My CA 2010 Election Ballot
These are the choices I will make, and with it will be my reasoning after each.
1. California Governor/California Lieutenant Governor
Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown (Attorney General of California)/Gavin Newsom (Mayor, City and County of San Francisco) - Democrat
Chelene Nightingale (Business Owner)/Jim King (Real Estate Broker) - American Independent
Carlos Alvarez (Retail Worker)/C.T. Webber (Retired Government Analyst) - Peace & Freedom
Laura Wells (Financial Systems Consultant)/James "Jimi" Castillo (Cultural Spiritual Advisor) - Green
Meg Whitman (Businesswoman)/Abel Maldonado (Senator/Businessman/Farmer) - Republican
Dale F. Ogden (Business Consultant/Actuary)/Pamela J. Brown (Economics Professor) - Libertarian
My Reasoning: Jerry Brown had a chance to help California and he failed, spending as much as he could get away with before term limits kicked in. People can now retire from the state with a good pension at the age of 55 at taxpayer expence. He's got a lot of support from the unions, especially the AFL-CIO, and I'm not too happy about those unions. Meg Whitman is the lesser evil and is the more viable choice compared to the other candidates, as she is the CEO of Ebay but also did not vote for over 20 years :-/. Carlos Alvarez seems to think all of California's money is going to "war and corporations" when it's not the case. Laura Wells supports a State Bank, which I don't see the need for. The other candidates don't seem to have much else to offer or have any plans to help deal with California's current problems.
2. California Secretary of State
Merton D. Short (Aviator) - American Independent
Ann Menasche (Civil Rights Attorney) - Green
Damon Dunn (Small Business Owner) - Republican
Christina Tobin (Voting Rights Advocate) - Libertarian
Marylou Cabral (Community Volunteer) - Peace & Freedom
Debra Bowen (Secretary of State) - Democrat
My Reasoning: I haven't seen more or less much improvement in the current Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. Damon Dunn seems to live the American Dream. Educated at Stanford after growing up in poverty and now runs a successful small business. Christina Tobin simply states that she dedicates her life to helping voters' rights, while Marylou Cabral believes the voting age should be lowered to 16 and extended to prisoners and immigrants. I'm not in favour of lowering the voting age, it's fine as is. I'm also opposed to giving prisoners and immigrants the right to vote. Criminals once in prison should not get the right to vote, nor should foreigners in this country.
3. Califonria Controller
Andrew "Andy" Favor (Certified Public Accountant) - Libertarian
Tony Strickland (State Senator/Businessman) - Republican
Karen Martinez (Retired) - Peace & Freedom
John Chiang (Controller) - Democrat
Lawrence G. Beliz (Independent Businessman) - American Independent
Ross D. Frankel (Accountant) - Green
My Reasoning: This was a tough one. John Chiang has actually been doing a good job of keeping tabs on the books as Controller, and even opposed Arnold's attempt to slash the salaries of government workers by reducing them to minimum wage levels. He stuck to his duties bound by the state constitution and won, putting his duties above his party affiliation. On the other hand, supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Tony Strickland exposed Gray Davis's deal with energy companies for expensive state contracts when he filed suit during the energy crisis that led to his recall. It is a toss up, but unfortunately I have to pick one even though I like both candidates, and I feel Tony will have a good chance to help reform California's books as State Controller and do a good, if not better job than John Chiang.
4. California Treasurer
Mimi Walters (Businesswoman) - Republican
Bill Lockyer (California State Treasurer) - Democrat
Robert Lauten - American Independent
Debra L. Reiger (Retired Technology Manager) - Peace & Freedom
Edward M. Teyssier (Business Owner/Attorney) - Libertarian
Charles "Kit" Crittenden (Retired Professor) - Green
My Reasoning: The state has gone worse with spending and a large budget deficit, and well under Bill Lockyer's tenue, the Treasury has gotten worse. Ed Teyssier and Rob Lauten apparently don't understand the role of the Treaurer, with the former using his experience as an attorney that won suits against the government in taxpayer cases, while the other seems to refer to other laws outside the state and state his feelings on them (i.e. Arizona's law he discusses) which have no relevance to the position. The other two believe in a State Bank, which I feel could compound the fiscal policy in this state rather than improve it.
5. California Attorney General
Peter Allen (Environmental Energy Attorney) - Green
Kamala D. Harris (District Attorney, City and County of San Francisco) - Democrat
Timothy J. Hannan (Attorney/Arbitrator/Mediator) - Libertarian
Diane Beall Templin (Attorney/Real Estate Broker) - American Independent
Steve Cooley (District Attorney, County of Los Angeles) - Republican
Robert J. Evans (Criminal Defence Lawyer) - Peace & Freedom
My Reasoning: Steve Cooley has the experience to show he is a tough AG. He's the District Attorney of LA County, the largest district attorney's office in the country, a place he's managed for at least 10 years, and has shown to be a very effective prosecutor and endorsed by police, and he has the experience as a former police officer to deal with violent crime as well as white collar crime. He also isn't supported by the corrupt unions such as the AFL-CIO, like Kamala Harris is. My vote's for Cooley.
