Most importantly: YES YES YES on Alameda County Measure BB: Crucial Transit Improvements
The whole list goes roughly from the bottom of your ballot to the top (races in italics are the ones I haven't settled on yet -- but I plan to!). If there's a race missing that you want more info on, post a comment!!
Berkeley Measures + Offices:
- D: YES YES YES for Berkeley Soda Tax
- R: NO NO NO: Protect Berkeley's Downtown Plan
- And here's one combined post for the other Berkeley measures:
- F: YES to Support Berkeley Parks
- O: Yes to Clean Up City Charter
- P: Yes: Berkeley says Corporations aren't People, Money isn't Speech
- Q: Yes: Berkeley says Work should be flexible
- R: NO NO NO: Protect Berkeley's Downtown Plan
- S: Yes to Approve Redistricting map
- Berkeley City Council: following my friend Nathan's recommendations
- D-1: Linda Maio
- D-7: Sean Barry.
- D-8: Michael Alvarez Cohen (1), Lori Droste (2)
- Berkeley School District: Ty Alper, Josh Daniels, and probably Karen Hemphill. Writeup coming soon.
- Berkeley Rent Board: there are 5 people running for 5 seats. They've all endorsed each other. They're all going to win. They might be great people, but that's not good for democracy.
Oakland Measures + Offices: I put these all together in one big Oakland post.
- CC: Yes to Strengthen the Ethics Commission.
- DD: Yes to Create an Independent Redistricting Commission.
- EE: Yes for a technical fix on pension administration.
- FF: YES YES YES to Lift Up Oakland.
- N: YES for High Schools parcel tax.
- Z: YES to continue Violence Prevention/Police tax.
- Oakland Mayor - #1 Schaaf, #2 Quan, #3 ... blank or Siegel
- Auditor: Brenda Roberts.
- City Council District 2: Abel Guillen.
- Districts 4+6 - no endorsement.
Alameda County + Special District Measures + Offices
- YES YES YES on Measure BB: Crucial Transit Improvements
- BART District 4: Robert Raburn
- AC Transit District, At-Large: maybe Dollene Jones, or maybe write-in you!
- East Bay MUD, Ward 3: Marguerite Young.
- If you have questions about any other special districts, write a comment!
State Propositions:
- 1: Torn between Yes vs. No, with conflicting input from people I trust ($7.5 billion water bond) -- see long writeup.
- 2: YES for a reasonable rainy day fund.
- 45: Yes to Regulate Health Insurance Rates
- 46: No on Drug-Testing of Doctors, Medical Malpractice, + Prescription Database
- 47: YES YES YES for Sensible Criminal Justice Reform
- 48: Yes on Indian Gaming Compacts
Nonpartisan Offices
- State Superintendent of Public Instruction: [HEADS-UP -- I CHANGED MY MIND!] Marshall Tuck -- see the comments for an explanation.
- County Superintendent of Schools: not researched yet, but friends seem to all support Karen Monroe.
Judges
- I don't know any reason not to vote for any of these judges. And in the absence of any significant campaign against any one of them, they're going to be re-elected. If you know something about any one of them, let me know.
State (+ Federal) Offices
- For almost all the state offices -- Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, & Member State Board of Equalization 2nd District -- I'm voting the Democratic ticket. I like some of them, don't know so much others.
- D-15: slight edge to Tony Thurmond over Elizabeth Echols, although I'd be delighted with either of them as my representative. See long writeup.
- D-16: Tim Sbranti. Great guy, effective leader, teacher, and someone I've grown to respect through my work life for the past several years. I'm sad we're losing him as a councilmember from Dublin.
- D-18: Rob Bonta: a helpful and effective leader from Alameda, who I met through the 2011-2012 Measure BB negotiations. And an incumbent Democrat, so I presume he'll win easily.
- D-20: Bill Quirk. Intelligent leader from Hayward. And an incumbent Democrat, so I presume he'll win easily.
Posts
9 comments:
Thank you, as always, Jeff! I look forward to seeing your additional thoughts, and those of your other readers, as they are added.
