State ballot questions 2022

[Kraken]

Got any interesting ones?

In Massachusetts, Q1 (the millionaires tax) is the biggest. It would amend the constitution to impose a 4% income tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million, with the revenue dedicated to education and transportation, "subject to appropriation by the legislature." As a socialist, I like new taxes on rich people so this would seem to be a slam-dunk. Proponents say it will raise $2B per year and opponents say $1.3B. However, several things give me pause. First, there's nothing prohibiting the legislature from diverting other funds away from education and transportation, so the net gain to them could be zero. Second, the state is already awash in tax money -- so much so that they have to rebate $3B in overcollections for 2022. Third, some not-rich people will pay the surcharge when selling their small businesses; the legislature could create a carve-out for them, but that's uncertain. And finally, some rich people will just pack up and leave. Leaning Yes, but persuadable. Yes is leading in the polls but the rich are pouring lots of money into ads against it.

Q2 mandates that 83 cents of every dollar collected in dental insurance premiums is spent on patients' dental work. Dental insurance largely sucks and this would *probably* improve it somewhat. Yes. I've heard very little debate and don't know how it's polling.

Q3 is one of those why-are-you-even-asking-me-this? questions. In Mass., only packies can sell beer and wine, with some carve-outs for grocery and convenience stores within 10 miles of state borders. Q3 would allow some chain stores to start selling beer and wine in more locations. But the overall impact on alcohol sales and consumption in Massachusetts would be quite limited. It really doesn't matter and I don't care; in fact, I didn't even know what Q3 was until I looked it up just now. Yes, I guess.

Q4 is the other biggie. Our legislature voted to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses. The governor vetoed it; the legislature overrode. Now conservatives are asking voters to overturn it (a Yes vote would deny licenses to the undocumented). Experts say that offering licenses to unauthorized immigrants will encourage them to purchase cars, get insurance, and receive the training needed to pass a road test. What is more, it will reduce pressure to avoid police and publicly safety officers out of fear that simple traffic enforcement could lead to deportation. 16 other states already do this, with no negative repercussions. The Yes arguments are purely xenophobia. It's a clear No (don't repeal). Pretty sure No is leading.

[Jaymann]

There are a couple of props in CA for increased gambling, which I am mildly in favor.

I just noticed one for taxes on income over $2M to reduce pollution and fight wildfires. Yay!

There's one to restrict sales of flavored tobacco products. Yes.

[dbt1949]

Arkansas is seeing if they want to legalize MJ for fun.

[Alefroth]

Arkansas is seeing if they want to legalize MJ for fun.

Surprised that even got on the ballot. Does it have a chance?

[dbt1949]

I do not know. I too was surprised it got on the ballot. Usually all the preachers and preacher wanna bes in the state hold a convention just so they can sue the state to keep it off the ballot.
To be honest up until about ten years ago I would have voted against it too.

[naednek]

I just noticed one for taxes on income over $2M to reduce pollution and fight wildfires. Yay!

Newsom has been warning about this one as being a trap. Something about being sponsored by the gig car companies and money going to them in the guise of clean air.

[Isgrimnur]

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prop ... ive_(2022)

(1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters. Requires audits of programs and expenditures.

[Jaymann]

I just noticed one for taxes on income over $2M to reduce pollution and fight wildfires. Yay!

Newsom has been warning about this one as being a trap. Something about being sponsored by the gig car companies and money going to them in the guise of clean air.

I will have to read up on that.

[naednek]

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Prop ... ive_(2022)

(1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters. Requires audits of programs and expenditures.

https://abc7news.com/prop-30-electric-v ... /12244818/

They say Lyft is trying to get taxpayers to help them meet a state mandate to eventually electrify their fleet.

[gilraen]

In Colorado, Prop 122 is for legalization of "magic mushrooms":


A couple of other measures that I'm much more interested in are Prop 124 and Prop 125, both having to do with liquor sales.

Prop 124 - gradually removing the cap on the number of liquor stores that a single company may operate. Currently liquor-licensed stores can only operate 3 locations in Colorado. A major national chain is pushing to have this limit repealed. This is a big "nope" from me. It basically means that the major chains will "Walmart" the small liquor stores out of business very quickly.

