Change Details

This is a guide for voting in California, skewed even further to Irvine 'cause that's where I, @keithzg, vote. ---- == Ballot Propositions == === Proposition 14: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for state stem cell research institute** Governmental funding of research is always a tempting prospect, all the moreso as we stare down future economic woes **and** a continued push by the religious right in America to deny funding for such research otherwise. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 15: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property.** An old proposition 13 back in made property tax valuations in California deeply weird. Taxes are only reassessed for a property when it is sold, not on any sort of regular schedule, and the maximum rate increase per year is 2%. This is already a bit weird for individuals and has the possibility of creating some major inequities; the black family in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air invariably was paying much higher property taxes than their white neighbors who had been in the neighborhood longer, to give a pop culture example soas to seem quirky at first before the ugliness unspools in the imagination. But it gets much, much worse when you consider that //corporations can live forever//. Barring the San Andreas fault or sweeping fires demolishing a property, the divergence between current market value and the taxes a corporation is paying on a property could literally diverge forever. I have the impression that the old prop 13 was sold as a "don't force old people out of their homes!" measure, and it is perhaps with that sort of counter-anecdote in mind that this proposition does not modify how property taxes are handled for //residential// properties, merely for commercial and industrial properties. In fact it still only applies to properties worth over $3000000000. There are corporations that still pay a rate based on at most 2%-per-year increased from 1975, despite the vastly higher level of inflation (at multiple levels!) on their properties. And even just the //initial// rollback in 1979 back to 1975 prices put many local governments into crisis: > After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in 1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition 13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the state $4.85 billion. Staring down a financial crisis as we are right now, and with municipalities and counties generally underfunded as it is, it seems prudent to do the opposite of the Reagan era of American politics. And this initiative is such a targeted slice of a repeal it even retains arguable upsides of the status quo. Read more at: * [[ https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf | California Property Tax by the California State Board of Equalization ]] * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 16: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.** Much like with Prop 15 immediately above, this undoes an existing applied prop in California, in this case one that was ostensibly banning discrimination. That sounds good, but federal law already has protections against many forms of discrimination (admittedly at least for now; the increasingly solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court puts that in a bit of jeopardy), so the existing ban pretty much only disallows affirmative action. [[ https://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajud.assembly.ca.gov/files/Background%20Paper%20-%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Public%20Contracting%20Since%20Proposition%20209.pdf | As a California justice put it ]], > The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.' Or that is to say, the main outcome of the California law as stands is a ban on affirmative action. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 17: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term.** Lets one-up Florida by //actually// restoring the voting rights of ex-convicts, eh? I mean admittedly California already goes beyond Florida; this would merely mean that folks on parole would also be able to vote. But considering how the modern carceral state operates, that's a very non-trivial number of people. Giving the state the ability to take away voting rights is iffy at best; lets roll this level back too. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Persons_on_Parole_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 18: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and be Otherwise Eligible to Vote.** The only thing I'm torn on with this measure is whether it's absolutely //perfect// that this is Proposition 18, or if it would have been even better if it was Proposition 17. Either way, I think it's pretty established at this point that letting younger folks vote is better for democracy---particularly from a progressive perspective---so I'm all for this. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_18,_Primary_Voting_for_17-Year-Olds_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 19: {icon times, color=yellow} No? === **Changes Certain Property Tax Rules.** The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow. They've probably gamed this out and figure it'll be great for them in some devious way. It certainly //sounds// promising, but as a blogger over at the Orange Juice Blog wrote, > I can’t trust that one of their smart lawyers hasn’t figures out a way to get something terrible into the fine print Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_19,_Property_Tax_Transfers,_Exemptions,_and_Revenue_for_Wildfire_Agencies_and_Counties_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 20: {icon times, color=red} No === **Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.** Yeah sure, because California's prison system isn't overcrowded already. Yeesh. Not only does this expand the range of felony charges (theft as low as $250 could now be a felony), but it increases DNA sample grabbing and storage. As a fan of dystopias in fiction but not reality, I'm going solidly with No here. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 21: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.** There are folks out there that argue rent control causes more issues than it solves. Those people are appealing to the idea that the free market can sort such things out; well okay then, so lets pass this proposition and allow cities to set rent controls if they want and see how it plays out! California is more populous than the entire country of Canada; lets get some natural experiments going, shall we? Furthermore, remember from Prop 15 that property taxes are //already// controlled; if the taxes landlords are paying aren't tied to the market, why should rent be mandated to be by law? And there's an exemption for "individuals who own no more than two homes" and still "in accordance with California law, prohibits rent control from violating landlords’ right to fair financial return", so things aren't even going to change //too// much. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 22: {icon times, color=red} No === An attempt by gig economy VC-backed firms like Uber to do an end-run around legislation that would force them to actually treat employees fairly rather than pretending they're "independent contractors", this proposition stands a dangerous chance of succeeding because on the face of it it sounds like it helps people. It's really just to preempt better, deeper help and restructuring of employment laws, which is why [[ https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128 | the Yes campaign is so heavily funded ]] (not to mention some [[ https://twitter.com/codehawkfalcon/status/1310658358425264128 | pretty direct advocacy ]]). The CA Dems are against it; the CA GOP is for it. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 23: ? === === Proposition 24: ? === === Proposition 25: ? === --- == President and Vice President == === {icon check, color=green} Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman, Peace and Freedom Party === Look, we're talking about voting in California. If [[ 2020_u.s._presidential_election/candidates/joe_biden/ ]] doesn't win California by a landslide, something's seriously wrong and weird. Conversely if he does, a vote for a third party is at least a weak signal that there's votes out there he didn't earn. And boy howdy does he not deserve our votes. So cast instead for a platform that, from an objective perspective, looks pretty decent. That leaves the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party as the remaining options. Reading official releases from the La Riva / Freeman campaign, like their [[ https://www.lariva2020.org/socialist_response_to_the_debate | response to the first Biden/Trump debate ]], I find myself nodding along in a way that Democratic national campaigns rarely manage; Democratic candidates can't even talk the talk comparatively. Is La Riva a bit of a tankie? Sure, and apologia for repressive regimes is always a bit off-putting, and probably the only area in which I can find much potential disagreement with her. But stanning for Cuba is objectively probably better than for America, considering all that America has done to Cuba (here's just [[ https://twitter.com/Americas_Crimes/status/1313613781507944450 | one random example ]]), so from a balanced perspective she's being a lot less objectionable than literally 99.9% of American politicians. You could vote Green too. There's some worries about Republicans strategically backing the Green Party, and certainly there's been some dirty tricks by Republicans and Democrats using the Green Party as a pawn (or in the case of Republicans, sometimes a Trojan horse, although the Greens will argue that they've caught such cynical candidate insertions). But the weird flipside of the "well hey at least Biden is better than Trump" that starts to be compelling in swing states is that voting for a third party presidential ticket in a non-swing state is so purely symbolic that in a way it doesn't matter //beyond// the symbolism. Still, I know enough about La Riva's politics to believe she's wholly sincere. Plus when people go "oh you're one of those Green Party voters" you can be like naw my party preference is pretty obscure, you probably haven't heard of it. Still I won't claim it's an easy choice. If the Greens get 5% nationally they theoretically get some upsides, like federal funding and access to the debates; no chance of that with the Peace and Freedom party, which is running in even fewer states than the Greens. And Hawkins can [[ https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vcmFkaW9hdGxhbnRpYw&ep=14&episode=ODVlYzQ0M2MtZWM4OS0xMWVhLTlkNTAtMWZkNzU0OWI2OTI0 | make a decent case for himself, and for third-party candidates in general in the American system, when given the chance ]]. Among his points is that (a) a third party in America needs to win first at lower, more local levels, but that (b) the systems in many states make that very, very hard for parties that aren't "major" parties to run such candidates at all, and this is often solved by meeting the criteria of having a presidential candidate. In terms of differences between La Riva and Hawkins, there's been some sniping back and forth, with the perhaps surprising nuance of [[ http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/campaign/election-2020/candidates/howie-hawkins-2020/1559-howie-hawkins-psl-bernie-sanders | Hawkins arguing against the idea of supporting Bernie Sanders if he gained the Democratic nomination ]], and [[ http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/campaign/election-2020/candidates/howie-hawkins-2020/1560-gloria-la-riva-response-howie-hawkins-psl | La Riva arguing for endorsing a potential Sanders ticket ]]. So while one might assume La Riva was the more devoted radical, it's the more mainstream and prominent Hawkins and Green Party that are trying to hold more stringently to principle over practicality in at least one (now sadly retroactively theoretical) area. All in all, while I'm leaning towards La Riva currently, and there are definitely some different