I've had a lot of free time while visiting Portland for school stuff, so yesterday I sat down and did several hours of internet research on all the choices we have to make on the November ballot. Most useful to me were the LA Weekly Voter's guide (
www.laweekly.com/news/news...e/14930/), and recommendations from Faramarz Nabavi (
www.lavoice.org/index.php a long-time Green and environmental activist who has researched quite a bit on many of the local elections, including the judges, for which there's very little information readily available to voters. Of course, I encourage you all to make your own decisions, but I'm presenting this information to give you a place to start if you're feeling overwhelmed.
Here's how I'm voting:
Governor: I'm still undecided on this one.
Honestly, I don't care who wins. Schwarzenegger, while certainly not perfect, has done some pretty progressive things for a Republican, and Phil Angelides will probably be ok but I don't want to support his negative campaign ads. I may vote Peace & Freedom on this one - I like to support third party candidates, and right now the Peace & Freedom party's spot on the ballot is more tenuous than the Greens - so the more votes they get, the better their chances of staying on the ballot in the future.
Lieutenant Governor: John Garamendi (D)
McClintock is an arch-conservative Republican whose views are the mirror image of mine. Garamendi has done a good job as insurance commissioner, he has a pretty good envionmental record, and honestly there's not much to the position of Lieutenant Governor unless the Governor dies.
Secretary of State: Debra Bowen! (D)
This position is so important in this day and age, overseeing the voting process when electronic voting technology is still very new and a certain party (ahem) has established a reputation of trying to steal elections. Debra knows about electronic voting issues inside and out and has a healthy distrust in the technology and the people who want to take advantage of its vulnerabilities. She wrote and successfully passed several state bills this last year that increase the security of electronic voting, including requiring a voter-verified paper audit trail. Bruce McPherson, the Republican incumbent, certified some very controversial Diebold machines (
www.debrabowen.com/blog/ He just doesn't get why it's so important to look at electronic voting critically and do everything he can to make sure every vote is counted fairly.
Controller: John Chiang (D)
While the job of making sure the budget is spent properly sounds pretty straightforward, the controller has some sway in environmental issues because he sits on important environmental bodies like the State Lands Commission. He's got several environmental organization endorsements, and he's also pro choice. His main opponent, Tony Strickland, is an uber conservative anti-environment guy. No thanks.
Treasurer: Gerald Sanders (PnF)
Bill Lockyer (D) is probably gonna get the job, but he's very pro death penalty which makes me not not such a big fan. He also took campaign contributions from people he was supposed to be regulating. This is another vote for the PnF to keep them on the ballot.
Attourney General: Jerry Brown (D)
He's got tons of public office experience, opposes the death penalty, is pro-environment, pro-choice. While his record with police in Oakland isn't so great, I have more confidence that he'll have my back than Poochigan. Plus his name doesn't make me think of a poodle.
Insurance Commissioner: Larry Cafiero (G)
Unfortunately there's no candidate for this office who I am really excited to vote for. Bustamante (D) has accepted donations from companies he would be regulating, even after he vowed to return the dirty money when he was caught (and then only returned part of it). And the only reason Poizner (R) hasn't had to deal with this issue is because he can afford to fund his entire campaign with his pocketbook. Poizner also supported Prop 73 on last November's ballot, which is a terrible idea (see my commentary below on Prop 85 which is almost identical). So I looked at the website of Tom Condit, the Peace & Freedom candidate, and while I agree with many of his views, his anti-private insurance company stance make me think that it will be difficult for him to work with these companies at all to find ground for compromise. It sounds more like he wants to change the laws for insurance companies rather than enforce them. I think his interests are more appropriate for a legislative position than an executive position, but even then, his experience is negligible. Cafiero, well, again he has very little experience, but that's my only major objection.
Member State Board of Equalization: Judy Chu (D)
The BOE is responsible for ensuring that tax administration is done fairly and efficiently. Judy Chu has lots of public service experience and is pretty progressive. Read more about the board and Judy Chu here:
www.latimes.com/news/opini...33342.story
US Senator: Marsha Feinland (PnF)
Diane Feinstein has a good environmental record but she's pro-war, pro-business, and anti-civil liberties. She's supported a lot of things I disagree with over the years. She's a sure win, so I have no concern that voting for a third party will increase the chances of a Repub. winning. This is more a vote against Feinstein and for a third party than for Feinland specifically.
