OT: waiting for results

We have stem cell research, an 80 cent a pack tax increase on cigarettes and this very bizarre one that takes away pensions/retirement benefits of convicted politicians. Sounds good, but then you find out that a rider on the bill says that now all legislative pay increases will be automatic and they no longer have to vote on them.

Big to-do over the tax for the new arena. Not that we don't need a new arena, but there are issues with the way the deal is structured. That is, what little about the deal they are willing to tell us!

The other big one, the neighboring county INVITED our not-for-profit electric company to move in (our rates are 30% less than they pay), and the big for-profit company spent bazillions trying to convince us to vote No, and promised/threatened a decades-long court battle if it passes.

Humph. Since those 16 polling sites are staying open late NO ONE in the state is allowed to start tabulating results--even for local races--until all are closed. That certainly isn't how it was in the last big election since at least polling site was open until the wee hours of the morning.

the BIG issue here was the definition of marriage . Should there be an ammendment changing the definition of marriage to cover same-sex couples or not...ARGH

Then there was tax breaks for improvements to housing or whatever and something about churches being incorporated

I *did* read them thoroughly before I voted, but right now the only one that sticks out in my mind is the one on marriage...probably because that was the one that got the most coverage in all of the debates and commercials!

Just south of me in MA, there is a huge question on whether or not to allow all supermarkets and convenience stores to sell wine.

In NH, there is a question about eminent domain and transferring property from one private citizen to another like that huge case in CT a while back.

Cheryl

Here in FL we had something about stopping a city from using the power of eminent domain to take over a property and then being permitted to sell same to a private developer.

Lucille

Oh, you're in Missouri, too! Did I know that and just forgot???

I'm puzzled, it seems that you combine the election of people to represent you with a referendum on some issues. Who decides what issues will be voted upon?

VA did the marriage amendment. As in it will be defined as one man and one woman only. Pretty intolerant area, so it passed.

I don't care who loves who, if they want to be in a legally committed union, I'm ok with it. I'd rather people be monogamous relationship then out risking the spread of disease.

Caryn

I think the State Legislature decides on potential ammendments and then lets the people vote on it. I'm not entirely sure. I'd love to smack the lawyers that right them in such gobble-dee-gook that a lay person can read it several times and still not get which way they want to vote.

Caryn

I have not seen this argument anywhere else; I invented it myself. If you change the definition of marriage away from one man and one woman, it will inevitably lead to incest. If two women can marry, then why not two sisters, mother and daughter; etc.etc. When you get that far, why not a brother and sister, if they are so old that there can be no progeny. These sort of cases have not yet made it to the courts in Canada yet, but my bet is that they will.

It sounds as though the voting slip (or electronic equivalent) will be quite complex!

The electronic ballot here was 13 screens long.

Ours was 4 legal-size pages (Bruce: 14 inches long versus 11-inch letter size)

We voted for Governor, Lt. Gov, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, State Board of Equalization (tax board), US Senator, US Congress, State Senate, State Assembly, 6 assorted judges, and School District. That was front/back of one bubble-in form, since many of them had 6 candidates from 6 parties.

Then 13 statewide propositions and 5 local propositions front/back of the second bubble-in form.

And a partridge in a pear tree...............

Sounds like eminent domain was a biggy this year. We had one here, too, saying that any land taken by eminent domain can not be used for personal business or something such.

We also had a poorly-written measure on shared parenting, which lost, and one dealing with how some trust money for education was to be handled.

Joan in ND

The only major ones I can think of in Maryland were requiring the legislature to "OK" sales of public lands (Public Works Commission can't do it on their own say-so) and voting issues, which could have been a biggie because it would have allowed early voting via mail (as opposed to one day at the local precinct), but that part was disallowed by the courts and struck from the ballot, leaving only redistricting stuff to be voted on. Other than that, a bunch of bond issues. Not terribly controversial stuff, which is OK by me because the races were so contentious and quite ugly. Didn't need any more gas on that fire!

sue

We voted for Governor, Lt. Gov, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, State Board of Equalization (tax board), US Senator, US Congress, State Senate, State Assembly, 6 assorted judges, and School District. That was front/back of one bubble-in form, since many of them had 6 candidates from 6 parties.

Then 13 statewide propositions and 5 local propositions front/back of the second bubble-in form.

And a partridge in a pear tree...............

Actually, it's much worse than that. Not only does it ban same-sex marriage, but it also bans civil unions and anything similar. Worse yet, it is so broadly and sloppily written that it may well end up affecting *other* legal relationships between unmarried individuals that have nothing to do with marriage or civil unions, whether same sex or not.

Best wishes, Ericka

The incredible mud-slinging campaign between George Allen & Jim Webb for senate (though Allen is slinging more in that they're using quotes from Webb's fiction as if it were essays, etc)

The pardon my political opinion - but ridiculous marriage amendment - in essence to amend the Commonwealth constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman - but that's an opinion thing. The problem is buried into the complicated language is wording that basically would restrict or eliminate rights for any civil union type arrangements, domestic partnerships - regardless of gender. So that if adults chose to live together without benefit of marriage they would not be able to do things like share insurance, there are issues with medical rights, etc. The conservative politicians made this more than just a "gay" marriage thing - and most people cannot understand or read the full amendment and understand the many implications.

In MD, the election for governor is darn ugly, as is the Senate race between the democrat (slinging quite a bit, and old guy incumbent) and the black republican lt. gov. Very controversial.

Lots of public funding for school construction, and roads - that are kind of local issues.

Amazingly, there is a state amendment to remove from the constitution something which the Supreme Court has already found unconstitutional. So, it has to come out - but I think it was to go before the voters for ease in removing. It's a church and state thing, that violated separation laws. It would seem straightforwad, in that the US Supreme Court has found this article in the commonwealth's constitution to be unlawful. And that is in the preface to the amendment on the ballot. Yet, an amazing amount of people voted not to remove it. A little odd.

Good question to raise.

ellice