Gayle Madwin (queerbychoice) wrote,
Gayle Madwin

  • Mood:
  • Music:

How I'm Voting

Inspired by aesiron doing the same thing, I decided to post a list of how I'm voting on all issues on the ballot - national offices, state offices, local offices, state propositions and local measures.

President and Vice President: Leonard Peltier/Janice Jordan (Peace & Freedom Party)

U.S. Senator: Barbara Boxer (Democratic Party) - My faith in her was shaken a while back when an article on the San Francisco Chronicle website indicated that she opposed the same-sex weddings that took place there; however, I wrote to her to complain about it and received a response saying that she had been misquoted and did support the weddings. I guess I'll take her word for it. At least she's more left-wing than our other Democratic Senator, Dianne Feinstein, who I am never going to vote for ever again because she voted in favor of authorizing the war in Iraq, just like John Kerry and John Edwards did. Barbara Boxer, on the other hand, voted not to. So I will vote for her.

U.S. Representative: Robert T. Matsui (Democratic Party) - Look, that makes two Democrats I'm voting for in races where there is a Peace & Freedom Party candidate running who I have the opportunity to vote for instead! Robert Matsui has been my representative intermittently for many years (intermittently because they keep re-gerrymandering the congressional districts so I go in and out of his district). I'm always happier when I find myself back in his district again than when I end up in anybody else's district.

State Assembly Member: Cullene Lang (Libertarian Party) - It's not that I like Libertarianism; it's just that the only two candidates running are a Republican and a Libertarian.

Los Rios Community College Governing Board Member: Kay Albiani (Nonpartisan)

Sacramento City Unified School District Full Term Governing Board Members: Rick Jennings II, Miguel E. Navarrette, Manuel "Manny" Hernandez, and Ellyne Bell (Nonpartisan) - It scares me how many candidates for the school district governing board made grammatical errors in their official candidate statements. In narrowing my selections down to these four candidates (for four available seats), I started by crossing off all the candidates who've forgotten their own high school grammar lessons.

Sacramento City Unified School District Short Term Governing Board Member: Pat Fong Kushida (Nonpartisan) - Endorsed by U.S. Representative Robert T. Matsui, who I'm also voting for.

Rancho Cordova City Council Members: Robert J. McGarvey, David Sander, Ken Cooley (Nonpartisan) - They're the only three people running for three available seats.

Sacramento Municipal Utility District: Susan Patterson (Nonpartisan)

Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District: Gay Jones (Nonpartisan)

Cordova Recreation and Park District: Conrade C. Mayer and Guy W. Anderson (Nonpartisan)

Proposition 1A: PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES. Ensures local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local government thereby safeguarding funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services. Provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur. Fiscal Impact: Higher local government revenues than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts would result in decreased resources to the state of similar amounts. - NO. ("Proposition 1A protects local governments, but it hurts education by allowing the State to raid your property taxes that fund your local schools.")

Proposition 59: PUBLIC RECORDS, OPEN MEETINGS. Amends Constitution to include public’s right of access to meetings of government bodies and writings of government officials. Preserves specified constitutional rights; retains existing exclusions for certain meetings and records. Fiscal Impact: Potential minor annual state and local government costs to make additional information available to the public. - YES.

Proposition 60: ELECTION RIGHTS OF POLITICAL PARTIES. Requires general election ballot include candidate receiving most votes among candidates of same party for partisan office in primary election. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal effect. - YES.

Proposition 60A: SURPLUS PROPERTY. Sale proceeds of most surplus state property pay off specified bonds. Fiscal Impact: Net savings over the longer term–potentially low tens of millions of dollars–from accelerated repayment of existing bonds. - YES.

Proposition 61: CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL PROJECTS. GRANT PROGRAM. BOND ACT. Authorizes $750 million general obligation bonds for grants to eligible children's hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children’s hospitals. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $1.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($750 million) and interest ($756 million) costs of the bonds. Payments of about $50 million per year. - NO. ("Rebuilding hospitals can make some select contractors rich - but it does not guarantee health care for anyone. . . . California voters have already approved billions of dollars in bond sales and have mortgaged the future.")

Proposition 62: ELECTIONS. PRIMARIES. Requires primary elections where voters may vote for any state or federal candidate regardless of party registration of voter or candidate. The two primary-election candidates receiving most votes for an office, whether they are candidates with "no party" or members of same or different party, would be listed on general election ballot. Exempts presidential nominations. Fiscal Impact: No significant net fiscal effect on state and local governments. - NO.

Proposition 63: MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES EXPANSION, FUNDING. TAX ON PERSONAL INCOMES ABOVE $1 MILLION. Establishes 1% tax on taxable personal income above $1 million to fund expanded health services for mentally ill children, adults, seniors. Fiscal Impact: Additional state revenues of about $800 million annually by 2006-07, with comparable annual increases in total state and county expenditures for expansion of mental health programs. Unknown partially offsetting savings to state and local agencies. - YES.

Proposition 64: LIMITS ON PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT OF UNFAIR BUSINESS COMPETITION LAWS. Allows individual or class action "unfair business" lawsuits only if actual loss suffered; only government officials may enforce these laws on public's behalf. Fiscal Impact: Unknown state fiscal impact depending on whether the measure increases or decreases court workload and the extent to which diverted funds are replaced. Unknown potential costs to local governments, depending on the extent to which diverted funds are replaced. - NO.

