Here are my recommendations for the November 6, 2018 California ballot. Below the list of my positions are explanations.
I urge you to take my advice with plenty of salt, and research the issues and candidates on your own. There are two websites I find particularly helpful: Voter’s Edge, sponsored by MapLight and the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, and Ballotpedia. Both sites enable you to look up your own ballot and find information about the various candidates and issues on the ballot.
Whatever you do, make sure you vote!
I urge you to take my advice with plenty of salt, and research the issues and candidates on your own. There are two websites I find particularly helpful: Voter’s Edge, sponsored by MapLight and the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, and Ballotpedia. Both sites enable you to look up your own ballot and find information about the various candidates and issues on the ballot.
Whatever you do, make sure you vote!
State
Governor: GAVIN NEWSOM
Lieutenant Governor: ELENI KOUNALAKIS
Secretary of State: ALEX PADILLA
Controller: BETTY YEE
Treasurer: FIONA MA
Attorney General: XAVIER BECERRA
Insurance Commissioner: RICARDO LARA
State Board of Equalization, District 2: MALIA COHEN
United States Senator: KEVIN DE LEON
United States Representative, 2nd District: JARED HUFFMAN
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
State Senator, 2nd District: MIKE MCGUIRE
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat. Note: only seats in even numbered state senate districts have elections this year.)
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District: DAN MONTE
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
Judicial
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court - Carol A. Corrigan: YES
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court - Leondra R. Kruger: YES
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division One - James M. Humes: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division One - Sandra Margulies: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Two - James A. Richman: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Two - Maria Miller: YES
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Three - Peter John Siggins: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Four - Alison M. Tucher: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Four - Jon B. Streeter: YES
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Five - Barbara Jones: YES
School
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: TONY THURMOND
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin Community College District (3 seats open):
DIANA CONTI, WANDEN TREANOR, & SUZANNE BROWN CROW
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (3 seats open):
DAN OPPENHEIM, CYNTHIA ROENISCH, & KEVIN SAAVEDRA
Sausalito Marin City School District (3 seats open):
IDA GREEN & BONNIE ROSE HOUGH
Marin County District Attorney: ANNA PLETCHER
Director, Marin Healthcare District (3 seats open):
EDWARD J. ALFREY, LARRY A. BEDARD, & BRIAN W. SU
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 1 - Housing assistance bonds: YES
Prop. 2 - Housing program for people with mental illness: YES
Prop. 3 - Water infrastructure bonds: NO
Prop. 4 - Children’s hospitals bonds: YES
Prop. 5 - Change transfer requirements: NO
Prop. 6 - Repeal gas and vehicle taxes: NO
Prop. 7 - Daylight saving time: YES
Prop. 8 - Kidney dialysis charges: YES
Prop. 10 - Rent control: YES
Prop. 11 - Private-sector emergency ambulance employees: YES
Prop. 12 - Farm animal standards: YES
Local Ballot Measures
Marin County Measure AA - Renew 1/2¢ sales tax: YES
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure J - Parcel tax: YES
Town of Fairfax Measure O - Renew paramedic tax: YES
Governor: GAVIN NEWSOM
Lieutenant Governor: ELENI KOUNALAKIS
Secretary of State: ALEX PADILLA
Controller: BETTY YEE
Treasurer: FIONA MA
Attorney General: XAVIER BECERRA
Insurance Commissioner: RICARDO LARA
State Board of Equalization, District 2: MALIA COHEN
United States Senator: KEVIN DE LEON
United States Representative, 2nd District: JARED HUFFMAN
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
State Senator, 2nd District: MIKE MCGUIRE
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat. Note: only seats in even numbered state senate districts have elections this year.)
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District: DAN MONTE
(If this isn’t your district, vote for your local Democrat.)
Judicial
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court - Carol A. Corrigan: YES
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court - Leondra R. Kruger: YES
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division One - James M. Humes: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division One - Sandra Margulies: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Two - James A. Richman: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Two - Maria Miller: YES
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Three - Peter John Siggins: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Four - Alison M. Tucher: YES
Associate Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Four - Jon B. Streeter: YES
Presiding Justice, Court of Appeal 1st Appellate District, Division Five - Barbara Jones: YES
School
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: TONY THURMOND
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin Community College District (3 seats open):
DIANA CONTI, WANDEN TREANOR, & SUZANNE BROWN CROW
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (3 seats open):
DAN OPPENHEIM, CYNTHIA ROENISCH, & KEVIN SAAVEDRA
Sausalito Marin City School District (3 seats open):
IDA GREEN & BONNIE ROSE HOUGH
Marin County District Attorney: ANNA PLETCHER
Director, Marin Healthcare District (3 seats open):
EDWARD J. ALFREY, LARRY A. BEDARD, & BRIAN W. SU
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 1 - Housing assistance bonds: YES
Prop. 2 - Housing program for people with mental illness: YES
Prop. 3 - Water infrastructure bonds: NO
Prop. 4 - Children’s hospitals bonds: YES
Prop. 5 - Change transfer requirements: NO
Prop. 6 - Repeal gas and vehicle taxes: NO
Prop. 7 - Daylight saving time: YES
Prop. 8 - Kidney dialysis charges: YES
Prop. 10 - Rent control: YES
Prop. 11 - Private-sector emergency ambulance employees: YES
Prop. 12 - Farm animal standards: YES
Local Ballot Measures
Marin County Measure AA - Renew 1/2¢ sales tax: YES
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure J - Parcel tax: YES
Town of Fairfax Measure O - Renew paramedic tax: YES
Explanations
State
Governor: GAVIN NEWSOM
This race is between current Lieutenant Governor and former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a reasonably progressive Democrat, and businessman John Cox, a conservative Republican.
The San Francisco Chronicle has a good take on the candidates in its endorsement of Newsom.
Note that this was published before the June primary, so other candidates who did not make it to the postseason are mentioned as well. And if you think my following comments about John Cox are dismissive, note that the Chronicle is even harsher, saying that it’s hard to take him seriously.
Cox has mostly bought into Trump’s agenda, and he touts his Inexperience as a badge of honor. His answer to virtually any issue goes something like this: “I’m a businessman. Politicians are all bad and they’re screwing everything up. As a businessman, I know how to fix things.”
No mention of how that’s worked out for us on the national level!
Vote for GAVIN NEWSOM.
Lieutenant Governor: ELENI KOUNALAKIS
Because of California’s unusual open primary system, in which the top two finishers, regardless of party, go on to the general election, in this race and one other, we have a choice between two Democrats.
In this case it’s between former Ambassador to Hungary Eleni Kounalakis and State Senator Ed Hernandez.
Frankly, I think we’d be well served by either Kounalakis or Hernandez. Both are fairly progressive and they both have long endorsement lists to match.
I went back and watched these two in the primary debate, and I have to give the edge to Kounalakis. I was taken by how forcefully she spoke about education and about protecting the environment, two of the main things with which the Lieutenant Governor is involved.
I recommend a VOTE FOR ELENI KOUNALAKIS.
Secretary of State: ALEX PADILLA
While Republicans across the country have been working hard to restrict voting rights and access to the polls, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has done the opposite. He’s increasing registration and making it easier to vote. And he has stood up to Trump’s fraudulent voting commission. He deserves reelection.
VOTE FOR ALEX PADILLA.
Controller: BETTY YEE
Betty Yee is the incumbent and she’s doing a very good job fighting waste, fraud, and corruption, including going after the Board of Equalization for mismanagement. She also deserves to be reelected.
The L.A. Times explains the race in far more detail in its endorsement of Yee.
VOTE FOR BETTY YEE.
Treasurer: FIONA MA
Fiona Ma is extremely well qualified and well-suited to be our next treasurer.
