Bill Handel is making a point of saying his “voter guide” is not about how anyone else should vote, but about how he is voting. I like that idea. This is how I am voting. It’s not meant to say this is how anyone else should vote, because hopefully everyone is looking at the candidates and props and making their own decisions. If anything, this is an exercise for myself to figure out how I am voting.
State Candidates
Governor: Meg Whitman
Can’t say I’m super excited about Whitman, but I’d prefer her over Brown any day (he didn’t know what he was doing the first time anyways). First, the Governor doesn’t have much power over the budget to begin with, so when either of them talks about the economic mess in California, there isn’t a lot they can do. We can blame the Democrats in the Assembly for that (more on that in a minute). Whitman knows how to run a business successfully, and I think she’d do a decent job. She’s no Chris Christie, but better than Brown.
Lieutenant Governor: Abel Maldonado
Don’t particularly like him….sort of a turncoat. He’s voted a couple times now for horrible budgets instead of holding out like all the other Republicans for something that would be better for the state. But Newsom is a nut…ignorning laws because he likes gay marriage, universal healthcare in San Francisco, Kyoto Protocol…I’m guessing there’s nothing I agree with him on.
The rest of the ticket I’ll be voting straight Republican. This is especially important for the STATE ASSEMBLY and STATE SENATE (in my district, only the Assembly is up for a vote). They are the ones that create our budget. Democrats have controlled the Senate for the last 40 YEARS, and the assembly for 38 out of the last 40 YEARS. What the heck is wrong with our state? We’re in a terrible economic crises, yet they’ll probably continue to elect these morons. From 1995-2008, the state budget nearly TRIPLED. If our state is in such a bad mess, why elect the same people that got us here?
Congressional Representatives
Senator: Carly Fiorina
Anyone but Barbara Boxer! Where do I even start. She loves her government spending, whether it be healthcare or enviornment related. She loves to vote against Republican nominated supreme court judges like Roberts and Alito. She has no respect for our military leaders (or at the least thinks VERY highly of herself.) And she runs really dirty ads about people getting laid off from HP. Fiorina ran a company that had to make money. You mean someone got fired while she worked there?! Oh the humanity!
United States Representative: Larry S. Andre
Linda Sanchez is a loon. When Arizona passed State Senate Bill 1070 she said white supremacists were behind it. Would love for Larry Andre to help put the House back into Republican hands.
State Measures
Prop 19 – Marijuana Legalization
I am voting No
The first prop is also the one I’m most conflicted about. As a semi-libertarian, I like the idea that people should be allowed to do what they like in their own home. But there are a couple things about this prop that just rub me the wrong way. The first:
“No person shall be punished, fined, discriminated against, or be denied any right or privilege for lawfully engaging in any conduct permitted by this act or authorized pursuant to Section 11301. Provided, however, that the existing right of an employer to address consumption that actually impairs job performance by an employee shall not be affected.”
I think this will basically make drug tests for marijuana illegal, unless an employee appears to be impaired while on the job. In addition to that though, one of the main arguments for the bill is that it will stop criminalizing people who posses marijuana. In reality though, it still has a TON of restrictions. You can only have 1 oz, you can only grow up to 25 sq ft, you can’t sell or share it without a license. Why? People bring up the comparison to alcohol all the time, but it’s not illegal to share beer, or laws about how much of it you can have. This also makes it illegal to smoke in the presence of a minor (not true of alcohol). If marijuana is no big deal, why the limits?
It also seems to grow the size of government, because now we need regulators for the entire marijuana industry. It goes against federal law, so this will probably just lead a lawsuit, and it will have a minimal effect on drug cartels.
I’m also not convinced that people driving under the influence could be convicted of such. Unlike alcohol, THC can remain in your system for weeks and months. From some law firm site:
A skilled lawyer often has an easier task defending marijuana related DUI cases than cases where alcohol is involved. In drunk driving prosecution, the defendant is presumptively guilty when the blood alcohol level is 0.08 percent or more. By contrast, there is no set legal threshold – no “guilty” standard for the THC level detected in the defendant’s system – for when a person is presumptively impaired when using marijuana. This lack of a bright line standard makes it more difficult for the prosecution to prove their case.
