My previous diary was breaking down the seventeen propositions on the California Voter Guide. That was a handful, and still provides an excellent reference. Now I will cover everything else on my ballot. This might be, in many cases, too local for you to use, if you are not near me. But I will provide my thoughts nonetheless, helping as many people as I can, similarly to the last post.
Similar to the Primary, there aren’t a lot of difficult, significant decisions to be discussed here – but those discussions *were* had in the previous post, so overall this is an important election, even without counting the absolute necessity of stopping the orange crazy bigoted hate-inspiring fascist.
I’ll start with stopping the orange one: Hillary Clinton for President of the United States. The other candidates have no path to the Presidency, and I have already demolished the Libertarian and Green candidates’ platforms on pure policy as well. There is a 5th candidate on the ballot in California (Gloria Estela La Riva), but she’s not in enough states to even bother talking about, since this is the first I’ve heard of this.
California uses a Top Two voting system for legislative offices, meaning that there are only two candidates on the ballot and no write-ins are allowed. There are three legislative positions on my ballot. I’ll go in order of relevance, from least to greatest, on these three.
The State Assembly race in District 71 is a joke. I take full responsibility for this one, allowing others to persuade me not to run. I would easily have gotten more votes than failed Republican candidates Leo Hamel and and Tony Teora, and as such would actually make this race competitive. Hamel is not running a campaign, effectively dropping out (though California rules do not allow him to *actually* drop out), but my vote will go to Leo Hamel nonetheless to protest the horribly corrupt Republican Mayor of Santee Randy Voepel. Voepel will win this election with ease, however, having received around 75% of the vote in the blanket primary. But this situation stinks.
For US Senate, the race is between two Democratic women of color, Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez. I think both are fine candidates. I find little issue with either of them. The Harris campaign provides more policy detail, however, and thus a more complete progressive vision, so I’m voting for Kamala Harris. But this is not a race I will focus energy on, either, as I can be satisfied with the result regardless.
The big legislative race is for the House, District 50. Duncan “Destructo” Hunter (R-Northrop Grumman), aka “Vaping Congressman”, seeks yet another term to continue the Hunter dynasty of Congressional representation in this area. His father, despite being a Republican, had a good record of constituent service, and seemed to have sincere and coherent positions, though he was before my time. This person… no. Hunter was one of the first Members of Congress to endorse Donald Trump for President, and has shown no sign of backing off this endorsement. He’s also known for once commenting that global warming was good because fewer people would freeze to death. If that weren’t enough, he has had several complaints filed against him for misuse of campaign funds. His opponent is Patrick Malloy, a real estate agent that seems to have a legitimate grasp of what’s facing our country. I will grant that that may be easy to seem when running against Destructo. Malloy does not have very expansive plans on the issues, likely counting on Trump’s implosion to drag Hunter down with him. What he does have makes sense. For me, this is clear, and a very important race. Patrick Malloy for Congress!
Next up is a quintet of Board elections. Board elections are simple pluralities, but you are sometimes allowed to vote for more than one candidate, and if you are, then that many candidates are selected to serve on the board. Write-ins are allowed but I am going to ignore that possibility for the simple fact that they don’t win without MASSIVE campaigns… that you can’t really do for Board positions. No. We’re not going there. I will only consider candidates on the ballot. I will make a note of Republican and Democratic endorsements. (That is, as declared by the County Party. For the rest of this post, consider “The Republicans” or similar to refer to the Republican Party of San Diego County, and “The Democrats” or similar to refer to the San Diego County Democratic Party. Both organizations publish official voting guides.)
Grossmont Union High School District Board Member, District 2: The Republicans endorse “teacher” Kevin G Conover. The Democrats endorse SDSU student Oday Yousif Jr. The incumbent is Jim Stieringer. Community college professor Elva Salinas is also in this race. I disqualify the incumbent from consideration for his ballot statement mumbling on about “same sex bathroom and locker room decisions should not be decided by bureaucrats”, a clear dog whistle. Conover’s claim to be a “teacher” is actually referencing him running what amounts to a Bible school. He has complained about Salinas’s claim of being “the only candidate with actual public school classroom experience”, which, um, is true. Salinas is actually endorsed by AFT. Salinas comments on her experience but has little plan beyond common educational buzzphrases. Oday Yousif actually has a website, and an actual goal. He wants to increase multilingual support for teachers and students. This is a very important goal, with the heavy Middle Eastern population in El Cajon as well as the general diversity of all of San Diego. I agree with this position, and will vote for Oday Yousif. A vote for Salinas is decent here as well.