Prop 125 - allow grocery stores to sell wine (right now they are only allowed to sell beer and other malt beverages). That's also a "no" from me. Grocery stores will only stock the biggest, most well-known brands and wine types, and as they push small liquor stores out of business, it will just be that much harder to find smaller, more obscure labels. Also, supermarkets have finite space - if they clear out more shelves to stock with wine, that's more products that they are not stocking. When the law passed 3 years ago to allow grocery stores to sell beer, our neighborhood supermarket nuked 2/3rd of the soft drink section to set up alcohol displays.

[Unagi]

I fully agree with your position on Prop 124, but I don't think your concerns about Prop 125 would pan out.

I don't think it will be harder to find smaller, more obscure labels - as wouldn't they still be available at your liquor store?

I'm not sure how to address your concerns about limited shelf space requiring the store to reassess what it sells, I suppose that's a thing.


Curious what you plan to do with Prop 122? Is there a general sense regarding if that Prop will make it?

[gilraen]

I don't think it will be harder to find smaller, more obscure labels - as wouldn't they still be available at your liquor store?

Smaller liquor stores won't survive. They lost a quarter of their sales when grocery stores were allowed to sell beer, and they compensated by stocking less beer and more wine.

Curious what you plan to do with Prop 122? Is there a general sense regarding if that Prop will make it?

It will probably make it. I'll vote yes on it, I don't care much one way or another, but I agree that stupid college kids shouldn't end up with criminal records for the rest of their lives just for having it in their possession. I don't know how effective it is as natural medicine but the first step to really finding out is to decriminalize it.

[Unagi]

I don't think it will be harder to find smaller, more obscure labels - as wouldn't they still be available at your liquor store?

Smaller liquor stores won't survive. They lost a quarter of their sales when grocery stores were allowed to sell beer, and they compensated by stocking less beer and more wine.

I guess it's just that I live in a state where they sell wine in the grocery store, but there are many many (dedicated) wine shops and general liquor stores that will carry more obscure stuff.

Curious what you plan to do with Prop 122? Is there a general sense regarding if that Prop will make it?

It will probably make it. I'll vote yes on it, I don't care much one way or another, but I agree that stupid college kids shouldn't end up with criminal records for the rest of their lives just for having it in their possession. I don't know how effective it is as natural medicine but the first step to really finding out is to decriminalize it.

Cool - yeah, that's more or less my thoughts on it.

[ImLawBoy]

I don't think it will be harder to find smaller, more obscure labels - as wouldn't they still be available at your liquor store?

Smaller liquor stores won't survive. They lost a quarter of their sales when grocery stores were allowed to sell beer, and they compensated by stocking less beer and more wine.

FWIW, there are no such restrictions in Illinois and Chicago (that I'm aware of). Grocery stores sell beer/wine/liquor, big chains (Binny's being the biggest) do a good business, and there are a ton of mom & pop liquor stores/convenience stores that sell stuff (often with a wider variety than the grocery stores).

[Carpet_pissr]

Psilocybin as an effective treatment for depression, PTSD and several other illnesses has been proven by some top class research and trials at Johns Hopkins, Harvard (Cleveland?) etc.

Specifically in cases where patients are resistant to SSRI’s.

Tons of companies now n this space, several well into the FDA trial process.

Several trying to synthesize the ‘non-druggy’ aspects of the chemical (to avoid tripping), but of course that very experience is likely why it’s so effective.

[Kraken]

Why is peyote excluded?

[gilraen]

Why is peyote excluded?

There are already special laws around peyote in most Western states that allow "bona fide religious use" (applies to everyone, not just Native American tribes).

[stessier]

For South Carolina

Amendment 1

Must Section 36(A), Article III of the Constitution of this State, relating to the General Reserve Fund, be amended so as to provide that the General Reserve Fund of five percent of general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year must be increased each year by one-half of one percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year until it equals seven percent of such revenues?

Explanation

A ‘Yes' vote will increase the amount of money state government must keep in the General Reserve Fund (its "rainy day" fund) from 5% of the previous year's revenue to 7% of the previous year's revenue.

Amendment 2

Must Section 36(B), Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that the Capital Reserve Fund of two percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year be increased to three percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year and to provide that the first use of the Capital Reserve Fund must be to offset midyear budget reductions?

Explanation

A ‘Yes’ vote will increase the amount of money state government must appropriate to the Capital Reserve Fund (the “reserve and capital improvements” fund) from 2% of the previous year’s revenue to 3% of the previous year’s revenue and require that the Capital Reserve Fund’s first priority is to offset midyear budget cuts at state agencies.

