Meanwhile, maybe we could do a better job enforcing existing laws.
•Prop. 37: Food labeling. It seems a little nutty, pun intended.
This measure would require labeling of food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.
No one in the campaign debate seems to be arguing that genetically modified food is definitely dangerous. Prop. 37 would demand that it be labeled anyway.
But not all. There would be bushels of exemptions. Restaurant food, for example. And booze.
So what's wrong with a consumer knowing whether the food being eyeballed has been genetically modified? Nothing. But is it really so important that we must harass the grocer who would be responsible for the correct labeling? Especially the mom-and-pop grocer, the few who are left.
Last year, 88% of corn and 94% of all soybeans produced in the United States was genetically altered, according to the legislative analyst. Yet most of us probably didn't know that and survived.
The analyst wrote that: "The measure prohibits the use of terms such as 'natural,' 'naturally made,' 'naturally grown' and 'all natural' in the labeling and advertising of [genetically engineered] foods.
"Given the way the measure is written, there is a possibility that these restrictions would be interpreted by the courts to apply to some processed foods regardless of whether they are genetically engineered."
It's more complicated than waterfowl hunting regulations.
Then there's this full-employment act for lawyers: They could sue in court for enforcement of the law and be awarded "reasonable costs." There goes the last mom-and-pop grocer.
This is very confusing. What if a hunter shoots a goose that has feasted on genetically modified corn. Is he required to label the bird before giving it to an orphanage? And is it too late in life for me to become a lawyer to sue the wildlife refuge?
This measure is for the birds — a solution looking for a problem.
•Prop. 40. Vote yes on this one if you don't any other.
The Republican Party put this referendum on the ballot during a brief attempt to overturn the honest redrawing of Senate districts by an independent citizens commission. Then the GOP backed off and no longer opposes the redistricting plan.
But you still need to vote yes to ratify the districts that already are being used in this election. Otherwise, the state Supreme Court would have to concoct new maps, consuming more time and tax money.
It's another measure that shouldn't even be on the ballot.