Thread: California primaries: 91, 92, 93 how to vote on these?

I remember reading somewhere on ALIPAC that while 93: Limits on legislature's terms in office, initiative constitutional amendment (California's constitution that is) SOUNDS good it is a smokescreen and I should vote no on it.

What about 91 and 92? ANyone have any idea on these?

I've already made up my mind on the rest.

I hope this is the right forum for this.

Voted No on all of them. Just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I remember reading somewhere on ALIPAC that while 93: Limits on legislature's terms in office, initiative constitutional amendment (California's constitution that is) SOUNDS good it is a smokescreen and I should vote no on it.

What about 91 and 92? ANyone have any idea on these?

Vote no on 92 and 93 (yes it's a smokescreen), ignore 91 because it has already been implemented by the legislature.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by Sam-I-am

I remember reading somewhere on ALIPAC that while 93: Limits on legislature's terms in office, initiative constitutional amendment (California's constitution that is) SOUNDS good it is a smokescreen and I should vote no on it.

What about 91 and 92? ANyone have any idea on these?

Vote no on 92 and 93 (yes it's a smokescreen), ignore 91 because it has already been implemented by the legislature.

Agree

Thanks fellow ALIPAC'ers! Maybe there's hope for California yet!

I'll vote no on all three.

I'm voting yes on all the Indian Gaming Compact stuff, because I can guess which big businesses are against Indian gaming -- and none of them are based in California. Anyone have any opinions on 94 thru 97?

I'm voting Romney too, because McInsane has to be stopped.

I can use this info too as a CA voter. The problem for me is, I'm a recovering liberal and haven't changed from democrat yet. What would be the most effective way to use my primary vote?

What I find disgusting is the WAY Measure 93, Limits on Legislator's Terms in Office. Initiative Constitutional Amendment is described:

"Reduces permissible state legislative service to 12 years. Allows 12 years service in one house. Current legislators can serve 12 years in current house, regardless of prior service. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments."

Duh, how does any of the above imply that "permissible state legislative service" is being reduced? How is 12 years a reduction from 12 years?

I've heard that, in fact, this law would INCREASE term limits for certain legislators ALREADY in office in the state of California, but why I don't know.
I'll bet there's a lot of politicing involved just to determine how each measure is described (i.e. who's lies are printed).

SOFEDUP I don't know how to answer your question. HOpefully, someone will get back to you by tomorrow at 8 p.m. (PST).