Voters for Liberty and Common Sense Public Policy

In addition to the pressing nature of the presidential race, the importance of voting on state initiatives cannot be understated. For those lucky enough to live in initiative states, they provide a desperately needed way for the people to be directly involved in the establishment of policy. For Californians, several propositions will be appearing on the ballot next week that I feel deserve special attention.

Proposition 4: WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

VOTE NO! First, I want to say that, in regards to this, Prop8 and Prop 9, constitutional amendments should be taken extraordinarily seriously. There is a reason that they are so difficult to pass at the national level, the constitution represents the highest law in the land, and the same is true of state constitutions at the state level. The constitution, for better or for worse, enshrines the ideals that we as a society hold sacred. Only by again amending the constitution can we undo whatever harms are produced. We must therefore be extremely cautious in these matters.

About Prop 4 specifically, this amendment would carve out an exception to the right to privacy (as enshrined in Roe v. Wade) for minors by requiring parental notification before an abortion. This amendment not only fails my liberty test, but is simply ineffective (at best) and dangerous (at worst). Although it offers a safety exception, it would, by its nature, be difficult to prove. For many, it will either result in the breakdown of families or merely mark a return to the days of back alley abortions, endangering the health of countless women regardless.

Proposition 5: NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING,
PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

VOTE YES! It is vital that we pass this! Prop 5 will expand on the already successful programs of 2000's Prop 36, offering treatment instead of imprisonment for non-violent drug addicted offenders. This is the only initiative that will result in a net savings for Californians, estimated at $2.5 billion. Contrary to the claims of the state prison-guards union and police, the primary opponents of the initiative, it is not a get out of jail free card for violent criminals who could merely claim that 'drugs made them do it.' The proposition would only apply to non-violent offenders; other crimes deemed serious under the Three-Strikes Act would be disqualified. Also, contrary to Charlie Sheen's statements (which, although well intentioned and grounded in his struggle with his own son's addiction, are inaccurate--claiming that the threat of prison provides the needed impetus for enrollment in treatment programs and sans this incentive treatment will fail), those who fail to show for the program can still face imprisonment, providing that push. If this passes, not only would we be taking a more effective approach to drug abuse by treating it as the health problem it is, rather than as a crime, but we could also begin to address the problems with California's bloated penal system, which is already well on its way to a federal takeover.

Proposition 6: POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

VOTE NO! At a time when California is facing massive budget shortfalls, resulting in a slashed education budget among other things, this would mandate almost $1 billion in annual expenditures on the (again) bloated penal system, codifying the prison industrial complex into law. From the Ballotpedia.org entry, it would also:

-Prosecute youths accused of gang related crimes as adults
-Treat recipients of public housing subsidies as criminals, by forcing them to "submit to annual criminal background checks"

And...most disturbingly, "Change evidence rules to allow use of certain hearsay statements as evidence when witnesses are unavailable." This would undermine the very foundation of our criminal justice system, which has always held hearsay as inadmissible, and, at least in my opinion, would violate the 6th Amendment right "to be confronted with the witnesses against [you]".

Proposition 8: ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

VOTE NO! Prop 8 would write discrimination directly into the California constitution by overturning the recent Supreme Court decision forcing state recognition of gay marriages. The fight for marriage equality by gays parallels in many ways previous struggles against anti-miscegenation laws. I was glad to see an anti-8 video along those lines, replacing 'gay marriage' with 'interracial marriage' in pro-8 advertising; it really calls attention to the bigotry of the yes on 8 position. Furthermore, it may interest some of you to know that 40% of Prop 8 funding comes from the Mormon Church in Utah. Oppose this interference in California law by out-of-state interests! Cries from proponents of 8 that failing to pass it will cause kindergartners to be taught about gay marriage is ludicrous. When in kindergarten did we discuss marriage at all? Between finger painting sessions? Even if it did, I say "Who cares?" It's an evolving world in which we live and children would do well to learn this. And finally..."if you don't like gay marriages, don't get one."

Proposition 9: CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

VOTE NO! This is the so-called victim's rights initiative. However, rights are what protect us from the government, not each other. Broadly speaking, we already have "victim's rights" and we call it criminal law. To cite ballotpedia.org again, "Voters already approved many components of Prop. 9 when they passed California Proposition 8 (1982), including the requirements that victims be notified of critical points in an offender’s legal process as well as the rights for victims to be heard throughout the legal process," making Prop 9 completely extraneous where it's not downright wrong. It would further the burden on our prisons (and budgets) by reducing the number of parole hearings a prisoner is entitled to and increasing the length of time required between those hearings while precluding the early release of many inmates, ensuring that our prison overpopulation crises continues for years to come. It also, potentially unconstitutionally, "Limits the use of state-paid defense lawyers in revocation proceedings to indigent offenders," denying the all-important right to an attorney for poor people who have been accused of parole violations, again filling our prisons past the breaking point.

This cycle cast your vote for liberty and proven, common sense public policy and against bigotry and the cradle to prison pipeline. I'll be posting fliers staking out these issues around my community...please do likewise if you feel the same way. At the very least, tell your friends to vote!