Discussion of California Ballot Initiatives

[Alex]

91 - Voted no. I don't support sequestering revenues into lockboxed uses. For good or ill we should rely on the legislature to disburse incomes as they see fit. Inidivual lockboxes always sound like a grand idea but ultimately the mass of them end up creating problems.

92 - Voted no. Again tries to create mandatory spending and lockboxes. Also, this is a setting of priorities that should be handled legislatively.

93 - Voted no. I don't support term limits. If the people want to elect the same person to an office for 203 years, even if that person lives out of the jurisdiction and is 12 years old and hates all ethnic minorities, then they should be allowed to do so. Protecting an electorate from a pre-conceived notion of "stupidity" isn't a good idea in my opinion. So, this initiative tweaks with the specifics of term limits and ultimately might be preferable but the only reason it is happening is to reset the terms clock that would otherwise turn Don Perata and Fabio Nunez (those currently in office have their term count reset to zero). So, since it is really just a bald power play I vote no again.

Indian gaming proposals - Talked about those in the So thread but I voted yes on all four. I'd be amused though if two fail and two succeed: further evidence of why initiative process is stupid.