Five Ballot Proposal Questions

Baseball: I checked the Wild Card games online and Twitter (former Mets catcher, Anthony Recker, live tweeted the NL match-up).  Red Sox (early lead/clinched it mid-game) and Dodgers (bottom of the ninth) won.  Oh well.  I was tired of hearing about how much the Yanks struggled and they got to the playoffs anyway.

---- 

I saw a tweet about an article discussing the five ballot proposals put on the New York State ballot this election.  Since the mayoral race is non-competitive, as are the others (Bronx borough president, city council, comptroller, public advocate), this would add something to think about.  Plus, it would be a state matter, the other bunch city related. 

I'm not a big fan of ballot proposals.  They regularly are things required by the state constitution that the general voter will not know much about. For instance, one of the measures here is to raise the minimum in the New York City’s Civil Court.  Some might find this questionable but the article notes it is being promoted as a reform measure.  Okay. 

The first measure is a package of redistricting measures.  They appear okay as a whole though questionable if you should have to vote on it as a package. Plus, again, this seems like something better to be worked out by our representatives.  Ditto the two measures to make it easier to vote.  They seem fine, but why should I have to vote on them?  State constitutional barriers.

The last measure would add a state constitutional right: "Each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment."  Sounds like a "puppies are cute" sort of thing.  What exactly does that mean?  I'm fine with it myself as a general matter.  I think we probably have some sort of Ninth Amendment right now in some sense -- such a "positive right" would require legislative action, but so be it.  See, Justice Douglas making a passing mention in his dissent here.  

The article's pro/con that is pretty stacked (League of Conservation v. an oil lobbyist group?), but without more detail, I am not sure what it would actually mean.  Unnecessary litigation?  What sort of litigation not allowed now would be allowed if that passed?  It is so open-ended.  Perhaps, that is a reason to vote against it.  If I knew a bit more on the likely difference it would bring.  Again, I'm not a big fan of the average voter being asked to do that without more discussion.  At least candidates -- well not judicial ones -- have meet-ups, debates, and so forth.  

So yes on the redistricting (net good), yes and yes on voting, yes on the civil courts (sounds like the right people like it), and leaning yes on the last bit though more wary on that.  Sounds nice, but what does it mean?  Here is a bit more on it -- the measure received sizable support in the legislature.   A few other states have it.  But, what exactly it will do is still unclear.  

OTOH, if my complaint is that the legislature should decide, they already put it on the ballot.  My call would be to determine if it was so questionable that I should vote against.  Using that logic, probably yes across the board.