2016 Election: My Ballot

I do this every four years, at least; sometimes I get it done for the midterms as well. Line by line, candidate by candidate, measure by measure (by measure, by measure — because California), I figure out how I’m going to vote and write up the whys and wherefores.

It seems like every time, we says it’s “the most important election ever” and once again, yes, it is the most important election ever. For obvious reasons.

Candidates

President and Vice President: Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine. Well, obviously. Unlike in previous elections where, if we’d ended up with John McCain or Mitt Romney, I would have been unhappy but the country would have survived, the Republican candidate in 2016 represents an existential threat to the continued health and welfare of the United States. As Michelle Obama said,

Either Hillary Clinton or her opponent will be elected president this year. And if you vote for someone other than Hillary, or if you don’t vote at all, then you are helping to elect her opponent. And just think about how you will feel if that happens. Imagine waking up on November the 9th and looking into the eyes of your daughter or son, or looking into your own eyes as you stare into the mirror. Imagine how you’ll feel if you stayed home, or if you didn’t do everything possible to elect Hillary. We simply cannot let that happen. We cannot allow ourselves to be so disgusted that we just shut off the TV and walk away. And we can’t just sit around wringing our hands.

United States Senator: Kamala D. Harris. I’ve followed Kamala Harris’ career since she was at the District Attorney’s office in San Francisco. She’s highly competent, smart, capable, and a worthy successor to Barbara Boxer.

United States Representative, 14th Congressional District: Jackie Speier. She’s served with distinction for some time and I have no reason to doubt she’ll continue to do so.

California State Senate, District 13: Jerry Hill. I’m not interested in voting for a Republican candidate for the state senate.

Member of the State Assembly, 24th Assembly District: Marc Berman. I don’t have a strong feeling one way or the other. Both are Democrats, both have presented reasonable arguments for their election, and both apparently have sufficient time and experience in government such that either would be a good choice. Based on the Mercury News’ endorsement, I’ll pick Berman.

Judge of the Superior Court, Office №7: Sean Dabel. There’s only one candidate listed. Being a judge seems like a pretty thankless job, so if Sean Dabel wants it (and is presumably qualified) I’m of a mind to let him have it.

Ravenswood City School District, Members, Governing Board (2): Marielena Gaona-Mendoza. The local school district has been broken, corrupt, useless and worse-than useless for as long as I’ve lived in East Palo Alto. My only selection on this ballot is to vote out the incumbents.

City of East Palo Alto, Members, City Council (3): Carlos Romero, Lisa Yarbrough-Gauthier, Larry James Moody. Four candidates, three of them incumbents, are running for three open seats. Quality of life has improved for the most part in EPA and I’m pretty satisfied with the course the current City Council has set, so I’ll vote to essentially keep the same crew in place.

San Mateo County Harbor District, Members, Board of Commissioners, Full Term (3): I have no selection for this office.

San Mateo County Harbor District, Member, Board of Commissioners, Short Term: I have no selection for this office.

Statewide Ballot Measures

First, a word about my general principles with regard to ballot measures. I’m usually opposed to direct initiative lawmaking; I feel that legislating is (usually) best left to the Legislature. There are some cases where a ballot initiative is good or worthwhile enough to override that bias, but those tend to be few and far between. If I can’t decide how to vote on an initiative, I look at who is endorsing it and who’s against it, e.g. anything endorsed by the Jarvis foundation gets a no-vote from me. Also, as a homeowner who pays property taxes (where most bond payments come from), I’m generally opposed to bond measures.

Information about state measures is, for some reason, not included on the voting guide from the San Mateo County registrar of voters, so I rely on VotersEdge.org to present the initiative text and arguments for and against.

Prop. 51 — Bonds for School Facilities: YES. It’s a bond issue, which I’m generally against, but it’s a school upgrade/repair bond, which is an appropriate and justified use of funds. And the Jarvis foundation is against it, so I’m for it.

Prop. 52 — Private Hospital Fees for Medi-Cal: YES. It seems fairly straightforward: continue and write into law the current practice of charging hospitals a fee to recoup state expenses in running the Medi-Cal program for low-income Californians. It’s not a bond measure; it’s supported by (shockingly!) both major political parties and the California Hospital Association. I am a bit leery of the promise that the funds may not be appropriated by the Legislature for any other purpose; this language appears in many initiatives but doesn’t actually seem to have any effect in practice. But I see no problems otherwise.

Prop. 53 — Public Vote on Revenue Bonds: NO. I really don’t think this is a good idea, in line with my general principle of letting the Legislature do the legislating. It seems like if this passes, every single large-scale project will be subject to the kind of nasty political campaign we’ve seen for previous issues; can you imagine if BART improvements or every single segment of California High Speed Rail had to be approved statewide? And the Jarvis foundation is for it so I’m against it.

Prop. 54 — Changes to the Legislative Process: UNDECIDED. I’m generally in favor of transparency in government, and this measure’s additional benefit of ending the practice of “gut and amend” is very tempting. There is an emergency clause, so that important time-sensitive legislation can be passed without the delay and review. But, I’m not comfortable being aligned with the groups supporting this measure. So on this one, I’m punting; I’ll do some more research and make a decision before the election.

Prop. 55 — Extend Tax on High Income: YES. Though I’m somewhat swayed by the “respect the 2012 voters’ decision” to let this tax expire on schedule, I do believe that those who are fortunate enough to be in the higher-income classes ought to contribute a reasonable percentage to the public coffers. The usual array of groups are for and against this measure, so I’m coming down on a Yes vote for it.

Prop. 56 — Tobacco Tax: YES. I’m anti-smoking, and if this measure causes people to quit because they simply can’t to buy cigarettes anymore, so much the better. The arguments about where the money collected actually goes don’t persuade me one way or the other, but I’m in favor of simply making smoking more expensive as a habit.

Prop. 57 — Parole, Sentencing and Court Procedures: YES. The two parts to this measure are (a) make non-violent felons eligible for parole when they’ve served the minimum for their “main crime” (not the main plus any additional charges), and (b) put the decision whether to charge minors as adults in the hands of a court rather than a prosecutor. These both seem reasonable to me. I wish the change had come as a bill or regulation from the Legislature, but that’s the system we have.

Prop. 58 — English Language Education: YES. I don’t have children, school-aged or otherwise, but I see no problem at all with children learning in the language with which they’re most comfortable (and receiving instruction in English at the same time, which is also part of the measure). The fact that there’s no budget impact makes this an easy Yes for me.

Prop. 59 — Political Spending Advisory Question: YES. As an “Advisory Question,” this measure has no official, legal effect; it really just serves to make the Legislature aware of the sense of the electorate. And the sense of this particular member of the electorate is that the Supreme Court’s “Citizens United” decision was wrong, bad, and should be reversed.

Prop. 60 — Condoms in Adult Films: NO. Existing law already regulates whether performers in adult films use condoms. This measure creates an unusual and potentially dangerous new right of action, allowing any private citizen to file a lawsuit and potentially recover damages against film producers.

Prop. 61 — Prescription Drug Costs: NO. The ads for and against this one are mostly scare-factor, but in fact the measure as it’s written is just dumb. California is supposed to refuse to pay drug companies anything higher than what those companies are charging the VA. What happens if the drug company doesn’t accept California’s offered terms? The measure doesn’t say. What happens if the drug companies, lately shown to be run by mercenary creeps, just raise the price on everyone? The measure doesn’t say. I’m all for using market forces to keep drug prices down, but this is not the way.

Prop. 62 — Repealing the Death Penalty: YES. A civilized society should not be killing its citizens, no matter what crimes they may have committed. The measure converts all existing death sentences to life-without-parole and makes that the maximum penalty the state can impose from now on. These people are never going to get out of prison, and realistically the twenty years of mandatory appeals on every death penalty case likely cost the state more than housing them for the rest of their lives.

Prop. 63 — Gun and Ammunition Sales: YES. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those who claim a Constitutional right from 1791, when the state of the art was a single-shot musket, applies equally to semi- and fully-automatic assault weapons with huge magazines of ammunition. Anything we can do to make it harder to get these weapons, magazines, and ammunition is something we should do and as soon as possible.

Prop. 64 — Making Recreational Marijuana Legal: YES. Let’s see. Illegal: Grow operations wrecking protected wilderness areas; gang violence; heavy-handed law enforcement, often targeted to minority communities; and as a practical matter, with no regulation it’s likely the product is sub-par. Legal: grow operations in licensed, safe facilities; product is sold in licensed shops; taxes provide income for license and regulatory enforcement; regulated product has consistent quality. This is an obvious Yes and, as in the case of marriage equality, it’s embarrassing that California is once again following the crowd rather than leading the way.

Prop. 65 — Money from Carry-Out Bags: NO. There are a pair of measures related to plastic bags, and they are written in such a way to be maximally confusing to someone trying to figure out which is better. And since they attempt to regulate the same thing, only one of the measures goes into effect if they both pass (the one with more votes). So what to do? Look at who is supporting each one. And tellingly, Prop 65 is supported by the plastic bag industry, while 67 is supported by environmental groups, the Democratic party, and even the major grocery stores.

Prop. 66 — Death Penalty Court Procedures: NO. This is an opposing measure to Prop 62. It shortens the appeal process and, incredibly, removes from public oversight the methods the state uses to kill its prisoners. These are terrible proposals and should be opposed.

Prop. 67 — Plastic Bag Ban: YES. See above, for Prop 65. This is the opposing measure, but it’s the one that actually puts the state’s existing plastic bag ban into effect, and it’s supported by groups with whom I agree.

San Mateo County/City of East Palo Alto Ballot Measures

Measure K: YES. This extends a half-cent sales tax for another twenty years past its current expiration, essentially making it permanent. The tax revenues go into the county’s general fund. This is one of the ways government is funded. With this extension, lawmakers will have a reasonably sure source of funds for projects and expenditures.

Measure J: YES. This measure improves and amends the East Palo Alto rent control ordinance, and the provisions were suggested by groups representing both tenants and landlords. I’m totally in favor of amending and updating existing law to align with changing conditions.

Measure O: YES. It seems like this is something the East Palo Alto city council could have done legislatively, but I’m sure there’s some nuance that requires a ballot measure. The measure adds a tax and/or fee to landlords who rent at market-rate, while exempting those who rent to lower-income people. Its goals are to raise some money for the city’s general fund and to encourage landlords to generate housing for lower-income renters.

Measure P: YES. This is a half-cent sales tax, like measure K above, but for transactions in the city of East Palo Alto. Same logic applies.

This ballot is about as long as any I’ve seen, and really shows the problems with legislating by initiative. I expect many people won’t bother to take the time needed to read and understand all the ballot measures — I’m hearing that the San Francisco city ballot alone is equally as long as the statewide — and so will vote based on the measure title, or will skip voting entirely.

I hope this was helpful in deciding your choices, or at least interesting reading. Or at least kept you occupied while we wait to see if the worst possible thing happens on Tuesday night.