implications to either choice, voting for either is fine as a protest vote. And with the electoral college how it is, a protest vote is all one really gets in California. --- == U.S. House of Representatives == === 45th District: {icon check, color=green} Katie Porter === Recently, Porter got wide attention for her grilling of a pharmacy company CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYvW4pm0_fI In R-leaning swing districts Dems *can* routinely run candidates like Porter and win handily, getting votes even from jaded commies like me, and that they usually don't is all the proof you really need that the party at an institutional level doesn't actually mean what it says. Equivalents of the whiteboard schtick here, sure, dime a dozen in congress; having something even approaching clear-eyed analysis of inequality and the incentives that exacerbate it, though? That's the best way to win swing districts **and** the thing that most scares the party. Anyways, vote to re-elect Porter, I say. Try and make it harder for the party institutions to keep pushing for uninspiring centrists as their nominees in Republican-leaning districts, and keep a pretty decent congressperson in the House while you're at it. --- == Nonpartisan Elections: City == === Garden Grove Mayor: ? === I don't actually vote in Garden Grove, but I happened to run across a campaign video for a mayoral candidate for Garden Grove and it's . . . a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Yu1stElPM Should you actually vote for Phat Bui? Even if you found that video charming more than cringeworthy and smacking of cold-war jingoism, probably not. He's [[ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/08/12/garden-grove-planning-commissioner-arrested-kicked-off-post/ | defended a planning commissioner allegedly being extremely sleazy (and not for the first time) ]], He's also [[ https://voiceofoc.org/2020/08/garden-grove-to-offer-city-staff-and-leaders-social-bias-training-amid-recent-criticism/ | strenuously defended the police, including explicitly promising never to reduce funding ]] (although on the other hand, if not just as a political tactic, calling the proposed training inadequate is . . . probably accurate). So if by some weird quirk of circumstance you're reading this and voting in Garden Grove and yet also don't know far more about the goings-on in local politics there than I do, probably don't vote for this guy? I dunno I just came across this video and felt like I couldn't just let it go. --- == Judges == I don't see any option to vote for judges on my ballot. Maybe it's because the one person up seems to be running unopposed? Either way it's unfortunate because I remember Tony Ferrentino being terrible, and he's [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/orange-county/ | perfectly rated by the Judge Voter Guide crazies ]] and running unopposed. Bah! --- == External Links == * https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/09/2020-vote-info-1-indexlinks-introduction-calendar/ * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ * I could have sworn the right-wing group Judicial Watch had a guide last time around, which I used as a nice reverse-endorsement guide; vote the opposite of the right-wing ghouls and you're golden, I figure. Maybe I was mixing that up with the one I //did// find this time around, [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/ | Judge Voter Guide ]], which does at least seem similarly thorough and insane.

This is a guide for voting in California, skewed even further to Irvine 'cause that's where I, @keithzg, vote. ---- == Ballot Propositions == === Proposition 14: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for state stem cell research institute** Governmental funding of research is always a tempting prospect, all the moreso as we stare down future economic woes **and** a continued push by the religious right in America to deny funding for such research otherwise. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 15: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property.** An old proposition 13 back in made property tax valuations in California deeply weird. Taxes are only reassessed for a property when it is sold, not on any sort of regular schedule, and the maximum rate increase per year is 2%. This is already a bit weird for individuals and has the possibility of creating some major inequities; the black family in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air invariably was paying much higher property taxes than their white neighbors who had been in the neighborhood longer, to give a pop culture example soas to seem quirky at first before the ugliness unspools in the imagination. But it gets much, much worse when you consider that //corporations can live forever//. Barring the San Andreas fault or sweeping fires demolishing a property, the divergence between current market value and the taxes a corporation is paying on a property could literally diverge forever. I have the impression that the old prop 13 was sold as a "don't force old people out of their homes!" measure, and it is perhaps with that sort of counter-anecdote in mind that this proposition does not modify how property taxes are handled for //residential// properties, merely for commercial and industrial properties. In fact it still only applies to properties worth over $3000000000. There are corporations that still pay a rate based on at most 2%-per-year increased from 1975, despite the vastly higher level of inflation (at multiple levels!) on their properties. And even just the //initial// rollback in 1979 back to 1975 prices put many local governments into crisis: > After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in 1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition 13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the state $4.85 billion. Staring down a financial crisis as we are right now, and with municipalities and counties generally underfunded as it is, it seems prudent to do the opposite of the Reagan era of American politics. And this initiative is such a targeted slice of a repeal it even retains arguable upsides of the status quo. Read more at: * [[ https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf | California Property Tax by the California State Board of Equalization ]] * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 16: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.