Welcome to your California Pro-Family Election Center
JUNE 7, 2016 CALIFORNIA GENERAL ELECTION
May 23, 2016: Last day to register to vote
Note to Republican voters: You can vote your conscience on any of the following Republican presidential candidates, whether or not they have active campaigns, because they have all qualified as candidates on the California ballot: Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, or Jim Gilmore. Visit SaveAmerica.com for our Report Card on the Natural Family to see where Trump, Cruz, and Kasich stand on important moral/family issues.
Why only one proposition? In 2011, the ruling Democrats in the Calfornia Legislature passed and Gov. Jerry Brown signed a prohibition of voter-initiated propositions going on the primary election ballot. However, that prohibition did not apply to propositions placed on the ballot by the Legislature. Thus, Proposition 50 is the sole statewide ballot measure this election. Expect many more ballot measures in the November 8, 2016 general election.
SaveCalifornia.com's positions on ballot measures are based on our pro-family values, which are founded on Biblical principles for the benefit of people everywhere. Scroll to the end of this page for our longer analysis of Prop. 50.
PROP 50 YES
How the California Attorney General describes it: “Authorizes each house of Legislature to suspend one of its Members by two-thirds vote, and to require Member to forfeit salary and benefits while suspended; Prohibits suspended Member from exercising rights, privileges, duties, or powers of office, or using any legislative resources; Provides suspension may end on specified date, or upon two-thirds vote of Member’s house."
What SaveCalifornia.com says: Because the ruling Democrats in today's era have refused to expel (kick out of office) state Senators or state Assemblymembers who are charged or indicted on suspicion of crimes, or even if they're convicted of committing a crime, suspending them without the right to vote on legislation -- and especially if suspended without pay and benefits -- is almost as good as expulsion. Prop. 50 essentially allows but doesn't require suspension without pay or benefits, the withholding of which is currently allowed only if a legislator is expelled.
Suspension is also much more realistic in today's political environment where liberal Democrats are in charge, and refuse to expel criminal legislators, no matter how corrupt. And in some cases, suspension will even be better for pro-family values. Under Proposition 50, if two-thirds of a house of the California Legislature votes to suspend a legislator, Prop. 50 requires that the suspended legislator be denied any right or privilege of office, and permits the suspension to include a prohibition of pay and benefits.
A principle to remember on local taxes, bonds, fees, and assessments:
SaveCalifornia.com knows that big government often robs people of personal responsibility and saddles working families, property owners, and small business owners with greater financial burdens. It's all because big government refuses to investigate and slash its own waste. Because of the influence of government unions and bureaucracy, independent, tough audits are simply not seen. Therefore, we encourage you to vote NO on ANY AND ALL tax increases, bonds (which is borrowing money, and always more expensive than a direct tax because you must also pay back interest), fees, and assessments. It's pro-family to keep more of your hard-earned money, so it's pro-family to oppose wasteful government taking away more money from your family. They like to take it incrementally, so you must consistently oppose even the smallest tax/bond/fee/assessment increases in order to inhibit the government from taking more and more and more from your family.
DID YOU KNOW...
Don't trust the "Republican voter guide" or "Democrat voter guide" sent to you in the mail. WHY? Its "endorsements" are PAID by the candidates themselves! Look at the FINE PRINT. Don’t rely on voter guides in the mail unless they are from a trusted, recognizable source. And unfortunately, those trusted sources are very few and far between, because even some pro-family voter guides are including pro-perversity Republicans as "pro-family" candidates. So you must do you own research and this page can help.
While SaveCalifornia.com does not support or oppose candidates, we provide links to voter guides that list candidates’ positions on issues and scorecards of elected representatives' votes. These links speak for themselves and do not represent the views or opinions of SaveCalifornia.com.
Here are your best, second-best, and third-best way to research candidates to see if they match your values:
1. Enjoy researching online
Your best research on candidates will be done by yourself. Google a candidate's name along with one search term at a time, such as: abortion, gay, LGBT, gun, taxes, parents, family, religious freedom, etc. Then visit candidate's websites for their specific positions on family and moral issues. And consider emailing the candidate to ask specific questions.
2. Learn from voting records and endorsements
Your second-best research is the actual votes cast by incumbent politicians.
See candidates who support the homosexual-bisexual-transsexual agenda:
» Equality California: Our Endorsements"
See who voted in 2015 to celebrate and promote "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender":
» See the 15 California Republican legislators
See all the California state legislators -- Democrats and Republicans -- who voted to celebrate and promote celebrate "Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender": » State Senate | » Assembly
Carefully consider a few "pro-family" voter guides. But remember, if certain incumbents are portrayed as "pro-family" or recommend, check the filters above to see how they vote on the "LGBT" agenda. SaveCalifornia.com provides this voter information solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose candidates for public office. These links speak for themselves and do not represent the views or opinions of SaveCalifornia.com.
