Scott Richards’s Picks
November 2, 2010
California General Election
About Scott: I am a Christian conservative who has spent many years involved behind the scenes in politics researching candidates and issues. How the game of politics and campaigning really work, the truth, the tricks and lies to win. My “Picks” reflect a viewpoint that is pro-life, pro-family, pro-constitution, pro-choice in education, and limited government in both size and in spending. I generally do not recommend anyone from the Democratic Party, as it does not reflect the values and issues I support as a Christian. The democratic party platform supports abortion and most democrat candidates even support “Partial-Birth Abortion” The Democratic Party supports same-sex marriage. On just those two issues (and there’s many more), I could not support or align myself with a party or candidate with those views.
As Election Day draws near, what you have to ask is whether or not your vote will keep the worse candidate out of office. We must use our vote not to make a statement, but to help bring about the most acceptable results under the circumstances. Some people, faced with two unacceptable candidates, may be tempted not to vote at all. But that is still a choice, and we are still responsible for the consequences of not voting. I feel it is acceptable to vote for the candidate who will do less harm. Saving some pre-born lives is better than none.
STATE OFFICES
GOVERNOR – This is a tough one. Meg Whitman or you may want to vote for Chelene Nightingale. But We Cannot have Jerry Brown again.
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR – Karen England (write-in candidate)
Once again, a situation has complicated the voting process. We have liberal Democrat Gavin Newsom, (the San Francisco mayor who allowed same-sex marriage) and Republican, Abel Maldonado who was appointed by Governor Schwarzenegger. Maldonado is a liberal Republican both fiscally (he broke his tax pledge for the budget) and morally (refused to intervene in the Proposition 8 case in the California Supreme Court case when Schwarzenegger was out of town). Another Republican candidate has jumped into the race as a write-in (her name does not appear on the ballot). Karen England is a leader in the California Republican Party and the California Republican Assembly, as well as the President of the conservative organization, Capitol Resource Institute. She is a Tea Party-type, Christian, and a Conservative. Write-in candidates most of the time, do not win races. But this year is not like most Election years, so anything could happen, so Pray about your decision.
SECRETARY OF STATE – Damon Dunn
Damon is a wonderful pro-life, pro-family, Christian. He started the Joshua Project, mentoring young Christian leaders. He has been the President of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes and is a Baptist minister.
CONTROLLER – Tony Strickland
TREASURER – Mimi Walters
ATTORNEY GENERAL – Steve Cooley
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER – Mike Villines, broke his “no-tax” pledge, but the other choice is worse.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
DISTRICT 2 – George Runner
DISTRICT 3 – Michelle Steel
DISTRICT 4 – Peter “Pedro” De Baets
UNITED STATES SENATE
Carly Fiorina – She is our only hope to bounce Barbara Boxer. She is also pro-life and supports marriage between a man and a woman.
CONGRESSIONAL OFFICES
33 District – James L. Andion
36 District – Mattie Fein
37 District – Star Parker
39 District – Larry S. Andre
42 District – Gary Miller
46 District – Dana Rohrabacher
47 District – Van Tran He is running for Loretta Sanchez’ seat,
48 District – John Campbell
If you don’t see your District listed facebook me.
STATE SENATOR
20 District – Kathleen "Suzy" Evans
26 District – Nachum Shifren
28 District – John S. Stammreich the sitting Senator (Oropena) passed away about two weeks ago, so don’t vote for her.
32 District – Earl De Vries
If you don’t see your District listed facebook me.
STATE ASSEMBLY
36 District – Steve Knight
37 District – Jeff Gorell
41 District – Terry Rathbun
44 District – Alvaro G. Day
52 District – Gwen Patrick
53 District – Nathan Mintz
68 District – Allan Mansoor
70 District – Don Wagner
71 District – Jeff Miller
72 District – Chris Norby
73 District – Diane Harkey
If you don’t see your District listed facebook me.
CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT JUDGES
As most of you know, the liberal California Supreme Court has developed into a branch of government that has had many cases overturned because of its left-leaning decisions. It has exclusive rights to overturn Conservative and Christian laws passed by the voters (Proposition 8 is up before them again). We are voting “yes” or “no” for 3 Justices.
Tani Cantil-Sakauye – NO.
She was appointed as the Chief Justice by a committee of Governor Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown, and Judge Ronald George. She is liberal on social issues, performing a same sex marriage ceremony when it was legalized by the Supreme Court. She has made some good decisions on affirmative action and religious free speech. One of her favorite sayings is, “There is no one truth, only versions of it” (revealing her judicial philosophy of compromise).
