I am a VOTIVATOR - a way to share our voting choices with each other - and here's how I'm voting on Nov 8. (For a great source of info re: CA ballot propositions, look at the videos explaining them at SeePolitical.com. I'll be at its one-day convention on CA ballot props in LA, Oct 29 Sat: the first-ever BallotCon... see you there!)
President Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine
I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary with enthusiasm. I am now voting for Hillary Clinton with enthusiasm. Obviously her opponent is utterly unworthy of consideration for the office. But quite apart from that, in her own right she is an outstanding public servant who will deliver progressive changes that are critical for the future of our country. Let’s give her our full support!
Senator Kamala D. Harris
She is steadier by temperament and more committed to progressive positions than her opponent, fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez.
U.S. House of Representatives CA District 28 Adam B. Schiff
I am very impressed with our member of Congress… smart, capable, good on progressive positions. I only wish he was firmer about a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine, but that’s not a matter of highest priority for the House of Representatives.
California State Assembly District 43 Laura Friedman
Her opponent is also a Democrat. I feel that her record of public service and her approach to government are somewhat better than his.
Los Angeles County Superior Court:
Judge, Seat 11 Steven Schreiner
Judge, Seat 158 Kim L. Nguyen
Judge, Seat 42 Efrain Matthew Aceves
Judge, Seat 84 Susan Jung Townsend
I chose these judge candidates primarily on the basis of their qualifications listed by the LA County Bar Assn: http://www.lacba.org/docs/default-source/jeec-reports/jeec-report-2016.pdf . All but Nguyen were recommended also by the LA Times: I felt her higher level of qualifications mattered more than the LA Times reasoning for endorsement.
CA Propositions
51, School Bonds: No. I’m following the LA Times’ recommendation, based on its editorial analysis, and on Gov. Brown’s distaste for it as a badly-crafted policy. We need more physical improvements in schools but it must be done in a way that is equitable between higher and lower income neighborhoods, and this bond issue does not address that problem.
52, Medi-Cal fees: Yes. Good for Medi-Cal recipients and good for public hospitals.
53, Bond voter approval process, No. This would make it a lot harder for the state to fund infrastructure projects.
54, Legislative proceedings: Yes. Makes for more transparency in the process of passing legislation in the State legislature.
55, Tax extension: Yes. I part ways with the LA Times on this one. This extends the existing Prop 30 tax increase that saved the state from ruin after the recent recession. There are very many critical underfunded priorities still facing our state. But we must remain vigilant to make sure that Sacramento uses the money wisely, and doesn’t just pay off the public employee unions when this proposition passes. I trust Jerry Brown to put the brakes on such excesses.
56, Cigarette tax: Yes. As I read the evidence, this will help fund healthcare and reduce tobacco consumption.
57, Criminal sentences: Yes. Another sensible step toward shrinking the prison-industrial complex and reducing mass incarceration in California.
58, Bilingual education: Yes. A science-based corrective to Prop 227 that banned bilingual programs 20 years ago.
59, Political spending: Yes. This has no legal effect in ending Citizens United, a disastrous Supreme Court decision, but it expresses our outrage at the ongoing poisoning of our democracy by untrammeled special-interest campaign funding.
60, Condoms in adult films, No. Even AIDS activists recognize that this is a bad way to solve a real problem of STD transmission in the porn industry.
61, Prescription pricing: No. Another faulty solution to a real problem. This is not an effectual or sensible way to tamp down the cost of prescription drugs. We need a federal-level solution.
62, Death penalty repeal. Yes!!! About time, don’t you think, that we ended this barbaric practice? How many more innocent people have to die before we give it up?
63, Ammo sales: Yes. A further refinement of sensible gun laws.
64, Marijuana legalization: Yes. It’s time! This is a sensible way to do it – reflecting what’s been learned from other states. We will see an increase in marijuana use, and that’s bad. But we’ll see a reduction in the crime and grime that goes with the marijuana industry – particularly the terrible environmental problems resulting from “grows” on N. Calif. National Forest land. On balance, from a public health “harm reduction” perspective, regulated legalization is a net benefit. But we will need a vigorous public health campaign akin to what’s worked in reducing tobacco use, to minimize the impact of legal weed.
65, Plastic bags: No. Put on the ballot by the plastic bag industry to confuse the public.
66, Death penalty procedures: No. Don’t fix what cannot be fixed! The death penalty is disgusting and inherently unjust.
67, Ban on plastic bags: Yes. Ratifies and protects at a state level the many local plastic bag bans.
LA County:
Measure A, Parks: Yes. I use the county parks a lot, so I have skin in this one! - needed improvements….
Measure M, Traffic/transit: Yes. I have skin in this one, too, as a Metro rider! This one covers many transit needs, from streets and bridges to public transit.
Measure CC, Community college infrastructure: Yes. While the LA Community College District has had some past problems in managing facility improvements, it still needs the money to make repairs and improvements.
LA City:
Measure HHH, Homeless housing bond: Yes. I’m involved actively in this campaign to raise $1.2 billion to build permanent supportive housing for homeless people. It will not, by itself, end homelessness in Los Angeles. But over time it will make life much better for many people now living on the streets.
Measure JJJ, City planning, etc: No. A messy proposal that in the end will make it harder to build the affordable housing it purports to support.
Measure RRR, DPW charter amendment: Yes. Makes our Department of Water and Power more responsive to public opinion and City oversight.
Measure SSS, Fire and police pensions: No. I’m going with the LA Times on this one. A costly and unnecessary change to local public pension systems.