6. California Insurance Commissioner
Mike Villines (Businessman/State Assemblyman) - Republican
Clay Pedersen (Retail Manager) - American Independent
Dina Josephine Padilla (Injured Worker Consultant) - Peace & Freedom
Richard S. Bronstein (Licensed Insurance Broker) - Libertarian
William Balderston (Teacher/Union Organiser) - Green
Dave Jones (Member, California State Assembly) - Democrat
My Reasoning: After the Obamacare fiasco, I will not trust any Democrat with my taxpayer money, esipecially when it comes to insurance policies in the state. The cost of doing business in California must be lowered, which include keeping worker's compensation rates low, and cracking down on insurance fraud, and there are people who still need insurance but can't afford the premiums. I believe Mike Villines can help protect consumers and crack down on fraud so that's why he has my support.
7. Member, California Board of Equalisation, 3rd District
Michelle Steel (Member, Board of Equalisation) - Republican
Jerry L. Dixon (Certified Public Accountant) - Libertarian
Mary Christian Heising (Retired Businesswoman) - Democrat
Terri Lussenheide (Home School Teacher) - American Independent
Mary Lou Finley (Special Education Assistant) - Peace & Freedom
My Reasoning: Mary Lou Finley already doesn't get my vote, stating only that "big corporations" must pay their "fair share" and gives nothing else for her campaign. Mary C. Heising just lists the boards she sits on or was on and shows no real platform at all. Terri of the AIP and Jerry Dixon also fail to present their platforms either. Therefore, Michelle Steel, who actually presented a sound platform of fighting for the taxpayers while serving as a member. She exposed the delay of $42 million in tax deposits owed to more than 5,500 small businesses state wide, and defeated an attempt to tax Internet downloads in the state. She's supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is a taxpayer advocacy group, so she has my support.
8. United States Senator
Marsha Feinland (Retired Teacher) - Peace & Freedom
Carly Fiorina (Business Executive) - Republican
Edward C. Noonan (Computer Store Owner) - American Independent
Duane Roberts (Community Volunteer) - Green
Barbara Boxer (United States Senator) - Democrat
Gail K. Lightfoot (Retired Nurse) - Libertarian
My Reasoning: This took a lot longer than normal for my decision for US Senator. Carly Fiorina committed fail as HP's CEO, especially dealing with the HP/Compaq merger. She laid off 30,000 jobs and sent them overseas. However, the other candidates are much worse. Marsha Feinland espouses socialist beliefs, supporting "free health care" for all Americans without realise how it needs to be paid for, immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan when our forces are still needed there, and heavier regulation on companies, when companies are already choked and taxed high enough as it is. Gail Lightfoot's views as a Libertarian are a bit extreme for me on matters of foreign policy and only wants to serve one term. Kudos for term limits but still not a game changer. Barbara Boxer has been in office for at least three terms and she has accomplished very little, authoring only about four insignificant bills and only provisions here and there. She's shown to be one of the most partisan people in the Senate, and to insist to a US General to address her as a proper title for the "hard work" that she put into is just insulting and demeaning to veteran military officers and shows the contempt she has for the American people. She has had three terms, AKA three chances to be productive for California, and she failed, and it's time to give Carly a try.
9. United States Representative, 52nd Congressional District
Duncan D. Hunter (US Representative/US Marine) - Republican
Michael Benoit (Small Business Owner) - Libertarian
Ray Lutz (Engineer/Entrepreneur/Educator) - Democrat
My Reasoning: Duncan Hunter is a solid choice for Congress. He has a proven track record and sticks to his guns, and he voted NO on Obamacare and the stimulus bill. He is working to fight against the left's agenda to socialise our country and bring us deeper into debt. Ray Lutz nor Michael Benoit have no plans as to how to tackle the issues in Congress that matter the most. Benoit is a typical libertarian candidate a bit extreme for my tastes. Ray Lutz wants to keep things more community oriented even though he will be representing all of California in the US House if elected, which to me sounds like he's not fully aware of the responsibilities and expectations of a US Representative.
10. Member of the California Assembly, 76th Legislative District
Daniel H. Baehr (School Bus Driver) - Libertarian
Toni Atkins (Small Businesswoman) - Democrat
Ralph Denney (Business Owner) - Republican
My Reasoning: Ralph seems to know as a business owner what is needed to help stimulate job creation and help small businesses, and his opponents did not present their platform or views for whatever reason.
11. Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court
Shall Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Seems to be experienced enough and show that they are capable of serving in the position, from what I've seen of their judicial background.
12. Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court
Shall Associate Justice Ming W. Chin be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: It looks like Ming Chin has served so far for at least 14 years, and while that's good and all, I think a justice should be appointed as a fresh face.
13. Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court
Shall Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Seems to be experienced enough and show that they are capable of serving in the position, from what I've seen of their judicial background.
14. Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division One
Shall Presiding Justice Judith D. McConnell be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
15. Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Two
Shall Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
16. Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Two
Shall Judge of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Carol D. Codrington be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm willing to give this Judge a chance to sit on the bench for at least a term and see how they perform.
17. Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Three
Shall Presiding Justice David G. Sills be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
18. Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Three
Shall Associate Justice William W. Bedsworth be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
19. Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Three
Shall Associate Justice Eileen C. Moore be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
20. Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court, Office #20
Richard R. Monroy (Deputy District Attorney)
Jim Miller (Attorney/Arbitrator)
My Reasoning: Richard is a very seasoned prosecutor and has the support of numerous police and sheriff's groups, and has the experience to be a tough, fair, and impartial justice.
