![[Home]](http://www.bayleshanks.com/cartoonbayle.png)
Just a comment to start things off:
Too bad that most of the initiatives were in one of those categories. There were quite a lot that I would have voted for otherwise.
No. I don't think we load up the constitution with piecemeal "protection" for various funds. And I don't think transportation is a very important thing that should be protected, anyway.
No. I don't like bonds. I don't like paying interest. And I don't like the idea of deferring tax pain.
No. bonds, see above.
No. bonds, see above.
No. bonds, see above.
No. Spend hundreds of millions annually to GPS track former sexual offenders for the rest of their lives? Give me a break, we can't afford that!
No. bonds, see above.
No. Some girls live with abusive parents.
And many live with parents that would intimidate them into having the child for ethical reasons. Whereas I think everyone is better off with fewer unwanted children.
Also, the language style of the "argument in favor of proposition 85" scared me and convinced me that someone was trying to sell me something.
No. A good idea perhaps, but it amends to constitution -- just to protect itself. Let's not constrain ourselves/clutter up the constitution by amending it everything we decide to spend something.
No. Same as 86 -- i liked it, but it amended the constitution.
No. Same as 86 -- i liked it, but it amended the constitution.
Yes!!!. Sadly, this was the first measure that was neither a bond measure nor a constitutional amendment. And it's the first one that I'm for. Coincidence?
This is just the kind of campaign finance reform that I'm always wanting. Common Cause supports it, so the details are probably right, too.
Yes. Yeah, I'm against eminent domain. The only thing that gave me pause was a clause that said that other kinds of regulation which decrease property value should also be compensated. That's certainly a broad-reaching, fundamental change. But it sounds like a good one. It has a bias against passing laws, which I like, being a libertarian.
''CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2006. ''
No.
I'd like to spend this much money on libraries, but only through a tax increase, not bonds.
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION. TAX ON INCOMES OVER $400,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS; $800,000 FOR COUPLES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
No.
Might be a good idea, I didn't really consider it too much, because I don't like these initiatives which tax only the rich.
PROPOSED "CLEAN-UP" AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CHARTER
YES
PROPOSED "WRITE-IN" CANDIDATE AMENDMENTS TO THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY CHARTER
YES
LISA M. LAQUA
Ron Shelton had more endorsements, but he scared me with all of his tough on crime talk. I think society needs to focus on taking the optimal action, rather than getting scared and being "tough". Also, being a libertarian, I worry about civil liberties and the rights of the accused a lot. Lisa mentioned business and the environment, at least showing that maybe she is thinking about optimality rather than just being "tough".
Larry Kincaid sounded good, but he had few endorsements from people in the legal profession.
BILL KOLENDER
This guy has the endorsements. Also, the other guy sounds like a jerk.
Gregory J. Smith. I think the challenger is joking; he lists The King as one of two endorsers: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sd/vote/johnson_h/
James Byron Hart didn't provide any information: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sd/race/076/
Rob Roberts did some campaign finance thing in 1999, and he's the incumbent which means he has some experience. Also, "Governing Magazine has ranked [SD county] as the third best-run county in America." during Ron's tenure.
The challenger, Richard Barrera, has more endorsements. He got a Masters Degree in Public Policy from Harvard. He also has specific plans for stuff he wants to do on his website. Ron's website is kind of vague.
I don't agree with everything Barrera wants to do, but I agree with some of them (mass transit). And I can't really get a good idea of what Ron wants. His website talks about his achievements, but many of them are the sort of thing that you can only do if you're an incumbent, and that any incumbent would do: "secured California money for these nonprofit organizations: ....". Also, he says he spent a lot of energy preventing one particular rapist from being released, which sounds to me like a bad use of his time. Barrera talks about big issues like housing, healthcare, mass transit.
So I'm kinda torn. Economically, I don't like some of Barrera's big government democratic ideas; but I'm worried that Ron is one of these "tough on crime" social conservative Republicans who spend their time on little issues rather than big ones. I like Ron thinks one of his greatest achievements is a foster children thingee.
