*** 2008 CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS *** How would you vote?

[cfmonkey45]

Alright, with the U.S. elections tomorrow, I thought it would be a good idea to see how you guys feel about some of the issues that are being voted on in my home state, California. Now, imagine that you are a California voter of age in the booth, which would you choose?

Here's the information (Note: I put in bold the major ones):

Proposition 1 - High Speed Railway Bond

HIGH SPEED RAIL BONDS. LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVE AMENDMENT.

• Provides $9 billion for building a new high-speed railroad between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
• Funds rail expansion to other locations if money becomes available.
• Provides $950 million for connections to the high-speed railroad and for repairing, modernizing and improving passenger rail service, including tracks, signals, structures, facilities and rolling stock.
• Total funding provided is $9.95 billion from general obligation bonds.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• State costs of about $19.4 billion over 30 years to pay off both principal ($9.95 billion) and interest ($9.5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $647 million per year.
• Additional unknown costs, probably in excess of $1 billion a year, to operate and maintain a high-speed rail system. The costs would be at least partially offset by passenger fare revenues, depending on ridership.

Proposition 2 - Animal Rights

STANDARDS FOR CONFINING FARM ANIMALS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• 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.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• 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.

Proposition 3 - Bonds to fund Children's Hospitals

CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL BOND ACT. GRANT PROGRAM. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• Authorizes $980,000,000 in bonds, to be repaid from state’s General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children’s hospitals.
• Designates that 80 percent of bond proceeds go to hospitals that focus on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis.
• Requires that qualifying children’s hospitals provide comprehensive services to a high volume of children eligible for governmental programs and meet other requirements.
• Designates that 20 percent of bond proceeds go to University of California general acute care hospitals.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• State cost of about $2 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($980 million) and the interest ($933 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $64 million per year.

Proposition 4 - Abortion Regulations

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

• Changes California Constitution to prohibit abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent or legal guardian.
• Permits notification to certain adult relatives if doctor reports parent to law enforcement or Child Protective Services.
• Provides notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver.
• Permits courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
• Mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors.
• Authorizes damages against physicians for violation.
• Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with exceptions.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Potential unknown net state costs of several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, court administration, and state health agency administration combined.

Proposition 5 - Nonviolent Drug Offenders

NONVIOLENT DRUG OFFENSES. SENTENCING, PAROLE AND REHABILITATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• Allocates $460,000,000 annually to improve and expand treatment programs for persons convicted of drug and other offenses.
• Limits court authority to incarcerate offenders who commit certain drug crimes, break drug treatment rules or violate parole.
• Substantially shortens parole for certain drug offenses; increases parole for serious and violent felonies.
• Divides Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation authority between two Secretaries, one with six year fixed term and one serving at pleasure of Governor. Provides five year fixed terms for deputy secretaries.
• Creates 19 member board to direct parole and rehabilitation policy.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increased state costs over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually primarily for expanding drug treatment and rehabilitation programs for offenders in state prisons, on parole, and in the community.
• State savings over time potentially exceeding $1 billion annually due primarily to reduced prison and parole operating costs.
• Net one-time state savings on capital outlay costs for prison facilities that eventually could exceed $2.5 billion.
• Unknown net fiscal effect on county operations and capital outlay.

NOTE: Just to inform those who aren't up to date on this, this shortens prison sentences of Drug Dealers (like Cocaine, Crack, and Meth) from 6 years to 3 months + rehab (also, no research to prove that the rehab actually works.)

Proposition 6 - Funding for Police

POLICE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDING.
CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• Requires minimum of $965,000,000 each year to be allocated from state General Fund for police, sheriffs, district attorneys, adult probation, jails and juvenile probation facilities. Some of this funding will increase in following years according to California Consumer Price Index.
• Makes approximately 30 revisions to California criminal law, many of which cover gang-related offenses. Revisions create multiple new crimes and additional penalties, some with the potential for new life sentences.
• Increases penalties for violating a gang-related injunction and for felons carrying guns under certain conditions.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Net increase in state costs that are likely within a few years to exceed $500 million annually, primarily due to increasing state spending for various criminal justice programs to at least $965 million, as well as for increased costs for prison and parole operations. These costs would increase by tens of millions of dollars annually in subsequent years.
• Potential one-time state capital outlay costs for prison facilities that could exceed $500 million due to increases in the prison population.

