For anyone who gives a shit in California (local politics)

[Dan Druff]

There are eleven propositions on the ballot. I consider five of them to be major, and the other six fairly minor.

The major propositions are:

Prop 30: Major tax increase for people making $250k/year, plus four straight years of sales tax increases. Supposedly goes to fund schools.

Prop 34: Repeal California's death penalty, commute all current death sentences to life in prison.

Prop 36: Modify California's "three strikes" law to essentially water it down. Immediately release prisoners retroactively affected by the changes.

Prop 38: Another tax increase supposedly to fund the schools, but this one has no sales tax increase and raises EVERYONE'S income tax if they make $7500/year or more.

Prop 39: Change the tax code to where multi-state corporations pay the same tax as those based in California. (Currently they have a choice in how they filed to where they can pay less.) This will actually raise $1 billion for CA if it passes, but $500 million will be wasted on "green buildings" nonsense.

I hated four of these propositions, and urged everyone I knew to vote NO on 30, 34, 36, and 38. I had mixed feelings on 39.

38 didn't have much of a chance to pass because it raised almost everyone's taxes. It is expectedly getting trounced today.

39 was expected to easily pass, and did.

36 was expected to easily pass, and did. I hope California enjoys having a number of violent criminals abruptly released to the streets. Good luck with that one.

30 is currently winning by a margin of 53-47, and will probably pass. California already has the highest state sales tax in the country, and pays the second highest income tax. I hope they enjoy the increases, and the subsequent waste of the money. Californians have rejected almost all new tax propositions in the past 20 years (because taxes were already so high), so I'm surprised they bought this one. I think it's because Governor Jerry Brown campaigned for it, and there was so much money behind the YES ads on television and raido.

Fortunately, the people of California seem to have voted NO on eliminating the death penalty and commuting all current death sentences. It is losing 54-46, and will likely fail.

In Congress, there are a few interesting races to watch:

Ventura County's race is an open seat between Tony Strickland (conservative Republican) and Julia Brownley (liberal Democrat, carpetbagger who just moved to the area to challenge Strickland). The race has been very bitter, and Strickland is narrowly leading with about 2/3rds of the precincts reporting.

Scott Peters is trying to unseat incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray in San Diego, and Bilbray is holding onto a small lead with about 2/3rds reporting.

Mary Bono Mack (married to Sonny Bono, until his death) is trying to hold onto the Palm Springs area, but is slightly behind Democrat Raul Ruiz with 40% reporting.

In Elk Grove (near Sacrameto), Ami Bera is just 0.4% ahead of Republican incumbent Dan Lundgren, with 97.5% of precints reporting.

[LLL]

3 strikes to me always seemed like total bullshit.

Are they really going to snap release people though? That seems screwy, but is it because they were not given a sentence on their last strike?

[sonatine]

There are eleven propositions on the ballot. I consider five of them to be major, and the other six fairly minor.

The major propositions are:

Prop 30: Major tax increase for people making $250k/year, plus four straight years of sales tax increases. Supposedly goes to fund schools.

Prop 34: Repeal California's death penalty, commute all current death sentences to life in prison.

Prop 36: Modify California's "three strikes" law to essentially water it down. Immediately release prisoners retroactively affected by the changes.

Prop 38: Another tax increase supposedly to fund the schools, but this one has no sales tax increase and raises EVERYONE'S income tax if they make $7500/year or more.

Prop 39: Change the tax code to where multi-state corporations pay the same tax as those based in California. (Currently they have a choice in how they filed to where they can pay less.) This will actually raise $1 billion for CA if it passes, but $500 million will be wasted on "green buildings" nonsense.

I hated four of these propositions, and urged everyone I knew to vote NO on 30, 34, 36, and 38. I had mixed feelings on 39.

38 didn't have much of a chance to pass because it raised almost everyone's taxes. It is expectedly getting trounced today.

39 was expected to easily pass, and did.

36 was expected to easily pass, and did. I hope California enjoys having a number of violent criminals abruptly released to the streets. Good luck with that one.

30 is currently winning by a margin of 53-47, and will probably pass. California already has the highest state sales tax in the country, and pays the second highest income tax. I hope they enjoy the increases, and the subsequent waste of the money. Californians have rejected almost all new tax propositions in the past 20 years (because taxes were already so high), so I'm surprised they bought this one. I think it's because Governor Jerry Brown campaigned for it, and there was so much money behind the YES ads on television and raido.