She’s a CPA who worked as an accountant before entering public service, first as a San Francisco supervisor, then as a member of the State Assembly, and currently as a member of the Board of Equalization, where she worked with Betty Yee to expose corruption.
For more, read this L.A. Times editorial.
VOTE FOR FIONA MA.
Attorney General: XAVIER BECERRA
Appointed incumbent Attorney General Xavier Becerra came to the job after serving 12 terms in Congress. From his current position, he has doggedly fought the Trump administration on a variety of fronts.
He’s being challenged by retired judge Steven Bailey, who is quite conservative and who is facing eleven charges of judicial misconduct in a case that won’t be decided until well after the election.
Bailey is endorsed by the NRA, the California Pro-Life Council, a host of Republican organizations, and some police associations.
Becerra has the support of Planned Parenthood, environmental groups, labor, Democratic groups, and others.
VOTE FOR XAVIER BECERRA.
Insurance Commissioner: RICARDO LARA
Ricardo Lara has an excellent record as a State Senator, including spearheading the move towards single-payer healthcare in California.
I am somewhat disappointed, however, by his campaign, which is much more generic than it should be. For instance, relatively little of his website is devoted to issues with which the next insurance commissioner will be grappling.
I do believe that Lara will do the right thing in office, and that his number one priority will be standing up for consumers, as he has promised.
I cannot support Steve Poizner, a Republican-turned-Independent who held the job from 2007-2011. He had a reputation as a moderate until he drank the anti-immigration Kool-Aid during his 2010 run for Governor, and turned into a frothing xenophobe. He says he now regrets that, but he’s lost any credibility he may have had with me.
VOTE FOR RICARDO LARA.
State Board of Equalization, District 2: MALIA COHEN
The Board of Equalization’s responsibilities were recently drastically reduced in the wake of major scandals, and its staff was cut by about 95%. It may be on a path to extinction.
But for now, it still does oversee property tax collection. And the clear choice in this race is San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen, who seems to most comprehend the job and who is campaigning on “transparency, accountability, and fairness,” which is exactly what a member of the Board of Equalization should be focused on.
VOTE FOR MALIA COHEN.
United States Senator: KEVIN DE LEÓN
This is the other statewide race in which we have a choice between two Democrats.
Incumbent Dianne Feinstein has served in the U.S. Senate since 1992. She’s great on some issues, most notably gun control, for which she has drawn on personal experience to make a compelling case for reasonable gun control measures.
She’s not so great on some other issues. She voted for the Iraq War and for the Bush tax cuts. She has a tendency to protect big business and the very wealthy over average people. She opposes “Medicare for All.”
Feinstein’s challenger is State Senator Kevin de León, who served as the California Senate’s President pro tempore until earlier this year. He is much more progressive than Feinstein. Where she’s been cautious at best, de León has been way out in front on a number of issues.
He wrote landmark legislation to require California utilities to get a third of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (they’re now most of the way toward that goal), rising to half by 2030.
He shepherded nearly a dozen gun violence prevention bills through the State Senate and was also responsible for meaningful anti-pollution legislation as well as a measure investing in parks in low-income areas.
On the issues, the choice of de León is clear. There’s also the fact that Dianne Feinstein is now 85 years old. That means that if she serves another full term in the Senate, she will be 91 years old by the end of it.
With an irresponsible, incurious, impulsive, irrational maniac in the White House, our senators need to constantly be on their toes. This is not a job for the faint of heart and — call me ageist if you must — it’s not a job for a nonagenarian.
VOTE FOR KEVIN DE LEÓN!
United States Representative, 2nd District: JARED HUFFMAN
I believe we’re being well served in Washington, D.C. by incumbent Jared Huffman. I also appreciate that he holds informal events in the district to meet with constituents as much as possible. He should definitely be reelected.
VOTE FOR JARED HUFFMAN.
State Senator, 2nd District: MIKE MCGUIRE
This is the same matchup as the June primary, and I haven’t changed my opinion since then.
Democrat Mike McGuire is the incumbent. He’s being challenged by another Democrat, former Santa Rosa Councilwoman Veronica “Roni” Jacobi.
This is somewhat similar to the State Assembly race (see below), where the Democratic incumbent is being challenged from the left. The difference, in my opinion, is that McGuire is a somewhat stronger candidate than Marc Levine and Roni Jacobi is a somewhat weaker candidate than Dan Monte.
Jacobi challenged Marc Levine two years ago. I stand by what I wrote about her then:
The issue Jacobi puts front and center is fighting climate change, and she certainly practices what she preaches. She goes to great lengths to lower her own carbon footprint. In fact, she took the bus from Santa Rosa to attend the candidate debate I watched.
Unfortunately, Jacobi lost me with her less than lackluster performance at the debate. Her heart is clearly in the right place. She would likely have a very good voting record. But I don’t see her as a potential leader and I’m afraid she would not be able to deliver for the district.
VOTE FOR MIKE MCGUIRE.
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District: DAN MONTE
Incumbent Marc Levine is being challenged by Dan Monte, an active environmentalist who is very passionate about making sure all Californians have access to healthcare and a quality education.
Levine mostly has a pretty good voting record, particularly on social issues. But when it comes to protecting consumers vs. going along with big business, his record is a mixed bag at best.
That’s not surprising when you look at his campaign contributors, who include Walmart, Comcast, pharmaceutical companies, and the California Charter School Association.
Monte, meanwhile, is not accepting corporate contributions.
I recommend a VOTE FOR DAN MONTE.
Judicial
There are several California Appeals Court and Supreme Court justices on the ballot, for whom we have the option of voting yes or no to determine whether or not their terms are extended.
I believe that judges and justices should not be treated like political candidates. They shouldn’t have to campaign. And they should largely be free to rule on the merits of cases without constantly having to look over their shoulders.
As a result, it is my strong opinion that we voters should approve judges and justices unless there is a serious, very compelling reason not to do so. There is not such a reason for any of the justices before us in this election.
I recommend voting YES ON ALL THE JUSTICES.
School
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: TONY THURMOND
This Sacramento Bee editorial sums it up well. (It was also published before the primary, so it mentions other candidates who are no longer in the running.)
Oh, and by the way, nearly all of the money behind Marshall Tuck, Thurmond’s opponent, comes from EdVoice for the Kids PAC. The PAC, which seeks to dramatically expand charter schools, stuffed just under $10 million into Tuck’s campaign.
VOTE FOR TONY THURMOND.
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin Community College District (3 seats open):
DIANA CONTI, WANDEN TREANOR, & SUZANNE BROWN CROW
I am relying on friends and friends of friends for recommendations on this race, as well as for the Tamalpais Union High School District and the Marin Healthcare District races.
For the Marin Community College District, the consensus was unanimous.
VOTE FOR DIANA CONTI, WANDEN TREANOR, AND SUZANNE BROWN CROW.
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (3 seats open):
DAN OPPENHEIM, CYNTHIA ROENISCH, & KEVIN SAAVEDRA
The consensus was also unanimous for this one.
VOTE FOR DAN OPPENHEIM, CYNTHIA ROENISCH, AND KEVIN SAAVEDRA.
Sausalito Marin City School District: IDA GREEN & BONNIE ROSE HOUGH
I feel compelled to weigh in on this race even though I don’t live in the district.
For years, the Sausalito Marin City school board favored its charter school at the expense of Bayside MLK Academy, its public school that happens to be mostly minority.
Two years ago, my friend Debra Turner, a longtime volunteer at Bayside MLK who was outraged by the situation, successfully ran for the school board. Since then the board has been much more even-handed. Some programs that had previously been cut at Bayside MLK were at least partially restored, and other improvements were made.
This year’s election offers a choice between building on that progress or likely reverting back to the unfairness of the past.
There are two excellent candidates running as a slate: Ida Green and Bonnie Hough.