I can't find any commentary yet on why we would or would not want to do this, so no idea how I'll vote just yet.

[Pyperkub]

https://abc7news.com/prop-30-electric-v ... /12244818/

They say Lyft is trying to get taxpayers to help them meet a state mandate to eventually electrify their fleet.

Which may or may not be a bad thing.This is a far better look at the CA Prop 30 and how Lyft hopes it will help them:

Issue one, CA budget carve-outs:

The governor said that the tax could make the state’s budget more unstable; he has long opposed measures that carve out a portion of revenue for pet issues. Newsom also stressed that the state’s current budget sets aside a record $10 billion for electric vehicle subsidies and infrastructure.

Issue two, ridesharing companies benefiting:

Uber and Lyft, said it’s clear that the latter sees its success as tied to subsidies for drivers to switch to electric cars. Without state support, he said the company would “face a very steep uphill battle” trying to meet California’s clean-car rules.

“They have almost no choice but to dive into the deep end of the pool when it comes to this initiative,” Ives said. “In a smart way, they’re trying to surf the EV wave.”

The clock is ticking for Lyft and Uber to get their drivers behind the wheels of zero-emissions vehicles. Last year, state air-pollution regulators adopted a mandate that the companies must use zero-emissions vehicles for 90% of the miles their drivers travel by 2030.

The mandate means Uber and Lyft must transition to electric cars faster than the rest of the state...

...Using a ride-hailing app creates about 48% more emissions per trip than if the rider had driven separately in a gas-powered car because drivers typically spend more than a third of their time without a passenger in the car — idling while they wait for a ride request or driving en route to a pick-up, according to a 2018 analysis from the state...

Bottom line regarding Lyft/Uber:

“There’s no carve-out at all in the measure,” said Bill Magavern, policy director of the Coalition for Clean Air, which supports the initiative. “We have not made the progress in transportation that we need to.”

If Prop. 30 passes, the Air Resources Board will be tasked with determining how the funding is doled out for rebates and other incentives designed to offset the higher sticker price of electric vehicles. The measure doesn’t require funding for ride-hailing apps specifically, but Lyft could lobby the air board for targeted subsidies.

IMHO, issue one can be the reason to vote against a LOT of propositions. They make budgeting almost insane, but the Lyft/Uber/Corporate handout is not much of an issue, IMHO, unless the Air Resources Board is massively corrupted. I don't know about that, but I don't think it is.

This is most particularly NOT anywhere near Uber's attempt (successful at the ballot, but apparently not in the Courtroom) to write their business model into the State Constitution.

[naednek]

IMHO, unless the Air Resources Board is massively corrupted. I don't know about that, but I don't think it is.

I sure hope not I work there

[LordMortis]

Cross posted from Trumps investigation

Mastriano looks pretty dead in the water. Lake on the other hand looks to have a very good shot at winning. So that's great.

I can't affect any of those. Only those in Mi and I'm ascared. The GOP knows it and they have ads up 4-1 against the dems locally. Our AG, SoS, and Governor are very unpopular (and often for good reason). The things they have best going for them is they are not election denying MAGAts who want end contraception and reproductive rights. Somehow, after the primaries, these features are no longer the features the GOP candidates are screaming from the rooftops like they were before all these TV ads. They even try to sell reproductive protections as "too confusing and full of radical change."

The voters in state have been coming through ever since 2016 but only just barely. So here's to hoping that the popularity of Whitmer, Nessel, and Benson won't be our state's undoing. The props give me hope for a large positive turn out:

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover ... uld-change

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover ... e-michigan

https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-gover ... o-michigan

Prop 1 is term limits and asset declaration. <<< I've yet to decide on this. Instincts tell me term limits are the right thing but we have so many idiots making headway as challengers that there is some sort of comfort to career politicians at this point... Also we already had term limits. I do really want enduring public disclosure of assets and finances, though.

Prop 2 is an amendment to allow 9 days of early voting, make absentee ballots more entrenched, and to tighten rules on audits. <<< I support this

Prop 3 is going to be where bread is buttered this election cycles. It's a referendum on Trump, the Supreme Court, and the GOP desire for control. I hold hope this is where it blows up in the faces of the GOP but also fear this will be the big reveal for how bad things are.

