Voting “yes” on Proposition 9 would expand the constitutional rights of crime victims to equal those already granted by the state to criminals. By preventing the release of personal and confidential records to criminal defendants and forcing judges to consider the safety of victims and their family’s when making bail decisions for the accused, victims would be more secure against retributive acts by criminals. Proposition 9 would allow victims (with an expanded role given to family members) to participate in any public criminal proceedings.

It’s not often that a bill unites environmentalists and corporate interests, but Proposition 7 seems to have pulled it off. It’s also not often that a bill unites both political parties, but Proposition 7 also seems to have achieved that as well.

If America is addicted to oil, as current world leaders have claimed, then this bill is detox.

If Proposition 6 were to pass, it would siphon state allocated funds from schools, hospitals, childcare centers and existing public safety programs as it fails to create revenue. By imposing more bureaucracy and massive spending increases, the initiative would deepen California’s budget crisis and impede existing prevention and intervention programs. Such funding would be locked into the budget, regardless of the need and increased yearly relative to inflation.

Proposition 6, or the “Safe Neighborhoods Act,” is a comprehensive plan to decrease gang crimes through greater funding to local law enforcement and a streamlining of state agencies that provide intervention programs for youth. Prop. 6 also provides provisions for vacant facilities to be updated for the safe and secure confinement of felons for a short term to alleviate overcrowding of the county jail system. This would prevent crime associated with early released felons who feel empowered by a system that didn’t follow through on its duty to uphold the law.

It is indisputable that providing health care for sick children is morally good. It is also indisputable that the current costs of maintaining hospitals in California will increase over the next twenty years. However, what is not indisputable is whether this bill will free up hospitals to provide health care for sick children or whether it will simply line the pockets of politically savvy hospital administrators. Given the overwhelming inefficiencies, ambiguities and potential misapplications which this bill lends itself to, the latter scenario seems far more likely.

It is a tired but true statement that this bill doesn’t raise taxes, it saves lives. Those lives are the lives of one of California’s most vulnerable and crucial populations – children. As of now, California’s children’s hospitals routinely provide treatment to terminally ill children over one million times a year, regardless of their parents’ ability to pay for that treatment.

The impact of Prop. 2 on California’s egg industry could potentially be catastrophic. If forced to move to cage-free practices, egg producers will have to absorb an estimated 20 percent rise in production costs according to a UC Davis study. Ultimately, this proposal would make California produced eggs 25 percent more expensive than conventional, factory farm eggs shipped in from other states or even Mexico.

Proposition 2, the “Standards for Confining Farm Animals Initiative Statute” is a modest proposal, whose value to California communities outweighs the supposed costs to factory farmers and retail grocers. Voting yes on Prop. 2 would not only end the inhumane practices of cramming veal calves, egg-laying hens, and pregnant pigs into cages not much larger than their own bodies, but would help to open new markets to small family farmers and producers.