California Ballot
The following was sent to a private mailing list. I’m providing it with permission for California voters. There was a little markup added and I sorted the items into Federal, State and Local lists.
I’ve finished poring over all the items on my ballot, and decided how I am going to vote. It took hours — hours of reading the voter guide, supplementary material, flyers from the campaigns and special interests including my cell phone company, newspaper articles, and searching on the web.
Some of the offices and initiatives were a little obscure or hard to decide until I dug into them (and some still were afterward anyway), so I wanted to share what I decided, and briefly why, as input to your vote casting process in the hope that you find it useful. Feel free to email a disagreement if you think I’m way off base or have missed something.
So you know where I am coming from, I am registered as a Green, and my key issues are the environment, civil liberties, and fiscal responsibility. I vote by issue rather than by party. There, now you know.
I’m located in Nevada City, California so my ballot may look slightly different than yours. Maybe you’ll find my reasoning amusing anyway. This is a small town and a rural county and the politics and offices are often frequented by unusual characters. Including myself…
I’ll go through the items in the order they appear on my ballot.
Federal
President: Kerry/Edwards.
Reason: Environment, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties.US Senator: Barbara Boxer
Reason: Environment.US Rep District 4: David Winters (Democrat)
Reason: Opponent thinks Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together (form letter sent to me in response to USA PATRIOT act concerns). I disagree with Doolittle on, as far as I can tell, everything. I have no idea at all who David Winters is but the only way he could be a poorer match for my interests than the current guy is if he was two of the current guy.
State
State Assembly District 3: Robert Woods (Democrat)
Reason: Same as above, basically.Prop 1A: NO
Reason: Heavy dependence on local funding provides strong incentive for megabusinesses and sprawl to increase tax base. We don’t have a Walmart here and I don’t want one here EVER. I like our local businesses, small town charm and mostly independent downtowns. NO!Prop 59: Public records: YES
Reason: Allows greater citizen oversight of governmental decisionmaking. After the closed-door federal energy policy development procedure we’ve had to put up with this is near the top of my list of yeses for state propositions.Prop 60: Election right of political parties: NO
Reason: This is already law; someone just wants to stick it in the state Constitution for reasons that aren’t clear to me. I always vote NO on constitutional amendments that aren’t obviously great ideas because changing the constitution unnecessarily is a really bad idea. So, no, no, no, no, no.Prop 60A: Surplus property disposition: NO
Reason: This prop. says the proceeds from any property the state happens to sell goes to pay off specified bonds. This is a constitutional amendment, for no apparent reason. Someone must have their eye on some particular piece of state property — I smell a rat. NO.Prop 61: Children’s hospitals: NO
Reason: Why the hell is this on here? We need less expensive health care, not hospitals people can’t afford to go into, purchased with additional debt. I have two kids and I’m not convinced.Prop 62: Election primary: NO
Reason: Given California politics, this ballot measure is extremely likely to frequently result in either ONLY two Republicans or only two Democrats on the general election ballot for all offices except President. Is this going to make ANYONE happy? I can’t imagine it would. In addition, it is a constitutional amendment. Not just no, but NO WAY.Prop 63: Mental Health Services: Yes
Reason: Four years ago, I had to come home from work in San Jose because a nut with a gun was on a rampage in my town and shot a bunch of people dead, including some at a building on my street, about a mile from my house, then went AWOL for about eight tense hours. I was sitting at home with a borrowed shotgun hoping he wasn’t nearby and desperate. If he had received timely mental health care from the people at the building he went on a rampage in it might not have happened. These services are WAY overdue, there is a funding source in the bill… sign me up. If I ever happen to earn a million bucks a year I’ll happy pay the extra 1% in taxes this bill requires.Prop 64: Limits on class action lawsuits: NO
