The Freedom Minute

PROP 10 – Vote NO

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $5 billion primarily to provide rebates up to $50,000 for the purchase of alternative fuel vehicles including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.

The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $10 billion to pay off both principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion). In addition, if the demand for natural gas increases due to this program, rates business and homeowners pay for natural gas to heat their homes could increase significantly.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. First, the State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent and it would be irresponsible to incur additional debt at this time. Second, this ballot initiative was put forth by T. Boone Pickens, the Texas billionaire oilman who has been promoting natural gas as a way to wean ourselves off of foreign oil. Pickens plan is to have heavy trucks which use about 25% of our oil consumption switch to natural gas which is primarily available from US sources. Pickens has publicly said that his plan cannot work unless the public subsidizes the switch to natural gas vehicles. What’s in it for him? Pickens has invested heavily in the production and supply of natural gas and should there be any major shift to this fuel, he stands to reap billions in profits. While it may be a good idea for us to wean ourselves off foreign oil, having the public subsidize (through government bonds) one particular industry is not the way to do it. Interestingly, Pickens has been a lifelong Republican yet seems to have no problem with the government subsidizing private business, so long as he is the one to benefit.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 10

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 9 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the VICTIMS’ RIGHTS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE amends the State Constitution and various state laws to (1) expand the legal rights of crime victims and the payment of restitution by criminal offenders, (2) restrict the early release of inmates, and (3) change the procedures for granting and revoking parole.

Background:

In June 1982, California voters approved Proposition 8, known as the “Victims’ Bill of Rights.” Among other changes, the proposition amended the Constitution and various state laws to grant crime victims the right to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, sentencing and parole hearings. Other separately enacted laws have created other rights for crime victims, including the opportunity for a victim to obtain a judicial order of protection from harassment by a criminal defendant.

Proposition 8 established the right of crime victims to obtain restitution from any person who committed the crime that caused them to suffer a loss. Restitution often involves replacement of stolen or damaged property or reimbursement of costs that the victim incurred as a result of the crime. A court is required under current state law to order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons not to do so. Sometimes, however, judges do not order restitution. Proposition 8 also established a right to “safe, secure and peaceful” schools for students and staff of primary, elementary, junior high, and senior high schools.

Changes Made by This Measure:

Restitution. This measure requires that, without exception, restitution be ordered from offenders who have been convicted, in every case in which a victim suffers a loss.

Notification and Participation of Victims in Criminal Justice Proceedings. This measure expands the legal right for crime victims to be notified of, to attend, and to state their views at, all public criminal proceedings, including the release from custody of offenders after their arrest, but before trial. In addition, victims would be given the constitutional right to participate in other aspects of the criminal justice process, such as conferring with prosecutors on the charges filed.

Other Expansions of Victims’ Legal Rights. This measure expands the legal rights of crime victims in other ways, including the following:

• Crime victims and their families would have a state constitutional right to (1) prevent the release of certain of their confidential information or records to criminal defendants, (2) refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant, (3) protection from harm from individuals accused of committing crimes against them, (4) the return of property no longer needed as evidence in criminal proceedings, and (5) “finality” in criminal proceedings in which they are involved. Some of these rights now exist in statute.
• The Constitution would be changed to specify that the safety of a crime victim must be taken into consideration by judges in setting bail for persons arrested for crimes.

Restrictions On Early Release Of Inmates. This measure amends the Constitution to require that criminal sentences imposed by the courts shall not be “substantially diminished” by early release policies to alleviate overcrowding in prison or jail facilities.

Changes Affecting The Granting And Revocation Of Parole. This measure changes the procedures to be followed by the board when it considers the release from prison of inmates with a life sentence.