Ming Chin – NO.
Appointed by Governor Wilson in 1996, he is pro-abortion, against religious liberty, and inconsistent on business/property rights. He did vote, initially, in favor of traditional marriage and to uphold anti-affirmative action law. He is moderately liberal.
Carlos Moreno – NO.
Appointed by Gray Davis in 2001, he is a radical liberal. He was on Obama’s short list for replacing Souter and voted to negate Proposition 23, but he was the only “no” vote that agreed Proposition 8 was constitutional. He has voted against parental consent, religious rights, and business.
COURT OF APPEALS,
2ND APPELLATE DISTRICT
Division 1 - Victoria Chaney, vote YES
Division 1 - Jeffrey Johnson, NOT recommended vote NO
Division 1 - Robert Mallano, NOT recommended vote NO
Division 2 – NO recommendation, vote NO
Division 3 – NO recommendation, vote NO
Division 4 – Steven Suzukawa, vote YES
Division 6 – Paul Coffee, vote YES
Division 6 – Steven Perren, NOT recommended vote NO
Division 7 – Frank Jackson, vote YES
Division 7 – Laurie Zelon, NOT recommended vote NO
Division 8 – Elizabeth Grimes, vote YES
Division 8 – Tricia Bigelow, vote YES
COURT OF APPEALS,
4TH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Division 1 – Judith McConnell – vote NO. She is a liberal.
Division 2 – Manuel Ramirez – vote YES. He is a conservative.
Division 2 – Carol Codrington – vote YES
Division 3 – David Sills – vote YES
Division 3 – William Bedsworth – vote YES. He is a conservative.
Division 3 – Eileen Moore – vote NO. She is a liberal feminist.
Superior Court County of Los Angeles
Office 28 - Randy Hammock
Office 117 - Alan Schneider
Office 136 - Amy D. Hogue
SCHOOLS
SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION – Larry Aceves
He is a life-long educator and is “fed up with politics.” He is not backed by the California Teacher’s Association and shares many of my values. He is registered as “Decline to State.” He is against nationalizing schools. For giving parents educational options, and believes parents have a right to home-school. He believes unions have too much power over curriculum and programs and they should do what is good for the children over union’s special interests. Mr. Aceves believes opting in or out of controversial activities should be on a case-by-case basis, and views should not be pushed on students by teachers. On the other hand, his opponent, Assemblyman Tom Torlakon, is a termed-out senator and assemblyman. He is back by the California Teacher’s Association and is very liberal on my values and issues of parental choice, union involvement in education, and accountability for teachers, principals, superintendents, and school boards.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
County Assessor- John Y. Wong
Local Measures
Bellflower
Measure A. - No
Temporary Utility User Tax Increase—City of Bellflower (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required)
Shall an ordinance to offset severe State cuts to the City of Bellflower by protecting and restoring essential City services including: sheriff patrols/substation hours of operation, school crossing guards, school safety/after-school programs, services for the disabled and drug/gang prevention; by temporarily increasing the City’s utility users’ tax by 2%, with a 5-year sunset, audits, low-income senior exemptions, citizens’ oversight, and local control of funds be adopted?
Long Beach
Measure B. - Yes
Tax on Recreational Marijuana—City of Long Beach (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required)
To protect public safety services such as 911 emergency response, police and fire, as well as essential quality of life programs like parks, libraries, public works and infrastructure, should the City of Long Beach impose a 15% tax on recreational marijuana businesses if legalized, with a $25 tax on cultivation sites per square foot, with an annual CPI adjustment?
Measure C. - Yes
Veteran’s Preference—City of Long Beach (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall Proposition C, which amends the Long Beach City Charter by increasing the credits given to disabled veterans in the hiring process, be ratified?
Measure D. - No
Harbor Department and Oil Properties—City of Long Beach (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall Proposition D, which amends the Long Beach City Charter by changing the formula from 10% of net income to 5% of gross operating revenues in order to clarify the formula for the transfer of funds from Harbor Department revenues to the Tidelands Operating Fund, and clarifying that the management of the City’s oil properties and subsidence control operations are under the exclusive control of the City Council, be ratified?
Measure GG. - Yes
Civil Service Reform—City of Long Beach (Charter Amendment - Majority Approval Required)
Shall Proposition GG which amends the Long Beach City Charter by transferring certain powers from the Civil Service Commission to the City Manager, including examination and certification for employment, classification creation, maintenance of eligibility lists, and the appointment management of a professional staff, be ratified?