** Much like with Prop 15 immediately above, this undoes an existing applied prop in California, in this case one that was ostensibly banning discrimination. That sounds good, but federal law already has protections against many forms of discrimination (admittedly at least for now; the increasingly solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court puts that in a bit of jeopardy), so the existing ban pretty much only disallows affirmative action. [[ https://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajud.assembly.ca.gov/files/Background%20Paper%20-%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Public%20Contracting%20Since%20Proposition%20209.pdf | As a California justice put it ]], > The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.' Or that is to say, the main outcome of the California law as stands is a ban on affirmative action. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 17: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term.** Lets one-up Florida by //actually// restoring the voting rights of ex-convicts, eh? I mean admittedly California already goes beyond Florida; this would merely mean that folks on parole would also be able to vote. But considering how the modern carceral state operates, that's a very non-trivial number of people. Giving the state the ability to take away voting rights is iffy at best; lets roll this level back too. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Persons_on_Parole_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 18: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and be Otherwise Eligible to Vote.** The only thing I'm torn on with this measure is whether it's absolutely //perfect// that this is Proposition 18, or if it would have been even better if it was Proposition 17. Either way, I think it's pretty established at this point that letting younger folks vote is better for democracy---particularly from a progressive perspective---so I'm all for this. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_18,_Primary_Voting_for_17-Year-Olds_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 19: {icon times, color=yellow} No? === **Changes Certain Property Tax Rules.** The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow. They've probably gamed this out and figure it'll be great for them in some devious way. It certainly //sounds// promising, but as a blogger over at the Orange Juice Blog wrote, > I can’t trust that one of their smart lawyers hasn’t figures out a way to get something terrible into the fine print On the other hand, the [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Jarvis | Howard Jarvis ]] folks seem to be against it, so maybe it indeed is good? Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_19,_Property_Tax_Transfers,_Exemptions,_and_Revenue_for_Wildfire_Agencies_and_Counties_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 20: {icon times, color=red} No === **Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.** Yeah sure, because California's prison system isn't overcrowded already. Yeesh. Not only does this expand the range of felony charges (theft as low as $250 could now be a felony), but it increases DNA sample grabbing and storage. As a fan of dystopias in fiction but not reality, I'm going solidly with No here. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 21: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.** There are folks out there that argue rent control causes more issues than it solves. Those people are appealing to the idea that the free market can sort such things out; well okay then, so lets pass this proposition and allow cities to set rent controls if they want and see how it plays out! California is more populous than the entire country of Canada; lets get some natural experiments going, shall we? Furthermore, remember from Prop 15 that property taxes are //already// controlled; if the taxes landlords are paying aren't tied to the market, why should rent be mandated to be by law? And there's an exemption for "individuals who own no more than two homes" and still "in accordance with California law, prohibits rent control from violating landlords’ right to fair financial return", so things aren't even going to change //too// much. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 22: {icon times, color=red} No === An attempt by gig economy VC-backed firms like Uber to do an end-run around legislation that would force them to actually treat employees fairly rather than pretending they're "independent contractors", this proposition stands a dangerous chance of succeeding because on the face of it it sounds like it helps people. It's really just to preempt better, deeper help and restructuring of employment laws, which is why [[ https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128 | the Yes campaign is so heavily funded ]] (not to mention some [[ https://twitter.com/codehawkfalcon/status/1310658358425264128 | pretty direct advocacy ]]). The CA Dems are against it; the CA GOP is for it. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 23: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.