California Voters, here's the cheat sheet from cadem.org

[usonian]

https://cadem.org/

Endorsements:


Propositions:


CADEM is neutral on prop 26, and against prop 27.
26 seems to limit sports wagering to in-person gambling on tribal lands and "certain horseracing tracks"
27 seems to allow Indian tribes and affiliated businesses (what?) to operate online/mobile sports wagering outside tribal lands.

In more local detail (pdf) https://cadem.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-CADEM-General-Endorsements.pdf
No recommendations found for judicial positions.

There are some interesting cases, such as two Democrats running for state senator.

[blm]

1. No judges? Most voters don't know the judges.

[Brother Buzz]

3. I have an up or down vote on thirteen judges I've never heard of

And I've never heard of half of the courts. I'm toying with passing on voting for all of them; they'll be seated either way.

[chia]

20. LA Times and SF Chronicle recommend Yes on Chief Justice and Assoc. Justices (four total)

But I have no idea how to vote for the Court of Appeal justices.

[blm]

21. Find out ALL judges' names from County Dem party.

Seriously. Most voters either guess or leave blank. That’s what GOP counts on.

Let others know. Take a list with you and share it.

[chia]

22. Already tried that, with no luck. Neither my local SD Dems, or State Democratic party site make any

recommendations for appeals court justices that I've found.

[Brother Buzz]

2. 26 and 27 are a big fat NO in my book

[chowder66]

5. Agree.

Regarding prop 27...they can try to come up with a better proposition in the future.

[msfiddlestix]

14. Agree. NO for me too.

[kysrsoze]

4. The argument against 30 seems weak, so I say Yes.

I can’t figure why Newsom is so dead-set against it as to make a commercial. Seems like a bad stance.

[chowder66]

7. Here is a little bit about No on prop 30 from the LA Times

snip...

California already has the highest state income tax rate, at 13.3%, and voters have already raised taxes on the wealthiest residents to pay for education and mental health services. Proposition 30 would push the top-earner rate to 15.05%, which is much higher than other states, most of which have income tax rates in the single digits. The state’s dependence on wealthy residents’ income, which is often tied to investments and the stock market, creates tremendous instability in the budget. Revenues sharply rise and fall with Wall Street, leading to feast-or-famine cycles. It doesn’t make sense to pin another priority on such a volatile funding stream. Proposition 30 could also drive investors who fund high-risk technologies out of the state.

Proposition 30 is backed by environmental and public health groups, unions representing firefighters and electrical workers and clean transportation businesses. But the Yes on 30 campaign is funded almost entirely by Lyft, which has spent $25 million in support of the measure. That has been seized on by opponents, including Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has called Proposition 30 “one company’s cynical scheme to grab a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy.”

The increase in vehicle incentive funds would help Lyft and other ride-hailing firms comply with a new state requirement that 90% of their vehicle miles are electric by 2030. This is the second time Lyft has spent big at the ballot box to shape California policy to its own advantage, and that’s troubling. The company spent nearly $50 million in 2020 to pass Proposition 22 to override state law and keep its drivers as independent contractors, rather than employees.

.....

Yes, California needs more money to accelerate the transition to zero-emission transportation. But Proposition 30 isn’t the right way to do it.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-20/endorsement-no-on-proposition-30

[kysrsoze]

10. The Lyft thing is a bit of an issue

I’m thinking it’s the high tax on the wealthy that’s the sticking point. I gues, how high is too high? I’m still not sure what to do on this one.

[chowder66]

11. There is another LA Times article about this

I wish I could gift it somehow but I can't see how to do it.

On one hand there is a lot of good it would do to get us on track but there are uncertainties throughout. My feeling at the moment is to vote NO because a new Proposition that addresses these uncertainties can be drafted and put on a future ballot.

snip....

The short version is that rich people and chambers of commerce don’t like Proposition 30 — and neither do teachers unions, which oppose setting aside so much tax money with none going to schools. Gov. Gavin Newsom calls the measure “corporate welfare” for Lyft, because all that tax money would help the ride-hailing company comply with a state mandate to switch to electric cars. Lyft has spent $45 million supporting Proposition 30.

....

First, she pointed out that state lawmakers allocated $10 billion to zero-emission vehicles over the last two budget cycles. RMI didn’t take some of that money into account in its analysis, and in fact assumed that no additional state funds are set aside for electric vehicles post-2024. That’s not realistic. California will definitely spend more money on clean cars.

Matosantos also said ride-hailing companies should find a way to comply with state regulations by shifting their business strategies rather than demanding support from taxpayers, even the wealthiest ones. She noted that Uber — which, unlike Lyft, has stayed out of the Proposition 30 battle — provides financial incentives for drivers to switch to electric cars.

.....

Bigger picture, Matosantos believes this kind of proposition is the wrong way for California to make sweeping financial decisions. The clean energy transition, she said, will require huge amounts of additional funding — to bulk up the electric grid, for instance — and the Legislature is best suited to make those decisions, weighing all the competing priorities against one another.