Ida Green is an incumbent and currently Vice President of the Sausalito Marin City school board. With a Masters of Social Work (MSW), she currently serves as Child & Family Life Skills Coach for Community Action Marin.
A lifelong Marin City resident, Green is the daughter of Betty Times, who served three terms on the Sausalito Marin City school board, and is in the Marin Women’s Hall of Fame.
Bonnie Hough is currently the Principal Managing Attorney for the Center for Families, Children & the Courts of the Judicial Council of California. She is the Founder of Family & Children’s Law Center and has served on the boards of La Familia, YWCA, Marin Food Bank, Marin County Women Lawyers, and the Marin County Law Library.
For more about Ida Green and Bonnie Hough, check out their website.
Meanwhile, there is a slate running against Green and Hough. All three are parents of charter school students, although their website does not make that clear. Two of the three hold leadership positions within the charter school. The fear is that this lack of transparency is an indication of how they would govern.
VOTE FOR IDA GREEN AND BONNIE HOUGH.
Marin County District Attorney: ANNA PLETCHER
Anna Pletcher is clearly the progressive choice in this race.
While her opponent Lori Frugoli talks about “restorative justice,” it is really Pletcher who is most committed to the idea, which seeks to find ways convicted criminals can provide relief to victims (such as restitution for theft), while, where appropriate, finding alternative punishments to incarceration.
Anna Pletcher touts her outsider status as a plus, and in this case it probably is. If elected, she would be the county’s first District Attorney in seventy years not to come from the D.A.’s office.
Despite that, Pletcher has plenty of experience that makes her extremely qualified for the job, including ten years as a federal prosecutor, which involved managing a large group of lawyers. As someone who played for many years on a lawyers’ league softball team, I can tell you that is no easy task!
What really tips the scales in Pletcher’s favor for me is her push to change the way cases of rape are handled in Marin. Currently, victims must travel to Kaiser in Vallejo in order to get a rape kit examination.
Pletcher wants to have trained forensic examiners come to the victims rather than the other way around. This will have two benefits: minimizing further traumatization of the victims and insuring that more rape cases get prosecuted.
VOTE FOR ANNA PLETCHER.
Director, Marin Healthcare District (3 seats open):
EDWARD J. ALFREY, LARRY A. BEDARD, & BRIAN W. SU
There are two incumbents running for reelection: retired emergency physician Larry Bedard and public health researcher Jennifer Rienks, and three newcomers: surgeons Edward Alfrey and Brian Su, and Melissa Bradley, who has built a successful realty company in the county.
The reports I got back for this race were mixed.
There was universal support for Alfrey and universal lack of support for Rienks and Bradley. But some people don’t care for Bedard and Su, either. Some plan to vote for them out of lack of another choice. Another finds Bedard arrogant but supports him because he understands how to manage the hospital.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but that’s what I’ve got to go on.
I recommend a VOTE FOR EDWARD J. ALFREY, LARRY A. BEDARD, AND BRIAN W. SU.
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 1 - Housing assistance bonds: YES
This measure would authorize the sale of state bonds for a variety of housing assistance programs. The programs would create affordable rental housing, help veterans get home loans, assist low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers, and build housing for farmworkers.
Clearly we have a serious lack of affordable housing in California. While this proposition alone will not come close to solving the problem, it is a step in the right direction.
The ballot argument against Prop. 1 only serves to convince me that this measure is worth supporting.
Gary Wesley, long known for his contrarian ballot arguments, is at it again. He agrees that the scarcity of affordable housing is a huge problem. But because it’s so big, he thinks we should do nothing except ask statewide candidates “what they propose.”
He uses the bulk of his rebuttal to the argument in favor of Prop. 1 to try to scare us about an unrelated bill in the state legislature that FAILED to pass.
And he uses most of his argument against Prop. 1 to rail against the inequities of Prop. 13, passed in 1978. I happen to agree with him about the unfair results of that proposition, in which next-door neighbors, living in identical houses, could be paying drastically different amounts of property taxes, depending on when they purchased their homes.
I would like to see Wesley work on solving that problem instead of introducing red herrings into the discussion of Prop. 1.
Much of the money spent from these bonds would qualify the state for matching federal funds. Plus the veterans will be paying off their loans, as will some of the people involved in the first-time homebuyer program. So this seems like a pretty good bang for our tax buck!
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 1.
Prop. 2 - Housing program for people with mental illness: YES
Proposition 2 would put into law what the state legislature tried to do two years ago — use some of the revenue from a tax on millionaires for bonds that would provide housing for people suffering from mental illness who are at risk of homelessness.
It makes sense that a stable home situation can make a huge difference in the ability to successfully manage mental illness, as proponents suggest.
This measure has almost universal support. The arguments against it were written by the leadership of the Contra Costa chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. But as of this writing the state organization has not taken a position on Prop 2. And, as far as I can tell, neither have any of the other local chapters of NAMI, and there are a lot of them throughout the state.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 2.
Prop. 3 - Water-related infrastructure bonds: NO
Proposition 3 authorizes bonds for a variety of infrastructure projects related to safe drinking water and water quality, watershed and fishery improvements, habitat protection, water conveyance, groundwater sustainability and storage, and surface water storage and dam repairs.
This initiative includes a lot of different projects all over the state, aimed at a variety of constituents, hence its supporters are all over the political map as well, from conservation groups to agribusiness to chambers of commerce. Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox supports it, and so do many prominent Democrats.
I initially thought I would also support Prop. 3. Who doesn’t want to support safe drinking water and watershed restoration and all those other things?
Many of the groups endorsing Prop. 3 are organizations I respect; I’ve contributed financially to some of them over the years.
But as I looked further into it, I was swayed by arguments that the way this initiative was put together and the lack of legislative oversight built into it are simply not right. This is something that should have gone through the legislature first, like previous water bonds Californians have passed.
Clearly there are many worthy projects in Prop. 3 that are deserving of funding. But there are others that are either not worthy or, in the case of some repair projects, should be paid for by those who are responsible for the damage rather than by taxpayers.
That’s the gist of many of the newspaper editorials against Prop. 3. And it’s well-stated in this Sierra Club pdf that explains the club’s opposition.
I recommend voting NO ON PROP. 3.
Prop. 4 - Children’s hospitals bonds: YES
This measure authorizes bonds for construction and other upgrades to various nonprofit children’s hospitals in California. The opposing arguments come again from Gary Wesley, and they are virtually identical to his arguments against Prop. 1.
In fact, if you read his arguments, you’ll see that he actually doesn’t say anything bad about Prop. 4. He repeats his rant against 1978’s Proposition 13. It’s a justified rant, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 4.
Prop. 5 - Change transfer requirements: NO!!!
Proposition 5 purports to take pity on seniors and the disabled by expanding their ability to transfer the taxable value of their existing home when they sell it and move to another home they purchase. This would likely save them quite a bit in property taxes.
Under current law, such a transfer is allowed only when buying a new home of equal or lesser value than the old home, and only one transfer is allowed per person.
Prop. 5 would allow transfers even when purchasing a more expensive home (the price difference would be added to the original valuation), and it would allow unlimited transfers.
But the fact is that the vast majority of the benefits of this measure would go to the wealthy, at the expense of our schools and emergency services, which get most of their funding from property taxes.
Furthermore, unlike the claims made by its proponents, Prop. 5 would not make the system more fair. Instead, it would dump an even greater percentage of the tax burden onto younger homeowners, many of whom are stretched very thin as it is.
I’m at an age at which I could potentially benefit financially from Prop. 5. Even so, there is no question in my mind about how utterly terrible this measure is.
Frankly, I believe the existing exemption should be limited, not expanded, so that it is targeted strictly to people who really need the relief — those for whom a doubling or tripling of their property taxes would financially imperil their ability to remain homeowners.
