必須在投票前15天申請：California Secretary of State
可 是網上說七天就夠了不曉得是不是正確的，因為電視上都說要15天。不過以七天以前收到的話，選舉日11/4/2008來說，為什麼10/20/2008之 前要收到？如果這次來不及，下次就不用再申請了，以後會一直寄過來，如果兩次以上都沒有寄回去投票，才會取消妳的資格，不過我好像有錯過兩次以上，還是有 收到選票的經驗。
California State Government: Voter information
Shall certain farm animals be allowed, for the majority of every day, to fully extend their limbs or wings, lie down, stand up and turn around?
|Summary Prepared by State Attorney General:|
Requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely. Exceptions made for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, research and veterinary purposes. Provides misdemeanor penalties, including a fine not to exceed $1,000 and/or imprisonment in jail for up to 180 days.
|Fiscal Impact from the Legislative Analyst:|
Potential unknown decrease in state and local tax revenues from farm businesses, possibly in the range of several million dollars annually. Potential minor local and state enforcement and prosecution costs, partly offset by increased fine revenue.
- A YES vote on this measure means:
- Beginning in 2015, state law would prohibit, with certain exceptions, the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
- A NO vote on this measure means:
- State law would not contain prohibitions specifically concerning the confinement of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens.
|Meaning of Voting Yes/No|
|Impartial Analysis from Legislative Analyst|
Animal agriculture is a major industry in California. Over 40 million animals are raised for commercial purposes on California farms and ranches. California's leading livestock commodities are milk and other dairy products, cattle, and chickens.
In recent years, there has been a growing public awareness about farm animal production methods, and how these practices affect the treatment of the animals. In particular, concerns have been expressed about some animal farming practices, including the housing of certain animals in confined spaces, such as cages or other restrictive enclosures.
Partly in response to these concerns, various animal farming industries have made changes in their production practices. For example, certain industries have developed guidelines and best practices aimed, in part, at improving the care and handling of farm animals.
State law prohibits cruelty to animals. Under state law, for example, any person who keeps an animal confined in an enclosed area is required to provide it with an adequate exercise area, and permit access to adequate shelter, food, and water. Other laws specifically related to farm animals generally focus on the humane transportation and slaughter of these animals. Depending upon the specific violation, an individual could be found guilty of a misdemeanor or felony punishable by a fine, imprisonment, or both.
Beginning January 1, 2015, this measure prohibits with certain exceptions the confinement on a farm of pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens in a manner that does not allow them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. Under the measure, any person who violates this law would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or imprisonment in county jail for up to six months.
Compared to current practice most commonly used by California farmers in the affected industries, this measure would require more space and/or alternate methods for housing pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens. As a result, this measure would increase production costs for some of these farmers. To the extent that these higher production costs cause some farmers to exit the business, or otherwise reduce overall production and profitability, there could be reduced state and local tax revenues. The magnitude of this fiscal effect is unknown, but potentially in the range of several million dollars annually.
Additionally, this measure could result in unknown, but probably minor, local and state costs for enforcement and prosecution of individuals charged with the new animal confinement offense. These costs would be partially offset by revenue from the collection of misdemeanor fines.
|Arguments Submitted to Secretary of State|
- Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 2:
- PRO YES on Prop. 2 protects animals, consumers, family farmers, and our environment. Animals deserve humane treatment. Denying them space to turn around or stretch their limbs is cruel and wrong. Supporters: Humane Society of the United States, California Veterinary Medical Association, Consumer Federation of America, Center for Food Safety. http://www.YesOnProp2.org.
- Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 2:
- CON Proposition 2 is too RISKY. Californians enjoy safe, local, affordable eggs. A UC Davis study says Proposition 2 eliminates California egg production. Instead, our eggs will come from out-of-state and Mexico. Public health experts oppose Proposition 2 because it THREATENS increased human exposure to Salmonella and Bird Flu. Vote No.
- Contact FOR Proposition 2:
- Jennifer Fearing
Yes on Prop. 2 - Californians for
1700 L Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
- Contact AGAINST Proposition 2:
- Californians for SAFE Food
P.O. Box 71541
Los Angeles, CA 90071