Brandon Dawson, director of Sierra Club California, told me his organization likes all the funding for electric cars. It’s the wildfire spending they’ve got questions about, because a portion of the money could go to forest-thinning projects that some Sierra Club members are worried would cause ecological harm while doing little to protect vulnerable towns from flames.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/newsletter/2022-10-13/how-proposition-30-could-help-california-tackle-climate-change-boiling-point

[chowder66]

12. I think the prevailing winds are that this will pass. FWIW.

[Iggo]

6. I'm voting No on 26 and 27.

Don’t let them fool you that it’s either/or.

[Just A Box Of Rain]

8. Neutral on 26 is the one foul ball.

No on 26 & 27

[chowder66]

9. Prop 29 again

The SEUI-UHW says the 9-1-1 service calls from dialysis centers suggest the need for more staff, though they offer no data that the volume is higher than might be expected given that dialysis patients often have other serious health conditions. It’s true that clinics often have to call for help if a kidney patient has an emergency, but that won’t change even with extra staff because they are not emergency medical facilities. And the trained nurses and technicians at dialysis clinics are just as equipped to deliver basic lifesaving care as doctors or nurse practitioners required under the proposition.

Clinics are already required to have a physician on staff overseeing patients’ care, and each patient has a kidney specialist directing their individual treatment. An on-site doctor would not have the authority to make changes to the care prescribed by a patient’s doctor.

.......

The opponents say Proposition 29 would probably hurt patients more than help. That’s because the added cost of hiring unnecessary staff, which is estimated at several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for each clinic, could force some centers to close or reduce hours. Dialysis patients who are in kidney failure typically require several hours of dialysis three times a week. If they miss a treatment because of reduced hours or access, it could be fatal.

The opponents include patient advocates and healthcare associations whose members might benefit from the expanded job opportunities the proposition would create: the California Medical Assn., the California chapter of the American Nurses Assn., and the American Academy of Nephrology PAs, along with the Renal Physicians Assn. and the California Dialysis Council.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-06/endorsement-no-prop-29-dialysis-center-proposition-california

https://noprop29.com/who-we-are/

[msfiddlestix]

13. I'm voting NO on 29,

SEIU in action over the years, and they fouled their nest a long time ago in my eyes.

I do not take anything they say at face value, nor do I trust any of their claims on this issue.

Sad to say after a lifetime of always supporting Unions

I hate that I had to pinch my nose to vote for Thurmond in the primary, it's unfortunate that he was allowed to rise to the top of the state in California's education system. Like really? California teachers union couldn't come up with a more competent, trustworthy candidate?

But that's where we are, and it's better than a Corrupt xfascists republicon.

[chowder66]

16. Same.

[Sympthsical]

15. I voted No on 29 after doing some research

Seems like SEIU is putting their interests ahead of patients. There is a long, long, long list of medical and patient advocacy organizations against it.

And this keeps coming up. It feels like they're just going to keep trying until people give in or they find the right wording. Not a fan.

Voted no on 31 as well. So tired of "For the children" being the excuse to limit adult things. Y'all raise your own children once in awhile.

On the plus side, Prop 1 is one of the easiest votes I've ever cast, so there was that.

[chowder66]

17. Agree. I get where you are coming from regarding the tobacco

Last edited Sun Oct 16, 2022, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

but I'm leaning towards no.

ON EDIT: I meant to say I'm leaning towards Yes.

[Sympthsical]

18. I'll never understand the "Oh noes, candy flavors!"

"It appeals to children!"

Do adults not like candy, too? I vape (quit smoking long ago). It's just a non-nicotine oral fixation mainly to replace the smoking. I get my stuff out of state (cheaper). Mainly watermelon and mango.

I do not understand why they need adults to taste horrible flavors. Because of the children. It's the same with alcohol, "If this cocktail doesn't taste like you regret your life choices, it's bad." I don't drink, and when I have something, I hate sweet fruity things (schnapps and things like Ripple or so, so, so sweet).

But even if I did. Adult pleasures. It's up to the parents with these things.

And whenever it comes down to it, there's always money somewhere behind these campaigns using children to shield their own profit making interests.

[Hekate]

19. Our take after reading the voter info guide...

1 — Yes, yes, yes. Opponents’ arguments are ridiculous; according to them, CA taxpayers will be paying for the abortions of thousands, if not millions, of out-of-state women.
26 — No — Fool me once, etc. We got burned with the CA State Lottery, in that it was “to support public schools.” Last I checked, the legislature had decided to make it a zero-sum game by withholding the amount produced by the Lottery & using the money elsewhere. If a gambling enterprise says it’s going to benefit the people in some way, check your wallet.
27 — No
28 — Yes
29 — No — In brief, our reasoning is that requiring doctors at dialysis clinics will substantially increase their costs and force clinics out of business, and to be housed in hospitals. Hospitals are already in low supply and not easily accessible to many people who must travel to dialysis 3 times a week.
30 — No — It appears to be a gift to Lyft more than anything.
31 — Yes — Anything to keep tobacco away from kids. Speaking as the sister of a man who died from COPD (smoker at age 13) and mother of a middle-aged daughter who wishes she had not started at age 12.