On this episode, Camille and I look ahead to propositions that are already either on the ballot for 2024 or trying to get on the ballot. We also discuss how a proposition even gets on the ballot and the politics behind how they are used.
Links Mentioned in Show
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article268884032.html
https://ktla.com/news/california/these-propositions-are-already-attempting-to-make-the-california-ballot-in-2024/
*The California Underground Podcast is dedicated to discussing California politics from a place of sanity and rationality.*
Support California Underground on Patreon at www.patreon.com/CaliforniaUnderground
Follow California Underground on Social Media Instagram: www.instagram.com/californiaunderground
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCj8SabIcF4AKqEVFsLmo1jA
Substack: https://substack.com/profile/72986149-ca_underground
Shop California Underground Merchandise: https://california-underground.creator-spring.com
Review the Anchor.Fm Privacy Policy: Anchor - The easiest way to make a podcast
00:00:01
What's going on everybody? Thanks for tuning in to another
00:00:03
episode of California underground podcast, tonight
00:00:06
Camille. And I are going to dive into
00:00:08
propositions for 2024. Yes, that's correct.
00:00:13
There are already propositions slithering their way through the
00:00:17
process making their way to a ballot in two years and what
00:00:23
better time to start thinking about those propositions than
00:00:27
December of 2022. Right?
00:00:30
It's a good time. It's a good time to already
00:00:32
start looking at them and seeing what's coming down the pike.
00:00:35
Because a lot of these, you'll eventually start to see plenty
00:00:38
of advertising and campaign ads and all that stuff in about two
00:00:42
years. But until then, we'll see which
00:00:45
one's get enough signatures, which ones I've been submitted
00:00:48
for signatures. We're going to talk a little bit
00:00:50
about how does a proposition actually get started.
00:00:54
I think it's important because we're already talking about
00:00:57
propositions for 2024 which shows Shows that this takes a
00:01:01
long time. Like this process is an easy, it
00:01:03
just doesn't happen overnight. So we're going to start off with
00:01:07
that, but first off Camille. How are you doing tonight?
00:01:10
I'm good. Thank you.
00:01:11
How are you good? So should we just jump right
00:01:14
into? Like, how does a proposition?
00:01:16
Let's do the Schoolhouse Rock. Like, how does a proposition?
00:01:19
Get to the California ballot. Okay, you can start us off.
00:01:28
I'll tell you, you know not about signing a petition on
00:01:31
change.org before. Yes.
00:01:35
Yeah. I think you were kind of
00:01:37
inspired to do this episode because I and I agree.
00:01:41
I see a lot of these people who kind of just pass around like,
00:01:44
oh, sign this change.org thing that will change its like those
00:01:48
petitions, you might as well go out into a field and screaming
00:01:51
to this son because nothing's going to happen.
00:01:53
It's about the same amount of stuff that's actually going to
00:01:55
happen. And if you want stuff to
00:01:58
actually happen in terms of stuff that people can vote on
00:02:02
and actually change laws, California has this met this
00:02:06
venue called propositions and referendums, they're two
00:02:10
different things. You can propose, new changes to
00:02:14
the Constitution, the California Constitution.
00:02:16
That's why we have like one but Jillian, amendments to the
00:02:18
California Constitution, and you can also go and have a
00:02:23
referendum, which is when Legislature passes a bill.
00:02:29
We don't like it, then they start a referendum.
00:02:32
You get enough signatures what was the last one?
00:02:34
It was prop 30, this time, this past election which was a
00:02:39
referendum on flavored tobacco Banning flavored tobacco.
00:02:43
I don't think it passed. So but that's an example of
00:02:46
like, what a referendum is is voters.
00:02:49
Can if they don't like it, they can actually go start these
00:02:52
submit them and get a bill taken off the books.
00:02:57
First process. Sorry, did you know that?
00:03:00
Not all states allow that like for as much as we complain about
00:03:03
California? Not every state actually has
00:03:05
this process? No, it's true.
00:03:09
When I was Voting back in my home.
00:03:11
State of Old State. I should say, my Homestay is
00:03:13
California. Now, it's not New Jersey really
00:03:15
anymore when I was Voting there, they don't have propositions or
00:03:20
referendums they have what are called State questions?
00:03:24
So they have No binding effect on the legislature.
00:03:28
It's basically, like a straw poll of the voters to be like,
00:03:32
hey, do you think we should raise the tax on cigarettes?
00:03:36
And you would say yes or no and there be light but it wouldn't
00:03:41
have any binding effect like by law.
00:03:44
When a proposition passes, either a law has to get amended
00:03:48
or changed or revoked entirely or the California Constitution
00:03:52
gets changed or amended or there's a new Constitutional
00:03:55
Amendment. Ain't so yeah, every state does
00:03:57
not do this little history, this started around the Progressive
00:04:02
Era, I think, as his Governor Hiram, who was at one point
00:04:09
considered to likely be the VP of Teddy Roosevelt when he was
00:04:14
running under the Bull Moose Party.
00:04:16
So there is that whole like Progressive Era which shocker to
00:04:21
most people who don't know this, you know, who started the
00:04:23
Progressive Movement, it was actually.
00:04:26
And so just throwing that out there.
00:04:29
The Progressive Movement was done.
00:04:32
What's that they were they were having their own inciting at the
00:04:35
time and wanted to make people certain people wanted to Branch
00:04:40
off and start kind of a new Republican party.
00:04:43
That's nice right here. No, it's a no, it's absolutely
00:04:47
true. That that's actually the.
00:04:50
Yeah, I mean, we're I mean, I'm a I like Teddy Roosevelt.
00:04:53
I call myself an amateur, Teddy Roosevelt historian.
00:04:57
Yeah, there was a strong Progressive wing of the
00:05:00
Republican party, which is where Teddy.
00:05:02
L came from, get a lot of followers, he was very popular.
00:05:06
And there was this other sort of establishment part of the
00:05:09
Republican party that kind of wanted to keep things the way
00:05:12
they were didn't really like Teddy Roosevelt and all the
00:05:15
things that they were proposing they were more in bed with like
00:05:20
John D Rockefeller and JP Morgan and actually that's a whole
00:05:24
interesting story too, but we're going to get way off tangent.
00:05:28
But yeah, there was a whole split and that's why there was
00:05:30
the Bull Moose Party. And You know, I love Teddy
00:05:33
Roosevelt but if he didn't run as The Bull Moose it would have
00:05:36
likely not had Woodrow Wilson. Be President, Woodrow Wilson
00:05:40
signed into law, some of the worst things like the Federal
00:05:43
Reserve and the income tax and all that stuff.
00:05:45
Anyway, a little history anyway, little history lesson.
00:05:49
So it was it was this governor. Governor Hiram, who was a
00:05:54
progressive, Republican governor of California.
00:05:57
They started adding these amendments to the California
00:06:01
Constitution. Propositions and referendums
00:06:04
those two things because they believed that the power should
00:06:07
be with the people and the people should be able to hold
00:06:11
their politicians accountable, use this process.
00:06:14
If they don't like something, they can get rid of it, if they
00:06:16
do want something, they don't have to wait for the
00:06:18
legislature. They can do it themselves.
00:06:20
So, that's a little bit of history on where propositions
00:06:23
and referendums come from. So it's good to know what's the,
00:06:28
what's the first step? I want to get a proposition to
00:06:32
To this is something I thought about the other day.