Lynwood
Measure L. - No
Classroom Repair, Job Training/Student Safety Measure—Lynwood Unified School District (School Bonds - 55% Approval Required)
To improve education, make schools safe, complete essential health/safety repairs, fix roofs, shall Lynwood Unified School District upgrade plumbing, electrical, sewer/heating/cooling systems, aging schools, science labs, install energy efficient lighting/windows, improve school safety, remove hazardous materials; repair, acquire, construct, equip schools/facilities/sites, upgrade fire safety, by issuing $45,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, with guaranteed annual audits, independent citizens’ oversight, and all money staying local?
El Segundo
Measure O. - No
Utility User Tax—City of El Segundo (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required)
Shall the ordinance amending El Segundo Municipal Code Chapter 3-7 to temporarily increase the Utility User Taxes by 1% to fund general municipal services including, without limitation, police protection and crime suppression services, fire prevention and suppression services, and park and recreation facilities and services be adopted?
Rancho Palos Verdes
Measure P. - Yes
Marymount College Campus Facilities Improvement Plan—City of Rancho Palos Verdes (Ordinance - Majority Approval Required)
Shall an ordinance be adopted that would enact a new specific plan and related amendments to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes ("City") general plan and zoning ordinance to: (1) allow development of specified facility improvements, including dormitories, on the Marymount College Campus ("Campus") located at 30800 Palos Verdes Drive East; (2) govern the operation of the Campus, and (3) supersede inconsistent provisions of the Municipal Code and prior City land use decisions regarding the Campus?
STATE PROPOSITIONS
Proposition 19 – NO.
Legalizes Marijuana under California law.
In 1996, California voters legalized medical marijuana. Even though it is illegal under Federal law, the “pot” heads now want to be able to grow it, possess it (1 ounce per person over 21), share it, or transport it in California. Imagine schools and companies that have drug-free environments no longer able to keep out students or employees that are “under the influence” because they are prohibited from drug testing. Marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, as well as problems with learning and memory. While there are limits for driving under the influence of alcohol, there is no limit for smoking dope and driving. Increased usage among teens with go up as the perception of danger goes down.
Furthermore, the cost of marijuana will drop as much as 80% so teens will be buying it and smoking it even though they are under age. Just like the gambling promoters sold the idea that it would be the financial savior of the state, now the marijuana promoters are trying to sell it as a huge boost to our failing state budget.
Have you ever wondered why cigarette smoking is evil and marijuana is not, even though the marijuana smoke contains 50-70% more carcinogenic hydrocarbons than tobacco smoke? What about second-hand marijuana smoke? Will it make you “high?” Marijuana smoking will be legal where cigarette smoking is illegal. Everyone knows that legalizing marijuana will open up the dependence and graduation to stronger and more dangerous drugs.
This is a dangerous proposition and will jeopardize the health and quality of life for all Californians. I urge a strong NO on Proposition 19.
Proposition 20 – YES.
Redistricting of Congressional Districts.
In 2008, California voters approved Proposition 11 that took the power to draw state legislative and Board of Equalization districts out of the hands of politicians and gave it to an independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. However, the politicians still draw congressional districts (House of Representative). Proposition 20 will simply extend what voters already approved under Proposition 11 so that the commission, not legislators, will draw both legislative (state) and congressional districts (federal). Proposition 27 is closely connected to Proposition 20, having to do with redistricting. You must vote Yes on Proposition 20 and No on Proposition 27. See my comments on 27.
Proposition 21 – NO.
Annual $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge.
Another Car Tax in disguise.
Do you remember one year ago when the legislators increased “temporary” tax hikes in sales, income, and vehicle license fees? Well, now they want to add an $18 extra charge to vehicle registration to pay for state parks; costs which they are calling a “fee.” This is another attempt to bring back the failed car tax. Every car and truck driver would be taxed $18 every year regardless of whether they ever visit a state park.
Why can’t the “fee” be paid by those who visit the state parks? Most taxes need a two-thirds majority approval by either voters or the legislature and they know a new tax would not pass, thus the new “fee.”
Proposition 22 – NO.
Prohibits The State from Borrowing or Taking Funds Used for Transportation, Redevelopment, or Local Government Projects and Services.
Although the state will not be able to raid local governments if this passes, I feel it could lead to tax increases to make up for the billions the state took. The main reason I oppose Proposition 22 is that it will lock in protection for redevelopment agencies into the state constitution. These agencies have the power of eminent domain to take private property and funnel large taxpayer–funded subsidies to be used by developers for housing and commercial development. I oppose “ballot-box budgeting” because it will make it more difficult to cut budgets. Proposition 22 will also make it impossible to change your tax allocations.
