Sample ballots came in last night! I was excited, and couldn’t wait to finish work today so I could get home, analyze, and proudly make bold decisions to be ready to cast my vote to support progressive values on June 6!
...and then I actually start doing this, and come to reality. This ballot is awful.
Some Background: I am a registered Democrat in San Diego County in California, and I live in Congressional District 50 (Rep. Duncan D. Hunter), State Senate District 38 (Sen. Joel Anderson), and State Assembly District 71 (Hon. Brian Jones). I am not actually located within the borders of any city. Even though my postal address indicates I live in La Mesa, I do not have a vote in La Mesa and La Mesa politics doesn’t actually affect what goes on out here — LMPD never comes here, for instance (we get county sheriffs patrolling). California uses a blanket primary, so the party registration is only important for the Presidential election, and the county central committee vote.
I am going to go down my board, position-by-position, and explain my issues with the vast majority of my options. Some I’ll break down by candidate (in whole or in part) and some I’ll just let stand. The single proposition will be discussed at the end.
President of the United States — I am very grateful this is a Presidential election. There’s actually a decision to make. If Bernie drops out this becomes utterly pointless though. But I’ve never made a secret of it: my vote will be cast for Bernie Sanders. So my only worry, ultimately, is the drop potential. I hope Bernie stays in. I want a meaningful vote. (Note to commenters: Please don’t turn the comment thread into Bernie vs. Hillary. My decision is made, and I will support the Democratic nominee in November — that decision is *also* made. I want to talk about down-ballot problems here.)
Democratic Party County Central Committee (AD 71) — 7 candidates on the ballot, 6 of them the incumbents, and 1 the alternate, “vote for six”. I have a hard time worrying about this one. Change the alternate our or not… does it matter? Could write myself in here, I suppose, but again, to what end? Plus, I might do that somewhere else yet. I feel a serious sense of pointlessness here.
United States Senate (Barbara Boxer’s seat) — 34 candidates (was originally 35, but 1 was pulled from the ballot). I’m not going to name them all. Breakdown by Party: 12 Republicans, 1 Peace and Freedom, 2 Libertarians, 1 Green, 7 Democrats, and 11 “nonpartisan” or “no party preference” candidates. Boxer is retiring so this is theoretically a “wide open” field. I went through and scored most of the candidates, both for issues quality, and for organizational quality. (I did not composite these scores, issues is generally more important to me, but organization needs a minimum standard especially in this large a field.) Needless to say, none of the Republicans or Libertarians scored high enough for consideration. The P+F candidate did not have sufficient organization for consideration, as in I could find nothing coherent at all. The nonpartisan candidates are all over the map, but a lot of them are clearly more of the Republican bent, and quite a few are rather crazy. None are viable. One Dem (Herbert Peters) is removed from my consideration for clearly being a Republican-in-disguise. One Dem (Cristina Grappo) doesn’t have a website and thus fails organizational minimums. One Dem (Massie Munroe) gets dropped from my list for particularly lunatic conspiracy theories. This leaves 5 candidates, 4 Democrats and a Green.
Now, the thing about the blanket primary is that the top 2 candidates move on. They can both be Democrats if the voters choose this — or both Republicans. In California, the Democratic Party’s endorsement rarely fails to advance in statewide elections. As such, Kamala Harris should make the November election with or without my help. I also really like the issues statements of Democrats Steve Stokes and Emory Rodgers, as well as Green Pamela Elizondo. But Stokes’s website seems to be highly outdated, and Elizondo doesn’t seem to have a page separate from her party. Loretta Sanchez seems to have the most serious campaign running (behind Kamala) but she’s made some fairly disturbing comments in the past that require me to rate her a hair lower than the others. But here’s where strategy come in: Polls indicate she’s neck-and-neck with the top Republican. Voting for her might push the GOP out here in June. But I don’t really want her in the Senate, and if she’s alongside Harris, she might get Republicans holding their nose, voting for her, and enough Dems to win. I’m not convinced I want Harris in either — I like her as state Attorney General, for one, and two, I’m a bit leery of the party establishment (ie the endorsement) and I can afford to be so here.
This is an interesting strategic puzzle. I think I will end up voting for Rodgers in June, but I am still very open to switching to any of the other four I mentioned here. And of course if it’s D vs. R, I’ll vote D in November.
Okay, now that that huge thing is out of the way (disclosure: I researched that one last week, being well aware of what it would be in advance, as well as it’s size. Explains how I got all this done today), we can move onto positions that are much more local.