Fortunately, the people of California seem to have voted NO on eliminating the death penalty and commuting all current death sentences. It is losing 54-46, and will likely fail.

In Congress, there are a few interesting races to watch:

Ventura County's race is an open seat between Tony Strickland (conservative Republican) and Julia Brownley (liberal Democrat, carpetbagger who just moved to the area to challenge Strickland). The race has been very bitter, and Strickland is narrowly leading with about 2/3rds of the precincts reporting.

Scott Peters is trying to unseat incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray in San Diego, and Bilbray is holding onto a small lead with about 2/3rds reporting.

Mary Bono Mack (married to Sonny Bono, until his death) is trying to hold onto the Palm Springs area, but is slightly behind Democrat Raul Ruiz with 40% reporting.

In Elk Grove (near Sacrameto), Ami Bera is just 0.4% ahead of Republican incumbent Dan Lundgren, with 97.5% of precints reporting.

im pretty ok with how all this panned out. obviously hadnt been keeping up on goings on over there, ty for update.

[ErickAA]

Based on all the ads on TV and the radio from both sides, I would have guessed Prop 32 was major. What I found really funny was both sides said the same thing, they were against "special interests." Thought that was a little funny, both sides basically using the same reason to vote for/against a proposition.

[Dan Druff]

Based on all the ads on TV and the radio from both sides, I would have guessed Prop 32 was major. What I found really funny was both sides said the same thing, they were against "special interests." Thought that was a little funny, both sides basically using the same reason to vote for/against a proposition.

I forgot to list 32. That was pretty major also, as it prevented unions from donating to political candidates.

I am behind such an effort, but the proposition was flawed in that it didn't put any restriction on corporations themselves donating, so people felt it was unfair that a company could donate unlimited amounts of money and that same company's union couldn't.

I knew it had no chance to win, so I wasn't very concerned with it.

[LLL]

3 strikes to me always seemed like total bullshit.

Are they really going to snap release people though? That seems screwy, but is it because they were not given a sentence on their last strike?

Those currently serving life sentences for third strikes that were not serious or violent crimes will now be able to petition in court for altered sentences. Latest estimates put that number at about 3,000 inmates. Going forward, those who have previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies may be charged with a second strike for a new crime, whether or not it's serious or violent. That means they'll be eligible for double the sentence of those with no criminal histories.
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2...passes-easily/

Doesn't seem terrible to me.

[Dan Druff]

3 strikes to me always seemed like total bullshit.

Are they really going to snap release people though? That seems screwy, but is it because they were not given a sentence on their last strike?

Those currently serving life sentences for third strikes that were not serious or violent crimes will now be able to petition in court for altered sentences. Latest estimates put that number at about 3,000 inmates. Going forward, those who have previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies may be charged with a second strike for a new crime, whether or not it's serious or violent. That means they'll be eligible for double the sentence of those with no criminal histories.
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2...passes-easily/

Doesn't seem terrible to me.

Read the bolded part again.

It means that criminals who have TWO separate convictions for serious or violent crimes will now be eligible to get released immediately, just because their third strike wasn't as serious.

For example, let's say we have a criminal with a history of armed robbery and a later conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Shortly after getting out of prison, he commits the lesser crime of purse-snatching.

The old Three Strikes would say, "You know what? This guy has done enough. Lock him up for 25 years. Even if the purse snatching by itself isn't violent or serious, it's clear that this guy hasn't gone straight, and it's only a matter of time before he commits another violent crime."

The new Three Strikes would say, "25 years for purse snatching? OMG OMG OMG, miscarriage of justice! Reduce the sentence, and kick him back onto the streets immediately if he's already been in prison for a few years."

3,000 people with a story similar to the hypothetical above will be back on California streets.

I think anyone who has committed two violent felonies in the past, and is STILL committing felonies in the present -- whether violent or not -- needs to be taken out of society.

Expect another proposition in the future that modifies Three Strikes back to what it was, after one of these early-released felons goes out and kills someone.

[LLL]

Those currently serving life sentences for third strikes that were not serious or violent crimes will now be able to petition in court for altered sentences. Latest estimates put that number at about 3,000 inmates. Going forward, those who have previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies may be charged with a second strike for a new crime, whether or not it's serious or violent. That means they'll be eligible for double the sentence of those with no criminal histories.
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/politics/2...passes-easily/

Doesn't seem terrible to me.

Read the bolded part again.

It means that criminals who have TWO separate convictions for serious or violent crimes will now be eligible to get released immediately, just because their third strike wasn't as serious.

