Recommendation for June 2014 California Primary Election

May 28, 2014

I finally have enough time to put down my thoughts on the June primary election ballot.  To start with, I have to say that this is not an impressive crop of candidates.  My personal feeling is that we’re seeing the effects of Citizens United and its progeny.  As special interests continue to pour money into election campaigns, the cost of running for office continues to escalate, and those special interest dollars come at a steep price.  The interests want assurance that their money will be a good investment.  Whatever the interest, be it the Chamber of Commerce or a labor organization, they want to know that the candidate’s vote is “in the bag.”  If a candidate doesn’t feel comfortable pledging themselves to that special interest’s agenda, they’ll get no money, and no money, in most cases, means no campaign.  Hence elections are more and more becoming a battle between special interests, and the public interest gets left in the dust.

So, on to this June’s crop of candidates and ballot measures.

Let’s start with the ballot measures.  I always find a good place to start is the ballot arguments pro and con – not the subject matter, but who’s signing them.  That tells you what special interests have lined up on one side or another, and likely who paid to get the measure put on the ballot, one way or another.  So let’s get started.

Proposition 42Veterans Housing and Homeless Prevention Bond Act – This would authorize the state to issue $600 Million in General Obligation state bonds to fund “affordable multifamily supportive housing” specifically for veterans.  The bonds would presumably be used to build or rehabilitate multifamily rental housing for vets.  Why vets?  Well, lots of vets suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) as a result of being screwed up by the military. Often, they’re mentally ill and prone to substance abuse.  That usually means they either can’t or are unwilling to hold down a job.  How, then, are they going to pay the rent??  The bond gives preference to “supportive” housing, but that term is left pretty undefined.  Bear in mind that the cost of this program, like that of any general obligation bond, is borne by us, the taxpayers.

The measure is supported basically by veterans’ groups, who obviously have a vested interest is supporting their members.  My feeling about the measure is: 1)  Good try – screwed up people, whether veterans or not, need lots more help than they’re getting; 2) This proposal impresses me as being pretty ineffective at helping those needing help most; 3)  Who it will really help is the building trades unions, which are who probably pushed to get it on the ballot; 4)  Do we really need another poorly thought out bond measure to add to the state’s debt burden?  (I confess I am thinking about the $10 billion we voted in 2008 for high-speed rail, another poorly planned and even more poorly implemented bond measure.  At this point, I trust neither the Legislature not the courts to assure that the bonds we vote for do what they’re proposed to do.)  NO

Proposition 42Public Records. Open Meetings. State Reimbursement to Local Agencies. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.  This measure would amend the state constitution [WARNING – another constitutional amendment!] to protect the public’s right to have local agencies follow the California Public Records act and the Brown Act, BUT, it would also eliminate the requirement that the state reimburse local government for the cost of compliance.

This measure arose out of a fight in last year’s budget, when Governor Brown proposed to allow local government to not enforce the Public Records act or Brown Act.  The reason was because under the constitution, when the state forces local government to comply with a mandate costing money, it generally has to pick up the tab for that compliance.  Brown, wanting to reduce the budget, proposed to drop the mandate for Brown Act & Public Record Act compliance, and reduce the state budget accordingly.  Of course it didn’t hurt (for Brown) that he’s not a big fan of open government anyhow, so if local government dropped compliance, who cares?  Well, a lot of Californians did, and the measure was hastily dropped.

Now, the governor and legislature still want the state not to pay, so this measure shifts the cost to local government.  How will they pay it??  Good question.  With Prop 13, there are fewer and fewer local government funding sources.  What it mainly means is that it will get much more costly to get documents from local government.  Some local courts are already starting to charge $1 a page to copy, or even just download, court documents available on-line.Expect the costs to see agendas, minutes, etc. to skyrocket.

In my humble opinion, this is a bad “solution” to the problem.  It will further guarantee that government will only provide services for the 1%.  NO

Alameda County Measure AA – This would reauthorize a 1/2 cent county sales tax for local healthcare facilities, especially the county hospital system (Highland Hospital etc.)   Highland and the county healthcare system are crucial, especially given the large number of low-income uninsured and Medical patients in the county.  If this measure fails, we’re in serious trouble!  YES

Candidates:

Statewide Offices:

Governor – To my mind, this office, and almost all the statewide offices, highlight the problem we face in getting good, thoughtful, candidates to run for office.  While I like some things Jerry Brown has done as governor, I think he’s autocratic, insensitive to the public, and has got many of his priorities totally screwed up as he seeks to leave a “legacy” in his last term – notably in his high-speed rail and water tunnel projects, both of which will spend huge amounts of public money to not solve the real problems (inadequate state transportation policy and inadequate state water policy.  Both of these projects are largely driven by construction contractors and unions who see huge profits and large number of short-term union construction jobs.  This is a hell of a way to set government policy.

Unfortunately, the alternatives aren’t very attractive.  The Republican candidates all follow the mantra of saying let’s reduce taxes and eliminate all government regulation (and, by the way, make sure everybody can have all the guns they want) and everything will magically get better.  Can you say fantasyland?  The other candidates don’t seem to have realistic programs either.  My recommendation would be to vote for the Green Party candidate – Luis Rodriguez – as a protest.  (It doesn’t really matter who you vote for any more.  With the “top two” primary, Brown and the choice of reactionary Republican – probably Donnelly – will end up facing off in a “choose who is less disgusting to you” November run-off.)

Lieutenant Governor – This office currently makes very little sense.It would probably make sense to have this be an office appointed by the governor for the sole purpose of temporarily acting as interim governor when the governor is unavailable (e.g., out of state).  Again, it doesn’t really matter who you vote for, because in November it’ll be Newson vs. Nehring.  My protest vote choices?  Either Goodman (Green Party) or Korevaar (Independent Democrat)

Secretary of State – This race got a little more interesting when Leland Yee, the favored Democrat, got indicted.  I’m impressed by Cressman’s credentials as having worked on campaign finance issues with Common Cause and his open support to trying to overturn the Citizens United Supreme Court ruling (although as Secretary of State, he can’t do what he claims and keep corporations from meddling in California politics, at least not without a federal constitutional amendment).  Cressman.

