Rhode Island referenda

[jwgh]

I don't have any particular insights about any of these, so I would be interested in the views of others on any of these questions. The full list of referenda and explanations is available as a PDF from here.

Question 1: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (RESORT CASINO IN WEST WARWICK TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED BY A RHODE ISLAND BUSINESS ENTITY ESTABLISHED BY THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE AND ITS CHOSEN PARTNER)

A tentative no, even though I don't really have a problem with the Narragansetts opening a casino. It seems like the same result could be achieved without amending the constitution.

Question 2: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (ELECTIONS – RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS)

This restores the right to vote to all people who have been discharged from a correctional facility. (Previously, if they had a suspended sentence or were on parole or probation they still couldn't vote.)

I will vote yes on this. I don't have a problem with ex-cons voting. Also, it seems like whenever the criteria for who gets to vote becomes more complicated, one result is that a certain number of people who should be allowed to vote are incorrectly told they can't; it's a situation that's ripe for abuse and this amendment seems to simplify things a bit.

There are then a bunch of budgetary ones.

Question 3: AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE (BUDGET RESERVE ACCOUNT)
Question 4: HIGHER EDUCATION BONDS -- $72,790,000
($65 million for a new college of pharmacy building at URI, the rest for renovations at RIC.)
Question 5: TRANSPORTATION BONDS -- $88,500,000
(Mostly to repair bridges and roads, but also a little money for public transit stuff.)
Question 6: ROGER WILLIAMS PARK ZOO BONDS -- $11,000,000
(It seems to be somewhat vague as to what they will spend this money on. The DEM estimates the 'useful life' of the improvements to be 25-30 years.)
Question 7: FORT ADAMS STATE PARK RECREATION AND RESTORATION BONDS -- $4,000,000
(Half for general improvements, half to restore the fort.)
Question 8: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT BONDS -- $3,000,000
(This is 'to provide funding assistance for local communities to develop,acquire or renovate recreation facilities.')
Question 9: AFFORDABLE HOUSING BONDS -- $50,000,000
(Mostly for the creation of affordable apartments, but $10 million is to create 'affordable home ownership opportunities.)

My inclination is to vote for all of these, but I don't know anything about them beyond what's in the booklet. Does anyone else? Update: The East Greenwich Pendulum discusses the referenda, and some more information is here.

As far as candidates go, I am basically going for a straight Democratic ticket. I do like Senator Chaffee -- he seems to think for himself a lot of the time, and I actually sent him a letter not long ago thanking him for his votes on a couple of bills -- but it just seems vital to me to, if at all possible, get rid of the Republican majority in the Senate, and I feel that by being a member of that Republican majority he is indirectly responsible for some very bad things indeed. (Also, I like Sheldon Whitehouse OK and voted for him the last time he ran for governor.)

What do you think?

Comments

[saucypunk.livejournal.com]

i encourage voting! I didn't get my absentee ballot in time, so unless i want to skip class on tues and somehow get to ri, i'm not going to be able to.

however, here's how i would vote on the stuff i know about:

- no to the casino! i don't know as much about this one, but it would throw our economy all haywire, no doubt.
- yes to 9! the affordable housing people know what they're doing, and that money will be spent well.
- whitehouse for senator! as good a guy as chaffee has been, he's still a republican. and we need a democratic majority more than anything.

[jwgh]

Update: I talked about this with my cousin David and with CMonti. They disagreed with the above analysis in the following ways:

Question 1: Cousin David knows (and used to work for) the Narragansetts, and the head of the tribe asked him to vote 'Yes', so he's going to.

Question 7: David and Chris said they like the park the way it is, so what the hell?

Zoo Bond

[passionof-arms.livejournal.com]

I'm still trying to figure out the questions too, although I know a bit about the zoo bond that may help you out. The zoo has four major projects that total about 35 million including expansion of the elephant and giraffe exhibit, a new north american trail (polar bears will be back), a new children's zoo and a new vet hospital. They are raising most of the funds (over 20 million) and are looking to close the gap with the bond. Seems to make sense to me. I love to go there and I know the zoo is important to tourism and to the state. They see over 600,ooo visitors per year. I'd rather see jobs created there than for a casino. Their web site is thenewzoo.org.

voting criminals

[vardissakheli.livejournal.com]

I've never understood denying votes to criminals, or why that "or other crime" is stuck in the Fourteenth Amendment, and even the difficulty of precisely pinning down "insurrection or rebellion" gives me some pause. It seems trivially obvious to me, when the ruling party gets to determine what's a crime, that provides a pretty direct mechanism to disenfranchise their opponents, either through slanted legislation or by selective enforcement.

As for Q1, are you sure a constitutional amendment would actually not be needed? Your state constitution is as long and detailed as ours (and I don't have the patience actually to read through either one), so I wouldn't be surprised if it contained some specific prohibition that had to be repealed. Amending the constitution to benefit one business interest may "just seem stupid" as Talysman reports, but, if the constitution as it stands unfairly harms that interest, failing to amend it because of that perception would have to be even stupider.

Re: voting criminals

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Massachusetts had a ballot proposition to let convicted felons vote in prison a few years back. It didn't pass, but I voted for it. The state is at least pretty good about restoring the vote to felons who have served out their terms.

There are a bunch of states, mostly in the South, that disenfranchise felons for life, which seems like the variant most obviously ripe for abuse as well as accidental bad consequences. Of course, the laws were enacted as ways to deny the vote to as many black people as possible without explicitly doing so.