21. California Superintendent of Public Instruction
Larry Aceves (Retired School Superintendent)
Tom Torlakson (Teacher/California Legislator)
My Reasoning: Larry has the experience as a former superintendent to know how to deal with proper education policy, and helped to balance a $70 million budget while a school superintendent, and he's been recognised even by the LA Times as someone that is good with outside experience to bring to the table in Sacramento. Tom has no experience except for several years of teaching as opposed to running a school district. Not to mention that Aceves will require every graduate from high school to be able to speak English fluently, and in today's economy, English is the de facto language. He has my support.
22. San Diego Unified School District, Member, Board of Education, District B
Steve Rosen (CEO/Educator/Parent)
Kevin Beiser (Teacher)
My Reasoning: Steve knows how to prioritise things first, put funding in the classroom and focus on improving education for San Diego's kids. He also plans to help balance the budget without raising taxes, and will strive for accountability and transparency, something the other candidate doesn't seem to support, only improving more funding for various types of subjects and improving school performance without explaining how.
23. San Diego Unified School District, Member, Board of Education, District C
Scott Barnett (Budget Analyst/Educator)
John De Beck (Retired Teacher)
My Reasoning: Similar to my choice above for District B, he plans to help balance the budget and provide fiscal responsibility without being a burden to taxpayers and as a lecturer, knows how important it is to prepare students for a quality college education and for the real world to compete for jobs. Funding will go to the classroom and government waste will be cut, as it should be. He has my support.
24. Member, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, District #4
Ron Roberts (San Diego County Supervisor)
Stephen Whitburn (Community Health Educator)
My Reasoning: Ron Roberts is experienced and has been doing a good job as County Supervisor. He was able to procure fire fighting helicopters to help fight wildfires, a major seasonal problem in this state, and he supports fair competition on projects instead of giving the unions first dibs. Instead of a county run general hospital, which apparently failed in the past due to the high cost and poor quality care (but something Stephen Whitburn still wants), Ron supports community clinics to bring good healthcare at reasonable costs to low income residents. He was opposing using tax revenues the city got to backfill cuts in state programmes from Sacramento because then public safety services would be hurt. He's supported by police and his economic policies have improved San Diego's credit rating to very good levels. He has my vote.
25. Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk
David L. Butler (San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk, Appointed)
Ernest J. "Ernie" Dronenburg (Taxpayer's Advocate)
My Reasoning: Ernie has the support of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who has pledged that he will not take a pension, and is the author of the California Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and the original version of Proposition 13, which lowered property taxes significantly.
26. City of San Diego, Member, San Diego City Council, District #6
Lorie Zapf (Businesswoman/Legal Reform Advocate)
Howard Wayne (Deputy Attorney General)
My Reasoning: Howard Wayne voted to increase his own pension when he was in the State Assembly, according to what I've found, and by doing so the vote to inicreas pension benefits now cost Californians $3 billion each year. He also apparently refused to vote on legislation dealing with parole violators and sex offenders. Spending needs to be controlled at all levels (federal, state, and local), and pension reform is badly needed in this state. i will be supporting Lorie Zapf for the City Council.
27. Proposition 19: Legalises Marijuana under California but not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Thanks to Emily (ferahgo) for helping me make a sound decision on this. As long as it is taxed properly, which I believe it will be, marijuana will be treated like alcohol, and it will bring revenue with the sales tax on it. Underage people won't be allowed to buy weed, just like alcohol, and it weakens the power of the drug cartels, as it reduces their power and influence on the drug trade, and redirects our efforts in the drug war elsewhere. Though the federal government might challenge this, at least a YES vote will show some logical sense on this matter.
28. Proposition 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Removes elected representatives from process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently authorised 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state redistricting costs.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I support this. I would rather have redistricting done by an independent bi-partisan commission than politicians who want to commit gerrymandering and help benefit their respective parties.
29. Proposition 21: Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle Licence Surcharge to help fund State Parks and Wildlife Programmes. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission to all State Parks. Initiative Statute.
Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Fiscal Impact: Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge on vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: This creates a Trust Fund that helps protect state parks and wildlife programmes, which are badly in need of funding. The Trust Fund will keep parks open, maintained, and safe, and the measure provides for accountability and auditing to prevent misuse and corruption. For state parks and wildlife conservation, I'm willing to pay an extra car surcharge.
30. Proposition 22: Prohibits the State from Borrowing or Taking Funds used for Transportation, Redevelopment, or Local Government Projects and Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prohibits State, even during severe fiscal hardship, from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Fiscal Impact: Decrease state General Fund spending and/or increased state revenues, probably in the range of $1 billion to several billions of dollars annually. Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programmes and local redevelopment.
YES
NO
My Reasoning:
31. Proposition 23: Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (Assembly Bill AB 32) requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions that cause Global Warming, until Unemployment drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year. Initiative Statute.
Fiscal Impact: Likely modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state from suspension of greenhouse gases regulatory activity, resulting in a potentially significant net increase in state and local revenues
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Air Pollution Control laws should not be suspended even if the unemployment rate is high. I rather enjoy my clean air, thank you very much. This would kill competition from California win and solar companies if this measure passes, not to mention endanger public health with more air pollution.