• It would extend the time between parole hearings to between 3 and 15 years, as opposed to the current one to five years
• It would remove the limit on the number of family members (3) who could attend and testify at parole hearings, and would allow victim representatives to attend and testify at the hearing without regard to whether members of the victim’s family were present.
• Crime victims would be eligible to receive 90 days advance notice of parole consideration hearings, instead of the current 30 days.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. Again, changing the State Constitution and other criminal justice laws by ballot initiative based on emotion is generally a bad idea unless there is compelling reason to do so. This initiative duplicates many laws currently on the books and is therefore unnecessary to a large degree. In addition, there are a number of troubling provisions which are either unconstitutional or simply wrong-headed. First, crime victims and their families would be given a state constitutional right to refuse to be interviewed or provide pretrial testimony or other evidence requested in behalf of a criminal defendant. This could make it impossible for a defendant’s lawyer to mount a proper defense and would strike at the very heart of our discovery laws. Second, this measure grants crime victims the legal right to testify at bail hearings. While the safety of alleged victims should be taken into account when a judge considers a defendant for bail, allowing the alleged victim to testify prior to trial seriously changes the right of a non-convicted defendant to be treated as innocent until proven guilty as nothing in the proposed law would give the defendant the right to question or challenge that testimony. Finally, the restriction on early release does not distinguish between different classes of criminals. Therefore, someone incarcerated on a minor non-violent conviction would be just as ineligible for early release as a convicted killer. While there are certainly some provisions of this measure that warrant consideration for inclusion in our penal code, on balance I believe it would be prudent to reject this proposition.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 9

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 8 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, ELIMINATES THE RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY by amending the California State Constitution to state that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If you read my previous post regarding this ballot initiative, then you already know my feelings regarding this mean-spirited and bigoted initiative and the people supporting it. This proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom.

As for the argument that same sex couples are already protected by domestic partnerships laws, you should be aware that California statutes clearly identify nine real differences between marriage and domestic partnerships. Therefore, only real marriage provides gay couples with full protection under the law.

As for the argument that same sex marriage will be taught to children in public school, my response is, SO WHAT? At the most, children might be taught that people of the same sex are allowed to marry, although it is highly unlikely that this type of discussion would occur in the younger grades and they probably already know it anyway. And if this goes against some religious doctrine that some parents might wish to impart to their children, certainly these parents should have enough confidence in their influence upon their children’s upbringing to counter any confusion their children might experience. As I said in my previous post, regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

Finally, I predict that should this ballot initiative pass, it will be challenged in the courts, perhaps going all the way to the US Supreme Court. Let’s not waste taxpayer dollars in an attempt to codify bigotry into our state constitution.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 8

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | one comment

PROP 7 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION INITIATIVE STATUTE would require all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations. It raises the renewable energy requirement to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. The proposition also imposes penalties for noncompliance and requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy. In addition, Prop. 7 contains a provision stipulating that renewable power from plants under 30 megawatts won’t count toward meeting the goal although currently nearly 60 percent of California’s renewable requirements are with these small providers.

The fiscal impact of this proposition is largely unknown, but almost all independent auditors agree that it will likely raise electricity rates, perhaps significantly.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. This is another proposal that looks good at first, but in actuality is fatally flawed. First, setting energy policy by ballot initiative is almost always a bad idea. California’s energy situation is a complicated matter with many different goals which must be balanced. This proposition is clearly designed to favor one solution and set of players over the others. It sets arbitrary goals for the use of renewable energy and then prohibits smaller renewable energy providers from contributing towards that goal. In addition, the proposal allows utilities to purchase renewable energy at up to 10% above market price and then pass the additional costs along to consumers. Prop 7 is opposed by a broad spectrum of groups including renewable energy producers, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the California League of Conservation Voters, the California Solar Energy Industries Association, the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 7

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 6 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING. CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE would mandate an increase of $365 million (a 60% increase) in the amount of funding the State provides to local law enforcement and includes a requirement that certain criminal justice program spending increase annually with inflation. The measure also increases criminal penalties for certain crimes related to gang participation and recruitment and some drug offenses, as well as creates some new felonies and misdemeanors. Prop 6 makes numerous other changes to current laws relating to California’s criminal justice system.

The fiscal impact of passing this proposal would be to cost taxpayers billions of dollars due to increased funding mandates and increased mandatory incarceration of criminals. These increased costs would be paid for by either cutting funding to other programs or raising taxes.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. While this proposal sounds good on its face, when you look deeper, there are many reasons to oppose its passage. First, the one size fits all approach of mandatory sentencing is almost always a bad idea. Judges need to be given the latitude to sentence criminals according to the individual situations and facts of each case. Also, this proposition makes numerous other changes to existing California laws. While some changes might be improvements, many definitely would not. Therefore, passing this proposition would, overall, make our criminal justice system worse, not better.