Controller – An obscure office.  One of its main characteristics is the controller is the state’s accountant and, theoretically, conducts audits (although there’s also a state auditor and a joint legislative audit committee.  Mostly, it’s who you sue when you want to sue the Legislature.  Betty Yee, one of two mainstream Democratic candidate, appears well-qualified, but I worry about her heavy set of labor union endorsements. Still, she’d be a far better choice that John Perez, a career Democratic politician. We might do better to have an outsider in this office.  Wells (Green Party)

Treasurer – This is the guy who signs the state’s checks.  He also makes the go-no go decision on issuing bonds and other major day-to-day state financial decisions.  The current controller, John Chiang, wants to move into this office.  If he does, expect status quo and no change.  I can’t recommend the Republican, however (who didn’t even put in a ballot statement).  Brown (Green Party)

Attorney General – The state’s top legal officer.  The AG prosecutes lawsuits (both civil and criminal) on behalf of the state, and conversely defends the state against lawsuits.  The AG also prepares legal opinions that provide guidance on interpreting state laws and writes ballot measure summaries for state ballot measures.  A very important office, but one that, in my humble opinion, has gotten way too political in recent years.  The current AG, Kamala Harris, epitomizes the problem.  She’s basically Jerry Brown’s mouthpiece (as the term was used in old gangster movies to refer to the mob boss’s attorney). I really can’t recommend any of the choices.  WRITE SOMEONE IN AS A PROTEST?

Insurance Commissioner – This is actually quite an important office.  The IC regulates insurance carriers in the state and enforces the requirements of Proposition 103, which dramatically changed California’s insurance laws and made the insurance commissioner an elected office.  The incumbent Dave Jones, appears to have been pretty effective in holding insurance companies to account.  Jones.

Board of Equalization, 2nd District – An obscure but important office.  The Board of Equalization oversees most tax collection (except income tax) and is the appellate board for disputes over income tax.  Sadly, there are only two candidates –  James Theis, a Republican who has no chance in this heavily-Democratic District, and Fiona Ma – a Democratic party hack whose performance in the legislature has been notably lackluster.  NO RECOMMENDATION.

U.S. Representative – The incumbent for the 13th District, Barbara Lee, has been a stalwart liberal, inheriting that mantle from Ron Dellums, on whose staff she served.  She’s been a strong voice against the Democratic Party’s status quo, for example, consistently voting against U.S. military intervention abroad and for reducing the military’s budget.  Lee.

State Assembly – Lots of candidates here.  My personal feeling is that the two “leading” candidates, Thurmond & Echols, are both in the pocket of public employee unions and would be rubber stamps for the Democratic legislative leadership.  (I do not consider either of those to be a positive attribute.)  The two candidates who’ve impressed me are Pamela Price and Sam Kang.  I slightly prefer Kang because he has courageously spoken out about the need to change Prop. 13 to make it fairer.  Kang

Alameda County Schools Superintendent – This office sounds more important than it is.  Most local school districts run their own affairs, but the county superintendent sometimes steps in on occasional issues, like authorizing charter schools, and is responsible for education in the county jails, a potentially important function for rehabilitation and reducing recidivism.  Given what the office is about, the two best qualified and most impressive candidates seem to be Jeff Bowser and Naomi Easton.  Of the two, Ms. Easton appears better qualified.  Easton

County Assessor, County Auditor/Clerk-Controller, District Attorney, Sheriff, and Treasurer/Tax Collector – Five important offices; all effectively uncontested.  (For Auditor/Clerk, Ms Kathleen Knox ran, but it turns out she doesn’t even live in the county, and has been indicted for violation of state election law.)  Thomsen, Manning, NO VOTE [D.A.], Ahern, White

Advertisements

November 2012 Election Comments

October 4, 2012

OK.  I got my sample ballot & voter information booklet in the mail, and I’m sure the absentee ballots are going out shortly, so it looks like it’s time to give my usual rundown of candidates and issues.  as usual, I give my standard disclosures and disclaimers.  [Hey, what do you expect, I’m a lawyer!]  These are obviously just my own personal opinions, and while I have read through candidate statements and ballot arguments (and in some cases, the text of the measure as well), and have talked to some of the candidates personally, I don’t claim to be an expert on evaluating candidates or ballot measures.  Well, I guess I can claim some expertise on the latter, having helped to write a few local measures.  That having been said, HERE WE GO!

President

Obviously, the two major choices are Romney and Obama.  Between those two, for me Obama is the obvious choice.  I’m not anywhere close to entirely happy with Obama and how he’s run the country the past four years.  Our foreign policy is still far too militaristic (although lightyears ahead of where it was under George W), Obamacare is a sorry substitute for the single-payer healthcare we ought to have, and, as Paul Krugman has said innumerable times, Obama’s economic policy is anemic compared to what’s needed to pull us out of our current doldrums.  [However, he does have the excuse that with the Republican majority in the house, nothing can be done in the legislative arena.]  BTW, see my separate post critiquing Obama’s performance in the first debate.

All that having been said,  I think that, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE, you should take a serious look at some of the third party candidates.  With that, I will once again recite  Ivins’ Rule, named for Molly Ivins, the late Texas [don’t hold that against her] political commentator.  The basic rule is, regardless of what your state or locality allows, don’t vote early unless you absolutely have to.  Wait until, at the earliest, a week before election day, and then look at what the polling results are FOR YOUR STATE.  Because we have the electoral college system, each state is its own election [exception — in Maine, each congressional district is its own election].  Regardless of what’s happening in the national polls, what really matters is who wins a plurality of the vote in each individual state.  Except for Maine, that candidate get ALL that state’s electoral votes for president.

So, now let’s get back to Ivins’ Rule.  When you look at your state’s polling result, the crucial question is whether the difference between Romney’s and Obama’s polling results in greater than five percent.  If either of the two is ahead by more than five percent, then barring a nuclear war or something equally calamitous, the election in your state is essentially over.  That means you can vote for whomever you want, because it won’t make any difference.  If, however the difference is less than 5%, you better choose between Obama and Romney, or you may be kicking yourself for the next  for years.  Luckily, here in California Obama’s lead is unassailable.  (I think it’s  currently over 20% statewide.)

So, if you’re lucky enough to have the luxury of voting for a minor party candidate, my suggestion would be to look seriously at Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.  I say that not just because I’m registered as green.  From what I’ve seen of her, she’s just as smart as either of the major party candidates (she’s a Massachusetts physician), and her platform makes enormous sense — cut the defense budget, enact single-payer healthcare, promote a justice system that, as Jesse Jackson famously said, puts our money at the front end, rather than the back end – i.e., promotes restorative justice, puts the U.S. squarely at the forefront in trying to reverse climate change and promote sustainable care for our ailing planet, etc.  Of coure there’s no way she’ll get elected, but just think.  If she got 5% of the vote nationwide, even if she didn’t win a single electoral vote, wouldn’t that make a statement that there’s a significant number of people who think as she does?  Who knows, maybe a few Democrats might even start paying attention in a real way.