** Quoting again [[ http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ | Greg Diamond at the Orange Juice Blog ]], > Again, look back up at the graphic showing funding. Just the two largest for-profit dialysis clinics alone — who have been accused of poor sanitary conditions, poor working conditions, and much else — have already poured in $86 million to fight against having to keep a medical doctor on hand while they operating. Read more at: * https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_Clinic_Requirements_Initiative_(2020) === Proposition 24: {icon check, color=green} Yes === === Proposition 25: {icon check, color=green} Yes === --- == President and Vice President == === {icon check, color=green} Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman, Peace and Freedom Party === Look, we're talking about voting in California. If [[ 2020_u.s._presidential_election/candidates/joe_biden/ ]] doesn't win California by a landslide, something's seriously wrong and weird. Conversely if he does, a vote for a third party is at least a weak signal that there's votes out there he didn't earn. And boy howdy does he not deserve our votes. So cast instead for a platform that, from an objective perspective, looks pretty decent. That leaves the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party as the remaining options. Reading official releases from the La Riva / Freeman campaign, like their [[ https://www.lariva2020.org/socialist_response_to_the_debate | response to the first Biden/Trump debate ]], I find myself nodding along in a way that Democratic national campaigns rarely manage; Democratic candidates can't even talk the talk comparatively. Is La Riva a bit of a tankie? Sure, and apologia for repressive regimes is always a bit off-putting, and probably the only area in which I can find much potential disagreement with her. But stanning for Cuba is objectively probably better than for America, considering all that America has done to Cuba (here's just [[ https://twitter.com/Americas_Crimes/status/1313613781507944450 | one random example ]]), so from a balanced perspective she's being a lot less objectionable than literally 99.9% of American politicians. You could vote Green too. There's some worries about Republicans strategically backing the Green Party, and certainly there's been some dirty tricks by Republicans and Democrats using the Green Party as a pawn (or in the case of Republicans, sometimes a Trojan horse, although the Greens will argue that they've caught such cynical candidate insertions). But the weird flipside of the "well hey at least Biden is better than Trump" that starts to be compelling in swing states is that voting for a third party presidential ticket in a non-swing state is so purely symbolic that in a way it doesn't matter //beyond// the symbolism. Still, I know enough about La Riva's politics to believe she's wholly sincere. Plus when people go "oh you're one of those Green Party voters" you can be like naw my party preference is pretty obscure, you probably haven't heard of it. Still I won't claim it's an easy choice. If the Greens get 5% nationally they theoretically get some upsides, like federal funding and access to the debates; no chance of that with the Peace and Freedom party, which is running in even fewer states than the Greens. And Hawkins can [[ https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vcmFkaW9hdGxhbnRpYw&ep=14&episode=ODVlYzQ0M2MtZWM4OS0xMWVhLTlkNTAtMWZkNzU0OWI2OTI0 | make a decent case for himself, and for third-party candidates in general in the American system, when given the chance ]]. Among his points is that (a) a third party in America needs to win first at lower, more local levels, but that (b) the systems in many states make that very, very hard for parties that aren't "major" parties to run such candidates at all, and this is often solved by meeting the criteria of having a presidential candidate. In terms of differences between La Riva and Hawkins, there's been some sniping back and forth, with the perhaps surprising nuance of [[ http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/campaign/election-2020/candidates/howie-hawkins-2020/1559-howie-hawkins-psl-bernie-sanders | Hawkins arguing against the idea of supporting Bernie Sanders if he gained the Democratic nomination ]], and [[ http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/campaign/election-2020/candidates/howie-hawkins-2020/1560-gloria-la-riva-response-howie-hawkins-psl | La Riva arguing for endorsing a potential Sanders ticket ]]. So while one might assume La Riva was the more devoted radical, it's the more mainstream and prominent Hawkins and Green Party that are trying to hold more stringently to principle over practicality in at least one (now sadly retroactively theoretical) area. All in all, while I'm leaning towards La Riva currently, and there are definitely some different implications to either choice, voting for either is fine as a protest vote. And with the electoral college how it is, a protest vote is all one really gets in California. --- == U.S. House of Representatives == === 45th District: {icon check, color=green} Katie Porter === Recently, Porter got wide attention for her grilling of a pharmacy company CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYvW4pm0_fI In R-leaning swing districts Dems *can* routinely run candidates like Porter and win handily, getting votes even from jaded commies like me, and that they usually don't is all the proof you really need that the party at an institutional level doesn't actually mean what it says. Equivalents of the whiteboard schtick here, sure, dime a dozen in congress; having something even approaching clear-eyed analysis of inequality and the incentives that exacerbate it, though? That's the best way to win swing districts **and** the thing that most scares the party. Anyways, vote to re-elect Porter, I say. Try and make it harder for the party institutions to keep pushing for uninspiring centrists as their nominees in Republican-leaning districts, and keep a pretty decent congressperson in the House while you're at it. --- == Nonpartisan Elections: City == === Garden Grove Mayor: ? === I don't actually vote in Garden Grove, but I happened to run across a campaign video for a mayoral candidate for Garden Grove and it's . . . a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Yu1stElPM Should you actually vote for Phat Bui? Even if you found that video charming more than cringeworthy and smacking of cold-war jingoism, probably not. He's [[ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/08/12/garden-grove-planning-commissioner-arrested-kicked-off-post/ | defended a planning commissioner allegedly