In addition, simply mandating a 60% increase in funding to local law enforcement and then mandating an additional annual increase is not necessarily going to make anyone safer. This proposition has no requirement that the funds allocated be used to hire any new police officers nor does it require that the funds be used for programs that are proven to reduce crime. Funding for crime reduction programs must be evaluated on their merits and then funding levels increased for those programs that are working while cutting funding for those that are not. Under Prop. 6, the largest increase in funding is for “Citizens Options for Public Safety,” a program reviewed by the state’s independent Legislative Analyst and found to have “no definable goals” and “no identifiable results.”

Finally, since Prop 6 doesn’t pay for itself, taxes would have to increase or funding would need to be cut for other items in the budget such as schools, healthcare, and other vital programs.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 6

October 28th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 5 – Vote YES

This Proposal:

This measure, the NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION INITIATIVE STATUTE would divert certain persons convicted of nonviolent drug offenses into treatment programs rather than incarceration.

Specifically, the proposition would:
• Allocate $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
• Limit court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
• Substantially shorten parole for certain drug offenses but would increase parole for serious and violent felonies.
• Create a 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.

The fiscal impact of passing this proposal would be to save taxpayers billions of dollars. Savings in excess of $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs would be offset by an increase in state costs over time possibly in excess of $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. There would be an additional savings in excess of $2.5 billion due to decreased costs for prison facilities.

Background:

The state operates 33 state prisons and other facilities that had a combined adult inmate population of about 171,000 as of May 2008. The costs to operate the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008–09 are estimated to be approximately $10 billion. The average annual cost to incarcerate an inmate is estimated to be about $46,000. The state prison system is currently experiencing overcrowding because there are not enough permanent beds available for all inmates. As a result, gymnasiums and other rooms have been converted to house some inmates. Addiction and substance abuse are major driving forces for the current overcrowding crisis. Over the past two decades, the number of incarcerated nonviolent offenders has more than tripled—from 20,000 in 1986 to over 70,000 in 2006. About 20% of prisoners in California are incarcerated for a drug offense.

Proposition 36, a ballot measure approved by the voters in November 2000, established a drug treatment diversion program for offenders who are convicted of specific crimes designated as nonviolent drug possession offenses. Under Proposition 36, an offender can be sentenced to probation and treatment, instead of prison or jail. Some parole violators are also eligible for Proposition 36 diversion. Proposition 36 limits when and how sanctions, such as jail or prison time, are imposed on offenders who violate the conditions of their drug treatment programs or commit new drug possession crimes. That program has graduated more than 84,000 people and saved California taxpayers over $1.5 billion since 2001. Proposition 5 would expand that program.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote YES. Drug addiction should be treated for what it is, a health issue rather than a law enforcement issue. This proposal would save billions of taxpayer dollars and free up much needed prison space for real criminals. Although opponents claim that Prop 5 would allow drug dealers and felons to avoid jail, this is a distortion of the truth. Offenders convicted of a serious or violent felony are not eligible for diversion. Prop 5 only impacts nonviolent drug offenders and does not prohibit judges from using their discretion. Under Prop 5, a nonviolent offender with a drug problem may be diverted to treatment, if the judge finds that drugs motivated the nonviolent crime and that drug treatment would be in the best interests of public safety. The offender does not make that call—the judge does.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 5

October 27th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | no comments

A Shameful Waste of $25Million

What would you do with $25Million? How many people could you feed, house, clothe? How many underprivileged children could you give a chance at a better life? How much good could $25Million do in the world?

Well apparently, there’s a group of people in our society who can think of nothing better to do with $25Million than to squander it in an attempt to institutionalize discrimination against another group of citizens. I’m of course talking about Proposition 8, put forward to circumvent a recent California State Supreme Court ruling recognizing that homosexual couples have the same right to marriage equality as everyone else. As recently reported by the LA Times, the backers of Prop 8 have raised over $25Million in their quest to pass this initiative which would amend the State Constitution to eliminate that right.

Now I’m a firm believer that people should be free to spend their money as they see fit, but I also believe I have the right to publicly criticize them for their choices. Especially when that choice amounts to an attack on one of the most fundamental rights we have in this country, the right to be treated equally under the law. For, whatever you might personally believe about homosexuality, or whatever arguments you might have in favor of or against Prop 8, this proposed constitutional amendment is about one thing and one thing only: requiring the state to treat one class of citizens differently than another class of citizens. As a society, we’re supposed to have grown beyond that type of narrow-mindedness. We’re supposed to have left the days of racism, gender bias, and religious intolerance behind us.