(reposted - for some reason, it showed me as "unknown" with my Google account. Sorry for the confusion!)
Jeff, this is basically what I sent to Kim when I did not have your contact info.)
I do hope this gets to you. I've been meaning to write to you since I received your earlier endorsement of Elizabeth Echols.
I want to encourage you to rethink your endorsement in the Assembly 15th race. I have been for Thurmond all along and I feel even stronger about him now. But more about that later.
First, why I have been for Thurmond all along: Almost everything I have read has said that both candidates are very much alike. (Including yours.) In such a case, it seems to me that it is time to go beyond handing on the position to "friends and family" of a narrow Berkeley/North Oakland swath in what is a much larger district. After Bates came his aide Aron and then his wife and colleague Hancock and then to their colleague Skinner. (All old BCAers) And now they are trying to hand it on to Echols. In the past they were good progressives and tried to widen the "pool" of qualified people. In the 70's and 80's, opening up to women was progressive. (And still would be in most parts of the country.) But why did they stop looking more broadly? Why not someone from Oakland (when Keith Carson tried for the position) or now with Thurmond from Richmond.
I think this old group has been progressive and I agree with most of their decisions. But I do think that part of being a progressive is working to bring new people into the discussion. I think they did that for women, but then they seem to have stopped. If I did not think that Thurmond was at least as prepared (and in many ways better) as Echols I would not encourage you to support him. But I do.
The one issue which people supporting Echols seem to have raised to me is her support for environmentalism. (Despite, as I understand it, Thurmond's standing up against Chevron when he was on the Richmond city council. And his current stand against all fracking.) I assume that you know that the Green party now came out with a "do not vote for Echols" statement. (They are not allowed to endorse anyone who is not a Green, so this is the closest they can come to endorisng Thurmond.) I have to question whether she is more progressive than he on even this one issue.
Given both these reasons, I hope that you will change your support to Thurmond.
Rachel
Thank you, Sharon!
And thank you, Rachel, for the comments endorsing Thurmond. I'll definitely take a closer look, and I'll modify my summary post to say as much.
Jeff, please endorse a Yes vote on Proposition 47 - it will help to end institutional racism in the state's criminal justice system.
Gary -- thanks for the suggestion. From what I've heard so far, I plan to endorse Prop 47.
Thanks, Jeff, for all the work you've done to research these issues. I am finding your thoughts to be very helpful as I think through the issues as well.
As to the judges I've seen a recommendation to vote No on Liu and Werdegar because they voted with the majority to take proposition 49 off the ballot.
I changed my mind on the State Superintendent of Public Instruction. After sending out my recommendations, I got feedback from a couple people I know who follow education politics and administration more closely than I do. They both took me to task (politely, I might add) for not having looked at this race closely enough.
My friend Jonathan said:
"I suppose it's too late, but man, I wish we could have had a conversation about Torlakson/Tuck. I think too many good lefties are buying into the idea that charter schools are somehow not public schools, and pulling back from the idea that challenging institutions in the interest of urgently serving low-income and minority families is precisely what liberals should support. Your guide is utterly invaluable but I think on this one you're off. Torlakson has been a defender of the status quo in an area where poor kids and kids of color really really really need to see change."
And my friend Ed said:
"Re state Sup of public instruction, I'm gonna disagree with you and go with Marshall tuck. As the product of a strong teachers union (both my parents were public school teachers) and someone who finds himself battling the corporatization (sp?) of public education by charter schools (as an attorney for school districts) I can't believe I'm pulling the lever for tuck. Torlakson simply disappoints and I think is too satisfied with the status quo. I receive all announcements from the CDE and the all seem to be press releases for Tom Torlakson as opposed to any accomplishments for kids. I'll wait for Marshall tuck to likewise disappoint me."
My original vote was not based on much research, mostly a follow-the-leader response to what I saw others doing, plus a short conversation with Kim.
Jonathan in particular is someone we know to be damn smart about education policy and to also be someone who shares our politics. So I changed our mind, and I just voted for Tuck.
Post a Comment