Will any state senate district change hands in 2016?
It's possible in Modesto/Stockton. The 3 primary candidates in SD5 (only 1 has a campaign site): Cathleen Galgiani (D) | Samuel Anderson (R) | Alan Nakanishi (R)
» "In Their Own Words": Republican and Democratic Platforms (2012)
Life, Marriage, Health Care & Conscience, Second Amendment (Firearms), Education, The Economy, The United Nations, Right to Work & Unions, Energy & Climate Change
» "Democrats & Republicans In Their Own Words" (2002)
National Party Platforms on Specific Biblical Issues: Abortion, Homosexuality, Prayer in Schools, School Choice & Faith-Based Education
There are strict constructionist judges and there are judicial activists. Do the judicial candidates on your ballot believe in upholding the written law (strict constructionists) or in "re-interpreting" the law to suit their personal agendas (judicial activists)?
Judge recommendations are few because of the heavy research requirements. However, the following sites contain some helpful judge information for you to peruse. SaveCalifornia.com provides this solely for educational purposes and does not support or oppose these candidates:
State government-produced voter guide
Because the ruling Democrats in today's era have refused to expel (kick out of office) state Senators or state Assemblymembers who are charged or indicted on suspicion of crimes, or even if they're convicted of committing a crime, suspending them without the right to vote on legislation -- and especially if suspended without pay and benefits -- is almost as good as expulsion. Prop. 50 essentially allows but doesn't require suspension without pay or benefits, the withholding of which is currently allowed only if a legislator is expelled.
Suspension is also much more practical in today's political environment where liberal Democrats are in charge, and refuse to expel criminal legislators, no matter how corrupt. And in some cases, suspension will even be better for pro-family values. Under Proposition 50, if two-thirds of a house of the California Legislature votes to suspend a legislator, Prop. 50 requires that the suspended legislator be denied any right or privilege of office, and permits the suspension to include a prohibition of pay and benefits.
The suspension from office that Prop. 50 would create is almost as good as an outright expulsion because the overtly corrupt legislator can no longer vote on the floor of his or her legislative body. And if the suspension is also without pay and benefits (and there will be heavy pressure to deny suspended legislators pay and benefits because that's why Prop. 50 was purportedly put on the ballot), this will be better than what’s occurred in the last couple generations (no expulsions, and suspensions that never cut off pay and benefits).
In addition, Prop. 50's suspension provisioners could be better for pro-family voters and worse for anti-family bills. Because the longer a liberal or otherwise bad legislative seat is vacant, it will be "one vote harder" to pass bad bills and bad budgets. We think it's perfectly fine and even preferable for a bad legislator's seat to remain vacant during a long court case and subsequent appeals. The longer that seat is vacant, the better. Under a Prop. 50 suspension, that potential bad vote could be missing for a couple of years, compared to one anti-family legislator being replaced by virtual clone in less than a year, in the case of an expulsion and subsequent special election.
And despite two Republican legislators’ claims of potential abuse by Prop. 50, the fact is Prop. 50 guarantees greater protections against political mischief. Why? Because Prop. 50 increases the number of voters needed to suspend a legislator. Right now, there’s only a majority vote (50% + 1) required to suspend -- but Prop. 50 would raise that to a two-thirds vote. Prop. 50 therefore makes it harder for the majority party to unjustly harm a member of the minority party. As the independent Legislative Analyst writes, "Currently, the Assembly or Senate can suspend one of its members with a majority vote. This measure requires a two-thirds vote of the Assembly or Senate in order to suspend one of its members."
• A two-thirds vote is required in either house to expel a member (and salary and benefits stop when there's an expulsion)
• Either house, by a majority vote, can suspend a member (who, under current legal interpretation, will keep receiving salary and benefits)
As the Calfornia Legislative Analyst explains, "Expelling a legislator—ending his or her term of office—is the most severe disciplinary action available to the Assembly or Senate. The last time this happened was in 1905, when four Senators were found by the Senate to be taking bribes. ...in 2014 three Senators were accused of felonies and the Senate subsequently voted to suspend them. During the time they were suspended, the three Senators did not vote on bills or take other legislative actions. They remained in office, however, and kept receiving state salaries and benefits until they left the Senate. (Later in 2014, each of the three either resigned or left the Legislature at the scheduled end of their Senate terms.) This was the first time in history that California legislators had been suspended."
Under Proposition 50:
• There would still be a two-thirds vote required to expel a legislator (no change)
• To suspend a legislator, the threshold increases to two-thirds of either house
• A suspended legislator automatically loses all "rights, privileges, duties, or powers of his or her office" and cannot "utilize any resources of the Legislature"
• When voting to suspend a legislator, two-thirds of a house can also opt to halt the suspended legislator's pay and benefits