching authority, already seriously endangers your freedom from arbitrary police treatment. I see no justification for expanding that authority yet again. Until serious limits are re-imposed on the police authority to arrest you, we should obstruct their post-arrest authority as much as possible. So I say no on Prop. 69.
Proposition 70: No. The argument of this proposition’s defenders says it all: “Proposition 70 will mean that tribal gaming can occur ONLY on Indian land and NOWHERE ELSE. It will NOT lead to increased gambling OFF Indian lands.” Evidently they see this as a selling point. But I think that Indian tribes have no business telling me that I can’t gamble in my living room if I want to. So, no on Prop. 70.
Proposition 71: No. Stem cells have no rights, and there is nothing immoral about using them for research, or cloning them for research. The recent federal ban on funding for stem cell research is based on ridiculous, mystical notions about rights. Nevertheless, it is not the state’s job to be involved in this sort of business. And, again, bonds are tax increases. (And, at least in this case, an unconstitutional one, because the Constitution doesn’t allow bonds of this sort.) Vote no on Prop. 71.
Proposition 72: No. If people want health care, they should bargain with their employers for it. It is immoral to force employers to provide health care to their employees against their will. In addition to its immorality, it is bad economic thinking, because it makes it more expensive to hire and employ people. The last thing California needs (especially if Prop. 64 fails) is to make it more difficult to employ people. Just as it would be wrong and stupid to order the police to just go take money out of people’s cash registers to pay for some public project, so it is wrong and stupid to order the taxing authority to take away business revenues to pay for health care. Vote no on Prop. 72.
*-Update: The author of UCL Practitioner writes to say she “resent[s]” my calling her a liar. I was referring to Bill Lockyer’s lies about Prop. 64 being a danger to the environment. His claims are, indeed, lies. Rather than correcting Lockyer’s misrepresentations of Prop. 64, the UCL Practitioner endorsed Lockyer’s statements with the words “well said.” My apologies for any misunderstanding.
Comments policy