A Look At The November Ballot- Part 1

Our sample ballots arrived in the mail yesterday. That gives me a chance for a preliminary look as to how I might be voting, or not. I'm sure you've all been waiting for this. My choices highlighted in red :

Governor of California- Brown vs. Kashkari: I consider Brown to be an average California governor. He's vetoed a few bad bills but signed a lot of bad ones. That's average. Kashkari might well do the same.

But Brown's dogged support for the high speed rail project earns him an D, if not an F in my book. That's a large part of why he ended up being graded by Cato as dead last among the nation's governors in regards fiscal responsibility.

I might not vote in this race except for the high speed rail issue. For that reason alone I'll vote for Neel Kashkari.

Lieutenant Governor- Newsom vs. Nehring: Another one I might consider not voting in, except I'm not a fan of Gavin Newsom. I'll likely go ahead and waste my vote on Ron Nehring.

Secretary of State- Padilla vs. Peterson: I don't know that can find any compelling reason to vote in that race but I've paid little attention to it. I might well stand aside.

Controller- Yee vs. Swearingin: Swearingin was the one by most accounts I've read, until she started talking about maybe supporting Brown for Governor. That makes me question her judgment. If I don't stand aside in this race I'll vote for her.

Treasurer- Chang vs. Conlon: Probably Conlon if I don't stand aside.

Attorney General- Harris vs. Gold: Stand Aside?, although Harris does have a reputation for partisan activities while in office. I might choose Gold. I wouldn't choose Harris.

Insurance Commissioner- Jones vs. Gaines: Stand Aside

Board of Equalization, Dist. 2- Ma vs Theis: The Board of Equalization deals with enforcement of state tax laws. That would suggest the Republican might be the obvious candidate, except I've never noticed any particular stand out actions from Republicans on the BoE. I'm leaning towards Theis, the Republican, but won't probably decide for sure until I fill out my ballot. I may just stand aside.

House of Representatives, Dist. 2- Huffman vs. Mensing: I hate Jared Huffman for his time in the state legislature alone, but I'll have to admit he hasn't done much that I'm aware of since he's been in congress to piss me off. Heck, I even defended him against some critics in the Santa Rosa Press- Democrat earlier this year.

I'll be voting for his challenger, Dale Mensing, unless Mensing comes up with something stupid before the election.

State Senate, Dist. 2- McGuire vs. Wiesner: I've disliked Mike McGuire since the first I've heard of him. Being on the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is probably reason enough to vote against him. I'm not particularly fond of his opponent, Lawrence Wiesner, either. In that past I've stood aside when he ran for congress as he's very hawkish.

This is a state office, though, Since Republicans are in the minority and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future, I see little potential harm should Wiesner actually win. If nothing else, he might vote NO on some of the stupid proposals that come out of Sacramento whereas McGuire will most certainly vote Yes. I'm choosing Wiesner.

State Assembly, Dist. 2- Wood vs. Heath: I believe Jim Wood sits on the Healdsburg City Council and is a big defender of their water fluoridation program (that's up for a vote this November)- probably the last type of person I'd vote for. Aside from that, this is a state office in a state run by Democrats so there's no potential downside if his Republican opponent actually won. My vote goes for Matt Heath.

Superintendent of Public Instruction- Tuck vs. Torkalson: Tom Torkalson is the status quo incumbent. Marshall Tuck has the reputation as the non- statist challenger. Torkalson is also the teacher's union favorite. Marshall Tuck is the easy choice in this one.

Judicial Races- I'm not voting in any of the judicial races. There's no way I know of to tell which ones I'd want as judges and which ones definitely not. I've wrote before here it's too bad there's no analysis done on these judicial elections by the various interest groups; Reason Foundation, ACLU and such. They could look at past decisions by the candidates and give you an idea which of the judges are worth casting a vote for.

I'll do Part 2 tomorrow which will cover the state ballot initiatives. I might even throw in the local elections depending on how I feel.