Voting Post - General Election 2010
So much for a boring midterm election. All across the nation, Tuesday's House and Senate races WILL determine if the progress we've made (and the progress yet to come) with healthcare, urban transit, high speed rail, education, and the environment will continue or reverse. I don't normally explicitly say this, but unless you are really attached to a particular third-party candidate (or know that the seat is incredibly safe), it is IMPERATIVE that you vote for the Democrat running in your House and Senate race.
This is from my Los Angeles Ballot. Some names and measures may differ depending on your city, county district, or registered party affiliation.
Locate your L.A. County Polling Place ...
GENERAL ELECTION
November 2, 2010
-- POLLING PLACES STAY OPEN UNTIL 8PM --
Jerry Brown for GOVERNOR
I would have preferred to see Newsom running for this seat, but at least it's impossible to argue Jerry's experience. Bottom line, the risk that eMeg Whitman-- who is trying to buy her way past her lack of civic engagement for over 20 years --will sell off the state's public sector to the highest bidder (and outright kill the voter-approved High Speed Rail plan) is huge and scary and real.
Gavin Newsom for LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Debra Bowen for SECRETARY OF STATE
John Chiang for CONTROLLER
Bill Lockyer for TREASURER
Kamala D. Harris for ATTORNEY GENERAL
Dave Jones for INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
Jerome E. Horton for MEMBER of the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4th District
Barbara Boxer for UNITED STATES SENATOR
Let me be clear: I can NOT fathom why this race is so close, but it is. Boxer's environmental record speaks for itself. Her opponent's contempt for the positive roll California plays in national environmental policy is also painfully clear. We can talk about how much we hate Washington on another day; Boxer's one of the good ones (I've actually met her) and we need her in D.C.!
Lucille Roybal-Allard for UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 34th District
Kevin De Leon for STATE SENATOR 22nd District
John A. Perez for MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 46th District
Because of the silly notion the voters are somehow qualified to confirm the judicial races, here we go...
YES on Tani G. Cantil-SAKAUYE for CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
YES on Ming W. Chin for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
YES on Carlos R. Moreno for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
YES on Robert M. Mallano for PRESIDING JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Victoria G. Chaney for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Jeffrey W. Johnson for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Judith M. Ashmann for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Walter Croskey for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Steven Suzukawa for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Orville "Jack" Armstrong for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Paul H. Coffee for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Steven Z. Perren for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Laurie D. Zelon for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Frank Y. Jackson for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Tricia A. Bigelow for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Elizabeth Annette Grimes for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
Randy Hammock for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office № 28
Alan Schneider for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office № 117
Schneider's opponent is rated "Not Qualified" by the Los Angeles Bar Association.
Amy D. Hogue for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office № 136
Tom Torlakson for SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
John Y. Wong for COUNTY ASSESSOR
STATE MEASURES
YES on Measure 19 - Legalizes marijuana under California but not Federal law. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana.
If we manage to pass this measure, the state will stand to save "tens of millions of dollars annually" on the expenses associated with this pointlessly illegal statute. Worried about a sudden influx of pot into "critical" areas (such as schools or transporatation)? Don't be mislead; this initiative would not roll back any of the separate laws and work rules pertaining to chemical impairment-- random drug testing will still be standard-practice for many careers. Minors would be "carded", as is the current practice for tobacco and alcohol.
YES on Measure 20 - Redistricting of Congressional districts.
Quick primer: Redistricting is the process of drawing the boundaries of the area represented by the people we elect to represent us in Sacramento and in Washington, an exercise that occurs every 10 years. Historically, the same politicians who run for election in these districts have gotten to choose their shape (and, in turn, have essentially gotten to decide who their voters were). In 2008, Californians chose to reform this process, passing Proposition 11 by a narrow margin. Prop 11 established an independent commission to decide district boundaries based on a set of established criteria (rather than political wheeling and dealing). For the 2008 measure, the authors (assisted by my father!) deliberately left out Congress, limiting its scope to state representatives (California Senate, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization).