US Representative, State Senator and State Assembly: Suffice to say I'm voting for the Democrat. I doubt many people reading this live in the same districts as I do so I won't get into names or reasons why.
Judicial elections:
LA Green Girl gives a good explanation as to the how's and why's of the appearance of these judges on our ballot (
greenlagirl.com/2006/11/01...judicial/). There is so little information is out there for these candidates, that for several of them, the only basis I had to go by is seeing who Republican organizations were supporting and picking the other person. And because I have so little info on why I picked each of these people, I'm not going to bother explaining why for each and every one.
Supreme Court Justice:
YES for Joyce L. Kennard
NO for Carol A. Corrigan (arch conservative)
Court of Appeal Justice:
YES for Mallano
YES for Rothschild
NO for Boren
NO for Chavez
NO for Kitching
NO for Aldrich
NO for Epstein
NO for Willhite
NO for Manella
NO for Suzukawa
NO for Mosk
NO for Kriegler
YES for Gilbert
YES for Perluss
NO for Woods
YES for Zelon
YES for Cooper
YES for Flier
Superior Court: the LA Times April Endorsements (
www.latimes.com/news/opini...9043.story) are outdated but give some info on these candidates.
Office #8: Sanchez
Office #18: Mitchell
Office #102: Zacky (A moderate Republican, said to be very fair. Montgomery only has one endorsement. That's sad.)
Office #104: Tillmon
Office #144: Levart Barquist (Both parties being equally qualified, I went by party affiliation)
State Ballot Measures
1A: NO.
Designates gas taxes for transportation improvements. While many of these improvements are probably needed, I'm voting against this as I do for any ballot measure that takes away the flexibility our elected officials need to use the state finances for what's most needed. Also, "transportation improvements" usually mean more highways, more sprawl, more fuel consumption and polluting emissions. Not what California needs.
1B: Undecided.
Again, this would probably support more highways rather than public transportation. However, some of the money will go to improving the seismic safety of local bridges. After watching film footage of the Bay Bridge collapsing in the 1988 earthquake, I am scared shitless of being crushed to death by a bridge collapsing on me during an earthquake. I'd be interested to find out how much $ is set aside for each aspect, and exactly how it will reduce air polution.
1C: YES
This is a no-brainer. It provides housing for those people who need it most: battered women and their children, low-income seniors, veterans, and the disabled.
1D: Undecided
Upgrades outdated and overcrowded school facilities, improves earthquake safety. So far so good. However Faramarz Nabavi feels the funding formula is not favorable to districts that have the greatest need.
1E: YES
Preventing the hundred-year-old levees from failing, New Orleans style, sounds like a good thing. Especially for those of us in Southern California whose water supply comes from Northern California and passes through areas that are most in danger of flooding on the way to us. Experts say the huge cost of this measure is still not enough to do all the upgrades necessary to bring the state's water system up to par, but it's a start.
83: NO
I'm sick and tired of attempts to restrict the civil liberties of sex offenders once they've done their time. If people feel the penalty for sex offences isn't enough, increase the penalty instead of treating them like second-class citizens. A very similar law was passed in Iowa and they found it simply forced registered sex offenders underground and to rural areas so that they didn't have to wear the lo-jack. And those who work in sex offender rehabilitation say that destabilizing their housing situations and removing them from their support networks is likely to increase the chances of repeat offenses, not decrease it.
84: YES
The bond money will go to improve drinking water, provide flood control, conserve our open spaces, green our urban areas, and clean up our water — including our beaches. Sounds good to me!
85: a big fat NO!
This requires parental notification and establishes a 48 hour waiting period once a teenager requests abortion services. If it sound familiar to you, it's because last November, Proposition 73 said almost the exact same thing. And it failed. Anti-choicers are hoping that we won't remember that we voted against it last year and be fooled by its appeals to encourage family communication. The thing they don't tell us is that 70% of teenagers already do talk to their parents about unintended pregnancy. If it passes, it will not only do a disservice to the 30% of teenagers who feel they cannot talk to their parents about their situation (often because of violence or incest within the family), who may take matters into their own hands instead, but it affects all of us who value the right to choose by amending the constitution to define define abortion of a fetus as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born," which means that state-level court cases regarding abortion rights will use this definition. And since it's a constitutional amendment, legal challenges are not an option.