32. Proposition 24: Repeals Recent Legislation that would Allow Businesses to Lower their Tax Liability. Initiative Statue
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012-13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010-11 and 2011-12.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Larger Businesses should not get tax loopholes while small businesses get virtually no benefit, and no new jobs are created. This would prevent at least $1.3 billion in cuts to public safety services without raising taxes and ensures that no large corporation gets a tax break at Californians' expense.
33. Proposition 25: Changes Legislature Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-related Legislation from Two-thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes. Fiscal Impact: In some years, the contents of the state budget could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirement in this measure. The extent of changes would depend on the Legislature's future actions.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Simple majority my ass. It should always require the legislature to pass budget-related legislation or the budget itself on a 2/3 majority, so that politicians are more accountable and don't rush things through. It protects constitutional safeguards against potential tax increases, lavish spending, and other unnecessary measures.
34. Proposition 26: Requires that Certain State and Local Fees be Approved by Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those that Address Adverse Impacts on Society or the Environment Caused by the Fee-Payer's Business. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Fiscal Impact: Depending on decision by governing bodies and voters, decreased state and local government revenues and spending (up to billions of dollars annually). Increased transportation spending and state General Fund costs ($1 billion annually).
YES
NO
My Reasoning: The people have the right to vote on taxes, and politicians shouldn't try to hide taxes from us as "fees" or whatever the hell they decide to call it. This forces politicians to adhere to budgets that have been set and to what they have, and prevents politicians from trying to pass through hidden taxes. I'm for this.
35. Proposition 27: Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalisation districts with elected representatives who draw congressional districts. Fiscal Impact: Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of these costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Elimiinating the commission that seeks to provide independent redistricting instead of letting the politicians gerrymander and manoeuvre the boundaries to their favour is not something I will support at all.
36. Proposition A: Proposed San Diego County Charter Amendment to Ensure Fair and Open Competition for County Construction Contracts.
Shall the San Diego County Charter be amended to prohibit the County from requiring the use of project labour agreements on County construction projects except where required by State or federal law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: This is self-explanatory. Unions shouldn't be the only ones competing for contracts, and if someone can do it better than them, let them bid for it!
37. Proposition B: Amends City Charter to Add Good Cause Requirement for Certain Terminations or Suspensions of Deputy City Attorneys.
Shall the charter be amended to establish a good cause requirement for the termination or suspension of Deputy City Attorneys who have served continuously for two years or more, except that any Deputy City Attorney may be subject to layoff due to lack of work or insufficient appropriations?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I support this. No Deputy City Attorney who's done good work for San Diego should be terminated without a valid reason, unless there are layoffs, also for legitimate reasons mentioned in the statute.
38. Proposition C: Amending Ordinance #O-18568 (1998 San Diego County Proposition M) Relating to Development of Pacific Highlands Ranch.
Shall Proposition M be amended, allowing completion of parks, library, trails, recreation, and transportation facilities for Pacific Highlands Ranch by removing a development timing restriction based on completion of the SR-56/I-5 Interchange, only after City Council approves a programme of phased development ensuring facilities are constructed before or concurrent with new development, paid for by developers at no cost to taxpayers?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: If the developers are going to construct in the area and it doesn't violated ordinances or come at taxpayer expense, let them do so as long as the developers themselves foot the bill.
39. Proposition D: If Financial Reform Conditions are met, Authorises Temporary One-half Cent Sales Tax
To help offset severe state cuts and help restore essential services, including police, fire, and street resurfacing, shall the City of San Diego enact a temporary one-half cent sales tax for up to five years, only if the Independent City Auditor certifies conditions have been met, including pension reforms and managed competition?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Absolutely not. This is just to increase the sales tax, and we already have one of the highest sales taxes in the country, at nearly 9.75%. Find another way to generate revenue to provided for these services other than raising taxes.
40. Proposition J: Emergency Teacher Retention/Classroom Education Measure
To prevent Math, Science, and English teacher layoffs, protect neighbourhood schools from state budget cuts, prevent cuts to essential academic programmes, job/college preparation, and preserve small classes, shall the San Diego Unified School District levy a Termporary Five Year Emergency annual tax that Sacramento cannot take away of $98/single family home, and taxes on other types of parcels, exempting low income seniors, with independent audits and no money for administrators' salaries?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Once again, I am opposed. Just like my reasoning for voting NO on Proposition D, find another way to generate revenue to fund education programmes, not by raising taxes. We already have high taxes in this god damn county, city, and state. We do not need any more bloody taxes.
This is how I have voted in today's California 2010 General Election. This is the eighth year I have voted in this country since becoming a registered voter in 2001.
Feel free to comment if you wish. I have made my views clear though.
1. California Governor/California Lieutenant Governor
Edmund G. "Jerry" Brown (Attorney General of California)/Gavin Newsom (Mayor, City and County of San Francisco) - Democrat
Chelene Nightingale (Business Owner)/Jim King (Real Estate Broker) - American Independent
Carlos Alvarez (Retail Worker)/C.T. Webber (Retired Government Analyst) - Peace & Freedom
Laura Wells (Financial Systems Consultant)/James "Jimi" Castillo (Cultural Spiritual Advisor) - Green
Meg Whitman (Businesswoman)/Abel Maldonado (Senator/Businessman/Farmer) - Republican
Dale F. Ogden (Business Consultant/Actuary)/Pamela J. Brown (Economics Professor) - Libertarian
My Reasoning: Jerry Brown had a chance to help California and he failed, spending as much as he could get away with before term limits kicked in. People can now retire from the state with a good pension at the age of 55 at taxpayer expence. He's got a lot of support from the unions, especially the AFL-CIO, and I'm not too happy about those unions. Meg Whitman is the lesser evil and is the more viable choice compared to the other candidates, as she is the CEO of Ebay but also did not vote for over 20 years :-/. Carlos Alvarez seems to think all of California's money is going to "war and corporations" when it's not the case. Laura Wells supports a State Bank, which I don't see the need for. The other candidates don't seem to have much else to offer or have any plans to help deal with California's current problems.