U.S. Senator

Again here, the choice is pretty simple, even simpler because there are no minor party candidates on the ballot.  😦  I don’t particularly like Feinstein.  She’s incredibly wishy-washy on lots of issues, and just plain bad on some, but as with Obama, she’s in a whole different league (or century) from her Republican opponent.  Unless you’re a “tea partier” [and if you are, why are you reading this blog??], you gotta vote for Feinstein.

Note – if you’re not in California, see my discussion of Ivins’ Rule above and act accordingly.

U.S. Representative

Again, given my location in the East Bay, the choice is pretty simple.  Barbara Lee has been on the right side (or perhaps I should say the left side) of just about every issue before Congress.  Her opponent waves her hands around to try to look more reasonable, but we all know that the last reasonable Republicans here in California have already left that disaster of a party.  Unless you want to go back to the gilded age where workers could, if they were lucky, get 10 cents a day for pay, vote for Lee.

If you’re in another district, re-read Ivins’ Rule again.

State Senate

Here’s another place I get to apply Ivins’ Rule.  Loni Hancock has been one of the better senators in the state senate, based on her voting record.  That’s as it should  be, she represents one of the most liberal districts in the state.  She’s going  to win this race overwhelmingly.  Since that’s the case, it’s a place you could show that you’d like some more space on the left of the ballot by voting for the Peace & Freedom Party candidate, Mary McIlroy.

State Assembly

I could just invoke Ivins’ Rule again in urging a vote for the Peace & Freedom Party candidate (Eugene Ruyle), but there’s something more at stake.  I have followed Nancy Skinner since she first ran for the assembly (when I supported her), and have been very disappointed in her performance.  Again, she represents one of the most liberal districts in the state, but she has followed in lockstep whatever the Democratic legislative leadership has told her.  Overall, she’s voted against the party leadership only 0.7% of the time.  By comparison, Hancock, while no eccentric, bucked the party leadership on 1.2% of votes, Leland Yee, from San Francisco (perhaps the only place more liberal than the East Bay), opposed Democratic leaders 2.6% of the time, and Jared Huffman, a liberal stalwart in Marin, voted differently 1.8% of the time.  Maybe Skinner just likes whatever the leadership says.  If so, that’s a disappointment in itself, because the leadership has been, in a number of cases, like its support for the high-speed rail project, just stupid.  Maybe she votes that way to “go along to get along.”  If so, that says nothing any better about her.  We deserve better.

State Ballot Measures

Let me start with a general statement.  California’s initiative and referendum processes are in serious need of reform.  I say that as an attorney who regularly advises local groups on their initiative and referendum battles, and knows the turf pretty well.  Between picayune requirements that make it harder and harder for grassroots campaigns to succeed, and the overwhelming force of a tidal wave of  special interest money that at this point almost totally dominates the statewide ballot measure scene, we’ve got a real mess in California.  Not only that, but because of the nature of California ballot measure law (in the state constitution, no less), if a mistake gets made with a ballot measure, it’s very likely to be permanent, or at least very long-lasting.  I’ve already made it clear in past postings that I think passing Prop. 13 was unwise.  Yes, it did some good and necessary things that the legislature was unwilling to tackle. but its left state and local government in a long-term fiscal disaster.  Likewise for the “Victims Bill of Rights”, “Three Strikes”, and term limits.  The state’s voters aren’t always smart enough to get it right on the first try, but it’s incredibly hard to revise anything the voters have done.  Maybe things enacted by the voters should automatically go back on the ballot in five years, so people get to think about it again, and competing or correcting measures can be put on at that time?

So. Rant finished.  Now on to the specifics:

30 – Jerry Brown’s tax measure – a reluctant yes.  I’m not 100% happy with it, but if it fails, the draconian school cuts are unacceptable.

31- NO!  This initiative, put on the ballot by California Forward, at first glance seems appealing, and it would indeed do some things that would improve how the legislature handles budget issues, like going to a two-year budget cycle.  HOWEVER, it makes radical changes in the relations between state and local government, including allowing local government to exempt itself from various “inconvenient” state laws and regulations, including CEQA, and potentially state labor laws.  This is a really bad idea!  Not only that, but it locks all of its changes into the state constitution, making them extremely hard to change in the future.  [See my rant above.]  A number of members of the initial taskforce pointed out the problems, but California Forward refused to budge.  They subsequently resigned.  (See ballot arguments against.)  Shame on California Forward!!

32 – NO!  A fraudulent attempt to disable labor union political activity while leaving corporate political power basically unchecked.

33- NO.  One insurance company (Mercury) makes a second attempt to tilt the playing field in its direction.

34- YES – the death penalty makes little sense as a deterrent, as public policy, or financially.

35 – No –  Human trafficking is without question a bad thing.  Whether we’re talking about actual enslavement or just the “normal” pimping and prostitution stuff.  There need to be serious consequences for those who screw over their fellow human beings.  However, this measure seems to play into the general punitive bent of three strikes and other efforts to just, “lock ’em all up and throw away the key.”  Our prison system is clear evidence that  this approach hasn’t worked and isn’t working.  Again, once something gets passed by the voters, it’s very hard to change.  This is an issue for the legislature to tackle, not the voters.

36 – YES – again, as with the death penalty, three strikes is a punitive, ineffective, and financially damaging measure.  This reform will help.

37 – YES – truth in labeling for genetically-engineered foods.  People should have a knowing choice about supporting Monsanto’s fiddling with the agricultural gene pool.  BTW, the no argument points to the measure’s enforcement against local retailers.  Unfortunately, California has no direct leverage against national food producers, only against businesses operating in California.  Enforcement against retailers is the only leverage we have against national big business.  It’s a big one, though.  If, for example, California retailers wouldn’t carry General Mills foods because they don’t own up to using genetically engineered ingredients, General Mills could lose A LOT of business.  We need to use our market share power to change the market.

38 – NO – The major alternative tax measure.  Too narrowly focused on education funding, and will impact the poor more than the rich.

39 – YES – levels the playing field for internet businesses who siphon off $$ from California without paying taxes.  Time to end the free ride.

40 – YES – For once, here was a ballot measure (redistricting reform) that was needed, and that worked. The redistricting effort was a resounding success.  Say no to Republican sour grapes!

A1 – NO – public funding for the Oakland Zoo – while zoos are a nice family amenity, I am bothered by the Oakland Zoo’s expansionistic policies, and I don’t think they should be feeding at the public trough [so to speak] when the zoo’s governing board has no public accountability for its actions.

B1 – NO!! – INDEFINITE  extension AND increase in county transportation sales tax.  Sales taxes are regressive.  This would give an unaccountable county agency permanent funding with no requirement to come back to the voters – EVER.  Their predecessor (ACTA) had to be sued to block it from spending money on a project the voters hadn’t authorized.  Would eliminate the ONLY real voter accountability this agency now has.