00:06:37
I want to get a proposition, that will make it a law that
00:06:40
requires all parking, lots in California to post their prices
00:06:45
per hour while I'm driving by. So, I know what I'm paying
00:06:50
before I get into the parking lot.
00:06:53
Okay, so that sounds like more like is that a county or you on
00:06:57
that across the state? Oh, okay.
00:07:00
Well, what's the difference? I have not studied counties but
00:07:04
I could tell you about States. Okay, let's say we want to go
00:07:07
across the state. You will have to write
00:07:10
legislation. You're allowed to write your
00:07:12
own. You're allowed to seek your own
00:07:13
counsel, which I'm sure you have access to view that, given that
00:07:17
you are an attorney and you would have to write of
00:07:19
legislation. And then you have to get, I
00:07:21
believe 25 sep. Adventures of electors, electors
00:07:24
being 2525, California residents who are age 18 or over who are
00:07:30
illegally here and can legally vote.
00:07:32
And they must find this. There is actually, if you do not
00:07:35
have someone to help you write this, you actually can go to
00:07:38
their. I forget what it's called, but
00:07:39
the state has its wall ba legislation.
00:07:42
Let you could actually go to them and they will help you
00:07:44
write it up. And I don't know the exact
00:07:48
formula how many days before which election and all that, but
00:07:52
there's like a Thousand dollar fee.
00:07:53
You have to file these things. You have to have the signatures
00:07:55
it's written up. It has to be within a certain
00:07:57
amount of days of the election and Do you know more?
00:08:01
Because that was not very detailed.
00:08:06
I know, I know. It's some point.
00:08:07
You have to submit it to the is at the Secretary of State, I
00:08:13
believe or the Attorney General, the Attorney General, the
00:08:16
Attorney General, we're going to talk about one of the
00:08:18
propositions and why it's so devious that they do submit to
00:08:21
the attorney general then it has to get cleared for full
00:08:27
signature Gathering. So there's like different
00:08:30
stages. You get it, you qualify it
00:08:32
submitted to the attorney general, then they say, okay,
00:08:35
you're good to go. Now you have to get certain
00:08:39
amount of signatures and it's something like percentage of how
00:08:45
many people voted in the last election.
00:08:49
If I know, I don't know what the percentage is.
00:08:53
Just to get it. Like submitted, you get it
00:08:57
written up, you get it submitted, you pay.
00:08:59
The two thousand dollar flying to the attorney general.
00:09:02
So that should the Attorney General.
00:09:05
And now, I know. Sorry, I'm trying to find out
00:09:11
how many signatures are required.
00:09:14
Anyway. Sorry.
00:09:14
You can you can keep talking. Yeah.
00:09:17
It's a, no, it's a percentage of how many people voted in the
00:09:20
last election. So for example, this was lower
00:09:25
turnout. This midterm election.
00:09:27
Not as much as the recall. Obviously, the recall is
00:09:29
definitely more contentious and a lot of people showed up.
00:09:32
So for propositions going to 2024 This is actually a benefit
00:09:39
to them because the bar is a lot lower this time.
00:09:43
They only need a certain amount of, like, for example, the
00:09:47
education proposition that we tried to get past, which was
00:09:51
school choice. I think it had the first
00:09:55
go-around, I had to get like, well over a million signatures.
00:09:59
Now they only have to get 700.
00:10:02
So, to give you an idea, it's not always a set amount of
00:10:06
numbers of how You have to get, it's just whatever the
00:10:09
percentage is based on the last election and then go through
00:10:15
that whole process, they bug you, when you're coming out of
00:10:17
Trader, Joe's or Whole Foods and say, hey do you want to save the
00:10:21
children or save the whales or save the sea turtles even though
00:10:25
the proposition has nothing to do with any of that everyone
00:10:28
signs off on it. It goes back to the Secretary of
00:10:31
State, they have to verify all the signatures because there
00:10:36
could be duplicates. There could be people.
00:10:37
You don't live in California, ship people who are just
00:10:41
visiting, they just sign it. So you have to get all those
00:10:44
signatures verified. If you get all those signatures
00:10:47
verified, congratulations. Your proposition is now finally
00:10:52
on the ballot and people are going to get to vote on it long
00:10:56
as Times New Roman and spaced. However, there's literally all
00:11:03
that. Oh, yeah.
00:11:05
Well, it did. They got to make it as hard as
00:11:07
possible? They could they're not going to
00:11:08
make it easy for people to actually get proposition to.
00:11:17
Do you have to do it? Exactly.
00:11:20
And that's why it costs a lot of money and it's a lot of
00:11:23
organization, it's not easy to do and that's why a lot of
00:11:29
propositions. Usually those with money are the
00:11:31
most successful. We're going to talk about that
00:11:33
in a little bit. But there are some we want to
00:11:37
dive into right now, so which is one you want to dive into right
00:11:43
now that we can talk about. There's two that are officially,
00:11:48
they're qualified for sure, which is the pandemic preventive
00:11:55
tax. And then there was another one
00:11:57
regarding what was it fun? I mentioned it to you because I
00:12:04
was so curious about your opinion on it, I think it had to
00:12:07
do with pakka. Oh, the yeah, the private
00:12:11
attorney general act. Professional opinion.
00:12:18
I mean, I don't really know too much about private attorney
00:12:20
generals. I think it has to do with
00:12:23
employee law and something about not being able to sue your
00:12:28
employer for certain things. Yeah.
00:12:32
So it looks like it wants to repeal the private attorney
00:12:34
generals act and replace it with new process for remedy and labor
00:12:37
violations. I mean, I don't really know too
00:12:40
much about it. Outside of the package has been
00:12:43
pretty popular as a way to protect employees, right?
00:12:49
I can't even let me just poke around, see what it is.
00:12:51
I can't imagine that whatever they want to replace it with is
00:12:54
going to be a better solution. Let's see.
00:12:58
A yes, vote supports. This ballot initiative to repeal
00:13:00
paga and replace it with a new law that would double statutory
00:13:02
and civil penalties for willful, violators require that 100% of
00:13:06
monetary penalties be awarded to harmed employee.
00:13:09
Is okay, provide resources to employers to ensure people were
00:13:13
using their own attorneys to Sue.
00:13:16
And now the state wants in on that because attorneys are
00:13:18
making too much money. So the state wants to make sure
00:13:21
they that that makes sense. Yeah, that's that absolutely
00:13:27
makes sense. Provide resources to employers
00:13:29
to ensure labor compliance require the division of labor to
00:13:32
be a party to all complaints, of course because the, you know,
00:13:36
the state wants to get their little Piece of the pie like you
00:13:40
said, so definitely this is qualified.
00:13:45
That is qualified. It's something that and it's
00:13:48
something that I feel like is so confusing that it would likely
00:13:52
pass because people don't know what the heck paga is.
00:13:57
I could definitely see a good amount of attorneys and big to
00:14:03
do like attorney organizations. Funding the anti opposition
00:14:08
campaign to this because they don't want to lose what is very
00:14:12
good for them. But yeah, those are on the
00:14:16
ballot. We're going to talk about the
00:14:18
pandemic early detection because you came up with a lot of
00:14:21
interesting stuff about that one.