United States House of Representatives (District 50) — Rep. Duncan D. Hunter (often referred to nationally as “Vaping Congressman”) is running for re-election against fellow Republican Scott Meisterlin, “nonpartisan” (right-wing) candidate H. Fuji Shioura, and Democrats David Secor and Patrick Malloy. Secor and Malloy are very similar in issues, though perhaps a slight edge to Secor. But Malloy has a clear organizational edge as Secor doesn’t have an up-to-date website. I’m voting Malloy. That being said, would I be disappointed at all if Secor were Hunter’s opponent? No. I definitely don’t want it to be a Republican, but… well, the way I phrased it earlier should point something out. Hunter traditionally gets around a two-thirds majority in this district. This is a dynasty, and it is painful. Hunter is an awful, awful person, and awful, awful Congressman. I could write an entire post on Hunter’s ethics violations and general inanity. So, is this vote a hugely impactful one? Not really. In November, sure, I will try to vote Hunter out. But I can’t see a big difference between our two fine Democratic candidates.
California State Assembly (District 71) — Brian Jones is term-limited out of this seat. I was contemplating running in this seat, and attended a preliminary meeting at the County Democratic Party to start the process. I ended up finding someone else who said he would run, and after much discussion with friends and family, decided to just let him run. Frankly, I make a poor candidate. There are too many ways to attack me personally, and I am not sure I am ready to handle that. It would have been an emergency run at best. But I’m regretting this decision now. Three Republicans are on the ballot, and the one guy that said he would run did not make the ballot, despite being on the County Democratic Party’s endorsement list. I’m not voting for the clearly corrupt Randy Voepel — the Republican who has their Party’s endorsement, and has done much to harm the nearby City of Santee. Tony Teora and Leo Hamel are his opponents, and both are also Republicans and fairly right-wing as well. I can’t decide which one to vote for. Alternatively, I could write in Jerald Larkey (the aforementioned person not on the ballot) or myself. But this isn’t likely to accomplish anything — write-in campaigns don’t work unless they’re massive, and I’m not even sure if he’s actually running, and I’ve not filed to do so either. (Nor will I pay any money to do so — again, write-in campaigns don’t work. Especially with no incumbents, the GOP will split the vote enough that I won’t get into the top 2.) (Last election cycle, Jones and Teora were the only candidates on the ballot, I did vote for the Dem endorsement as a write-in in June, and I ended up voting for Teora in November. But I didn’t like it.)
Superior Court Judge Office 25 — James A. Mangione is the incumbent and has the Democratic endorsement. Paul Ware has the Republican endorsement. This would seem straightforward, but Mangione also has a lot of law enforcement endorsements and I’m unsure if Ware throws up sufficient flags to vote for the incumbent. Ultimately I likely will vote Mangione, but again, this is so tough a decision that it becomes boring.
Superior Court Judge Office 38 — Incumbent Keri Katz has the Democratic endorsement, but has similar problems to Mangione. Her opponent is Carla Keehn, who notably does *not* have the Republican endorsement, and doesn’t throw up any substantial flags for me at all. I actually don’t know which way to go here. I’m not a Dem-vote-bot.
County Board of Supervisors District 2 — Dianne Jacobs is the long-term incumbent in this role. Interestingly, despite this being a two-candidate race she has neither party’s endorsement. The Democrats endorse her opponent Rudy Reyes. I’m not a huge fan of Reyes’s campaign weakness, nor the fact that he’s a conspiracy theorist on many levels, including 9/11 “truther”ism. He is, however, a strong progressive, which is ultimately the reason I will end up voting for him, but I will more than understand those that won’t, and this race does not at all excite me.
Proposition 50 — Lastly, a single Proposition is on my ballot. Proposition 50 would encode into the state Constitution the option for the legislature to suspend one of its members without pay. Right now, the only explicit option is to expel them, though in practice they can also suspend them now (but with pay). Expulsion requires a 2/3 majority. Right now, suspension with pay requires a simple majority, but this bill would also bump the suspension rule to a 2/3 majority. The Democrats are for this, and my own two right-wing members of the state legislature wrote arguments against it (though the county Republican Party takes “no position” on this), but I think I might have to vote against this. Suspending members without pay seems like it would disproportionately impact poorer legislators and even might force them to resign to get a job, while a richer one would not have that option. Since expulsion would require the same majority, it seems like it’s just a chance to give richer members an extra chance. I’m also not sure of the benefit of raising the bar for suspension. Because I’m likely to side against the Democrats it’s also hard to get excited about this one. Plus it feels like this is a bill about splitting hairs.
So this is just a painful ballot. I don’t like my choices very often, and just as often I feel like we’re splitting hairs and not accomplishing much. The Senate and House choices matter, but only marginally so. There aren’t any particularly dangerous or particularly great Judge options. I mentioned my immense issues with the Assembly slot. I just… I feel frustrated.
I certainly know that if I was a new 18 year old and I saw a ballot like this I would be very disillusioned about the purpose to downballot races, especially in primaries. Fortunately I've seen better, and a better impression has been made, so I know better. But this is bad.