J – Yes – Another bond fund infusion for Oakland schools.  I’m somewhat bothered by adding more bond debt to a school district that just emerged from a major financial crisis.  On the other hand, many Oakland schools are seriously physically deficient.  We really need to change Prop 13 to allow adequate funding for local schools, cities, and counties.  Until then, band-aid measures like this are the best we can do.

Local Candidates

If you live outside of Oakland/Alameda County, you can stop here if you want.  The rest is just for “local yokels”

AC Transit — Chris Peeples is knowledgeable and listens to the community.  I don’t agree with him 100%, but he’s a good choice.

BART Board – Rebecca Saltzman would seem the obvious pro-environment choice, but I’ve been disturbed by some of her statements in support of high-speed rail and BART extensions, which seem to indicate a knee-jerk support for extending transit even where it may not make economic sense and actually be sprawl-inducing.  I like Anthony Pegram’s candidate statement and plan to vote for him.

Oakland District One Council member:

Top three [ranked choice]  — for more detailed information, look at the write-ups in the recently-initiated Rockridge Patch, or view some youtube clips from a candidate forum:

1) Dan Kalb (knowledgeable, intelligent, pro-environment & pro-neighborhood. Lives in Rockridge.)

2) Donald Macleay (local green party member, pro-environment & pro-neighborhood.  Lives in Temescal) – Update (11/3/12) –

3)  No choice.  See below for why I can’t endorse any of the others:

I DON’T like: Len Raphael – confrontational and pro-development (although he does oppose Safeway’s College Ave. project);

Amy Lemley – knee-jerk smart growth (married to smart-growth fanatic who works at NRDC & pushed for BRT on Telegraph).  Her background is not in the broad public policy areas North Oakland needs.  I fear she’s a stalking horse for her husband, and would be too obeisant to Kernighan and Schaaf, both of whom endorse her and both of whom are aggressively pro-development.  She’s refused to take a firm position on the College Ave. Safeway project, just saying that she’d encourage negotiations.

The other candidates:

Don Link’s a nice guy and supportive on Safeway, but I worry he’d be out of his depth.  Focus is mainly on public safety

Richard Reya – his candidate statement reads very well.  He seems to be saying a lot of the right things.  BUT, it turns out that he’s the policy director for California Forward.  If that doesn’t ring a bell, go back and re-read my discussion of Prop. 31.  Sorry, but as policy director, his allowing Prop. 31 to move forward and go on the ballot shows, in my estimation, very bad judgment.  He’s also non-commital on the College Ave. Safeway project.  Not who I want representing me on the City Council!

Craig Brandt is also pushing for more police, but where’s the money going to come from???  As of late, he seems to have dropped out of the race.

At Large Council Member – Sorry, I’m afraid you’re on your own here. I can’t honestly and wholeheartedly recommend any of the choices.  Neither Kaplan nor De la Fuente have been supportive on Safeway.  De la Fuente is a dealmaker in the Perata mold.  He hopes to use the at-large seat as a stepping stone to another mayoral run.  Kaplan is, in many ways, pretty good, but she’s so focused on smart growth that she loses sight of neighborhood values.  She was the only council member to enthusiastically push Bus Rapid Transit on Telegraph despite strong community opposition.  I fear she’d favor major densification around the Rockridge BART in spite of its damaging traffic impacts.  As for the other candidates, none of them is qualified by background or experience, and Carol Tolbert has a gruesome history on North Oakland redevelopment around the Old Merritt College site — can you say corruption??

City attorney – I’m not real keen on Jane Brunner, but I’m also not excited by Barbara Parker.  I worry that she’s got the typical black Oakland establishment (e.g., Geoffrey Pete, Mary King, Bill Patterson) supporting her.  Yet Jane Brunner’s often been too much of a dealmaker.  No recommendation.  (As with judges, I think this really shouldn’t be an elected position.)

School Board – Jody London has, in my opinion, been doing OK.  The schools are in a tough place, and her opponent fought to keep Santa Fe School (in the Golden Gate area of Northwest Oakland)  open when it was an absolute disaster – probably worse than no school at all. Yes, we need to do more to help children in the poorer parts of the city, but that requires money that the district doesn’t have.  (Can you say Prop. 13?)  It also bothers me that Ms. Pecot was endorsed by the teachers union.  One wonders about the quid pro quo that may have been involved.  Teachers need fair pay, but I’ve also seen the teachers union defend poorly performing teachers just because they were active in the union.  Not how I think a school district should be run.


Environmental protection under attack – Again.

August 21, 2012

CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, is California’s most important environmental statute.  It’s a “truth in lending act” for the environment.  It requires government to admit the environmental damage projects cause, AND look at reducing or avoiding that damage.  It also encourages public participation.  However, because CEQA violations invalidate project approvals, it is favorite punching bag for developers, business groups, and recently Governor Brown, who said he never saw a CEQA exemption he didn’t like.

In recent legislative sessions, a pattern has emerged.  As the session winds down, suddenly legislation appears to “reform” CEQA.  In 2008, then-governor Schwarzenegger pushed through a CEQA exemption for twelve Caltrans projects.  The next session, a developer got a CEQA exemption for an enormous Southern California stadium project.  Last session, another stadium got CEQA “streamlining.” Then, at the eleventh hour, the offer was expanded to a group of huge projects the governor (now Jerry Brown) would pick.

As the current legislative session ends, the same pattern is repeating with vengeance.  A coalition of business and development interests is proposing a bill, SB 317, to not just weaken, but eviscerate CEQA.  Pointing to the range of regulatory laws in effect, they argue that CEQA has outlived its usefulness and should be largely replaced by reliance on other environmental and planning laws.  This ignores a number of basic facts:  1) these same forces have, for the past forty years, fought, often successfully, to weaken the laws they claim make CEQA unnecessary; 2) state planning laws often exempt charter cities entirely, and defer to local decision makers, who, influenced by these same special interests, often make decisions at the expense of their own constituents; 3) only CEQA brings the searchlight of public scrutiny on environmental decision-making.  Most other environmental laws involve obscure bureaucrats with little incentive to require rigorous compliance. 

With our continuing economic doldrums, it is tempting to think weakening CEQA will result in more jobs, more economic activity, and a better future.  However, it’s worth remembering that 1) the more than 99% of CEQA projects get though without a hitch; 2) while CEQA lawsuits are rare, even rarer is a project halted or even greatly delayed, and 3) for every good project that might be somewhat delayed, many more unnecessarily environmentally damaging projects are either stopped or (far more often) revised and improved through the CEQA process.

