What do you think of California's initiative process?  Is it working?
478414
No.\n\nIt wastes a lot of money, as every special interest group with any stake in any issue has to get out there and campaign.\n\nI don't think it does anything for the voters. It doesn't strengthen democracy. For Pete's sake: you elected folks to represent you in state government. If you don't like their representation, vote them out the next chance you get! And in the meantime, they should be making the decisions that you voted them into office to make, instead of punting to these initiatives all the time.\n\nAlso, I think that most people don't know enough about these issues to make sensible decisions. Elected representatives have staffs that research issues for them. They meet with experts. They collect testimony. Do you have time and resources to do all that for every issue that comes up? I know I don't. But putting these decisions directly into the hands of the voters means that people vote their emotions and opinions--their fears, usually--instead of the facts.\n\nIt's crazy.
979031
yes they just have to get california to cooperate with them which usually states cooperate with each other..
716485
Arnie. Thinks (mostly) for himself and he's learning how to be effective despite the legions of apathetic liberal democrats in this state while veering away from the legions of absolutely insane ultra-conservative republicans in our national government.  I do like the Governator.  As does 70% of (voting) Californians.  The other 30% of voters are entitled to their opinion and the non-voters can LICK IT.
1003118
I'm doing all I can barring picking up a weapon.\n\nI vote.\n\nI make phone calls.\n\nI sign petitions.\n\nI send e-mails.\n\nI mow my own lawn.\n\nWatch my own kids.\n\nClean my own house.\n\nCook my own food.\n\nI'm willing to do what it takes, but like most here in California, (I'm in Los Angeles) I think we're at a loss for what else we can do. No one is actually listening to legal residents. No one cares about the citizens.\n\nGive me my marching orders. I'll gladly do my part.
388870
I think it's fan-dam-tastic! Some of it doesn't go into effect until July 2007, but at least he DID something! Here's one report:\n\nATLANTA - Gov. Sonny Perdue on Monday signed a sweeping immigration bill that supporters and critics say will make Georgia's laws among the toughest in the nation.\n\n"I want to make this clear: we are not, Georgia's government is not, and this bill is not anti-immigrant," Perdue said Monday at a signing ceremony.\n\n"We simply believe that everyone who lives in our state needs to abide by our laws."\n\nThe Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act will verify that adults seeking many state-administered benefits are in the country legally. It sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants and mandates that companies with state contracts check the immigration status of their employees.\n\nThe law will also require police to check the immigration status of people they arrest to see if they face deportation orders.\n\nThe measure is believed to be the first comprehensive immigration package to make it through a statehouse this session, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.\n\nMany of the new law's provisions will not take effect until July 1, 2007.\n\nTisha Tallman, Southeast regional counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, said she was studying potential legal challenges to the bill\n\nTallman said she was "incredibly disappointed" that Perdue signed the bill, rather than waiting for the federal government to act.\n\nThe bill drew protests at Georgia's state Capitol and prompted a daylong work stoppage by thousands of immigrants.\n\nThe new law will not affect emergency medical care and education for children in kindergarten through 12th grade, which federal courts have said must be provided regardless of immigration status. Exemptions were also added for some other services like prenatal care and the treatment communicable diseases.\n\nThe move to tighten up rules in Georgia comes as lawmakers in Washington wrestle with competing proposals to shore up controls at the border, create a guest worker program and create a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the United States.\n\nOutside the Capitol on Monday, a few hundred supporters of the legislation roared their applause when word came that Perdue was planning to sign the proposal.\n\nThe crowd waved American flags and cheered as state Rep. Melvin Everson, one of the Georgia House's two black Republicans, denounced illegal immigration as a cancer and proclaimed: "The last time I checked, America was the land of English - not Spanish."\n\nAnd they hollered as Republican state Sen. Chip Rogers, the bill's author, called it "the strongest single bill in America dealing with illegal immigration - bar none."\n\nBut perhaps the greatest applause came when Catherine Davis, a black Republican running for Congress against U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, was introduced.\n\nIf Davis is elected, she vowed, "I'd tell all the illegal aliens to go home."\n\nAt the bill signing on Monday, Rogers said he has been approached by state lawmakers from South Carolina and Colorado who were interested in crafting similar proposals for their states. And Rogers said he hoped to introduce legislation next year tackling document fraud, which he said undermines efforts to enforce immigration law.\n\nRogers acknowledged the bill Perdue signed on Monday is not a cure all, but said the state was acting where the federal government refused to.
