Welcome to your California Pro-Family Election Center
November 8, 2016 California General Election
October 24, 2016: Last day to register to vote
SaveCalifornia.com provides our recommendations on California ballot propositions based on Jesus Christ’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself,” and His definition of love -- giving God's goodness to others and obeying His biblical commands, which greatly benefit families and our culture.
There are a record-high 17 statewide ballot propositions. SaveCalifornia.com opposes all but 3 for which we urge a yes vote: Propositions 53, 54, and 66. For detailed explanations, please click the number of the propositions below:
51 NO Self-centered $17.6 BILLION bond (big debt for your children and grandchildren)
52 NO Continues Obamacare-State hospital arrangement
53 YES Requires voter approval prior to sale of $2 BILLION in revenue bonds
54 YES Requires bills to be publicly posted 3 days before legislators can vote on it
55 NO Imposes 12-year historically-high tax on financially successful Californians
56 NO Imposes additional $2 tax hike per pack of cigarettes
57 NO Releases even more dangerous criminals into our communities
58 NO Eliminates current requirement that public schools teach children in English
59 NO Attacks constitutional free speech in elections
60 NO Permits lawsuits against porn film producers that don't require condoms
61 NO Artificial price controls on welfare prescription drugs
62 NO Eliminates the death penalty for murderers
63 NO More unnecessary hurdles for law-abiding citizens to purchase ammunition
64 NO Legalizes full-blown, highly-potent marijuana, turning young people into addicts
65 NO Requires stores to give bag-charge money to State for "environmental" purposes
66 YES Makes the death penalty for murderers more likely
67 NO Prohibits stores from giving single-use plastic or paper bags to shoppers
A principle to remember on local taxes, bonds, fees, and assessments:
SaveCalifornia.com knows that big government often robs people of personal responsibility and saddles working families, property owners, and small business owners with greater financial burdens. It's all because big government refuses to investigate and slash its own waste. Because of the influence of government unions and bureaucracy, independent, tough audits are simply not seen. Therefore, we encourage you to vote NO on ANY AND ALL tax increases, tax extensions, bonds (which is borrowing money, and always more expensive than a direct tax because you must also pay back interest), fees, and assessments. It's pro-family to keep more of your hard-earned money, so it's pro-family to oppose wasteful government taking away more money from your family. They like to take it incrementally, so you must consistently oppose even the smallest tax/bond/fee/assessment increases in order to inhibit the government from taking more and more and more from your family.
DID YOU KNOW...
Don't trust the "Republican voter guide" or "Democrat voter guide" sent to you in the mail. WHY? Its "endorsements" are PAID by the candidates themselves! Look at the FINE PRINT. Don’t rely on voter guides in the mail unless they are from a trusted, recognizable source. And unfortunately, those trusted sources are very few and far between, because even some pro-family voter guides are including pro-perversity Republicans as "pro-family" candidates. See and consider your moral values by reading "Do these California Republicans deserve to win or lose?" So you must do you own research to make informed decisions.
While SaveCalifornia.com does not support or oppose candidates, we provide links to voter guides that list candidates’ positions on issues and scorecards of elected representatives' votes. These links speak for themselves and do not represent the views or opinions of SaveCalifornia.com.
Here are your best, second-best, and third-best way to research candidates to see if they match your values:
1. Enjoy researching online
Your best research on candidates will be done by yourself. Google a candidate's name along with one search term at a time, such as: abortion, gay, LGBT, gun, taxes, parents, family, religious freedom, etc. Then visit candidate's websites for their specific positions on family and moral issues. And consider emailing the candidate to ask specific questions.
2. Learn from voting records and endorsements
Your second-best research is the actual votes cast by incumbent politicians.
See candidates who support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda:
» Equality California: Our Endorsements"
See who voted in 2015 to celebrate and promote "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender":
» See the 16 California Republican legislators
See all the California state legislators -- Democrats and Republicans -- who voted to celebrate and promote celebrate "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender": » State Senate | » Assembly
Carefully consider a few "pro-family" voter guides. But remember, if certain incumbents are portrayed as "pro-family" or recommend, check the filters above to see how they vote on the "LGBT" agenda. SaveCalifornia.com provides this voter information solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office. These links speak for themselves and do not represent the views or opinions of SaveCalifornia.com.