Proposition 65: LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDS, REVENUES. STATE MANDATES. Requires voter approval for reduction of local fee/tax revenues. Permits suspension of state mandate if no state reimbursement to local government within 180 days after obligation determined. Fiscal Impact: Higher local government revenues than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts would result in decreased resources to the state of similar amounts. - NO. (This proposition was sponsored by Arnold Schwarzenegger, who now opposes it and supports Proposition 1A instead.)

Proposition 66: LIMITATIONS ON "THREE STRIKES" LAW. SEX CRIMES. PUNISHMENT. Limits "Three Strikes" law to violent and/or serious felonies. Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. Fiscal Impact: Over the long run, net state savings of up to several hundred million dollars annually, primarily to the prison system; local jail and court-related costs of potentially more than ten million dollars annually. - YES.

Proposition 67: EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES. FUNDING. TELEPHONE SURCHARGE. Increases telephone surcharge and allocates other funds for emergency room physicians, hospital emergency rooms, community clinics, emergency personnel training/equipment, and 911 telephone system. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually to reimburse physicians and hospitals for uncompensated emergency medical services and other specified purposes. Continues $32 million in state funding for physicians and clinics for uncompensated medical care. - NO. ("Respected health care advocates, the Congress of California Seniors, the California Sheriffs' Association, and the emergency care workers who run the 911 system all OPPOSE PROP. 67 because 90% of the funds go to large health care corporations and other special interests.")

Proposition 68: NON-TRIBAL COMMERCIAL GAMBLING EXPANSION. TRIBAL GAMING COMPACT AMENDMENTS. REVENUES, TAX EXEMPTIONS. Authorizes tribal compact amendments. Unless tribes accept, authorizes casino gaming for sixteen non-tribal establishments. Percentage of gaming revenues fund government services. Fiscal Impact: Increased gambling revenues – potentially over $1 billion annually–primarily to local governments for additional specified services. Depending on outcome of tribal negotiations, potential loss of state revenues totaling hundreds of millions of dollars annually. - NO.

Proposition 69: DNA SAMPLES. COLLECTION. DATABASE. FUNDING. Requires collection of DNA samples from all felons, and from others arrested for or charged with specified crimes, and submission to state DNA database. Provides for funding. Fiscal Impact: Net state cost to process DNA samples of potentially nearly $20 million annually when costs are fully realized. Local costs likely more than fully offset by revenues, with the additional revenues available for other DNA-related activities. - NO.

Proposition 70: TRIBAL GAMING COMPACTS. EXCLUSIVE GAMING RIGHTS. CONTRIBUTIONS TO STATE. Upon tribe's request, Governor must execute 99-year compact. Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming. Fiscal Impact: Unknown effect on payments to the state from Indian tribes. The potential increase or decrease in these payments could be in the tens of millions to over a hundred million dollars annually. - YES.

Proposition 71: STEM CELL RESEARCH. FUNDING. BONDS. This measure establishes "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" to regulate and fund stem cell research, constitutional right to conduct such research, and oversight committee. Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research. Fiscal Impact: State cost of about $6 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($3 billion) and interest ($3 billion) on the bonds. State payments averaging about $200 million per year. - NO. ("We all strongly support Stem Cell Research, but oppose this blatant taxpayer rip-off that lines the pockets of a few large corporations.")

Proposition 72: HEALTH CARE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers. Fiscal Impact: Significant expenditures fully offset, mainly by employer fees, for a state program primarily to purchase private health insurance coverage. Significant county health program savings. Significant public employer health coverage costs. Significant net state revenue losses. Overall unknown net state and local savings or costs. - YES.

Sacramento County Measure A: To relieve traffic congestion, improve safety, and match state/federal funds by improving I-5, I-80, US 50, SR 99; Constructing new road connecting I-5/SR 999/US 50; Maintaining/improving local roads; Increasing transit for seniors and disabled persons; Expanding/planning for light rail and commuter rail; Shall Sacramento County voters continue the existing half-cent transportation sales tax for thirty years, including creating an Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee to conduct audits ensuring all voter mandates are met? - NO. ("Measure A misuses local sales tax to benefit commuters from surrounding counties by making improvements to state and federal highways that should be paid by state gas taxes. This is the vision of land speculators and business interests who tied their bankrolling of Measure A to the inclusion of new freeway lanes and their beltway." "This 'New Measure A' costs taxpayers $4.7 BILLION over 30 years, but includes no guarantees as to what top priority projects will be built. . . . Even if this measure fails, the current half-cent sales tax will continue until 2009. . . . The Environmental Council of Sacramento also opposes THIS extension of Measure A. Once these tax revenues are 'bonded,' the 'New Measure A' tax cannot be changed or repealed for THIRTY YEARS.")

Sacramento County Measure K: Do the qualified electors of the County of Sacramento approve the development, construction, or acquisition of affordable housing within the following jurisdictions for households such as seniors, working families, and the disabled, referred in statute as low rent housing, not to exceed: 3,000 units in the City of Sacramento, 500 dwelling units in each of the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, and Rancho Cordova; and 4,000 dwelling units in the County unincorporated area over the next 20 years? - YES.

City of Rancho Cordova Measure R: Shall the City of Rancho Cordova's base-year appropriations limit for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 be established at $36,010,121? - YES.
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.