Friends, During many elections, I am asked by friends and family for my opinions on propositions and candidates for elected office. I am going to share my opinions, but, please know that what I value most from each and every one of you is that you vote. Please do not be indifferent, voting is one of your most valuable rights and it is the bedrock of the foundation of our country. That said, here are my two cents for Election Day, November 4th, 2014! A few soap-box declarations: I still adamantly oppose the proposition system. While I believe the original intention of direct democracy through the ballot box was noble, I think that it is a system that is misused and fails the electorate. Many propositions deal with issues that are incredibly complex and, necessarily, require extensive and significant evaluation and investigation. I believe that this is the fundamental job of elected officials. Their job is to listen to the electorate and pass laws that reflect our direction and priorities. They are our representatives. When they do not heed our mandates, our responsibility is to vote them out of office, not spend our time trying to second guess their work. I am waiting for the day when a group amasses significant support to significantly amend our proposition system, if not do away with it all together. Second, Im going to make a plug for everyone to register to permanently vote absentee. I think it is abhorrent that we have not figured out how to create a system that makes voting easier for everyone rather than harder (I think that we rank just above requiring people to ride donkeys to polling places and having their finger prints taken). Study after study has shown that voter fraud is a myth perpetuated by those seeking to deny access to voting (that is my nice way of saying that the oppressors are trying to scare us away from the voting booth). However, by failing to be engaged and vote, we are an accomplice to the crime of oppression. Registering to vote by mail at least makes sure that you can exercise your right to vote even when you dont know where to vote or if your schedule might make it feel a little inconvenient. Third, I continue to view serving in elected office as a noble sacrifice and commitment. That does not mean that I like or agree with everyone serving, or even that I think that every person who is elected is qualified for service. I do admire most of the people that make the commitment to public service and believe that the majority of elected officials are doing what they think is right (although, more often than we like, what is right can be clouded by their insulated existence). (Read after the props. for Los Angeles and an Oakland plug.) All that said, here are my thoughts on the props: Props. 1 & 2: Yes These are two excellent examples of legislation that should be passed by the Legislature, not voters. How many of us know how to read a budget? Is that the best use of our time? Even where we can spend time reading the propositions and the budgets, do we really understand their meaning and impact? Planning for budget surpluses and addressing the distribution of water is not something that lay people should be deciding, I think that it should be the work of legislative officials. They should notice and conduct public hearings, where experts attend and deliver technical and specific testimony under oath and then the elected officials take responsibility to making decisions based upon the information presented to them. I understand that people do not trust their politicians and their judgment, but I do not believe that the answer is to second guess their work. I think that the answer is to get involved and elect people who are trustworthy and stay engaged to make sure that they are doing our work. These two propositions are the result of the legislature and the Governor trying to make decisions about how to deal with serious and complex problems, not being able to build the consensus necessary to achieve results and then throwing up their hands and passing the responsibility off on the electorate. Our budget and infrastructure have struggled both under the weight of mismanagement and avoidance, as well as the electorates failure to recognize the real value and sacrifice necessary to have all of the benefits of living in California. Although Governor Jerry Brown is not the most congenial political figure, I believe that he is dedicated to addressing our neglected infrastructure and recognizing the hard work necessary to recover from the years of neglect. Due to his age (and the fact that he has held practically every other elected office in the state), I believe that he genuinely wants to solve some of Californias problems, if for no other reason than as part of his legacy. While I do not always agree with his approach, I trust his effort and these propositions are further evidence of his attempts to change our trajectory. I want to give Governor Brown some tools to enact some of his vision for changing the state, so I am following his lead and supporting Propositions 1 and 2 (although I still think that these are laws that should have come out of the Legislature, not from the ballot box). Prop. 45: Yes We allow the Insurance Commissioner to regulate home and auto insurance rates, why shouldnt the IC also oversee health insurance rates? There is no check on the health insurance industry and I do not believe in allowing them to regulate themselves because there is an inherent conflict between serving a shareholder (which a company is supposed to do) and serving the public interest/greater good. Thirty-five other states allow the IC to oversee rate hikes (not that other states are always a gauge, but certainly noteworthy). Allowing the IC to oversee rate increases would be a worthwhile check and balance on the system. Prop 46: Yes Interestingly, I am