Proposal 3, sponsored by Reproductive Freedom For All, would amend the Michigan Constitution to:

Guarantee that "every individual" in the state has a "fundamental right to reproductive freedom." That would include the right to make decisions about abortion, but also prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, contraception, sterilization, miscarriage management and infertility care.
Still allow elected officials to prohibit or otherwise regulate abortion after a fetus reaches "viability," which is generally considered around 23 to 24 weeks into a pregnancy. However, the state could not prohibit any abortions that a medical professional deems necessary to "protect the life or physical or mental health" of the pregnant individual.
Only allow the state to restrict abortion rights if the restrictions are "justified by a compelling state interest achieved by the least restrictive means.”
Prohibit the state from penalizing or prosecuting an individual based on "actual, potential, perceived or alleged pregnancy outcomes," including abortion, miscarriages and stillbirths.

[Pyperkub]

IMHO, unless the Air Resources Board is massively corrupted. I don't know about that, but I don't think it is.

I sure hope not I work there

So, it has a predilection for tracking the Garbage Trucks?

(Go Team Ethan!)

[Pyperkub]

Prop 1 is term limits and asset declaration. <<< I've yet to decide on this. Instincts tell me term limits are the right thing but we have so many idiots making headway as challengers that there is some sort of comfort to career politicians at this point... Also we already had term limits. I do really want enduring public disclosure of assets and finances, though.

In CA, one of the downsides to term limits has been a net transfer of legislative power to lobbyists (I've said this before many times) from elected representatives. The representatives don't have the institutional knowledge to get things done as much as the lobbyists.

WE effectively traded Willie Brown's stranglehold on getting things done in Sacramento to a group of unknown and unelected lobbyists. It's a bit of a quandary, but ultimately I do like that there be at least a public accountability, tho some of that does get transferred to the Governor's Office and how effective they are in working with the State Legislature. Asset disclosure as a positive could well tilt this calculus as you say, but do try to dig into long term impacts of the shifts.

[naednek]

IMHO, unless the Air Resources Board is massively corrupted. I don't know about that, but I don't think it is.

I sure hope not I work there

So, it has a predilection for tracking the Garbage Trucks?

(Go Team Ethan!)

They have been working with manufacturers on making electric garbage trucks. They invited Ethan to test the arm controls He had a blast. He's not so much into garbage trucks now though

[Pyperkub]

IMHO, unless the Air Resources Board is massively corrupted. I don't know about that, but I don't think it is.

I sure hope not I work there

So, it has a predilection for tracking the Garbage Trucks?

(Go Team Ethan!)

They have been working with manufacturers on making electric garbage trucks. They invited Ethan to test the arm controls He had a blast. He's not so much into garbage trucks now though

Sounds like that would be a lot of fun! Good for Ethan.

[Fireball]

Almost all proposition systems are bad. You shouldn't be putting public policy questions up to a popular vote.

The only propositions should be about structural facets of the government, to avoid the conflict of interest of having legislators vote on things like whether to outlaw their own ability to gerrymander.

[Carpet_pissr]

For South Carolina

Amendment 1

Must Section 36(A), Article III of the Constitution of this State, relating to the General Reserve Fund, be amended so as to provide that the General Reserve Fund of five percent of general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year must be increased each year by one-half of one percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year until it equals seven percent of such revenues?

Explanation

A ‘Yes' vote will increase the amount of money state government must keep in the General Reserve Fund (its "rainy day" fund) from 5% of the previous year's revenue to 7% of the previous year's revenue.

Amendment 2

Must Section 36(B), Article III of the Constitution of this State be amended so as to provide that the Capital Reserve Fund of two percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year be increased to three percent of the general fund revenue of the latest completed fiscal year and to provide that the first use of the Capital Reserve Fund must be to offset midyear budget reductions?

Explanation

A ‘Yes’ vote will increase the amount of money state government must appropriate to the Capital Reserve Fund (the “reserve and capital improvements” fund) from 2% of the previous year’s revenue to 3% of the previous year’s revenue and require that the Capital Reserve Fund’s first priority is to offset midyear budget cuts at state agencies.

I can't find any commentary yet on why we would or would not want to do this, so no idea how I'll vote just yet.

Here's my layman's, non-wonky commentary:

We are last or near last in MANY areas compared to other states, including education. Roads? SUCK. Other infrastructure? Awful. McBastard is constantly touting how much money we have saved. Whoop-dee fucking doo, man! Look around, your state is SHITTY. Maybe open up the pursestrings a bit. Hell, pay teachers a living wage - I know, that's crazy. Invest in making the state 'greener' so we don't lose all the big manufacturing contracts and relocation bids (yes we have lost big names due to this very issue).

