I Voted This Morning


I filled out my ballot this morning and have some mixed emotions about sending it in. I won’t get a little I Voted sticker this year. I won’t walk to the polling place with the kids and have them wait while I fill out my ballot in secret. I won’t get to talk to them about the value of voting in secret, about the freedom of being able to vote for whomever you wish and against whatever you don’t like. I’m not much for secrets I suppose.

There are a few I haven’t decided on yet. Maybe you have some insight?

I thought I’d share my votes with you, hopefully it will prompt some thoughts on both sides

President: Barack Obama – Romney is a problem but Ryan is menace. At some point the GOP started hating women, this is really tragic because I wanted to believe in their message.

United States Senator: Dianne Feinstein – was there another choice?

United States Representative: Howard Berman – without question the better candidate. Brad Sherman doesn’t even live in LA anymore and when he put Berman in a headlock during a debate I realized he’s better suited for another job… like maybe being a bouncer at a bar.

Member of the State Assembly: not decided it’s either Jay Stern or Adrin Nazarian

District Attorney: not decided Jackie Lacey or Alan Jackson

Proposition 30: Yes. It just makes sense

Proposition 31: No. It’s too confusing and the redistribution of decision making looks to be a disaster before it begins.

Proposition 32: No. This would be a disaster for working people leaving only the very rich with the ability to effectively pool their funds.

Proposition 33: No. This will make insurance prohibitively expensive for new drivers. It is funded largely by George Joseph the chairman of Mercury Insurance. When is the last time you heard of a Chairman of a corporation spending millions of dollars to make his own business less profitable?

Proposition 34: Yes. California never kills anyone anyhow. Might as well.

Proposition 35: Yes. Harsher penalties for human trafficking… that was easy.

Proposition 36: Yes. This is really important because there have been unintended consequences of the 3 strikes law and this seeks to remedy them. Let’s reserve 25 to life to violent offenses.

Proposition 37: Yes. Yes. Yes. If you want to eat GMO free you need to vote yes on this. If you don’t want to eat GMO free you need to vote yes on this one. It’s a dot of ink that lets you know what’s in your food. Easy as can be.

Proposition 38:  No. This is a nonsense measure funded by angry billionaires who want to be sure that Prop 30 doesn’t pass and instead came up with a deeply regressive tax that further punishes the poor. Do not let Prop 38 distract you. I heartily encourage folks to vote no.

Proposition 39: Yes. This just closes a loophole that multi state businesses have been using.

Proposition 40: Yes. No one opposes this. It’s so weird.

Los Angles County Measure A: I’m not sure. Given the fact that our current tax assessor is in jail unable to make bail who knows if having it be an appointed position will be better or worse. Why is this on the ballot anyhow? Does anyone know?

Los Angles County Measure B: Yes. I’m totally voting for the nanny state. I spent the 80’s going to funerals. Condoms are your friend.

Los Angles County Measure J: Yes. I’ll always vote for traffic relief. Always.

Here’s some detail on each of the measures:

SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures

Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.

A YES vote on this measure means: The state would increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget.
A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not increase personal income taxes or sales taxes. State spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would take effect in 2012–13.

PRO: After years of cuts to schools and public safety, it’s time to take a stand. Prop. 30 asks the wealthiest to temporarily pay more to prevent deep school cuts, provide billions in new education funding, guarantee local public safety and help balance the state budget.
CON: No on 30—$50 billion in higher sales and income taxes, but no guarantee of additional money for schools. Prop. 30 doesn’t reform schools, pensions or cut waste and bureaucracy. We’ll never know where the money really goes. Educators, small businesses and taxpayer groups say NO on 30.

Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.

A YES vote on this measure means: Certain fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would change. Local governments that create plans to coordinate services would receive funding from the state and could develop their own procedures for administering state programs.
A NO vote on this measure means: The fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would not change. Local governments would not be given (1) funding to implement new plans that coordinate services or (2) authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs.

PRO Yes on 31 will stop politicians from keeping Californians in the dark about how their government is functioning. It will prevent the state from passing budgets behind closed doors, stop politicians from creating programs with money the state doesn’t have, and require governments to report results before spending more money.
CON Proposition 31 is a badly flawed initiative that locks expensive and conflicting provisions into the Constitution, causing lawsuits, confusion, and cost. Prop. 31 threatens public health, the environment, prevents future increases in funding for schools, and blocks tax cuts. Join teachers, police, conservationists, tax reformers: vote no on Prop. 31.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.

A YES vote on this measure means: Unions and corporations could not use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would be subject to additional campaign finance restrictions.
A NO vote on this measure means: There would be no change to existing laws regulating the ability of unions and corporations to use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would continue to be subject to existing campaign finance laws.