» "In Their Own Words": Republican and Democratic Platforms (2012)
Life, Marriage, Health Care & Conscience, Second Amendment (Firearms), Education, The Economy, The United Nations, Right to Work & Unions, Energy & Climate Change
» "Democrats & Republicans In Their Own Words" (2002)
National Party Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues: Abortion, Homosexuality, Prayer in Schools, School Choice & Faith-Based Education
There are strict constructionist judges and there are judicial activists. Do the judicial candidates on your ballot believe in upholding the written law (strict constructionists) or in "re-interpreting" the law to suit their personal agendas (judicial activists)?
Judge recommendations are few because of the heavy research requirements. However, the following sites contain some helpful judge information for you to peruse. SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose these candidates:
State government-produced voter guide
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 51: For California’s dysfunctional, non-academic, and godless government-run schools, you the taxpayer are spending around $14,550 per student per year compared to $3,000 to 8,000 for a church-school education. And what are you getting for the unaccountable, overpriced public schools? Over 70% of 4th and 8th graders can’t read proficiently. But they are taught God doesn’t exist, any “consensual” sexual activity is fine, and fighting for liberal values is their duty. So, instead of locking yourself into a $17.6 BILLION dollar debt to pay bloated construction and “modernization” costs (children used to become reading and math powerhouses without perfect buildings and modern conveniences, remember?), invest in the brain and soul improvement of your children by rescuing them from this cesspool of moral relativism.
And this election, oppose Proposition 51, which proposes to put you, your children, and grandchildren into more debt and financial bondage. New government school campuses should only be built if: a) truly needed; b) they’re paid for by the local school district (not people from all over California, as Prop. 51 would require); c) several construction bidders (union and non-union) are seriously considered with a public report of why one was selected over the other; d) the only money used are existing property taxes or other already-collected funds, not new taxes, fees, bonds, or special assessments.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 52: While “helping” some hospitals may sound good, there are solid reasons you’ll want to vote NO on Prop. 52. First, this is another conflict-of-interest initiative where a private entity is trying to take money from the taxpayers to put in their own pockets – that is unethical. Second, this is all part of dysfunctional Obamacare -- which doesn’t work and is imploding – thus, voting NO is a vote against Obamacare and voting YES indirectly supports Obamacare. Third, Prop. 52 is not about stopping the diversion of “health care dollars to other purposes,” but is about an immoral system being propped up that should be torn down. Defeat Proposition 52 and order the California Legislature to go back to the drawing board. With more courts exposing unconstitutional parts of Obamacare, and the possibility of a change at the White House, we should all be encouraged to tear down this sick arrangement and restore choice, portability, and freedom to the “healthcare” system.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends YES on Proposition 53: This has been needed for decades, and is especially needed now to stop the $17 BILLION Delta Tunnels, which could result in the desertification of portions of San Joaquin and Contra Costa counties. While “general obligation bonds” are loans, “revenue bonds” require users (like water users and drivers) to repay them. Don’t you wish you had say-so over whether the $64 BILLION bullet train (an unnecessary boondoggle) would go forward, or whether the $6 BILLION Bay Bridge debacle (which now imposes $6 tolls) could have been done better from the get-go? Vote YES on Proposition 53 to restrain and even cut the financial chains that the Democrat--controlled California Legislature loves to wrap around you. And we don’t buy the argument that this “erodes local control by requiring a statewide vote on some local projects” because very few bonds are for $2 BILLION (in which Prop. 53 would kick in), and because local projects ought to be funded by the local government, which is accountable to local voters, not be a state-government project dressed up as a local one, which it’s really not. Proposition 53 brings much-needed reform that would restrain the foolishness of Sacramento and give you and your family greater protection from the bondage of debt – vote YES.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends YES on Proposition 54: One of the big problems with the Democrats that rule the California Legislature is not just what they do, but how they do it. Too many times, bad bills get passed because of sneaky, behind-the-scenes cooking up of bills that are rushed to a vote with no time for meaningful analysis, discussion, public reporting, or any sense of fair play. Among the worst are gut-and-amends, where a bill on the Assembly floor suddenly becomes a bad bill that couldn’t even pass committee. Proposition 54 would do a lot of good by requiring the public posting of any changes to bills three days before they can be voted on. The best thing about this proposition is fewer bad bills would pass due to trickery. We also like the provision allowing legislative video to be used in campaigns. This could chill some obvious bad behavior on the floor and in committees, and expose how some legislators callously or foolishly vote for bills they don’t even understand. Shine the light on the darkness and restore a little bit of sanity to the insane jungle ruled by the majority Democrats. Vote YES on Proposition 54.