being extremely sleazy (and not for the first time) ]], He's also [[ https://voiceofoc.org/2020/08/garden-grove-to-offer-city-staff-and-leaders-social-bias-training-amid-recent-criticism/ | strenuously defended the police, including explicitly promising never to reduce funding ]] (although on the other hand, if not just as a political tactic, calling the proposed training inadequate is . . . probably accurate). So if by some weird quirk of circumstance you're reading this and voting in Garden Grove and yet also don't know far more about the goings-on in local politics there than I do, probably don't vote for this guy? I dunno I just came across this video and felt like I couldn't just let it go. --- == Judges == I don't see any option to vote for judges on my ballot. Maybe it's because the one person up seems to be running unopposed? Either way it's unfortunate because I remember Tony Ferrentino being terrible, and he's [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/orange-county/ | perfectly rated by the Judge Voter Guide crazies ]] and running unopposed. Bah! --- == External Links == * https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/09/2020-vote-info-1-indexlinks-introduction-calendar/ * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ * I could have sworn the right-wing group Judicial Watch had a guide last time around, which I used as a nice reverse-endorsement guide; vote the opposite of the right-wing ghouls and you're golden, I figure. Maybe I was mixing that up with the one I //did// find this time around, [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/ | Judge Voter Guide ]], which does at least seem similarly thorough and insane.

This is a guide for voting in California, skewed even further to Irvine 'cause that's where I, @keithzg, vote. ---- == Ballot Propositions == === Proposition 14: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for state stem cell research institute** Governmental funding of research is always a tempting prospect, all the moreso as we stare down future economic woes **and** a continued push by the religious right in America to deny funding for such research otherwise. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 15: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property.** An old proposition 13 back in made property tax valuations in California deeply weird. Taxes are only reassessed for a property when it is sold, not on any sort of regular schedule, and the maximum rate increase per year is 2%. This is already a bit weird for individuals and has the possibility of creating some major inequities; the black family in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air invariably was paying much higher property taxes than their white neighbors who had been in the neighborhood longer, to give a pop culture example soas to seem quirky at first before the ugliness unspools in the imagination. But it gets much, much worse when you consider that //corporations can live forever//. Barring the San Andreas fault or sweeping fires demolishing a property, the divergence between current market value and the taxes a corporation is paying on a property could literally diverge forever. I have the impression that the old prop 13 was sold as a "don't force old people out of their homes!" measure, and it is perhaps with that sort of counter-anecdote in mind that this proposition does not modify how property taxes are handled for //residential// properties, merely for commercial and industrial properties. In fact it still only applies to properties worth over $3000000000. There are corporations that still pay a rate based on at most 2%-per-year increased from 1975, despite the vastly higher level of inflation (at multiple levels!) on their properties. And even just the //initial// rollback in 1979 back to 1975 prices put many local governments into crisis: > After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in 1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition 13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the state $4.85 billion. Staring down a financial crisis as we are right now, and with municipalities and counties generally underfunded as it is, it seems prudent to do the opposite of the Reagan era of American politics. And this initiative is such a targeted slice of a repeal it even retains arguable upsides of the status quo. Read more at: * [[ https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf | California Property Tax by the California State Board of Equalization ]] * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 16: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.** Much like with Prop 15 immediately above, this undoes an existing applied prop in California, in this case one that was ostensibly banning discrimination. That sounds good, but federal law already has protections against many forms of discrimination (admittedly at least for now; the increasingly solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court puts that in a bit of jeopardy), so the existing ban pretty much only disallows affirmative action. [[ https://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajud.assembly.ca.gov/files/Background%20Paper%20-%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Public%20Contracting%20Since%20Proposition%20209.pdf | As a California justice put it ]], > The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.' Or that is to say, the main outcome of the California law as stands is a ban on affirmative action. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 17: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term.** Lets one-up Florida by //actually// restoring the voting rights of ex-convicts, eh? I mean admittedly California already goes beyond Florida; this would merely mean that folks on parole would also be able to vote. But considering how the modern carceral state operates, that's a very non-trivial number of people. Giving the state the ability to take away voting rights is iffy at best; lets roll this level back too. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Persons_on_Parole_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 18: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and be Otherwise Eligible to Vote.** The only thing I'm torn on with this measure is whether it's absolutely //perfect// that this is Proposition 18, or if it would have been even better if it was Proposition 17. Either way, I think it's pretty established at this point that letting younger folks vote is better for democracy---particularly from a progressive perspective---so I'm all for this. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_18,_Primary_Voting_for_17-Year-Olds_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 19: {icon times, color=yellow} No? === **Changes Certain Property Tax Rules.** The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow. They've probably gamed this out and figure it'll be great for them in some devious way. It certainly //sounds// promising, but as a blogger over at the Orange Juice Blog wrote, > I can’t trust that one of their smart lawyers hasn’t figures out a way to get something terrible into the fine print On the other hand, the [[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Jarvis | Howard Jarvis ]] folks seem to be against it, so maybe it indeed is good? Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_19,_Property_Tax_Transfers,_Exemptions,_and_Revenue_for_Wildfire_Agencies_and_Counties_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 20: {icon times, color=red} No === **Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.** Yeah sure, because California's prison system isn't overcrowded already. Yeesh. Not only does this expand the range of felony charges (theft as low as $250 could now be a felony), but it increases DNA sample grabbing and storage. As a fan of dystopias in fiction but not reality, I'm going solidly with No here. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 21: {icon check, color=green} Yes === **Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property.** There are folks out there that argue rent control causes more issues than it solves. Those people are appealing to the idea that the free market can sort such things out; well okay then, so lets pass this proposition and allow cities to set rent controls if they want and see how it plays out! California is more populous than the entire country of Canada; lets get some natural experiments going, shall we? Furthermore, remember from Prop 15 that property taxes are //already// controlled; if the taxes landlords are paying aren't tied to the market, why should rent be mandated to be by law? And there's an exemption for "individuals who own no more than two homes" and still "in accordance with California law, prohibits rent control from violating landlords’ right to fair financial return", so things aren't even going to change //too// much. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 22: {icon times, color=red} No === An attempt by gig economy VC-backed firms like Uber to do an end-run around legislation that would force them to actually treat employees fairly rather than pretending they're "independent contractors", this proposition stands a dangerous chance of succeeding because on the face of it it sounds like it helps people. It's really just to preempt better, deeper help and restructuring of employment laws, which is why [[ https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128 | the Yes campaign is so heavily funded ]] (not to mention some [[ https://twitter.com/codehawkfalcon/status/1310658358425264128 | pretty direct advocacy ]]). The CA Dems are against it; the CA GOP is for it. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 23: ?{icon check, color=green} Yes === **Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. ===Requires On-Site Medical Professional.** === Proposition 24: ?Quoting again [[ http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ | Greg Diamond at the Orange Juice Blog ]], > Again, look back up at the graphic showing funding. Just the two largest for-profit dialysis clinics alone — who have been accused of poor sanitary conditions, poor working conditions, ===and much else — have already poured in $86 million to fight against having to keep a medical doctor on hand while they operating. Read more at: * https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Dialysis_Clinic_Requirements_Initiative_(2020) === Proposition 25: ?4: {icon check, color=green} Yes === === Proposition 25: {icon check, color=green} Yes === --- == President and Vice President == === {icon check, color=green} Gloria La Riva and Sunil Freeman, Peace and Freedom Party === Look, we're talking about voting in California. If [[ 2020_u.s._presidential_election/candidates/joe_biden/ ]] doesn't win California by a landslide, something's seriously wrong and weird. Conversely if he does, a vote for a third party is at least a weak signal that there's votes out there he didn't earn. And boy howdy does he not deserve our votes. So cast instead for a platform that, from an objective perspective, looks pretty decent. That leaves the Peace and Freedom Party and the Green Party as the remaining options. Reading official releases from the La Riva / Freeman campaign, like their [[ https://www.lariva2020.org/socialist_response_to_the_debate | response to the first Biden/Trump debate ]], I find myself nodding along in a way that Democratic national campaigns rarely manage; Democratic candidates can't even talk the talk comparatively. Is La Riva a bit of a tankie? Sure, and apologia for repressive regimes is always a bit off-putting, and probably the only area in which I can find much potential disagreement with her. But stanning for Cuba is objectively probably better than for America, considering all that America has done to Cuba (here's just [[ https://twitter.com/Americas_Crimes/status/1313613781507944450 | one random example ]]), so from a balanced perspective she's being a lot less objectionable than literally 99.9% of American politicians. You could vote Green too. There's some worries about Republicans strategically backing the