California Pro-Family Voter Information
We will post November 2010 election information in October
SEE THE OUTCOME: Results of the June 8 Primary election »
LISTEN TO PRO-FAMILY ANALYSIS: How the election results affect you »
Below is our June 8, 2010 election center.
SaveCalifornia.com provides the following information solely for educational purposes. While our organization represents conservative family values, we take positions on ballot propositions but our non-profit status does not allow us to support or oppose candidates for public office.
On this page: (scroll down for each section)
 |
LISTEN: Get unconfused about the 5 ballot props |
 |
BOTTOM LINE: Yes or No on Props. 13-17 |
 |
CANDIDATES: Voter guides and scorecards |
 |
DIG IN: Read our position on the 5 ballot props |
Listen now: Facts about the 5 California ballot propositions »
The mailers, TV ads and radio commercials can sound so convincing -- from both sides. What are the facts about the 5 California ballot propositions?
Know WHY you're voting yes or no. Listen as principled State Board of Equalization tax attorney and legislative expert Tom Hudson joins SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson to explain the big picture and the details.
LISTEN » | DOWNLOAD » (right click, save)
 |
Got iTunes? Listen or subscribe to this podcast on iTunes » |
| 13 | YES | No property tax increase for earthquake-retrofitting of old buildings |
| 14 | NO | “Jungle primary” denying Republicans and Democrats their own nominees |
| 15 | NO | Government funding of political campaigns |
| 16 | YES | Require 2/3rds voter approval for local government-run electricity |
| 17 | YES | Allows auto insurers to offer new customers “continuous coverage” discount |
Scroll to the BOTTOM of this page for reasons behind our prop picks.
DID YOU KNOW...
Don't trust that "Republican voter guide" or "Democrat voter guide" sent to you in the mail. Its "endorsements" are PAID by the candidates themselves! Look at the FINE PRINT. Don’t rely on voter guides you receive in the mail – unless they come from a trusted, recognizable source.
While SaveCalifornia.com does not support or oppose candidates, we have provided links to candidate voter guides and scorecards listing the past votes of elected representatives. These candidate information links speak for themselves and do not necessarily represent the views of SaveCalifornia.com.
We hope our information sheets help you. SaveCalifornia.com looks at four big issues applied to the two top* Republican candidates for Governor; we also asked the top five candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction what they say about homeschooling.
* top candidates for governor have demonstrated their electability by achieving at least 10% support from likely voters in reputable polls.
Voter Guide Links
Where the Top 2 GOP Candidates for Governor Stand on 4 Key Issues »
"The Governor's Race -- What's A Pro-Lifer to Do?" »
6 Questions for Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman »
"California Candidates: Where They Stand on the Issues That Matter" (U.S. Senate) »
Top 5 Candidates for Superintendent of Public Instruction Stance on Homeschooling »
"Orange County Pro-Family Voter Guide" »
"Biblical Values Voter Guide" (Sacramento County) »
"California Election Forum" (Craig Huey) »
"Conservative California Election Website" (Robyn Nordell) »
California ProLife Council statement on races for U.S. Senate and Governor »
Elected Representative Voting Records
"FRCAction Vote Scorecard 110th Congress" »
How California state legislators voted on 18 bills:
"CRA 2009 Legislative Scorecard" »
Judges
There is little information about judges on the ballot. But it's so important that you know whether the judicial candidates believe in upholding the written law (strict constructionists) or "re-interpreting" the law to suit their personal values (judicial activists).
Below are websites with helpful judge information for you to peruse. SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose these candidates:
JudgeVoterGuide.com »
(Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, San Diego County, Ventura County, Santa Clara County, Alameda County, San Francisco County, Sonoma County, Mendocino County, El Dorado County, and more)
Robyn Nordell: Judge Recommendations »
Better Courts Now »
(San Diego County)
Misplaced your official voter information? Official Secretary of State Voter Pamphlet »
Here's why we've taken our positions on the 5 ballot propositions:
Prop. 13 YES
No property tax increase for earthquake-retrofitting old buildings
What Prop. 13 would do: Current law allows owners of masonry buildings only 15 years of exclusion of higher property taxes that are triggered when they do earthquake retrofitting. This policy was viewed as a disincentive by California legislators who unanimously placed Prop. 13 on the ballot. This proposition forever exempts commercial property owners from higher property tax assessment on the basis of retrofitting masonry buildings to survive earthquakes.
Why we urge you to vote YES on Prop. 13: Current law financially punishes property owners who do the right thing and reinforce old masonry buildings. Passing Prop. 13 will protect property owners’ wallets and restores basic fairness by exempting these property owners from higher taxes. The result will be more buildings that survive the next big earthquake.
Prop. 14 NO
“Jungle primary” denying Republican voters Republican nominees and denying Democrat voters Democrat nominees
What Prop. 14 would do: Prop. 14 eliminates the party primary system and replaces it with a single “jungle primary” ballot (like Louisiana has) for primary elections for most state and congressional offices. The top two vote-getters on the primary ballot would advance to the general election. There would still be partisan primary elections for presidential candidates and political party offices. Prop. 14 was placed on the ballot in exchange for the Feb. 2009 vote of former state Senator Abel Maldonado in favor of increasing the state sales, income, and car tax.
