Thursday, November 03, 2016

Your California/SF Bay Area election recommendations

Thought I'd put in a word here for my employer, Greenbelt Alliance, and its Voter Guide to housing, transportation, and open space ballot measures in the SF Bay Area. I had a hand in some of these recommendations.

Something unrelated to my employer is candidate recommendations based on environmental credentials. I spent a number of years on the board of the Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters interviewing candidates, also involved with the Loma Prieta Sierra Club Chapter, and they both generally recommend good candidates (and have ballot measure recommendations too.

Elsewhere in the Bay Area and California, you can get environmental recommendations from some regional Leagues of Conservation Voters, or google to find your local Sierra Club chapter.

Kevin Drum is also a good source on state ballot measures. I'm not as anti-voter initiative as he is, although there are arguments against them on the state level that don't apply on the local level (a super-majority requirement for change can be created by constitutional amendment at the state level; the only way to make important things somewhat harder to change locally is by local voter initiative).

Prop. 54, a 72-hour waiting period on votes for bills, was a hard one for me. I'm distantly, tangentially involved with state legislation - it's a very inefficient process and this will make it even worse. OTOH, it's an incredibly non-transparent, undemocratic process too. I support 54 and hope for the best. Somewhat relevant, California's experience as a one-party state while the California Republicans continue their implosion means we need to reinforce democracy.

A few others:  Prop. 63 background checks for ammunition purchasers - yes, ammo control has a number of advantages over gun control, so let's explore it further.  Prop 64 legalizing pot - yes but could be done much better (a blog post for another time). Some serious environmental repercussions that need to be dealt with from pot legalization as well. Prop 65 is meant to screw up legislative deals with grocers done to get plastic bags banned - IMO to stop similar legislation in other states - so definite no to 65 and yes to 67.


Fernando Leanme said...

Is the 72 hour waiting period for votes supposed to give legislators time to read the bill? If so why not make it 30 days?

The background check for ammo makes sense, but the bureaucracy could smooth the paperwork by having individuals obtain a credit card like ID with a chip they can use at the ammo shop with the card and a thumb print. Those who don't want to bother with this method can do the paperwork and wait. This will allow those of us who want to defend our homes and freedom, as God fearing citizens should, to practice at the gun range as needed.

Ed Darrell said...

While generally I'd say it's important for state legislatures to have a waiting period, to avoid Texas's practice of ramming through very partisan, rights-crippling legislation at the last minute, I've also been present for resolutions and laws to resolve crippling disputes, and to respond to disaster and war.

Utah requires three "readings" of all bills before action. The 24 hours between readings can be waived in emergencies by a more-than-majority vote IIRC.

Tough enough to make any state legislature work, these days.