PRO Prop. 32 CUTS THE MONEY TIE BETWEEN SPECIAL INTERESTS AND POLITICIANS to the full extent constitutionally allowed. Bans contributions from corporations AND unions to politicians. Prohibits contributions from government contractors. Stops payroll withholding for politics, making ALL contributions voluntary. NO LOOPHOLES, NO EXEMPTIONS. Vote YES to clean up Sacramento. CON Prop 32 isn’t reform—it exempts business Super PACs and thousands of big businesses from its provisions, at the same time applying restrictions on working people and their unions. It’s unfair, unbalanced, and won’t take money out of politics. The League of Women Voters urges a No vote!
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.

A YES vote on this measure means: Insurance companies could offer new customers a discount on automobile insurance premiums based on the number of years in the previous five years that the customer was insured.
A NO vote on this measure means: Insurers could continue to provide discounts to their long-term automobile insurance customers, but would continue to be prohibited from providing a discount to new customers switching from other insurers.

PRO Californians with car insurance earn a discount for following the law. But if you switch companies you lose the discount. Proposition 33 allows you the freedom to change insurance companies and keep your discount. Proposition 33 makes insurance companies compete, helps lower rates, and will insure more drivers.
CON Proposition 33 is another deceptive insurance company trick. Insurance companies spent millions to pass a similar law in 2010—voters defeated it. Proposition 33 allows auto insurers to raise premiums on responsible drivers up to $1,000, unfairly punishing people who stopped driving for legitimate reasons. Consumer advocates OPPOSE Prop. 33.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.

YES A YES vote on this measure means: No offenders could be sentenced to death under state law. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The state would provide a total of $100 million in grants to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years.
A NO vote on this measure means: Certain offenders convicted for murder could continue to be sentenced to death. The status of offenders currently under a sentence of death would not change. The state would not be required to provide local law enforcement agencies with additional grant funding.

PRO 34 guarantees we never execute an innocent person by replacing California’s broken death penalty with life in prison without possibility of parole. It makes killers work and pay court-ordered restitution to victims. 34 saves wasted tax dollars and directs $100 million to law enforcement to solve rapes and murders.
CON California is broke. Prop. 34 costs taxpayers $100 million over four years and many millions more, long term. Taxpayers would pay at least $50,000 annually, giving lifetime healthcare/housing to killers who tortured, raped, and murdered children, cops, mothers, and fathers. DA’s, Sheriffs and Police Chiefs say Vote No.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

A YES vote on this measure means: Longer prison sentences and larger fines for committing human trafficking crimes.
A NO vote on this measure means: Existing criminal penalties for human trafficking would stay in effect.

PRO YES on 35—
STOP HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PREVENT THE SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN. Traffickers force women and children to sell their bodies on the streets and online. Prop. 35 fights back, with tougher sentencing, help for victims, protections for children online. Trafficking survivors; children’s and victims’ advocates urge: YES on 35.
CON Proposition 35 actually threatens many innocent people “My son, who served our country in the military and now attends college, could be labeled a human trafficker and have to register as a sex offender if I support him with money I earn providing erotic services.”—Maxine Doogan
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions.

A YES vote on this measure means: Some criminal offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit certain nonserious, non-violent felonies would be sentenced to shorter terms in state prison. In addition, some offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who are currently serving life sentences for many nonserious, non-violent felony convictions could be resentenced to shorter prison terms.
A NO vote on this measure means: Offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit any new felony could continue to receive life sentences. In addition, offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who are currently serving life sentences for nonserious, non-violent felonies would continue to serve the remainder of their life sentences.

PRO Restores the original intent of the Three Strikes law by focusing on violent criminals. Repeat offenders of serious or violent crimes get life in prison. Nonviolent offenders get twice the ordinary prison sentence. Saves over $100,000,000 annually and ensures rapists, murderers, and other dangerous criminals stay in prison for life.
CON Proposition 36 will release dangerous criminals from prison who were sentenced to life terms because of their long criminal history. The initiative is so flawed some of these felons will be released without any supervision! Join California’s Sheriffs, Police, Prosecutors, and crime victims groups in voting No on Proposition 36.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.

A YES vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would have to be specifically labeled as being genetically engineered.
A NO vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would continue not to have specific labeling requirements.

PRO Proposition 37 gives us the right to know what is in the food we eat and feed to our families. It simply requires labeling of food produced using genetic engineering, so we can choose whether to buy those products or not. We have a right to know.
CON Prop. 37 is a deceptive, deeply flawed food labeling scheme, full of special-interest exemptions and loopholes. Prop. 37 would: create new government bureaucracy costing taxpayers millions, authorize expensive shakedown lawsuits against farmers and small businesses, and increase family grocery bills by hundreds of dollars per year.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments.

A YES vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would increase for 12 years. The additional revenues would be used for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.
A NO vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would remain at their current levels. No additional funding would be available for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.

