Telling the Governator to Sign or Veto (Somewhat) Open Thread

SB 37 (0.00 / 0)

I'd like to see him sign SB37, which ratifies the interstate compact of the National Popular Vote. He vetoed similar legislation last year, so it was reintroduced this year. It passed the Senate, is currently in the House (assembly is out of session until January), and will have to go back to the Senate after the House passes it since it was amended. This is a much better way to reform the presidential elections than the congressional district method in that Republican-sponsored ballot initiative.

Jason

---

by: jasonda @ Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 18:37:57 PM CDT

It's an interstate compact? (0.00 / 0)

If it is, then it's unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3:

"No state shall, without the consent of Congress…enter into any agreement or compact with another state."

If it's not an interstate compact, and I can see why it's not, then it's not unconstitutional

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 22:25:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

There's always SB 840 (8.00 / 1)

But in terms of bills he's perhaps undecided on, he really ought to sign AB 821 (Nava) which would outlaw the sale and use of lead bullets in California condor habitats. Several condors have turned up dead in Monterey County this year, many near Pinnacles, and are believed to have died from lead poisoning after eating the carcass of animals killed by lead bullets.

The gun nuts are up in arms (heh) over the issue, but hunting is not and should not be a practice that leads to species extinction. Arizona has the same ban in place in its California condor habitat areas, and it makes sense for us to do the same.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 19:14:41 PM CDT

Sign SB 880 (0.00 / 0)

Soccer players need their kangaroo shoes!

---

by: modem @ Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 19:39:22 PM CDT

Sign...Veto... (0.00 / 0)

Sign...
AB 1465: a rarity that I agree with the NRA. The government should not be allowed to disarm innocent law-abiding gun owners
AB 1471: If you purchase a gun and bullets and they end up in someone, you better damn well be willing to be found and explain it
AB 821: Why not?
AB 248: No explanation needed
AB 43: Government has an obligation to protect the minority, not just accommodate the majority
SB 120: Sunlight is the best of disinfectants
AB 1109: I just replaced a lot of my bulbs with fluorescents. Incandescents are a market failure, and the government has a role here.
SB 210: Codifies the governor's executive order on low-carbon fuel standards
AB 888: Costs more up front, but that's it
AB 1108: No explanation needed
SB 777: Read AB 43
AB 110: Doesn't increase drug use, does reduce the spread of AIDS
AB 1334: Do those who oppose it have a proposal to reduce that behavior in prisons? I'd be the first to go for it. But they don't. Access to condoms won't increase that activity, but it will reduce the spread of STD's (which aren't restricted to behind the bars)
SB 719: Why not?
AB 1470: Solar power has social benefits
AB 1058: Read AB 888
SB 22: Expands breastfeeding. Better for the babies
AB 269: Sex education should be age-appropriate and medically-accurate. No scare tactics
AB 258: Fish are plenty of people's protein. The healthier the fish are before they die, the healthier the people
AB 1294: Enough Nader effects

Veto...
SB 180: Retain secret ballot elections for union organizing

The Silent Consensus

---

by: thelibertariandemocrat (VF2005) @ Tue Sep 25, 2007 at 20:31:25 PM CDT

Sign AB 1430 - Promote Political Parties & Organizations (0.00 / 0)

Why veto this bill ?  It's ridiculous that local cities should be able to tell organizations they can't communicate political information to their members.  If I'm a member of a union with 1000 members in my city why should I be limited to a grand total of $500 like San Diego is trying to do ?  If I'm a member of the Democratic Party and we endorse a candidate for school board or council and there are 10,000 members in the community why should the Party be prevented from communicating with them ?  Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech are more important than whatever goals some think they can accomplish by shrinking participation.  That only strangles Partys and makes joining them even less enticing than it already is.

---

by: Bhoddisat @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 00:12:34 AM CDT

Veto AB 1430 (0.00 / 0)

The LA Times had a great editorial on why AB 1430 should be veto.  It can be viewed here: http://www.caclean.o...

The supporters of AB 1430 claim the bill is simply an attempt to protect organizations from communicating with their members.  This is a hustle and a scam.  The real intent of the bill is to turn the money spigots wide-open.  As the bill is currently written, the Republican party can claim that every Decline to State is a member of their organization.  As a Decline to State who votes Democratic, I find that very troubling.

As a former worksite and political organizer for two different SEIU locals in California, including one in San Diego, I know that unions have the unfettered ability to communicate with their members; the campaign contribution limits kick in when there is electioneering, but there is no limit on educational communication.

AB 1430 does not protect Freedom of Association or Freedom of Speech, what is does protect is the destructive effect of large campaign contributions on our political process and public policy.

---

by: kalu @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 13:28:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction to my comment above (0.00 / 0)

"The supporters of AB 1430 claim the bill is simply an attempt to protect organizations from communicating with their members." 

Should have read:

"The supporters of AB 1430 claim the bill is simply an attempt to protect the ability of organizations to communicate with their members."

Thanks.

---

by: kalu @ Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 13:41:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]