February 16, 2000

One man's opinions on the 20 state propositions

My personal assessments of the state propositions to be voted on March 7 follow. They were made in consultation with no one else, not even my wife. It goes without saying that what you see here is not necessarily the opinion of this newspaper.

Prop. 1A Indian Gaming. The Indians like it, so so do I. I'm voting yes. Props. 12 and 13 Parks, Open Space, Clean Water! You got a problem with that? I don't. I vote Yes.

Prop. 14. It's for libraries. So am I. Vote Yes.

Prop. 15. Uses science to fight crime. The argument against it is signed by a former officer of the Libertarian Party. She's running for some office. I think it's the usual Libertarian ploy, using ballot arguments to generate publicity. That's clever and inexpensive. It's also useful to me, since I usually just vote the opposite. I rarely go wrong favoring what Libertarians oppose. Let's spend the money, do the science, fight the crime.

Prop. 16. Has to do with the Veteran's homes in Yountville and Barstow. Must be a good idea, or Libertarians wouldn't object to it.

Prop. 17. Will make charitable raffles actually legal. It means a lot of charities won't have to dance around on the edge of legality, and a lot of police chiefs won't have to be embarrassed when they're asked to draw the winning number in the church raffle. Jackie Speier favors it too.

Prop. 18. If you're against the death penalty in general, you'll be against Prop. 18. If you can justify the death penalty in any cases at all, you will logically vote Yes.

Prop. 19. Even the Libertarian who signed the argument against 19 agrees with most of it. The part they object to doesn't amount to a hill of beans. If you think BART cops and cops at state U's deserve equal protection under law from the bad guys, you'll vote Yes on 19. I expect to.

Prop. 20. Confused and unclear, but I think a Yes vote means you want to spend some lottery proceeds on instructional material for the schools, things like books and pencils. What's not to like? I'm voting yes.

Prop. 21. This is one of those ideas with reasonable people on both sides. Whether it's really reasonable to drastically increase punishment of juveniles and spend huge amounts of money in the process, I don't know. I think I'll vote no, primarily because the presidents of the Calif. State PTA and the Calif. League of Women Voters both object to it.

Prop. 22. Limit on Marriages. Everybody already has an opinion on this one. Nothing I say, do or write will affect anyone's decision. A no vote leaves things as they are. We can always pass it later if marriage is actually in any real danger. No reason to rush. For now, I vote no.

Prop. 23. One election the winning candidate for San Mateo county Supervisor got fewer votes than were left blank on the ballot by voters already in the booth. "None of the above" allows voters to demonstrate dissatisfaction. Changes nothing. Voters express opinions, blow off steam. Go for it. Vote yes.

Prop. 24. deleted by the Calif. Supreme Court. Just as well. It was a terrible initiative.

Prop. 25. Campaign financing. Confusing. A good one to review more closely. I'll put it on hold for now, study it later.

Prop. 26. Gives Yes voters an equal voice with No voters. That's only fair. My Yes vote expresses my full opinion. Why should it carry only half the power of a misanthrope's No vote?

Prop. 27. Allows congressional candidates to claim they'll limit their own terms. If members of congress do a bad job, vote'em out. Good job? keep'em in. No need for Prop. 27. Vote No.

Prop. 28. An attempt to repeal a tax on tobacco products, backed by the "Cigarettes Cheaper" stores. Clever, cheap advertising. Even if Prop. 28 gets voted down, as it should, it still succeeds in promoting a business that has something in common with James Bond. Both entities are licensed to kill. Bond is fiction. "Cigarettes Cheaper" is fact. Vote no.

Prop. 29. California Indians are against this one. So am I, because if the Indians don't like it, neither do I.

Prop. 30 and 31. These two propositions are so confusing it's hard to tell the good guys from the bad. The opposition doesn't say anything about justice, just bullies the voters by claiming that insurance costs will rise. Telemarketers are calling me from New York to urge a No vote. You'd think the opposition could at least pay California people to make the calls. Meanwhile the SF Chronicle, in a major public service, explained the whole thing in an editorial and urged a yes vote. I appreciate their lucid explanation in a turbid situation, and I will vote Yes as they suggest.

Paul Azevedo's e-mail address is Paul@thereactor.net