00:14:22
So we'll save that one will tease people to stay tuned until
00:14:26
the end. Yeah, stay tuned.
00:14:29
We'll be right back. Remove voter approval,
00:14:32
requirement for public. Low-rent housing project
00:14:35
Amendment this. You said to me, what you sent to
00:14:37
me, which was really interesting.
00:14:39
Repeals constitutional requirement.
00:14:41
That voters approve publicly funded housing projects as
00:14:44
certain rent levels. So this is it used to be.
00:14:47
You'd have to give voter approval now they're trying to
00:14:51
get rid of that. So real quick, this one's not
00:14:55
yet qualified but almost there in the signature Gathering
00:14:57
stage, I believe. So, it's written.
00:15:00
It's gone through the initial stages and now they're just
00:15:03
collecting interesting. Because I'm looking at
00:15:07
ballotpedia says on the ballot. Just hang on.
00:15:11
Yeah, sorry, no problem. But so a yes vote supports a.
00:15:19
Many of the California Constitution will repeal article
00:15:21
34, which requires local voter approval via about measure.
00:15:24
For federal, and/or state government, funded housing
00:15:27
projects classified as low rent. So, this is definitely like a
00:15:31
NIMBY NIMBY or GMB. Proposition meaning to you.
00:15:38
Yes. Do you want to have low rent
00:15:40
public housing in your backyard or no?
00:15:42
Do you not want low-rent public housing?
00:15:45
And I can imagine, there's a good amount of people.
00:15:48
This, this could be a proposition with the right Scare
00:15:52
Tactics and the right opposition would likely fail, but I think
00:16:00
they're just trying to figure out ways to, but build more low.
00:16:04
Rent housing in California. Housing is obviously an issue,
00:16:07
but I don't think shoving it down people's throats and taking
00:16:11
away their ability to vote on it.
00:16:13
It's a good idea. Well, here's the thing, here's
00:16:15
how it's packaged. It's packaged.
00:16:17
Like we would be horrible people to say that we don't want them
00:16:20
housing, right? We need low income housing and
00:16:22
so full of like, no, I don't want that.
00:16:24
That we're obviously over evil people who are against poor
00:16:27
people and low-income families. Please and, you know, all that,
00:16:31
but it takes away the local communities, right to vote and
00:16:37
the legislation can come in and decide what their 2/3 vote.
00:16:41
And you and I are both very big fans of local government and we
00:16:45
the people control, right? This takes government control.
00:16:49
This takes, it's like that was down to the legislator, not up
00:16:51
to the people. And therefore, I don't like this
00:16:55
bill, simply because of that, because that's just then, one
00:16:57
more step of Removing us from being able to vote for these
00:17:01
little local things that matter to us and, and just giving more
00:17:06
power to the government. Whereas I'm always less power
00:17:09
plus power in these people and some people.
00:17:12
And so, regardless of what the bill is, how it's packaged
00:17:16
because it takes away, power from the local communities, and
00:17:19
puts it into the hands of the government, then it should not
00:17:21
be, it should not pass. We should vote.
00:17:22
No. I agree.
00:17:25
Yeah, I'm not a fan of giving. Sacramento more power,
00:17:28
especially deciding what's going on in people's communities.
00:17:31
You nailed it right on the head which is that should be a city
00:17:34
level decision. Not Sacramento decision because
00:17:38
knowing Sacramento that will just start shoving low-rent
00:17:41
housing and apartments into all different neighborhoods that
00:17:44
they don't really know about or they care about and they don't
00:17:48
have any particular connection to We Do.
00:17:53
My City, My City used to be forced Community.
00:17:56
We had tons of horse trails, a property and stuff, and that's
00:17:59
historically what it was. And then we just went through a
00:18:02
big rezoning thing where they were trying to rezone a bunch
00:18:04
for low-income housing and our country writers association
00:18:09
literally like showed up on their horses to protest.
00:18:14
That's awesome. Did not pass and actually would
00:18:18
have affected my neighborhood as well and it didn't pass and
00:18:22
thanks to the people that That on our horses and protested
00:18:26
showed up to those meetings and said no.
00:18:28
But that would, that would have literally taken away their right
00:18:30
to do that. Ya know, anything that gives
00:18:36
Sacramento more power? Get back.
00:18:39
I don't want any part of it, but yeah, they will definitely
00:18:43
virtue signal the hell out of it and say, oh, you have to prove
00:18:47
this if you care about people, I care about people.
00:18:51
But I also care about the people who live in those communities
00:18:54
who want to keep their communities The way they are and
00:18:57
the way they moved into them. So it's going to affect
00:19:01
something that you do. You know care about that, you
00:19:04
were suddenly not allowed to vote on because the government
00:19:06
just took all control. Absolutely.
00:19:11
Let's see that, we wonder, how did you get here?
00:19:14
How did we get here? We got here because of stolen
00:19:18
elections. Don't, you know?
00:19:20
Sorry, that's all. It's a whole different show.
00:19:25
Let's pandemic, early detection, we'll get to that one.
00:19:29
A little bit 18 minimum wage after this brief break their
00:19:36
word from our sponsor. Yeah, we'll have to have a
00:19:39
members-only only and we'll talk about stolen elections. 18
00:19:43
dollar minimum wage initiative, increases $18 by 2026.
00:19:47
That's on the ballot. So they'll probably pass because
00:19:51
who's not going to vote for more money for themselves?
00:19:56
Sure, why not? Let's see, cleared for Signature
00:20:03
Gathering. Okay, this is when you brought
00:20:06
up to may require state to pay spousal support initiatives.
00:20:09
So these have just been cleared for signature-gathering meaning,
00:20:12
they are going to go out and they're going to start getting
00:20:15
the signatures. They have to get a certain
00:20:17
amount of signatures even better be on the ballot, you sent it to
00:20:20
me because you're like, I want your professional opinion on
00:20:22
this as an attorney. I said I will give It my best
00:20:26
shot. I read it.
00:20:28
I still don't understand what the heck the state is trying to
00:20:32
do here. Yeah, it does look like they're
00:20:35
changing and adding a stipulation to the family code
00:20:41
that it will be amended to read the court.
00:20:44
May during the pendency of a proceeding for nullity of
00:20:46
marriage or upon Judgment of nullity of marriage or a party
00:20:49
to pay for support of the other party in the same manner, as if
00:20:52
the margin top and void or voidable if the party For whose
00:20:56
benefit the order is made, is to be found to be a putative
00:20:58
spouse. So, a putative spouse is meaning
00:21:03
someone who's poor Okay, so it's just a fancy word for putative
00:21:08
spouse mean they're just poor. And then they added this other
00:21:15
section notwithstanding subdivision a, if the court
00:21:17
orders the payment of spousal support pursuant to subdivision
00:21:20
a, the state shall make those payments in accordance.
00:21:23
With part, 3 of division is ad by section. 6 of the act at the
00:21:28
subdivision if that part becomes operative.
00:21:32
So the state is going to get involved in starting to pay
00:21:36
alimony to putative. Spouse has, what could go wrong?
00:21:40
What could possibly go wrong? Wrong with that.