I completely agree with the League of Women Voters and others who signed the arguments against Prop. 5. This proposition is a scam, sponsored solely by realtor associations. As of this writing, they’ve contributed more than seven million dollars toward passing Prop. 5.
Don’t let them get away with it!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5!
Prop. 6 - Repeal gas and vehicle taxes: NO
This is a disingenuous attempt by Republicans to overturn taxes and fees passed by the legislature, and to tie the legislature’s hands in the future.
The lion’s share of the money behind Prop. 6 comes from the California Republican Party, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox, and a who’s who of congressional Republicans, mostly from California but including House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Voters passed a measure in the June election requiring that the funds generated by these taxes and fees are spent for transportation purposes.
In their ballot arguments, proponents of Prop. 6 are insinuating that most of that revenue will be siphoned away to other things. This is simply not true.
The one argument of theirs that I do agree with is that the gas tax is regressive. Lower income people spend a higher percentage of their income on these taxes than people with higher incomes. I would like to see a better way of handling this. But getting rid of this revenue without replacing it with something fairer is not the answer.
And this measure would lead to even more propositions on our ballots in the future, as the legislature would have to get voter approval for any new gas taxes or fees. We need to let our legislators do their jobs; if we don’t like the jobs they do, we can vote them out of office. Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Besides giving the state needed funds for road and bridge repairs, etc., the gas tax can nudge drivers toward electric vehicles, hybrids, or at least more fuel efficient gasoline-powered cars.
On this measure, Republicans are pitted against some of their usual allies, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, who see Prop. 6 as the disaster it would be.
We need to fix our roads and bridges, and invest more in public transit.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6!
Prop. 7 - Daylight saving time: YES
Proposition 7 would allow California lawmakers to change Daylight Saving Time in the state (i.e., they could make DST year-round or opt out of DST altogether) with a two-thirds vote, provided the change is allowed under federal law.
Until I began to look at this measure, I was unaware of the health risks of time changes. But they do appear to be real. Some other alleged effects of DST, such as the claim that DST saves energy, are the subjects of much debate.
I don’t feel as strongly about this proposition as I do about most of the other ballot measures, but I recommend a YES VOTE ON PROP. 7.
Prop. 8 - Kidney dialysis charges: YES
Proposition 8 aims to limit amounts that for-profit kidney dialysis centers can charge patients (115% of costs for patient care and quality improvements, including training, patient education, and tech support), and it would impose penalties if those limits were exceeded.
Medicare and Medi-Cal cover most people who need dialysis, and they generally pay much less than private insurers do — usually several times less. DaVita, the company that owns half of the for-profit dialysis centers in California, gets one third of its revenue from insurance companies even though insurance payers only comprise about one tenth of DaVita’s patients.
DaVita and other dialysis center owners in California have been accused of understaffing and allowing unsanitary conditions in their facilities. A few months ago, DaVita lost multiple wrongful death lawsuits in Colorado and was ordered to pay $383.5 million in damages.
The hope of this measure is that it would not only cap the profits these operators can make, it would encourage them to properly staff their centers and make other important improvements, since if their allowable costs are greater, their allowable profits will also be greater.
As of this writing, DaVita has contributed nearly $28 million to defeat Prop. 8. TWENTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS! ($27,987,686, to be exact, which is much more than the total of all contributions to any side of any other proposition on the ballot!)
The next biggest player in California’s dialysis business, Fresenius Medical Care, owns 22% of the dialysis centers in the state. Fresenius chipped in more than NINETEEN MILLION to fight Prop. 8. Smaller operators also put in substantial amounts, bringing the grand total of contributions so far against Prop. 8 to $51,164,211!
That tells me that these guys DO have too much money on their hands. According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2016, DaVita and Fresenius made $3.9 billion in profits from their dialysis centers.
The main force behind Prop. 8 is Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which also put in a very healthy chunk of change: $17,387,341.
The union is trying to organize workers at these clinics. The newspaper editorials I’ve read are dismissing Prop. 8 in part because of that. But even in arguing against Prop. 8, The Sacramento Bee acknowledges that “SEIU has highlighted some valid financial issues.”
It’s a complicated issue, and I can certainly understand a decision to vote against Prop. 8 out of fear that it might lead to the closing of some clinics, as opponents would have us believe (is that simply scare tactics or a genuine possibility?), or out of the thought that this is an example of an initiative process that’s out of control.
I believe these companies have been acting irresponsibly and that these restrictions are justified.
I’m voting YES ON PROP. 8.
(Prop. 9, to divide California into three states, was removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court, thank goodness!)
Prop. 10 - Rent control: YES
Proposition 10 would repeal a state law that currently limits the extent to which local jurisdictions can impose rent control.
If it passes, cities and other localities would be able to implement policies that restrict the amount by which landlords could raise rents for new tenants, and they could include new construction and single family homes in rent control ordinances. Any rent control policies would still have to allow landlords to make a fair financial return on their rentals.
This does not necessarily mean that rent control will suddenly spring up everywhere or that places that already have rent control will automatically expand the scope of their policies. It would be entirely up to the local jurisdictions to decide whether or not they want rent control, and, if so, the extent of that rent control.
Opponents of rent control make it sound like, were Prop. 10 to pass, the sky would fall in and renters would be in worse shape than before, largely because landlords would evict them and use their properties for vacation rentals instead. The solution for that, as some localities already have found, is to restrict vacation rentals.
Opponents also make themselves out to be a broad coalition from across the political spectrum.
However, if you look at the list of opponents on the No on Prop. 10 website, you’ll find it mostly consists of the usual conservative suspects, including statewide and local chambers of commerce.
The list does include Democratic former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and a handful of Democratic assemblymembers (all but one of whom are relatively conservative), but no members of the state senate.
And most of the opponents that at first glance would appear to be more progressive are not. For instance, there are twelve organizations listed under the category “Affordable Housing.” All of them are either developers or nonprofits whose boards are heavily populated by developers.
As you might imagine, there’s a lot of money from real estate developers and their friends opposing Prop. 10.
The main financial supporter of this initiative is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a very profitable company that has gotten heavily involved in statewide ballot measures in recent years. Some of those measures, including this one, have little or nothing to do with AHF’s business.
It’s weird, but it doesn’t provide an argument against Prop. 10.
Local control over rent control is a good thing… and where rent control exists, it provides needed protection for renters.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 10!
Prop. 11 - Private-sector emergency ambulance employees: YES
Prop. 11 is designed to carve out an exception to state law entitling hourly employees to take meal and rest breaks without having to be on-call. It would require private-sector ambulance employees to remain on-call when they take their breaks.
Those ambulance workers have long been required to be on-call during their breaks, but there’s a recent court precedent that is highly likely to change that. Prop. 11 would prevent that from happening.
I believe in protecting workers’ rights, but this seems like a reasonable exception. And there seems to be no organized opposition to this measure.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 11.
Prop. 12 - Farm animal standards: YES
Prop. 12 builds on an initiative California voters approved ten years ago. The previous measure required that veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying chickens needed to be able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
Prop. 12 adds a specific minimum amount of space for each of the animals in question, and would require that egg-laying chickens be cage-free by the end of 2021. Also, it would prohibit certain sales of noncomplying eggs and meats.
The main backer of this measure is the Humane Society of the United States, joined by a host of other animal protection, sustainable farming, and consumer groups.
Opposing Prop. 12 are meat and egg producers plus three animal rights groups: PETA, Friends of Animals, and the Humane Farming Association. I was a bit surprised to see the animal rights groups signing the arguments against Prop. 12 (no sign of the meat and egg people there!) until I looked into it a little more.
The ballot arguments against Prop. 12 are as much rants against the Humane Society as they are about the initiative itself. It turns out there is bad blood between the Humane Farming Association and the Humane Society. There is something on each organization’s website about the other organization, and none of it is flattering.
So who to believe?