So yeah, I think this is a tough one, but my gut says no. It wouldn’t be a net positive for our society.
Prop 20 – Congressional Redistricting
I am voting Yes
This was started in 2008, and expands it to congressional districts. They’ve got a group of like 14 citizens to do it out of thousands of applicants, which is MUCH better than letting the politicians do it. This should NOT be confused with Prop 27 (which was put on the ballot just to confuse people and fight Prop 20). Look at the 39th District….they are gerrymandered!
Prop 21 – State Parks
I am voting No
Imposes an $18 car registration tax to support state parks. NO. If the state parks need more money, that cost needs to shifted to the people that use the parks.
Prop 22 – Local Funds
I am voting Yes
“Would prohibit the state from taking funds from local governments and other local agencies, including regional transportation improvement projects.” (LA Times)
The LA Times goes on to say they’re against it, but anything to restore power to local governments is a good idea. This is yet another thing that will force the state to cutback and balance the budget for real, and not on the backs of local governments.
Prop 23 – Global Warming Act Suspension
I am voting Yes
From Jon and Ken: “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 Unemployment Drops to 5.5 Percent or Less for Full Year.”
The liberal politicians don’t get to fight “global warming” (does anyone still believe in that?) when our state has over 12% unemployment. Not to mention our business tax environment is already 49th in nation. We don’t need this “green” bill making matters worse.
Prop 24 – Business Taxes
I am voting No
Another grab at more taxes, this time from businesses. The state budget is currently 2x what it was 15 years ago (yet our population has only increased from 31 million to 36 million). Make our state balance the budget and stop playing games.
Prop 25 – State Budget Voting
I am voting No
Proponents of the bill say they just want a simple majority to pass a budget, and this won’t do anything to change the 2/3 vote needed for higher taxes. There are a couple things in the measure that make this very shaky! Taken from this San Diego Tribune article:
It allows the Legislature to use simple majority votes to pass bills that lawmakers decree are “related to the budget in the budget bill.”
And….
In 2001, on a simple majority vote, Democratic lawmakers adopted a four-year, 96 percent increase in maximum unemployment benefits. But the bill to raise taxes on employers to cover the much higher cost of the benefit failed because it did not meet the two-thirds threshold for tax increases. The result, according to the state Finance Department, is that California is on track to have a $15.3 billion shortfall in its unemployment fund as of the end of this calendar year….future budget obligations being created without providing necessary funding.
Prop 26 – State Government Fees
I am voting Yes
Just because something is called a “fee” doesn’t mean it should need less than 2/3 of a vote. If it results in anyone paying more money, it’s a tax, and needs 2/3 approval.
Prop 27 – Redistricting Repeal
I am voting No
This was put on the ballot specifically to confused people with Prop 20. These people want the POLITICIANS to make the voting districts. Just read some of the reasons given by supporters of this prop:
We need to reject Proposition 20- a flawed measure that creates another unnecessary new bureaucracy.
and
Proposition 20 is a billionaire’s cynical attempt to remove the staunchest supporters of nurses and quality health care in Congress…No on 20 & Yes on 27.
Another new bureaucracy? That’s their argument? Democrats love bureaucracy when it comes to the environment, healthcare, etc., but now that it threatens their power, they’re against it. And look at the second one…that’s the California Nurses Association. They’re practically admitting that this prop will hurt the Democrats and their gerrymandered districts.
Prop Summation
Prop 19 – No
Prop 20 – Yes
Prop 21 – No
Prop 22 – Yes
Prop 23 – Yes
Prop 24 – No
Prop 25 – No
Prop 26 – Yes
Prop 27 – No
Well, that covers everything except the judicial appointments. If anyone has a good guide on that, let me know. Hope this is helpful in some way!
Other Resources Used and Not Specifically Cited:
Jon and Ken Voter Guide
Tom McClintock on the Props
LA Times Ballot Info