There were good reasons why CEQA was created, and those reasons are still valid.  Before there was CEQA, public and private entities did lots of environmental damage because nobody asked tough questions.  From pesticides, to toxic mines and groundwater contamination, to smog, to the Cypress Structure, the litany of damage to California’s environment, and to society, that happened before CEQA is long.  And who do you suppose ends up bearing the cost for cleaning up those messes?  More often than not, it is the public purse, and taxpayers, who pick up the tab.  While other laws form an ever-more-fragile patchwork (much like our increasingly-frayed social “safety net”), only CEQA requires comprehensive environmental scrutiny, and only CEQA affirmatively involves the public.  If you feel CEQA is still important to protect California’s environment, and your pocketbook, now’s the time to let your legislators know!


My June ballot election recommendations

May 28, 2012

I’m afraid I’ve been neglecting my blog of late – too much work.  However, several people have pointed out to me that there’s an election happening, and at least one or two people like to know my comments and recommendations before they vote.  (That’s not to say they follow my recommendations.  They just like to know them. For all I know, they may turn around and do the exact opposite!

So, for what it’s worth, here’s my two cents on the June ballot:

Presidential primary — what’s to say?  It’s already decided.  Let’s just move on.  We’ll come back to this
before the November election.

U.S. Senate — Well, this is the first time we’ve had all the candidates on one ballot.  Kinda interesting.  Lots of Republicans, a few Democrats, two Peace and Freedom, and one American Independent and one Libertarian.   I confess to knowing very little about most of the candidates.  I do note that most of the Republicans are businessmen/women.  I guess that kinda figures.  I’m not particularly thrilled with Feinstein, but it probably won’t make much difference; she’ll win by a landslide anyhow.  Just for the heck of it, you might try voting for Marsha Feinland, one of the Peace & Freedom candidates.  I think this is her third or fourth time running against Feinstein, so at least she’s got a bit of experience at being a candidate.

U.S. Representative — In the 13th Congressional District, where I am, there’s no real contest.  Barbara Lee has voted the way I would have on almost every issue, and has been one of the leaders in trying to get us extricated from Afghanistan.  Would that there were more like her.  Speaking of which, if you live in Pete Stark’s district, please vote for him.  He’s been a stalwart supporter of good things like single-payer healthcare and an opponent of military spending for years and years.  Yes, he’s getting older, but his votes still work for me.

For State Senator, Loni Hancock is running unopposed, as is Nancy Skinner for State Assembly.  Loni has been fighting the good fight for many years, so I can’t complain about her being unopposed.  Nancy Skinner, on the other hand has, in my opinion, been much less impressive.  However, since she’s unopposed, your only other option is to leave her space blank.  (A write-in wouldn’t count.)

For County Supervisor, in my district, District Five, there’s again no contest.  Keith Carson is running unopposed.  Being county supervisor in the current economic climate is no fun, so I don’t begrudge Keith his seat.

Finally, we do have one local contested race — Alameda County Superior Court Judge.  This is nonpartisan, and there’s no incumbent, so you’ve basically got three attorneys who want to be a judge.  I don’t know any of the three, and have only their  candidate statements to go on.  Based on that, however, I’d choose Andrew Wiener.  His emphasis on trying to reduce the adversarial atmosphere of the courtroom and promote negotiated settlements is, to my mind, a very worthwhile one.

Last, but certainly not least, there are the ballot measures.  There are two statewide measures, 28 and 29, and one local measure, a $48 per year parcel tax for the community college district.

Proposition 28 would modify the state term limit law by reducing the maximum [lifetime] allowance from 14 years to 12 but allowing those 12 to be served in either house, by the candidate’s preference.  I have never been a fan of term limits.  As a lawyer who deals with state laws, I’ve seen a definite decline in the quality of legislation since term limits were enacted.  What do you expect?  By the time you figure out how to write good laws, you’re termed out.  At least with this proposal, you could spend your years in one house and perhaps learn it better.  YES

Proposition 29 would put a $1 a pack additional state tax on cigarettes.  The No campaign is being funded almost entirely by the tobacco industry.  Now there is an evil empire!  The only [legitimate] thing that can be said against this measure is it may increase the amount of illegally sold cigarettes in the state, and perhaps in that way contribute to organized crime.  However, there’s more than enough money to be made selling other drugs, so I don’t think that’s a big concern.  Other than that, if the higher prices deter a few people from smoking, so much the better.  It is  sad, however, how many poor, uneducated people are smokers.  😦      YES

Measure B – $48 per year parcel tax to help fund Peralta Community College District.  This community college district has had more than its share of scandals, but whose fault is that?  Ours.  After all, we elect its governing board.  If they don’t do a good job, we ought to run better people for office.  All that having been said, Thanks to the recession and Prop. 13, the District, like all other public educational institutions, is strapped for funds.  The community colleges are especially important because this is about the only place left where working class kids can get an education beyond high school.  (That’s a sad commentary on the state of California’s once glorious higher education system!)  YES.


Ballot Measure Brain Teasers

November 3, 2010

Here’s a brain teaser for you — try to find a consistent frame of reference that makes sense of all the California ballot measure results from yesterday’s election.  It’s not easy.

Some parts fit together pretty well.  Propositions 22 and 26 are part of a consistent pattern of California voters asking government to keep its hands out of our wallets unless they ask nicely and we say yes.  Prop. 22 keeps state government (meaning the legislature) from taking money away from local jurisdictions to help balance the state budget.  It was sold as protecting local government resources.  As I noted in a previous post, the unmentioned major beneficiary will be redevelopment agencies.  I wonder why the no on 22 campaign didn’t play that up more.  I find it hard to believe, in between their taking money away from other local agencies and being able to exercise eminent domain to take property away from citizens, that voters have a warm spot in their heart for redevelopment agencies. [That’s not to say that they never do anything worthwhile.  To give them their due, for example, Emeryville’s redevelopment agency has had a big hand in transforming that city from truckyards and factories into a retail powerhouse.]  Prop. 26 also makes it harder for the state (or local agencies, for that matter) to collect money in the form of fees.  The complaint was that there were fees being created that were really taxes, and it was a subterfuge to get around Prop. 13 and Prop. 218’s voter approval requirements.  So now most fees will ALSO require a 2/3 popular vote.  The defeat of Prop. 21 also fits with the “keep your hand out of my friggin’ wallet” attitude of California voters.  Interestingly, for both this and Prop. 26, the Bay Area’s attitudes differed from the rest of the state’s.  Here’s a link to the voting map for prop 21 on the Secretary of State’s website:  http://vote.sos.ca.gov/maps/ballot-measures/21/  .  We in the Bay Area are apparently a bit more willing to pay the fare when it comes to government services.