I guess the people who live in gated communities, and have their kids in private schools, or can go to Duke if need to for serious health issues, don't have to worry about the effects of the state not spending money when it desperately needs to. He says SC is a paradise...and for him and his ilk, it is. All he has to do is close his eyes from the Governor's mansion to the state house, and open them again when he gets inisde the walls of one of his houses. It IS a paradise there. Beautiful swimming pool that was just clean by Guillermo earlier that morning. Smell of fresh cut grass (thanks, José!), beautifully manicured lawn and garden. Looks like someone is even washing his newest Mercedes - life IS good!

I should state that I recognize that throwing money at problems is not automatically going to fix them, but it CAN, and it CERTAINLY won't if you don't spend any. It is objectively true that we have lost a massive amount of good teachers who left the state to get better pay elsewhere. Now we are spending tons of money to import teachers from all over the world, and we can't even compete there! We aren't getting the highly educated Euros, or Aussies, or Singaporeans nooooooo. They are going to other states (this is happening all over the US, by the way, importing teachers is not a specific SC problem). We're consistently only able to pull from around 5 of the same countries, and let's just say those countries are not known for their education systems. So YAY! for our bulging coffers!

Disclaimer: I went to a private school from K-8th grade), I have lived (briefly, I abhorred it) in a gated community, but I have never owend a Mercedes however (and never would...absolutely terrible cars relative to others in that class!) I have also never been to Duke for medical treatment, but I HAVE been to MUSC, which is our version of Duke, in-state.

[stessier]

Right, but these are increases in the a Rainy Day and Reserve funds. I don't understand how and when these funds can be accessed. Does increasing the reserves actually help anything?

[Pyperkub]

Almost all proposition systems are bad. You shouldn't be putting public policy questions up to a popular vote.

The only propositions should be about structural facets of the government, to avoid the conflict of interest of having legislators vote on things like whether to outlaw their own ability to gerrymander.

How very un (early 20th Century) Progressive of you!

[Kraken]

Right, but these are increases in the a Rainy Day and Reserve funds. I don't understand how and when these funds can be accessed. Does increasing the reserves actually help anything?

I can't figure out if Carpet_pissr is for or against the ballot questions. I'm guessing he's against because he wants the state to spend money rather than save it?

[Carpet_pissr]

Right, but these are increases in the a Rainy Day and Reserve funds. I don't understand how and when these funds can be accessed. Does increasing the reserves actually help anything?

I can't figure out if Carpet_pissr is for or against the ballot questions. I'm guessing he's against because he wants the state to spend money rather than save it?

Correct. The Gov keeps crowing about how fat our coffers are while the state has many areas where money should be spent.

It’s like owning a house for 30 years and never putting a dime in it for improvements or repairs, and bragging how big your bank account is. Course it is, but your roof is leaking in three places, you have a massive termite infestation, and the HVAC died 7 years ago. Congrats?

[Kraken]

Well, the rainy day fund enables states to weather downturns without cutting services. But I can see opposing that if your services are sketchy to begin with.

[El Guapo]

Got any interesting ones?

In Massachusetts, Q1 (the millionaires tax) is the biggest. It would amend the constitution to impose a 4% income tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million, with the revenue dedicated to education and transportation, "subject to appropriation by the legislature." As a socialist, I like new taxes on rich people so this would seem to be a slam-dunk. Proponents say it will raise $2B per year and opponents say $1.3B. However, several things give me pause. First, there's nothing prohibiting the legislature from diverting other funds away from education and transportation, so the net gain to them could be zero. Second, the state is already awash in tax money -- so much so that they have to rebate $3B in overcollections for 2022. Third, some not-rich people will pay the surcharge when selling their small businesses; the legislature could create a carve-out for them, but that's uncertain. And finally, some rich people will just pack up and leave. Leaning Yes, but persuadable. Yes is leading in the polls but the rich are pouring lots of money into ads against it.

Q2 mandates that 83 cents of every dollar collected in dental insurance premiums is spent on patients' dental work. Dental insurance largely sucks and this would *probably* improve it somewhat. Yes. I've heard very little debate and don't know how it's polling.

