What was on YOUR ballot?

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:35 pm

One of the propositions on the Arizona ballot today was a "voting incentive." Should we allow one million dollars of unclaimed lottery prize money to be awarded to the winning voter? Anyone who votes can win. I voted no because I see that they want to encourage people to vote, but it seems to me that voting should be both a duty and a privilege...not something you do to win money. I thought it was an odd proposition.

Some other random props for Arizona:

-banning smoking in public places

-changing the constitution, recognizing marriage as between man and woman (even though gay marriage is statutorily banned here)

-should veal calves and pregnant sows have cages that will permit them room to stand up and turn around (as of now most don't)

-should illegals be permitted to receive punitive damages

-should illegals be denied bail if charged with a crime

-should English be the offical language in Arizona

-should those arrested for methamphetamine be denied mandatory probation

What was on your ballot??

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 7:50 pm

I don't think Texas even has initiatives, so I'll vote on yours.RedGlitter;452896 wrote: One of the propositions on the Arizona ballot today was a "voting incentive." Should we allow one million dollars of unclaimed lottery prize money to be awarded to the winning voter? Anyone who votes can win. I voted no because I see that they want to encourage people to vote, but it seems to me that voting should be both a duty and a privilege...not something you do to win money. I thought it was an odd proposition.I say get 'em in there and the possibility of them taking it more seriously goes up. I'd vote yes on that.

Some other random props for Arizona:

-banning smoking in public places

No. Gov't property's okay, though.

-changing the constitution, recognizing marriage as between man and woman (even though gay marriage is statutorily banned here)Abstain, since I don't think marriage should be a legal term at all

-should veal calves and pregnant sows have cages that will permit them room to stand up and turn around (as of now most don't)I'd have to educate myself on that one.

-should illegals be permitted to receive punitive damages No. Of course, they shouldn't be suing anyone, either.

-should illegals be denied bail if charged with a crime Yes.

-should English be the offical language in Arizona It would pain me to vote yes, but I would.

-should those arrested for methamphetamine be denied mandatory probation Huh?? How can anything mandatory be denied? I'd vote no.

bigears · Post by **bigears** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:18 pm

Accountable;452898 wrote: I don't think Texas even has initiatives, so I'll vote on yours.I say get 'em in there and the possibility of them taking it more seriously goes up. I'd vote yes on that.

Some other random props for Arizona:

-banning smoking in public places

No. Gov't property's okay, though.

-changing the constitution, recognizing marriage as between man and woman (even though gay marriage is statutorily banned here)Abstain, since I don't think marriage should be a legal term at all

-should veal calves and pregnant sows have cages that will permit them room to stand up and turn around (as of now most don't)I'd have to educate myself on that one.

-should illegals be permitted to receive punitive damages No. Of course, they shouldn't be suing anyone, either. Who said anything about suing?

-should illegals be denied bail if charged with a crime Yes.would that not depend upon what the charge was?

-should English be the offical language in Arizona It would pain me to vote yes, but I would. what would be a serious alternative, ********?do you have a second choice?

-should those arrested for methamphetamine be denied mandatory probation Huh?? How can anything mandatory be denied? I'd vote no. do you understand the term probation?

-should veal calves and pregnant sows have cages that will permit them room to stand up and turn around (as of now most don't)I'd have to educate myself on that one. lets hope your wife or anyone else you ever know to be pregnant don't find about about this one, little man

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:26 pm

Paying people to vote, to vote for a particular person, or to register to vote is illegal. A lottery to award a prize to a person for voting would fall under this category. If this law passes, be prepared for somebody to challenge it.

What kind of "public places" are they talking about banning smoking? Like outside? Parks, etc? I'd vote no on that.

I always vote against amendments to ban gay marriage. Completely hetero here, but I firmly believe that this right (marriage to the consenting adult of your choice) should be available to anyone. It hurts no one and doesn't threaten "traditional" marriage, no matter what the conservative pundits say.