There are demonstrably false statements in the arguments against this proposition. For instance, opponents claim that Prop. 12 would repeal the requirement from the 2008 initiative that animals have enough space to turn around, etc. That is simply not true.
Opponents also talk about Prop. 12’s requirement of one square foot of floor space per chicken as if it would be a giant step backward. In fact, it’s more space than that required under current regulations, according to the independent analysis in the Voter Information Guide.
On the Humane Farming Association’s website, there’s a letter from Brad Miller, HFA’s National Director, touting his organization’s accomplishments and attacking the Humane Society. From reading it, one would think that HFA was one of the main forces behind the passage of Proposition 2 in 2008 (the aforementioned initiative that Prop.12 is building upon).
One would be wrong. HFA sat that one out, remaining neutral on the measure.
Finally, what are HFA and their allies offering as an alternative to Prop. 12? The answer is nothing.
It seems that because they don’t like the idea of phasing out cages for chickens over the next three years and two months, they would prefer to leave things the way they are, with chickens in cages indefinitely.
It doesn’t make sense.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 12!
Local Ballot Measures
Marin County Measure AA - Renew 1/2¢ sales tax: YES
Measure AA would renew a 1/2¢ Transportation Authority of Marin sales tax that was originally passed in 2004. To be more accurate, this measure would replace and extend the existing tax, which would otherwise expire in 2025. Under Measure AA, the tax would continue for thirty years, expiring in 2049.
The Transportation Authority wants to replace the existing tax in order to switch to a new thirty-year transportation plan. It’s laid out in great detail in the sample ballot.
Will this completely solve all of our transportation problems? Of course not. But that’s no excuse for not tackling them at all.
That would be akin to the recent twisted logic of the Trump administration — they used their own conclusion that temperatures would rise seven degrees by the end of the century (and that our efforts to cut our carbon emissions wouldn’t have much effect) to argue that we should do nothing to fight climate change.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE AA.
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure J - Parcel tax: YES
This measure would add a parcel tax for four years to provide funds for our high schools, which have seen a large increase in enrollment in recent years.
Despite the fact that my wife and I do not have children, we believe strongly in supporting our public schools.
The opposition to Measure J comes from Michael Hartnett, who was the Republican nominee for state assembly twelve years ago. As proponents point out, his ballot argument is as much of a rant about the way education is funded by the state as it is about this measure, and it’s filled with inaccuracies to boot.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE J.
Town of Fairfax Measure O - Renew paramedic tax: YES
There is no organized opposition to this measure to continue a special tax that’s been in place for more than three and a half decades.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE O.
State
Governor: GAVIN NEWSOM
This race is between current Lieutenant Governor and former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, a reasonably progressive Democrat, and businessman John Cox, a conservative Republican.
The San Francisco Chronicle has a good take on the candidates in its endorsement of Newsom.
Note that this was published before the June primary, so other candidates who did not make it to the postseason are mentioned as well. And if you think my following comments about John Cox are dismissive, note that the Chronicle is even harsher, saying that it’s hard to take him seriously.
Cox has mostly bought into Trump’s agenda, and he touts his Inexperience as a badge of honor. His answer to virtually any issue goes something like this: “I’m a businessman. Politicians are all bad and they’re screwing everything up. As a businessman, I know how to fix things.”
No mention of how that’s worked out for us on the national level!
Vote for GAVIN NEWSOM.
Lieutenant Governor: ELENI KOUNALAKIS
Because of California’s unusual open primary system, in which the top two finishers, regardless of party, go on to the general election, in this race and one other, we have a choice between two Democrats.
In this case it’s between former Ambassador to Hungary Eleni Kounalakis and State Senator Ed Hernandez.
Frankly, I think we’d be well served by either Kounalakis or Hernandez. Both are fairly progressive and they both have long endorsement lists to match.
I went back and watched these two in the primary debate, and I have to give the edge to Kounalakis. I was taken by how forcefully she spoke about education and about protecting the environment, two of the main things with which the Lieutenant Governor is involved.
I recommend a VOTE FOR ELENI KOUNALAKIS.
Secretary of State: ALEX PADILLA
While Republicans across the country have been working hard to restrict voting rights and access to the polls, California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has done the opposite. He’s increasing registration and making it easier to vote. And he has stood up to Trump’s fraudulent voting commission. He deserves reelection.
VOTE FOR ALEX PADILLA.
Controller: BETTY YEE
Betty Yee is the incumbent and she’s doing a very good job fighting waste, fraud, and corruption, including going after the Board of Equalization for mismanagement. She also deserves to be reelected.
The L.A. Times explains the race in far more detail in its endorsement of Yee.
VOTE FOR BETTY YEE.
Treasurer: FIONA MA
Fiona Ma is extremely well qualified and well-suited to be our next treasurer.
She’s a CPA who worked as an accountant before entering public service, first as a San Francisco supervisor, then as a member of the State Assembly, and currently as a member of the Board of Equalization, where she worked with Betty Yee to expose corruption.
For more, read this L.A. Times editorial.
VOTE FOR FIONA MA.
Attorney General: XAVIER BECERRA
Appointed incumbent Attorney General Xavier Becerra came to the job after serving 12 terms in Congress. From his current position, he has doggedly fought the Trump administration on a variety of fronts.
He’s being challenged by retired judge Steven Bailey, who is quite conservative and who is facing eleven charges of judicial misconduct in a case that won’t be decided until well after the election.
Bailey is endorsed by the NRA, the California Pro-Life Council, a host of Republican organizations, and some police associations.
Becerra has the support of Planned Parenthood, environmental groups, labor, Democratic groups, and others.
VOTE FOR XAVIER BECERRA.
Insurance Commissioner: RICARDO LARA
Ricardo Lara has an excellent record as a State Senator, including spearheading the move towards single-payer healthcare in California.
I am somewhat disappointed, however, by his campaign, which is much more generic than it should be. For instance, relatively little of his website is devoted to issues with which the next insurance commissioner will be grappling.
I do believe that Lara will do the right thing in office, and that his number one priority will be standing up for consumers, as he has promised.
I cannot support Steve Poizner, a Republican-turned-Independent who held the job from 2007-2011. He had a reputation as a moderate until he drank the anti-immigration Kool-Aid during his 2010 run for Governor, and turned into a frothing xenophobe. He says he now regrets that, but he’s lost any credibility he may have had with me.
VOTE FOR RICARDO LARA.
State Board of Equalization, District 2: MALIA COHEN
The Board of Equalization’s responsibilities were recently drastically reduced in the wake of major scandals, and its staff was cut by about 95%. It may be on a path to extinction.
But for now, it still does oversee property tax collection. And the clear choice in this race is San Francisco Supervisor Malia Cohen, who seems to most comprehend the job and who is campaigning on “transparency, accountability, and fairness,” which is exactly what a member of the Board of Equalization should be focused on.
VOTE FOR MALIA COHEN.
United States Senator: KEVIN DE LEÓN
This is the other statewide race in which we have a choice between two Democrats.
Incumbent Dianne Feinstein has served in the U.S. Senate since 1992. She’s great on some issues, most notably gun control, for which she has drawn on personal experience to make a compelling case for reasonable gun control measures.
She’s not so great on some other issues. She voted for the Iraq War and for the Bush tax cuts. She has a tendency to protect big business and the very wealthy over average people. She opposes “Medicare for All.”
Feinstein’s challenger is State Senator Kevin de León, who served as the California Senate’s President pro tempore until earlier this year. He is much more progressive than Feinstein. Where she’s been cautious at best, de León has been way out in front on a number of issues.
He wrote landmark legislation to require California utilities to get a third of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (they’re now most of the way toward that goal), rising to half by 2030.
He shepherded nearly a dozen gun violence prevention bills through the State Senate and was also responsible for meaningful anti-pollution legislation as well as a measure investing in parks in low-income areas.