Re: voting criminals

[jwgh]

I remember that when Bill Clinton pardoned Marc Rich and others in his final days in the White House, I did some poking around and one of the things I found out was that it's pretty common for Presidents to pardon people (generally influential people or friends) who had already served out their sentences so they could regain their right to vote.

[thesparklychick.livejournal.com]

Regarding question 1, I thought the constitutional amendment was necessary because the current constitution says that any lottery must be state run. I'm not positive on that. I was originally going to vote yes but I am currently worried about the effect on PPAC if they build the casino.

Question 2, I haven't decided yet but perhaps those released should have to prove that they can become productive members of society by following their probation before their right to vote is restored. But I appreciate your thoughts on the subject since I'm still on the fence.

The only other thought I can offer is that the $ for the pharmacy building at URI seems necessary. I just read that they can only offer 90 spots each year for 1,000 applicants.

[cpr94.livejournal.com]

Question 2, I haven't decided yet but perhaps those released should have to prove that they can become productive members of society by following their probation before their right to vote is restored.

Here are my thoughts on this in no particular order.

1. Isn't being released from prison supposed to be that proof, more or less?

2. It's bad enough that our criminal system focuses on doling out punishment more than trying to get people to reform i.e. become better members of society. Once people are released and on parole, wouldn't it be better to send them the signal that society is placing faith in them and trying to welcome them back into the fold? Telling them they still can't vote is like saying, "Hey, asshole, we had to let you out of prison, but don't bother trying to play by society's rules because we're never really going to accept you." If people feel like they won't be forgiven, they'll tend toward recidivism. Giving any one person the vote is unlikely to sway an election, but denying the vote could have a big impact on that one person's attitude toward fitting into society. Cost of improperly giving a vote is small; cost of improperly denying a vote is big.

3. Prison and parole restrictions are rife with potential for political abuse.

4. Always err on the side of enfranchisement. The burden of proof should be on those who would deny the right to participate in democracy.

5. An enormous percentage of our "criminals" are people who've smoked or held or somehow been related to marijuana but done no harm to anyone. I think far more harm is done to society by white-collar criminals who steal thousands or millions of dollars each but aren't even getting arrested. Oh, and those people are more likely to vote, and far, far more likely to influence an election through funding campaigns. In short, our criminal system does a pretty bad job of serving justice.

6. People who haven't been sent to jail don't have to prove that they're productive members of society in order to vote. That's because it's a hard thing to define fairly and clearly.

7. However it would be defined, I see no reason that it would predict voting wisely anyway. Even if we assume that most people who vote are productive members of society, in every election about half of them vote for the losing candidate. So in any election, whether you favor Republicans or Democrats, you have to admit that about half the voters make the wrong choice anyway. (Unless you really think both sides are about equally good. That doesn't seem to be too common.)

[katrinkles.livejournal.com]

question 1 - i'm voting no. only a tiny percent of the profits from the casino go to the narragansetts (i think it is 2%?). i'm part indian and i agree that the history of this country sucks. but i grew up less than a mile from lincoln greyhound park which has slot machines. you wouldn't believe how many of the parents of people i went to high school with had gambling problems. i don't feel like we need more gambling in our state. and i'm not just voting no because i don't want a casino, i'm voting no because i don't think there's a good reason to change the constitution. i don't think it's a good deal for the tribe or the rest of the state.
question 2 - yes.
all the other questions - question 6 involves expanding on the facilities of the zoo, which would allow for breeding of the giraffes. i like giraffes. question 7 - the fort is falling apart and so i don't see why it wouldn't be a good idea to grant the money it needs for repairs since i enjoy the use of it as a facility for music and events.
i can't decide about chaffee vs. whitehouse, i think whitehouse is a weasel.

[jwgh]

After poking around online a little, it looks like it's 5% maybe?

Chaffee vs. Whitehouse is tough. Chaffee certainly seems principled; he voted against the Iraq war, which is more than a lot of Democrats can say. But having the Republicans in control of the Senate has been so awful ...

[cpr94.livejournal.com]

I know what you mean about wanting a Democrat majority in the Senate. But then, if Chafee didn't even follow the flock on voting for the Iraq war, he sounds like he wasn't really part of the problem of the Republican control of the Senate.

Also, it's nice to have some reasonable people moderating the Republican party. We all win when reasonable people are in both parties, and we all lose when either party becomes dominated by irrational extremists. In fact, that's really the biggest problem with the Republican party as it's been lately, thanks largely to Rove's strategy of screw-the-moderates,just-turn-out-the-nutcase-diehards.

[jwgh]

The majority party has a lot of power in terms of setting the agenda, being able to block items forward or prevent them from going forward, etc.

Chaffee's actually gotten a lot of support from the RNC for this election, because they think he could win. Do you think they would support him if they didn't think his presence in the Senate would help them further their goals?

[cpr94.livejournal.com]

A good point, though I think there are other motivations I don't understand. Maybe personal relationships, maybe general party loyalty.

Then again, maybe the RNC figures if the Senate is extremely close, maybe Chafee will tow the party line more than he has so far with a comfortable Republican majority. There's also the PR aspect of how many seats change hands, though I suspect that's a small issue compared to having a Senator you expect to vote with you.

[katrinkles.livejournal.com]

so true. i'm not sure yet what i'm going to do about them.