Surprise Shift in Prop. 72 Vote Tally (CA passed Univ Health?!)

[papau]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-prop1dec01.story
Surprise Shift in Prop. 72 Vote Tally
Late ballots appear to make measure requiring health insurance coverage a winner. But a clerical error may be responsible, officials say.
By Jordan Rau and Tim Reiterman
Times Staff Writers

December 1, 2004

SACRAMENTO — The fate of a statewide proposition mandating health insurance coverage — assumed to have been defeated in the Nov. 2 election — was thrown into confusion Tuesday night after the secretary of state's office reported that late-counted ballots had given Proposition 72 a narrow margin of victory.<snip>


"We had updates from 17 different counties today, but we are suspicious that one did not report something right," said Caren Daniels-Meade, a spokeswoman for Secretary of State Kevin Shelley.

"So we have to get in touch with them all tomorrow."

If the late results prove accurate, however, it would make for one of the most remarkable come-from-behind victories in California's election history.

Proposition 72, which would require all employers with 50 or more workers to provide health insurance, was the subject of one of the most intense battles in this year's election. It pitted doctors, unions and consumer advocates against California's business sectors.
<snip>

[BrendaStarr]

1. Arnold wakes up with a headache

"Shit! Maria, someone forgot to hack those tabulating computers for prop 72. Get me Karl Rove!"

Okay kidding aside--The last counties to have substantial numbers of absentee and provisional ballots out (according to the Time's report) were Contra Costa, Monterey, and Los Angeles from which many liberals hail.

Big mistake somewhere?

I don't think there was any mistake except the failure to hack those totals or to hack them enough.

Code Red News Forum--> http://www.network54.com/Forum/341201

[AP]

2. Just for sake of clarity: This was a vote to repeal a law which Davis had

signed. If the Dems win this (pass 72) it would maintain the status quo. Right?

[George_S]

3. Don't think so...

http://www.smartvoter.org/2004/11/02/ca/state/prop/72/

[AP]

4. Truth is half-way in between:

Davis signed the bill, but implementation was suspended because 72 qualified for the ballot. A Yes vote would have respected the legislative process. A No vote would have subverted the legislative process.



Recent Legislation

In 2003, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed Senate Bill 2 (Chapter 673) to expand health insurance coverage beginning in 2006 for employees of certain employers and, in some cases, their dependents. The law also established a program to assist lower-income employees with paying their share of health care premiums.


The new law would have gone into effect January 1, 2004. However, Proposition 72, a referendum on this new law, subsequently qualified for the statewide ballot. As a result, SB 2 was put “on hold” and will take effect only if Proposition 72 is approved by the voters at the November 2004 election.

http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2004/72_11_2004.htm

[George_S]

5. Thanks, I didn't realize that. n/t

[napi21]

6. What exactly does "provide health insurance" mean?

IE: Walmart provides health insurance to its workers, but most of them don't make enough money to afford it. On it's face, this sounds like a good idea for Ca. workers, but isn't the devil in the details again?