it's really hard to parse legalese and think through the implications of each ballot measure on your own, especially when politics stress you out and you just want to get your ballot done and mailed

but it's very easy to parse a couple paragraphs of "here's why I think you should vote for/against this"

plus you start to see Patterns in who's supporting/opposing things

there's some bad shit on the AZ ballot this year that, if you just read the summary on the ballot, seems fine and reasonable

but then looking at the arguments, there's a whole slate of suspiciously talking-pointy arguments that are all tagged with a little "Sponsored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club"

the Arizona Free Enterprise club is. very big business venture capitalist conservative lobbyists.

so whenever I see their name suddenly popping up a bunch, I know I'm doing the opposite of whatever they want

and like obviously I still READ both sides of the argument

but usually reading whoever's opposing them on a measure just gives me a better understanding of WHY I should vote opposite to them

it honestly is really striking how often a bad proposition will have a slate of weirdly samey, weasel-wordy endorsements that are all about how this measure will Protect Our Freedoms, all sponsored by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club

and then the arguments against are filled with a real variety of different groups, ranging from political organizations with varying goals to actual local business owners (Changing Hands Bookstore my beloved)

all made in much clearer and more direct language than the usual fluffed-up politispeak

... and sometimes a single uncapitalized sentence. bless you, couple from Wickenburg, who submitted an argument on Prop 135 consisting entirely of the words "ballot measure is unconstitutional."

really cutting the bullshit there, I appreciate you

(there is no sarcasm there I am sincerely delighted by this)

..... wait HOLY SHIT we got a real one here

so we got prop 137, which is some real weasely shit about judges

it seeks to eliminate judicial terms in the AZ Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, and Superior Court, so that voters will no longer vote to decide whether to retain those judges at the end of their terms

judges would be subject to retention elections only if they were convicted of a felony "or a crime involving fraud or dishonesty", or were a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding or held a mortgage under foreclosure or did not meet performance standards according to the Commission on Judicial Performance Review

(to give you an idea of how often that last one comes up, when I looked at the candidate guide, Literally Not Even One Judge Up For Retention had failed to meet those standards)

and of course, the "FOR" arguments consisted of the expected slate of AZFEC endorsements

all just like, this will make voting easier and make your ballot shorter! this way only the bad judges will even come up on your ballot! so much more convenient!

... except for the last argument

which

I will just screenshot for you

if you read this argument very closely

you will realize

it is not actually in support of this proposition at all

fuckin hell, Lauren Kuby, I'm sorry you're not in my district because I would vote for you

that was SLY

I don't know how effective that will actually be, but I have to respect the attempt

Those are very helpful, especially when it’s about candidates and one guy is like “I’m pro-America and pro-Christian and blah blah blah” and you’re like, oh, so you’re terrible

Man, “a crime involving dishonesty” really doesn’t narrow it down, does it

This is all very good.

in a pinch I look up who is on record of being for or against and judge by what they say about it. if I voted for someone and they say it's good or bad, then I go with that if I just can't parse the proposition

Sometimes you get """lucky""" and the propaganda ads show a little too much of their hand

"IF YOU VOTE YES ON THIS AMENDMENT YOU ARE VOTING TO STRIP POWER FROM PARENTS AND LET MINORS GET ABORTIONS"

oh, that is a LOVELY piecce of writing, yes

California automatically sends you a packet of "here's all the ballot measures, here's how much it costs over how much time, here's who's for and against them, here's their arguments for it and to each other, also here's the text of the law itself if you really want to read the whole thing yourself"

it's extremely helpful and I'm kind of offended that every state doesn't do that???

LynxGriffin: one of the reasons California gets poopooed as being one of them "filthy liberal" states despite actually being astoundingly regressive in some issues (billionaire favoring, penal rights)

yeah, for sure