On the issues, the choice of de León is clear. There’s also the fact that Dianne Feinstein is now 85 years old. That means that if she serves another full term in the Senate, she will be 91 years old by the end of it.
With an irresponsible, incurious, impulsive, irrational maniac in the White House, our senators need to constantly be on their toes. This is not a job for the faint of heart and — call me ageist if you must — it’s not a job for a nonagenarian.
VOTE FOR KEVIN DE LEÓN!
United States Representative, 2nd District: JARED HUFFMAN
I believe we’re being well served in Washington, D.C. by incumbent Jared Huffman. I also appreciate that he holds informal events in the district to meet with constituents as much as possible. He should definitely be reelected.
VOTE FOR JARED HUFFMAN.
State Senator, 2nd District: MIKE MCGUIRE
This is the same matchup as the June primary, and I haven’t changed my opinion since then.
Democrat Mike McGuire is the incumbent. He’s being challenged by another Democrat, former Santa Rosa Councilwoman Veronica “Roni” Jacobi.
This is somewhat similar to the State Assembly race (see below), where the Democratic incumbent is being challenged from the left. The difference, in my opinion, is that McGuire is a somewhat stronger candidate than Marc Levine and Roni Jacobi is a somewhat weaker candidate than Dan Monte.
Jacobi challenged Marc Levine two years ago. I stand by what I wrote about her then:
The issue Jacobi puts front and center is fighting climate change, and she certainly practices what she preaches. She goes to great lengths to lower her own carbon footprint. In fact, she took the bus from Santa Rosa to attend the candidate debate I watched.
Unfortunately, Jacobi lost me with her less than lackluster performance at the debate. Her heart is clearly in the right place. She would likely have a very good voting record. But I don’t see her as a potential leader and I’m afraid she would not be able to deliver for the district.
VOTE FOR MIKE MCGUIRE.
Member of the State Assembly, 10th District: DAN MONTE
Incumbent Marc Levine is being challenged by Dan Monte, an active environmentalist who is very passionate about making sure all Californians have access to healthcare and a quality education.
Levine mostly has a pretty good voting record, particularly on social issues. But when it comes to protecting consumers vs. going along with big business, his record is a mixed bag at best.
That’s not surprising when you look at his campaign contributors, who include Walmart, Comcast, pharmaceutical companies, and the California Charter School Association.
Monte, meanwhile, is not accepting corporate contributions.
I recommend a VOTE FOR DAN MONTE.
Judicial
There are several California Appeals Court and Supreme Court justices on the ballot, for whom we have the option of voting yes or no to determine whether or not their terms are extended.
I believe that judges and justices should not be treated like political candidates. They shouldn’t have to campaign. And they should largely be free to rule on the merits of cases without constantly having to look over their shoulders.
As a result, it is my strong opinion that we voters should approve judges and justices unless there is a serious, very compelling reason not to do so. There is not such a reason for any of the justices before us in this election.
I recommend voting YES ON ALL THE JUSTICES.
School
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: TONY THURMOND
This Sacramento Bee editorial sums it up well. (It was also published before the primary, so it mentions other candidates who are no longer in the running.)
Oh, and by the way, nearly all of the money behind Marshall Tuck, Thurmond’s opponent, comes from EdVoice for the Kids PAC. The PAC, which seeks to dramatically expand charter schools, stuffed just under $10 million into Tuck’s campaign.
VOTE FOR TONY THURMOND.
Local - Marin County
Board Member, Marin Community College District (3 seats open):
DIANA CONTI, WANDEN TREANOR, & SUZANNE BROWN CROW
I am relying on friends and friends of friends for recommendations on this race, as well as for the Tamalpais Union High School District and the Marin Healthcare District races.
For the Marin Community College District, the consensus was unanimous.
VOTE FOR DIANA CONTI, WANDEN TREANOR, AND SUZANNE BROWN CROW.
Board Member, Tamalpais Union High School District (3 seats open):
DAN OPPENHEIM, CYNTHIA ROENISCH, & KEVIN SAAVEDRA
The consensus was also unanimous for this one.
VOTE FOR DAN OPPENHEIM, CYNTHIA ROENISCH, AND KEVIN SAAVEDRA.
Sausalito Marin City School District: IDA GREEN & BONNIE ROSE HOUGH
I feel compelled to weigh in on this race even though I don’t live in the district.
For years, the Sausalito Marin City school board favored its charter school at the expense of Bayside MLK Academy, its public school that happens to be mostly minority.
Two years ago, my friend Debra Turner, a longtime volunteer at Bayside MLK who was outraged by the situation, successfully ran for the school board. Since then the board has been much more even-handed. Some programs that had previously been cut at Bayside MLK were at least partially restored, and other improvements were made.
This year’s election offers a choice between building on that progress or likely reverting back to the unfairness of the past.
There are two excellent candidates running as a slate: Ida Green and Bonnie Hough.
Ida Green is an incumbent and currently Vice President of the Sausalito Marin City school board. With a Masters of Social Work (MSW), she currently serves as Child & Family Life Skills Coach for Community Action Marin.
A lifelong Marin City resident, Green is the daughter of Betty Times, who served three terms on the Sausalito Marin City school board, and is in the Marin Women’s Hall of Fame.
Bonnie Hough is currently the Principal Managing Attorney for the Center for Families, Children & the Courts of the Judicial Council of California. She is the Founder of Family & Children’s Law Center and has served on the boards of La Familia, YWCA, Marin Food Bank, Marin County Women Lawyers, and the Marin County Law Library.
For more about Ida Green and Bonnie Hough, check out their website.
Meanwhile, there is a slate running against Green and Hough. All three are parents of charter school students, although their website does not make that clear. Two of the three hold leadership positions within the charter school. The fear is that this lack of transparency is an indication of how they would govern.
VOTE FOR IDA GREEN AND BONNIE HOUGH.
Marin County District Attorney: ANNA PLETCHER
Anna Pletcher is clearly the progressive choice in this race.
While her opponent Lori Frugoli talks about “restorative justice,” it is really Pletcher who is most committed to the idea, which seeks to find ways convicted criminals can provide relief to victims (such as restitution for theft), while, where appropriate, finding alternative punishments to incarceration.
Anna Pletcher touts her outsider status as a plus, and in this case it probably is. If elected, she would be the county’s first District Attorney in seventy years not to come from the D.A.’s office.
Despite that, Pletcher has plenty of experience that makes her extremely qualified for the job, including ten years as a federal prosecutor, which involved managing a large group of lawyers. As someone who played for many years on a lawyers’ league softball team, I can tell you that is no easy task!
What really tips the scales in Pletcher’s favor for me is her push to change the way cases of rape are handled in Marin. Currently, victims must travel to Kaiser in Vallejo in order to get a rape kit examination.
Pletcher wants to have trained forensic examiners come to the victims rather than the other way around. This will have two benefits: minimizing further traumatization of the victims and insuring that more rape cases get prosecuted.
VOTE FOR ANNA PLETCHER.
Director, Marin Healthcare District (3 seats open):
EDWARD J. ALFREY, LARRY A. BEDARD, & BRIAN W. SU
There are two incumbents running for reelection: retired emergency physician Larry Bedard and public health researcher Jennifer Rienks, and three newcomers: surgeons Edward Alfrey and Brian Su, and Melissa Bradley, who has built a successful realty company in the county.
The reports I got back for this race were mixed.
There was universal support for Alfrey and universal lack of support for Rienks and Bradley. But some people don’t care for Bedard and Su, either. Some plan to vote for them out of lack of another choice. Another finds Bedard arrogant but supports him because he understands how to manage the hospital.
Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but that’s what I’ve got to go on.
I recommend a VOTE FOR EDWARD J. ALFREY, LARRY A. BEDARD, AND BRIAN W. SU.