Proposition 7 - Renewable Energy

RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• Requires utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generate 20% of their power from renewable energy by 2010, a standard currently applicable only to private electrical corporations.
• Raises requirement for utilities to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025.
• Imposes penalties, subject to waiver, for noncompliance.
• Transfers some jurisdiction of regulatory matters from Public Utilities Commission to Energy Commission.
• Fast-tracks approval for new renewable energy plants.
• Requires utilities to sign longer contracts (20 year minimum) to procure renewable energy.
• Creates account to purchase rights-of-way and facilities for the transmission of renewable energy.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Increased state administrative costs of up to $3.4 million annually for the regulatory activities of the California Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission and the California Public Utilities Commission, paid for by fee revenues.
• Unknown impact on state and local government costs and revenues due to the measure’s uncertain impact on retail electricity rates. In the short term, the prospects for higher rates—and therefore higher costs, lower sales and income tax revenues, and higher local utility tax revenues—are more likely. In the long term, the impact on electricity rates, and therefore state and local government costs and revenues, is unknown.

Proposition 8 - Ban on Gay Marriage

ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME–SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

• Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California.
• Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Over the next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly from sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments.
• In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.

Proposition 9 - Victim Safety Act

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM. VICTIMS’ RIGHTS. PAROLE.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

• Requires notification to victim and opportunity for input during phases of criminal justice process, including bail, pleas, sentencing and parole.
• Establishes victim safety as consideration in determining bail or release on parole.
• Increases the number of people permitted to attend and testify on behalf of victims at parole hearings.
• Reduces the number of parole hearings to which prisoners are entitled.
• Requires that victims receive written notification of their constitutional rights.
• Establishes timelines and procedures concerning parole revocation hearings.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Potential loss of future state savings on prison operations and potential increased county jail operating costs that could collectively amount to hundreds of millions of dollars annually, due to restricting the early release of inmates to reduce facility overcrowding.
• Net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually for the administration of parole hearings and revocations, unless the changes in parole revocation procedures were found to conflict with federal legal requirements.

Proposition 10 - Bonds for the Purchase of Renewable Energy

ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES AND RENEWABLE ENERGY.
BONDS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

• Provides $3.425 billion to help consumers and others purchase certain high fuel economy or alternative fuel vehicles, including natural gas vehicles, and to fund research into alternative fuel technology.
• Provides $1.25 billion for research, development and production of renewable energy technology, primarily solar energy with additional funding for other forms of renewable energy; incentives for purchasing solar and renewable energy technology.
• Provides grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficiency technologies.
• Total funding provided is $5 billion from general obligation bonds.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• State costs of about $10 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5 billion) and interest ($5 billion) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $335 million per year.
• Increase in state sales tax revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2019.
• Increase in local sales tax and vehicle license fee revenues of an unknown amount, potentially totaling in the tens of millions of dollars, over the period from 2009 to about 2019.
• Potential state costs of up to about $10 million annually, through about 2019, for state agency administrative costs not funded by the measure.

Proposition 11 - Redistricting and Prevention of "Gerrymandering"

REDISTRICTING.
INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

• Changes authority for establishing Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries from elected representatives to 14 member commission.
• Requires government auditors to select 60 registered voters from applicant pool. Permits legislative leaders to reduce pool, then the auditors pick eight commission members by lottery, and those commissioners pick six additional members for 14 total.
• Requires commission of five Democrats, five Republicans and four of neither party. Commission shall hire lawyers and consultants as needed.
• For approval, district boundaries need votes from three Democratic commissioners, three Republican commissioners and three commissioners from neither party.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Potential increase in state redistricting costs once every ten years due to two entities performing redistricting. Any increase in costs probably would not be significant.

Proposition 12 - Veteran's Bond Act

VETERANS’ BOND ACT OF 2008.

• This act provides for a bond issue of nine hundred million dollars ($900,000,000) to provide loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes.
• Appropriates money from the state General Fund to pay off the bonds, if loan payments from participating veterans are insufficient for that purpose.

Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

• Costs of about $1.8 billion to pay off both the principal ($900 million) and interest ($856 million) on the bonds; costs paid by participating veterans.
• Average payment for principal and interest of about $59 million per year for 30 years.