00:21:45
What are your thoughts on? Should the state be paying
00:21:48
alimony to putative spouse has? Well, first of all, I think I
00:21:52
told you this like you did earlier this week or last week
00:21:55
or something, I was like, we should have never given marriage
00:21:58
to government. No, no, traditionally marriage
00:22:02
used to be like an agreement between people or between God
00:22:06
and the people. And then why, why do we get the
00:22:10
government involved? Anyway that big said no, the
00:22:14
state shouldn't because the state is us where the state
00:22:17
where the taxpayers, that means we're going to pay the poor
00:22:20
people alimony. Why do you?
00:22:25
And I need to or want to pay alimony for people who couldn't
00:22:28
make their marriage work? I mean, I guess the state feels
00:22:32
like They have to step in and pay.
00:22:36
And and again or just reading from this language, I'm not
00:22:39
really sure what they're trying to do here.
00:22:42
If? I guess the thing is, alimony is
00:22:46
supposed to be as I understand. I'm not a family law attorney,
00:22:50
so forgive me. If I get this completely wrong
00:22:52
in your family law, attorney Camille is also not a family law
00:22:57
attorney. So we've now cleared that up
00:23:01
from my understanding alimony is, so, if you and your spouse
00:23:07
have a certain lifestyle, and you've gotten used to a level of
00:23:10
comfort, in terms of finances, when When you leave that
00:23:15
relationship, the idea is you're not supposed to suffer leaving
00:23:19
that relationship. That's alimony.
00:23:22
So, let's say, you know, if you both make the same amount of
00:23:26
money, then obviously, if you leave alimony, should not really
00:23:30
be an issue because you both make the same amount of money.
00:23:34
There's a big discrepancy, then all of a sudden the other spouse
00:23:38
would have to pay that spouse to make sure that they stay on the
00:23:41
same level. so, I'm trying to figure out like, if you are
00:23:49
lower, if your putative, or if you're in a lower economic
00:23:55
status and somebody in the one spouse leaves, you can still
00:24:02
support that spouse to the level that it was before, if that
00:24:07
makes sense, like the money didn't go anywhere to support
00:24:11
each other. It's just, there's not as much
00:24:14
of it. So I don't understand what the
00:24:16
state is going to end up doing. I don't understand either but
00:24:22
I'm definitely going to start weighing my options because I
00:24:24
don't work. I'm just you're gonna be like
00:24:28
well if certainly so real quick, do, you know, I California's to
00:24:36
part of state is alimony only paid after a certain certain
00:24:40
years of marriage in California or into this clearly.
00:24:46
I'm very happy in my marriage. I have not looked into my
00:24:48
options Camille's. Just kind of feeling this out
00:24:51
right now on the, on the DL. Just yeah.
00:24:55
She's like, I'm asking I'm asking for a friend, I'm just
00:24:58
asking for a friend that's all. So, my understanding is there is
00:25:05
a certain amount of time for alimony.
00:25:08
It can't be like forever. I could be wrong.
00:25:12
It could have changed. It depends because I know
00:25:16
someone who got divorced and they were married less than five
00:25:20
years or six years. So he only has to pay alimony
00:25:25
for four years. Okay, so he's not on the hook
00:25:29
for a like, you can't be on the hook longer than you were
00:25:32
married. That makes sense but I don't
00:25:37
know, you don't know. I don't know what the actual
00:25:41
formulation is to do. I'm just looking this up.
00:25:48
I might be and then keep talking and is this like threshold of
00:25:55
like does it mention a particular and income a mean if
00:26:00
they raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour and they're making
00:26:04
$18, an hour minimum wage. Or are they considered to be
00:26:08
poor? No, I'm just kidding.
00:26:10
I'm sorry. But no, but for real.
00:26:12
Where is this like threshold? What is, who decides, what what?
00:26:16
Because Newport Beach standards? I'm poor.
00:26:23
Other specific cities, I'm too great.
00:26:29
Okay, so we're going to have to issue a correction live on air
00:26:32
because I was dead wrong on what putative spouse has.
00:26:37
So I was, I was dead wrong. I was dead wrong.
00:26:43
But anyway, the the whole conversation we just had about
00:26:46
economic status and all that does still apply in this.
00:26:49
But a putative spouse is to protect the financial and
00:26:54
property interest of a person who enters into a bigamous
00:26:57
marriage. Believing in, good faith.
00:26:59
That it is a valid marriage. The person who was unaware, his
00:27:03
spouse is already, married is called the putative spouse.
00:27:09
In jurisdictions that recognize speed of spouse Doctrine, the
00:27:12
Peter spouse will be entitled to marital property rights along
00:27:14
with the legal spouse. That is both spouses will share
00:27:17
the property rights. Okay, so now this just made this
00:27:21
whole conversation much more interesting.
00:27:25
I apologize to everyone because it's been a long time since I've
00:27:28
been in law school, and Yeah, I heard putative spouse before.
00:27:36
What's that? Look at you getting a new
00:27:38
attorney. Well as long as it's not family
00:27:42
law issues, that's we're fine. So the doctor in is, basically
00:27:49
if you enter into a marriage with someone, you're unaware.
00:27:52
That they're already married, because you can't be married to
00:27:57
two people at the same time. I can't no.
00:28:01
This is not Utah. So I'm sorry.
00:28:05
I mean California allows a lot of freaky-deaky stuff.
00:28:08
You cannot be in two marriages at once.
00:28:11
Actually. I mean, I don't disagree with
00:28:14
that. That's the law ice agreement.
00:28:17
You can legally have an affair. Why can't you just legally have
00:28:20
to be required to take care of two people?
00:28:23
Well, that's what this law is. So the putative spouse Doctrine
00:28:27
is basically saying, if you got married to someone, even though
00:28:31
you were already married and the other spouse didn't know you
00:28:35
were married. They get property rights still
00:28:38
protected and therefore they have an interest.
00:28:43
So now, it makes sense. Why the state serious?
00:28:46
Now, I know I've been making jokes about this but I'm
00:28:48
actually being serious now. How are we going to verify a
00:28:51
they did or didn't know? That's a good point.
00:28:57
So what if they have a whole scheme where they're like, hey,
00:29:00
exactly. I know you're married.
00:29:03
Let's pretend to get married or actually get married because you
00:29:06
have to actually get married and then go, oh, I didn't know.
00:29:09
He was married, looks like I'm a putative spouse and you don't
00:29:14
have to pay anything but the state does.
00:29:16
Yes. Yeah, so we end up supporting
00:29:20
the putative spouse not the actual spouse themselves.
00:29:26
Right? I just went on a really
00:29:28
interesting rabbit hole that I was not expecting.
00:29:32
I almost feel like this one people are just going to be like
00:29:34
what know and like I was like this one won't make it to the
00:29:37
ballot. But yeah.
00:29:39
It's it's very it's a really Niche proposition that's for
00:29:43
short and so curious. Now the back story of how this
00:29:47
came to be I guess they felt like there was no remedy for
00:29:51
these putative spouse has by the time this episode is over.
00:29:55
Everyone's going to be an expert on what a putative spouse is
00:29:58
what they were unbeknownst to them.
00:30:01
That they were also buried someone else like this is I
00:30:07
mean, this is just weird like how often does that happen?
00:30:14
That unit of marriage, someone who's married to someone else
00:30:19
and you didn't know when UPS now well, I mean obviously often
00:30:25
enough that it got 25 signatures and now is gathering.