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 55: This proposition is categorically unfair and unjust. Prop. 55 is like you buying something at a store and being asking your income so they know how much to charge you. Prop. 55 unfairly discriminates against, punishes, and steals from the most financially successful Californians who provide jobs for Californians. Work hard, provide an excellent product or service, create jobs – and the State of California will punish you by socking you with a much higher income tax rate (California’s top tier of 13.3% is the highest state income tax bracket is the U.S.). Not only is Prop. 55 unfair and unjust, it’s “unnecessary” even in the eyes of some liberals. As opponents say in their ballot argument, “Governor Brown has stated and budget estimates from the Legislative Analyst show that higher taxes are not needed to balance the budget.” Anyone who cares only for himself having a job should oppose Prop. 55 because destructive taxes on successful job providers close businesses and kill jobs. Vote NO on Prop. 55 to give California the chance to again be a “land of opportunity.” Vote NO to end an unfair, unjust, and unnecessary income tax that ultimately hurts jobs, hurts the economy, and therefore hurts everybody.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 56: This proposition does more harm than someone smoking cigarettes and dying early. Why? Because Prop. 56 strengthens the evil notion that big government can take money from you if it doesn’t like what you’re doing. In context, smoking cigarettes has already been banned from many public places in California (even more than smoking anything else, like marijuana). And a pack of cigarettes in California is already subject to nearly a $2 tax (combination of state and federal cigarette taxes). If the State’s objective is good health, what about an “excise tax” on hard liquor, candy, most fast food, and highly processed foods? If consumed regularly, they can lead to disease and early death too. It’s obvious that Prop. 56 is not so much concerned about health, but is an easy way to rake in more money. Where would the money go? The way Prop. 56 is written, about $1 BILLION per year in cigarette tax revenue would be paid to the health insurance companies and the other special interests that wrote Prop. 56 for their own financial enrichment. The rest of the cigarette tax money – hundreds of millions of dollars per year – goes to the State, so the government just gets bigger -- and quickly grows to depend on this "sin tax" revenue. It would be much better for the private sector, or even the government, to initiate an educational campaign on why smoking anything is bad for you. So whether you’re a smoker or not, please vote against higher taxes, against big government, and against special interests using the initiative process to personally profit -- by voting NO on Proposition 56.
The genius of Proposition 227 in 1998, “English for the Children,” was that children taught to think in a foreign language (English) became strong at speaking that new language. SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson vividly remembers his Spanish immersion class at UCLA. On the first day of the quarter, his professor told the students this was the only day she and they would speak English in class. Because they were going to learn to think, speak, read, and write in Spanish! Thomasson also remembers being a teacher’s aide at a government elementary school in 1988. The immigrant mother of a sad-faced 11-year-old boy was grieving that the school was not teaching him English. Thomasson secretly volunteered to tutor the boy in an English-only manner during recess, and the boy’s face lit up with continuous smiles up as he excitedly began learning English (only to have these productive lessons shut down a week later by the school principal).
Proposition 58 eliminates English for the children. Prop. 58 deletes where Prop. 227 states “all children in California public schools shall be taught English as rapidly and effectively as possible” and deletes Prop. 227’s requirement that “all children in California public schools shall be taught English by being taught in English.” Under Prop. 58, the requirement to be taught in English – the key to unity and success in our English-speaking nation – will be gone, killed, done away with.
Proposition 58 takes parents out of the driver’s seat by authorizing school districts to decide whether or not children will be taught in English. If an elementary or secondary school decided against English immersion, then children who aren’t native English speakers can only be in a English immersion class if “the parents or legal guardians of 30 pupils or more per school or the parents or legal guardians of 20 pupils or more" request it. So you see, under Prop. 58, non-native English speakers will have a hard time getting their children taught in English. Expect more sad faces if Prop. 58 passes. Many immigrant families that want their children to learn English in English will be left out in the cold. What’s the goal of Prop. 58? Backers of Prop. 58 want “bilingual education” (teaching in Spanish) to grow so that English will no longer be the primary language of the State of California. In this serious matter, please vote for strong academics, good communication, unity, and kindness by voting NO on Proposition 58.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 59: Since the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, free speech, as defined, has been guaranteed to both individuals and groups of people. Look at the construction of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble…” A group of people in a Christian denomination (religion), a group of people publishing or broadcasting news or commentary, a group of people peacefully demonstrating against a perceived injustice, and a group of people engaging in freedom of speech, together. Individuals and groups of people both have First Amendment rights.
