Help me with the referendums, folks!

[Heddi]

I'm looking for people's straight-talk explanations of the referendums and whether they're good or bad---I know I shouldn't have anyone choose a vote for me, but I really don't know enough about the situations to make a decision one way or another. I've got my voter's pamphlet, and read the FOR and AGAINST statements on each, but who can tell spin from facts?

I've only been in Washington for 3 years, so I'm not that much involved in state politics.

BTW---I'm voting straight-ticket Dem on a mail-in ballot (got it in the mail today yahoo!)---I just want some straight talk about what these ref's are about :)

danke!

[flamingyouth]

1. No on Ref. 55, the charter school one

That's just my opinion, but they don't have a good track record nationwide.

[lakemonster11]

4. I agree 100%.

I could be persuaded otherwise, but my gut feeling is that the whole charter school movement, if it succeeds, will absolutely gut the public school system, of which I am a proud graduate.

If anyone's interested, here's the King County Young Democrats' recommendations for the various initiatives, etc.:

I-297 – Yes (regulating hazardous waste)
I-872 – No (limiting voters’ choices)
I-884 – Yes (creating an education fund)
I-892 – No (extending gambling)
R-55 – No (charter schools)
Seattle I-83 – No (Monorail recall)
KC Charter Amend. 1 – No (To reduce council)

[flamingyouth]

5. That's exactly how I just voted

Good choices. :thumbsup:

[baby_bear]

2. Hi Heddi, I'm scratching my head over these also

The first thing to do is figure out which initiatives/amendments were spawned by Tim Eyman, then vote against those.

So far, here's what I've figured out:

I'm voting no on the first question to King County Alternative Portpose Charter Amendments 1A and 1b; then voting for 1B in the second question. This was one of Eyman's creatures to limit government and limit representation on the county council.

I cannot make heads or tails of the two King County advisory issues. The second one doesn't even have a "statement for" in the voters' pamphlet. What's with that? I'll have to do more research, but if any King County voters have an opinion, please let us know!

City of Seattle Initiative 83: This would prevent the monorail from being constructed, essentially. I'm voting against, because we have already voted for the monorail multiple times, and this initiative to junk it is backed by big downtown business. We need it, and we voted for it, and we've been paying for it, too, by the way.

Initiative 872 is a bad one, I think. We would end up with single-party elections. I think multiple party elections - the more the better, really - are better, but I wish we could vote for an "instant runoff" type of ballot. This initiative doesn't get us there though.

Initiative 884: I haven't decided on this. Normally I just rubber stamp all the tax increases for education, but I am so sick of the lack of spine on the part of politicians in this state to debate the obvious need for a personal income tax, that I feel like voting no on new taxes until they get the message. This state's tax structure is so regressive. I am more than happy to pay taxes, but upping the sales tax to fund education stinks to high heaven. Anybody else have some thoughts on this one?

Initiative 892, additional gambling okay: I'm voting no because, for one, it's another Tim Eyman idea, and two, because I think it will hurt the tribes who are benefiting by encouraging those who want to gamble to come to their casinos. I don't want to turn around and screw them again, or more.

Initiative 297, the radioactive and hazardous waste issue: In my professional life, I work on the Hanford mess, and I am for anything that will help clean it up faster (I don't this will), prevent it from getting worse (this could help with that) and empower citizens in the decision-making at the Hanford reservation (this would do that, or at least has the potential to). So I'm voting yes. It also sends a message, something like "We aren't going to take it anymore."

Referendum 55, charter schools:
I am generally against them, although they have worked in New York City. I'm open to others' opinions on this. I don't have children, so I think I should really listen to people who know more about this than I do.

Here are a couple of other gratuitous suggestions from the research I have been doing:

Superior Court Judge, Position 1: Andrea Darvas
Superior Court Judge, Position 2: Catherine Moore

Both appear to be more committed to civil rights and liberties than do their opponents.

State Supreme Court:
Definitely Mary Kay Becker for Position 1, as Johnson is a pawn of the building/construction industry.

I'd like to hear others' weigh in on the contest between Richard Sanders and Terry Sebring. Sanders is anti-choice but very libertarian/pro-civil liberties in important ways. An attorney friend of mine says that the abortion issue is not an important court issue in this state, so he recommends Sanders (and my friend is very liberal). I don't know anything, really, about Sebring.

I hope this is helpful to you, Heddi. I'm definitely open to other ideas.

s_m

[pfitz59]

3. State referendums....

Yes on 297. No on the rest.

[geniph]

6. Yes on 297 and 884

No on the rest.

;-)