PRO 38 makes schools a priority again. It guarantees new funding per pupil direct to every local public school site to restore budget cuts and improve educational results. 38 prohibits Sacramento politicians from touching the money. Spending decisions are made locally with community input and strong accountability requirements, including independent audits.
CON No on 38: If you earn $17,346 per year in taxable income, your taxes increase. Total of $120 BILLION in higher taxes. No requirements to improve student performance. Can’t be changed for 12 years even for fraud. Damages small business. Kills jobs. Educators, taxpayers and businesses say No on 38.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.

A YES vote on this measure means: Multistate businesses would no longer be able to choose the method for determining their state taxable income that is most advantageous for them. Some multistate businesses would have to pay more corporate income taxes due to this change. About half of this increased tax revenue over the next five years would be used to support energy efficiency and alternative energy projects.
A NO vote on this measure means: Most multistate businesses would continue to be able to choose one of two methods to determine their California taxable income.

PRO Yes on 39 CLOSES UNFAIR TAX LOOPHOLE letting OUT-OF-STATE CORPORATIONS avoid taxes by keeping jobs out of California. Closing the loophole protects local jobs and provides $1 BILLION to California. Funds used for job-creating energy efficiency projects at schools and for deficit reduction. YES on 39—CLOSE THE LOOPHOLE.
CON Proposition 39 is a massive $1 billion tax increase on California job creators that employ tens of thousands of middle class workers. It’s a recipe for waste and corruption, giving Sacramento politicians a blank check to spend billions without real accountability. California is billions in debt; 39 makes it worse.
Back to Voting Summary


SUMMARY Put on the Ballot by Petition Signatures
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.

A YES vote on this measure means: The state Senate district boundaries certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission would continue to be used.
A NO vote on this measure means: The California Supreme Court would appoint special masters to determine new state Senate district boundaries.

PRO Yes on 40 protects the State Senate maps drawn by the voter-approved Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. Yes on 40 upholds the will of California voters to hold politicians accountable by keeping them out of the redistricting process. Good government groups, seniors, businesses and taxpayers recommend “Yes on 40.”
CON As sponsors of Proposition 40, our intention was to overturn the commission’s State Senate districts for 2012. However, due to the State Supreme Court’s ruling that kept these districts in place for 2012, we have suspended our campaign and no longer seek a NO vote.
Back to Voting Summary

Facebook Comments

8 responses to “I Voted This Morning”

  1. I think it is retry brae of you to share your vote with everyone. I could never do that and leave myself open to the criticism that I’m sure would come my way.
    While most of the votes don’t have impact on me, as I live in FL and not CA, I disagree with your vote for President and that is why I love living in a democracy.
    I also voted already and do miss the fact that I won’t get an “I voted” sticker either. =)

  2. Josh says:

    I voted by Absentee ballot too. I might not have been able to take the kids with me to see how it works, but that won’t prevent us from going over the issues and talking about it.

    It is always a “pleasure” to see what language is used to promote the propositions and measures. I wonder how many things are passed because people don’t have a clue what they are voting on.

  3. The language they use for these things always makes my brain hurt. Which is sad… most people probably have no idea what their vote on these propositions really means.

    (of note: I subscribe via email, and the ad in the email for this post was for Romney)

  4. But Prop 30 has no provision that prohibits the CA government from re-routing the money to other things. Jerry Brown did it already, even stopping bus services for schools (which eliminated even more jobs and made it harder for some kids to get to school). Your kids are in private schools, so these things don’t really affect you, but for those of us with children in public schools it hurts our kids badly.

    My daughter’s school has no music program because of budget cuts. It has been proven that music helps kids learn all kinds of things. They laid off two teachers in August and put those students in already packed classrooms. Unless I am absolutely guaranteed that the money will ONLY go to schools, not just the public schools in the wealthier areas, I’m not voting for it.

    Jerry Brown is a tax and spend democrat, he always has been. How he got elected again after he screwed up California so badly the first two times, I’ll never understand. He will take that money and funnel it into some special interest project and claim budget deficits. Meanwhile, our children suffer by getting subpar educations and no programs that actually help them learn.

    How does this benefit anyone in California, except the politicians? How about they cut their salaries and perk packages? And I don’t mean by a mere $100 each. How many people lost their jobs with the trigger cuts he instituted in January? Jerry Brown is not good for our state and neither is Prop 30.

    • Shan

      I’m as invested in the public schools as any homeowner can be. When my local elementary school performs well my property values rise.
      Obviously I care less about the minutia of it but I’m totally willing to pay higher taxes for public education regardless of our personal usage.

  5. Anna Vocino says:

    Wow, I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that we voted almost identically. I do feel I missed the mark on some of the Props b/c I just couldn’t understand the rhetoric so I felt I had to make an educated guess.

  6. Eva Smith™ says:

    I agree with you on just about every Proposition! Looking forward to going to the polls tomorrow.

  7. […] lobbyist. I’m not even a very good Democrat. I voted for Obama begrudgingly the first time and a little more happily the second. I spent my 20’s and my 30’s identifying as pro-life while giving money and support […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *