2018 Midterms Referendum/Ballot Measures Thread

[Alvecia]

I think people in Georgia just vote yes on everything. Because almost every single amendment passed

Georgia playing out a State wide reboot of Yes Man

[Illahee]

In this case it is criminal prosecution of the owner for allowing the firearm to come into the possession of a prohibited person.

[Alvecia]

In this case it is criminal prosecution of the owner for allowing the firearm to come into the possession of a prohibited person.

I mean, like, is that “letting your unqualified uncle borrow it” allowing or “having someone break into your house and nicking it” allowing?

[Washington Resistance Army]

In this case it is criminal prosecution of the owner for allowing the firearm to come into the possession of a prohibited person.

I mean, like, is that “letting your unqualified uncle borrow it” allowing or “having someone break into your house and nicking it” allowing?

Both. In theory I could be criminally charged under it because my mom is a prohibited person due to a domestic violence charge my dad got pinned on her when their marriage was ending and she knows where I store my guns and how to access them.

[Alvecia]

I mean, like, is that “letting your unqualified uncle borrow it” allowing or “having someone break into your house and nicking it” allowing?

Both. In theory I could be criminally charged under it because my mom is a prohibited person due to a domestic violence charge my dad got pinned on her when their marriage was ending and she knows where I store my guns and how to access them.

See that seems silly. If you can prove said person obtained your firearm without your knowledge, then that should be treated as theft. At which point the fault is with the thief.
If you handed it to your mum on the other hand, despite knowing she’s unqualified, that I’d agree with.

My general rule of thumb is any restrictions that can be applied to my car should also be applied to firearms.

Within reason of course. Don’t know that restrictions on where you can and cannot park your gun would do much good.

[Illahee]

In this case it is criminal prosecution of the owner for allowing the firearm to come into the possession of a prohibited person.

I mean, like, is that “letting your unqualified uncle borrow it” allowing or “having someone break into your house and nicking it” allowing?

A legally prohibited person, not your run-of-the-mill goob. In the case of a semi-automatic AR it would be anyone under the age of 21 now. I'm not certain how exactly it will play out in terms of theft. My guess will be prosecution for the guy who had his handgun stored in a nightstand drawer but not for the one who had a locked gun safe cracked.

[Vassenor]

I mean, like, is that “letting your unqualified uncle borrow it” allowing or “having someone break into your house and nicking it” allowing?

A legally prohibited person, not your run-of-the-mill goob. In the case of a semi-automatic AR it would be anyone under the age of 21 now. I'm not certain how exactly it will play out in terms of theft. My guess will be prosecution for the guy who had his handgun stored in a nightstand drawer but not for the one who had a locked gun safe cracked.

So a "took every reasonable step" defence?

[Illahee]

A legally prohibited person, not your run-of-the-mill goob. In the case of a semi-automatic AR it would be anyone under the age of 21 now. I'm not certain how exactly it will play out in terms of theft. My guess will be prosecution for the guy who had his handgun stored in a nightstand drawer but not for the one who had a locked gun safe cracked.

So a "took every reasonable step" defence?

I believe so.

[Seangoli]

I'm a little miffed at a couple ballot measures here in ND.

First, Measure 2 passed. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want non-citizens voting in most non-local elections(I do think legal residents should have a say on very minor local elections that directly impact them, but I digress), but this measure doesn't aolve that. It literally does nothing as far as ND's election are concerned aside from being a waste of time and resources. It pisses me off, because it is the sort of frivilous bullshit that I despise.


Second, Measure 3 failed (Decriminalization of Marijuana). While I supported Measure 3, so did a lot of young Republicans in the state who are now crying and bemoaning how awful it is thag it didn't pass. Well, no shit dumbasses. The older Republican party members are the ones who didnt want it, not the Democrats. And the younger ones did nothing but meme all over the place about how bad Heidi was, completely ignoring the ballot measures and maybe trying to get it passed.

[Vassenor]

I'm a little miffed at a couple ballot measures here in ND.

First, Measure 2 passed. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want non-citizens voting in most non-local elections(I do think legal residents should have a say on very minor local elections that directly impact them, but I digress), but this measure doesn't aolve that. It literally does nothing as far as ND's election are concerned aside from being a waste of time and resources. It pisses me off, because it is the sort of frivilous bullshit that I despise.


Second, Measure 3 failed (Decriminalization of Marijuana). While I supported Measure 3, so did a lot of young Republicans in the state who are now crying and bemoaning how awful it is thag it didn't pass. Well, no shit dumbasses. The older Republican party members are the ones who didnt want it, not the Democrats. And the younger ones did nothing but meme all over the place about how bad Heidi was, completely ignoring the ballot measures and maybe trying to get it passed.

So is Measure 2 just another case of electoral security theatre then?

[Seangoli]

I'm a little miffed at a couple ballot measures here in ND.

First, Measure 2 passed. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't want non-citizens voting in most non-local elections(I do think legal residents should have a say on very minor local elections that directly impact them, but I digress), but this measure doesn't aolve that. It literally does nothing as far as ND's election are concerned aside from being a waste of time and resources. It pisses me off, because it is the sort of frivilous bullshit that I despise.


Second, Measure 3 failed (Decriminalization of Marijuana). While I supported Measure 3, so did a lot of young Republicans in the state who are now crying and bemoaning how awful it is thag it didn't pass. Well, no shit dumbasses. The older Republican party members are the ones who didnt want it, not the Democrats. And the younger ones did nothing but meme all over the place about how bad Heidi was, completely ignoring the ballot measures and maybe trying to get it passed.

So is Measure 2 just another case of electoral security theatre then?

Changes the state constituion from "Every citizen can vote" to "only citizens cam vote". Its fucking stupid, amd nothing more than a feel-good pat yourself on the back measure in reality in the state.

[Alvecia]

So is Measure 2 just another case of electoral security theatre then?

Changes the state constituion from "Every citizen can vote" to "only citizens cam vote". Its fucking stupid, amd nothing more than a feel-good pat yourself on the back measure in reality in the state.

That’s....actually worse than I was expecting. Impressive.

[Page]

So is Measure 2 just another case of electoral security theatre then?

Changes the state constituion from "Every citizen can vote" to "only citizens cam vote". Its fucking stupid, amd nothing more than a feel-good pat yourself on the back measure in reality in the state.

People love meaningless crap like this, just like banning Sharia Law - yeah the First Amendment already took care of that for you hundreds of years ago.

[Seangoli]

Changes the state constituion from "Every citizen can vote" to "only citizens cam vote". Its fucking stupid, amd nothing more than a feel-good pat yourself on the back measure in reality in the state.

That’s....actually worse than I was expecting. Impressive.

Welcome to North Dakota. "That's worse than I was expecting" is practically the state motto.

[Napkiraly]

I mean, like, is that “letting your unqualified uncle borrow it” allowing or “having someone break into your house and nicking it” allowing?

A legally prohibited person, not your run-of-the-mill goob. In the case of a semi-automatic AR it would be anyone under the age of 21 now. I'm not certain how exactly it will play out in terms of theft. My guess will be prosecution for the guy who had his handgun stored in a nightstand drawer but not for the one who had a locked gun safe cracked.

Leaving it stored in a nightstand when one isn't around, while incredibly stupid, is not something that should result in a criminal charge.

[Valgora]

Could you elaborate on what these gun laws are?

Age restrictions, storage laws dictating how guns must be stored, waiting periods and permit requirements for anything semi-auto etc etc.

Damn, that sucks.

Age restrictions and the waiting periods are bullshit.
I'd bet that those permit requirements are too.

I don't know the specifics of the new laws dictating how guns must be stored to determine if they're bullshit or not... but I wouldn't be surprised if they were.

[Illahee]

A legally prohibited person, not your run-of-the-mill goob. In the case of a semi-automatic AR it would be anyone under the age of 21 now. I'm not certain how exactly it will play out in terms of theft. My guess will be prosecution for the guy who had his handgun stored in a nightstand drawer but not for the one who had a locked gun safe cracked.

Leaving it stored in a nightstand when one isn't around, while incredibly stupid, is not something that should result in a criminal charge.

The charge would come once a prohibited person takes possession and, presumably, does something unlawful with it.

[Napkiraly]

Leaving it stored in a nightstand when one isn't around, while incredibly stupid, is not something that should result in a criminal charge.

The charge would come once a prohibited person takes possession and, presumably, does something unlawful with it.

Still idiotic to imprison someone over it. A waste of money to boot.

[Genivaria]

Idk if it counts but the city of San Antonio voted on propositions ABC.

Amendment A. Referendum is a common sense reform that gives power back to the people when their money is spent recklessly, or when leadership is unresponsive or out of control. Currently, the mayor and council support controversial and expensive projects for developers like the Cenotaph, the Alamo Plaza expansion, the multi-modal transit plan, the Hay’s Street Bridge project and the Vista Ridge pipeline. And remember the streetcar and “critter bridge” in Hardberger Park? Voting Yes will require 20,000 signatures and allow 180 days to collect them, same as Texas State Constitution requires for Charter amendments. The City Manager is so threatened by this vote of the people (652,465, hardly mob rule) that she has established free speech zones, threatening arrest, making the existing requirement to collect 10% of the registered voters (approximately 70-75,000) in just 40 days almost impossible.

Amendment B is about the failure of council to manage the manager whose salary is more than the Governor and President combined ($575,000). The average salary for a city manager of cities with population over 1M is $217K. So why does San Antonio rank only 99th out of 150 large cities, 115th in public safety and the lowest among major Texas cities? Is she worth it? Sculley has ruled with an iron fist and built a powerbase over the last thirteen years (13). She names her price and gets it, and why not, Council has NO metrics by which to evaluate her performance. San Antonio had a AAA bond rating before she was hired. Her salary has increased 135% and our debt 78%. The people need this for leverage when her contract comes up December 31, 2018.

Amendment C is needed to break the five year stalemate that exists between the city manager and the firefighters. Sheryl Sculley would rather litigate than negotiate, and make it look like the firefighters’ fault. She has sued them and been thrown out of court repeatedly, costing taxpayers over two million dollars in attorney fees, denied them the right to use their workers compensation for any work related illness, including cancer, caused by asbestos exposure. Instead, she forces them to use their own insurance, causing it to skyrocket. It’s been FIVE years and to save legal fees, the firefighters have proposed binding arbitration as a last resort. Arbitrators would be chosen by both sides to consider what other cities pay firefighters, the consumer price index, the revenue available and the impact any arbitration ruling would have on taxpayers, etc. How more fair can you get?

A failed while B and C passed.

[Cannot think of a name]

So, California's intiatives which I didn't feel like staying up for, copied from my hometown paper...well, not my hometown paper, that's a weekly "Hey look what the high school football team did...Sutter Street is having a thing...let's talk to this local fixture..." kind of affair...you know what? Not important...

Proposition 1: The $4 billion housing bond backed by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, is ahead with 54 percent of voters favoring it.

Proposition 2: Voters approved the proposal to spend about $2 billion on housing and services for the homeless. It was passing with 60.4 percent of the vote. Funding for the measure would come from the “millionaires tax” that voters approved in 2004 for mental health services.

Proposition 3: The $8.9 billion bond for water projects is is too close to call, with 52.4 percent of voters opposing it. Voters approved a $4.1 billion water bond in June. They’ve also approved bonds for water projects in 2014, 2006 and 2002.

Proposition 4: Thirteen California children’s hospitals stand to gain $1.5 billion for construction projects because almost 60 percent of voters approved this measure. The hospitals and Sales Force Chief Executive Marc Benioff raised $11.5 million to support the proposition.

Proposition 5: Voters rejected this proposal to give a property tax break to residents who are older than 55. The measure, supported by the state’s real estate industry, would have lowered property taxes for older homeowners if they downsize to smaller houses.

Proposition 6: You’ll keep paying the 12-cent per gallon gas tax and increased vehicle license fees that took effect a year ago because Californians rejected this initiative to repeal the charges. The taxes and fees fund a 10-year, $52 billion package of transportation projects that Gov. Brown and the Legislature approved in 2017. Construction companies, unions and local governments vastly outspent the Republican activists who tried to repeal the tax.

Proposition 7: Californians are ready to liberate themselves from daylight savings time. Voters overwhelmingly approved this measure to give state lawmakers the authority to change daylight savings time if federal law allows them to do so.

Proposition 8: The companies that run California’s dominant kidney dialysis clinics, Davita and Fresenius, poured $110 million into their campaign against this union-backed measure that would restrict their profits. SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West supported the initiative, aiming to spur more hiring at the clinics. The clinic money paid off. Voters rejected the initiative.

Proposition 10: Voters declined to give local governments new powers to enact rent control. Almost 63 percent of voters rejected the proposal.

Proposition 11: Emergency medical technicians will be expected to remain on-call during their breaks because voters approved this initiative. American Medical Response, a Colorado-based ambulance company, bankrolled most of the $30 million campaign for the measure.

Proposition 12: Californians resoundingly voted to give hens, calves and pigs more living space. This measure requires ranchers to raise only cage-free hens by 2022.

Short versions:

• Bond for housing supported by the Facebook guy goes through
• taking the tax on millionaires to fund homeless housing passes.
• Still up in the air on a water proposal but it's like the fourth one in two years, so...
• Yay on a grip of money for children's hospitals.
• No property tax relief for older folks who downsize. After prop 13 and all, I think we're just touchy about that.
• Surprise no on 6 which would have not only repealed the 'gas tax' but made any further taxation have to be a ballot initiative. Turns out our roads suck so hard we won't vote out a tax.
• Yay on 7 because fuck daylight savings.
• No on 8 which I never understood and left blank. Something about dialysis.
• 9...hahahahahaahaaa...didn't even make it to the ballot.
• We Stockholm syndromed ourselves with 10 and didn't remove the restriction on rent control.
• EMTs can no longer take a break,
• and chickens gotta roam by 2022.

[Washington Resistance Army]

It's a good thing Prop 10 died, rent control does nothing to actually address the problem.

[Xmara]

Meanwhile in WV...

Amendment 1
No Right to Abortion
The state's Constitution would be amended to state that a woman's right to an abortion is not protected in West Virginia, paving the way for the State Legislature to ban the procedure outright if the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

Results:
Passed with 51.7% of the vote

Amendment 2
Judicial Budget Oversight Amendment
Providing that the total general revenue appropriations to the judiciary may be reduced in the budget bill, and setting forth the required procedures to be followed by the Legislature to enact any decrease in the total general revenue appropriations to the judiciary to an amount that is less than 85 percent of the amount of the total general revenue appropriations to the judiciary in the most recently enacted budget; providing that when requested by the Legislature, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals must appear and be heard and answer inquiries relative to any budget bill; and conforming language relating to the introduction of the budget and matters that may be taken up during extended sessions to more recent amendments to the constitution.

Results: Passed with 72.4% of the vote

[Major-Tom]

I don't understand my state.

Voters rejected Prop 305, which was Governor Ducey's plan. It would've diverted hella money to vouchers and charter schools, and Arizonans stepped up and rejected it 65-35%. Good shit.

But at the same time, AZ voted 70-30 against Prop 127, which would've required us to have invested more of our money into renewables (mostly solar, we have so much untapped solar potential) by 2030.

[Major-Tom]

Also find it interesting that a ruby red state like Idaho voters overwhelmingly in favor of Medicaid expansion, but the GOP and even some Dems won't touch that idea out of fears that it's "politically risky."

[NERVUN]

For NV:

QUESTION 1: Rights for Crime Victims - YES 61%
This measure would amend the constitution to remove certain existing statutory rights for crime victims and replace those existing provisions with a "Victim's Bill of Rights" giving crime victims constitutional rights that they can assert during a criminal or juvenile justice process. It is named after a similar California ballot measure known as "Marsy's Law".

QUESTION 2: Sales Tax Exemption on Feminine Hygiene Products - YES 56%
This measure would exempt feminine hygiene products from sales tax in Nevada. According to a summary of the amendment:

"Feminine hygiene products should be treated like other medical products that are exempt from Nevada’s sales and use taxes, such as splints, bandages, and prosthetic devices. This is consistent with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s classification of tampons as a type of medical product."

QUESTION 3: Energy Deregulation - NO 67%
Question 3 is the most well-known question on the ballot and the subject of many political ads this election season. Question 3 would amend the Nevada Constitution to require the Legislature to open the retail electricity market to competition by July 1, 2023. It would give consumers a choice of electricity providers. Opponents of Question 3 argue that states with deregulated power companies pay higher rates, while proponents emphasize that choice would lead to lower rates.

QUESTION 4: Medical Equipment Tax Exemption - YES 67%
This question would amend the Nevada Constitution to require the legislature to pass a law allowing the sales tax exemption of durable medical equipment including oxygen delivery and mobility enhancing devices prescribed by a licensed health care provider. Additional examples of covered equipment include wheelchairs and infant apnea monitors.

QUESTION 5: Automatic Voter Registration at the DMV - YES 60%
This question if passed would require the Secretary of State and Department of Motor Vehicles to establish a system that would automatically register a person eligible to vote when they submit a new application, renewal or change or address for a license or identification card. The person would be allowed to decline the registration by submitting a request in writing.

QUESTION 6: Renewable Energy Standards - YES 59%
This measure would amend the Nevada Constitution to require electricity providers that sell to retail customers to meet a Renewable Portfolio Standard, the amount of energy required to come from renewable sources. This RPS would go into effect in 2022 and increase to 50% by 2030.

https://www.ktnv.com/news/national/demo ... stions-1-6

Except for 1, it went the way I voted so I'm fairly content.