november, 4, 2002 archives

california ballot measures, fall 2002

(doing my voting stuff very last minute this time. as they say, plans are a list of things that don't happen.)

prop. 46 is a bond act, which would result in the sale of $2.1 billion in bonds to support various housing programs. there's a vote yes site, but no vote no site. i think i made my stance on debt financing clear last time. i'll vote no.

prop. 47 is another bond act, which would result in the sale of $13.05 billion in bonds to construct schools. here's the vote yes site, there's no vote no site. you know the routine, i'll vote no.

prop. 48 is a legislative constitutional amendment, which would remove references to the municipal court system. this is pretty dumb, it appears that an old proposition to get rid of the municipal courts neglected to clean out all of the references. i'll vote for it, i guess.

prop. 49 is a initiative statute that would allocate $455 million to before and after school programs. here's the vote yes site, there's no vote no site. this is dumb. this is why we elect representatives. i'll vote no. (for a republican, arnie sure seems willing to spend my money for me.)

prop. 50 is another initiative statute that would result in the sale of $3.44 billion in bonds for various water programs. the vote yes site, there's no vote no site. water good, bonds bad.

prop. 51 is an initiative statute that would specify that 30% of the sales tax collected on the lease and sale of motor vehicles would only be used for transportation purposes. here's the vote yes site, here's the vote no site. again, i elect representatives to deal with this. i'll vote no.

prop. 52 is an initiative statute that would allow election day voter registration. here's the vote yes site, here's the vote no site. i don't buy the voter fraud argument, i think this is a good idea.

statewide offices, fall 2002

governor

talk about the lamest choice since gore and bush. gulke lost me on free trade, copeland lost me on his no-commons all-property-must-be-owned rhetoric, and anyone associated with the natural law party is automatically excluded for being nuts. i guess that means i'm voting green. i feel like i shouldn't be happy about that, but i really didn't find anything immediately objectionable in camejo's platform.

lt. governor

pryzblak = nuts, king excludes himself by saying he'd only support judeo-christian judicial candidates, warren is out for supporting reparations, hannosh is out for his hysterical anti-immigration stuff. between bustamante and mcpherson, i really don't see a huge amount of daylight, and this is a pretty pointless office. so wright sneaks in the back door for running on a silly issue.

secretary of state

noonan is out for actually bothering to list the endorsement of a blood relative, and allison = nuts. the secretary of state role basically boils down to election management, so i'd support a third party candidate over a democrat or republican. lightfoot gets my vote for her saying the magic words about requiring a paper trail in electronic voting.

controller

mcclintock lost me with the lapdog stuff, vance has no site, and aguirre = nuts. i'm going to have to hold the dotcom thing against westly, and vote for wells.

treasurer
  • jeanne-marie rosenmeier, green
  • nathan e. johnson, american independent
  • marian smithson, libertarian
  • greg conlon, republican
  • sylvia valentine, natural law
  • phil angelides, democratic

conlon lost me when his machine left a message on my machine. beyond that, i don't see a reason to really care. i'll skip this one.

attorney general

lockyer was on the side of good in the antitrust case against microsoft, even if the feds caved and it appears the dissenting states will just accept the lame settlement. that's good enough for my vote.

insurance commissioner

making this an elected position was a mistake. i'm not even going to bother.

superintendent of public instruction

smith lost me here, o'connell lost me with the "coming soon" sections on his website the day before the election. idiot.

« sunday, november 3, 2002 tuesday, november 5, 2002 »