Yet Proposition 59 urges California state legislators to propose and ratify an amendment to the United States Constitution limiting freedom of speech to individuals – “human beings” who are not part of an entity such as a union or corporation. A non-binding advisory measure, Prop. 59 was placed on the ballot by Democrats that rule the California Legislature, who, together as a group (remember, they have the First Amendment right to speak as a group) dislike the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which held that First Amendment corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited. So, no matter whether you’re a Democrat or independent or Republican, if you care about our Constitution and about free speech, you should be concerned how backers of Prop. 59 want to limit free speech and deny full First Amendment rights to certain groups of people. Vote NO on Proposition 59.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 60: This proposition tells two big lies – it calls the “sex film industry” good and condoms effective, when neither is true. Pornography dehumanizes by turning people into things and things into people. It is especially degrading to women, who are usually described or depicted as persons to be used and abused. The “sex film industry,” headquartered in Los Angeles, dehumanizes people all the more by forcing them to behave like animals, endangering their bodies as well as their souls.
As for condom efficacy, would any sane woman have sex with an HIV-infected man who was wearing a condom? Condoms won’t reliably protect you. Herpes, syphilis, and human papillomavirus (HPV) can pass from one person to another through saliva and an open sore in the mouth. And transmission of herpes, HPV, syphilis, pubic lice, or scabies can occur even if a condom is used. As for condoms used during sexual intercourse, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports male condoms fail 18% of the time when causing female pregnancy. You can project even higher rates of failure where diseases are transmitted despite condoms.
A 1992 state law requires sex film actors to use condoms while “performing.” There reportedly has been great resistance in the “industry,” and no real law enforcement. Proposition 60 would “strengthen” these laws by requiring sex-film producers to have a health license, submit their performers to health tests, pay fees, and file government reports. Government fines for non-compliance include a fine up to $70,000 for each failure to use condoms, and a fine between $1,000 and $15,000 for not filing proper paperwork for each film’s production. Most powerful of all, Prop. 60 would allow anyone to sue a producer, or even a performer with a financial interest in the film, if a condom was not worn while male actors “actually engage in vaginal or anal penetration by a penis.”
You’re either going to support or oppose Prop. 60's heavy government regulation of smut producers. We oppose it because of the big lies Prop. 60 promotes and because the heavy hand of the law against “non-criminal” behavior sets a very bad political and legal precedent. On this disgusting subject of porn actors harming themselves and others whether or not they use condoms, please vote NO on Proposition 60. Send the message that pornography is harmful and that condoms are no substitute for the true “safe sex” of monogamous man-woman marriage.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 61: This proposal is likely to raise prices for everyone else. Read the following explanation from the California Republican Assembly organization:
Proposition 61: Price Controls for Prescription Drugs
62 NO Eliminates the death penalty for murderers
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 62: If you want there to be less of a bad thing, you must reduce it and work to eradicate it. Letting weeds grow unabated spreads more weeds. This principle must be applied to the vitally-important issue of protecting the lives of innocent people. America was safest when murderers were swiftly and publicly executed. The murderer could no longer murder and would never have the possibility of being released; the value of innocent human life (the murder victims) was promoted and taught across our culture; and young men learned to have second thoughts about wanting to kill someone.
In 2014, there were 1,699 people murdered in California – and zero executions of the 747 convicted murderers on death row. Since 1978, when the death penalty for murderers was reinstated in California, there have been only 13 executions; yet during the same period (1978 through 2015), there were 101,048 people murdered in cold blood in California. This year-upon-year bloodguilt makes God very angry (He instituted capital punishment for murderers in order to protect innocent people: http://kgov.com/what-does-the-bible-say-about-the-death-penalty-and-God). You should be angry too. If you value innocent human life, vote NO on Proposition 62 and start implementing the death penalty for murderers by voting YES on Proposition 66.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 63: Another bad proposition that punishes good and allows bad to prosper, Proposition 63 would require licensed gun owners to pay for a license if they want to buy ammunition, and deems them criminal if their firearm carries more than 10 rounds. Moreover, under Prop. 63, come January 2018, you cannot bring in ammunition from other states without first having it go through a licensed ammunition dealer (a year and a half earlier than under current state law). Your new, state-issued ammunition license will cost you $50. And Prop. 63 requires a state database to indefinitely store certain ammunition purchases that is available to law enforcement (how’s that for creating bias when you’re pulled over by a traffic cop?).
