CA propositions

I’m curious how the Californians here voted on our various propositions on the ballot today. They were:

91: Transportation funds. A “yes” vote means fuel/car taxes and fees must be used for transportation stuff only, a “no” vote means those funds can go to general fund usage in certain cases.

92: Community College and K-12 education. A “yes” vote means community colleges become separate from the K-12 system in governance, funding, and fee structures, a “no” vote keeps them together.

93: Term limits. A “yes” vote means a state legislator can only serve 12 years total between both houses, a “no” vote keeps the current 14 year limit divided between the two houses.

94-97: Indian casinos. A “yes” vote means certain Indian casinos will operate under a new agreement increasing how many slot machines they can have and increasing what fees they pay to the state, a “no” vote keeps the current operating agreements.

I lumped 94-97 together as they are the same measure for four different Indian nations; presumably someone would vote the same on all four measures unless they particularly liked or disliked a given Indian nation. :P

So California voters: what say you?

91 - Yes
92 - No
93 - Yes
94 to 97 - No
S - NO!

The proponents of Proposition 91 urged a “No” vote, because the same issue was already handled by Proposition 1A in November 2006. Read the voter pamphlet.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/argu_rebut/argu_rebutt91.html

San Francisco had an awesome “should San Francisco try to get Alcatraz away from the Feds and turn it into a Global Peace Center?” measure.

No, No, No, No, No, No, and No.

91 is unnecessary and I was all excited for 94-97 till I did some research and found out why they are a bad idea. If I wasn’t convinced by that the fact that the casinos where for it just cemented the no.

Goddamned Hippies! Alcatraz’s key role in The Rock alone make it a priceless national treasure.

I’ve become increasingly convinced that California’s initiative system is hamstringing the legislature to the point where it is becoming impossible to run the government. It doesn’t make any sense to place an ever-increasing number of proposition-based constraints on what the legislature can and can’t do, and then turn around and complain that the legislature can’t solve any of California’s problems. Proposition-mandated expenditures combined with proposition-mandated bonds and proposition-mandated limits on how the legislature can raise money is a recipe for fiscal disaster.

So I voted ‘no’ on everything, except 93, since proposition-mandated term limits are part of the problem. In the future I’ll probably continue to vote ‘no’ on all propositions, except those that I perceive as restoring more power to the legislature.

Exactly like Dirt, but opposite.

(Not counting whatever S was)

91 - no
92 - yes
93 - yes
94 - 97 - no

i may have screwed up 93 tho.

No on everything but 92.

I completely agree.

I voted No on everything. I thought about voting yes on term limits, but was just too disgusted that it had a built in loop hole for current politicians, even though I agreed with the rest of the initiative.