Prop 20 would continue the trend established by the voters in 2008, this time taking the responsibility for defining California's U.S. Congressional districts out of the the hands of the politicians, and charging the Citizen's Redistricting Commission with the task.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Read my 2008 write-up Prop 11, in which I quote my mother ...
YES on Measure 21 - Establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund State Parks and wildlife programs. Grants surcharged vehicles free admission to all State Parks.
The only thing I dislike about this is the "free admission" for vehicles into State Parks. Fuckin' bribery, but I'll vote yes for the good attempt at more funding.
YES on Measure 22 - Prohibits the State from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.
Funding for transportation and redevelopment agencies often happens at the state level-- either through direct funding (the state pays subsidies to Metro to operate busses and trains) or through property tax assessments earmarked for specific improvements (such as "locally-funded" redevelopment projects as was done with the area around Staples Center). The problem is that, since this funding is happening in Sacramento, it's become increasingly popular for the State Legislature to re-assign these local funds to help pay for the statewide budget.
Prop 22 would prohibit Sacramento from taking these specially assigned local tax revenues, and would enable transportation and redevelopment agencies to count on their budgets not getting raided (or at least, not quite so easily).
HELL NO on Measure 23 - Suspends implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until employment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year.
Do I even need to explain how bad this is?? This proposition was put on the ballot by two Texas oil gasoline companies, with the idea of buying their way into lowering our environmental standards. The amazing thing is, that while the Yes side has spent upward of $9 million to mislead us, concerned environmentalists and other activists actually managed to raise money opposing Prop 23's special interests by a factor of almost three-to-one! In other words, David went out and bought himself a piano to drop on Goliath's head!
YES on Measure 24 - Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability.
Out of all our crazy budget horse-trading came a tax loophole that would exempt businesses from certain taxes starting next year. This proposition seeks to close the loophole before we get there, to the tune of maintaining $1.3 billion in tax revenue to the State. Contrary to what the "No" side is saying, Prop 24 does NOT raise taxes on small business. In this instance "raise taxes" and "small business" are code words for "keeping taxes the same" and "BIG business", since most small businesses don't qualify for the tax exemption in the first place. Meanwhile, our state really does need all the pocket change it can find.
YES on Measure 25 - Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains two-thirds vote requirement for taxes.
This measure could actually help bring some sanity to the budget process in Sacramento. It is VERY hard to come up with the 2/3rds "Supermajority" needed to pass a budget. The process of vote-seeking often results in the sort of quid pro-quo that creates the sort of loopholes mentioned in Prop 24, above. By allowing a regular majority-vote to advance the State's budget to the Governor's desk, our legislators might actually be able to concentrate on real solutions rather than buying votes.
As an added cherry-on-top for voters, "Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes." Let's sock it to the Man!
NO on Measure 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.
Some have described Prop 26 as a yang to Prop 25's yin because both deal with 2/3rds majorities. Others have likened Prop 26 to a "stealth" Prop 23, since fees can be used to discourage businesses from engaging in practices that harm the environment. In either case, I believe we need FEWER instances of 2/3rds requirements in Sacramento right now, not MORE.
HELL NO on Measure 27 - Eliminates state commission on redistricting. Consolidates authority for redistricting with elected representatives.
I am SO upset that progressive groups are wishy-washy on this one. If you need to understand why this responsibility does NOT belong with "elected representatives", I offer you this from my 2008 write-up on Prop 11:
The Supreme Court redistricted in the 70s (1973) and 1990s (1991) and created very fair, competitive districts. The legislature did it in the 1980s (a Democratic gerrymander) and the 2000s (complete incumbent protection for both Democrats and Republicans). Since 2001, only 4 seats have changed parties in 495 legislative and congressional races. Quite ironically, the Dems have lost 3 of those legislative seats.
We made serious progress by passing Prop 11 in 2008. Let's not unwind it before we have a chance to see how fairly apportioned legislative districts can perform in the coming years.
Think I'm off-base? Leave a comment!