Proposition 63 is wrong before God and people because guns don’t murder – people do. It is a fact that guns in the right hands prevent murder and other violent crimes. To punish law-abiding gun owners is to view them as potential criminals, and will decrease gun ownership (thus decreasing safety and increasing murders) because of this government burden upon safety-loving, law-abiding people.
Meanwhile, the criminals (who couldn’t care less about gun regulations) will run free and even rejoice at the easier crimes they can commit because gun owners are being stymied and intimidated by the government. If your gun was stolen and you didn’t know it, but found out after five days, and then you reported it as required by Prop. 63, you would be guilty of an infraction. The thief got away, but you are viewed as the criminal! This misguided measure puts the squeeze on law-abiding gun owners and doesn’t do anything to curtail real criminals – vote NO on Proposition 63.
- Marijuana-related traffic deaths increased 48 percent.
- Over 20 percent of all traffic deaths were marijuana related compared to only 10 percent six years ago.
- Marijuana-related emergency department visits increased 49 percent.
- Marijuana-related hospitalizations increased 32 percent.
- Marijuana-related calls to the Rocky Mountain Poison Center increased 100 percent.
- Diversion of Colorado marijuana to other states increased 37 percent by vehicle and 427 percent by parcels.
- Colorado youth now rank number one in the nation for marijuana use and 74 percent higher than the national average.
- Colorado college-age group now rank number one in the nation for marijuana use and 62 percent higher than the national average.
- Colorado adults now rank number one in the nation for marijuana use and 104 percent higher than the national average.
If Proposition 64 passes, you can expect the same negative consequences harming children and safety in California. Because Prop. 64 permits children to indirectly see and hear pro-marijuana advertisements (and they’ll directly see it late at night and on “mature” TV channels and other media). Understand that marijuana bosses, moving beyond “medicinal marijuana,” now want to usher in a full-blown marijuana culture to forever change society and to make themselves very, very rich off new addicts. They want the next generation to think it’s “normal” to “get high.” Studies show marijuana is a gateway drug to cocaine and meth. Teens and young adults are especially at risk from today’s potent, mind-altering marijuana, which can permanently damage their developing brains and young lungs. If pot is legalized, your health and auto insurance will likely cost more because increased addictions, accidents, and drug rehab will burden all Californians. “Drugged driving” will become commonplace. It will be a new “right” to get high on marijuana at work, even in transportation jobs. Marijuana legalization means cities and counties can OK selling pot in grocery stores and permit marijuana operatives to buy thousands of acres of farmland.
Life will get stinkier if Prop. 64 passes. This radical ballot measure will permit any Californian to grow up to 6 marijuana plants in their home or apartment. This is bad for apartment neighbors (can you imagine the smell?) and for owners of rental property. Landlords who have discovered tenants using their rentals as grow houses are painfully aware of the damage this does. The production of marijuana requires massive amounts of electricity and water. Even only one fully grown marijuana plant can use up to 6 gallons of water a day. Growing pot in a home often results in non-code rewiring, tampering with electrical meters, produces noxious gases as well as mold and spores which can penetrate the drywall. Along with the buildup of poisonous gases, the combination of solvents, sparks and exhaust fans can result in explosions and fires. If the tenant adds more plants than those allowed by this law, the federal government can seize your property, as it was used for illegal activity. If damage is done, insurance companies will not cover damage costs from mold or fires caused by pot growing activities. If you're a renter, be concerned not only about having to constantly smell marijuana from a pothead neighbor, but that your rent will increase due to owners' higher costs and liability.
Finally, if there's any question about whether marijuana is dangerous and toxic to minors, infants, preborn babies, drivers, machinery workers, and animals, look no further than Prop. 64's official warning label to go on marijuana products in grocery stores should this radical proposition pass:
"GOVERNMENT WARNING: THIS PRODUCT CONTAINS MARIJUANA, A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. KEEP OUT OF REACH OF CHILDREN AND ANIMALS. MARIJUANA PRODUCTS MAY ONLY BE POSSESSED OR CONSUMED BY PERSONS 21 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER UNLESS THE PERSON IS A QUALIFIED PATIENT. THE INTOXICATING EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA PRODUCTS MAY BE DELAYED UP TO TWO HOURS. MARIJUANA USE WHILE PREGNANT OR BREASTFEEDING MAY BE HARMFUL. CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA PRODUCTS IMPAIRS YOUR ABILITY TO DRIVE AND OPERATE MACHINERY PLEASE USE EXTREME CAUTION."
