My election endorsements for 2004 (SF, California, to be specific)


The two most important State propositions this year are 60 and 62.
62 is effectively a mandatory runoff election for statewide positions, somewhat muddily described as an "open primary". In my opinion, 62 is a significant improvement over the current system - it would remove the lesser-of-two-evils bind that the Democratic/Republican Party uses to scare people into voting for its candidates. Yes, 32% of the electorate *COULD* give people a choice between two complete assholes - but that can happen with the current primary system just as effectively.
The arguments for 60 are better-written, but the main effect of 60 will be to maintain democratic/republican dominance if passed.

Proposition 1A: No. 1A increases the power of the Executive branch over finances slightly; if you find the transfer of funds to local governments and away from the state to be a good idea, 65 does it better.

Proposition 59: Yes. The argument against it boils down to "it's not enough" - maybe, but it should be an improvement.

Proposition 60: No.

Proposition 60A: weak yes.

Proposition 62: Yes.

Proposition 63: No. Part 3.7, section 5847(a)(5) of the proposed code addendum states: A program for technological needs and capital facilities needed to provide services pursuant to Part 3 (commencing with Section 5850), Part 3.6 (commencing with Section 5840), and Part 4 (commencing with Section 5850) of this division. All plans for proposed facilities with restrictive settings shall demonstrate that the needs of the people to be served cannot be met in a less restrictive or more integrated setting. More mental health treatment would be a good thing, but NOT if it's involuntary. And one doesn't need restrictive settings for voluntary treatment.

Proposition 64: No. It goes too far and addresses the wrong end of the problem.

Proposition 65: tentative yes, as it seems like it would reduce centralized government power somewhat.

Proposition 66: Yes. While it doesn't remove all the problems with three strikes, it's a step in the right direction.

Proposition 67: Yes. Funding medical care through taxes winds up costing the taxpayers less than funding the same amount of care through bonds.

Proposition 68: No. If running non-tribal casinos is to be legal in California, then it should be legal for EVERYONE, not just a handful of political favourites.

Proposition 69: No. Giant eternal DNA databases are a bad idea. And, in spite of the proponents' claims, it is purely at the court's discretion whether or not to keep the samples, even if the arrestee was tried and found not guilty.

Proposition 71: No. Spending six billion dollars to get three billion worth of research is just plain stupid.

San Francisco:

A: No. Bonds are too expensive, I don't trust the "supportive housing" not to wind up including mandatory "treatment", and allocating $110,000,000 to buy things for households making over $40,000 a year is just plain absurd.

J: No. Sales taxes disproportionately impact the poor.

Senator: Jim Gray. (I have queried Barbara Boxer's office on Oct 27 to see if she's got any information that would change my endorsement.)

Representative, district 8: Jennifer DePalma. She responded to my emailed question on bodily liberty with "I am for the legalization of marijuana and would vote accordingly if elected to Congress.". As of the time of this writing (October 28th), Baum, Dowell, and Pelosi have not yet responded. The positions on their websites do favour harm reduction, but make no mention of legalization.

President: provisionally, Michael Badnarik. Any Kerry supporters who can cite an instance where Kerry actually *did* author/sponsor/voted for a bill to reduce the current tendency towards totalitarianism are welcome to contact me and try to change my mind.