Cajon Valley Union School District Board Member (VOTE FOR TWO): No incumbents are seeking re-election in this race. Educator Karen-Clark Mejia and Business Owner Jim Miller are endorsed by the Republicans. Psychology culture writer Devorah Ann Fox has the sole Democratic endorsement. Retired teacher Michael L. George and community volunteer Ramona Irwin are also in this race. I’ll start by eliminating candidates. A Republican endorsement is not automatically disqualifying, but I don’t need to rely on this to eliminate both of them. Miller’s anti-Common Core position without any clarification is disturbing. But even more disturbing is that I still remember his failed attempts to run for Judge. He was a very dangerous extremist right-wing option. We should make sure he’s not on the Board. Clark-Mejia is not as obviously bad, but she has disturbing ties to something called the “New Day Womens’ Center”, which seems to be a dressed up “crisis center” – they claim they are “not a traditional crisis center” – I am not sure I believe this. I also eliminate Michael L. George from consideration for failing to have a ballot statement or any Internet campaign presence. He could be a progressive champion… or a right-wing extremist. He had a chance to tell me. I’ll pass. Devorah Ann Fox is only saved by the Democratic endorsement. With no other campaign presence, I know nothing about her – but at least I can be secure in not electing an extremist. Ramona Irwin submitted a ballot statement, has a website, and they seems reasonable. Nothing great, nothing bad, but the best of the lot. Ramona Irwin and Devorah Ann Fox are my selections.
Grossmont Healthcare District Board of Directors (VOTE FOR THREE): The Democrats failed to make any endorsements in this race. The Republican endorsements went to incumbents W. R. Bob Ayres and Michael Emerson, as well as retired RN Virginia Hall. Current GUHSD *School* Board member Priscilla Schriber is in this race as well, as is CPA Jimmy Parker, and former Mayor of La Mesa Art Madrid. All six candidates submitted ballot statements. Hall is the only candidate with a website. Reading the ballot statements reveals that five of the six candidates have endorsements from other members of the east county right-wing board/legislative bloc. The other candidate, Parker, Parker worries me for immediately having been running the corporate side of the board, working with Sharp. Not that Sharp has been particularly bad. I can’t honestly say I like any of these candidates… as I begin to understand why the Democrats failed to make any endorsements. I suppose the least bad choices appear to be Priscilla Schreiber and Virginia Hall but I don’t think there are any good options to be had here. I’ll likely write myself in in the third slot, as I just can’t mark the circle for any of the others. I’ll listen if anyone has reasons for/against Ayres vs. Emerson, though, and will not complain about people that support Madrid or Parker.
Otay Water Board, Division 5: Incumbent Mark Robak is endorsed by the Republicans. His only opponent is retired water manager David T. Charles. Robak has a nice-looking website, but he doesn’t present any actual ideas and just relies on his experience and his endorsements from the right-wing bloc. David Charles doesn’t have a full website, just a Facebook page. But he’s actually presenting a problem and solution. I will vote for David T. Charles.
San Miguel Consolidated Fire Protection District (VOTE FOR FOUR): William A. Kiel and Dave Rickards are two of the three incumbents in this race, both with Republican endorsements. Richard J. Augustine is a businessman also endorsed by the GOP. Karrie Johnston is the third incumbent, though she’s not labeled as such. Also running are retired deputy sheriff Randy Dibb, retired fire chief Kim Raddatz, retired firefighter Jeffrey L. Nelson, businessman Everett Evleth, and retired US Marshal Charlie Cleaves. The Democrats made no endorsements. Johnston, Evleth, Cleaves, and Raddatz are running in a bloc. The question at hand is really do we want to continue on the path of returning SMFD to local control, or continue the contract with CalFire. The Johnston, et al. block supports local control. The Republicans, in general, support CalFire. Dibb and Nelson don’t seem to have much of a platform. I’m going to accept the bloc, and vote Karrie Johnston, Everett Evleth, Kim Raddatz, and Charlie Cleaves. Those that support CalFire should go another route.
There are five ballot measures that I have a vote on. Two of them are county propositions, and three are for school bonds. A and B require simple majorities to pass, while the school bonds require 55%. All three bond measures have the support of the county Democratic Party.
Measure A: “San Diego County Road Repair, Transit, Traffic Relief, Safety and Water Quality Measure”. This measure would add a half-percent countywide sales tax to fund the above mentioned items. But it doesn’t have very good taxpayer protections, and contains money for things that don’t directly reflect on this. Both the Republicans and Democrats oppose the measure, and I agree. I’m voting NO on Measure A.
Measure B: “Ordinance Amending the County General Plan, County Zoning Map and County Code, and Adopting the Lilac Hills Ranch Specific Plan”. This measure creates a new development community east of Escondido, in the Lilac Hills area. This measure circumvents environmental protections and is a dramatic rezoning. This measure is supported by the Republicans and opposed by the Democrats. This seems like it’s simply a bad deal. No environmental protections, no affordable housing, expanded urban sprawl. I’m voting NO on Measure B.
