Here are my personal takes on the propositions. I certainly don't know everything about these though I have tried to study them thoroughly - I think you need to be a lawyer to really understand what they mean. Please feel free to respond with your input and study them out for yourself. I still may change my positions before election day except on the bolded ones. My family got together last Monday and sat down and discussed them one by one - I highly suggest doing that among your family and/or friends - and discuss, don't just ask what to vote for.
Prop 114: No - amends the State Constitution to prevent criminals from suing their victims. Currently the Constitution protects everyone's right to sue no matter what. Sounds good, but do we really need to amend the Constitution to accomplish this or can it be accomplished through educating jurors or other means?
Prop 115: No - extends the retirement age for judges to 75 instead of 70, requires more candidates to be presented for appointment by the governor, changes the nomination process to allow the governor to nominate (all but one candidate nominated by the Bar) and appoint all the candidates among other things, requires nominees to be posted online etc. There are mixed feelings on this. I will probably vote no because I think it will make the process too partisan, but others validly argue that it will make the system better because it will increase the number of choices and the Bar that currently nominates is liberal so its already too partisan. Maybe if they only increased the minimum number of choices and didn't change all of the other things I would vote for it. Study this one out.
Prop 116: Yes - I have not heard any opposition to the bill from liberals or conservatives. This would allow businesses to report their assets like equipment, buildings, trucks, etc purchased after 2012 as a tax exemption. Mike might know about this better than I, but this should help to lower taxes and give small businesses a boost. If RTW were to buy a new $2000 welder next year, they would be able to exempt the real value of it from their annual taxes. Or if my brother's work truck broke down and he had to buy a new one (or used, whatever) that would be tax exempt. Lower taxes, sounds good to me!
Prop 117: Yes - supposed to prevent big spikes in taxes year to year by putting a limit on the increase in assessed value of property (what they use to determine state property taxes) to 5% of the previous year. My dad owns property up north, it doesn't have anything built on it, didn't do anything to improve it, its just a plot of land and this last year he had to pay triple the amount of property taxes as the year before. This proposition would help prevent that. It would not limit any decreases in assessed value.
Prop 118: I have no idea. Most conservative groups say yes. I don't know exactly what it means, but I guess it is supposed to even out and provide stable funding for schools without increasing taxes by using the state trust land fund. I will have to find out more, my aunt is a state legislator - highly pro-constitution and conservative and she supports it so I may trust her and vote yes.
Prop 119: No - this has been presented about 8 times and has always failed. It's supported by highly liberal environmental groups that a lot of people don't trust. It allows for the trading of state land with federal land to protect encroachment of development on military bases. I don't know enough about it, nor do I trust it, so I'm voting no.
Prop 120: NO - Open, top-two primary. I have always thought it was dumb that independents can't vote in the primary because they have no party affiliation, so at first glance I was like, sweet this is a good idea! But its not - first, it's the system that CA uses, and we know how CA is thriving (not). So it lists everybody on the primary ballot who wants to run, no R or D next to their name, so you don't really have an idea on where people generally stand (not that the two parties are much different, but locally they tend to be more than nationally). The top-two vote-getters are the ones listed on the general ballot - could be 2 democrats, 2 republicans, forget about any libertarians or other small party candidates ever getting a shot - it's gonna be about who has the most money to get their name out there, since parties are not going to be listed. That is just going to turn more people off. And more conservatives will probably run than liberals, just based on where we live, so the conservative vote will get divided and that will leave us with two liberals to choose from in the general. Getting rid of the parties sounds good, but it would make organization and grass roots efforts a mess. Please share so we can educate people on what a bad idea this is the way its worded and the top-two aspect of it even though in theory it sounds good.
Prop 204: NO - permanent 1 cent sales tax increase, overall 18% increase in taxes. Gives more money to education, but also other projects, health care, transportation, etc. More money does not translate to better education ask Washington DC, highest dollar to student ratio, last in the nation in education. The temporary sales tax and this bill are not the same idea! This allows for no leeway or legislative action regarding the sales tax. Cant be repealed until next election! Other taxes are going up! VOTE NO!
Mesa Questions and Props: vote no on all - especially the bonds questions, especially for parks and rec. We do not need more debt and more taxes, we are not out of the recession yet - this may be appropriate when we're thriving, but we know the taxes never go to what they say anyway (water parks anyone?). The propositions you can study out for yourself, 461, 462, and 463 seem harmless, a yes vote would probably be fine. 460 sounds shady, only gives 10 days to file nomination if there's a vacancy for Mayor with over 2 years left in the term - I'm voting no on that. 464 might save money on ballot printing if less than 3 are running, they just skip the primary election and all the candidates go on the ballot for the general. Not sure it skipping a primary could have unforeseen consequences for write-ins and whatnot, so I am personally voting no.
Judges: a lot of people are voting no on all. I am going to vote to retain David Udall because I personally know him to be a good honest man. I may vote yes on a few others with high merit ratings.
Let me know what you think!