We're in the home stretch - just a week until Election Day! Thank you so much to all of you who have endorsed me and those who have already mailed in your ballots with a vote for me!
For those of you who are still working through all of the ballot propositions, here's my voter guide to help you make your decision. The following are measures and candidates I have a strong opinion on, and I've given you an even-handed summary of the rest of the state ballot propositions at the right:
 Me and the Governor at a Prop. 11 event |
Did you know that 99% of districts do not change party hands between elections?
That means if you live in a predominately Democratic (like here in District 3) or predominately Republican district, the election for State Legislature will largely be decided at the primary. If you're registered independent or a party other than the dominant one, your vote effectively DOES NOT COUNT. It is unacceptable to cut so many voters out of the process.
Prop. 11 would change the way we draw district lines, which is done every 10 years with the census (coming up in 2011). Currently the legislators draw their own lines, which results in gerrymandered districts that guarantee a victory for one or the other party and often ignore city and county lines. The new process would allow a body of 14 citizens to draw the district lines, respecting city and county borders. The board would consist of 5 Republicans, 5 Democrats and 4 others.
This was sponsored by the non-partisan League of Women Voters and has received wide bipartisan support. The only opposition I have seen comes from current legislators who like things the way they are.
This one was a no-brainer for me - it can do nothing but help us here in California. Decide for yourself by getting more info from these sites:
Measure B would consolidate the offices of Auditor-Controller and Tax Collector-Treasurer, each of which is now an elected office, into one that would be appointed by the County Board of Supervisors. The appointee could only be removed by a vote of 4 of the 5 County Supervisors.
This would compromise the impartiality of the auditor role and would not allow the voters to be involved in this process. Is saving on one salary worth that compromise?
Marin IJ recommends NO on Measure B
Although a train is a romantic idea, this solution would not solve our traffic problems. We need a solution that uses modern technology and doesn't rely on such a heavy subsidy (depending on who you believe, it's between $25 and $75 per rider!). The proposed SMART train would not even make it to the Larkspur Ferry and would require people to drive to the train, park, ride the train, and then take a bus or cab to the next stop. That makes it much more likely people will simply take their cars instead.
There is no magic bullet solution for our traffic and transportation woes here in the North Bay. This solution brings with it a 1/4% sales tax, another added burden in these tight economic times. Marin and Sonoma environmentalists also oppose this measure.
Press Democrat guest editorial against Measure Q
Marin: Measures B and Q are the only county measures on the ballot. See the SmartVoter website for your local city measures.
Sonoma: Measures Q is the only county measure on the ballot. See the SmartVoter website for your local city measures.
San Francisco: San Francisco has a large number of local and county ballot measures; see the SmartVoter website for the full list. In addition, the San Francisco GOP has a comprehensive list of recommendations.
I endorse these candidates because I believe they are the best people for the job, and I have worked closely with most of them. Please click on their names to see their websites and learn more about them.
State Assembly (Marin/Sonoma):
Paul Lavery
"It's time to break the cycle. California faces a spending and a revenue
problem -- revenues (i.e. taxes/fees) have increased by 40% while spending
has increased by 44% since 2004. All legislators need to make it their
mission to work toward restructuring the state budgeting process.
We need to ensure that there is a predictable and sustainable stream
of funding."
State Assembly (San Francisco):
Harmeet Dhillon
"I'm a balanced advocate for solutions that work and smarter government
- not a knee-jerk ideologue. As a responsible professional with decades
of leadership in diverse organizations, I can best represent San
Francisco through my proven ability to work with people on both sides of
the aisle in Sacramento."
Healthcare District (Marin):
Sharon Jackson & Hank Simmonds
From Suzy Coxhead: "As a former Director of the Marin Healthcare District
Board for 12 years, I am very aware of the challenge facing Marin General
Hospital to succeed when Sutter Health's lease is terminated on 1/1/2010.
We must elect people whom the doctors trust and who will stop playing
politics with the future of our Hospital."
U.S. House of Representatives (San Francisco):
Dana Walsh
"Someone has to stand up for America, our freedoms and our future."
This is a quick reference of the state ballot propositions with links to the ballot summaries and the pro and con websites. Each of these propositions really needs a bit of time to fully absorb - you can decide you are for a measure in principle only to be opposed to its execution. There are several bond measures on the ballot (Props. 1A, 3, 10 and 12); bonds allow the state to borrow to fund long-term projects. We need to consider carefully all proposals that increase the state's debt obligation; learn more about how state bonds work here. I hope this helps you to make your own best informed decision.
Prop. 1A (High-Speed Rail from SF to LA): This is a bond measure
to build a bullet train between the Bay Area and LA. It's a great concept,
but some oppose the way this was crafted. Supporters include Judge Quentin
Kopp and Dianne Feinstein, and opposition includes the California Chamber
of Commerce.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 1A
No on 1A
Prop. 2 (Confinement of Farm Animals): This would require that California
farmers create space for certain farm animals to move around within their confinement.
There is minimal fiscal impact for this proposition. Supporters cite animal rights
and cruelty, and the opposition cites increase cost for California farmers that
would make them lose out to producers in other states.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 2
No on 2
Prop. 3 (Bond for Children's Hospitals): This is a bond measure that would be used
to build and renovate children's hospitals around the state, including UCSF Children's
Hospital. The hospitals would have to apply for grants to receive the funds. Supporters
cite the need for up-to-date hospitals, and the opposition says this is irresponsible
when funds from an earlier bond measure (Prop. 61) are still available.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 3
No on 3
Prop. 4 (Parental Notification): This is a change to the California Constitution that
would require parents of a minor be notified 48 hours before an abortion could be performed,
except in the cases of emergency or abuse. The costs of this proposition are
estimated to be several million dollars annually in state program and administration costs.
Supporters say parents should be involved in any medical decision involving their minor children,
and the opposition says that this would cause more teenagers to seek back-alley abortions.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 4
No on 4
Prop. 5 (Treatment Programs for Non-Violent Drug Offenses): Prop. 5, 6 and 9 are criminal
justice measures. Prop. 5 is a complex measure that would change the existing system into a
three-track system that expands the eligibility of non-violent drug offenders who could be
diverted to treatment programs instead of jail, as well as changing how these offenses would be
paroled. Supporters say it will reduce overcrowding in prisons, but there is wide bipartisan
opposition to this measure on the grounds that it is soft on crime by reducing parole and sentencing
requirements.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 5
No on 5
Prop. 6 (Law Enforcement Funding & Changes to Criminal Penalties): Prop. 6 would require
that $965 million annually, indexed to the Consumer Price Index, be allocated from the
State General Fund to local and state law enforcement offices and programs. This would
mean the State Legislature and the Governor would no longer have discretion over the allocation
of these funds (i.e., it is an earmark not subject to the budgeting process). It also increase
the penalties for offenses like gang-related offenses (to life in prison)
and possession of methamphetamine (to a felony). Supporters say this is a comprehensive anti-gang
and crime reduction measure, and the opposition says it takes money away from other public
safety programs and schools.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 6
No on 6
Prop. 7 (Renewable Energy): Prop. 7 would require utilities to generate 20% of their power
from renewable energy by 2010, and from there to go to 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. The fiscal impact is
increased state administrative costs up to $3.4 million annually, paid by fees. Supporters laud the increase
in renewable energy, but this measure is widely opposed by environmental and taxpayer groups who say it will
force smaller renewable energy companies out of business.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 7
No on 7
Prop. 8 (Eliminates Same-Sex Marriage): Prop. 8 changes the California Constitution to eliminate
the right of same-sex couples to marry in California and would mean that only marriage between a
man and a woman would be is valid or recognized in California. The measure says nothing about
treatment of the word "marriage" in schools and has no fiscal impact. A similar ballot measure was passed in
2000 and later overturned in the courts as unconstitutional.
Supporters say that this protects the definition of marriage, and the opposition says it discriminates
against loving couples of the same sex.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 8
No on 8
Prop. 9 (Notification of Parole Hearings for Victims): Prop. 9 increases the rights of
crime victims to include requiring notification of parole and other public hearings,
restitution to victims (currently given at the judge's discretion), and consideration of
victim safety in determining bail or release on parole. There is a fiscal impact, including
a potential loss of state savings and increased county jail costs of hundreds of millions of dollars annually,
somewhat offset by potential net savings in the low tens of millions of dollars annually on parole procedures.
Supporters say this is a big step for victims' rights, and the opposition says this is a costly and duplicative measure.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 9
No on 9
Prop. 10 (Renewable Energy): Prop. 10 is another renewable energy measure;
it is a $5 billion bond measure authorizing $5 billion to help consumers purchase
alternative-fuel and high-fuel-efficiency vehicles ($3.4B) and to pay for research
into renewable energy and alternative fuel vehicles ($1.25B). Supporters laud the steps
toward energy independence and clean air, and the opposition says this is an expensive
solution with little accountability.
Ballot Summary
Yes on 10
No on 10
Prop. 11 (Redistricting): See above.
Prop. 12 (Veterans Home Aid Bond): Prop. 12 is a $900 million bond measure
to provide low-interest loans to California veterans to purchase farms and homes
(Cal-Vet program). The loans would be repaid by the recipients, so the only potential
fiscal impact is if any of them default, in which case the repayment money would
come from the General Fund. Supporters say it helps veterans at no cost to taxpayers,
and the opposition says enlistees should be paid more and receive better benefits.
I couldn't find formal Yes and No sites for this measure.
Ballot Summary
The Sacramento Bee explores pros and cons of Prop 12
Paid for by Sashi McEntee for State Senate 2008, FPPC # 1306502.