An Example of How to Analyze a Proposition

The following link-up is from a California voter.  Seeing as how California is often portrayed as the “political leader” for federal government legislation and recognizing that this is a great example of how to analyze a proposition I believe this to be relevant to everyone.  The full article is here.

Some excerpts:

"Now to my real concerns. While our voter guide says that "enforcement" of the law will be performed by the government {presumably the DPH}, the law specifically says that enforcement is primarily via lawsuit:

111910. (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 111900 or any other provision of law, any person may bring an action in superior court pursuant to this section and the court shall have jurisdiction upon hearing and for cause shown, to grant a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of Article 6.6 (commencing with Section 110808), or Article 7 (commencing with Section 110810) of Chapter 5.

[snip]

(b) In addition to the injunctive relief provided in subdivision (a), the court may award to that person, organization, or entity reasonable attorney's fees and all reasonable costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting the action as determined by the court.

In my mind, this is code for license to sue. To sue wildly, as there are no real limits.

Really? Can we not just lodge a complaint somewhere? Does this really have to go through the already-overloaded courts?

Does "any person" mean even people from outside of California? Even if they never shop in California?

Because of the way the law is written, it looks to me like people {or organizations, or "entities"} can sue farmers and grocers, whomever they wish. And why? Well, because they want to:"

 

and

 

"What is the Intent of the Law?

I don't want to be cynical, but here's the deal. If the intent of the law is to properly label food, that we might know if our food has been tampered with at the genetic level, I agree with the intent.

But the enforcement side of the law makes me think that the point of this is to open a lot more people and businesses up to lawsuits. It is to make people vulnerable. The cynic in me says that the enforcement side reveals the real intent of the law, which is for lawyers and their clients to make a lot of money off of our of our culture's affection for unadulterated foods."

 

and

 

"I refuse to vote for injustice, even if the effect of the law--the proper labeling--suits me just fine."