Thanks. I always look forward to this because you seem to have a better handle on the legalese these are written in than I do. And I have similar misgivings on 793. We have an *excellent* eye doctor clinic here and while I suspect they’d remain (I doubt Wal-mart will reattach retinas), still, I’d rather not chance it.
For what it’s worth (damn little), I wouldn’t vote Yes on any of them either if I were an Oklahoma voter.
Lots of states get governors and lite-govs of different parties; it’s not a thing.
The only state I’ve lived in where this could never happen was Alaska, and those two offices are the only statewide elected offices they have. But Alaska’s constitution has lots of stupid ideas their leaders thought were brilliant back in 1956, that have turned out otherwise.
I’m inclined to agree with you on all of them. In the NY Democratic primary in September, the gov and lt gov run separately. It was clear that Cuomo was going to win (and he did by a 2:1 margin). But the incumbent lt gov only won 54-46 . It could have been an interesting race if Cuomo had to run with the “progressive” candidate.
I also have concluded (finally) to vote NO on all of them. The most confusing one, for me, was the Walmart-friendly optometrists question. I do like a good deal on eyeglasses. But what convinced me to turn this one down is, it’s a change to the CONSTITUTION, for crying out loud. Seems like overkill, and it would make it quite difficult to change it back, later. Same problem with Marcy’s law.