State Ballot Measures
Prop. 1 - Housing assistance bonds: YES
This measure would authorize the sale of state bonds for a variety of housing assistance programs. The programs would create affordable rental housing, help veterans get home loans, assist low- and moderate-income first-time homebuyers, and build housing for farmworkers.
Clearly we have a serious lack of affordable housing in California. While this proposition alone will not come close to solving the problem, it is a step in the right direction.
The ballot argument against Prop. 1 only serves to convince me that this measure is worth supporting.
Gary Wesley, long known for his contrarian ballot arguments, is at it again. He agrees that the scarcity of affordable housing is a huge problem. But because it’s so big, he thinks we should do nothing except ask statewide candidates “what they propose.”
He uses the bulk of his rebuttal to the argument in favor of Prop. 1 to try to scare us about an unrelated bill in the state legislature that FAILED to pass.
And he uses most of his argument against Prop. 1 to rail against the inequities of Prop. 13, passed in 1978. I happen to agree with him about the unfair results of that proposition, in which next-door neighbors, living in identical houses, could be paying drastically different amounts of property taxes, depending on when they purchased their homes.
I would like to see Wesley work on solving that problem instead of introducing red herrings into the discussion of Prop. 1.
Much of the money spent from these bonds would qualify the state for matching federal funds. Plus the veterans will be paying off their loans, as will some of the people involved in the first-time homebuyer program. So this seems like a pretty good bang for our tax buck!
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 1.
Prop. 2 - Housing program for people with mental illness: YES
Proposition 2 would put into law what the state legislature tried to do two years ago — use some of the revenue from a tax on millionaires for bonds that would provide housing for people suffering from mental illness who are at risk of homelessness.
It makes sense that a stable home situation can make a huge difference in the ability to successfully manage mental illness, as proponents suggest.
This measure has almost universal support. The arguments against it were written by the leadership of the Contra Costa chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. But as of this writing the state organization has not taken a position on Prop 2. And, as far as I can tell, neither have any of the other local chapters of NAMI, and there are a lot of them throughout the state.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 2.
Prop. 3 - Water-related infrastructure bonds: NO
Proposition 3 authorizes bonds for a variety of infrastructure projects related to safe drinking water and water quality, watershed and fishery improvements, habitat protection, water conveyance, groundwater sustainability and storage, and surface water storage and dam repairs.
This initiative includes a lot of different projects all over the state, aimed at a variety of constituents, hence its supporters are all over the political map as well, from conservation groups to agribusiness to chambers of commerce. Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox supports it, and so do many prominent Democrats.
I initially thought I would also support Prop. 3. Who doesn’t want to support safe drinking water and watershed restoration and all those other things?
Many of the groups endorsing Prop. 3 are organizations I respect; I’ve contributed financially to some of them over the years.
But as I looked further into it, I was swayed by arguments that the way this initiative was put together and the lack of legislative oversight built into it are simply not right. This is something that should have gone through the legislature first, like previous water bonds Californians have passed.
Clearly there are many worthy projects in Prop. 3 that are deserving of funding. But there are others that are either not worthy or, in the case of some repair projects, should be paid for by those who are responsible for the damage rather than by taxpayers.
That’s the gist of many of the newspaper editorials against Prop. 3. And it’s well-stated in this Sierra Club pdf that explains the club’s opposition.
I recommend voting NO ON PROP. 3.
Prop. 4 - Children’s hospitals bonds: YES
This measure authorizes bonds for construction and other upgrades to various nonprofit children’s hospitals in California. The opposing arguments come again from Gary Wesley, and they are virtually identical to his arguments against Prop. 1.
In fact, if you read his arguments, you’ll see that he actually doesn’t say anything bad about Prop. 4. He repeats his rant against 1978’s Proposition 13. It’s a justified rant, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 4.
Prop. 5 - Change transfer requirements: NO!!!
Proposition 5 purports to take pity on seniors and the disabled by expanding their ability to transfer the taxable value of their existing home when they sell it and move to another home they purchase. This would likely save them quite a bit in property taxes.
Under current law, such a transfer is allowed only when buying a new home of equal or lesser value than the old home, and only one transfer is allowed per person.
Prop. 5 would allow transfers even when purchasing a more expensive home (the price difference would be added to the original valuation), and it would allow unlimited transfers.
But the fact is that the vast majority of the benefits of this measure would go to the wealthy, at the expense of our schools and emergency services, which get most of their funding from property taxes.
Furthermore, unlike the claims made by its proponents, Prop. 5 would not make the system more fair. Instead, it would dump an even greater percentage of the tax burden onto younger homeowners, many of whom are stretched very thin as it is.
I’m at an age at which I could potentially benefit financially from Prop. 5. Even so, there is no question in my mind about how utterly terrible this measure is.
Frankly, I believe the existing exemption should be limited, not expanded, so that it is targeted strictly to people who really need the relief — those for whom a doubling or tripling of their property taxes would financially imperil their ability to remain homeowners.
I completely agree with the League of Women Voters and others who signed the arguments against Prop. 5. This proposition is a scam, sponsored solely by realtor associations. As of this writing, they’ve contributed more than seven million dollars toward passing Prop. 5.
Don’t let them get away with it!
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5!
Prop. 6 - Repeal gas and vehicle taxes: NO
This is a disingenuous attempt by Republicans to overturn taxes and fees passed by the legislature, and to tie the legislature’s hands in the future.
The lion’s share of the money behind Prop. 6 comes from the California Republican Party, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox, and a who’s who of congressional Republicans, mostly from California but including House Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.
Voters passed a measure in the June election requiring that the funds generated by these taxes and fees are spent for transportation purposes.
In their ballot arguments, proponents of Prop. 6 are insinuating that most of that revenue will be siphoned away to other things. This is simply not true.
The one argument of theirs that I do agree with is that the gas tax is regressive. Lower income people spend a higher percentage of their income on these taxes than people with higher incomes. I would like to see a better way of handling this. But getting rid of this revenue without replacing it with something fairer is not the answer.
And this measure would lead to even more propositions on our ballots in the future, as the legislature would have to get voter approval for any new gas taxes or fees. We need to let our legislators do their jobs; if we don’t like the jobs they do, we can vote them out of office. Isn’t that how democracy is supposed to work?
Besides giving the state needed funds for road and bridge repairs, etc., the gas tax can nudge drivers toward electric vehicles, hybrids, or at least more fuel efficient gasoline-powered cars.
On this measure, Republicans are pitted against some of their usual allies, including the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, who see Prop. 6 as the disaster it would be.
We need to fix our roads and bridges, and invest more in public transit.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6!
Prop. 7 - Daylight saving time: YES
Proposition 7 would allow California lawmakers to change Daylight Saving Time in the state (i.e., they could make DST year-round or opt out of DST altogether) with a two-thirds vote, provided the change is allowed under federal law.
Until I began to look at this measure, I was unaware of the health risks of time changes. But they do appear to be real. Some other alleged effects of DST, such as the claim that DST saves energy, are the subjects of much debate.
I don’t feel as strongly about this proposition as I do about most of the other ballot measures, but I recommend a YES VOTE ON PROP. 7.
Prop. 8 - Kidney dialysis charges: YES
Proposition 8 aims to limit amounts that for-profit kidney dialysis centers can charge patients (115% of costs for patient care and quality improvements, including training, patient education, and tech support), and it would impose penalties if those limits were exceeded.
Medicare and Medi-Cal cover most people who need dialysis, and they generally pay much less than private insurers do — usually several times less. DaVita, the company that owns half of the for-profit dialysis centers in California, gets one third of its revenue from insurance companies even though insurance payers only comprise about one tenth of DaVita’s patients.