[manofarms89]

thanks for doing this. no political bias, just facts. +rep

[cfmonkey45]

Yeah, I hope that people read this and decide for themselves. It would be interesting to see how others on this board, especially non-Americans, feel about these acts of legislation.

[MaximiIian]

The only one I care about is Proposition Eight, the marriage ban, which I would vote "no" on.
The others are irrelevancies of Californian () law. Prop. 8 is a matter of human and civil rights.

[manofarms89]

The only one I care about is Proposition Eight, the marriage ban, which I would vote "no" on.
The others are irrelevancies of Californian () law. Prop. 8 is a matter of human and civil rights.

irrelevancies?

[MaximiIian]

irrelevancies?

I don't like California. They have too many representatives in the House, too many votes in the Electoral College, and too much power.
As a citizen of relatively small state, Kentucky, I don't like that. Thus, their issues are irrelevant to me except in cases of human and civil rights.

And the gay marriage issue is human rights issue.

[cfmonkey45]

I don't like California. They have too many representatives in the House, too many votes in the Electoral College, and too much power.
As a citizen of relatively small state, Kentucky, I don't like that. Thus, their issues are irrelevant to me except in cases of human and civil rights.

And the gay marriage issue is human rights issue.

Lolz, it's funny that you should say that. I have a dream of running for public office, and one of my first choices if I ran for California State Assembly would be to amend the California State Constitution that would require the state, in terms of Presidential Elections, to delegate the Electoral Votes based on percentages of voters.

It sucks being a minority, I know.

[Alkarin]

voted yes on all. and on the prop 8 thing. im not voting yes because i hate gays. its because the judges overruled the vote to ban it in the first place, its about democracy's rights being put aside

[cfmonkey45]

Well, the interesting thing about Proposition 8 was that in 2000, a law was passed banning gay marriage, and over 60-65% of the voters approved it, but the State Supreme court declared it unconstitutional. This act (Proposition 8) amends the California State constitution to circumvent that decision. It can then only be ruled unconstitutional by the Federal Supreme Court.

[MadBurgerMaker]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes
5. No
6. Yes
7. Yes
8. No
9. No
10. I missed one (Would have voted yes)
11. Yes
12. Yes

[cfmonkey45]

Apparently, it's a very big issue ESPECIALLY in my hometown, District 25 where, right outside my house (or like a street down, lol) there was a huge (and i mean HUGE) supporters demonstration for Proposition 8.

Prop 8 is MAJOR in this election.

[Syron]

Hmm, interesting topic. From my perspective (and admittedly lack of background knowledge on some issues) I would say;

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. No

6. Yes

7. Yes

8. No

9. No

10. Yes

11. Yes

12. Yes

[cfmonkey45]

For the Record, I think I should state my views on the Issues I voted on:


WARNING - Personal Bias!

1. Yes - It helps our economy

2. No - While it is very humane and well-intentioned (and I would probably vote for it in normal circumstances), at this point in time, with our economy, It would be too much strain on the already poor rural farmers. Most would lose their farms as they can't afford to renovate their facilities to reach state regulations.

3. Yes - Money for sick children. What Would Jesus Do?

4. Yes - It's absurd that I, as a 17-year-old have to have parental consent, not just notification as this Bill would require, to have something trivial as a flu-shot done, let alone an abortion.

5. No - 6 years to 3 months plus rehab is asking for a disaster.

6. Yes - I would feel much safer.

7. No - Half-assed solution to dilute all of our fuels by 20% with already disproven ethanol. It's a horrible mistake that will leave us with at least $5.00 per gallon (compared to the $3.45-ish)

8. No - Although I am an Evangelical Christian Conservative, I don't think that it's the role of the Church to intervene on the rights of marriage. Although, to play the Devil's Advocate (or God's advocate rather ) this would also open the door for Pedophiles, Incest, and Polygamy, all of which aren't supported by most Gay-Rights Supporters (an example of hypocrisy)

9. Yes - Nothing wrong as far as I can see.

10. Yes - Much better than 7, and it will wean us off as a state from Fossil Fuels.

11. Yes - For those foreigners out there, and those who are unaware, "Gerrymandering" is the process of redrawing district lines to keep minorities under and to keep incumbents in power. It's corrupt, but sometimes it falls under the radar.

