Next week, voters will have the opportunity to create real change in San Jose and in Sacramento. In addition to choosing a new governor, we must decide on eight state initiatives and referenda, all of which will have a deep impact on California politics and culture. Locally, two measures could rescue the city from a crippling budget deficit, and deal with an imbalance of power that helped create it. At the same time, two tight races could put a couple of candidates on the San Jose City Council who promise to bring some much-needed independence to that body.
In the months leading up to next week’s vote, the editorial team at Metro/SJI has been interviewing candidates and studying the issues. Posted here are our suggestions.
Local Races
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
District 1
Mike Wasserman
San Jose City Council
District 5
Magdalena Carrasco
San Jose City Council
District 7
Madison Nguyen
San Jose City Council
District 9
Don Rocha
Santa Clara County Board of Education
Trustee Area 6
Angie Cardoza
Santa Clara County Board of Education
Trustee Area 7
Adam Escoto
Alum Rock Union School
District Board of Trustees
Aaron Resendez
Local Measures
Measure B
Road Repair Fee
Yes
Measure U
Marijuana Businesses Tax
Yes
Measure V
Reform Mandatory Arbitration
Yes
Measure W
Pension Reform
Yes
Measure I
East Side Union High School District Parcel Tax
Yes
State Measures
Proposition 19
Regulate and Tax Cannabis
Yes
Proposition 20
Congressional Redistricting
Yes
Proposition 21
Vehicle Fee for Parks
Yes
Proposition 22
Ban on State Borrowing from Local Governments
No
Proposition 23
Suspend the State’s Global Warming Law
No
Proposition 24
Repeal of Corporate Tax Breaks
Yes
Proposition 25
Majority Rules on Budget
Yes
Proposition 26
Supermajority Rules
No
Proposition 27
Incumbent Protection Act
No
State Races
Governor
Jerry Brown
United States Senate
Barbara Boxer
Lieutenant Governor
Gavin Newsom
Attorney General
Kamala Harris
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Larry Aceves
Amusing. Do these people ever listen to what they’re saying?
Our first black president recently exhorted the masses at a Los Angeles rally: “the coming election is a choice between the past and the future.”
And then proceeded to endorse for the governor of the future an old white male fossil who was governor once upon a time before the internet was invented, over a female business executive who is one of the towering innovators of the internet age.
“Well, I know it sounds weird, folks, but that’s what it says here on my teleprompter: Meg Whitman – past; Jerry Brown – future.”
I am told that our first black president attended Harvard, but no one seems to have ever seen his transcripts or know what his grades were.
“I am told that our first black president attended Harvard, but no one seems to have ever seen his transcripts or know what his grades were.”
He’s spent $2million+ to keep everything about his past a state secret before he became a neighborhood roganizer in Chicago.
He also told a group of Latinos last week that non-Latinos are “the enemy” His words. When has a US president ever called most of the citizens of The USA “the enemy”?
Pssst, your bias is showing.
Make your case for Whitman over Brown if thats your stance. Making sure to describe President Obama as “black president” shows your obvious bias.
Thanks, its helpful to know how to categorize your position.
No bias at all. I’m sure Mr. O’Connor also describes George Washington as “out first WHITE President…”
So the former governor who signed the state up for the Dills Act http://www.lao.ca.gov/1995/010195_calguide/cgsgov2.html
which was the beginning and nexus of the financial meltdown and current ruin we find our once fine state in deserves your endorsement for yet another pound of flesh?
Wouldn’t an ordinary whore be better than someone who is in the “back pocket” of the party apparatchik who have us by the collective throat?
Could you please explain your rational on this?
Mr. Biquitous:
I have been told that Jerry Brown is a “pragmatist” and will sternly deal with the unions and not allow himself to be pushed around.
I know, I know. It’s stupid.
But that’s what I’ve been told.
Yawn, boring and predictable…
I’m disappointed that there aren’t more recommendations especially on things that impact us locally.
For example. what about Proposition 22—Prohibit state from taking local funds—? The state takeaways have a huge impact on city and county budgets.
And who should people vote for on the San Jose Evergreen Community College District board? The community colleges are required to accomplish more because of the state cuts to the California University system. I plan to vote for Jeffrey Lease because I think we need a change in leadership.