00:30:29
That's crazy. They're Gathering signatures.
00:30:32
I mean, someone in Yvonne's family, I don't know if it's
00:30:35
like a far off relative or something.
00:30:38
Had two families on each side of the Border, he had a family Here
00:30:42
in San Diego, family, and Tijuana.
00:30:47
And I just said to her, I said that sounds exhausting II.
00:30:51
Don't, I don't know how you keep up with two families.
00:30:54
And how do you keep the lies going for year after year of
00:30:57
like, hey honey. Where you going?
00:30:59
I'm going on a business trip. Oh, you sure do go on a lot like
00:31:03
every week. I mean, you hear stories like
00:31:08
this but I trust that that's not happening in my husband.
00:31:14
What he does it going on trips but to I am plenty crazy for
00:31:17
him. He's not looking for he doesn't
00:31:20
even more crazy. Well, putative spouse has so
00:31:29
interesting that I thought I was going to be.
00:31:31
Yeah, that actually that took a turn.
00:31:34
I'm I kind of want to see it actually qualify because I want
00:31:37
to see the arguments for and against this like, That's true.
00:31:46
They'll have some like brilliant ad campaign of like, do you want
00:31:50
to save all the putative spouse has out there who didn't know
00:31:53
they were married to someone who's already married so much.
00:31:56
Hate mail for this. Why do you hate putative spouse
00:32:03
has? Are you not accepting a
00:32:06
putative? Spouse has any further therapy,
00:32:10
it's just more fun to keep saying putative.
00:32:12
Anyway, Okay, so another one that's cleared for Signature
00:32:18
will just touch on this one really quickly.
00:32:22
This was the oil and gas well referendum.
00:32:25
So there was a law that was passed that required oil wells
00:32:31
had to be set back, a certain amount of space.
00:32:33
I think they're trying to get rid of that, so that they can
00:32:36
continue to drill, which is already hard, enough in
00:32:39
California CCW, make a meal legal everywhere.
00:32:44
Are without actually making it illegal illegal.
00:32:49
Basically, it's legal. Just not anywhere.
00:32:53
Yeah, you can carry and conceal. You just can't do it anywhere
00:32:57
outside of your home. Yeah, the referendum would
00:33:02
appear appeal Senate. Bill 11 37, which would prohibit
00:33:05
new oil and gas Wells within 3 feet of home, schools,
00:33:09
nursing homes and hospitals. They were require companies to
00:33:12
monitor leaks in emissions and install alarms.
00:33:14
I mean, I don't hate that like, monitor leaks and emissions and
00:33:17
install arms. I mean, I don't know why that is
00:33:20
so controversial but so that's that one.
00:33:23
It's been clear. It's been filed, it has not been
00:33:26
cleared yet it's backed by obviously Chevron in the Big Oil
00:33:29
Company. So you will likely I would bet
00:33:33
good money. That's actually going to make it
00:33:34
to the ballot in 2024 because they have enough money in
00:33:38
organization to pay people to get this through.
00:33:41
Okay, what's next? There is I think you talked
00:33:46
about the fast-food Council. Yes, and there's that me.
00:33:59
You did not do your homework before come out to the podcast.
00:34:04
Favorite people, in the Articles, like yes Lorena
00:34:08
Gonzalez was in the article in front of a flag that at first
00:34:12
glance looked like a Nazi flag. Now I didn't notice that part
00:34:17
you Dana. Is that part?
00:34:18
Okay well hold on let's say. Tell me that does not look like
00:34:27
a Nazi flag. Oh yes.
00:34:30
Okay, and she's even like, she's even got her hand out like a
00:34:34
like she's doing the special salute Lorena Gonzalez.
00:34:41
Sure. Should just say call me eyes,
00:34:42
California? Yeah, absolutely.
00:34:45
She blocked me on Twitter. Did you know that?
00:34:47
Did you know that? So that's my claim to fame with
00:34:50
oral or and Gonzalez. So anyway, there is this.
00:34:57
Proposition, that will let's first.
00:34:59
Look at the language before we hop into this article that I
00:35:03
want to read a little bit of it may appear on the ballot and
00:35:08
would repeal assembly Bill. 257 was approved by the state
00:35:12
senate, passed the house blah blah blah.
00:35:15
It's designed to establish the fast food Council, which would
00:35:18
be authorized to increase. The minimum, wage workers in the
00:35:20
fast food industry to $20 per hour and establish working hours
00:35:24
and condition. Rick.
00:35:26
So, when our $22 per hour and that's specific to fast food
00:35:33
fast, food workers? Yes.
00:35:35
Yes. So they want to set up this
00:35:39
Council on fast food workers, because if you didn't know,
00:35:45
California is notorious for not hearing the voice of unions.
00:35:51
And the workers, we are very unrepresented when it comes to
00:35:56
unions. We need more of them.
00:35:58
Yeah. Yeah, I don't think California
00:35:59
spends enough, time kowtowing, to the unions to be fair.
00:36:03
We should probably spend more time doing it and thank God, we
00:36:06
have Champions like Lorena Gonzalez out there to work on
00:36:09
our behalf. Do you think industry has Lorena
00:36:15
Gonzalez, ever worked in the fast food industry?
00:36:19
I don't know. It's pretty good question.
00:36:22
I wonder I don't know much. A Lorena Gonzalez is back story.
00:36:25
Other than she's married to Nathan Fletcher, and they are
00:36:29
it. She's the only person who I know
00:36:30
who's worse than Nathan Fletcher to do.
00:36:37
Let's see. So the title of the article is
00:36:41
our California ballot, measures a parallel legislature for
00:36:44
wealthy interests, labor, think so, Talks about the bill, how it
00:36:49
was signed a day later opponents filed a referendum to Halt
00:36:53
formation of the council and put the fast act on the 2024 ballot
00:36:57
where voters could affirm or repeal, it save local
00:37:00
restaurants, a coalition of franchisees, Corporations and
00:37:03
business trade groups. Argues that voters should strike
00:37:06
down the law to avoid higher food prices in their regulatory
00:37:09
burdens for franchise owners quote.
00:37:11
The only thing certain is that the law will create a redundant
00:37:15
unelected Council of political appointees with extraordinary.
00:37:17
Canary power to establish mandates for tens of thousands
00:37:20
of counter service restaurants and dramatically increase the
00:37:23
cost of doing business in Californians that the Coalition
00:37:25
is statement, Industries referendum, challenge marks, the
00:37:29
latest Skirmish and what labor leaders described as a Forever
00:37:32
War to preserve gains 1 through the legislature unions buoyed by
00:37:37
Democratic super majorities and California Assembly and Senate,
00:37:39
for most of the last decade have secured a series of significant
00:37:42
victories in reaction, they say corporations and Wealthy
00:37:45
conservative groups have Leverage, the stage, direct
00:37:48
democracy process as a parallel, legislature to walk back some of
00:37:53
those gains. So is it a pattern?
00:38:00
Is it a parallel legislature? I don't know, is it well like we
00:38:07
saw with the the other ones I have a lot of money behind it.
00:38:10
Like the oil referendum, it could be I think voters are
00:38:14
still going to vote the same way.
00:38:18
I don't foresee even if they spend a ton of money on this
00:38:22
particular proposition or this referendum, I can't imagine the
00:38:28
ads in favor of keeping it people are going to vote against
00:38:33
that. You her?
