Voting in the California Midterms, or: BLUE WAVE: RESURRECTION

HERE WE GO, VOTERS…

The moment is here. I know we’re all dying a little bit inside, watching our beloved country get smeared through shit by idiots and racists. I don’t know about you, but I’ve been getting through it by dreaming of the midterms, this beautiful day when we get a voice again–another chance to yell so loud that the world might change. And now finally, finally…

The blue wave is here.

But that doesn’t mean that actually sitting down with your ballot and voting isn’t boring as hell.

Fear not! There are tons of resources at your disposal, among them these recommendations (like endorsements, but I have no qualifications).

You might remember that I did this for the primary, a few months back (link).

Get this–this vote is going to be way, way easier than the primary. For a whole lot of these, it’s a democrat vs. a republican–in which case we vote for the democrat because we believe in things like freedom of speech and equal rights. I’ve marked these races with just the democrat’s name and a (D), no commentary, so that they take up minimal space.

Remember, I’m voting in CALIFORNIA, so these are all California races. There are lots of great endorsement documents for other states, so do not despair, non-Californians.

LET’S GET VOTING!!

 

PROP 1

The first four props are all bond measures. Super quick, this means we’re authorizing the state to borrow money, which will be paid back with interest from our taxes, to spend on [insert what the bond is about here]. In all of these cases, the main argument against the measure is that the state should not go further into debt. Honestly, I am pretty sympathetic to that argument, but refusing individual bond isn’t going to fix the issue of rising debt. That would require both higher taxes and taking an axe to our biggest expenditures, which these do not come close to.

In Prop 1’s case, the money would be spent on building housing, in particular low-income, veteran, and farmworker housing. There’s a major housing shortage in California–anything that’s going to get more housing on the ground here, particularly multi-family housing like this, has my support.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

PROP 2

Another housing bond measure, this time in particular for housing for the mentally ill. This is easy. No one can work on recovery while they don’t have a place to sleep.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

PROP 3

This is a slightly confusing one. It’s supposed to support water sources, such as cleaning water and building infrastructure, but the wording leaves the money with little oversight, with most of it going to projects such as dams and agriculture canals that would actually harm the water supply long-term. The Sierra Club, the largest environmental organization in the country, is leading the charge against it.

I’m recommending: No

 

PROP 4

This bond would fund upkeep and renovation for children’s hospitals. Come on, guys. It’s the smallest dollar amount bond measure ask on here. Just say yes to the hospitals for kids.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

PROP 5

Background: Back in like, the 70s, a proposition passed which said that homeowners’ property taxes could only rise by so much per year, so that even if the home’s value skyrockets its property taxes won’t. If you sell that home and buy a new one, you have to go by the new value, which is probably going to be a lot higher. There are exceptions in the case of people over 55, people who are severely disabled, or people whose homes were destroyed, as long as they buy a home of equal or lesser value.

This bill would expand those exceptions. People in those categories could buy more expensive houses and move anywhere in the state while still using that exception, and lets them use that exception an unlimited number of times (currently it can only be used once).

I do not have a lot of sympathy for these over-55 homeowners who want to be able to buy more expensive houses multiple times without paying the property taxes everyone else has to. Just suck it up and pay your taxes, guys.

I’m recommending: No

 

PROP 6

This cuts taxes that fund road repairs and public transportation, and requires that future transportation taxes be approved by public vote.

This is a dumb idea. Our roads suck, we need better public transportation (JUST FINISH THE PURPLE LINE FFS), paying for that upkeep creates jobs. There’s no reason to do this.

I’m recommending: No

 

PROP 7

Again, this is dumb, but in a different way. If we vote yes, in the event that congress decides to let states make changes to their time zones, California would have the option to change our time zone to make it daylight savings all the time. Not that we would, we would just have the option to.

So like, it really doesn’t matter how we vote because like, in what world do you want congress paying any attention to daylight savings time right now.

So I did a super quick Google search to see if there was anything that could make me care about this issue, and per Scientific American, we use extra energy during daylight savings time to heat homes for the extra hour. So I think if it were all the time that would be worse.