Q3 is one of those why-are-you-even-asking-me-this? questions. In Mass., only packies can sell beer and wine, with some carve-outs for grocery and convenience stores within 10 miles of state borders. Q3 would allow some chain stores to start selling beer and wine in more locations. But the overall impact on alcohol sales and consumption in Massachusetts would be quite limited. It really doesn't matter and I don't care; in fact, I didn't even know what Q3 was until I looked it up just now. Yes, I guess.

Q4 is the other biggie. Our legislature voted to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses. The governor vetoed it; the legislature overrode. Now conservatives are asking voters to overturn it (a Yes vote would deny licenses to the undocumented). Experts say that offering licenses to unauthorized immigrants will encourage them to purchase cars, get insurance, and receive the training needed to pass a road test. What is more, it will reduce pressure to avoid police and publicly safety officers out of fear that simple traffic enforcement could lead to deportation. 16 other states already do this, with no negative repercussions. The Yes arguments are purely xenophobia. It's a clear No (don't repeal). Pretty sure No is leading.

FWIW I am casting my mail in ballot today, and voting the same as you, except I'm voting for the democrat in the auditors race. Just hard to put any Republicans in position of authority right now.

Also your "yes/no" on Q4 is reversed - yes keeps the law allowing undocumented to get licenses.

[Kraken]

Got any interesting ones?

In Massachusetts, Q1 (the millionaires tax) is the biggest. It would amend the constitution to impose a 4% income tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million, with the revenue dedicated to education and transportation, "subject to appropriation by the legislature." As a socialist, I like new taxes on rich people so this would seem to be a slam-dunk. Proponents say it will raise $2B per year and opponents say $1.3B. However, several things give me pause. First, there's nothing prohibiting the legislature from diverting other funds away from education and transportation, so the net gain to them could be zero. Second, the state is already awash in tax money -- so much so that they have to rebate $3B in overcollections for 2022. Third, some not-rich people will pay the surcharge when selling their small businesses; the legislature could create a carve-out for them, but that's uncertain. And finally, some rich people will just pack up and leave. Leaning Yes, but persuadable. Yes is leading in the polls but the rich are pouring lots of money into ads against it.

Q2 mandates that 83 cents of every dollar collected in dental insurance premiums is spent on patients' dental work. Dental insurance largely sucks and this would *probably* improve it somewhat. Yes. I've heard very little debate and don't know how it's polling.

Q3 is one of those why-are-you-even-asking-me-this? questions. In Mass., only packies can sell beer and wine, with some carve-outs for grocery and convenience stores within 10 miles of state borders. Q3 would allow some chain stores to start selling beer and wine in more locations. But the overall impact on alcohol sales and consumption in Massachusetts would be quite limited. It really doesn't matter and I don't care; in fact, I didn't even know what Q3 was until I looked it up just now. Yes, I guess.

Q4 is the other biggie. Our legislature voted to allow undocumented immigrants to get driver's licenses. The governor vetoed it; the legislature overrode. Now conservatives are asking voters to overturn it (a Yes vote would deny licenses to the undocumented). Experts say that offering licenses to unauthorized immigrants will encourage them to purchase cars, get insurance, and receive the training needed to pass a road test. What is more, it will reduce pressure to avoid police and publicly safety officers out of fear that simple traffic enforcement could lead to deportation. 16 other states already do this, with no negative repercussions. The Yes arguments are purely xenophobia. It's a clear No (don't repeal). Pretty sure No is leading.

FWIW I am casting my mail in ballot today, and voting the same as you, except I'm voting for the democrat in the auditors race. Just hard to put any Republicans in position of authority right now.

Also your "yes/no" on Q4 is reversed - yes keeps the law allowing undocumented to get licenses.

I get "vote blue no matter who." However, we're never going to destroy the R Party, which leaves either replacing it or rehabilitating it. I see no evidence of a new, principled conservative party emerging any time soon, so that only leaves rehabilitating it. The way to do that is to support the few remaining good Republicans when they dare show their faces. The fellow I voted for isn't an ideologue and doesn't espouse any offensive beliefs. He probably can't win, but if the sole non-MAGA Republican on the ticket can draw some crossover support and out-poll the deplorables...well, maybe that sends a muddy message. The GOP opposes him, so it will be interesting to see how many votes he can pull.

I realized I had Q4 reversed after I posted that. I swear the question was originally worded the way I explained it -- Yes meant "repeal the law."

I dropped our ballots in the collection box at Town Hall yesterday.