00:38:35
So it's definitely. It's an opportunity for
00:38:41
conservatives or conservative goals or groups to try and get
00:38:46
stuff either in the Constitution or off the Constitution, or off
00:38:53
the books. But you still have to go to the
00:38:56
voters at the end of the day, and if the voters still agree
00:38:59
with the original legislation, it's going to be hard to get
00:39:03
them to pass. It's not like offset and they're
00:39:04
going to go, you know, I like the people who voted in the
00:39:08
people or politicians Put into the legislature.
00:39:12
But now I'm going to completely disagree with everything that
00:39:14
they just said, and everything I voted for, right?
00:39:18
Did they like launched this the day after the original was voted
00:39:22
on? I think.
00:39:25
So, it was like, right out. Yeah day later.
00:39:28
So they, they were, but they signed it on Labor Day and they
00:39:33
launched the referendum. Literally the next day.
00:39:39
The article goes on to say since 2011, labor back, lawmakers led
00:39:43
by then assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez passed measures.
00:39:47
Raising the minimum wage improving workplace, retirement
00:39:50
plans and imposing wage theft protections.
00:39:52
They also expand its sick leave and allowed Farm Workers to earn
00:39:55
over time. Gonzalez has since become the
00:39:57
head of the California. Labor Federation, no conflict
00:40:00
there, nothing to see here. It's not like she was floating
00:40:04
on that and had an interest. To do what we want $22.
00:40:10
A minimum for fast food workers, but 18 dollars, minimum wage by
00:40:13
2026. That kind of confuses me because
00:40:19
why would you go take your $18 an hour job or ever?
00:40:24
If you are guaranteed, 22 dollars, an hour fast food?
00:40:27
I feel like that would hurt other Industries and maybe I'm
00:40:30
totally wrong. Probably yeah, it's a good
00:40:32
point. If you're looking to earn for
00:40:35
more dollars an hour, just go work for a fast food restaurant
00:40:40
and in and out. If I pay 2 dollars more than
00:40:43
whatever every other fast food places playing paying so, you
00:40:47
know, everyone was good. And now how much does in and out
00:40:50
pay raise. I think they pay like $18 an
00:40:52
hour. Now I don't know my daughter's
00:40:56
15 today. She cannot wait to work there
00:40:58
when she's 16. But I don't know what it is.
00:41:01
They don't allow 15 year olds to work in California.
00:41:05
Yeah you can't get work in permits in California permit and
00:41:10
go work in Hollywood. Okay?
00:41:14
Because I remember when I was 15, my mom made me go get a work
00:41:16
permit so I could start work, but it's all changed.
00:41:20
It's actually very hard to get hired as a 16 year-old down
00:41:24
really interesting, because they have to keep raising the minimum
00:41:29
wage. So now they have all these,
00:41:30
like, freshman College, you know, who are willing to work
00:41:33
these jobs at fast food and stuff, because it fits their
00:41:36
schedule and so they don't need to hire the immature younger 16
00:41:41
rooms. I just remember, I've always
00:41:45
I've always had a job since I've been 15.
00:41:47
So purely speculation. I started working, I was 15 but
00:41:50
I became a stay-at-home mom. I was 24.
00:41:52
So It's been a long time since I've worked.
00:41:56
That's the most important job of all.
00:41:58
Thank you. You're welcome.
00:42:03
And see if there's anything else interested in this article.
00:42:08
Oh, here we go. Jacob's expects.
00:42:12
Ken Jacobs is the chair of the UC Berkeley Labor Center.
00:42:14
He expects the trend of Union backing is to continue given the
00:42:18
recent upsurge and support for organized labor.
00:42:21
Hmm. I wonder where that came from in
00:42:24
August poll found that 71% of Americans approve of labor
00:42:27
unions. The Percentage since 1965
00:42:31
clearly in California, unions. Political power has grown in the
00:42:35
state grown in the state. It is currently fast.
00:42:40
Food. Employees are not unit.
00:42:42
Nice, right? I don't think so.
00:42:44
I don't think you can unionize this have happened.
00:42:47
Here is that they will become you nice baby.
00:42:51
And so then fast food will go on strike every 6 months.
00:42:56
Yeah. And demand a raise.
00:42:58
So they'll what do you like? You know, in six months after
00:43:00
they get twenty two dollars an hour?
00:43:01
They'll go on strike. Like like every so often, can't
00:43:05
get crispy tacos at Taco Bell. I've never had you can't get
00:43:10
crispy tacos at Taco Bell. I don't know what they taste
00:43:13
like, so because I don't eat crunchy or crispy.
00:43:16
Tacos at Taco Bell. I am.
00:43:20
I am team anti Hardshell tacos ever since I was a kid.
00:43:23
And this is not just because I'm, you know, I married, my
00:43:26
wife and she showed me what real good Mexican food is like, but I
00:43:31
never liked Hardshell tacos ever since I was a little kid.
00:43:35
I just always thought they were gross.
00:43:36
I was like, you take one bite of a hard shell, taco it collapses
00:43:40
everywhere. You've got a mess all over your
00:43:42
plate. Anyway.
00:43:48
We've learned we've seriousness. So it sounds to me like they
00:43:53
want to unionize faster because they want, you know.
00:43:56
So so yes, everything needs to be a union and if you're a fan
00:44:01
of the show, you know I've said it a thousand times before that,
00:44:05
the reason they want everybody in New Union is because the
00:44:09
Union's take your dues and then they kick it back to California,
00:44:13
Democrats. And then the California
00:44:15
Democrats, write the laws that At the unions and the circle,
00:44:21
the Vicious Cycle just goes round and round and round.
00:44:23
So it's not because they care about workers, let's just get
00:44:27
that straight. California Democrats in the
00:44:30
Union's, definitely don't care about the workers.
00:44:32
They just see dollar signs. I know that as long as we keep
00:44:38
more and more people in these unions and we add more unions,
00:44:43
and more dues will keep making money and we'll keep getting
00:44:46
more and more power in. Though, as if they already don't
00:44:49
have enough power in Sacramento, so we're right to go for local
00:44:52
government. These are not so they can shove
00:44:56
more stuff down our throats from Sacramento.
00:45:00
You know, from hundred miles away without us even having any
00:45:03
say in it, did you do I think that's about it for this
00:45:08
article? Maybe I'll post it in the show
00:45:10
notes that people want to go read the rest of it.
00:45:12
Because I do want to get to the last one.
00:45:17
I think we covered. Basically, all of them, I want
00:45:20
to get to the last one because you did some research on this
00:45:24
and it was really interesting. The pandemic early detection,
00:45:27
Prevention, Institute, initiative, Tell us about that
00:45:31
one. What do you have?
00:45:32
Do you happen to get my email with all the links I did?
00:45:37
Do you want me to open any of them up?
00:45:41
Why don't you start talking? And I will get them up.
00:45:44
Okay, so the pandemic preventive tasks, It is qualified.
00:45:50
It's on the ballot for 2024. I'm going to pull up my email
00:45:54
real quick or I have I have some notes sorry.
00:45:56
Excuse me. I should have had them pulled up
00:45:58
already and You know, follow the money.
00:46:04
Always so interesting. What my notes.
