Finally putting together my CA ballot proposition analysis. Still studying some of the propositions.

Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals
UNDECIDED, leaning towards NO. I personally do not support battery farming and vote with my wallet by purchasing "happier" meat and eggs when practical. I note that at least in urban San Diego, it is common to see at least some options for cage-free eggs in most grocery stores, and meats marked as organic and/or humanely raised are showing up outside of premium stores like Whole Foods. People are starting to be more aware of how their food is produced and shopping accordingly.

That said, I worry that Proposition 2 would harm California farmers (agriculture is a big deal in this state) while ultimately not doing much to improve the treatment of food animals. Proposition 2 would go into effect in 2015. Is that sufficient time for farmers to spread out the cost of revamping their infrastructure to comply with the law, or would it simply force local producers out of business? If local eggs are not available or prohibitively expensive they will simply be imported from out of state, hurting the CA economy and doing absolutely nothing to improve conditions for the animals. In addition, it is not clear how the law would be enforced and some of the wording is vague. Section 3 reads

In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal... in a manner that prevents such animal from:

(f) "Fully extending his or her limbs" means fully extending all limbs without touching the side of an enclosure, including, in the case of egg-laying hens, fully spreading both wings without touching the side of an enclosure or other egg-laying hens.

which sounds simple enough, except that one analysis observed that it is unclear what standard would apply to enclosures housing multiple animals-- in the case, of chickens, for example, can they all spread their wings at the same time, one at a time, or something else?

This may be a case of right idea, wrong law.

Proposition 3: Children's Hospital Bond Act
NO. Children's hospital care is certainly a good cause. This initiative would float $980 million in general bonds for improving children's hospitals. However, a 2004 proposition was already approved to sell $750 million in bonds, and as of this summer only $403 million of those funds had been given out. Given the state of the California budget, unless there has been a drastic change in project cost or needs I advocate that we try spending the first big chunk of money before attempting to cough up the second.

Proposition 4: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination Of Minor's Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment

NO. I'm just going to copy over what I wrote about a similar proposition in 2005:

It is not the government's job to impose good family relationships. A pregnant teenager who feels comfortable going to her parents for guidance about her situation will do so. One who doesn't may have very good reasons not to, and she deserves access to timely and safe medical care too. Driving girls to seek out back-alley care doesn't help anyone-- not the girls, not their parents, and not the health care system that has to clean up the mess from botched procedures. Sure, there's a clause where she can go before a judge to get a waiver, but time really is of the essence in these situations and in my experience the legal world moves about as fast as molasses on a winter day. Parents, I appreciate that some of you feel very uncomfortable with the idea of your daughter seeking out a serious medical procedure without your knowledge, but the solution is to cultivate a good relationship with her so that she feels comfortable coming to you in a difficult situation, rather than expecting the state to act as parent for you.

These parental-notification propositions keep coming up. Please, keep voting them down.

Proposition 5: Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation
YES. California's prisons are notoriously overcrowded and holding people in prison is expensive. Tracking non-violent drug offenders into treatment and rehabilitation programs frees up space in prisons for housing dangerous, violent criminals while giving non-violent drug users a better chance for productive participation in society.

Proposition 6: Safe Neighborhoods Act
NO. This initiative would increase the admissibility of hearsay evidence, appears to expand the shifting of juvenile offenders into adult courts, and is heavily oriented towards prison sentences rather than rehabilitation. See above about prison overcrowding.

Also, just as an aside:

(f) The moneys so deposited in the State Penalty Fund shall be distributed
as follows:
(1) Once a month there shall be transferred into the Fish and Game
Preservation Fund an amount equal to 0.33 percent of the state penalty funds
deposited in the State Penalty Fund during the preceding month, except that
the total amount shall not be less than the state penalty levied on fines or
forfeitures for violation of state laws relating to the protection or propagation
of fish and game. These moneys shall be used for the education or training of
department employees which fulfills a need consistent with the objectives of
the Department of Fish and Game.

Wait, huh? What does Fish and Game have to do with this?


Proposition 8: California Marriage Protection Act
NO. Unlike most of the other propositions this one is short and to the point:

Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

And there you have it. Proposition 8 is about taking away equal treatment under the law, about denying rights to a minority group. It is-- dare I say it?-- un-American to enshrine discrimination into the state constitution. Regardless of your feelings about the religious validity or social worth of same-sex marriages, everyone is entitled to equal treatment under the law.


Proposition A: Regional Fire Protection
YES. Proposition A would levy a county property tax, scaling with the CPI each year for 30 years, to fund firefighting co-ordination and resources. The base rate starts at $52/year per parcel of land. In light of the fire-prone nature of this area and the huge cost and disruption wildfires can cause, $52/year seems like a very reasonable amount to put towards remediating the problem.

Proposition D: Alcohol Consumption At City Beaches, Mission Bay Park, and Coastal Parks
NO. I really don't feel motivated to vote against someone's right to enjoy a beer with their beach barbecue in peace. There are already laws concerning public drunkeness, fighting, etc. If such behaviors are a problem in the beach areas perhaps those laws should be more aggressively enforced. That said, I don't live in the beach neighborhoods and don't spend a lot of time there. For any readers that are more familiar with those areas-- do you think Proposition D would substantially improve quality of life?