I’m recommending: No, but this is basically your bingo freebie square

 

PROP 8

This is a complicated one. I’m gonna do my best. So we have a bunch of kidney dialysis centers in California, right? Like every state. These are largely run by two big companies (DaVita and Fresenius, but you don’t need to know that). These two companies charge a whole lot for kidney dialysis, most of which is paid by the government through medicare and medi-cal (and by a rising number of private insurers, now that those insurers can’t turn away people who need dialysis). The clinics have captive consumers in the government and these insurers now that they’re obligated to pay for dialysis for patients, and are therefore overcharging.

This proposition would cap the profits that the dialysis clinics are allowed to make. It would say that clinics could only make so much profit, and after that limit was hit the rest would have to be returned to the payer, that is, the government and the insurers. That saves the government a lot of money. The companies could raise the cap by increasing their patient-related spending.

(Caveat–this is also playing out in concert with a dispute between a group trying to unionize dialysis workers, which is great, and the companies that don’t want the unions, which are bad. You should not get bogged down in that debate when deciding what you think of this bill. The union leaders should be able to unionize without playing lawmaker.)

Now, there’s a lot of drama here that we can cut through right now. If this passes, the dialysis clinics are not going to pack up and leave the state. But on the other hand, if this passes, money is not going to be pulled from the hands of the greedy corporate overlords and placed back in the hands of needful patients. Our medical system is broken, no doubt about it, and dialysis clinics are a key example of that. But this isn’t going to fix that either way.

What it comes down to is if you think placing a cap on profits will solve the problem, that is, that dialysis clinics are overcharging for their product.

I assume most of you know me (if not, welcome), and therefore you know of my philosophical, if not always practical, love for the free market. This is one of the situations where I feel safe letting that flag fly.

I just don’t think this will work. DaVita and Fresenius aren’t going to eat this, because their captive consumer base is still there. Instead, they’re going to increase their patient-related spending to increase their profit cap–ie, they’re going to add unneeded layers and inefficiencies, whether that’s requiring more visits, renovating stuff that doesn’t need to be renovated–anything that falls under that poorly worded “appropriate spending” clause.

In short, people’s hearts are in the right place on this, but it’s a slapdash attempt. Regulatory stuff like this shouldn’t be voted on as a proposition, this should be going through experts in the department of public health services and through the legislature.

I’m recommending: No

 

PROP 9 – this was that weirdo Silicon Valley guy trying to split California into three states again. Supreme court took it off the ballot because it’s ridiculous.

 

PROP 10

You’re from California, you know the deal. You know rent control? That thing your friend has that you want, where their rent can only go up by a set amount per year? This expands it, or more specifically, allows local governments to expand it.

Currently, state law says that local governments can’t apply rent control to new apartment buildings / single family homes. If Prop 10 passes, local governments could instate rent control on whatever buildings they like.

Rent control won’t fix the housing crisis in CA (the only thing that’s going to fix that will be building more housing–shoutout to my man Scott Wiener in San Fran who’s working to get this done!), but it does mitigate the damage.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

PROP 11

This is about ambulance workers. Like all workers, they are entitled to breaks. Unlike all workers, their job is saving lives. If they are on a break and somebody’s life needs saving nearby, they are going to get called in to help with that during their break.

Currently, this means that private ambulance companies are racking up liability payments for not giving their workers actual breaks, even though the workers have agreed to be on-call for their job and get to take their breaks later when this happens. Proposition 11 would create an exception in the law that says that private ambulance companies are allowed to keep their employees on-call during breaks.

My only complaint here would be if it were a worker’s rights issue, but most of the accounts I’ve seen from medical response workers have been in favor, saying that helping people when they need it is the job and the law should changed to accommodate it.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

PROP 12

Oh thank god, we get to end our propositions on an easy one. Proposition 12 increases minimum space requirements for farm animals. Farm animals are often kept in terrible conditions, this would make those conditions a little less bad. Vote yes.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

GOVERNOR – Gavin Newsom (D)

 

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

I’m sticking with my primary vote here–Eleni Kounalakis devotes space on her website to discussing the housing crisis, and she specifically calls out universal broadband and free community college. To me, this race comes down to what issues they’re going to address while in office–the LG sits on a ton of committees which will steer broad policy, so I’m putting issues above individual laws here.