00:46:10
So I started looking into who who's behind this measure, I
00:46:17
need to pull up what I sent to you, actually.
00:46:22
Okay, so the name of this, the pandemic preventive tax, it's
00:46:28
all the 2024 ballad. It's a qualified and it is
00:46:33
primarily funded by a Pac called Californians against pandemics
00:46:39
sponsored by public health, nonprofit organizations.
00:46:42
That's that's a part of the name, the sponsored by public
00:46:45
policy, nonprofit organizations that support of the name of the
00:46:48
pack, okay? And so I started going from
00:46:52
basically the top to the bottom of, okay, this pack hold it up
00:46:56
on Cal access and Start looking at who's, who's who's funding
00:47:02
them. And so they are primarily funded
00:47:08
by where they currently funded by.
00:47:10
There's a couple groups, but one of the main ones that funds them
00:47:13
is called Guardians against pandemics.
00:47:18
And so, that's kind of interesting Guardians against
00:47:24
pandemics. The name of that is called arms
00:47:27
but not Guardians guarding. Guarding against pandemics.
00:47:31
And then in parentheses, it says non-profit, 501, C 4.
00:47:34
I cannot find a guarding against pandemics.
00:47:38
Nonprofit, I did the IRS nonprofit search.
00:47:41
I do that all the time and I'm not finding this group.
00:47:44
I did a search on it and everything just goes back to the
00:47:47
pack, but they put a non-profit in the name, and I don't know if
00:47:50
they're deliberately being misleading or if there's just
00:47:52
nonprofit that for whatever reason I didn't find.
00:47:58
So who's fun in guarding against pandemics?
00:48:01
They'll do you have any of these that you won't pull up?
00:48:03
I pulled up all the links you sent me, okay?
00:48:06
So this pack is primarily funded by alma mater Almeida, research,
00:48:14
which is primarily funded by. This is where things get really
00:48:17
interesting. Drumroll, please, I'm just going
00:48:19
to Sam. Thank been bribed as in the X,
00:48:24
billionaire, who just filed for bankruptcy, FTX Crypt.
00:48:28
Ukraine Democrats, you know, that whole mess.
00:48:33
He's him them they're literally the ones funding this
00:48:36
proposition, it all goes back to him.
00:48:39
His brother Gabriel is the treasure for this pack.
00:48:45
So you know, this sounds really legit and not at all shady and
00:48:48
not at all like another money-laundering scheme.
00:48:50
It sounds like something like we're really trying to prevent
00:48:52
another pandemic by taxing You. And I And that is its oh a lot
00:49:03
of their money. It is so bizarre.
00:49:04
Tons of their money goes has been paid Millions.
00:49:08
Sorry this is back to The, I think the California's against
00:49:14
pandemics back to that path. Looking at their exponential
00:49:18
hers. They have paid a group called
00:49:21
2022, campaigns Incorporated for campaign Consulting, and they
00:49:26
have that particular group only was founded in August of 2021.
00:49:31
And already. These packs have paid them over
00:49:33
60 million dollars just since August of 2021.
00:49:36
So what is that? Like, 16 months?
00:49:40
Yeah. so, That's not shady, that's crazy.
00:49:48
Follow the money like we always say.
00:49:52
And I don't that woman that filed.
00:49:54
I can't find much on the woman that filed the corporates, this
00:49:58
2022 campaigns and Corporation is 17 Belinda, Jerry G, and all
00:50:04
I could find on a Belinda. Jerry is some city council
00:50:06
member former city council member in Maine.
00:50:09
And I don't even know if that's the same one.
00:50:11
That's the only one woman that I could find with that Nate.
00:50:13
And I just thought, what is happening here, she lives in
00:50:16
Maine, but this was filed in Calabasas, California and the
00:50:19
only people on I looked checked on the federal website, the FEC
00:50:23
as well as Cal access and the only groups that have paid this
00:50:28
campaign consulting firm, this alleged campaign consulting
00:50:31
firm, are these packs that are backing propositions in
00:50:34
California. And yeah it's a kind of specify.
00:50:41
Again, the point of this is that they want to raise the income
00:50:45
tax point 75 percent on people over 5 million, correct?
00:50:50
Yeah. For pandemic, prevention for
00:50:54
those who are listening on audio.
00:50:56
I'm doing air quotes right now. How how do we invent?
00:51:03
A pandemic like this more plastic walls?
00:51:07
And of course, the verbiage in here is, you know, the
00:51:09
low-income communities, which is the people of color or most
00:51:11
affected by this. And so I'm just, like, trying to
00:51:14
figure out what is, what is the real scheme here?
00:51:17
There are all the podium low-income housing.
00:51:20
Well, I mean, any time there's a creation of a new agency, or or
00:51:28
a new part of the government, it just expands the amount of seats
00:51:32
and positions that you can give to people who are in power or
00:51:38
people could not well connected to those in power.
00:51:43
You know, we already have a Department of Health.
00:51:46
So wouldn't the Department of Health already be tasked with
00:51:50
pandemic, prevention? Why do we need to create another
00:51:53
whole sub-sect? Well, yeah, shouldn't we also
00:51:56
fire. All of them.
00:51:57
Over or just Define that entire department.
00:52:00
Says, they didn't prevent the pandemic in the first place.
00:52:02
They did not know there was no prevention of the pandemic at
00:52:06
all. There was over reaction to the
00:52:08
pandemic, but that's a whole different show.
00:52:14
Are we still on YouTube? Yep, we're still on YouTube.
00:52:18
I was disappointed because you said drumroll and I noticed in
00:52:21
this software, there is a drum roll sound effect.
00:52:24
I used to fill There's drum roll and there's drum joke.
00:52:31
Can you just do the drum roll? Now, just so we know for future
00:52:32
reference. Yo, I'd say.
00:52:43
Oh wait, try it again. Tada, that would've been so
00:52:52
good. Let's try it.
00:52:55
Yeah. Anyway we're having fun tonight.
00:53:01
We're making fun. We're trying to have as much fun
00:53:03
as possible with its horrific. It really is it's awful.
00:53:07
What this that the government is trying to do to us with how
00:53:10
they're trying to take advantage of us, they're trying to ruin
00:53:12
our livelihood. They're trying to ruin our
00:53:14
neighborhoods. Are trying to take away our
00:53:15
voting powers and they're trying to take away our money and own
00:53:18
us. And tell us how to live.
00:53:21
And so guess we have to do drum rolls and dad jokes.
00:53:25
You got a lot of it because it is ridiculous.
00:53:28
Yeah, so this one was when you kind of came with me.
00:53:31
I mean I'm not surprised. This is what you're excellent at
00:53:34
is kind of going down the rabbit hole and finding all this stuff
00:53:38
and it's just crazy that it does all come back to Sam bacon?
00:53:41
Freedmen or citizens BF or yes, am Bank been freed and
00:53:46
everything that's been going on with FTX.
00:53:48
So it's just crazy how you see, you follow the money and see,
00:53:54
like, what, why are they doing this?