258099
May/June 1998\n\nBilingual Education and California's "English for the Children" Initiative: Researchers, Practitioners, and Policymakers Debate the Issues\n\nOn June 2, California voters will decide whether to eliminate bilingual education in their state. Proposition 227, also known as the "English for the Children" initiative or the Unz initiative after the name of its chief sponsor, proposes replacing current bilingual programs with a maximum of one year of "sheltered English immersion" (see "Models of Language Instruction"). In this case, parents would have to explicitly ask for their children to be placed in native-language programs.\n\nIf Proposition 227 passes, it could lead to a seismic shift in educating the nation's largest population of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students. With 1.4 million LEP students in the state, California is home to nearly half of the nation's population of young English learners. In March 1998, the state board of education gave school districts local control of decisions about educating LEP students. However, if Proposition 227 passes, it would override any other provisions.\n\nIn an effort to advance the dialogue about how best to educate students who do not speak English, the Harvard Education Letter asked some key supporters and opponents of the California ballot initiative to share their perspectives:
545562
I don't usually harp on errors but you have some typos that make your question confusing.\n\nFirst of all, I understand that perhaps 3/4 of California Senators have supported various illegal immigrant benefits, such as the driver's license benefit you mentioned, which the Governor has vetoed twice on National Security grounds.  (I think he wants a secure border so we aren't giving drivers licenses to terrorists.)\n\nI don't think that regardless of what the Senate says, the United States would let California succeed from the Union.  Look what happened to the Southern States when they tried it.  \n\nIf it did happen, the repercussions would be great, and the Minutemen would build a fence on the Nevada, etc. border. I would help them, as long as they let me run to their side with my family before it went up.\n\nIt won't happen, though.  Amongst other things, I think people are right when they say that if Mexican illegal immigrants wanted to be in Mexico, they would have stayed there.  They want to be in the United States so that they can benefit from the opportunities inherent in the United States' culture and economy.   Mexico does not offer those benefits, and adding a new 'state' wouldn't change the basic nature of the country.
237643
Wow, thanks for the update.\n\nI am assuming you mean the California congress.\n\nIt is an interesting proposition, but the Constitution grants the United States Congress with the power to control Naturalization. \n\nIt would be interesting to see if it could be passed, that would definitely seem like a separation of powers issue between the federal and state government.\n\nBut, of course if you are talking about the Federal Congress, they would seem to have the power.\n\nTo be honest California is in a unique situation though, they have a huge illegal immigrant problem, and once the child is a citizen, the parents may claim a need to stay to raise child.  \n\nIs California becoming that overpopulated?  And even if that is the issue that doesn't deal with the failure to detect illegal immigrants, and that would seem to be the real issue there.
948440
Californiia does a lot, but most of the ones we have do with housekeeping issues!\n\nThe Founding Father's never meant for this country or state be run by referendum! That is why California is such a mess!\n\nThat is just politicians unwilling to make the hard decisions, especially unpopular ones, which were all defeated in the election! Some concerning abortion or oulawing gay marriage
701871
I am writing from the US, but if this were an American organization I would check the charter document (Certificate of Incorporation) and By-Laws regarding the percentage of vote required to propose (as opposed to approve) a merger, as well as quorum provisions.  I would guess a simple majority, of not just a motion and a seconding of the motion, would be enough.\n\nAs for the substance of the measure and voting it up or down, look through ALL the by laws, and maybe Robert's Rules of Order, and try to use them to get your way, or at least to block what you don't want.\n\nIt's like a chess game, although of course much more serious.\n\nGood luck.
837227
Do not uphold the housing restrictions. It will create massive chaos and only make California communities less safe.\n\nJessica's Law is a political vehicle for Sharon and George Runner, not a thoughtfully written initiative. There are reasons why the California Assembly and Senate repeatedly declined to adopt laws with housing restrictions - because there is no proof that they have anything to do with public safety.\n\nThey're feel good laws designed to lull the public into a false sense of security. That's because the majority of child sex abuse is committed by someone the child already knows - not a stranger. \n\nAnyway, if you're asking this for JG's requrest, I already did it. If not, please consider what I have said. \n\nI am not a sex offender, although I know one. This law is a turkey and the housing restriction is totally unconstitutionaMF\n\nOn Wednesday, Nov. 15th, the attorney general filed a brief stating that the housing restrictions won't be retroactive. Maybe now that can be used as a precedent in other states that have housing restrictions. All the experts say housing restrictions actually make society less safe, not more. These restrictions are just designed to punish, not keep children safe.
1010567
I wish you would quit advertising this.  And please do have them verify California elections if things go weird. The addresses are on voter's registration cards.\n\nMind you California doesn't knowingly give driver's licenses to illegals anymore, although it used to, and many still are eligible to renew by mail. \n\nThis issue does have me concerned.\n\nWhat on earth is wrong with making sure those who register to vote are eligible to vote?  Yet the Democrats fight verification every time it comes up.  The last time was in a proposed amendment to the Senate immigration bill.
29290
MI is pretty bad off  BUT  Kentucky has seen the largest budget shortfall in its history as of yet.  Only last month did they finally balance a budget and cut almost every program by 20% to get it done.  Of course there is California which actually had a county (orange) declare bunkrupcy!
169561
Nothing. Call your State Legislature and ask him/her to introduce the bill. Ask others to do the same.\nNow if your thinking "grass roots referendum" to get the issue on the State vote, that's different.\nYour State may be different then mine.
326110
Go for it.  But I'm a California cop, so I don't know how well that will figure into your project.\n\nClick on the icon, and drop me a line.  We'll go from there.
1160100
This is something that is possible but requires great effort to make it happen.  There are good reasons for changing our states' boundaries.  Western and eastern Washngton have very different interests and economies, as do northern and southern California.  I grew up in the San Joaquin Valley of California.  I saw over time the millions in southern California having an inordinate influence on the lives and affairs of the rest of California.  All are good people but their interests can be so dramatically different and continuously at odds, leading to unending stalemates and unresolved problems.
1098661
Ted Kennedy probably runs the New England States more so than California. Schwarzenegger? Run California? Like elected officials would let that happen. The bureaucracy is so overwhelmingly on a power trip that nobody has power except for corporations and special interest lobbyists.