DaVita and other dialysis center owners in California have been accused of understaffing and allowing unsanitary conditions in their facilities. A few months ago, DaVita lost multiple wrongful death lawsuits in Colorado and was ordered to pay $383.5 million in damages.
The hope of this measure is that it would not only cap the profits these operators can make, it would encourage them to properly staff their centers and make other important improvements, since if their allowable costs are greater, their allowable profits will also be greater.
As of this writing, DaVita has contributed nearly $28 million to defeat Prop. 8. TWENTY-EIGHT MILLION DOLLARS! ($27,987,686, to be exact, which is much more than the total of all contributions to any side of any other proposition on the ballot!)
The next biggest player in California’s dialysis business, Fresenius Medical Care, owns 22% of the dialysis centers in the state. Fresenius chipped in more than NINETEEN MILLION to fight Prop. 8. Smaller operators also put in substantial amounts, bringing the grand total of contributions so far against Prop. 8 to $51,164,211!
That tells me that these guys DO have too much money on their hands. According to the Sacramento Bee, in 2016, DaVita and Fresenius made $3.9 billion in profits from their dialysis centers.
The main force behind Prop. 8 is Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, which also put in a very healthy chunk of change: $17,387,341.
The union is trying to organize workers at these clinics. The newspaper editorials I’ve read are dismissing Prop. 8 in part because of that. But even in arguing against Prop. 8, The Sacramento Bee acknowledges that “SEIU has highlighted some valid financial issues.”
It’s a complicated issue, and I can certainly understand a decision to vote against Prop. 8 out of fear that it might lead to the closing of some clinics, as opponents would have us believe (is that simply scare tactics or a genuine possibility?), or out of the thought that this is an example of an initiative process that’s out of control.
I believe these companies have been acting irresponsibly and that these restrictions are justified.
I’m voting YES ON PROP. 8.
(Prop. 9, to divide California into three states, was removed from the ballot by the California Supreme Court, thank goodness!)
Prop. 10 - Rent control: YES
Proposition 10 would repeal a state law that currently limits the extent to which local jurisdictions can impose rent control.
If it passes, cities and other localities would be able to implement policies that restrict the amount by which landlords could raise rents for new tenants, and they could include new construction and single family homes in rent control ordinances. Any rent control policies would still have to allow landlords to make a fair financial return on their rentals.
This does not necessarily mean that rent control will suddenly spring up everywhere or that places that already have rent control will automatically expand the scope of their policies. It would be entirely up to the local jurisdictions to decide whether or not they want rent control, and, if so, the extent of that rent control.
Opponents of rent control make it sound like, were Prop. 10 to pass, the sky would fall in and renters would be in worse shape than before, largely because landlords would evict them and use their properties for vacation rentals instead. The solution for that, as some localities already have found, is to restrict vacation rentals.
Opponents also make themselves out to be a broad coalition from across the political spectrum.
However, if you look at the list of opponents on the No on Prop. 10 website, you’ll find it mostly consists of the usual conservative suspects, including statewide and local chambers of commerce.
The list does include Democratic former L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and a handful of Democratic assemblymembers (all but one of whom are relatively conservative), but no members of the state senate.
And most of the opponents that at first glance would appear to be more progressive are not. For instance, there are twelve organizations listed under the category “Affordable Housing.” All of them are either developers or nonprofits whose boards are heavily populated by developers.
As you might imagine, there’s a lot of money from real estate developers and their friends opposing Prop. 10.
The main financial supporter of this initiative is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a very profitable company that has gotten heavily involved in statewide ballot measures in recent years. Some of those measures, including this one, have little or nothing to do with AHF’s business.
It’s weird, but it doesn’t provide an argument against Prop. 10.
Local control over rent control is a good thing… and where rent control exists, it provides needed protection for renters.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 10!
Prop. 11 - Private-sector emergency ambulance employees: YES
Prop. 11 is designed to carve out an exception to state law entitling hourly employees to take meal and rest breaks without having to be on-call. It would require private-sector ambulance employees to remain on-call when they take their breaks.
Those ambulance workers have long been required to be on-call during their breaks, but there’s a recent court precedent that is highly likely to change that. Prop. 11 would prevent that from happening.
I believe in protecting workers’ rights, but this seems like a reasonable exception. And there seems to be no organized opposition to this measure.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 11.
Prop. 12 - Farm animal standards: YES
Prop. 12 builds on an initiative California voters approved ten years ago. The previous measure required that veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying chickens needed to be able to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.
Prop. 12 adds a specific minimum amount of space for each of the animals in question, and would require that egg-laying chickens be cage-free by the end of 2021. Also, it would prohibit certain sales of noncomplying eggs and meats.
The main backer of this measure is the Humane Society of the United States, joined by a host of other animal protection, sustainable farming, and consumer groups.
Opposing Prop. 12 are meat and egg producers plus three animal rights groups: PETA, Friends of Animals, and the Humane Farming Association. I was a bit surprised to see the animal rights groups signing the arguments against Prop. 12 (no sign of the meat and egg people there!) until I looked into it a little more.
The ballot arguments against Prop. 12 are as much rants against the Humane Society as they are about the initiative itself. It turns out there is bad blood between the Humane Farming Association and the Humane Society. There is something on each organization’s website about the other organization, and none of it is flattering.
So who to believe?
There are demonstrably false statements in the arguments against this proposition. For instance, opponents claim that Prop. 12 would repeal the requirement from the 2008 initiative that animals have enough space to turn around, etc. That is simply not true.
Opponents also talk about Prop. 12’s requirement of one square foot of floor space per chicken as if it would be a giant step backward. In fact, it’s more space than that required under current regulations, according to the independent analysis in the Voter Information Guide.
On the Humane Farming Association’s website, there’s a letter from Brad Miller, HFA’s National Director, touting his organization’s accomplishments and attacking the Humane Society. From reading it, one would think that HFA was one of the main forces behind the passage of Proposition 2 in 2008 (the aforementioned initiative that Prop.12 is building upon).
One would be wrong. HFA sat that one out, remaining neutral on the measure.
Finally, what are HFA and their allies offering as an alternative to Prop. 12? The answer is nothing.
It seems that because they don’t like the idea of phasing out cages for chickens over the next three years and two months, they would prefer to leave things the way they are, with chickens in cages indefinitely.
It doesn’t make sense.
VOTE YES ON PROP. 12!
Local Ballot Measures
Marin County Measure AA - Renew 1/2¢ sales tax: YES
Measure AA would renew a 1/2¢ Transportation Authority of Marin sales tax that was originally passed in 2004. To be more accurate, this measure would replace and extend the existing tax, which would otherwise expire in 2025. Under Measure AA, the tax would continue for thirty years, expiring in 2049.
The Transportation Authority wants to replace the existing tax in order to switch to a new thirty-year transportation plan. It’s laid out in great detail in the sample ballot.
Will this completely solve all of our transportation problems? Of course not. But that’s no excuse for not tackling them at all.
That would be akin to the recent twisted logic of the Trump administration — they used their own conclusion that temperatures would rise seven degrees by the end of the century (and that our efforts to cut our carbon emissions wouldn’t have much effect) to argue that we should do nothing to fight climate change.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE AA.
Tamalpais Union High School District Measure J - Parcel tax: YES
This measure would add a parcel tax for four years to provide funds for our high schools, which have seen a large increase in enrollment in recent years.
Despite the fact that my wife and I do not have children, we believe strongly in supporting our public schools.
The opposition to Measure J comes from Michael Hartnett, who was the Republican nominee for state assembly twelve years ago. As proponents point out, his ballot argument is as much of a rant about the way education is funded by the state as it is about this measure, and it’s filled with inaccuracies to boot.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE J.
Town of Fairfax Measure O - Renew paramedic tax: YES
There is no organized opposition to this measure to continue a special tax that’s been in place for more than three and a half decades.
VOTE YES ON MEASURE O.