And lastly the Santa Clara Valley Water District, one of those groups of elected officials that just epitomize dysfunction.
So for Measure C—Water district term limits—pleas vote yes. Don Gage and Linda LeZotte will bring much needed professionalism to the Board and Brian Schmidt is well regarded as well.
I’m sure there are other important issues/races that I didn’t mention, but these were gaps in your recommendations that I found noticeable.
Willow Glen Mom,
Very well said. I too would like to see local and State issues addressed in a more unbiased and intellectual way. The language in ballots is confusing and frustrating. It has gotten ridiculous. I now meet with other confused voters to try and figure it out! We all bring in research we’ve done on the issues and candidates to try and decipher through the mounds of BS we are inundated with via fliers, TV ads, media hype, politician’s misleading claims, and Robo calls. UGH~
No one writes about School Board candidates, Water District candidates, Judges, etc. Who are these people? What have they done to deserve our vote?
I agree with your endorsements of Jerry Brown, Mike Wasserman, Magdalena Carrasco, and Aaron Resendez, as well as your endorsed positions on Propostions 19-22 and 27, and Measures V and W. But some of the others seem patently ridiculous.
I mean, Gavin Newsom for Lt. Governor, seriously? An over-privileged, wanna-be celebrity, slut-humpin’ buffoon who has demonstrated utter incompetence, childish petulance, and an utter contempt for the rule of law (whatever one thinks about gay marriage, that stunt where he pretended it was legal when it wasn’t, and issued invalid marriage licenses in 2004, was the functional equivalent of a criminal conspiracy), over a mature, courageous statesman like Abel Maldonado? Seriously? Just because Maldonado has a little “R” next to his name, presumably? What a joke!
And that ridiculous person, Kamala Harris for Attorney General? Over a competent DA like Steve Cooley? I mean, like, WTF?
I guess you’re endorsing Larry Aceves because he’s a local boy (almost every other paper in the state is endorsing Tom Torlakson; they’re both liberal Democrats). But as a local media outlet, you guys should be all the more aware of Mr. Aceves’ anti-White racist public remarks, and on that basis should be sounding the call for Tom Torlakson all the more so.
I don’t blame you for endorsing Barbara Boxer, however. I’m casting a reluctant vote for Carly Fiorina myself, because I like to see the White House and the Congress in the hands of separate parties, but she’s not a very good candidate in my opinion, and at least Barbara Boxer voted against the Iraq War (along with 20 other Senatorial Democrats, and one Republican).
> I mean, Gavin Newsom for Lt. Governor, seriously? An over-privileged, wanna-be celebrity, slut-humpin’ buffoon who has demonstrated utter incompetence, childish petulance, and an utter contempt for the rule of law (whatever one thinks about gay marriage, that stunt where he pretended it was legal when it wasn’t, and issued invalid marriage licenses in 2004, was the functional equivalent of a criminal conspiracy),. . . .
Oh, THAT Gavin Newsom.
Yes. He does seem a bit ill-suited for the job.
Actually, he seems ill-suited for any job. It’s hard to even imagine him pulling the paper towels out of the urinals at Candlestick Park.
I like that the Metro only chose to endorse on some of the issues and races instead of giving people a vote card with all the choices they are supposed to make filled out for them. At least a lazy voter can still spend 10 seconds reading about a few propositions and make a hunch vote (which is usually good unless the tricksters have done a double negative proposition where no means yes and yes means no.)
After everyone and everything that is supposed to win does so, can we actually get down to business and start really talking about our problems and how we’re going to fix things? I’d like to see a real commitment to stick to some issues and work harder for fair and workable fixes instead of just doing a drive by at the ballot box every couple of years.
That’s part of the problem with our broken democratic system, everyone feels like a stakeholder (owner) but act like absentee landlords for 3 out of 4 years and only tune in when things are really bad or fun or interesting/entertaining. Government, despite all the nice talk about sunshine and transparency rarely does well if people aren’t watching it closely. They tend to do dumb things that make a few people very happy and screw everyone else.
