It's voting time again!

[mithriltabby]

It’s only a couple of days to the election, and time to do my research on all the choices on the ballot. I’m posting my research here:

Here’s the official state voter guide (links to lots and lots of PDF), and the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters. The EFF have launced the PaperOrPlastic2004.org site to inform voters that they can use paper ballots to vote, and note that you should proof your ballot, as some machines are proving unreliable. I’m including opinions from the San Francisco Chronicle Endorsements. Planned Parenthood have a guide for voting pro-choice. HealthVote2004.org have data on the medical propositions this year (61, 63, 67, 71). There are endorsements from the San Jose Mercury as well. The Palo Alto League of Women Voters have a good summary.

• President and Vice President: John F. Kerry and John Edwards, Democratic Party. Bush has been taking our country to Hell in a handbasket for the past four years, and is fighting a 21st century war with 20th century methods. It is my considered opinion that Kerry will, at the very least, slow our descent, and he might even reverse our dismal course.
• State Senator, District 13: Elaine Alquist [SmartVoter profile], Democratic Party. Endorsed by Planned Parenthood. Her opponent, Republican Shane Patrick Connolly [SmartVoter profile] is inexperienced by comparison.
• Member of the State Assembly, District 22: Sally Lieber, Democratic Party. Endorsed by Planned Parenthood; she has a 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, Sierra Club, Children's Advocacy Institute, Vote the Coast and the California Labor Federation. (Her opponent, Republican Marie Dominguez-Gasson, “leans pro” and doesn’t seem to have much experience.)
• Fremont Union High School District Governing Board Members: three choices, vote for no more than two. Nancy A Newton is pro-choice; the others didn’t respond. Michael Anthony Flores didn’t submit a statement for the ballot, so we cross him off the list; anyone lacking the basic competence to submit a statement by which voters can evaluate him does not deserve to be elected for any office whatsoever. This leaves Homer Tong as the other choice.
• United States Senator: Barbara Boxer [SmartVoter profile], Democratic Party, has been doing a competent job thus far, and has endorsements from the Chronicle, Mercury, and Bay Guardian. She’s endorsed by Planned Parenthood; her Republican opponent, the right-wing conservative Bill Jones [SmartVoter profile], is anti-choice.
• United States Representative: Anna Eshoo [SmartVoter profile], Democratic Party. She’s endorsed by Planned Parenthood. Her opponent, Republican Chris Haugen [SmartVoter profile] is for tax cuts and the War on Terror. I’m sticking with Anna, thanks.
• Judge of the Superior Court, Office No. 7: Griffin Bonini looks more experienced than Enrique Colin, and they both look like good guys, so Bonini gets my vote, though Colin has the endorsement of the San Jose Mercury.
• Santa Clara County Board of Education: Jeff Ota has a web site and more apparent experience and the endorsement of the San Jose Mercury, while Bill Evers doesn’t have a way to get more information about him. Planned Parenthood lists Ota as pro-choice and Evers as not responding. I’m going with Ota.
• Proposition 1A (Protection of Local Government Revenues): Yes. The Chronicle says yes, as does the San Jose Mercury; the Bay Guardian says no. This should force the state to live within its means and allow local counties to override the state when the state is being stupid, without fear of any funds they raise being raided unless there’s an urgent necessity.
• Proposition 59 (Public Records, Open Meetings): Yes. The Chronicle says yes, as does the Bay Guardian. MoveOn.org says yes and links to an editorial in the Sacramento Bee. Californians for Open Government is the pro site; the anti argument in the ballot guide agrees with the need and claims Prop 59 doesn’t go far enough.
• Proposition 60 (Election Rights of Political Parties): Yes. The Chronicle says no, as does the San Jose Mercury, as expected since they’re for 62. The Bay Guardian are for 60, since it opposes 62. The Committee to Preserve Voter Choice is the pro site. 60 is just there to break 62 if it passes, so I’m voting for 60. Even the opposition argument says it does no harm, but doesn’t go far enough.
• Proposition 60A (Surplus Property): No. The Mercury News opposes it, as does the Bay Guardian. This is another one of those measures that tries to further hogtie our legislature into more limits on how they can spend money, removing flexibility from a government that already has too much of its general fund encumbered by similar propositions.
• Proposition 61 (Children’s Hospital Projects): Yes. The Chronicle says yes, as do the San Jose Mercury and the Bay Guardian. Our hospitals need the help.
• Proposition 62 (Primary Elections): No. Californians for an Open Primary is the pro site; Californians for Election Accountability is against it. TomPaine.com has an eloquent argument against it. The Chronicle says yes, claiming it will promote competition; the Bay Guardian says no, pointing out that it can lead to highly distorted results (such as two Republican candidates in a majority-Democratic district) and that it removes third-party candidates entirely, which would leave people disgusted by the whole mess with no way to distinguish themselves from the Apathy Party. We need electoral reform, but this isn’t it.
• Proposition 63 (Mental Health Service Expansion, Funding): Yes. Campaign for Mental Health is the pro site; No on 63 opposes it. The Chronicle says yes, as does the Bay Guardian. The San Jose Mercury says no. We need the secondary effects here of getting people to the right kind of help: similar programs have taken the burden off of hospitals and jails and created jobs.
• Proposition 64 (Limits on Private Enforcement of Unfair Business Competition Laws): No. This initiative would limit individual and class action “unfair business” lawsuits only if actual loss is suffered. The EFF recommends against it, and offers a link to NO on Prop 64, which has a flash animation and a link to ElectionWatchdog.org, which has real data. This proposition would only allow the government to sue in case of unfair business practices and would not allow lawsuits to halt practices that will cause damage if allowed to run unchecked; $5.7 million of the $12.5 million backing Prop 64 is from auto dealers. YesOn64.org redirects to Californians to Stop Shakedown Lawsuits, which is backed by the Governator; they have lots of sob stories about small businesses, but this is not the way to fix the problem. MoveOn says no, and provides a link to a Sacramento Bee editorial. The San Francisco Chronicle recommends Yes, but all it takes is corrupt local attorneys and a state attorney general who’s too busy to sweep things under the rug. The Bay Guardian says no. I’m voting no.
• Proposition 65 (Local Government Funds, Revenues): No. The Chronicle says no, as does the Bay Guardian and the San Jose Mercury. Stick with Prop 1A.
• Proposition 66 (Limitation on “Three Strikes” Law): Yes. Amend California’s 3 Strikes Law is the pro site; the anti site, NoProp66.org, redirects to Keep Three Strikes. The Chronicle says yes, as does MoveOn, and the ACLU. The opponents of Proposition 66 are engaging in distortion to oppose it: a Superior Court Judge said their claim of 26,000 dangerous felons being released by the passage of Prop 66 was “patently false”. I can’t find anyone with credibility opposing 66, so I’m voting for it; we’re wasting far too much money on our prison system. Let’s see some real reform, people: how about clapping some GPS tracking anklets on nonviolent felons and letting them work, instead of providing their food and housing?
• Proposition 67 (Emergency Medical Services): No. The Chronicle says no, as does the Bay Guardian and San Jose Mercury. The American Lung Association of California says yes. I don’t see a guarantee that it would actually fix the problem.
• Proposition 68 (Non-Tribal Commercial Gambling Expansion): No. The Chronicle says no, as do the Bay Guardian and San Jose Mercury. This one is just an attempt to create more casinos in California.
• Proposition 69 (DNA Samples): No. The pro site is DNA Yes!, the anti site is Protect my DNA California. The Chronicle says no. MoveOn says no, as does the ACLU. The proponents of Prop 69 talk about the database as being just for felons, but the actual language will pull in people who are merely arrested without even being charged, and doesn’t provide decent safeguards on the privacy of your DNA information, which tells a lot more than a fingerprint does. I’m voting no.
• Proposition 70 (Tribal Gaming Compacts): No. The Chronicle says no, as do the Bay Guardian and San Jose Mercury.
• Proposition 71 (Stem Cell Research): Yes. The pro site is the California Stem Cell Research & Cures Initiative ; the anti site is Doctors, Patients, and Taxpayers for Fiscal Responsibility, which opens up with audio from Mel Gibson that inclines me to vote for it right there. The Chronicle says yes, while the Bay Guardian says no. The Pro-Choice Alliance Against Prop 71 says no. MoveOn says yes. $300 million a year for ten years ($6 billion in all due to bond interest) could be effective in moving California toward the forefront of the next wave of innovation. It also fills a regulatory vacuum: when you provide government funding, you can attach strings to it, such as ethical considerations like forbidding reproductive cloning. I’m voting yes.
• Proposition 72 (Health Care Coverage Requirements): No. This is a difficult one. Here’s Yes on Prop 72 and No on Prop 72 (which redirects to Stop the Healthcare Tax). The Chronicle says no. MoveOn.org says yes (and links to an editorial in the San Francisco Bay Guardian and commentary by Eric Schlesinger, author of Fast Food Nation, who points out deceptive arguments used by the opponents of Prop 72). The real problem here forcing employers to pay 80% of health care costs; it could provide a serious disincentive to businesses here, which are currently paying only 50% for the employees that are covered at all. If there aren’t any jobs, people won’t be getting any health care anyway.
• Story on Measures A, B, and C
• Measure A (in the event that union negotiations break down, pay for county employees calibrated to other public employees instead of private ones): No. This looks like a way to give the county more power in negotiating with labor unions, and I don’t see a need to give it to them. The San Jose Mercury says yes. In the absence of more data, I’m voting no; the county has to compete against private organizations for the talent in the local labor pool, so they should compare to private wages.
• Measure B (voter approval of labor arbitration): Yes. This gives the voters a chance to veto bad arbitration, if measure C leads to such. The San Jose Mercury says yes.
• Measure C (compulsory arbitration for county public health and safety employee disputes): No. Arbitration is a good thing, but this sets a dangerous precedent of giving up the right to strike, and there have been problems in San Jose and in Sacramento County where similar arbitration is used. The San Jose Mercury says no.
• Measure L ($98 per parcel tax to support schools): Yes. Investment in education pays off big-time. The San Jose Mercury says yes.
• Measure P ($120 million bond package to improve Sunnyvale schools): Yes. Ditto. The San Jose Mercury says yes.

Comments

[abditus.livejournal.com]

Damn Max, how long did that take you?

[mithriltabby]

Almost six hours. I have a headache now...

[ragani.livejournal.com]

Thanks for taking the time (and taking on the headache). This saves me a lot of time looking for the links and stuff. Does not save the headache of choosing, of course.

[mithriltabby]

I’m glad I could save some of the pain for other folks... and proud to know people who insist on taking on the headache of making their choices for themselves.

[mithriltabby]

Local election results and statewide.