I'd probably vote for Ron if he had offered more information about his views, or more endorsements from collegues (if he's such a great guy, why haven't the other board members endorsed him?) but as it is I guess I'll vote for Barrera. Too bad, because I suspect that in this contest my vote is being determined more from who is better at presenting themself rather than the issues. I don't want to penalize Ron for not paying attention to his website, but the fact is that I can't tell what his issues are.
Maria Nieto Senour.
She is a professor. 1993 San Diego State University Outstanding Professor.
Challenger is not a professor. Goes on in statement about political issues (anti-war, etc) that I agree with but that seems a little unrelated to the day-to-day work of governing a community college. Only concrete issue seems to be to increase funding for nursing education, but did not provide reasons why I should want that.
David Rubin.
Both candidates have a scary "tough on crime" attitude. But the other guy is scarier; his main point includes stuff like "convincted thousands of rapists!".
Pfingst's page on SmartVoter? doesn't list any endorsements; Rubin has plenty: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sd/vote/pfingst_p/
Randa Trapp.
Other guy, Hairgrove has almost no information: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/sd/vote/hairgrove_j/
http://sarah4super.org/: I like that she's clear about her issues and that she's a teacher, but I disagree with more than half her issues. For instance, I'm for vouchers (that's a tough one, though; i want public school teachers to be paid a lot, and i agree that vouchers will, practically, have the effect of reducing this somewhat, but i also think that is not a good enough reason to tell parents they can't move their children to someplace better when their school sucks). Also, all of her initiatives seem to require vast amount of new money, and since I'm sure she won't get that much, what are her priorities? My priority is on teacher pay, for example, over "free pre-k for all".
Lenning seems ok but vague.
Jack O'Connell (incumbent) has plenty of endorsements, but I find it hard to pick out the education-related ones from the rest. But he has some endorsements from engineers and scientists, and he seems real bipartisan: http://www.oconnell2006.org/people.htm. He used to be a teacher.
McMicken?'s ideas seem great, and he's a math teacher: http://www.smartvoter.org/2006/06/06/ca/state/vote/mcmicken_g/paper1.html
The other guy didn't provide much information.
I can't decide between the incumbent and McMicken?. The incumbent sounds like a wonderful fellow, but his website doesn't give his position on the issues. I like McMicken?'s plans. I'm going to vote for McMicken?, I guess.
Newman is scarily religious; his campaign website starts with a long flash movie of a huge cross emitting circular waves.
Bill Chambers is "just a regular guy" but has a very well-written website: http://www.billchambers4governor.com/. I'm impressed. Also, he sounds like a libertarian: http://www.billchambers4governor.com/stand.html.
I like Jeff Burns a lot too. And I like his issues, too; he seems to focus a lot on not spending too much now that people my age will have to repay.
Michelle Steel has the endorsements. But she doesn't list any issues! Petruzzo lists concrete plans: http://petruzzoforboe.com/poppage.htm.
Oh no, what a disaster! Both extremists who go on about illegal immigration!
Woodrum seems the worse of the two; he seems to try to seem like a "good ol' boy" in lieu of presenting stands on the issues and rationally arguing why he is qualified. Barton at least sounds on-topic and intelligent.
waiting periods and parental notification before termination of minor's pregnancy. Initiative constitutional amendment.
No.
I think that the age 18 is too high for being a "minor". 17 year olds shouldn't have to have an unwanted child if they are afraid of their parents.
public school teahiers. waiting period for permanent status. dismissal. initiative statute.
No.
I am conflicted about this one, and my feeling is that one should default to "no" if you are conflicted about an initiative (let the professional legislatures consider it and decide).
On the one hand, it seems reasonable to fire teachers who aren't doing a good job. On the other hand, it sounds like they can already do that, right?
Also, I think the most important problem in education is that teachers get paid too little for too much work (i.e. it can't attract people the way jobs in, say, investment banking do). In my career choice (aspiring academic), the ability of a professor to achieve tenure definitely provides incentive for me to follow this career -- so perhaps providing tenure to teachers also influences "better" people to choose that career.
public employee union dues. restrictions on political contributions. employee consent requirement. initiative statute.
