You should have read the rules to filling out your ballot and the possibly also the information about the Dad Guide before progressing to this page.

March 2000

Propositions

1A

Gambling on tribal lands
No. I voted no the first time. Gambling is gambling. Plus Jeana told me how this kind of Indian gambling enactment really screwed up her home state (Montana?) because it is totally unregulated and all these “establishments” were being hastily thrown up causing incredible blight on the landscape. But for me the main point is that it’s unregulated gambling.

12

Parks, clean water/air, coastal protection
Yes. I love the argument against: “The government will use the vast majority of the money to buy more land for insects, rats and weeds.”

13

Safe drinking water
Yes. I don’t buy the libertarian argument of too much government interference. I wish I could give the libertarians buckets and shovels and tell them to go haul their own water and dig their own wells.

14

Libraries
Yes. Opposed by the tax-limitation committee which says “Information can be retrieved and exchanged much more conveniently—and at a much lower cost—through the Internet.” Yeah, like every home has a computer and an atmosphere conducive to studying and learning.

15

Crime lab
Yes. I had to think about this one. But we do keep our own kitchens, bathrooms, and office equipment in good repair ... If we expect our crime fighters to do their job, keeping their labs up to date must come with the territory. Besides, the libertarians oppose it.

16

Vets
No. This one I had to really think hard about. Basically for me it came down to a matter of fairness. It would be great if ALL our seniors in need had places to live. I don’t see why veterans get special treatment ... they already get lots of benefits.

17

Raffles
Yes. Seemed harmless to me. The arguments against (Committee on Moral Concerns—yikes) seemed extremely hyper and alarmist.

18

Murder, special circumstances
No. Just another capital punishment law.

19

Murder, BART and CSU
Yes. Sure, why not consider BART and campus police the same as “real” police. They do the same work and are certainly subject to the same hazards.

20

Lottery, allocation for instructional materials
No. Sounds like just another layer of bureaucracy. If Sacramento AND the schools are in disagreement then why bother. We know how well educational reform works when there isn’t 100% buy-in from the educators.

21

Juvenile crime
No. My, this one had lots of ALL CAPS on both sides. I don’t think it’s going to reduce violent crime. And throwing a kid in with hardened criminals is really going to teach that young punk a lesson - but what lesson? How to become a hardened criminal.

22

Limit on Marriages
No. We know what this is about.

23

None of the Above
No. Waste of a vote and a cop-out. I’m with the Greens.

25

Campaign $ limits
Yes, I think. But I could be convinced no. We do need spending limits, but the stuff it doesn’t cover is really gross. It wouldn’t take much to talk me out of it.

26

School facilities
Yes. Communities should be able to vote for improvements in their own schools by a simple majority. Why should my vote be worth only half of a no vote? Opposed by a committee that has Jarvis in its name. That’s enough for me.

27

Election term limits
No. For all the bellyaching about “throw the bums out” when it comes down to it, folks still want their tried-and-true representatives. The “bums” are really those other guys. It takes time to build relationships. People should be voted out not term-limited out.

28

Repeal of tobacco tax
No. Sponsored by the folks who sell cigarets.

29

Indian gaming
Yes. Because I vote No on 1A. I hate these companion bills.

30
31

Insurance claims
Yes. Hoo ... but what a choice. Vote with the lawyers or vote with the insurance companies. I’m going yes because I heard this debated on KQED’s Forum. The “Yes” person was a female who sounded cool, knowledgeable, bright. The “No” person was a smarmy male who was clearly the spokesman for insurance companies. All the callers were anti-insurance and told just awful horror stories about being stonewalled in their claims by their own insurance companies. The “No” guy was caught in so many blatant falsehoods, not only by his debate opponent but by all of the callers. The only caller who supported the “No” position was a man who said “I don’t think your lady guest should say that Mr. (I-forgot-his-name) is lying. It just isn’t right. She shouldn’t call him a liar.” Wow.

Judges

1

2

11

14

20