Yeah, I'm voting against the death penalty too. Some for the reasons you list, some because I feel that we should never have a death penalty so long as there is some possibility we might be executing an innocent person. Given how many people recently have been exonerated after years and years on death row, with things like DNA evidence proving they were innocent, it shows just how close we've gotten to having the state kill someone who had done nothing whatsoever wrong.
I also am in agreement for easing the 3-strike laws. I don't think society gains anything by locking up people for life for 3 relatively minor crimes. Doesn't serve any useful purpose, and costs the state shitloads of money.
I'm on the fence about 37. While I certainly support the basic premise, from what I understand there's a lot of gaps in how things are or aren't labeled, and it something of a confused muddle. While I'd definitely support a better-written initiative designed to do this same thing, I'm not sure about this one.
In other initiatives:
30 - Yes. Not the most pleasant package, but I think it's necessary. Yes, it raises some taxes, but actually, because of other taxes expiring, even with this measure, taxes will overall be LOWER than they were in 2010. Even with the extra money, the state's spending as a percentage of the state's GDP will be at the same level it was in 1972-73, so hardly an ultra-inflated level of any kind.
31 - Yes, definitely. Good reforms, including requiring bills to be posted online at least 3 days before they're voted on. No more cramming things through at the last minute without people getting a chance to read them.
32 - Hells no. Funded by giant corporations who want to change campaign funding rules, supposedly to cut down on big money spending to try and buy elections. Yet the way it's put together, the same giant corporations that are sponsoring it are EXEMPT from rules in the bill. So, they can still freely try and buy elections, just no one ELSE can. Unfair, badly put together, is an attack on unions, and all around a huge resounding no. Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE a bill that doesn't let ANYONE throw huge sums of money around, and would vote for it, but one that kills one side, but leaves the ones sponsoring the bill free reign to spend however they want? Hells no.
33 - Absolutely not. Same thing we rejected 2 years ago. It's an auto-insurance company spending tens of millions on the campaign, so that they will be able to legally gouge the fuck out of anyone who has a lapse in their auto insurance coverage for any reason. Happened all the time before it was outlawed in this state in 1988, there's no reason to let them start up again. And call me cynical, but when an insurance company spends 15-20 million on something, then claims its doing it so that they can charge me less for their services, my bullshit-o-meter goes into PANIC ALARM mode at the volume of incoming bullshit.
35 - Tighter laws against human trafficking: I'll be voting yes on this for sure.
38 - No. Attempts to do the same thing as 30, but in a stupider fashion. If 30 wasn't on the ballot, I'd vote yes for this, but since it is, this gets a no.
39 - Absolutely yes. Closes the loophole that gives companies INCENTIVES to move jobs out of California. They ship jobs out, and get a tax break for doing so. This closes that loophole. Damn straight I'm voting yes.
40 - Absolutely yes. This will maintain the re-drawn districts that were done by a citizen panel, instead of the old districts that were completely gerrymandered to maximize the chances for any 1 party's candidates in the districts. The citizen panel was 5 Dems, 5 Republicans and 4 independents, and since both major parties have whined about the new districts, it seems to me they must be doing a good job. Voting yes on this preserves the new districts. Voting now would send us back to the old politician-drawn ones. So, yeah, definitely voting yes.
Oh, and I will, of course, be voting for Obama and Feinstein.
-Arlos