2. California Secretary of State
Merton D. Short (Aviator) - American Independent
Ann Menasche (Civil Rights Attorney) - Green
Damon Dunn (Small Business Owner) - Republican
Christina Tobin (Voting Rights Advocate) - Libertarian
Marylou Cabral (Community Volunteer) - Peace & Freedom
Debra Bowen (Secretary of State) - Democrat
My Reasoning: I haven't seen more or less much improvement in the current Secretary of State, Debra Bowen. Damon Dunn seems to live the American Dream. Educated at Stanford after growing up in poverty and now runs a successful small business. Christina Tobin simply states that she dedicates her life to helping voters' rights, while Marylou Cabral believes the voting age should be lowered to 16 and extended to prisoners and immigrants. I'm not in favour of lowering the voting age, it's fine as is. I'm also opposed to giving prisoners and immigrants the right to vote. Criminals once in prison should not get the right to vote, nor should foreigners in this country.
3. Califonria Controller
Andrew "Andy" Favor (Certified Public Accountant) - Libertarian
Tony Strickland (State Senator/Businessman) - Republican
Karen Martinez (Retired) - Peace & Freedom
John Chiang (Controller) - Democrat
Lawrence G. Beliz (Independent Businessman) - American Independent
Ross D. Frankel (Accountant) - Green
My Reasoning: This was a tough one. John Chiang has actually been doing a good job of keeping tabs on the books as Controller, and even opposed Arnold's attempt to slash the salaries of government workers by reducing them to minimum wage levels. He stuck to his duties bound by the state constitution and won, putting his duties above his party affiliation. On the other hand, supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Tony Strickland exposed Gray Davis's deal with energy companies for expensive state contracts when he filed suit during the energy crisis that led to his recall. It is a toss up, but unfortunately I have to pick one even though I like both candidates, and I feel Tony will have a good chance to help reform California's books as State Controller and do a good, if not better job than John Chiang.
4. California Treasurer
Mimi Walters (Businesswoman) - Republican
Bill Lockyer (California State Treasurer) - Democrat
Robert Lauten - American Independent
Debra L. Reiger (Retired Technology Manager) - Peace & Freedom
Edward M. Teyssier (Business Owner/Attorney) - Libertarian
Charles "Kit" Crittenden (Retired Professor) - Green
My Reasoning: The state has gone worse with spending and a large budget deficit, and well under Bill Lockyer's tenue, the Treasury has gotten worse. Ed Teyssier and Rob Lauten apparently don't understand the role of the Treaurer, with the former using his experience as an attorney that won suits against the government in taxpayer cases, while the other seems to refer to other laws outside the state and state his feelings on them (i.e. Arizona's law he discusses) which have no relevance to the position. The other two believe in a State Bank, which I feel could compound the fiscal policy in this state rather than improve it.
5. California Attorney General
Peter Allen (Environmental Energy Attorney) - Green
Kamala D. Harris (District Attorney, City and County of San Francisco) - Democrat
Timothy J. Hannan (Attorney/Arbitrator/Mediator) - Libertarian
Diane Beall Templin (Attorney/Real Estate Broker) - American Independent
Steve Cooley (District Attorney, County of Los Angeles) - Republican
Robert J. Evans (Criminal Defence Lawyer) - Peace & Freedom
My Reasoning: Steve Cooley has the experience to show he is a tough AG. He's the District Attorney of LA County, the largest district attorney's office in the country, a place he's managed for at least 10 years, and has shown to be a very effective prosecutor and endorsed by police, and he has the experience as a former police officer to deal with violent crime as well as white collar crime. He also isn't supported by the corrupt unions such as the AFL-CIO, like Kamala Harris is. My vote's for Cooley.
6. California Insurance Commissioner
Mike Villines (Businessman/State Assemblyman) - Republican
Clay Pedersen (Retail Manager) - American Independent
Dina Josephine Padilla (Injured Worker Consultant) - Peace & Freedom
Richard S. Bronstein (Licensed Insurance Broker) - Libertarian
William Balderston (Teacher/Union Organiser) - Green
Dave Jones (Member, California State Assembly) - Democrat
My Reasoning: After the Obamacare fiasco, I will not trust any Democrat with my taxpayer money, esipecially when it comes to insurance policies in the state. The cost of doing business in California must be lowered, which include keeping worker's compensation rates low, and cracking down on insurance fraud, and there are people who still need insurance but can't afford the premiums. I believe Mike Villines can help protect consumers and crack down on fraud so that's why he has my support.