As for English being the official language - don't we have a national official language already? This is wag-the-dog frivolity, IMO.

The rest of them, I don't really have much of an opinion on.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:32 pm

bigears;452907 wrote: do you understand the term probation?Do you understand the term mandatory?

bigears wrote: -should veal calves and pregnant sows have cages that will permit them room to stand up and turn around (as of now most don't)I'd have to educate myself on that one. lets hope your wife or anyone else you ever know to be pregnant don't find about about this one, little man
:yh_eyebro

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:34 pm

Erinna1112;452911 wrote: As for English being the official language - don't we have a national official language already?
Nope. You'd think we would though, huh?

Hugh Janus · Post by **Hugh Janus** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:48 pm

It Could only happen in the good 'ole U.S. of A. :wah:

What a pile of tripe... Next thing we know. They are going to actually vote for a real President. That is if they can count the votes correctly! :-2

Maybe they need to ressurect some of the old time greats to run the country. Wild Bill Hiccup, Davy Crocket, Casey Jones, (not related to Barnaby Jones.) Hell yeah. Get some real American to run the country. Instead of the limp wristed, wanna be cowboy, (stood in the shadow of paw too long,) bullet dodging, mental incompetant, speech impedimented, wuss, that they have there now...

Bush & Blair, = Dumb and Dumber...

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 8:51 pm

Gee, Hugh, you know you don't have to hold back in here...tell us how you really feel.... :-3 :-2 :wah:

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:06 pm

Hi Erinna,

According to the proposition, the smoking ban would be in all public places except outdoor patios (parks were not mentioned but I would assume parks would be okay..?) tobacco stores, certain motel/hotel rooms. It would ban smoking in government buildings and bars.

Okay , that was one smoking prop but there was another one that said the same thing except that it exempted bars that do not cater to minor children. (since when do bars do that? I assume they mean like sports bars where a family can eat and yet there is a bar attached.)

Yet another prop wanted to tax a pack of cigs two cents per pack and use the money for early childhood education. I voted no on that not because I'm against kids learning, but because if they're going to penalize smokers, they should use that money, I think, for smokers' health care or more serious "stop smoking" campaigns. I loathe smoking more than anyone I know but it irritates me that on one hand the government pays tobacco farmers for a product that ends up killing people, yet they turn around and penalize people for smoking.

It doesn't seem fair to me.

On the crating animals issue, a veal calf is taken from its mother early and deprived of milk and is forced to spend its life in a small crate. The calf can't stretch out its legs, stand up or turn around. Supposedly one of the reasons behind this is that the meat producers don't want the calf to develop its muscles at all as people eat veal partly for the anemic tenderness of the flesh. A pregnant sow is also kept in a crate up until something like 7 days before giving birth and that whole time, she has not sufficient room to move.

Interestingly, the people for included small private farmers and of course animal people and veterinarians. Those against were big farmers and ranchers who whined that the bigger cages would cost money and also they didn't want to pay fines for not using bigger cages. The exception to this prop would be that smaller crates may be used during transportation.

Methamphetamine prop: in Arizona, a person charged with first time or second time possession or use or meth automatically receives probation so they will hopefully get treatment. It's a mandatory thing. The way ot was worded was kind of odd but they were basically asking if we should crack down on methheads as it is a big problem here. I chose no, because until we do something with the drunk drivers they consistently let back out onto the streets time after time, I want the methhead to have a chance as well, especially on a first time charge.

The hardest prop by far, was the gay marriage thing. See, it wasn't actually about that, they were using that as a way to get the conservative vote. In some AZ counties, someone other than a spouse can receive employer benefits. A lot of businesses offer dental and health benefits to "non-spouses" be they lovers or maybe just two older women platonically sharing a house to pool their money. If they remove those benefits it's going to hurt a lot of people and increase the Medicaid role. The makers of this prop worded it so that it officially only speaks of "should Arizona recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman" and I forget the wording now but basically, "should employer benefits be assigned only to married people?" Since gay marriage is already illegal here, the point of defining marriage between men and women was moot. It was very tricky and I really don't like that. I want people to keep their benefits and I don't care who marries (or "unionizes") with whom. Not my business.