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 65: If you want to still be able to receive “single-use plastic carryout bags” from grocery stores, convenience stores, large pharmacies, and other stores, and if you want to protect against future attacks on your practical liberty, you’ll want to vote NO on Proposition 65 and NO on Proposition 67. Prop. 65 would take the 10-cent-per-paper-bag-fee you would pay at a grocery store and give it to the State to give to environmentalist groups. But we advise you to defeat both these anti-freedom, anti-family propositions. Vote NO on Proposition 65 to reject this money grab and reject the scaremongering of environmental-activists groups, which are unscientific and inconsistent in their opposition to plastic, which still plays a useful purpose in our lives and homes. Then most of all, vote NO on Proposition 67, the voters’ referendum on the plastic-bag ban.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends YES on Proposition 66: If you’re against murder of innocent human begins, you’ll want to vote YES on Proposition 66 and NO on Proposition 62. If Prop. 62 is defeated and Prop. 66 is passed, there’s a much greater chance that the death penalty for murderers will be implemented. Here’s a short history of the death penalty in California, showing how voters have wanted innocent human life protected, but have been stymied by unconstitutional courts:
- 1872 – Capital punishment authorized in state Penal Code
- 1972 – California Supreme Court declares death penalty unconstitutional. 107 condemned prisoners resentenced. California voters pass Proposition 17, an initiative that amends the California Constitution to provide that the death penalty is not cruel or unusual punishment.
- 1977 – State Legislature overrides Governor Jerry Brown's veto and reinstates the death penalty, allowing for capital punishment in first degree murders with any of 12 special circumstances.
- 1978 – California voters pass the Briggs Initiative which creates California’s current death penalty statute, adding 16 more special circumstances, for a total of 28 death-eligible crimes.
- 1990 – Voters pass two additional initiatives, adding 5 more special circumstances, for a total of 33 death-eligible crimes.
- 1996 – Voters pass two initiatives that add 3 additional special circumstances, bringing the total to 36 death-eligible crimes.
- 2000 –Two voter initiatives add another 3 special circumstances to California's death penalty law, for a total of 39 death-eligible crimes.
- 2014 – U.S. judge Cormac J. Carney rules California's death penalty system is unconstitutional because it is arbitrary and plagued with delay. The state has not executed a prisoner since 2006.
Remember, since 1978, when the death penalty for murderers was reinstated in California, there have been only 13 executions in California. Yet during the same period (1978 through 2015), there were 101,048 people murdered in cold blood in California. No justice for families of murder victims. No public message that you can’t get away with murder. No protection of innocent human life as an ethic in California.
Bottom line, just about every ruthless killer in California is getting away with murder. As the California Legislative Analyst reports, “Since the current death penalty law was enacted in California in 1978, 930 individuals have received a death sentence. In recent years, an average of about 20 individuals annually have received death sentences … of the 930 individuals who have received a death sentence since 1978, 15 have been executed [2 of these executions were in other states], 103 have died prior to being executed, 64 have had their sentences reduced by the courts, and 748 are in state prison with death sentences. The vast majority of the 748 condemned inmates are at various stages of the direct appeal or habeas corpus petition process.” In other words, the "death penalty" and broken death penalty process in California means you get free food, free lodging, and free medical care for life, and you’ll die a natural death, unlike your victims who’ve been murdered in cold blood.
Proposition 66 proposes to solve this unjust situation by establishing time limits for death penalty appeals and other commonsense reforms. As the law-enforcement proponents of Prop. 66 explain in their ballot statement:
“HERE’S WHAT PROPOSITION 66 DOES:
1. All state appeals should be limited to 5 years.
2. Every murderer sentenced to death will have their special appeals lawyer assigned immediately. Currently, it can be five years or more before they are even assigned a lawyer.
3. The pool of available lawyers to handle these appeals will be expanded.
4. The trial courts who handled the death penalty trials and know them best will deal with the initial appeals.
5. The State Supreme Court will be empowered to oversee the system and ensure appeals are expedited while protecting the rights of the accused.