7. Member, California Board of Equalisation, 3rd District
Michelle Steel (Member, Board of Equalisation) - Republican
Jerry L. Dixon (Certified Public Accountant) - Libertarian
Mary Christian Heising (Retired Businesswoman) - Democrat
Terri Lussenheide (Home School Teacher) - American Independent
Mary Lou Finley (Special Education Assistant) - Peace & Freedom
My Reasoning: Mary Lou Finley already doesn't get my vote, stating only that "big corporations" must pay their "fair share" and gives nothing else for her campaign. Mary C. Heising just lists the boards she sits on or was on and shows no real platform at all. Terri of the AIP and Jerry Dixon also fail to present their platforms either. Therefore, Michelle Steel, who actually presented a sound platform of fighting for the taxpayers while serving as a member. She exposed the delay of $42 million in tax deposits owed to more than 5,500 small businesses state wide, and defeated an attempt to tax Internet downloads in the state. She's supported by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is a taxpayer advocacy group, so she has my support.
8. United States Senator
Marsha Feinland (Retired Teacher) - Peace & Freedom
Carly Fiorina (Business Executive) - Republican
Edward C. Noonan (Computer Store Owner) - American Independent
Duane Roberts (Community Volunteer) - Green
Barbara Boxer (United States Senator) - Democrat
Gail K. Lightfoot (Retired Nurse) - Libertarian
My Reasoning: This took a lot longer than normal for my decision for US Senator. Carly Fiorina committed fail as HP's CEO, especially dealing with the HP/Compaq merger. She laid off 30,000 jobs and sent them overseas. However, the other candidates are much worse. Marsha Feinland espouses socialist beliefs, supporting "free health care" for all Americans without realise how it needs to be paid for, immediately withdrawing from Afghanistan when our forces are still needed there, and heavier regulation on companies, when companies are already choked and taxed high enough as it is. Gail Lightfoot's views as a Libertarian are a bit extreme for me on matters of foreign policy and only wants to serve one term. Kudos for term limits but still not a game changer. Barbara Boxer has been in office for at least three terms and she has accomplished very little, authoring only about four insignificant bills and only provisions here and there. She's shown to be one of the most partisan people in the Senate, and to insist to a US General to address her as a proper title for the "hard work" that she put into is just insulting and demeaning to veteran military officers and shows the contempt she has for the American people. She has had three terms, AKA three chances to be productive for California, and she failed, and it's time to give Carly a try.
9. United States Representative, 52nd Congressional District
Duncan D. Hunter (US Representative/US Marine) - Republican
Michael Benoit (Small Business Owner) - Libertarian
Ray Lutz (Engineer/Entrepreneur/Educator) - Democrat
My Reasoning: Duncan Hunter is a solid choice for Congress. He has a proven track record and sticks to his guns, and he voted NO on Obamacare and the stimulus bill. He is working to fight against the left's agenda to socialise our country and bring us deeper into debt. Ray Lutz nor Michael Benoit have no plans as to how to tackle the issues in Congress that matter the most. Benoit is a typical libertarian candidate a bit extreme for my tastes. Ray Lutz wants to keep things more community oriented even though he will be representing all of California in the US House if elected, which to me sounds like he's not fully aware of the responsibilities and expectations of a US Representative.
10. Member of the California Assembly, 76th Legislative District
Daniel H. Baehr (School Bus Driver) - Libertarian
Toni Atkins (Small Businesswoman) - Democrat
Ralph Denney (Business Owner) - Republican
My Reasoning: Ralph seems to know as a business owner what is needed to help stimulate job creation and help small businesses, and his opponents did not present their platform or views for whatever reason.
11. Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court
Shall Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Seems to be experienced enough and show that they are capable of serving in the position, from what I've seen of their judicial background.
12. Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court
Shall Associate Justice Ming W. Chin be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: It looks like Ming Chin has served so far for at least 14 years, and while that's good and all, I think a justice should be appointed as a fresh face.
13. Associate Justice of the California Supreme Court
Shall Associate Justice Carlos R. Moreno be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Seems to be experienced enough and show that they are capable of serving in the position, from what I've seen of their judicial background.
14. Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division One
Shall Presiding Justice Judith D. McConnell be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
15. Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Two
Shall Presiding Justice Manuel A. Ramirez be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
16. Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Two
Shall Judge of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Carol D. Codrington be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm willing to give this Judge a chance to sit on the bench for at least a term and see how they perform.
17. Presiding Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Three
Shall Presiding Justice David G. Sills be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
18. Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Three
Shall Associate Justice William W. Bedsworth be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
19. Associate Justice, California Court of Appeal, District Four, Division Three
Shall Associate Justice Eileen C. Moore be elected to the office for the term provided by law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I'm not sure how long they have been in office so far, but for this retention election, I believe they should finish their term and let a fresh justice sit instead and give them a chance to sit on the bench.
20. Judge of the San Diego County Superior Court, Office #20
Richard R. Monroy (Deputy District Attorney)
Jim Miller (Attorney/Arbitrator)
My Reasoning: Richard is a very seasoned prosecutor and has the support of numerous police and sheriff's groups, and has the experience to be a tough, fair, and impartial justice.