Accountable, your take on the marriage is interesting and has me thinking. Care to elaborate a little in here or should I maybe ask in a new thread??

I always get so excited about voting for the props! I study them and consider them heavily. I guess I'm just proud to be there and be able to vote.

What about you guys?? Was there anything good on yours??

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 9:09 pm

Hi Hugh....actually, it's Wild Bill Hickok. Soem of us western lovers are touchy about that.

I have my own gripes about Bush and his admin, but I wonder if this hatred of US government is always so prevalent?? Do other countries generally always dislike us? Why do so many ask for our help and then stab us in the back? I don't understand.

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:08 pm

There was an eminent domain proposition on the Michigan ballot that I couldn't wait to vote for. Another to establish a hunting season for mourning doves, another for something to do with recreational department funding, one to ban affirmative action, and one to re-distribute school funding.

I'm with you, RedGlitter....I think the proposals are more important than the people. The people are transitory; the proposals are a lot harder to get rid of.

guppy · Post by **guppy** » Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:16 pm

my decison and private.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:10 am

RedGlitter;452896 wrote:

-should English be the offical language in Arizona

Why what language do they speak in Arizona.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:39 am

abbey;452963 wrote: Why what language do they speak in Arizona.

Hi Abbey! Mostly English.

It was on the ballot partly so we could stop having to print things in Spanish (and sometimes other languages) for residents who haven't learned English yet. Maybe I need to rephrase that...specifically Arizona residents who don't want to learn English.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:33 am

guppy;452953 wrote: my decison and private.

Glad you decided! :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:49 am

I googled and found the Nevada initiatives that I would have to decide on if I hadn't moved. They got to vote on whether to legalize marijuana.

The most important one was to change their constitution to prohibit using eminent domain to steal property from the rightful owner and give it to a non-gov't party. When I still lived there, they took a citizen's private land away and gave it to a hotel so they could expand the parking.

Colette · Post by **Colette** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 4:59 am

RedGlitter;452939 wrote:

The hardest prop by far, was the gay marriage thing. See, it wasn't actually about that, they were using that as a way to get the conservative vote. In some AZ counties, someone other than a spouse can receive employer benefits. A lot of businesses offer dental and health benefits to "non-spouses" be they lovers or maybe just two older women platonically sharing a house to pool their money. If they remove those benefits it's going to hurt a lot of people and increase the Medicaid role. The makers of this prop worded it so that it officially only speaks of "should Arizona recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman" and I forget the wording now but basically, "should employer benefits be assigned only to married people?" Since gay marriage is already illegal here, the point of defining marriage between men and women was moot. It was very tricky and I really don't like that. I want people to keep their benefits and I don't care who marries (or "unionizes") with whom. Not my business.

The way health-care issues are being addressed in this country these days, it surprises me to hear that any company can afford to provide benefits to someone other than "legitimate" families. If two women living together to share their resources actually receive benefits from an employer, then I don't see how that employer could deny any other adults living in the same household. (I question whether that would really happen.) But I do think that an employer must be fair and consistent when doling out benefits. If an unmarried hetero couple can receive benefits then the gay couple must have the same rights. Otherwise it's discrimination.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:00 am

Hi Everyone

Well I just checked the results.

English is AZ's official language.

No smoking in public places except for bars

No ban on same sex marriage (again, it's still illegal though)

Illegals cannot sue or get bail or benefit from financial aid, literacy programs

Cig taxes will fund preschool programs

Eminent domain- harder for gov't to take our land, can't do it for things like shopping malls and must provide comparable dwelling

Veal calves and pigs must have bigger cages

Voting will be done as usual and not only by mail ballot

Those are the main ones.

Scrat, I never considered fining people who don't vote. I suppose that's an option with its valid points to it. But suppose it means getting uneducated votes from people who don't care/don't follow the issues, and just do it for the money? What's your feeling on that? I ask partly because I was apathetic until the first Clinton election. I didn't care about politics but yet feeling that way, I chose not to vote because I was uninformed and would have voted blindly. I'm thinking about your suggestion.

I think your windfarms sound like a great idea.

What do you mean about the "death tax" and school kids?? I missed that one.

Erinna, what was your eminent domain issue and how did it turn out? How about the mourning doves and affirmative action? I wonder why we didn't have affirmative action on our ballot. That's a hot issue.

Guppy, you don't have to tell us how you voted!

I was just wondering what issues other people had to vote on. And thanks for voting!!

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:04 am

Accountable;453036 wrote: I googled and found the Nevada initiatives that I would have to decide on if I hadn't moved. They got to vote on whether to legalize marijuana.

The most important one was to change their constitution to prohibit using eminent domain to steal property from the rightful owner and give it to a non-gov't party. When I still lived there, they took a citizen's private land away and gave it to a hotel so they could expand the parking.

Hi Accountable- where were you in Nevada? Were you by Vegas? Just wondered. I think that is so obnoxious about taking a person's land. I just don't understand how people ever got away with doing that and it makes me very angry.

Off topic, do you know they're tearing down the Stardust in Vegas to build something new? Yet another piece of history demolished.

I'll check out that link. I want to see how the pot prop went. We voted to legalize it here in AZ some years back and even though our vote passed the law, we were overridden! The state thought it knew better what we wanted than we did. Much issue over that.

ETA: Oops! Hi Colette! Welcome to FG! :-6

The benefits thing seems to be selective in that only businesses in certain counties do it. It's left up to them. Not every business has to do it if they choose not to but many, such as in Maricopa County which is (arguably) a little more progressive than some (ie: mine) opt to offer benefits to a *partner.* They don't specify who it must be or if they must be married.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:10 am

Oh sure, fine people for not voting. Completely fair. No way anyone would claim that it unfairly impacts the poor. :yh_eyebro

Could you imagine that ballot on election day? People would come out in droves to vote against having to vote. pfft

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:15 am

Here were the ballot questions for me:

1) Should grocery and convenient stores be able to sell wine?

2) Can a candidate be nominated by two different parties (mostly for the obscure, smaller party nominations) and then the votes for that person be added together?

3) Can child care providers have to option to unionize?

4) This was most interesting, and it was on my town's ballot but not my Dad's, who lives 25 minutes away from me in the same state. It was a nonbinding question. "Do you want your congressman to vote for an IMMEDIATE pullout of American troops in Iraq so that they can all return home?"

------------------------

1) I voted no. I wanted to support the small businesses that most liquor stores are. My husband has a small business so I tend to support them. Interestingly enough, MADD did *not* come out against this one, because it has never been proven that in states where this law does exist, that this leads to an increase in drunk driving accidents.

2) I voted no. I think it would confusing to many people.

3) I voted yes. Maybe that would 'up' the standards of child care across the board.

4) I voted yes -- because I thought it was awesome that I could!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:16 am

RedGlitter;453053 wrote: Hi Accountable- where were you in Nevada? Were you by Vegas? Just wondered.I lived in North Las Vegas 2002-2005 RedGlitter wrote: Off topic, do you know they're tearing down the Stardust in Vegas to build something new? Yet another piece of history demolished.

Las Vegas was never interested in history. Nothing is permanent there.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:17 am

Accountable;453062 wrote: Nothing is permanent there.

Except my marriage license in Clark County :p :-4

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:25 am

Hi Cher,

Those are interesting props. You know, I forget that in many places you can only buy liquor in a liquor store! Here, you can buy it in a market, a gas station convenience store and even a drugstore. I was friends with a New Yorker once and he couldn't believe that we didn't have to go to special liquor stores. That might only be interesting to me though... :p

I might have voted yes on unionizing childcare. I'm not sure but it would be probable.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:26 am

cherandbuster;453061 wrote: Here were the ballot questions for me:

1) Should grocery and convenient stores be able to sell wine?

2) Can a candidate be nominated by two different parties (mostly for the obscure, smaller party nominations) and then the votes for that person be added together?

3) Can child care providers have to option to unionize?

4) This was most interesting, and it was on my town's ballot but not my Dad's, who lives 25 minutes away from me in the same state. It was a nonbinding question. "Do you want your congressman to vote for an IMMEDIATE pullout of American troops in Iraq so that they can all return home?"

------------------------

1) I voted no. I wanted to support the small businesses that most liquor stores are. My husband has a small business so I tend to support them. Interestingly enough, MADD did *not* come out against this one, because it has never been proven that in states where this law does exist, that this leads to an increase in drunk driving accidents.

2) I voted no. I think it would confusing to many people.

3) I voted yes. Maybe that would 'up' the standards of child care across the board.

4) I voted yes -- because I thought it was awesome that I could!
Ain't that wierd? I would have voted completely opposite on all except #3. I never see a problem in having options, but on that subject: who would they unionize against? How would they strike?

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:30 am

Accountable;453076 wrote: I would have voted completely opposite on all except #3. I never see a problem in having options, but on that subject: who would they unionize against? How would they strike?

I think it was so they could have a more cohesive bargaining group with the government.

And Acc

It really says something about you and I

That we can feel so differently about political issues

Yet still like and respect each other immensely.

You do like and respect me, right? :p

chonsigirl · Post by **chonsigirl** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:38 am

I'm running about zip for everything I voted for.......................

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:47 am

I'm sorry, Chonsi. I hate when that happens.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:47 am

cherandbuster;453080 wrote: You do like and respect me, right? :p
Immensely. :-6

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:52 am

chonsigirl;453092 wrote: I'm running about zip for everything I voted for.......................

One of the hazards of being rare and special. :yh_flower

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:53 am

Accountable;453110 wrote: One of the hazards of being rare and special. :yh_flower

If you say the word beloved right now

I'm gonna start swooning uncontrollably :-4

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:54 am

cherandbuster;453111 wrote: If you say the word beloved right now

I'm gonna start swooning uncontrollably :-4
My beloved just came in to find out what I was laughing about. :wah:

DesignerGal · Post by **DesignerGal** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:55 am

Lets see...

George Allen vs Jim Webb

Some other guys

1) Gay Marriage Ammendment

2) Incorpration of churches

3) Bond for fixing roads

I think there was one more but I cant remeber just right this moment.

cherandbuster · Post by **cherandbuster** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:30 am

Accountable;453113 wrote: My beloved just came in to find out what I was laughing about. :wah:

:-4 SWOON :-4

Erinna1112 · Post by **Erinna1112** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 9:28 am

RedGlitter;453046 wrote: Hi Everyone

Erinna, what was your eminent domain issue and how did it turn out? How about the mourning doves and affirmative action? I wonder why we didn't have affirmative action on our ballot. That's a hot issue.

The eminent domain proposal was: A proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit government from taking private property by eminent domain for certain private purposes. It prohibits government from taking private property for transfer to another private individual or business for purposes of economic development or increasing tax revenue.

The affirmative action proposal was: A proposal to amend the state constitution to ban Affirmative Action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.

The mourning dove proposal was to authorize the Natural Resources Commission to establish a hunting season for mourning doves.

The eminent domain proposal passed, as did the affirmative action one. I think the mourning doves failed, though.

Wolverine · Post by **Wolverine** » Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:10 pm

i had no idea who was running for county auditor, so i wrote in "elmer fudd"

no clue who was county recorder so "Buggs Bunny" got my vote

didn't like the two guys running for county supervisor so "Marvin Martian" got voted for.