12. Yes - Come on, they served our country.

[Fingon NL]

8. No - Although I am an Evangelical Christian Conservative, I don't think that it's the role of the Church to intervene on the rights of marriage. Although, to play the Devil's Advocate (or God's advocate rather ) this would also open the door for Pedophiles, Incest, and Polygamy, all of which aren't supported by most Gay-Rights Supporters (an example of hypocrisy)

Finally a true liberal(I gues you are if you voted no) Evangelical Christian Conservative
I hear all those christian liberals saying all day how liberal they are and that personal freedom is everything, but when gays want to marry suddenly they're not so liberal any more

Besides that, polygamy is a cultural thing IMO, it can be argued it is illegal, but if a man wants to have several wives(or a woman several husbands ) I dont really see the problem (I don't approve it!).
Incest is ''cultural'' as well IMO, as long as both are 18+ there shouldn't really a problem (especially in those cases where for example father and daughter onl meet eachother for the first time around the daughters 30s, they don't have a real father-child relation besides the blood-bond[I don't like this either, it disgusts mee as well, but again, personal freedom]).

Pedophily is something totally different IMO, such a (sexual) relationship between two unquel people in terms of mind-development can't be equal or just. (I can't really explain this in english, I miss too many words in my vocabulary.)

[Augustus Lucifer]

1 - No
2 - Yes
3 - Yes
4 - No
5 - No (A few hundred thousand slaps in the face don't generally cost $460 million to administer. Hell I'll do it for free.)
6 - Yes
7 - Yes
8 - No
9 - Abstain
10 - Yes
11 - Abstain
12 - Yes

And I'm a Californian of registered voting age, so that's what my ballot's gonna look like when I go cast it in a little while here. Might provide more of my thoughts/reasoning later but not enough time right now. Also voting Yes on district funding for classroom refurbishing and the creation/maintenance of gyms and physical education facilities.

[Orko]

1.yes
2.yes
3.yes
4.no
5.no
6.yes.
7.yes
8.no
9. yes
10.yes
11.yes
12.yes

[The King Of Peasants]

Yes on 1
No on 2
Yes on 3
Yes on 4
No on 5, 6 and 7
Yes on 8 (Courts acted wrongly as in my state MA)
Yes on 9, 10, 11 and 12

Interesting topic MA only has like 3 ballet questions(elimination of the state income tax:heck yes! legalization of marijuana:yes and making dog racing illegal:no)

[Cluny the Scourge]

Yes on Proposition 1 - Highspeed Railway - Sounds cool. Expensive, but cool.

Yes on Proposition 2 - Animal Rights - the meat-packers.

Yes on Proposition 3 - Bonds to Children's Hospitals - As much as I detest children, I'd need in-depth knowledge of the alternatives before I could make my heart stony enough to vote No.

No on Proposition 4 - Parental Notification for Abortion - The only possible reason to require parental notification in this situation is to give parents the chance to coerce and pressure their children into having babies they don't want. This is a repulsive idea.

Yes on Proposition 5 - Nonviolent Drug Offenses - The entire drugs war is pointless, and the last resources that are wasted on it from the judicial system, and the correctional-system, the better; ideally full legalisation would be on the cards, but this will do as a start.

No on Proposition 6 - Police Funding - This is NOT a solution to the problem, but rather is merely throwing money and ever-stiffer penalties in the hope it will somehow just go away. Gangs thrive on their profits from control of drugs. This Proposition is just putting a feeble, wet little band-aid on the problem and giving people an excuse not to have to face up to what really has to be done, i.e. legalisation.

Yes on Proposition 7 - Renewable Energy Statute - the big energy companies.

No on Proposition 8 - Ban on Gay Marriage - It's beyond my understanding why anyone would care whether gays married or not.

No on Proposition 9 - Victim's Rights Act - This is a terrible idea. It will result in a mob-justice climate in which criminals are sentenced according to emotion and publicity, not reason and fairness. Every criminal should be treated the SAME on the facts, not according to how their victim FEELS about it.

Yes on Proposition 10 - Alternative Fuel Vehicles - oil companies.

Yes on Proposition 11 - Regulations for Redistricting - Sounds practical. I would need to know more details on the alternatives that have been discussed before I was really sure, however.

No on Proposition 12 - Veteran's Bond Act of 2008 - What is the point in this measure? Are veterans unable to secure loans on the same terms for house-buying as anyone else? This is an imprudent measure to promote house-purchasing at a time when such irrational distortions in the market are at their most traumatic.