This might all seem consistent, but at the same time voters also adopted Prop. 25, which eliminates the 2/3 majority requirement to pass the state budget.  Thus it’ll now be easier for the legislature to pass a budget, but harder for them to have it survive the laugh test of, “So where are you going to find the revenue to make this budget balance?”  Look for many more applications of smoke and mirrors to produce a “balanced” budget in the future.  Also look for the state budget deficit to continue to grow, since Californians seem to think they can have all the services they want without having to pay for them.

Props 20 and 27, like props 21,22, and 26, but unlike prop 25, also showed voters’ distrust of the legislature.  In 2008, the voters narrowly passed prop 11, taking legislative redistricting out of the (self-interested) hands  of the legislature and putting it into the hands of an independent “citizens’ commission”.  This year, the legislature tried to convince voters that they should reverse the decision.  No such luck.  In fact, the voters turned around and took congressional redistricting out of the legislature’s hands as well.  Perhaps, with the exception of prop 25, the theme might be that the legislature is not to be trusted with doing much of anything right.  Arguably, even prop 25 could be said to reflect that attitude.  i.e., “OK, you don’t seem to be able to handle passing a budget with a 2/3 majority.  We’ll make it easy for you — just get something out with a simple majority; and if you can’t handle that, we’ll take away your pay because you clearly aren’t earning it!”

Then we’ve got two “lifestyle” initiatives.  Prop 19, that would’ve legalized recreational marijuana use, and prop 23, which would have suspended the state’s global warming law. 

On the former, early polls seemed to show voter approval, but two things appeared to turn the tide.  First were a bunch of articles pointing to flaws in the initiative’s language that would result in litigation and unintended consequences.  Second was the U.S. Attorney General’s public announcement that he didn’t care what California did; he was still going to have MJ users, growers, sellers, etc. arrested and thrown in prison under federal narcotics laws.  This could, perhaps, have stirred up a states’ rights oriented state like Alaska or Mississippi to say, “Oh yeah?  We’ll see about that!  See you in court!”  But …  California is not a big states’ rights bastion, and with law enforcement groups up and down the state saying it was a bad idea, the voters apparently had second thoughts.

Prop 23 was a different story.  For one thing, Californians have long liked to think of themselves as being an environmentally conscious group.  After all, we have Yosemite, the redwoods, the sequoias, Lake Tahoe, etc.  We were also one of the first states to block offshore oil drilling after the big Santa Barbara oil spill, and Californians have bought more hybrid vehicles, not only in toto but on a per capita basis, than any other state.  So it only stands to reason that, having passed landmark legislation to try to curb global warming, Californians would not readily turn around and say, “Oops, we made a mistake.  Let’s put that law in the deep freeze for twenty years or so until it gets REALLY hot.”  It also didn’t help that it came out very early (thanks to California’s campaign finance disclosure laws) that almost all the money financing prop 23 was coming from out-of-state oil companies.  Hey, what the heck, they were in Oklahoma or inland areas of Texas.  It wasn’t their coastline that was going to disappear under water as sea levels rose.  Bottom line, Californians decided they didn’t believe the oil companies (who have, of course, tremendous credibility already — almost as good as Enron’s).

One thing that still leaves me scratching my head is that in spite of what appears to be a set of almost Tea Party-like attitudes  about government spending, Californians still elected an entire set of Democratic state office holders.  Like I said at the start of this post, sometimes it’s hard to come up with a consistent frame of reference for California voters.


Election Day!!!

November 2, 2010

If you’re looking at this on November 2nd, you’re probably looking for advice on how to deal with your ballot.  I’ve put up several posts with my recommendations and comments.  (However, they won’t help you very much unless you vote in California.)  Please go down through my posts until you find those of interest to you.  They start below continue from there.  Here are links (in chronological order) if you want to get there fast.  The titles are mostly self-explanatory:

https://stuflash.wordpress.com/2010/09/11/first-comments-on-the-november-election-proposition-22/

https://stuflash.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/more-on-the-november-ballot/ — statewide ballot measures

https://stuflash.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/november-election-last-installment/ — candidate recommendations

https://stuflash.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/on-the-oakland-mayoral-race/

https://stuflash.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/thoughts-on-local-ballot-measures/


Watch out for smears!

October 25, 2010

Just a friendly reminder — The last week before election day is the absolute favorite time for campaign consultants to engage in one of their trademark behaviors: the last-minute “hit” piece.  It’s a favorite time because the consultants know that it’s almost impossible to do anything effective, so late in the game, to counter a nasty piece of literature, whether it’s true or not.  Of course, there’s already been lots of mud thrown around this campaign season.  Again, consultants do what they know works, and throwing mud has, unfortunately, been shown time and time again to be very effective in knocking down another candidate’s vote count.  The other thing smears do (and this is why they tend to be favored by Republicans) is drive down voter participation.  People get so fed up with all the nastiness, and put in such a quandary trying to figure out what to believe, that they decide not to vote at all.  Since registered Republicans are known for voting come Hell or high water, lower turn-out generally helps Republican candidates.  However, some Democrats, and their consultants, still figure it’s worth tossing the mud anyhow, because if they’re going to be covered in mud, they want their opponent to be equally dirtied.

My advice?  During the last week of the campaign, toss ALL the campaign mail directly into the recycling bin, and switch channels as soon as an election ad comes on the TV or radio.  If you want to know about a candidate or measure, go to a reliably neutral source like the League of Women Voters’ smart voter website: http://www.smartvoter.org/


Comments for the week before election day

October 24, 2010

So, a week from Tuesday is election day.  Have you voted yet?  Between early voting (available in most California cities) and permanent absentee voter status, you needn’t wait until election day.  However, if you’ve been reading my blog regularly [although that seems unlikely], you hopefully haven’t yet.  But now it’s time.

In one of my earlier posts, I recommended following “Ivins’ Rule”, an idea popularized by the late political columnist Molly Ivins.  It applies to races where you’re not enthusiastic about any of the “major candidates” and you’re thinking instead of voting for a “minor candidate”, either because you truly like them a lot or to send a message that the major parties need better candidates.

Molly’s advice (and mine) was to wait until the last week before the election, then look at the latest polling results.  If the Democrat was ahead or behind by more than five points, go ahead and vote for whomever you want.  Your vote is unlikely to change the result.  If, however, the polls show less than a five point difference, hold your nose and vote for the Democrat.  No matter how little you think of the Democratic candidate, the Republican (at least here in California) is assuredly going to be worse.

