How I am going to vote

Posted by on Oct 23 2008 | Amendment 49, Amendment 59, Government Largess, Purely Personal

People keep asking how I am going to vote on this fall’s ballot issues.  So I offer this up only as a way to show how I am going to vote personally – not as a call for you to vote this way, nor does this in any way represent the official views of the Independence Institute.  For links to the campaigns go to http://www.shakedowncolorado.org/issues-08/

46 – yes Government shouldn’t discriminate based on race.
47 – yes No one should be forced to pay tribute to a union to keep a job.
48 – no Too many unintended consequences, no exception for rape, incest, health of mother.
49 – yes Government shouldn’t be the bagman for lobbyists.
50 – yes If you don’t like gambling, don’t gamble, but don’t stop me.
51 – no Government has the money for the disabled if they prioritize.
52 – yes The roads need the cash, and we don’t need a tax increase.
54 – yes Government should put nearly all contracts out to bid.
58 – no We don’t need new taxes or higher gas prices.
59 – no Don’t destroy the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights.
L – yes If you can drink at 21, you can run for office.
M – yes Obsolete provisions in constitution.
N – yes More obsolete provisions in constitution.
O – no Don’t take power from the people.

Now go out and vote.  And if you’re dead, vote twice.

7 comments for now

7 Responses to “How I am going to vote”

  1. chris

    Thanks, Jon. I’m in step on all but O. Don’t you think the constitution is becoming a little cluttered? What am I missing?

    24 Oct 2008 at 7:22 am

  2. Kirk Saville

    I have been searching the web for information on the conservative ranking of the judges which are on the Colorado ballot and seeking retention to the courts. I have not found anything which would give me an idea of where these judges stand on the issues and how the rule in cases that I consider to be of importance. My normal course of action is to say no to all of them however, I think it is important to keep the good ones in today’s environment. Do you have any recommendation as to where to locate the information on these judges?

    27 Oct 2008 at 10:23 am

  3. Jon Skripko

    Thanks for all your work in educating the public on the modern day Robin Hoods who steal from the hard-working middle class and redistribute the wealth to the lazy people in our society. I agree with you on most issues, but we are apart on handgun rights and abortion. So if you are going to kill me so I may vote twice, please do it before the third tri-mester or with a rifle (not a handgun).

    27 Oct 2008 at 3:41 pm

  4. Jessa Fee

    Thank you for breaking it all down as far as the dazzling array of amendments is concerned. I was still.sitting.here. tonight wondering how to vote on 47, when a thorough discussion of the amendment on your show (instead of outrage at the Palin lynching) clarified the issues for me.

    I have found some information on many of the judges on http://www.judgepedia.org (click on the State Index).
    I also googled the crap out of them.

    28 Oct 2008 at 12:17 am

  5. Patrick "Buzz" Kenney

    Thankee, ‘preciate your help

    29 Oct 2008 at 2:26 am

  6. Bill Caxton

    See the Commissions on Judicial Performance at http://www.cojudicialperformance.com/.

    Then, click on 2008 “Judicial Performance Reviews”.

    Choose the judge or county (and then the individual judge), scroll to the bottom of the narrative. The last sentence is in the form: “View the complete Judicial Performance Report for the Honorable NAME in pdf format.”

    You may download the Judicial Performance Report for that judge. Be advised: these are long documents. The surveys are often completed by a small number of attorneys and non-attorneys who have appeared before that judge.

    Trying to determine the judicial philosophy of a trial court judge, or find individual rulings, is almost impossible in our system. The people with the most amount of information about what judges do and how they do it are those who appear before the judges most often – attorneys.

    As an example of “judicial philosophy,” consider the statements by Christine Arguello, recently appointed to the federal bench in the District of Colorado. She can’t get past her ethnicity. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/26/brimmer-arguello-confirmed-federal-judges-colorado/

    “Arguello called it ‘extremely exciting’ and said she is particularly proud of being the first Hispanic federal district court judge in Colorado.

    “’It’s so symbolic to this community,’ she said.”
    Is symbolism to “this community” important to how she rule in a case? What are we to expect of her rulings?

    Attorneys are careful about what they say and write about judges because that attorney will likely be before that judge again. If the attorney states something negative about the judge, and the judge learns of it, then there may be dire consequences in the next case that attorney has before that judge. Evidentiary rulings, for example, can go against the attorney, which means against the attorney’s client, and eventually a loss may occur in that case.

    01 Nov 2008 at 9:39 am

  7. [...] This is what I did today. [...]

    04 Nov 2008 at 11:34 am

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

Clicky Web Analytics