on the opposite side from my beloved ACLU/SC on this one. This is a flawed bill and, again, an example of how ballot box legislating is terrible. The proposition is poorly written and will undoubtedly endure significant legal challenges because it deals with too many issues (there is a requirement that propositions deal with a single issue and this one dances around that rule big time). That said, I think that the medical malpractice cap is something that needs to be addressed. While opponents tout it mainly as a vehicle of trial lawyers seeking to cash in on tort claims, I think that it addresses an unfairness in access to redress in the court system. The medical malpractice cap has not been changed in almost 40 years, meaning that while costs of living and doing business in California have risen, there have been no adjustments to the way in which damages in medical malpractice cases are assessed. Practically speaking, this means that where medical malpractice has occurred, it can be very difficult for victims to access the court system for redress because medical malpractice cases are incredibly costly to litigate (not just because of the attorneys, but also because of the elements needed to litigate these cases, such as technical expert witnesses, etc.) and plaintiff side attorneys litigate these cases on contingent fee (meaning they foot the bill and only get paid after a favorable verdict). Many attorneys do not have the resources to take on these kinds of cases and, even in the event of a favorable outcome, once expenses are paid, there is often very little left over. This is an issue that is ripe for redress in the Legislature and, hopefully, they will take up these issues either if the bill fails or is overturned in the courts. Prop. 47: Yes Thankfully, there has been some momentum on changing the manners in which we approach adjudicating crimes in California and I believe that Prop. 47 is a step in the right direction. It is not perfect, but then, neither is our judicial or criminal justice system, and this law attempts to address some of the inequities that have resulted from mandatory sentencing requirements imposed over the years. Hopefully, if Prop. 47 passes, it will be an impetus for additional criminal law reform through the state Legislature. Prop. 48: Yes Not to be repetitive, but, when you read the proposition, it is so specific and technical that I cannot see how a lay person can read it and make an educated guess on how to vote, much less an educated decision. I admit, this is a gut vote, yes on Prop. 48. State Candidates: Just for fun, Im going to give you some of my picks. Dont you dare judge me! Governor: Duh, Jerry Brown. In his attempts to garner name recognition, I think that Neel Kashkari is making a joke of running for governor and I am sick of people running for these higher elected offices under this air of being too good to serve at the local level first and learn how to legislate. Being governor is hard work and not something to just learn as you go along. Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom. But, wouldnt it be funny if the Republican were elected and had to work with Governor Brown? Secretary of State: Alex Padilla. How are you going to run for a state wide government position that is largely beaurocratic under the banner of a political party that wants to shrink government small enough to be able to drown in a bathtub (that would be the mantra of many California Republicans)? Controller: Betty Yee. I know Betty and her financial analytical background makes her hands down the most qualified candidate to hold this office and this is one of the few statewide offices that requires a specific skills set, which Betty Yee has. Also, from a personal standpoint, Betty is just plain good folk. Attorney General: Kamala Harris. There is no doubt that Kamala is handling this office well. The Republican party needed to run a candidate, but there is no stopping Kamala in this election. From a personal standpoint, I want her to run for either Governor or the U.S. Senate to replace either Feinstein or Boxer and the AG office is a great platform for her to pursue these opportunities (I have opinions on her governance, as well, if anyone is interested in discussing further). Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson. Please make sure that you go down your ballot and vote for this office. I was torn as to whom to choose. Torlakson has not delivered the kind of leadership necessary to address Californias inadequate public education system. However, although I got the chance to hear Marshall Tuck talk and I think that his passion is genuine, I think that he is a little too idealistic, at best, to really deliver on the kind of changes that he advocates. I think that this idealism, while noble, can be an impediment to effectuating the kind of change necessary to address the problems with our public school system and then could become a distraction. Hopefully, if Torlakson wins, he will take this challenge as a motivation to lead on some of the statewide public education issues. West LA: Representative Congressmember Karen Bass (CD37) Senator Holly J. Mitchell (SD30) Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors District 3: Sheila Kuehl for L.A. Supervisor For those of you living in Oakland, Harold Lowe, a fellow Tech and Cal (Go Bears!) alum, has delivered an interesting overview and endorsement of the candidates for mayor. I am incredibly impressed with his commitment to engagement and his evaluations of the challenges facing our beloved hometown. If you havent seen his thoughts, check them out or, if youre not friends with him, let me know and I can forward along his posts. Happy voting tomorrow!
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 07:21:16 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015