For example, let's say we have a criminal with a history of armed robbery and a later conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Shortly after getting out of prison, he commits the lesser crime of purse-snatching.

The old Three Strikes would say, "You know what? This guy has done enough. Lock him up for 25 years. Even if the purse snatching by itself isn't violent or serious, it's clear that this guy hasn't gone straight, and it's only a matter of time before he commits another violent crime."

The new Three Strikes would say, "25 years for purse snatching? OMG OMG OMG, miscarriage of justice! Reduce the sentence, and kick him back onto the streets immediately if he's already been in prison for a few years."

3,000 people with a story similar to the hypothetical above will be back on California streets.

I think anyone who has committed two violent felonies in the past, and is STILL committing felonies in the present -- whether violent or not -- needs to be taken out of society.

Expect another proposition in the future that modifies Three Strikes back to what it was, after one of these early-released felons goes out and kills someone.

Will now be able to petition in court

This seems like a part that you glossed over.

[Dan Druff]

Read the bolded part again.

It means that criminals who have TWO separate convictions for serious or violent crimes will now be eligible to get released immediately, just because their third strike wasn't as serious.

For example, let's say we have a criminal with a history of armed robbery and a later conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Shortly after getting out of prison, he commits the lesser crime of purse-snatching.

The old Three Strikes would say, "You know what? This guy has done enough. Lock him up for 25 years. Even if the purse snatching by itself isn't violent or serious, it's clear that this guy hasn't gone straight, and it's only a matter of time before he commits another violent crime."

The new Three Strikes would say, "25 years for purse snatching? OMG OMG OMG, miscarriage of justice! Reduce the sentence, and kick him back onto the streets immediately if he's already been in prison for a few years."

3,000 people with a story similar to the hypothetical above will be back on California streets.

I think anyone who has committed two violent felonies in the past, and is STILL committing felonies in the present -- whether violent or not -- needs to be taken out of society.

Expect another proposition in the future that modifies Three Strikes back to what it was, after one of these early-released felons goes out and kills someone.

Will now be able to petition in court

This seems like a part that you glossed over.

Yes, they can petition the court, but judges can no longer use Three Strikes when applying sentencing, so even the most law-and-order oriented judges will be forced to release dangerous inmates much earlier than before.

I can't see how that's a win for society.

[LLL]

Will now be able to petition in court

This seems like a part that you glossed over.

Yes, they can petition the court, but judges can no longer use Three Strikes when applying sentencing, so even the most law-and-order oriented judges will be forced to release dangerous inmates much earlier than before.

I can't see how that's a win for society.

This movie might make you change your tune.

[John Stamos]

Druff you forgot the most important piece of California legislation:

Porn actors must wear condoms

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-wear-condoms/

[Bootsy Collins]

Druff you forgot the most important piece of California legislation:

Porn actors must wear condoms

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-wear-condoms/

That is just in L.A. city limits. I don't believe that applies to Chatsworth where they usually film.

[Dan Druff]

Druff you forgot the most important piece of California legislation:

Porn actors must wear condoms

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...-wear-condoms/

That is just in L.A. city limits. I don't believe that applies to Chatsworth where they usually film.

Chatsworth is part of LA city.

Also, that law is retarded.

[Dan Druff]

Here is a Los Angeles geography lesson:

Almost all of the San Fernando Valley is actually the city of Los Angeles.

The only two exceptions are the cities of San Fernando (north-central valley), Burbank (which many don't even consider the San Fernando valley), and Calabasas (which, again, many don't even consider the San Fernando valley).

[Bootsy Collins]

That is just in L.A. city limits. I don't believe that applies to Chatsworth where they usually film.

Chatsworth is part of LA city.

Also, that law is retarded.

Yeah I just caught that. Doesn't matter since they can film in Orange County and other various locations. And how are they going to police that law anyway?

[Dan Druff]

Ventura County's race is an open seat between Tony Strickland (conservative Republican) and Julia Brownley (liberal Democrat, carpetbagger who just moved to the area to challenge Strickland). The race has been very bitter, and Strickland is narrowly leading with about 2/3rds of the precincts reporting.

Scott Peters is trying to unseat incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray in San Diego, and Bilbray is holding onto a small lead with about 2/3rds reporting.

Mary Bono Mack (married to Sonny Bono, until his death) is trying to hold onto the Palm Springs area, but is slightly behind Democrat Raul Ruiz with 40% reporting.