21. California Superintendent of Public Instruction
Larry Aceves (Retired School Superintendent)
Tom Torlakson (Teacher/California Legislator)
My Reasoning: Larry has the experience as a former superintendent to know how to deal with proper education policy, and helped to balance a $70 million budget while a school superintendent, and he's been recognised even by the LA Times as someone that is good with outside experience to bring to the table in Sacramento. Tom has no experience except for several years of teaching as opposed to running a school district. Not to mention that Aceves will require every graduate from high school to be able to speak English fluently, and in today's economy, English is the de facto language. He has my support.
22. San Diego Unified School District, Member, Board of Education, District B
Steve Rosen (CEO/Educator/Parent)
Kevin Beiser (Teacher)
My Reasoning: Steve knows how to prioritise things first, put funding in the classroom and focus on improving education for San Diego's kids. He also plans to help balance the budget without raising taxes, and will strive for accountability and transparency, something the other candidate doesn't seem to support, only improving more funding for various types of subjects and improving school performance without explaining how.
23. San Diego Unified School District, Member, Board of Education, District C
Scott Barnett (Budget Analyst/Educator)
John De Beck (Retired Teacher)
My Reasoning: Similar to my choice above for District B, he plans to help balance the budget and provide fiscal responsibility without being a burden to taxpayers and as a lecturer, knows how important it is to prepare students for a quality college education and for the real world to compete for jobs. Funding will go to the classroom and government waste will be cut, as it should be. He has my support.
24. Member, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, District #4
Ron Roberts (San Diego County Supervisor)
Stephen Whitburn (Community Health Educator)
My Reasoning: Ron Roberts is experienced and has been doing a good job as County Supervisor. He was able to procure fire fighting helicopters to help fight wildfires, a major seasonal problem in this state, and he supports fair competition on projects instead of giving the unions first dibs. Instead of a county run general hospital, which apparently failed in the past due to the high cost and poor quality care (but something Stephen Whitburn still wants), Ron supports community clinics to bring good healthcare at reasonable costs to low income residents. He was opposing using tax revenues the city got to backfill cuts in state programmes from Sacramento because then public safety services would be hurt. He's supported by police and his economic policies have improved San Diego's credit rating to very good levels. He has my vote.
25. Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk
David L. Butler (San Diego County Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk, Appointed)
Ernest J. "Ernie" Dronenburg (Taxpayer's Advocate)
My Reasoning: Ernie has the support of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who has pledged that he will not take a pension, and is the author of the California Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and the original version of Proposition 13, which lowered property taxes significantly.
26. City of San Diego, Member, San Diego City Council, District #6
Lorie Zapf (Businesswoman/Legal Reform Advocate)
Howard Wayne (Deputy Attorney General)
My Reasoning: Howard Wayne voted to increase his own pension when he was in the State Assembly, according to what I've found, and by doing so the vote to inicreas pension benefits now cost Californians $3 billion each year. He also apparently refused to vote on legislation dealing with parole violators and sex offenders. Spending needs to be controlled at all levels (federal, state, and local), and pension reform is badly needed in this state. i will be supporting Lorie Zapf for the City Council.
27. Proposition 19: Legalises Marijuana under California but not Federal Law. Permits Local Governments to Regulate and Tax Commercial Production, Distribution, and Sale of Marijuana. Initiative Statute.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Fiscal Impact: Depending on federal, state, and local government actions, potential increased tax and fee revenues in the hundreds of millions of dollars annually and potential correctional savings of several tens of millions of dollars annually.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Thanks to Emily (ferahgo) for helping me make a sound decision on this. As long as it is taxed properly, which I believe it will be, marijuana will be treated like alcohol, and it will bring revenue with the sales tax on it. Underage people won't be allowed to buy weed, just like alcohol, and it weakens the power of the drug cartels, as it reduces their power and influence on the drug trade, and redirects our efforts in the drug war elsewhere. Though the federal government might challenge this, at least a YES vote will show some logical sense on this matter.
28. Proposition 20: Redistricting of Congressional Districts. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Removes elected representatives from process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently authorised 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party. Fiscal Impact: No significant net change in state redistricting costs.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I support this. I would rather have redistricting done by an independent bi-partisan commission than politicians who want to commit gerrymandering and help benefit their respective parties.
29. Proposition 21: Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle Licence Surcharge to help fund State Parks and Wildlife Programmes. Grants Surcharged Vehicles Free Admission to all State Parks. Initiative Statute.
Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Fiscal Impact: Annual increase to state revenues of $500 million from surcharge on vehicle registrations. After offsetting some existing funding sources, these revenues would provide at least $250 million more annually for state parks and wildlife conservation.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: This creates a Trust Fund that helps protect state parks and wildlife programmes, which are badly in need of funding. The Trust Fund will keep parks open, maintained, and safe, and the measure provides for accountability and auditing to prevent misuse and corruption. For state parks and wildlife conservation, I'm willing to pay an extra car surcharge.
30. Proposition 22: Prohibits the State from Borrowing or Taking Funds used for Transportation, Redevelopment, or Local Government Projects and Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Prohibits State, even during severe fiscal hardship, from delaying distribution of tax revenues for these purposes. Fiscal Impact: Decrease state General Fund spending and/or increased state revenues, probably in the range of $1 billion to several billions of dollars annually. Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programmes and local redevelopment.
YES
NO
My Reasoning:
31. Proposition 23: Suspends Implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (Assembly Bill AB 32) requiring Major Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions that cause Global Warming, until Unemployment drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year. Initiative Statute.