And yet there are still those who would use the power of government to restrict other people’s rights rather than to protect their rights. To these people I say this – your actions are shameful and the antithesis of every principle this country was founded on. In the same way that it is wrong to discriminate against people of color, of different religions, of different genders, it’s wrong to treat same sex couples differently under the law than you treat heterosexual couples. These are human beings with the same right as you to fall in love, marry, and live out their lives in peace and freedom. Regardless of whether or not you like how this group has chosen to live their lives or whether their choices make you uncomfortable or don’t fit in with your sense of morality, your right to disapprove does not trump their fundamental right to be treated the same as everyone else.

And spending $25Million, money that otherwise could be used towards the betterment of society, in order to ensure that others are treated differently, is simply wrong. Shame on you.

October 21st, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Civil Rights, Election, State Government | one comment

PROP 4 – Vote NO

This Proposal:

This measure, the WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY INITIATIVE amends the State Constitution to require, with certain exceptions, a physician to notify the parent or legal guardian of a pregnant minor at least 48 hours before performing an abortion involving that minor. This measure does not require a physician or a minor to obtain the consent of a parent or guardian, only to notify them. The requirement for notification would be waived in cases of medical emergencies or if the pregnant minor successfully petitions a court to approve a waiver. In addition, if the minor states in writing that she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified, and her fear is based on a pattern of such abuse of her by a parent, the physician could notify an adult family member instead of notifying the minor’s parent. Any person who performs an abortion on a minor and who fails to comply with the provisions of the measure would be liable for damages in a civil action brought by the minor, her legal representative, or by a parent or guardian wrongfully denied notification.

Background:

In 1953, a state law was enacted that allowed minors to receive, without parental consent or notification, the same types of medical care for a pregnancy that are available to an adult. In 1987, the Legislature passed a law to require minors to obtain the consent of either a parent or a court before obtaining an abortion. Legal challenges were brought, and the law was never implemented. In 1997, the California Supreme Court ultimately found the law unconstitutional. Proponents of this initiative are now attempting (as they have numerous times in the past) to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling by changing the State Constitution.

Arguments:

Proponents claim that this constitutional change would protect pregnant minor females by allowing a family member to know of their medical situation and be informed about risks to their health and safety. Furthermore, they argue, California law requires a parent to provide written consent in person before a minor can use a tanning salon but a minor can get an abortion without a family member being notified.

Opponents claim that in the real world, not all teens live in homes where communication is possible, and even in the best homes, many teens aren’t able to talk about something as sensitive as pregnancy and believe they can’t go to their parents for help. These girls can feel scared, trapped, and desperate. Instead of seeking the counseling and safe medical care they need, they may choose an unsafe, back alley, illegal abortion, go across the border, or even contemplate suicide. Furthermore, opponents of this measure charge that those backing this proposal are exploiting fears to advance their own political agenda and that their real goal is to eventually outlaw abortion.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. If passed, Prop 4 could do more harm than good. The motives of the proponents of this proposition are suspect and it appears designed to deter pregnant teens from seeking an abortion under the threat that their parents would be notified. It is also likely that many pregnant teenagers from abusive homes would be unable to satisfy the requirements for waiving the notification. Teens could be put in a seriously dangerous predicament – pregnant with nowhere to turn. This would likely cause some teens to attempt to circumvent the law and turn to risky alternatives such as crossing the border into Mexico or adjoining states, obtaining an abortion from unqualified individuals, or attempting to self induce an abortion. Furthermore, there is no indication that this proposal is necessary to address any problems that actually exist. I further find the “tanning salon” argument to be specious. Just because a law exists that requires parental notification for minors’ use of tanning salons, it does not mean that such a law is either necessary or effective and we shouldn’t use it as the precedent for the enactment of other laws. In addition, Prop 4 would potentially cost the public several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration. In light of the potential to cause additional hardship on pregnant teenagers and no evidence of any substantial benefit from its enactment, this proposition should be rejected.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 4

October 17th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, Election, State Government | no comments

PROP 3 – Vote NO

Background:

There are four general obligation bond measures on the November 5th ballot, totaling $16.8 billion in new authorizations. Bond financing is a type of long-term borrowing that the state uses to raise money for various purposes. The state obtains this money by selling bonds to investors. In exchange, it agrees to repay this money, with interest, according to a specified schedule. Generally, the total cost over the life of a bond issuance is about twice the authorized amount since interest must be paid in addition to the principle. Note also that for each bond measure approved, a portion of the state’s annual revenues must be set aside for debt-service payments on the bonds and therefore are not available for other state programs. This means that in order to pay for any bond measure approved, the legislature would either have to raise taxes or cut expenses elsewhere in the budget.