In Elk Grove (near Sacrameto), Ami Bera is just 0.4% ahead of Republican incumbent Dan Lundgren, with 97.5% of precints reporting.

All four Republicans above lost.

Bilbray and Lungren are within a few hundred votes, so those will probably be recounts, but will likely ultimately be decided for the Dems.

The Brownley victory pisses me off the most, because she was handpicked by Nancy Pelosi to move from Los Angeles to Ventura County just for the election. So Ventura County fucked themselves, electing a candidate who knows nothing about the area and is unlikely to do much for them.

[Bootsy Collins]

Ventura County's race is an open seat between Tony Strickland (conservative Republican) and Julia Brownley (liberal Democrat, carpetbagger who just moved to the area to challenge Strickland). The race has been very bitter, and Strickland is narrowly leading with about 2/3rds of the precincts reporting.

Scott Peters is trying to unseat incumbent Republican Brian Bilbray in San Diego, and Bilbray is holding onto a small lead with about 2/3rds reporting.

Mary Bono Mack (married to Sonny Bono, until his death) is trying to hold onto the Palm Springs area, but is slightly behind Democrat Raul Ruiz with 40% reporting.

In Elk Grove (near Sacrameto), Ami Bera is just 0.4% ahead of Republican incumbent Dan Lundgren, with 97.5% of precints reporting.

All four Republicans above lost.

Bilbray and Lungren are within a few hundred votes, so those will probably be recounts, but will likely ultimately be decided for the Dems.

The Brownley victory pisses me off the most, because she was handpicked by Nancy Pelosi to move from Los Angeles to Ventura County just for the election. So Ventura County fucked themselves, electing a candidate who knows nothing about the area and is unlikely to do much for them.

I can see why Ventura voted Brownley. The previous rep, Elton Gallegly who was Republican was awful. He was the biggest racist homophobe you would ever meet.

[Dan Druff]

All four Republicans above lost.

Bilbray and Lungren are within a few hundred votes, so those will probably be recounts, but will likely ultimately be decided for the Dems.

The Brownley victory pisses me off the most, because she was handpicked by Nancy Pelosi to move from Los Angeles to Ventura County just for the election. So Ventura County fucked themselves, electing a candidate who knows nothing about the area and is unlikely to do much for them.

I can see why Ventura voted Brownley. The previous rep, Elton Gallegly who was Republican was awful. He was the biggest racist homophobe you would ever meet.

Actually that's not why Brownley won.

Her campaign, backed by a ton of Democratic money, hammered a ton of radio, TV, and direct mail ads attacking Strickland, scaring women into believing he was going to take away their right to abortion.

Strickland tried to counter that Brownley was a carpetbagger hand-picked by Pelosi (which she was), and that she had a 100% Democratic party-line voting record during her CA State Assembly career (which was true).

However, between the scaring-women attack ads and the large Hispanic population in Venutra County (which is mostly Democratic), she was able to win.

[Bootsy Collins]

I can see why Ventura voted Brownley. The previous rep, Elton Gallegly who was Republican was awful. He was the biggest racist homophobe you would ever meet.

Actually that's not why Brownley won.

Her campaign, backed by a ton of Democratic money, hammered a ton of radio, TV, and direct mail ads attacking Strickland, scaring women into believing he was going to take away their right to abortion.

Strickland tried to counter that Brownley was a carpetbagger hand-picked by Pelosi (which she was), and that she had a 100% Democratic party-line voting record during her CA State Assembly career (which was true).

However, between the scaring-women attack ads and the large Hispanic population in Venutra County (which is mostly Democratic), she was able to win.

Ventura is a very interesting county. You have the staunch republicans living on the coastline and you have the hippy capital of the world in Ojai where I lived from 2005-2008.

[Dan Druff]

Actually that's not why Brownley won.

Her campaign, backed by a ton of Democratic money, hammered a ton of radio, TV, and direct mail ads attacking Strickland, scaring women into believing he was going to take away their right to abortion.

Strickland tried to counter that Brownley was a carpetbagger hand-picked by Pelosi (which she was), and that she had a 100% Democratic party-line voting record during her CA State Assembly career (which was true).

However, between the scaring-women attack ads and the large Hispanic population in Venutra County (which is mostly Democratic), she was able to win.

Ventura is a very interesting county. You have the staunch republicans living on the coastline and you have the hippy capital of the world in Ojai where I lived from 2005-2008.

You are forgetting all the illegals living in Oxnard.