Here are my and my friends’ notes on the candidates and my summaries of their positions: (link)

I’m recommending: Eleni Kounalakis

 

SECRETARY OF STATE – Alex Padilla (D)

 

CONTROLLER – Betty T. Yee (D)

 

TREASURER – Fiona Ma (D)

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL – Xavier Becerra (D)

 

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER – Ricardo Lara (D)

 

UNITED STATES SENATOR

Wow, if y’all thought I was voting for Dianne Feinstein before. A few months back I got shoved into four hours canvassing with an antivaxxer who couldn’t stop fawning over De Leon so now I’m like, pouring my entire soul into that Dianne Feinstein bubble. Sneaky Dianne for Senator, Sneaky Dianne for Life.

I’m recommending: Dianne Feinstein

 

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, CA-33 – Ted W. Lieu (D)

 

STATE SENATOR, 26th DISTRICT – Ben Allen (D)

 

SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

For supreme court and appeals court judges, you’re just voting to confirm (or not) someone who has already been nominated by the governor and vetted. I do not have the expertise to decide if these people are qualified or not, and several people that do have already said they are–so you’re safe saying “yes” to all.

Just for diligence’s sake, I did a quick Google search on each of these to make sure nothing big came up. None of them have major scandals or egregious decisions to their names. In one case I found a decision that invoked the deep well of spite I’ve been amassing over the last two years, which is why one of these is a “no.”

 

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE CAROL A. CORRIGAN

Look, I just happened to fill out my ballot on the same day that a bunch of anti-LGBT+ stuff came out, and back in the day Corrigan voted against changing “domestic partnership” language to “marriage” in LGBT+ relationships. So I’m like, full of spite, empathy reserves are at zero, and think it would be hilarious if she got booted off the supreme court ten years later.

I’m recommending: no.

 

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE LEONDRA R. KRUGER – yes

 

COURT OF APPEAL JUSTICES

Associate Justice Victoria G. Chaney – yes

Associate Justice Helen Bendix – yes

Associate Justice Elwood Lui – yes

Associate Justice Victoria M. Chavez – yes

Associate Justice Luis A. Lavin – yes

Associate Justice Halim Dhanidina – yes

Associate Justice Anne H. Egerton – yes

Presiding Justice Nora M. Manella – yes

Associate Justice Thomas Willhite – yes

Associate Justice Dorothy C. Kim – yes

Associate Justice Carl H. Moor – yes

Associate Justice Lamar W. Baker – yes

Associate Justice Arthur Gilbert – yes

Associate Justice Martin J. Tangeman – yes

Associate Justice Gail R. Feuer – yes

Associate Justice John L. Segal – yes

Associate Justice Tricia A. Bigelow – yes

 

SUPERIOR COURT

The Superior Court races are actual races, with multiple options. Once again, I bowed to more informed minds. For No. 4 and No. 113, the LA County Bar Association had judged one candidate more qualified than the other (link), which makes the decision pretty clear. For No. 16 and No. 60, I went with the LA Times endorsements (link).

Judge of the Superior Court, No. 4 – A. Veronica Sauceda (LACBA Report)

Judge of the Superior Court, No. 16 – Sydne Jane Michel (LA Times)

Judge of the Superior Court, No. 60 – Holly L. Hancock (LA Times)

Judge of the Superior Court, No. 113 – Javier Perez (LACBA Report)

 

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

Per my primaries post:

The main policy choice here is charter schools. Marshall wants to expand charter schools but explore policy to limit the harm done to public schools, and was the co-founder of a local coalition of charter schools. Thurmond wants to limit and regulate all charter schools. I’m pretty much against charter schools. We barely have the resources to support the schools we have–it’s not fair to stretch our resources.

