Californians: Vote NO on Props 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 - Vote YES on Props 2, 5 & 11

[LaPera]

NO on Props 4, 6, 7, 8, 9
http://www.aclunc.org/issues/propositions/vote_no_on_props_4,_6,_8,_and_9_and_yes_on_prop_5_on_nov._4.shtml

YES on Prop 11
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=3537383

Prop 10 is ALL about making T. Boone Pickens & his partner hundreds of millions on natural gas while CA tax payers have to pick up a 30 year 10 billion dollars in interest & loans. Prop 10 does NOYHING for any other alternative energy or alternative vehicles, only for natural gas vehicles which Pickens has huge natural gas investments...Pickens is simply looking to make another financial killing with his bullshit deception while CA tax payers foot the bill

"The big money crook Pickens behind the Swift Boat bastards reveals his true colors. Pickens is just rich, right-wing Republican slime of the worst kind, and this is simply more proof of it. He's been a suck-buddy to the Bush family for decades, and his oil wheeling and dealing and corporate raiding border on the criminal. He is, in short, the epitome of conservative businessmen. It's no surprise, therefore that he's welshing on a bet with Kerry."

NO on Proposition 10
http://www.noonproposition10.org/

Because of its flaws and weaknesses, Proposition 10, would be a poor use of public bond funds at a time when the state is facing a multi-billion dollar budget crisis. Prop 10 would cost the state about $10 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). UCS is dedicated to finding and promoting cost-effective alternatives to petroleum fuels that will reduce the pollution that causes global warming, but Prop 10 is neither a smart nor a cost-effective solution. Three quarters of the $5 billion in bond funding in Prop 10 would be dedicated to incentives with flawed or inadequate environmental criteria. Prop 10's rebates give natural gas an unfair advantage over other alternatives, while excluding or providing inadequate support for vehicle technologies that could provide much greater environmental benefits than natural gas in the long run, such as hybrid heavy duty trucks or plug-in hybrid electric passenger vehicles.

California has better and more cost-effective regulatory and legislative policy options available to reduce air pollution and global warming emissions from passenger and heavy duty vehicles. UCS urges Californians to reject Prop 10.

Read our detailed Prop 10 fact sheet online.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/solutions/advanced_vehicles_and_fuels/no-on-prop-10.html

NO on Proposition 7
http://www.noprop7.com/?gclid=CJCirorelZYCFQIWFQod8lGGEg

Shifting our country's reliance from fossil fueled electricity to clean and renewable sources is one of the most effective ways to reduce global warming pollution. Combating global warming is the most significant challenge of our time. That is why it is so important to get the solutions right. Unfortunately, Proposition 7 gets it wrong and would likely set back our efforts to transition to a clean energy future.

Based on the experience of UCS experts on the design and implementation of renewable electricity standards in California and across the country, we are convinced that the serious flaws of Proposition 7—such as creating new compliance loopholes for utilities, setting counter-productive policies on energy pricing, and discouraging smaller-scale renewable projects—would prevent California from achieving our state's clean energy goals. Worse still, if Prop 7 passes, fixing the initiative's serious mistakes would require another new ballot measure or a two-thirds super-majority vote in the state legislature.

UCS strongly supports effective policies to increase renewable energy in California and is actively working towards increasing the state's renewable standards in ways that will help, not hinder new renewable energy development in the state.

Read our detailed Prop 7 fact sheet online.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/solutions/renewable_energy_solutions/no-on-CA-prop-7.html

YES on Proposition 2

Many confined animal feed operations (CAFOs) use crates and cages to crowd too many animals into too small an area. Raising animals in these unnatural and unhealthy environments pollutes our water and air, lowers property values in neighboring rural communities, and contributes to the overuse of antibiotics in non-sick animals that can lead to antibiotic resistance and harder-to-treat human diseases. Passing California's Prop 2 is one important step in promoting a modern approach to agriculture that is productive, more healthful, and humane.

YES on Prop 1A
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/07/schwarzenegger_76.html

[LaPera]

1. I forgot to mention to vote YES on Prop 3 & 1A as well....

Californians: Vote NO on Props 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 10 - Vote YES on Props 1A, 2, 3, 5 & 11

[Frances]

3. I don't think the proposal to give equal votes to

Dems and Repubs is fair because the state has many more Dems than Repubs. I can not imagine another state with a Repub majority giving any power to the Dems. In fact, the states with Repub majorities redrew maps just to get more Repubs in Congress. They did this in between census taking years even though that was not the usual procedure.

I don't think we should imitate Repubs and do something totally unfair. But I think Dem voters would be short changed if the proposed solution is adopted.

So, I'll vtoe No on 11.

[cascadiance]

4. I was thinking the same thing...

That was the reason I voted down the last attempt at this too, when they were supposed to have "impartial" set of judges deciding instead of a group of "citizens". They tried to have an "equal" number of selections for Democrats and Republicans in that too. I suppose one could argue that neither party should "dominate" the other in the interest of fairness, but if the number of independents (which seem to reflect more population than the division of democrats and republicans) tend to trend more to disaffected Republicans instead of Republicans, then the Republicans might actually get "majority" rule even though it is trying to have "even balance" here. That wouldn't be fair then. I should reflect natural population percentages. And the tricky part is whether the independents would be heavy from parties like the Green Party or from more right wing parties. Have to have a way of decently measuring that.

Personally, I'd prefer a statewide set of props for both public financing and Instant Runoff Voting to start with, which might try to tackle some of the same issues that redistricting is, and perhaps do a better job of it.

[LaPera]

7. Prop 11 is the one that gave me the toughest time - I'll agree with you & vote NO on proposition 11

[mitchtv]

5. No on 11

Bad medicine for Calif Let them redistrict TX first. No unilateral disarmament. A fool's game

[LaPera]

8. That's the tough one.

[comtec]

2. I'll probably agree with your opinion...

but I need to finish reading through the propositions first.
been distracted by RL lately, and I need to get my absent T in the mail soon.

[GreenTea]

6. No on 10! Unions, most environmental groups I respect & others ask for a no vote on 10

Prop 10 is just another big money making natural gas gas scam by lifetime republican, Texas oil man and intolerant asshole Pickens!

[roveinjail]

9. what about prop 3?

prop 3, yes or no?  no on 11 for sure.

also, are obama t-shirts allowed when voting in california?
about to head out. 

[AndyTiedye]

10. NO ON 11! ALL 11 WILL DO IS GIVE THE REPIGGIES MORE SEATS

[Athletic Grrl]

11. Done and done.

Also yes on 1A.