This is from my Los Angeles Ballot. Some names and measures may differ depending on your city, county district, or registered party affiliation.
Locate your L.A. County Polling Place ...
GENERAL ELECTION
November 2, 2010
-- POLLING PLACES STAY OPEN UNTIL 8PM --
Jerry Brown for GOVERNOR
I would have preferred to see Newsom running for this seat, but at least it's impossible to argue Jerry's experience. Bottom line, the risk that eMeg Whitman-- who is trying to buy her way past her lack of civic engagement for over 20 years --will sell off the state's public sector to the highest bidder (and outright kill the voter-approved High Speed Rail plan) is huge and scary and real.
Gavin Newsom for LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
Debra Bowen for SECRETARY OF STATE
John Chiang for CONTROLLER
Bill Lockyer for TREASURER
Kamala D. Harris for ATTORNEY GENERAL
Dave Jones for INSURANCE COMMISSIONER
Jerome E. Horton for MEMBER of the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 4th District
Barbara Boxer for UNITED STATES SENATOR
Let me be clear: I can NOT fathom why this race is so close, but it is. Boxer's environmental record speaks for itself. Her opponent's contempt for the positive roll California plays in national environmental policy is also painfully clear. We can talk about how much we hate Washington on another day; Boxer's one of the good ones (I've actually met her) and we need her in D.C.!
Lucille Roybal-Allard for UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE 34th District
Kevin De Leon for STATE SENATOR 22nd District
John A. Perez for MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 46th District
Because of the silly notion the voters are somehow qualified to confirm the judicial races, here we go...
YES on Tani G. Cantil-SAKAUYE for CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
YES on Ming W. Chin for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
YES on Carlos R. Moreno for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT
YES on Robert M. Mallano for PRESIDING JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Victoria G. Chaney for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Jeffrey W. Johnson for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Judith M. Ashmann for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Walter Croskey for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Steven Suzukawa for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Orville "Jack" Armstrong for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Paul H. Coffee for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Steven Z. Perren for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Laurie D. Zelon for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Frank Y. Jackson for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Tricia A. Bigelow for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
YES on Elizabeth Annette Grimes for ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEAL
Randy Hammock for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office № 28
Alan Schneider for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office № 117
Schneider's opponent is rated "Not Qualified" by the Los Angeles Bar Association.
Amy D. Hogue for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office № 136
Tom Torlakson for SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
John Y. Wong for COUNTY ASSESSOR
STATE MEASURES
YES on Measure 19 - Legalizes marijuana under California but not Federal law. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production, distribution, and sale of marijuana.
If we manage to pass this measure, the state will stand to save "tens of millions of dollars annually" on the expenses associated with this pointlessly illegal statute. Worried about a sudden influx of pot into "critical" areas (such as schools or transporatation)? Don't be mislead; this initiative would not roll back any of the separate laws and work rules pertaining to chemical impairment-- random drug testing will still be standard-practice for many careers. Minors would be "carded", as is the current practice for tobacco and alcohol.
YES on Measure 20 - Redistricting of Congressional districts.
Quick primer: Redistricting is the process of drawing the boundaries of the area represented by the people we elect to represent us in Sacramento and in Washington, an exercise that occurs every 10 years. Historically, the same politicians who run for election in these districts have gotten to choose their shape (and, in turn, have essentially gotten to decide who their voters were). In 2008, Californians chose to reform this process, passing Proposition 11 by a narrow margin. Prop 11 established an independent commission to decide district boundaries based on a set of established criteria (rather than political wheeling and dealing). For the 2008 measure, the authors (assisted by my father!) deliberately left out Congress, limiting its scope to state representatives (California Senate, Assembly, and State Board of Equalization).
Prop 20 would continue the trend established by the voters in 2008, this time taking the responsibility for defining California's U.S. Congressional districts out of the the hands of the politicians, and charging the Citizen's Redistricting Commission with the task.
FOR MORE INFORMATION: Read my 2008 write-up Prop 11, in which I quote my mother ...
YES on Measure 21 - Establishes $18 annual vehicle license surcharge to help fund State Parks and wildlife programs. Grants surcharged vehicles free admission to all State Parks.
The only thing I dislike about this is the "free admission" for vehicles into State Parks. Fuckin' bribery, but I'll vote yes for the good attempt at more funding.
YES on Measure 22 - Prohibits the State from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.
Funding for transportation and redevelopment agencies often happens at the state level-- either through direct funding (the state pays subsidies to Metro to operate busses and trains) or through property tax assessments earmarked for specific improvements (such as "locally-funded" redevelopment projects as was done with the area around Staples Center). The problem is that, since this funding is happening in Sacramento, it's become increasingly popular for the State Legislature to re-assign these local funds to help pay for the statewide budget.
Prop 22 would prohibit Sacramento from taking these specially assigned local tax revenues, and would enable transportation and redevelopment agencies to count on their budgets not getting raided (or at least, not quite so easily).
HELL NO on Measure 23 - Suspends implementation of Air Pollution Control Law (AB 32) requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until employment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year.
Do I even need to explain how bad this is?? This proposition was put on the ballot by two Texas oil gasoline companies, with the idea of buying their way into lowering our environmental standards. The amazing thing is, that while the Yes side has spent upward of $9 million to mislead us, concerned environmentalists and other activists actually managed to raise money opposing Prop 23's special interests by a factor of almost three-to-one! In other words, David went out and bought himself a piano to drop on Goliath's head!
YES on Measure 24 - Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to lower their tax liability.
Out of all our crazy budget horse-trading came a tax loophole that would exempt businesses from certain taxes starting next year. This proposition seeks to close the loophole before we get there, to the tune of maintaining $1.3 billion in tax revenue to the State. Contrary to what the "No" side is saying, Prop 24 does NOT raise taxes on small business. In this instance "raise taxes" and "small business" are code words for "keeping taxes the same" and "BIG business", since most small businesses don't qualify for the tax exemption in the first place. Meanwhile, our state really does need all the pocket change it can find.
YES on Measure 25 - Changes legislative vote requirement to pass budget and budget-related legislation from two-thirds to a simple majority. Retains two-thirds vote requirement for taxes.
This measure could actually help bring some sanity to the budget process in Sacramento. It is VERY hard to come up with the 2/3rds "Supermajority" needed to pass a budget. The process of vote-seeking often results in the sort of quid pro-quo that creates the sort of loopholes mentioned in Prop 24, above. By allowing a regular majority-vote to advance the State's budget to the Governor's desk, our legislators might actually be able to concentrate on real solutions rather than buying votes.
As an added cherry-on-top for voters, "Legislature permanently forfeits daily salary and expenses until budget bill passes." Let's sock it to the Man!
NO on Measure 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.
Some have described Prop 26 as a yang to Prop 25's yin because both deal with 2/3rds majorities. Others have likened Prop 26 to a "stealth" Prop 23, since fees can be used to discourage businesses from engaging in practices that harm the environment. In either case, I believe we need FEWER instances of 2/3rds requirements in Sacramento right now, not MORE.
HELL NO on Measure 27 - Eliminates state commission on redistricting. Consolidates authority for redistricting with elected representatives.
I am SO upset that progressive groups are wishy-washy on this one. If you need to understand why this responsibility does NOT belong with "elected representatives", I offer you this from my 2008 write-up on Prop 11:
The Supreme Court redistricted in the 70s (1973) and 1990s (1991) and created very fair, competitive districts. The legislature did it in the 1980s (a Democratic gerrymander) and the 2000s (complete incumbent protection for both Democrats and Republicans). Since 2001, only 4 seats have changed parties in 495 legislative and congressional races. Quite ironically, the Dems have lost 3 of those legislative seats.
We made serious progress by passing Prop 11 in 2008. Let's not unwind it before we have a chance to see how fairly apportioned legislative districts can perform in the coming years.
Think I'm off-base? Leave a comment!