Proposition 23 – YES.
Suspends Implementation Of Air Pollution Control Law. California Jobs Initiative!
The first reason I am recommending a YES vote is: I do not see any evidence that global warming is occurring or is supposedly caused by green house gasses or pollution. With that said, this initiative will not rescind AB32, the global warming bill passed by our legislature. It will simply postpone the implementation of the bill until the unemployment drops from 12% currently to 5.5% or less or four consecutive calendar quarters. It will save 50% in higher energy costs, up to $3.7 billion in higher gas and diesel rates and 57% increase in natural gas rates. The most important reason to vote yes it will save our state over a million jobs.
Proposition 24 – NO.
Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Lower Their Tax Liability. The Jobs Tax!
This is a tax loophole versus a jobs tax issue; it is the big multi–state corporation against small businesses. The California Teachers Association is the sponsor of Proposition 24. Proposition 24 would repeal the updated tax laws that attract and grow business and jobs. There are two million Californians out of work and the Rose Institute at McKenna College reports Proposition 24 could cost us 322,000 jobs and $1.8 billion in lost tax revenues annually. Last year, small business bankruptcies rose to 81%. We need high-tech, innovative, high-growth industries to help pull California out of the recession and provide tomorrow’s high-paying jobs. If more jobs are not created and our recovery is slowed, then fewer tax revenues will be available to fund schools, hospitals, and roads. We need to encourage job growth, not penalize it.
Proposition 25 – NO.
Changes Vote Requirement to Pass Budget And Budget-Related Legislation From Two-Thirds to A Simple Majority.
California is in a budget crisis with a budget deficit of $20 billion. Wouldn’t it be great to get our budget balanced and on time? The politicians say all they need to pass the budget is to lower the vote requirement from two-thirds to a simple majority. Proposition 25 will not accomplish that, even though the promoters promise that the legislatures will be penalized by stopping salaries and benefits everyday the budget is late. Sounds good, right? Unfortunately, hidden in small print, it would allow them to double or triple their government expense accounts, thus enabling them to make up their losses. Also hidden is the fact that new taxes can be written into the budget and passed by a simple majority. Because of the two-thirds requirement, the minority party has some leverage to express their disapproval of the excesses in taxes, public employee union demands, and welfare handouts. Keep the two-thirds majority to pass the budget, vote NO on 25.
Proposition 26 – YES.
Requires That Certain State and Local Fees Be Approved By Two-Thirds vote.
This is a simple argument between what a tax is and what a fee is. A tax is taking money from you to pay for something the government does (maintain highways, provide for public safety). It also requires a two- thirds majority to pass taxes, thus restraining the big spenders from getting more of our money. On the other hand, a fee is a charge on products and services we use every day (food, toys, and gas). This is also a tax, but is disguised as a “fee” and only needs a simple majority of 50% + 1 to pass. Therefore, if you want more control over how your money is being taken and spent as well as stopping politicians from imposing these “hidden taxes”, vote Yes on Proposition 26.
Proposition 27 – NO.
Eliminates State Commission On Redistricting.
Politicians in Sacramento want to overturn Proposition 11, a voter-approved reform that gave redistricting to an independent commission. The process is already in progress to change how districts are being drawn in bizarrely shaped districts with 31,000 requests of change to the 14-member Citizens Redistricting Commission already. Proposition 27 was put on the ballot in order to confuse the voters. If both Proposition 20 and 27 are approved, the one with the most votes will be the only one to go into effect. If Proposition 27 is approved and Proposition 20 is not, then redistricting reform will be eliminated and everything will go back as it was. You must vote Yes on 20 and No on 27!
A note about these picks:
The election picks you will find here, are personal opinions and do not reflect the views of any organization(s) with which I am involved. In addition, because I have listed someone here does not mean they are “perfect” on all the issues and that I can vouch for their personal character qualities, some I can but not all (There are no perfect candidates, folks!). In this election, as in all elections, the choices are sometimes between persons who do not hold all the essential core values but hold some, but one is “better” than the other, or would likely be a “greater good” in office. There are also situations where two or more candidates share strong core values or come very close, but one may bring additional skills and experience to the position. Or may have a better chance of wining.
The recommendations you see here result from a number of sources: Personal knowledge and study, insights gleaned from other trusted conservatives, personal and organizational endorsements.
In any case, please participate in the process. There are good people and critical issues on every ballot. Please vote wisely and pray that candidates who hold closest to core biblical values and who will lead with integrity are successful. If you are uncertain about a race, leaving an office blank does not invalidate your ballot, nor does voting for less than the number of available seats.