6. The State Corrections Department (Prisons) will reform death row housing; taking away special privileges from these brutal killers and saving millions.
Together, these reforms will save California taxpayers over $30,000,000 annually, according to former California Finance Director Mike Genest, while making our death penalty system work again.
“Proposition 66 reforms the death penalty so the system is fair to both defendants and the families of victims.
Defendants now wait five years just to be assigned a lawyer, delaying justice, hurting their appeals, and preventing closure for the victims’ families. Proposition 66 fixes this by streamlining the process to ensure justice for all.
Under the current system, California’s most brutal killers— serial killers, mass murderers, child killers, and murderers who rape and torture their victims—linger on death row until they die of old age, with taxpayers paying for their meals, healthcare, privileges and endless legal appeals.
By reforming the system, Proposition 66 will save taxpayers over $30 million a year, according to former California Finance Director Mike Genest. Instead of dragging on for decades and costing millions, death row killers will have five to ten years to have their appeals heard; ample time to ensure justice is evenly applied while guaranteeing that no innocent person is wrongly executed.”
In conclusion, vote YES on Proposition 66 to promote the sanctity of innocent human life in California. God and families of murder victims agree – murderers who destroy innocent human beings have forfeited their right to life.
SaveCalifornia.com recommends NO on Proposition 67: Banning single-use plastic bags and charging shoppers for paper bags is the latest push of the liberal environmental groups. This is an attack upon business owners, property owners, and families. There’s no legitimate public health hazard from single-use plastic bags. And if the liberals had integrity, they would promote plastic bag recycling (which they’re not), and they would harvest, and plant, more trees to produce paper bags, which are 100 percent biodegradable. But they aren’t interested in using our sustainable, God-given resources. Want to still receive plastic bags in communities that haven’t banned them? Vote NO on Proposition 67.
Consider that plastic grocery bags are useful to families. These bags serve as mini-trash bags, bags to clean up after pets, lunch bags, travel bags, storage bags, and more. They are not “single use.” What’s more, plastic bags are far from being the biggest contributor to beach/ocean litter, which are Styrofoam containers, various kinds of plastic wrappers, and plastic sheets and boat netting.
Stop and think -- are those "reusable" shopping bags really healthy? Or are they more unhealthy than most people realize? From a Chicago Tribune report on a study from the University of Arizona and Loma Linda University in California:
The researchers were likely met with a lot of blank looks. Most shoppers -- 97%, in fact -- reported that they do not regularly, if ever, wash the bags.
Further, three-fourths acknowledged that they don't use separate bags for meats and for vegetables, and about a third said they used the bags for, well, all sorts of things (storing snacks, toting books). You can see where this is going.
The researchers tested 84 of the bags for bacteria. They found whopping amounts in all but one bag, and coliform bacteria (suggesting raw-meat or uncooked-food contamination) in half. And yes, the much-feared E. coli was among them -- in 12% of the bags.
Here's the full report, (yes it's a long title) Assessment of the Potential for Cross Contamination of Food Products by Reusable Shopping Bags.
For more on food-borne illness check out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The researchers wrote in their discussion of the findings:
"It is estimated that there are about 76,000,000 cases of foodborne illness in the United States every year. Most of these illnesses originate in the home from improper cooking or handling of foods. Reusable bags, if not properly washed between uses, create the potential for cross-contamination of foods.
This potential exists when raw meat products and foods traditionally eaten uncooked (fruits and vegetables) are carried in the same bags, either together or between uses. This risk can be increased by the growth of bacteria in the bags."
So, here’s how to vote: Want a statewide ban of single-use plastic store bags? Vote YES on Prop 67. Don't want a statewide ban on single-use plastic bags? Vote NO on Prop. 67.
Two years ago, the Democrat-controlled California Legislature passed SB 270 to ban “single-use plastic bags” statewide. Signatures were gathered to qualify a referendum to let the People decide. From the California Secretary of State: "Once on the ballot, the law is repealed if voters cast more NO votes than YES votes on the referendum in question."
Finally, here are more reasons to vote NO on Proposition 67:
What's in your [reusable] shopping bag? Bacteria
Do bans on plastic grocery bags save cities money?
Plastic bag myths
Calif. regs killing lumber manufacturers
Lumber cost 4 times more in 2014 than in 1970