I’ve read a lot of posts on here about broken democracy, elitists, people needing to take back their government, ending wasteful bureaucratic panels, etc…
Yet, I see quite a few of you voting no on 27. The redistricting panel is a huge scam!!! Instead of having districts drawn by the directly elected state legislatures, just at the founding fathers wanted, we’ll have a panel of unelected, overpaid bureaucrats do it. Brilliant!! At least we can vote for members of the Assembly, the people running the redistricting panel are completely unaccountable to anyone. We need more accountability in our government not less.
And, I totally agree with Kevin O’Keffe on Newsom and Harris… they are the weakest links.
> Instead of having districts drawn by the directly elected state legislatures, just at the founding fathers wanted, we’ll have a panel of unelected, overpaid bureaucrats do it.
WHAT???!!!!
The founding fathers never specified that state legislatures would draw districts.
They just assumed that the states would decide on their own the best way to draw districts that would suit the interests of their citizens.
If the states decided to have an independent redistricting panel draw districts, well, that’s the states’ business.
It’s called “federalism”.
Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Founding Fathers not only drafted the Federal Constitution they also, in many cases, drafted their state Constitutions. Take for example the Virginia State Constitution, drafted primarily by Mason and Jefferson, specifically grants redistricting authority to the General Assembly.
I was not making an argument based on federal law or precedent. I was making it on the historical grounds that the founding fathers believed in direct representational democracy even at the state level.
So yes, you are right redistricting is a state issue.
But, more importantly, you are wrong on the overall conclusion of your post.
Thank you for having the guts and courage to vote for the only people and the only issues that make sense for California.
Very few media venues would have the balls.
Good job.
State Races
Governor
Jerry Brown
United States Senate
Barbara Boxer
Lieutenant Governor
Gavin Newsom
Attorney General
Kamala Harris
Oh WOW!!!!
Are Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck going to have banner years or WHAT!!
It’s going to be WAY TOO EASY.
VOTE NO ON MEASURE V !!!! SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL FIRE DEPT! THEY NEED YOUR HELP TO KEEP SAN JOSE SAFE! DON’T CUT MORE FIREFIGHTER’S AS THE CITY CONTINUES TO GROW AND EXPAND>>>RESOURCES CANNOT BE STRETCHED BEYOND CAPABILITIES! PLEASE HELP THE MEN AND WOMEN OF SJFD!
VOTE NO ON MEASURE V!
> I was making it on the historical grounds that the founding fathers believed in direct representational democracy even at the state level.
I think you’re even wrong about this.
I least some of the founding fathers recognized the problems inherent in “direct democracy” and insisted on the system of checks and balances that avoids “direct democracy”.
“Direct democracy” is two foxes and a goose voting on what’s for dinner.
You are correct to a point, but they certainly believed that the ultimate check should be the voters. That’s why redistricting should in the hands of people who can be voted out of office. And, we aren’t talking about “direct democracy”, I’m not advocating a ballot initiative system for redistricting.
How about a statewide vote on the panels members? I would be OK with something like that. But what we don’t need is another CA state government board, commission, panel, etc… we already have dozens and dozens of useless, and overpaid, government boards and commissions.
I’ll be voting in favor of the redistricting commission because it’s better than the way it’s now done, but why not draw the district lines on a purely mathematical basis?
How about a cash prize to the person who submits a map of California divided into the required number of districts with equal population, in which the sum total of the length of all the boundaries is as small as possible. The districts would be as compact as possible. It’s a mathematical exercise and politics doesn’t come into it at all.
I like you suggestion, but city and county boundaries should also be part of the formula.
As for the better than argument, well… Mussolini made the trains run on time. I refuse to vote for something that violates the basic tenets of democracy just because it works.
John Galt: Having read many of your previous post, does that mean if the health care reform bill improves our current system you’d support it?
> but why not draw the district lines on a purely mathematical basis?
I agree. This is the fairest way to do it.
The trick is to express the redistricting algorithm in three or four clear, logical, simple English sentences.
Something like:
A. Each of the largest twenty population centers will be the center of a district.
B. Population centers larger than a single district will be divided into pie slices, each slice being a single district.
C. District boundaries will align with county lines and city lines.
D. The sum total of the length of district boundaries will be as short as possible (i.e. , a mathematical minimum).
There. Done.