Fiscal Impact: Likely modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state from suspension of greenhouse gases regulatory activity, resulting in a potentially significant net increase in state and local revenues
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Air Pollution Control laws should not be suspended even if the unemployment rate is high. I rather enjoy my clean air, thank you very much. This would kill competition from California win and solar companies if this measure passes, not to mention endanger public health with more air pollution.
32. Proposition 24: Repeals Recent Legislation that would Allow Businesses to Lower their Tax Liability. Initiative Statue
Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $1.3 billion each year by 2012-13 from higher taxes paid by some businesses. Smaller increases in 2010-11 and 2011-12.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Larger Businesses should not get tax loopholes while small businesses get virtually no benefit, and no new jobs are created. This would prevent at least $1.3 billion in cuts to public safety services without raising taxes and ensures that no large corporation gets a tax break at Californians' expense.
33. Proposition 25: Changes Legislature Vote Requirement to Pass Budget and Budget-related Legislation from Two-thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes. Fiscal Impact: In some years, the contents of the state budget could be changed due to the lower legislative vote requirement in this measure. The extent of changes would depend on the Legislature's future actions.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Simple majority my ass. It should always require the legislature to pass budget-related legislation or the budget itself on a 2/3 majority, so that politicians are more accountable and don't rush things through. It protects constitutional safeguards against potential tax increases, lavish spending, and other unnecessary measures.
34. Proposition 26: Requires that Certain State and Local Fees be Approved by Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those that Address Adverse Impacts on Society or the Environment Caused by the Fee-Payer's Business. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Fiscal Impact: Depending on decision by governing bodies and voters, decreased state and local government revenues and spending (up to billions of dollars annually). Increased transportation spending and state General Fund costs ($1 billion annually).
YES
NO
My Reasoning: The people have the right to vote on taxes, and politicians shouldn't try to hide taxes from us as "fees" or whatever the hell they decide to call it. This forces politicians to adhere to budgets that have been set and to what they have, and prevents politicians from trying to pass through hidden taxes. I'm for this.
35. Proposition 27: Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalisation districts with elected representatives who draw congressional districts. Fiscal Impact: Possible reduction of state redistricting costs of around $1 million over the next year. Likely reduction of these costs of a few million dollars once every ten years beginning in 2020.
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Elimiinating the commission that seeks to provide independent redistricting instead of letting the politicians gerrymander and manoeuvre the boundaries to their favour is not something I will support at all.
36. Proposition A: Proposed San Diego County Charter Amendment to Ensure Fair and Open Competition for County Construction Contracts.
Shall the San Diego County Charter be amended to prohibit the County from requiring the use of project labour agreements on County construction projects except where required by State or federal law?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: This is self-explanatory. Unions shouldn't be the only ones competing for contracts, and if someone can do it better than them, let them bid for it!
37. Proposition B: Amends City Charter to Add Good Cause Requirement for Certain Terminations or Suspensions of Deputy City Attorneys.
Shall the charter be amended to establish a good cause requirement for the termination or suspension of Deputy City Attorneys who have served continuously for two years or more, except that any Deputy City Attorney may be subject to layoff due to lack of work or insufficient appropriations?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: I support this. No Deputy City Attorney who's done good work for San Diego should be terminated without a valid reason, unless there are layoffs, also for legitimate reasons mentioned in the statute.
38. Proposition C: Amending Ordinance #O-18568 (1998 San Diego County Proposition M) Relating to Development of Pacific Highlands Ranch.
Shall Proposition M be amended, allowing completion of parks, library, trails, recreation, and transportation facilities for Pacific Highlands Ranch by removing a development timing restriction based on completion of the SR-56/I-5 Interchange, only after City Council approves a programme of phased development ensuring facilities are constructed before or concurrent with new development, paid for by developers at no cost to taxpayers?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: If the developers are going to construct in the area and it doesn't violated ordinances or come at taxpayer expense, let them do so as long as the developers themselves foot the bill.
39. Proposition D: If Financial Reform Conditions are met, Authorises Temporary One-half Cent Sales Tax
To help offset severe state cuts and help restore essential services, including police, fire, and street resurfacing, shall the City of San Diego enact a temporary one-half cent sales tax for up to five years, only if the Independent City Auditor certifies conditions have been met, including pension reforms and managed competition?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Absolutely not. This is just to increase the sales tax, and we already have one of the highest sales taxes in the country, at nearly 9.75%. Find another way to generate revenue to provided for these services other than raising taxes.
40. Proposition J: Emergency Teacher Retention/Classroom Education Measure
To prevent Math, Science, and English teacher layoffs, protect neighbourhood schools from state budget cuts, prevent cuts to essential academic programmes, job/college preparation, and preserve small classes, shall the San Diego Unified School District levy a Termporary Five Year Emergency annual tax that Sacramento cannot take away of $98/single family home, and taxes on other types of parcels, exempting low income seniors, with independent audits and no money for administrators' salaries?
YES
NO
My Reasoning: Once again, I am opposed. Just like my reasoning for voting NO on Proposition D, find another way to generate revenue to fund education programmes, not by raising taxes. We already have high taxes in this god damn county, city, and state. We do not need any more bloody taxes.
This is how I have voted in today's California 2010 General Election. This is the eighth year I have voted in this country since becoming a registered voter in 2001.
Feel free to comment if you wish. I have made my views clear though.