Moreover, Marshall’s never been a teacher in the US. Thurmond hasn’t, either, but he was a social worker, which I think would give him experience in working with communities. I’m also just a big fan of how much of his policy page Thurmond dedicates to policy that could weaken the school-to-prison pipeline.

Here are my notes on the candidates and my summaries of their positions: (link)

 

ASSESSOR

The county assessor is in charge of assessing the value of property for tax purposes. All the endorsements I checked seemed to be in favor of keeping Prang around, I haven’t found any major scandals while he’s been in office, and I have a deep and ingrained mistrust of anyone who gives themselves a “nickname” on a ballot.

No one’s ever called you “Lower Taxes”, dude. No one.

I’m recommending: Jeffrey Prang

 

SHERIFF

During the primaries I bowed out of this one–I’m going to put down who I’m voting for this time just so you have somewhere to start from, but honestly I’m pretty unsure about this one. Basically, the LA sheriff’s office went through a major scandal several years ago. The current Sheriff, Jim McDonnell, came in as an outsider to the department, and has made some progress but not enough.

On the pro side, maybe McDonnell needs more time. On the con side, maybe he doesn’t have what it takes. The alternative is Alex Villanueva. His pro side, pretty much, seems to be that he’s not Jim McDonnell, his con that he doesn’t have much leadership experience. I’m voting McDonnell, but if you have the time you should look into this on your own.

I’m recommending: Jim McDonnell

 

MEASURE W

This is for the LA County Flood Control District. The measure would establish a parcel property task, based on square feet of impermeable ground cover (ie, pavement) which would pay for efforts to clean toxins from water runoff. At the moment, a ton of water gets contaminated by falling on roads, where it comes into contact with oil and a bunch of other gross stuff. Cleaning those toxins out of the water wouldn’t make it safe to drink, but it would be safe enough to send it back into the ecosystem.

Look, our city is paying through the nose to import water right now. Anything that could reintroduce some hydration into the watershed is worth investing in.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

CITY MEASURE B

City Measure B would give the city permission to create a public bank. You could open a bank account held by the government, open a line of credit from the government, etc.

I’m gonna have to put on my free market hat again. Sorry guys.

But here’s my argument. I’m not against big government, I’m against big anything. I don’t want corporations messing with my laws, and I don’t want the government messing with my bank account. Mergers give me hives. Any entity that controls too many sides of one system either gets evil (rare) or gets inefficient (common).

I want the government to regulate how money is used, but I do not want them to be controlling and profiting from the banking industry themselves–that’s too many sides of the field for one group to be playing.

It’s the same reason I think that Citizens United is one of the great evils of our generation, corporations trying to regulate when they’re the ones who should be regulated.

The banking industry IS super corrupt, but I think the answer to that is non-profit credit unions (shoutout to my dudes over at First Entertainment CU!). Guys. If you’re not in a credit union yet, get on that shit. Life is great here in credit union land.

(Ok, just to get myself off my high horse. There are a lot of good reasons for the government to be able to form a bank. My girl Kirsten Gillibrand did an interview on Crooked Conversations where she talked about some of the great stuff about public banks (link). I don’t agree with it, but if you think I sound like I’m full of shit, you should do some research of your own on this one.)

But for real, less important but still of note, this is literally how the bad guys take financial power from women in The Handmaid’s Tale? The government runs the bank so as soon as the bad guys shoot up congress, they just start declining women’s credit cards?

I’m recommending: No

 

CITY MEASURE E

Love me some freebie measures. The city just needs permission to realign the election calendars so that we vote on city stuff at the same time that we vote on state stuff.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURE EE

Same thing, but for voting on school stuff at the same time as state stuff.

I’m recommending: Yes

 

OK KIDDOS. GET READY. GET SET. VOTE!!!

(Still need encouragement? Retweet or share this post and tag me in it on Facebook or Twitter to let me know you’ve voted, and I’ll tell you what fictional universe we should travel to together, Inkheart-style.)