By insisting that districts conform to city or county boundaries or poulation centers you’re inadvertently introducing politics to the process when the whole point should be to REMOVE politics from the process.
As for Alum Rock’s question. Would I support the health care reform bill if it improves our current system? Yes.
But do I think it WILL improve the current system? No. I know it won’t. So I’m against it.
Typical and predictable. A straight liberal recommendation. So much for “fair and balanced.” Oh wait, that’s not you guys, sorry.
Anyway, well I’m glad to see at least SOME sanity was used in this election. Looks like the vehicle tax increase (Prop 21) FAILED, the state loans (Prop 22) FAILED, the banning of business tax breaks (Prop 24) FAILED, and the 2/3 vote requirement (Prop 26) PASSED. Of course the results were completely opposite here in Santa Clara County but luckily the rest of California stood up and said NO to liberal policies.
So what does this tell you? Well, what it SHOULD tell you is that we are fed up with the liberal policies that have buried this state in the ground and continue to do so. Did you know that California ranks #2 WORST state to run a small business, second only to New York? Incredible. And you idiots want to stop tax breaks for the small businesses creating jobs. Then you wonder why all the businesses ship jobs overseas and leave the state all together. Get a clue California or continue to be the #2 worst state in the union.
> Did you know that California ranks #2 WORST state to run a small business, second only to New York? Incredible. And you idiots want to stop tax breaks for the small businesses creating jobs. Then you wonder why all the businesses ship jobs overseas and leave the state all together. Get a clue California or continue to be the #2 worst state in the union.
You do realize, don’t you, Mr. Cosgrove, that you’re talking to a bunch of lunkheads.
The Chamber of Commerce ratings on business “friendly” are BS. If CA is such a bad place to run a business, why do we have some many successful companies in the state??? How many Fortune 500 companies do we have in the Bay Area alone?? Now compare that to the entire state of Alabama, or Georgia, or Mississippi, all of which are at the much, much lower on the list.
> The only reason the big tech companies are here is because it’s Silicon Valley, that’s the only reason. All of the jobs are outsourced to India and most of their actual work is done out of state so they’re not paying any taxes.
As I suggested, Mr. Cosgrove, you’re talking to lunkheads.
If the lunkhead community were ever receptive to actual real world information, they might learn something if they would drive by the former IBM disk drive plant and division headquarters on Cottle Road in south San Jose. It is now basically an empty field. Where are the 5,000 high tech jobs that that formerly existed on that site?
Maybe they are working at the thousands of hydrogen vehicle refueling stations up and down the state.
No. Wait. There aren’t any hydrogen vehicle refueling stations.
Well, then. Maybe they are working at one of the zillions of new “green jobs” in the solar energy economy.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_16517629?IADID
“Fremont solar panel maker Solyndra scales back expansion plans”
. . .
“Solyndra also will, over the next several weeks, eliminate 155 to 175 jobs in Fremont. That includes 135 contract employees and 20 to 40 full-time workers, said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.”
Ooooops.
Nope. Not there.
Well, in any case, since the lunkheads are so sure that California has a wonderful business environment, I’m sure that other states must be doing even worse than California.
AlumRock, are you really that dumb? As a small business owner myself, I know for a fact that California is the worst state to run a small business and I don’t need a “rating” to tell me that. All I need to do is look at all the ridiculous fees and regulations that are imposed on my business to see that. A regressive $800 per year flat “tax” that’s not a tax (according to the state) but not a fee that you can deduct on your taxes either (according to the state.) So what is it then? Who knows! But you better believe you have to pay it and you can’t deduct it. And what’s even better: you have to pay this fee/tax/thing regardless if you lost money that year or made $1 million. That’ just one example among thousands.
You think California is such a great business friendly state? Tell that to the THOUSANDS of businesses who leave California each year. The only reason the big tech companies are here is because it’s Silicon Valley, that’s the only reason. All of the jobs are outsourced to India and most of their actual work is done out of state so they’re not paying any taxes.
We used to get more than half of our state funding from business taxes 40 years ago. Today, we get less than 8%. Ya, that sounds like a great, business friendly state. Get a clue “Alum Rock” and learn a thing or two next time before opening your mouth.