[Balikedes]

Yes on Proposition 7 - Renewable Energy Statute - the big energy companies.

No on Proposition 8 - Ban on Gay Marriage - It's beyond my understanding why anyone would care whether gays married or not.

It's my understanding that Yes on 7 will regulate renewable energy forcing PG&E to undertake it. Effectively raising your bill.

No on 8 - Could not agree with you more.

[twist_the_wrist]

i agree with you on pretty much all your opinions except the criminal justice ones... (even though youre choice for #5 mirrored mine).

[quote=Cluny the Scourge;3937308]
Yes on Proposition 5 - Nonviolent Drug Offenses - The entire drugs war is pointless, and the last resources that are wasted on it from the judicial system, and the correctional-system, the better; ideally full legalisation would be on the cards, but this will do as a start.[quote]

i disagree that the drug war is pointless. however before i argue why i will make some rational concessions.

1). it does in fact contribute massively to prison overcrowding. since the war on drugs began, somewhere around 50% of state convicts are there because of drug related crimes (violent and non-violent). i cannot recall the percentage for federal prisons but i assume it is higher considering drug trafficking is a major concern of federal law enforcement.

2). people who would otherwise be peaceful and have been arrested for non-violent possession (this includes hard drugs) will be given overly harsh sentences and will most undoubtebly succomb to labeling (the theory that you become more criminally inclined after being labeled as a criminal).

3). finally of a obvious negative, it takes away from law enforcements attention on more traditional crimes such as white collar and standard street crime. we must understand that now adays however, alot of this "street crime" has to do with drugs wether it be gang activity for the control of drug related resources or junkies robbing people for money so to purchase more drugs.

as far as why i think the war on drugs can "work" (atleast be as effective as it can be, i admit it will be impossible to bar all drug use)...

1). continue with measures to grant more lenient sentences to first time offenders in non-violent crimes such as probation or rehabilitation. this helps prevent exposing otherwise peaceful people from the violence and horror that is prison and also, helps them rebound and not be as likely to be labeled as a felon for the rest of their life.

this helps free up space in prisons reducing cost. now i understand that recitivsim rates for drug use are high but atleast we're giving them a chance. after rehab they have only themselves to blame.

2). i would allow the legalization of small amounts (per person) of taxable (very important for the government) marijuana that would have similar, if not stricter conditions to alcohol. this would please alot of harmless (presumebly) people and would create a new popular industry to create jobs and of course tax. also it takes away the jobs from criminals since they're now competing with corporations.

finally, im not quite sure if you're saying the war on drugs is ineffective, or if its just not necessary at all because drugs should be legal anyways.

i addressed the first part but if you agree with the latter, then that requires a wholenother thread.


[quote]No on Proposition 6 - Police Funding - This is NOT a solution to the problem, but rather is merely throwing money and ever-stiffer penalties in the hope it will somehow just go away. Gangs thrive on their profits from control of drugs. This Proposition is just putting a feeble, wet little band-aid on the problem and giving people an excuse not to have to face up to what really has to be done, i.e. legalisation.[quote]

what do you mean by legislation? legalization or stiffer penalties?

the latter would require greater enforcement consequently demanding more funding for the police to follow through. in any case, if a police force (in this case all of California) is under-funded and having problems, i see no problem for an increase in spending. people forget that the police serve more than just an anti-drug role. also, this funding contributes to the District Attorneys and parole boards so it is broader than just police. i would much rather have money spent on real people trying to help the community in functional jobs such as emergency services than to be spent on a high tech railroad that costs ubsurd amounts of money for one state to burden (im assuming the feds will not subsidize).

[quote]
No on Proposition 9 - Victim's Rights Act - This is a terrible idea. It will result in a mob-justice climate in which criminals are sentenced according to emotion and publicity, not reason and fairness. Every criminal should be treated the SAME on the facts, not according to how their victim FEELS about it.[quote]

while i agree that it may give victims to much freedom of influencing the courts decision, it does have its good points. it requires that judges determining bail consider risk or threat to victim as a factor (although i think judges already do that) and it allows written rights of the victim be given. i do not like the increase in available witnesses for the prosecution as this does, as you say, give an unfair advantage regarding emotion and shear numbers of people against the defendant. if they want to prove the defense is guilty, use the traditional amount of witnesses allowed and pick your best ones.


NOTE: sorry for sucking at the quote boxes, im tired...