Now the hard part: to get some clear idea of the pros and cons of each of these measures.

Proposition 1A: Protection of Local Government Revenues

So my first thought is yes, absolutely, money should stay in local areas. The main argument against it seems to be that the measure doesn't include any controls over how the local gummints spend the money, but that's what electios are for.

What neither side seems to be mentioning is that if this measure passes, Beverly Hills can afford to pave their streets with gold while other parts of LA continue to be shitholes. I can see why Arnold would be in favor of it -- he can afford special tires for his hummer that won't muck up the golden street. But if our governator actually cared about local districts, he'd use his office to get tax money distributed fairly instead of trying to spin the voters into doing it for him.

And, the measure doesn't include school districts, which will still have to go begging to the state.

My vote: no.

Proposition 59: Public Records, Open Meetings

The argument against this one is interesting -- it merely questions whether the measure goes far enough, and that passage of this measure may make it more difficult to pass something better later.

I can't find any good reason to vote against this, but somehow that makes me uneasy. Why is this measure here now? Is there some deeper political motive?

My vote: tenatively yes, need more info.

Proposition 60: Election Rights of Political Parties

The official argument in favor seems to actually be all about why prop 62 sucks, and says nothing of substance about 60. As rebuttal, the argument against says 62 would be okay, and 60 wouldn't really do anything.

Researching further, it seems that 60 /really/ wouldn't do anything. The League of Women Voters writes "Under current law, all parties that participate in a primary can have their top vote-getting candidate advance to the general election. This measure, therefore, would not require any changes to election procedures."

WHY IS THIS EVEN ON THE BALLOT?!

My vote: tenatively leaving it blank, considering voting no.

Proposition 60A: Surplus Property

This seems like a pretty good example of how, in California, ballot measures can interfere with our elected officials' ability to actually run the government like we elected them to do. The LWV says "surplus property sales have averaged roughly $30 million a year over the past decade," and the deficit reduction bond debt this would go to pay off is $15 billion, which means it would take FIVE HUNDRED YEARS to pay off.

My vote: no. I'd love to see that $30M used for CA's debt, but there also needs to be wiggle room for emergency situations.

Proposition 61: Children's Hospital Projects. Grant Program

When you include the interest on the bonds, this becomes a $1.5 billion dollar band-aid for a systemically failing health care system. If we're going to be spending that much on improving the state's health, there are other places to start.

I'm okay with the state spending money where it'll do some long-term, large-scale good, but I just don't see how this will.

My vote: no.

Proposition 62: Elections. Primaries

"A YES vote of this measure means...the top two vote-getting candidates--regardless of political party identification--would be placed on the general election ballot."

I don't even have to think about this one.

My vote: fuck no.

Proposition 63: Mental Health Services Expansion, Funding. Tax on Personal Incomes above $1 Million.

You don't have to spend very much time in San Francisco to realize that homelessness and mental health are inextricably linked, so I'm generally in favor of improving those services.

Thing is, this funding source is really weird. Wouldn't it just drive more people in that tax bracket to keep their money out of the state, like Wayne with his legal residence in Nevada? And if this gets passed as a ballot measure, wouldn't it then be basically impossible to modify in the future?

It just seems like a bad way to fund the solution -- and I haven't even read what their proposed solution is yet.

My vote: no.

Proposition 64: Limit on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws

I'd like to see a pretty major shift in the application and enforcement of consumer protection laws in this country before I'll support anything that limits an individual's right to sue. As fucked up as it is sometimes, the court system is the only real defense we humans have against corporate greed.

My vote: no.

Proposition 65: Local Government Funds, Revenues. State Mandates

Another take on the same issue prop. 1A purports to address. This one doesn't make for nearly as good a sound bite as 1A, but I find 65 much more intriguing.

From the sound of things, the intention is to ensure more stability for local budgets. I'm not crazy about the requirement that the state reimburse all of the local jurisdictions for any spending over the past year, though.

Hmm. "The original supporters are now proponents for Proposition 1A." Maybe it doesn't even matter.

My vote: undecided.

Proposition 66: Limitations on "Three Strikes" Law. Sex Crimes. Punishment

Limiting the three strikes law to violent crimes sounds great in theory, as does reducing the size of the prison system, but I'm not entirely convinced that this will free our stoner breathren from their unwarranted 25-year sentences...and I don't know what this bit about child molestation is doing in here, it seems like an entirely separate issue.

My vote: undecided, leaning towards yes.

Proposition 67: Emergency Medical Services. Funding. Telephone Surcharge

I like the idea of additional funding for emergency medical services -- even though I think the health system is broken, we need to keep emergency services available while we fix it.

And yet, this funding source seems...strange. Not as strange as for prop. 63 above, but still.

My vote: undecided, leaning towards yes.

Proposition 68: Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion. Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments. Revenues, Tax Exemptions

I've always been torn on the general issue of Indian casinos, and this measure makes that even more confusing.

My vote: undecided, pending further discussion.

Proposition 69: DNA Samples. Collection. Database. Funding

While there are some good corollary provisions in here, I'm not comfortable with a database of the DNA of non-violent offenders (specifically, "adults arrested for or charged with any felony offense" starting in 2009.)

My vote: no.

Proposition 70: Tribal Gaming Compacts. Exclusive Gaming Rights. Contributions to State

Still torn & generally confused.

My vote: undecided, pending further discussion.

Proposition 71: Stem Cell Research. Funding. Bonds

This should not be a state issue, and it absolutely shouldn't be an topic that pushes CA further into debt.

My vote: no.

(Somebody is probably going to point out that I'm inconsistently socialist.)

Proposition 72: Health Care Coverage Requirements Seems to state that if a company of sufficient size doesn't want to provide health care for their employees, they'll have to instead pay into a state-run health care program. While this isn't the systemic fix I've been hoping for, it may be a good temporary improvement.

My vote: tenative yes, pending further discussion.