This is why I prefer vote by mail so much. I have the time to research the candidates and propositions, etc.

buying tons of TV adver. time. Same with meta/tech (Fuckerberg has a hand in this deception, no doubt).

I drop mine at the library up the street.
I get an email in 2 to 3 days saying my vote was counted,
Why is the rest of the country so fucked up?
Go Cal.

Question: Why no on both? (or - Can you lead me to a progressive advise for California Voters website )? Maybe Point me in the right direction?

When I get the sample ballots in the mail I usually will then sit down with the computer and do a lot of googling. Especially for non-partisan type of candidates.

I think I'm going to have to break down and pay for the pay wall for my local (Napa) newspaper. I hate pay walls and am kind of stubborn about signing up for any of them, but in the primaries, every one I wanted to look up led me to this one newspaper with pay walls.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/104029973

https://cadem.org/endorsements/


since the props are always confusing to me.

1) Yes -- Places fundamental right to abortion & the right to contraceptives in the CA Constitution

26) Neutral -- Authorizes new types of gambling.

27) No -- Out-of-state corps. take 90% of money. No real CA investment or jobs. 50+ CA tribes oppose

28) Yes -- Ensures ALL students in public schools get arts and music education – without raising taxes

29) Yes -- Protects dialysis patients by increasing clinic safety measures

30) Yes -- Prevents wildfires and reduces tailpipe pollution. Lower climate emissions, cleaner air

31) Yes -- Protects kids from Big Tobacco by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco and menthols

Snip

LA TIMES says NO....

The 2022 initiative — and the two before it — was placed on the ballot by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare West, which is in a protracted battle with the two largest private dialysis companies, DaVita and Fresenius, to organize workers. The measure has a number of needless provisions, such as requiring infections to be reported to the state, though these data are being reported to the federal government now, and prohibiting dialysis centers from discriminating due to payer source, which even the proponents say is not a problem now.

But the most consequential provision is the requirement that a physician, nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant with experience be on-site at all times at the roughly 650 dialysis centers in the state.

The proponents says the proposition is intended to improve patient care. It’s an assertion they can’t back up with evidence. No other state requires a doctor on-site, nor do the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services or the California State Department of Public Health, which regulates dialysis centers. Nor is there evidence that the current arrangement has harmed patients.


Sept. 4, 2022
The SEUI-UHW says the 9-1-1 service calls from dialysis centers suggest the need for more staff, though they offer no data that the volume is higher than might be expected given that dialysis patients often have other serious health conditions. It’s true that clinics often have to call for help if a kidney patient has an emergency, but that won’t change even with extra staff because they are not emergency medical facilities. And the trained nurses and technicians at dialysis clinics are just as equipped to deliver basic lifesaving care as doctors or nurse practitioners required under the proposition.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2022-09-06/endorsement-no-prop-29-dialysis-center-proposition-california

29) Yes -- Protects dialysis patients by increasing clinic safety measures

The dialysis industry wants to protect their gravy train.