Upon reading absentee ballot: I would suggest everyone that wait and vote on the day of election, pre-read it line by line beforehand. Three important state constitution amendments deserve our attention.
Yes, I am basically a conservative; that's not why I will vote "no" to this pot amendment. I have no doubt it will be legalized eventually, but this is totally not the right writing to bring it forward. No one can convince me those who really need it for medical reasons are not already getting it. Besides, when an individual is willing to spend $4 million of their own money to get it legalized, I am suspicious.
The other important one is asking that we give a current governor the power to appoint a replacement for a judge whose term will be coming vacant. The last sentence of the amendment says the governor may not fill the expected vacancy until the term actually expires!
Here is the problem: Let's say we are voting out our current governor -- of either party because we want change. Well, why would we give the outgoing governor the power to reach into the future and preselect justices and judges into the term of the new elected governor?
Doesn't it just make more sense to allow the incoming one to select his own people that he feels will decide things more to his thinking? So for me, Amendments 2 and 3 rate a big fat "no!" I just hope people are aware of the wording confusion whichever way they vote.
Scott B. Scoville