This is how I am voting – and why:
Elections have consequences. In these 2022 midterm elections, there are many propositions – and I want to record how I am voting, and why. I also want to list the people I am voting for, and in some cases, why. I am sharing my record as a way of offering insight to anyone who is wondering about this election cycle. I am also sharing this record as a list of people and propositions to truly pray over! I’ll admit – the Judicial section regarding the various judges is difficult to discern – as I do not have much insight into these individuals. But I will be praying for each by name, as they step further into our system of justice, that good may come of their work, and not ill!
STATE:
GOVERNOR:
BRIAN DAHLE (R) YES!
-fiscal conservative; lower taxes;
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR:
ANGELA E. UNDERWOOD JACOBS (R) yes
-fiscal conservative
SECRETARY OF STATE:
ROB BERNOSKY (R) YES
-election process clarity; fiscal conservative; law and order; education
CONTROLLER:
LANHEE J. CHEN (R) YES
-fiscal conservative; fraud prevention; accountability
TREASURER:
JACK M. GUERRERO (R) YES
-fiscal conservative; balance budget, lower taxes; proud Hispanic Catholic
ATTORNEY GENERAL:
NATHAN HOCHMAN (R) yes
-crime and homelessness; public safety
INSURANCE COMMISSIONER:
ROBERT HOWELL (R) yes
-price controls; anti-redlining
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION:
District 4
DAVID DODSON (D) yes
-pro homeowner
SENATE:
MARK P. MEUSER (R) YES!
-fiscal conservative; Covid anti-reactionary; law and order
ALEX PADILLA (D) NO!
-proponent of abortion on demand to point of birth
-proponent of raising taxes whenever possible (to ‘give more to Californians’ ? 🙁 )
SENATE PARTIAL:
MARK P. MEUSER (R) YES!
-fiscal conservative; Covid anti-reactionary; law and order
US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
DARREL ISSA ( R ) YES
STATE SENETOR
Kelly Seyarto ( R ) YES
MEMBER OF STATE ASSEMBLY
Kate Sanchez ( R ) yes
JUDICIAL:
It is hard to find info on these people; my vote is based on the limited insight I could garner, indicating an orientation towards fiscally and socially conservative stances (yes) or not (no).
Patricia Guerrero -NO
Goodwin Liu – NO
Martin Jenkins – NO
Josh Groban – NO
Judith McConnell – NO
Truc T. Do – NO
Martin Buchanan – NO
Manuel Ramirez – YES
Michael Raphael – NO
Carol Codrington – YES
Frank Menetrez – NO
Kathleen E. O’Leary – NO
William W. Bedsworth – NO
Maurice Sanchez – NO
Eileen C. Moore – NO
Joanne Motoike – NO
Amy Zois Barajas – NO
NATALIE LOUGH – YES
SCHOOLS: SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION:
LANCE RAY CHRISTENSEN
-focused on education excellence and fiscal responsibility
(The other guy, Tony K Thurmond is focused on special interests, and is honored to be endorsed by Planned Parenthood)
Murrieta Valley Unified School District:
Nicolas Pardue – YES!
Country Controller:
Ben J. Benoit
Wester Municipal Water District Director
Jerry Carlos – Yes
Rancho California Water District Director:
Skylar Tempel – Yes
PROP 1 – NO
ABORTION ON DEMAND UP TIL BIRTH
It is unbelievable to me that literally the number one item on the ballot is ABORTION ON DEMAND AS A RIGHT. That is what Prop 1 is about. The reality is that in California, abortion is already protected through other laws – so Prop 1 is unnecessary, if it is about protecting access to abortion. Further, Prop 1 will enshrine abortion through to end of term as a right, AND force taxpayers to pay for it.
PROP 26 – NO
SPORTS BETTING AT TRIBAL CASINOS
Prop 26 expands gambling to a massive degree by permitting sports betting at tribal casinos. It will only raise ‘tens of millions of dollars’ for California government – which is not a lot; but it will draw people into devastating addiction and financial losses by the hundreds of millions; that is what happens with sports betting.
PROP 27 – NO
SPORTS BETTING ON PHONES
Prop 27 allows sports betting on mobile devices, bringing gambling addiction and subsequent personal losses right into the hands of anyone 21 or older. Some laws need to be enforced to protect people – at times, from their own unhealthy tendencies. Current laws which prevent this kind of gambling do just that.
PROP 28 – YES (?)
MORE FUNDING FOR ARTS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
This prop does add $1 billion dollars to the state general fund budget and will probably lead to additional taxes for funding, even thought the proposal doesn’t specify that. But, in this case, funding for arts in CA public schools is needed. Only 1 out of 5 CA schools has a full time arts teacher. Personally, I benefited from public arts education as a child; even though i did not become an ‘artist’, the creative development helped shaped my capacity for innovation and communication. So even though this could lead to more taxes, this is one of the most positive things to invest in for people’s well being and development of potential. It is a question mark for me, though I lean towards the yes, because I am philosophically opposed to handing over any further funding that costs taxpayers even more.
PROP 29 – NO
DIALYSIS CLINIC DOCTOR REQUIREMENT
Dialysis clinics are in business to make money by providing a desperately needed service in local communities. Prop 29 would load up beaurocratic requirements and overhead costs on that business to such a degree that they will need to operate at a loss. Further, the clinic owners may not even be allowed to close a clinic, even if it is operating at a loss, because the CDPH can force them to keep it open. This is an illegitimate use of beauracratic political force! This will drive much needed dialysis clinics out of the state, leading to hospitalizations for dialysis at a much higher cost to the state! Would it be nice to have a doctor at every dialysis clinic? Sure. Is it necessary? No! Will requiring that lead to a diminishing availability of dialysis clinics? Yes. Therefor – I vote no on prop 29.
PROP 30 – NO
TAX MILLIONAIRES TO FUND REBATES FOR EV’S AND FIRE PREVENTION
Millionaires should not be punished for having succeeded! California does not need to make our state a place millionaires don’t want to live! This prop raises taxes by 1.75% on people who make over $2 million a year. The people who have made that much income are likely adding economic value to our state through their business that creates employment and their personal spending. It is unreasonable to penalize them for their success. It is unwise to create an environment in our state that makes successful people want to leave! Further, the proposal lumps together EV industry incentives and rebates along with wildfire prevention. These items are not intrinsically related and should not be related in a proposal. Further, the EV market should be governed by market conditions at this point. Let capitalism do it’s job; if there is really and truly a market for EV’S, people will buy them even if there is no rebate. If increase in EV charging is truly a need, the market should bring the supply to meet that demand without any taxpayer money. Wildfire prevention funding should be presented as an issue that stands on it’s own.
PROP 31 – YES
BAN SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO/‘VAPES’
Finally! Finally there is n emerging collective sense of common sense regarding flavored tobacco and vapes! This prop helps diminish the availability and profitability of these products that create addictions and damaging health conditions! Yes, this will lead to the loss of $100 million in tax revenue from sale of flavored tobacco and vapes. That’s a loss we SHOULD take. We shouldn’t ‘make money’ through the sale of flavored tobacco. ITs just too damaging – and too targeted toward minors!