Why we urge you to vote NO on Prop. 14: This measure denies choice to voters by allowing general election ballots with no Democrat or Republican candidates. It also allows mischief, for example, by permitting a liberal Republican to get a large bloc of Democrats to vote for him in the primary, beating a conservative Republican who would have been nominated if only Republicans were in the primary voting pool. It will work the same with Democrats, although we believe conservative Republican voters will be denied representatives more than liberal Democrat voters will. More deception will occur when existing Democrat or Republican office holders utilize Prop. 14’s “No Party Preference” designation in both the primary and general elections. While passage of Prop. 14 might technically result in more conservative Democrat officeholders, it will mostly likely deplete the number of conservative Republicans in public office, if past experiments with an “open primary” are any indicator. Think Prop. 14’s “jungle primary” system will get rid of incumbents? Currently, only two states use “top-two” elections. In 2008, Washington State had 139 races, but only one incumbent lost a primary.
Prop. 15 NO
Government funding of candidates for public office
What Prop. 15 would do: Establishes a new candidate fundraising system where candidates for California Secretary of State can qualify to receive “base funding” and “matching funds” from the state government in exchange for limiting their private fundraising, participating in debates, and submitting campaign expenditure records to the state. This new program would purportedly be funded by increasing lobbyists’ annual registration fees by 2,800%.
Why we urge you to vote NO on Prop. 15: Government funding of political campaigns is not the purpose of government, and opens the door to abuse. Prop. 15 wouldn’t prevent these tax-funded Secretary of State candidates from raising other funds from lobbyists and special interest groups. The measure specifically allows these tax-funded candidates to raise money for “separate accounts” to pay for officeholder expenses, legal defense fees and inaugural parties. And it probably allows these tax-funded candidates to benefit from independent expenditures, another potential loophole. What’s more, if the weren’t enough revenue raised from increased lobbyist fees, this proposition allows the state general fund to be raided to make up the difference and send that money to candidates. Finally, Prop. 15 allows the California Legislature to expand government funding of campaigns to every state campaign, including those of incumbent politicians. Bottom line, Prop. 15 is the proverbial “camel’s nose under the tent” that sets the stage for incumbent politicians and their big-government “farm team” of candidates to dip their hand deep in the public trough and make off with state treasury funds.
California voters have consistently rejected taxpayer-funded campaign financing. In 2006, 74% of voters opposed Prop. 89. In 2000, two-thirds of voters rejected public campaign financing when they defeated Prop. 25. They should say “no” again.
Prop. 16 YES
Require 2/3rds voter approval for local government-run electricity
What Prop. 16 would do: This measure makes it harder for local governments to start up electricity entities which local residents are responsible to pay for. PG&E, the state’s largest electricity and natural gas provider is regulated by the state government. However, PG&E was shocked when locally elected officials of the City of San Francisco and the County of Marin decided to set up an electricity municipality of their own, cutting out PG&E. The mammoth utility therefore went to the ballot with Prop. 16 to propose that a two-thirds voter approval is needed before local governments get into the electricity business.
Why we urge you to vote YES on Prop. 16: We were initially very skeptical of Prop. 16 due to the self-serving interest of the very liberal Pacific Gas & Electric utility (services most of Northern, Central and Coastal California) and because Prop. 16 appears to squelch competition. Yet once we researched it, we discovered that Prop. 16 DOES NOT affect private energy companies or lessen the hope of cheaper private electricity providers being allowed in the future (indeed, it indirectly encourages it). We remembered that local government usually provides worse service and higher prices, and we were alarmed to learn that local governments can form a new monopoly that effectively shuts out private electricity providers. And we remembered that we want private sector solutions most of all. After all, you don’t want government-run gas stations, do you? We get closer to the goal of privatization by passing Prop. 16, which not only serves PG&E’s interests but serves the best long-term interests of average consumers. We believe the best choice right now is to pass Prop. 16 to make it harder for governments to be electricity providers, which will keep open the door to cheaper, better managed private energy suppliers in the future. While it’s not good to have hugely-regulated, almost-monopolistic utilities like PG&E, it’s even worse to have government-run electricity, because new electrical utilities run by cities or counties will likely increase ratepayers’ costs faster and more than PG&E would. Remember, PG&E’s prices are still regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, but prices of local government electrical municipalities are not. If you support voter rights but don’t have a problem with the government running formerly private sector entities, you’ll still want to vote for Prop. 16 because it increases voter power by requiring a two-thirds vote threshold before local governments can take over the important role of electricity provider.
Prop. 17 YES
Allows auto insurance companies to offer “continuous coverage” discounts to new policy holders
What Prop. 17 would do: This measure deletes a small part of the state law that currently prohibits automobile insurance companies from providing “continuous coverage” to new customers. This prohibition was a strange part of Prop. 103, which was narrowly passed in 1988 to establish a number of insurance regulations). Even Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature agreed with removing the ban several years ago, but the courts struck that down, ruling only the voters can amend Prop. 103. That’s how simple and narrowly focused Prop. 17 is.
Why we urge you to vote YES on Prop. 17: If you have been a long-time customer of an automobile insurance company and want to keep your “continuous coverage” discount, passing Prop. 17 will mean the opportunity for a deeper discount when you change insurance companies. In addition to financial freedom, Prop. 17 promises a little bit better government since will also roll back a little bit of anti-free market government regulation. Why is Mercury Insurance, one of the smaller California insurance companies, funding Prop. 17? Probably because they think they can win new customers, and we think that’s just fine. Let’s open up more competition among private insurers, because competition ultimately benefits consumers the most.