Applying Ivins’ rule to the current California election, here’s the rundown:

U.S. Senate — While Barbara Boxer is leading over Carly Fiorina, her lead is slim.  Whether you think Boxer’s been great (which I do) or too strident, Fiorina would be a change for the worse.  Even worse, she could result in a Republican  takeover of the Senate.  If that happens, kiss goodbye to anything productive happening in Washington for the next two years.  With the economy struggling to crawl back out of the tank it’s been in since 2008, that would be disastrous.  There’s also the fact that Fiorina is anti-choice and thinks global warming isn’t anything to worry about.  This is NOT the race to throw away your vote on a minor party candidate on!

Governor — It looks like Jerry Brown has opened up an 8-10 vote lead of Meg (e-meg) Whitman.  That being the case, you are free to consider a minor party candidate of Brown doesn’t turn you on.

Lieutenant Governor — This one’s likely to be a hair-puller down-to-the-wire contest, with Newsom and Maldonado running neck-and-neck.  This isn’t a terribly important office, and I must confess I find Newsom unimpressive and Maldonado better than the average Republican [talk about damning with faint praise!], but all in all, I’d still recommend following Ivins’ Rule.  Take a clothes pin to your polling place.

Treasurer, Secretary of State, and Controller — from all I’ve seen, all these races will be won by the Democrat.  Feel free to follow your conscience.

Attorney General — The latest polling I’ve seen puts  this race right on the border of Ivins’ Rule.  Harris is apparently down by somewhere around five points to Cooley.  I would say that, when in doubt, choose the Democrat.  Vote for Harris.

Insurance Commissioner — One of the problems with the “down the ballot” races is that little polling is done (at least other than private candidate polls unavailable to the public).  Between Jones and Villines, however, the differences are stark.  Jones is very pro-consumer and has supported legislation to establish “single-payer” healthcare insurance for the state.  Villines is a classic Republican free-marketer, who has opposed most regulation of the industry.  Not surprisingly, while Villines isn’t accepting direct contributions from the insurance industry, he’s benefitting from “independent expenditure” ads run by the Chamber of Commerce (and probably paid for in part by the insurance industry).  To be fair, Jones has taken a lot of money (about $400,000) from trial lawyers who sue insurers.  They, however, aren’t directly regulated by the insurance commissioner.  I think Jones is the clear choice.

Beyond these races, the rest of the ballot is nonpartisan, so Ivins’ Rule doesn’t directly apply.  I’ll stick with the rest of my previously-expressed recommendations.


More on judicial voting

October 21, 2010

The California Supreme Court just came out with an interesting non-decision that bears on the November election’s confirmation votes.  The justices voted not to hear a petition for review on a recent appellate case on free speech in shopping centers.  At issue was a preacher who was talking to willing listeners about his religion.  A security guard came up and told him to stop.  When he refused, he was handcuffed, arrested, and escorted from the mall.  He was later released and charges were dropped, but he sued the shopping center for false arrest and interference with his California free speech rights.  While the trial court rejected his suit, the court of appeal, in an opinion written by the new chief justice, Cantil-Sakauye, reversed.

Cantil-Sakauye’s opinion pointed to a California Supreme Court opinion from the Bird court some thirty years ago that said that the California Constitution’s free speech rights guarantee was broader than that of the U.S. Constitution, and covered semi-public places like shopping malls.  Under that ruling, and subsequent appellate case law, while shopping malls can make reasonable regulations about the time, place, and manner of speech, they can’t make content-specific rules unless those rules are justifiable under “strict scrutiny”.  The rules this mall had promulgated, which only allowed conversations related to commercial  transactions, were absurdly narrow and subject to blatantly discriminatory enforcement (as was evident in the case).  Nevertheless, Justice Ming Chin, along with Justice Baxter (the long-standing right-wing bulwark of the court) voted to grant review.

Cantil-Sakauye and Ming Chin are both on the ballot for confirmation this election.  This appellate decision and its supreme court review suggest that you might want to vote for one or the other, but not both.  If you agree with Cantil-Sakauye’s ruling, you should probably vote for her and against Ming Chin’s attempt to reverse more than thirty years of precedent.  If you’d rather have restricted speech in shopping malls (which is where Ming Chin probably wanted to take things), you should vote for him and against her.


November Election – Last Installment

October 14, 2010

OK.  Now we finally get to the nitty-gritty — the candidates.  I’m going to start at the top and work down.  That way, if you’re not living right next door, you can read as far as applies to your ballot, and then stop (unless you’re just curious about other people’s elections).

So, at the top of the ballot (figuratively speaking) is the U.S. Senate.  This is one of the easier races for me.  I happen to like Barbara Boxer and have found myself agreeing with her on almost every issue that comes up.  Fiorina has criticized her for being “ineffective”.  I’m not sure how you can be effective in a gridlocked Congress like we’ve got now.  Aside from that, the kind of places Carly wants to go are not places I’d like to be:  more restrictions on abortion, more outsourcing of jobs abroad, less environmental protection, more global warming, less spending on education and more on the military.  YUCK!!!  Boxer is an easy choice.

Once you get down to the statewide offices, I find it harder to get excited.  It’s not so much the lesser of two evils as it is trying to choose among levels of mediocrity.  But, choose we must.  This year (as in most years) I am guided by Ivins’ Rule — which I was introduced to by the late Molly Ivins.  Ivins’ Rule says that, just before you cast your ballot, look at the results from the most recent and reputable poll.  If the poll shows more than a five point difference between the Republican and Democratic candidate, you’re free to vote your conscience.  You’re vote is very unlikely to affect the outcome anyway.  If the difference is less than five points, however, hold your nose and vote for the Democrat.  It’s a rare day indeed (at least in California) when the Democratic candidate, no matter how wishy-washy and disgusting, would be worse than the Republican, and the winner is (sadly) almost certain to be one or the other.  So, with that as as introduction, on to the races:

Governor — GOD, I wish we had good candidates to choose from!!!  Between Jerry Brown and e-Meg Whitman, it seems to be a battle over who can talk and act in stupider ways during the campaign.  Neither one seems to have any novel or insightful ideas about how to address the state’s intractable deficit problem.  Jerry appears very beholden to the state employee labor unions, while Meg is the darling of the coupon-clipping millionaire set.  If there’s at least a five point difference by election day, please vote for your favorite minor party candidate.  Don’t let Jerry think the electorate really likes him, and please don’t let him win by a landslide.  He’d be even more insufferable than he already is.  If it’s less than five points, however, please vote for Jerry.  He may not be good, but Meg would be worse.