No.
I want large organization to have much less political power. I want that power devolved to individuals. It makes no sense for unions to use members' money to "speak for" their members when their members might not agree.
However, union members already have the right to opt out in CA. This only makes it easier for them to do so.
75 would restrain the unions, but does not restrain their enemies the corporations, who already have a huge advantage anyway. I certainly agree that the same line of reasoning that leads to initiative 75 should also lead us to ban corporations from making political contributions without the full consent of each stockholder. I will strongly support such an initiative when it comes up.
Until then, I don't want to make it any harder for the unions. If members can already opt out, that's enough for me.
State spending and school funding limits. Initiative constitutional amendment.
Yes.
I think government should be structurally biased towards balanced budgets and also towards smaller government. That is, I want it to require a large degree of consensus among politicians to unbalance the budget or to grow government.
I am dismayed that the initiative also mucks with the school spending, which I strongly support. But I think that structural reform outweighs specific issues, all else being equal, and I think this is an important structural reform.
I almost backed out when I read that the opponents charge that the governor can have a fiscal emergency whenever she wants by simply overestimating revenue. But a fiscal emergency does not immediately entitle the governor to cut spending; the legislature has 45 days to try and cut it themselves first. Only if they cannot pass a bill does the governor get to do it. I think this makes sense. The budget should be balanced, one way or another. It is preferable that it be balanced through consensus, but I think it's better for the governor to balance it than for no one to.
The other thing I disagree with is taking away the ability to suspend prop 42 (transportation funding). I think education spending should be stablized at the expense of transportation, not the other way around.
Yes.
I think gerrymandering of legislative districts is one of the top 10 most important issues in the nation today. Please read
http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1099030
if you are unconvinced about the importance of this problem.
We have to do something about this; it is obvious now that leaving redistricting in the hands of the legislature is a serious threat to democracy. The proposed plan is a little complex, but I see no fundamental flaw, so let's try it.
One thing I would add would be a requirement that all but 3 districts be shaped as polygons with no more than 6 sides. This would make it harder to gerrymander (by forcing most of the districts to be simple shapes rather than fractal shapes as many are today).
A friend of mine who makes good political decisions was undecided so I looked into it further to make sure the nay-sayers haven't thought of anything that changes my mind.
here's two sites explaining some "no" arguments:
http://www.cft.org/home_news/77maldef.pdf http://ca.lwv.org/action/prop0511/prop77.html
i don't think they hold water. they're basically saying,
(1) the redistricting proposal is not optimal in various ways (uses old data, only 3 judges not community members, costs money to let everyone vote on new districts, etc) (2) it takes out "communities of interest" principal for deciding districts
some other people have also mentioned (3) dems will lose out because they currently have more seats than you would expect from looking at voter preferences
my arguments vs:
(1) fine maybe its nonoptimal but my view is that there's a very low probability that if this fails, a "better" redistricting plan will be put on the ballot and pass within the next decade. anyway, this one passing doesn't prevent another ballot initiative later which is better. the choice isn't between the proposed system and a better redistricting reform system, the choice is between the proposed system and the status quo. the proposal is better than the status quo --- the badness of noncompetitive legislative districts dwarfs all of the minor disadvantages of the proposal.
(2) no communities of interest. personally i think that the reason we have uncompetitive districts is because there are so many supposedly valid reasons for messing with the districts that you can find an excuse to make it come out the way you want (assuming your team has the votes on the redistricting committee). i think the fix is to disallow subjective and complex justifications for weird districts. So yeah, no communities of interest. Good.
(3) so what. reforming political process is more important than specific agendas. it makes especially little sense to say "its good that the system is unfair b/c right now my team is benefiting from it". look at the long term.
a zillion more links to both sides available here: http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htRedistricting.html
No.
We just don't have enough money to provide new drug benefits. Especially not now, when we are in a fiscal crisis.
No.
For the same reasons as 78.
No.
I'm undecided, although I tend to be for energy deregulation.
I'll apply my rule that when undecided, I'll vote no.