Measure X: Bond measure for Grossmont and Cuyamaca Community Colleges. The mission statement claims the measure is for classroom/lab repair, preparing students for certain high-powered job fields, build a Workforce Training Center, and repair the infrastructure of the colleges. They are asking for $348 million. This is the only one of the three bond measures explicitly opposed by the Republicans (the others, the GOP declares itself neutral on). It’s a very large bond measure, and that is cause for concern. The main argument presented against, however, I find quite unconvincing. Opponents are effectively whining about the bond’s demand for union labor to fulfill the contract. Um, yes, labor should be unionized. This is a good thing. I will grant that they comment about some “promise” not to favor union labor over non-union labor. If anything, making such a promise was the mistake. We don’t need workers abused to fund our schools. Unions provide the best protection against that. I will vote YES on Measure X.
Measure BB: Bond measure for Grossmont Union High School District. Mission statement of this bond is claiming it is for upgrading facilities in various ways and constructing new facilities to account for growth of the student population (which is odd, given that student enrollment at a few schools has actually fallen). An emphasis is placed on preparing individuals for STEM careers. The district is asking for $128 million in bonds. The bond text is very explicit about what it wants to fund at each school site. I understand some of the opposition arguments here. The most cogent argument is that the district already has $494.5 million in bonds outstanding, and hasn’t really filled these projects. But you still have to fund the schools. The opposition’s other two main arguments are silly, however. First, the basically accuse the Board of stealing all the money to go to their friends, without much evidence beyond telling us to Google things. I’ll pass. The other argument is complaining about the force removal of Priscilla Schreiber from the board, claiming it was because of her valid criticisms of this bond measure. Actually, no – the reasons for this are complicated, but in a nutshell the board is removing her to stop being in violation of state law. (I will write an appendix for the curious, explaining this situation, in another paragraph at the bottom.) When one side starts engaging in conspiracy theories, they have a problem. I’m voting YES on Measure BB.
Measure EE: Bond measure for Cajon Valley Union (K-8) School District. This bond request is very specific in that it only upgrades technology and tries to help the district take advantage of interest rates to pay back earlier bonds. They are also only asking for $20 million. The exact same group that opposed measure BB is opposing measure EE, and their arguments are much the same, with the exception of not having a board removal complaint, and having one other bit instead. That bit is that voters rejected this measure two years ago, and claim that the measure is being used to move money around to increase wages. Well, inflation dictates that wages sort of have to increase eventually to keep competitive participation in the labor market, so I’ll throw that argument out. Voters rejecting the measure once is a concern… but it still makes sense to me. I supported it last time. I’ll support it again. I’m voting YES on Measure EE.
One last comment: I don’t have a vote on Measure C, but it’s the most hot button topic in the county. If I could vote, I’d vote YES on the new Chargers stadium proposal. It won’t get the two-thirds majority to pass clean, but a simple majority will at least bring the Chargers back to the negotiating table for a better stadium deal. (I know a lot of fellow Kossacks will bash me for this one. This deal is actually a decent one. But it doesn’t really matter. I’m not actually in the city, and thus not actually voting on this.)
In summary: Clinton. Harris. Malloy. Hamel. Yousif. Irwin and Fox. Schreiber, Hall, and a space to protest with. Charles. Johnston, Evleth, Raddatz, and Cleaves. NO on A. NO on B. YES on X. YES on BB. YES on EE.
I hope this helped you understand the issues local to my area, and if the ballot seems too large to handle, I hoped I helped you pare it down a bit to make decisions on.
Appendix on the Schreiber case: The GUHSD board has 5 members on it. Right now, all of them are white and were elected through an at-large voting system. The California Voting Rights Act requires that minority groups have a representation on school boards. GUHSD would be open to lawsuits without fixing this problem: creating a plan for minority representation is a must. The solution was to end at-large elections and create 5 representational districts. District One consists of a heavy minority population and will provide that representation in this election, as all the candidates are non-white. The current board has one member each in Districts Two, Three, and Five, and those members will finish their term, although Two, at least, is up for election this year anyway, as I am in Two and have a vote (not sure about the others). Both Schreiber and Robert Shield are in District Four. One has to go. Everything up to this point has been necessary. District rules state that senior member has priority, and Shield has been in office longer so he stayed. Personally, I think that those two should have had a run-off election in District Four. But there is a legitimate reason the Board had to do what it did, and that any individual case is responsible for this is silly. Schreiber herself has switched over to running for healthcare board here, and due to lack of better options, I supported her.