86: YES
Opponents of this measure (big tobacco companies and cigarette retailers) say that little of the money will go directly to anti-smoking and lung cancer research programs. They seem to be overlooking the fact that the tax itself is an anti-smoking program. The money will go to a wide variety of health programs that need the funding, including assistance to hospitals in danger of closing their ER, disease prevention, treatment and research programs, health insurance for children under age 19, community clinics to care for uninsured individuals, nursing education and training, and healthy eating and physical activity promotion. One major concern is that if the tax has the intended effect of decreasing cigarette sales, the amount of money the State receives from the tax will decrease over time, resulting in an unstable source of funding for the health programs.
87: Undecided
Taxing oil producers and forbidding them to pass the tax onto the consumers and then using the money to promote alternative energy is an idea after my own heart. There is, however, the question of ethanol producer influence in promoting the measure and how closely involved these same producers will be in its implementation. In reading through the text of the measure, it seems that which projects receive money are highly dependent on the Governor-appointed board. So the direction this measure takes really depends on the Governor. It will require the public to take an active part in keeping them accountable and making sure appointees are well qualified and unbiased. Unfortunately Schwarzenegger's record on environmental appointments is not so great (
i-r-squared.blogspot.com/2006/...html).
And in case you're interested in my take on the whole Ethanol debate, I'm ok with ethanol on two conditions: (1) ethanol from corn is extremely inefficient - we need to make ethanol from other plants with higher energy yield (2) we need to be sure to diversify our sources of energy and not take it all from food, which could make the world food supply less secure (
www.treehugger.com/files/20...nol.php).
88: NO
Supporting education is important, but this law is not the way to do it. There are a lot of problems with this proposition, and most teacher's unions are against it. The tax would charge per parcel of land rather than the land value, which means a low-income senior would pay the same amount as the owner of a mall or high-rise office building that uses the same amount of land. There are a lot of limitations on how the funds can be used, giving individual schools very little flexibility to use them for what most needs funding. But most importantly, it only allows schools that score in the top half on standardized tests! No Child Left Behind has already shown us that standardized test score requirements don't improve education, and this proposition only seems to benefit those schools that already have an advantage. Also, it seems unnecessary to amend the constitution for this purpose.
89: YES
Public campaign financing will decrease the huge influence corporations now have over government and enable a wider variety of candidates to participate in public debate.
90: NO
Disguised as an eminent domain reform, it's just a ploy for real estate agents and developers to steal money from the government hand over fist. California already has protections to prevent eminent domain from being used to transfer land from one private entity to another. This measure goes beyond preventing eminent domain abuse and enables land owners to sue the government for using eminent domain in any situation. If the government wanted to set aside a piece of land as a nature preserve, developers would have the right to sue the government for compensation of the loss of profits they would have made if they had been able to proceed with development. The measure is very vaguely worded, which, when a similar measure was passed in Oregon, resulted in a huge backlog of lawsuits as the state legislature tried to fill in the gaps. Any ballot measure that amends the constitution makes me wary - this one especially.
City Measures
H: NO
This is another measure that provides housing for those people who need it most. However, H does not address all the city's low-income housing needs, and my concern is that its passage will let the city council off the hook to create additional much-needed housing initiatives.
J: YES
This is a simple change of Proposition F that allows the city to build new fire stations on smaller plots of land than was specified in Prop F; plots of land that size are hard to come by in densly populated areas.
R: NO
This will not make the ethical reforms its supporters want us to think it does. A 3-year term limit is actually an increase from the current limit, which is 2 years. The list of supporters of this measure should say enough as it is - big lobbying firms, ex-mayor Richard Riordan, real estate developers, and other special interests that the measure supposedly protects us from. Check out
www.laweekly.com/news/z-fi...pid/14931/ to find out more.
Phew! Thanks for hanging in there with me, and happy voting!