This Proposal:

This bond measure is called the CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. It provides for a bond issue of $980 million to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.. The total cost of approving this bond measure would be about $2 billion to pay off both principal ($980 million) and interest ($933 million). Proposition 61, which voters approved at the November 2004 statewide general election, has authorized the sale of $750 million in general obligation bonds to provide funding for children’s hospitals. As of June 1, 2008, about $403 million of the funds from Proposition 61 had been awarded to eligible hospitals. This means that there are still untapped funds from that bond issue yet to be used.

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote no. The State of California is currently facing a huge budget crisis and in order not to run out of money is being forced to offer for sale billions of dollars of new general obligation bonds. There has also been speculation that the State may have to borrow billions of additional dollars from the Federal Government in order to remain solvent. Incurring any additional debt for anything but the most essential infrastructure is unwise and irresponsible. In addition, since an almost identical bond measure was approved by voters just four years ago and about half that money remains unspent, this new bond initiative is unnecessary. Furthermore, the institutions which will receive these funds are not impoverished. Several are part of the well-funded University of California system, and the others have substantial private and foundation support. Finally, whenever anyone uses “the children” as an issue, I become highly suspect. This is no exception. There is no indication that children’s hospitals suffer from a critical lack of funding. Singling these institutions out to receive special funding seems unfair at a time when many other institutions will be denied funding for their needs.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 3

October 16th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, State Government | no comments

PROP 2 – Vote NO

This proposition is called the STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.

Proponents claim that this measure would stop cruel and inhumane treatment of certain food animals by requiring that they be kept in cages large enough for them to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely.

Opponents claim that this measure would ban modern housing systems for egg-laying hens. In addition, they claim that implementing Prop 2 would drive California family farmers out of business or out of state where regulations are more lax, raising the cost of California eggs.

The independent Legislative Analyst states:

Compared to current practice most commonly used by California farmers in the affected industries, this measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.

This is the relevant text of this proposal:

PROHIBITIONS. In addition to other applicable provisions of law, a person shall not tether or confine any covered animal, on a farm, for all or the majority of any day, in a manner that prevents such animal from:
(a) Lying down, standing up, and fully extending his or her limbs; and
(b) Turning around freely.

——-edit 10/28/08———

Recommendation:

My recommendation is to vote NO. While I previously took no stance on this issue, upon further research and reflection, I believe this measure would be bad for our economy and unfairly burden egg producers in California. Furthermore, I find that the campaign being waged by the proponents is somewhat misleading and uses emotion rather than good science to make its point. While certainly no one thinks it’s ok to abuse animals, the claims that the treatment of hens on egg farms rises to the level of cruelty is unsupported. Furthermore, we need to be careful of transferring our sense of “comfort” onto animals. For example, if you forced a human to continue standing indefinitely, that would be abuse, but for horses, it is the norm. Therefore, it is often difficult to know the “comfort level” of the animals in question and making law based on our emotional reactions is almost never a good idea. Finally, if some one truly objects to the how egg producers treat their animals, they can choose not to buy their products and only purchase “cage free” eggs. Since it’s unclear that these animals are being mistreated, I’m recommending a no vote on this issue.

For more information: Voter Information Guide – Prop 2

My previous comments:

My recommendation is to vote your conscience. If you feel it is inhumane to confine food animals in such a way that they are not able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs at all times, then you should vote yes.

If you feel that State law which currently requires that animals confined in an enclosed area be provided with an adequate exercise area, and permitted access to adequate shelter, food, and water is sufficient or that the economic hardship that might be imposed by this measure outweighs the benefits, you should vote no.

October 16th, 2008 Posted by freedomminute | Ballot Initiatives, State Government | 3 comments