00:53:56
What's their purpose with this? And the fact that they have this
00:54:01
guarding against pandemics? And I was 100% not expecting
00:54:05
this. Like, I have actually avoided
00:54:07
looking in it, anything with it. The X DX, then sounding room for
00:54:10
you'd like or, you know, kind of read through people's post on it
00:54:13
and stuff. But I was just like, okay, we're
00:54:17
going to research this. Killer subject I started looking
00:54:20
into it. So who's funding this you know
00:54:22
and then my should have known. I was actually telling my mom
00:54:26
about it yesterday. I'm like you're not gonna
00:54:28
believe this. You are going to believe this
00:54:29
but you're not going to believe her and wonder if by the time
00:54:32
this gets on the ballot. If that would be a good
00:54:38
opposition at is that Sam Bank bank manfried actually
00:54:43
bankrolled. The nonprofit I mean it's enough
00:54:47
of a people will see that and be like oh the guy who screwed
00:54:51
everything up with FTX bankroll, this what does he have to do
00:54:56
with California? But I think at that point that's
00:55:01
what two years away. It's eternity and political
00:55:04
world. So and he'll it'll be forgotten
00:55:07
because this will get blown over week.
00:55:09
Republicans, conservatives will have something new to fight
00:55:12
about and then, Obviously, it's just going to get him.
00:55:16
Sam's was going to get brushed under the rug.
00:55:18
Yeah, so Carrie and then this will come up, like five, people
00:55:23
will be like, oh yeah, they'll be like, oh my gosh.
00:55:26
You remember that FTX thing and be like, no, but did you see
00:55:29
what? Kim Kardashian was wearing this
00:55:31
week. It was amazing.
00:55:34
No, will still be talking about like what Kanye said on some
00:55:37
podcast or something in two years, I don't even know if
00:55:39
we'll still be talking about Kanye anyway.
00:55:44
Any other, I think we nailed all of them.
00:55:46
I think that's basically the majority of the propositions and
00:55:49
referendums that are going to be on the ballot or possibly on the
00:55:53
ballot. Only a couple are already on the
00:55:55
ballot, several are making their way through.
00:55:57
I know that the school choice is going to try again.
00:56:04
So look for that actually. I wonder if this is it filed
00:56:08
with attorney general right to education, this might be it.
00:56:13
So hold on one second. I have a thousand tabs open now.
00:56:17
So right to education. It doesn't really say anything.
00:56:31
This doesn't say anything about school choice.
00:56:33
It says, the students would. It would amend the California
00:56:36
Constitution guarantee the students have a right to I high
00:56:39
quality public education. That provides them with the
00:56:41
skills, necessary to fully participate in the economy, our
00:56:44
democracy and our society, as a proud homeschool mom, do you
00:56:52
think public education would provide the skills?
00:56:54
Necessary to fully participate in the economy.
00:56:57
Our democracy and our society, Do you know considering that
00:57:03
people graduate from public education?
00:57:06
12th grade and don't feel equipped to enter economy or
00:57:09
don't even feel equipped to, then homeschool their own kids.
00:57:12
I have to wonder what they're actually teaching in public
00:57:14
school. These days.
00:57:16
I don't want to enough to put my kids in it.
00:57:18
Obviously, I've made that decision.
00:57:20
Yeah. And I'm sorry I don't want to
00:57:24
brag on people who yes I do. No, I'm just kidding.
00:57:27
I don't know about people who have decided to keep their kids
00:57:29
in public school. Everyone has their reasons.
00:57:32
I want to do what's best for their families.
00:57:34
But I personally feel like public schools are a failure and
00:57:39
that I don't want my kids participating in it and now we
00:57:42
want to take it to you and let step further with higher
00:57:44
education and it's like hey you failed the first 12 years.
00:57:47
Why are we giving you another for mmm?
00:57:51
I don't want to sound super Bushi, but I only went to public
00:57:54
school like in my small little Hometown and it was like 200
00:57:58
kids altogether, but I didn't really, yeah, I didn't go to.
00:58:04
I did not go to public high school.
00:58:07
No. No I did not.
00:58:08
I went to a public high school or even though I was in school,
00:58:13
I went to a posh East Coast boarding school.
00:58:20
Did you really I did? Yeah.
00:58:22
That is so interesting. I did not live there though.
00:58:24
I was at a student, what they called a student.
00:58:26
So I commuted back and forth really fast.
00:58:31
It's would have been, like, turning over a whole new thing.
00:58:33
People have been like, wait, boy, I would have been texting
00:58:37
immediately after this, like you're one of those Posh preppy
00:58:40
boarding school kids, No, yeah yeah.
00:58:45
And but anyway I guess that I don't think that's the one.
00:58:50
I don't think that's cool choice but I think they're going to try
00:58:52
again and I'm sure there will be more.
00:58:55
I'm sure we're going to find out plenty more propositions and as
00:58:58
they update we can have a whole nother show about new
00:59:00
propositions, but it is interesting to kind of look
00:59:02
ahead and see what people are already kind of getting ready
00:59:06
for trying to get rid of and keep your eye out for them of
00:59:10
what's coming down the pike because I think it's never too
00:59:14
early to start learning about these Because by the time we get
00:59:18
to 2024 there's so many and I get so many DM's of people
00:59:23
telling me like you should put out a voter guide and tell us
00:59:27
what to vote on and tell us what not to vote on.
00:59:30
And I'm like, just read it for yourself and figure it out
00:59:34
whether you like it or not. Like, it's not my job, to tell
00:59:37
you what to vote for and what not to vote for.
00:59:38
I just talk about it and if you agree, you agree.
00:59:41
But if you disagree, that's fine.
00:59:44
But it's better to be educated now because by the time we get
00:59:47
to 2024, there's going to be a whole slew of them and it's
00:59:51
probably going to overwhelm people who are not political
00:59:53
nerds like you are. I so now you can just send them
00:59:59
these videos. Yes, if somebody asks about,
01:00:02
these will be like go back to episode 187 and watch that
01:00:07
because we talk all about it and there was an amazing drum roll
01:00:10
sound effect in it in bed. It, I mean it would have been
01:00:15
better earlier, but I thought about it after you said drumroll
01:00:18
I was like, I think they start sending you emails with notes
01:00:22
and I'll be like insert from World insert drumroll here.
01:00:27
Like a play would be like enter stage left if I'm going to have
01:00:33
my whole soundboard. Thank you.
01:00:37
I appreciate that. I think we did a fantastic job
01:00:42
on all these propositions tonight.
01:00:45
Thank you for your expert. Attorney opinion.
01:00:48
I try my best. I think we should give ourselves
01:00:50
a round of applause. Is there a way?
01:00:52
Is there sound effect? So many, there's so many people
01:01:03
turn it off the podcast right now.
01:01:05
Going. What the heck?
01:01:06
Am I listening to? All right, on that note.
01:01:12
Thanks for tuning in to another episode of California
01:01:15
underground Camille. Thanks for being here with me
01:01:18
and chatting. And as I say to everybody at the
01:01:23
last of these episodes is, if you like this, make sure you
01:01:26
text send to somebody else part in the dad jokes.
01:01:30
And the sound effects. That's the best way to help the
01:01:33
show and support it and grow. If you like, also, if you liked
01:01:36
it, subscribe, like, share review.
01:01:38
All that stuff, comment below helps the algorithm and we'll
01:01:42
see you on the next one. Every Thursday at 8 p.m.
01:01:46
Live on YouTube, listen to it on audio, I think I nailed
01:01:49
everything. I think I got it.
01:01:52
Thanks. I think so.
01:01:53
All right. Good night, everybody.