Reason: The Sierra club has used the law this bill would restrict to successfully bring environmental lawsuits against a variety of miscreants. Class action lawsuits are an awesome tool for environmental and social justice. My conservative pro-business friends may cringe, but this is the kind of law that in my opinion results in kids rasping with asthma. No thank you ma’am, I like my lungs.Prop 65: Local government revenues: NO
Reason: This is the previous incarnation of Prop 1A. Everyone says no to it, including the people who got it on the ballot. A no brainer… NO.Prop 66: Three strikes amendment: YES
Reason: Do I want to pay for some jerk who shoplifted three times to spend the rest of his life in prison? No, not really. Three strikes should mean “three strikes”, not include two balls and a pop foul. Really, have a sense of perspective.Prop 67: Emergency medical services: NO
Reason: This was kind of a toughie. A closer look reveals a very small portion of the proceeds would go to 911 services, community clincs and so on. Almost all of the money would go to HMOs, PPOs, and so on for services they are already providing. This is a bandaid, and a very expensive one, for treating the symptom, not curing the illness. Californians need wider, cheaper, better health care coverage so they can have access to preventative medicine and don’t end up in the emergency room in the first place. This looks like a massive waste of money to me.Prop 68: Gambling: NO
Reason: Aside from the tax snafu and loss of state revenues, would effectively authorize casinos throughout the state. Yuck. Also another constitutional amendment. No thanks.Prop 69: DNA database: NO
Reason: Massive civil liberties concerns; existing DNA database sufficient. This is the dark, evil part of GATTACA, if you saw that movie. Please, NO!Prop 70: Tribal gaming compacts: NO
Reason: Another consitutional amendment, this one with a 99 year window. Blech. Also it looks like Arnold Schwartzenegger’s analysis is right on on this one. I know you got one of those “How your government wants you to vote” pamphlets from him in the mail so see it if you are curious. If you are suffering from ballot fatigue at this point, just vote no.Prop 71: Stem cell research: YES
Reason: This is financially awesome. The state will generate lots of revenues from patents and licenses, and will save a ton of money by being able to cure numerous chronic health problems. Michelle and I paid to have our children’s umbilical cord blood stem cells cryopreserved when our kids were born; that’s how confident I am that stem cell research is going to pay off in a huge way. I forsee a big positive return on investment for this one, long term. I would fund this initiative using bond debt just as quickly as I would borrow money to send my child to college, and for the same reasons. YES.Prop 72: Health Care Coverage: YES
Reason: This isn’t really what I am looking for — I want something more like Vermont’s plan — but I will tepidly endorse this as a compromise for now.
Local
Nevada County Board of Education Trustee Area 2: John Smoak
Reason: Smoak’s opponent is a nut… and not my kind of nut.Sierra Joint Community College District: Tomasini and Parker.
Reason: Opponents are young kids (20s) that are well-connected Republicans, endorsed by Anestaad, Doolittle, Keene, and various state and local Republican party organizations. Looks like a stepping stone with no real interest in Sierra College. Lots of attack rhetoric including going on about the cafeteria food with no plans for improvement.County, 1st district: Olivia Diaz.
Reason: Environment, ability to build consensus, experience. Special note: I endorse Bruce Conklin for District 3.
Reason: Environment, smart growth.Local Measure G, Sierra College Campus: YES
Reason: Probable positive return on investment long term, resulting in higher property values and a more pleasant place to live.District: Measure J, District formation: YES
Reason: More parks, please. More pleasant place to live, higher property values.District: Measure K, Special Tax: YES
Reason: Measure J needs measure K for funding. I can afford $25 per year, especially if it means my propery value goes up by that much annually, which I am willing to bet it will.District: Measure L, Appropriations District: YES
Reason: Measures J and K go along with L. Spending limits are usually good ideas. This one sounds okay to me.Vote for director: These are all write-ins! I wrote in myself, as I am interested in this office. Please feel free to write me in as “Shaun Case”.
I can’t believe you read the whole thing! Congratulations.
If you live in the special Nevada County Nisenan district then don’t forget to write me in as a director, even if you vote no on all the other local measures that create it. I’m your man!!
Best regards, Shaun