Green Party, and certainly there's been some dirty tricks by Republicans and Democrats using the Green Party as a pawn (or in the case of Republicans, sometimes a Trojan horse, although the Greens will argue that they've caught such cynical candidate insertions). But the weird flipside of the "well hey at least Biden is better than Trump" that starts to be compelling in swing states is that voting for a third party presidential ticket in a non-swing state is so purely symbolic that in a way it doesn't matter //beyond// the symbolism. Still, I know enough about La Riva's politics to believe she's wholly sincere. Plus when people go "oh you're one of those Green Party voters" you can be like naw my party preference is pretty obscure, you probably haven't heard of it. Still I won't claim it's an easy choice. If the Greens get 5% nationally they theoretically get some upsides, like federal funding and access to the debates; no chance of that with the Peace and Freedom party, which is running in even fewer states than the Greens. And Hawkins can [[ https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vcmFkaW9hdGxhbnRpYw&ep=14&episode=ODVlYzQ0M2MtZWM4OS0xMWVhLTlkNTAtMWZkNzU0OWI2OTI0 | make a decent case for himself, and for third-party candidates in general in the American system, when given the chance ]]. Among his points is that (a) a third party in America needs to win first at lower, more local levels, but that (b) the systems in many states make that very, very hard for parties that aren't "major" parties to run such candidates at all, and this is often solved by meeting the criteria of having a presidential candidate. In terms of differences between La Riva and Hawkins, there's been some sniping back and forth, with the perhaps surprising nuance of [[ http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/campaign/election-2020/candidates/howie-hawkins-2020/1559-howie-hawkins-psl-bernie-sanders | Hawkins arguing against the idea of supporting Bernie Sanders if he gained the Democratic nomination ]], and [[ http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/national/campaign/election-2020/candidates/howie-hawkins-2020/1560-gloria-la-riva-response-howie-hawkins-psl | La Riva arguing for endorsing a potential Sanders ticket ]]. So while one might assume La Riva was the more devoted radical, it's the more mainstream and prominent Hawkins and Green Party that are trying to hold more stringently to principle over practicality in at least one (now sadly retroactively theoretical) area. All in all, while I'm leaning towards La Riva currently, and there are definitely some different implications to either choice, voting for either is fine as a protest vote. And with the electoral college how it is, a protest vote is all one really gets in California. --- == U.S. House of Representatives == === 45th District: {icon check, color=green} Katie Porter === Recently, Porter got wide attention for her grilling of a pharmacy company CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYvW4pm0_fI In R-leaning swing districts Dems *can* routinely run candidates like Porter and win handily, getting votes even from jaded commies like me, and that they usually don't is all the proof you really need that the party at an institutional level doesn't actually mean what it says. Equivalents of the whiteboard schtick here, sure, dime a dozen in congress; having something even approaching clear-eyed analysis of inequality and the incentives that exacerbate it, though? That's the best way to win swing districts **and** the thing that most scares the party. Anyways, vote to re-elect Porter, I say. Try and make it harder for the party institutions to keep pushing for uninspiring centrists as their nominees in Republican-leaning districts, and keep a pretty decent congressperson in the House while you're at it. --- == Nonpartisan Elections: City == === Garden Grove Mayor: ? === I don't actually vote in Garden Grove, but I happened to run across a campaign video for a mayoral candidate for Garden Grove and it's . . . a lot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Yu1stElPM Should you actually vote for Phat Bui? Even if you found that video charming more than cringeworthy and smacking of cold-war jingoism, probably not. He's [[ https://www.ocregister.com/2020/08/12/garden-grove-planning-commissioner-arrested-kicked-off-post/ | defended a planning commissioner allegedly being extremely sleazy (and not for the first time) ]], He's also [[ https://voiceofoc.org/2020/08/garden-grove-to-offer-city-staff-and-leaders-social-bias-training-amid-recent-criticism/ | strenuously defended the police, including explicitly promising never to reduce funding ]] (although on the other hand, if not just as a political tactic, calling the proposed training inadequate is . . . probably accurate). So if by some weird quirk of circumstance you're reading this and voting in Garden Grove and yet also don't know far more about the goings-on in local politics there than I do, probably don't vote for this guy? I dunno I just came across this video and felt like I couldn't just let it go. --- == Judges == I don't see any option to vote for judges on my ballot. Maybe it's because the one person up seems to be running unopposed? Either way it's unfortunate because I remember Tony Ferrentino being terrible, and he's [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/orange-county/ | perfectly rated by the Judge Voter Guide crazies ]] and running unopposed. Bah! --- == External Links == * https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/09/2020-vote-info-1-indexlinks-introduction-calendar/ * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ * I could have sworn the right-wing group Judicial Watch had a guide last time around, which I used as a nice reverse-endorsement guide; vote the opposite of the right-wing ghouls and you're golden, I figure. Maybe I was mixing that up with the one I //did// find this time around, [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/ | Judge Voter Guide ]], which does at least seem similarly thorough and insane.