Why I vote “no” on (almost) all California ballot propositions, even if I agree with them
Michael Levinson
36953

Comments: I think your instincts for no on 63 are right. Most of that proposition is pointless because, after seeing that there was a lot of support for gun control, the legislature passed a bunch of gun control laws. So most of this proposition is *already* enacted into law by normal means.

The one where I think you’re backwards is 67. It was deliberately confusing worded so that the “yes” vote is the one that upholds the law (i.e. no new effects from the prop) whereas the “no” vote is the one that reverses it. So I’d say following the principles should lead you to yes on 67.

65 and 67 are both sponsored by the same plastic bag association, and it seems they’ve chosen to try to achieve their political ends by making both of their propositions so confusing that nobody can tell what they actually do, and they’ve structured so they want either no on 67 or yes on 65.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.