Lieutenant Governor — This position holds some minor power, mostly due the boards the holder sits on ex officio, like the State Lands Commission and the boards of UC and CSU.  The two major party candidates are as lackluster as the office.  Gavin Newsom is memorable for having turned most of his entirely Democratic Board of Supervisors against him and battling with them at every turn.  Abel Maldonado’s main claim to fame is that he eventually voted for a Democratic proposed state budget, after extorting what he could out of the Democratic leadership.  The best one can say is that neither would be in a position to do major damage to the state.  None of the minor party candidates look very impressive either.  Sigh …  However, Maldonado is still somewhat to the right of Newsom, and getting Newsom elected will benefit San Francisco by getting him out of the mayor’s office.  Newsom, by a hair.

Secretary of State — Debra Bowen hasn’t been a bad secretary of state.  She just hasn’t been a particularly creative or innovative one.  The Secretary of State is responsible for state elections.  Bowen has been a tepid supporter of ranked-choice voting, which is not as good as proportional representation but better than the conventional system.  After much hemming and hawing, she did approve it, which is something.  The Republican would be a step backwards.  Bowen, but without much enthusiasm.

Controller — OK.  Here, finally, we’ve got an incumbent who really deserves to get re-elected.  John Chiang has been willing to call a spade a spade on the state’s financial situation and has not tried to sugar-coat the failures of the governor and legislature to come up with a budget.  He was also willing to stand up to the governor on whether the governor had authority to unilaterally furlough state employees.  In other words, he’s got guts.  Chiang is an easy choice.

Treasurer — Bill Lockyer, the incumbent, has bounced around among state offices, first in the legislature, then as Attorney General, and now as Treasurer.  He’s done a decent job in each position, although in none of them has he been truly outstanding.  Nevertheless, he’s been pretty honest about the damage that the state’s budget crises is doing to California’s financial standing, and critical of both governor and legislature for not getting the budget done.  He’s done a good enough job to merit re-election.

Attorney General — I differ from many of my Democratic friends on this race.  They’re enthusiastic about Kamala Harris.  I’m not.  To my mind, she’s far too political to be a good Attorney General.  IMHO, an AG needs to be willing to go after ANYBODY who’s violating state law, regardless of position or party affiliation.  From what I’ve seen of Harris in SF, she hasn’t done that.  She’s also very politically linked to Obama and his group within the Democratic Party machinery.  Like Jerry Brown, I suspect she’ll turn a blind eye to misbehavior if the offending party is well-connected.  Her main opponent, however, Steve Cooley, is a hard-line law-and-order Republican along the lines of George Deukmejian.  I don’t believe that kind of philosophy, with its emphasis of “lock ’em up”, is particularly effective in dealing with crime.  A reluctant nod for Harris.

Insurance Commissioner — So, here you’ve got two legislators — one Republican, one Democratic, who’ve attempted to push through some insurance reforms in the legislature.  BUT, the insurance commissioner isn’t a legislator; he/she is an administrator and quasi-judicial officer who gets to make determinations on the propriety of insurance rates and write administrative rules for insurance companies.  In the past, insurance commissioners have sometimes been “captured” by the industry they’re supposed to be regulating.  It’s again a danger with either candidate, but probably more of a danger with Villines.  I plan to vote for Jones (but will also think about Ivins’ Rule).

Superintendent of Public Instruction — This one’s a toughie: a legislator vs a school administrator.  Torlakson, the legislator, has been involved in education issues in the legislature, but he’s also been closely tied in with the teachers’ unions.  Aceves, a retired school administrator, has had experience at the local, but not the statewide, level.  Still and all, I think this  position needs to be filled by someone who’s not beholden to a special interest.  I’m afraid that Torlakson doesn’t fill that bill.  I’m going with Aceves.

Appellate Justices — I’m going to start with my standard statement, which I say every two years — the electorate had no business voting on these positions.  Voters don’t know enough about what judges do to be able to make educated decisions about whether they’re doing it well.  Further, the vote is far too easily turned into a political witch-hunt, as it was by right-wing Republicans against the Rose Bird court.  In addition, unless someone turns it into a witch-hunt, justices are routinely retained with greater than 90% of the vote in a meaningless show of “support”.  That having been said, here are my thoughts:  Cantil-Sakauye — Her reputations is that she’s a moderate to conservative judge, which would put her smack in the middle of the current Supreme Court, probably pretty close to where Chief Justice George was.  I personally would like to see the court move a little bit towards the left, or at least away from the right, but turning this justice down wouldn’t do much of anything. YES.  Ming Chin — This is one of the two or three most conservative justices on the current court.  IMHO, he’s definitely to the right of the California mainstream.  I wouldn’t be unhappy if he were replaced by a more moderate justice.  He’ll still get retained with over 90%, but if you’d like to protest the court’s rightward movement, this would be the place to do it by voting NO.  Moreno — Moreno has been the most liberal justice appointed to the court in the last fifteen years.  That’s not saying a hell of a lot, but he has been a pretty fair judge, IMO.  YES.

Moving down to the more local Bay Area First Appellate District Justices, here are my one word recommendations:  Banke — NO  [no opinion]; Dondero — NO; Lambden — YES; Jenkins — NO; Siggins — YES; Reardon — NO; Bruiniers –NO; Needham — NO.  And, at the county level, I’d recommend Kolakowski over Creighton, as I did in the primary.  IMHO, we have more than enough former DAs as judges.

FINALLY, getting down to local elections, here are my suggestions:

Oakland Mayor — I tend to generally agree with the recommendations of the East Bay Express.  Three of the major candidates:  Quan, Tuman, and Kaplan, deserve serious consideration.  I also personally feel that Don Macleay and Greg Harland have interesting things to say.  (See my post on the mayoral forum for more details.)  However, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE do NOT vote for Perata for first, second or third choice.  I’ve watched Perata for over twenty years, and IMHO he’s as sleazy as they come.  He is exactly what we DON’T need as Oakland mayor.

Oakland City Auditor — Cortney Ruby has done some good work as auditor, and on that basis, I think she deserves to be re-elected.

Berkeley City Council — While I don’t live in Berkeley, I’m going to throw in my unsolicited opinion on a few of the races:  District 4 – Jesse Arreguin ; District  7 – Kriss Worthington: District  8 – Stewart Jones

Richmond Mayor — This one’s easy.  I’ve watched Nat Bates over the past twenty years, and IMHO he epitomizes the worst of Richmond politics.  By contrast, the current mayor, Gayle McLaughlin, has been a breath of fresh air; willing to challenge the entrenched political powers that have run Richmond into the ground over the past thirty years.  Bates’ campaign has also cooperated with the police and fire unions in running a very nasty smear campaign against
McLaughlin, based on health problems she had some fifteen years ago.


%d bloggers like this: