Not that I think Arnold Schwarzenegger is a Democrat or anything, but he, along with the full force of the statewide elected leadership, is pushing the EPA hard to allow the state’s greenhouse gas emission controls on vehicles to go forward.  The Supreme Court has already ruled that the EPA can regulate greenhouse gas emissions, yet the EPA is dragging its feet on giving permission to California and the other states lined up behind us.  Attorney General Jerry Brown was impassioned on this issue when meeting with regulators in Washington this week.

“This is more important than any issue that EPA’s going to have to face,” California Attorney General Jerry Brown told regulators who will recommend whether to give California the waiver it needs to implement its emissions law.

Brown asked the hearing panel to take a message to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

“We want him to speak truth to power,” said Brown. “There is a tremendous influence of the oil industry. We know (Vice President) Cheney and (President) Bush are oilmen, they think like oil folks. … We say grant the waiver.”

This would be the most sweeping law regulating vehicle emissions in our nation’s history (and it was passed in 2002, pre-Mr. Green Hummer, folks), and would lead to an 18% reduction in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere due to cars by 2020.

To his credit, Schwarzenegger (along with Brown) has vowed to sue the EPA if they don’t act on this by October.  And he and Connecticut’s Jodi Rell penned a strong op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post about the issue (on the flip):

It’s bad enough that the federal government has yet to take the threat of global warming seriously, but it borders on malfeasance for it to block the efforts of states such as California and Connecticut that are trying to protect the public’s health and welfare […]

Since transportation accounts for one-third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, enacting these standards would be a huge step forward in our efforts to clean the environment and would show the rest of the world that our nation is serious about fighting global warming […]

By continuing to stonewall California’s request, the federal government is blocking the will of tens of millions of people in California, Connecticut and other states who want their government to take real action on global warming.

If this doesn’t happen, by the way, it’s because the President signed an executive order calling for federal agencies to “continue studying” global warming until the end of 2008 (hey, that coincides with the end of his term!), which may stall any action.  Though this is a partisan blog, I think we can all agree that this is a noble effort to get the EPA to do the job the Supreme Court told it to do just one month ago, and grant the permission under the Clean Air Act to let California regulate vehicles the way it demands.  The health of our planet is at stake, and we must see action on this soon. 

You can contact the EPA yourself here.

“I speak Spanish very well and (the letter) was offensive,” she said. “And it was offesnive and intimidating to many voters who talked to our office.”

She also said the law seemed to by on Nguyen’s side — for better or worse.

“If you read the state and federal laws, it’s very difficult to get a conviction. The laws are vague,” she said.

That was my fabulous Congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez, speaking to OC Register reporter Martin Wisckol about Attorney General Jerry Brown’s decision NOT to pursue criminal charges against Tan Nguyen for intimidating over 14,000 LEGALLY registered voters. Now maybe it really is quite difficult to get a conviction for a charge like this, but it shouldn’t be impossible. Chris Prevatt took another look at state election law at The Liberal OC, and he arrived at quite an interesting conclusion.

Follow me after the flip to see the law for yourself, and decide whether Jerry Brown really wants to enforce the law here…

Here’s what Chris dug up at The Liberal OC:

18540.  (a) Every person who makes use of or threatens to make use of any force, violence, or tactic of coercion or intimidation, to
induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting at
any election or to vote or refrain from voting for any particular
person or measure at any election, or because any person voted or
refrained from voting at any election or voted or refrained from
voting for any particular person or measure at any election is guilty
of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months or two or three years.

  (b) Every person who hires or arranges for any other person to
make use of or threaten to make use of any force, violence, or tactic
of coercion or intimidation, to induce or compel any other person to
vote or refrain from voting at any election or to vote or refrain
from voting for any particular person or measure at any election, or
because any person voted or refrained from voting at any election or
voted or refrained from voting for any particular person or measure
at any election is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in
the state prison for 16 months or two or three years.

18543.  (a) Every person who knowingly challenges a person’s right
to vote without probable cause or on fraudulent or spurious grounds,
or who engages in mass, indiscriminate, and groundless challenging of
voters solely for the purpose of preventing voters from voting or to
delay the process of voting, or who fraudulently advises any person
that he or she is not eligible to vote or is not registered to vote
when in fact that person is eligible or is registered, or who
violates Section 14240, is punishable by imprisonment in the county
jail for not more than 12 months or in the state prison.

  (b) Every person who conspires to violate subdivision (a) is
guilty of a felony.

OK, the law seems quite clear. This letter clearly violates state law. So why didn’t Jerry Brown take this case to court, and at least try to achieve justice for all the voters in Orange County who were nearly scared away from the polls by Tan Nguyen?

I have to concur with Chris here:

We all know that the letters went to 14,000 legally registered voters.  As registered voters these individuals are entitled to the right to vote, without intimidation or obstruction by anyone.  The only way a voter may be challenged is if an  elections official has specific and compelling evidence that the voter is not eligible to vote.  Elections officials are the only people who may directly intervene to stop someone from voting illegally.

I’ve got ju[s]t one question for AG Moon Beam and his Senior Assistan[t] AG in San Diego; How on earth can you conclude that section 18543 was not violated when eligible voters were challeneged without probable cause, by a mass and indiscriminate mailing to legally registered voters?  I cannot find anything in the code that talks about “intent.”  It is that act of intimidation that is the crime.  From what I can see, intent is nothing more than icing on the cake.

I just don’t get their reasoning here.

Neither do I, Chris. Neither do I.

“The right to vote is fully protected under the XV Amendment of the US constitution. Anybody that uses any intimidation tactics should be prosecuted with the full power of the law. When Mr. Nguyen or anybody else uses the printing materials such as letterhead of an anti-immigrant organization it shows intent to intimidate. How more clear can it be? I feel disappointed that it was LULAC that had to call the State Attorney General’s office to find out the results of the investigations rather than the AG call us. When I spoke with Mr. Schons he said that the case was closed back in February, they really dropped the ball. We are going to ask the US Attorney General to fully investigate this issue.”

That was Orange County LULAC President Benny Diaz, speaking to The Liberal OC about how he found out that Jerry Brown would not be pursuing a case against Tan Nguyen for illegally intimidating over 14,000 legal voters. So why didn’t Jerry Brown follow through on the case that Bill Lockyer was trying to make? And what do the people in Orange County who had the misfortune of having front-row seats to the Tan Nguyen debacle have to say about what happened yesterday?

Follow me after the flip for more…

Here are a couple more comments from The Liberal OC on Tan Nguyen and Jerry Brown’s decision not to prosecute him t the fullest extent of state law:

While Tan Nguyen is clearly not out of the woods yet, given the federal voting rights investigation that is still ongoing, he has clearly gotten a pass from Attorney General Moon Beam.

Frank Barbaro, Chairman of the Democratic Party of Orange County commented tonight saying;

“This is a classic case of wrong without remedy. Everybody agrees that what Tan Nguyen did was very wrong, and was done with the intent to discourage people from voting.”

Democratic Party of Orange County Vice-Chair Rima Nashashibi, who is an American-Palestinian born in Jerusalem, was a bit more blunt;

“The letters were offensive, to me and they were offensive to the legally registered voters who received them. At the time Tan Nguyen’s involvement in this attack on the voting rights of U.S. citizens was revealed, both Democrat and Republican leaders condemned his actions. Despite the decision of the State Attorney General on this matter, I hope GOP Chairman Scott Baugh will continue to stand by his repudiation of Tan Nguyen’s acts of voter intimidation.”

Tan Nguyen has never apologized for his actions and he needs to be held accountable. Hopefully, this will occur at the federal level. Only time will tell. Tick-tock, tick-tock.

Yes, Tan Nguyen should be held accountable for sending this letter to over 14,000 legally registered voters in Central Orange County. So why didn’t Jerry Brown do that? Why didn’t he pursue a case against Tan Nguyen? Why didn’t he stand up for Californians’ right to vote… And NOT be intimidated away from doing so?

I really don;t like speculating about these matters. That’s why I’d like an answer from our Attorney General. Why didn’t he do his job of prosecuting those (like Tan Nguyen) who commit crimes against innocent people (like scaring them away from the polls)? Why, Jerry? Why?

Here’s a new angle to being “soft on crime”… Why didn’t Attorney General Jerry Brown file suit against Tan Nguyen for intimidating legal Latino voters? Claudio Gallegos lets it rip at Orange Juice:

The California Attorney General’s office announced today that Tan Nguyen will not face charges in the fraudulent letter he sent out to disenfranchise Latino voters. Former Attorney General Bill Lockyer quickly moved into action to ensure Nguyen was held accountable. Unfortunately he did not have enough time in his term left. Democrat(although I am hesitant to call him that at this point) Jerry Brown took over as Attorney General. His spokesman Gary Schons is quoted as saying

“We had to prove that they intended to intimidate lawfully registered voters. We found no evidence that they intended to intimidate lawfully registered voters. In fact, the first line of the letter said, ‘If you’re a lawfully registered voter, we encourage you to vote.’ A lot of people missed that.”

No kidding a lot of people missed it Mr. Schons, it was meant to be missed. Even Republicans were calling for his head.

So is there something that Jerry Brown missed here? Follow me after the flip for more…

Here’s the rest of what Claudio has to say at Orange Juice:

If there was no criminal intent, please explain why Tan did the following actions:

1) Use a fake letterhead of an anti-immigrant organization instead of his own campaign letterhead?

2) Why did they use a fake name at the end of the letter?

3) Why was Tan refusing to answer the simplest of questions regarding this letter?

4) Why did Tan Nguyen’s story change about 10 times?

The intent was clear, to intimidate Latino voters and stay covert. Pure and simple. In the 2006 election I voted for the Green Party candidate for Attorney General because I felt Rocky Delgadillo should have been our nominee and dinosaurs like Jerry Brown need to move aside for our generation. Thanks for confirming I made the right vote. And I will continue to vote Green whenever Jerry Brown is on the ballot.

Tan Nguyen was the most obviously guilty man since OJ Simpson, yet he will walk away unpunished. Let this be a lesson to you all, include some obscure hidden sentence in a letter, intimidate and disenfranchise voters and you will not be held responsible for your actions. Thanks alot Jerry, I see your softness on crime extends to those who seek to disenfranchise minorities’ right to vote.

Well, it hurts me to say this… But perhaps, Claudio and blogswarm are right here. Jerry Brown really failed all of us in Orange County who were hoping for some real actions against the illegal voter intimidation antics used by Tan Nguyen in his despicable “campaign” against my fabulous Congresswoman, Loretta Sanchez. Now why he couldn’t he stand up for all of us voters in Orange County? And for that matter, why can’t he stand up for all the voters in this state who should NEVER be intimidated in the way that those 14,000+ legal voters were?

Maybe Jerry Brown shouldn’t have been our choice for Attorney General if he wasn’t really interested in doing his job.

In today’s San Francisco Chronicle, Matier and Ross report on a J. Moore Methods poll that shows Jerry Brown with a huge lead among theoretical Democratic 2010 gubernatorial candidates. The poll has to be taken with a whole shaker of salt – it’s only 2007, no candidates have declared, this is really just a poll of name recognition, etc.

But by a clause in CA’s term limits law, Edmund G. Brown, Jr. is eligible to run for a third term in office should he wish to return to it. In the M&R story he said he had “no plans” to run in 2010. Still, the 31% support – far outdistancing Antonio Villaraigosa who had 17% in the poll (although becoming the clear favorite when Brown’s name was not included) – makes this at least interesting Sunday morning coffee and donut speculation.

Jerry Brown was one of only four Democrats elected governor in CA in the 20th century, and was greatly helped by sharing a name with his popular father Edmund G. “Pat” Brown, as well as capitalizing on voter discontent with Reagan’s governorship in the 1974 election.

However, it’s my view that Brown was not a successful governor, and failed to provide leadership during the most pivotal moments in recent CA history. Brown entered office with some interesting ideas, but found his most immediate task to be dealing with a protracted economic crisis. Brown’s solution was austerity, cutting or freezing state spending on everything from social services to freeway projects. Half-finished offramps were left hanging in the air as Brown declared an “era of limits.”

While he was not totally wrong in recognizing the need to change, he failed to grasp the voter mood. His spending cuts led the state to amass a sizable surplus – over $1 billion by the 1977 legislative session. Meanwhile inflation had led local governments to hike property taxes to provide for local services, stoking a voter revolt over taxes.

Brown’s failure was to not find a way to cut property taxes or spend the surplus to forestall Prop 13, written and passed in 1978. In his 1977 State of the State address he called on the Legislature to provide tax relief, but Brown was unable to bring a fractious Democratic majority to agreement on the subject. And since he was unwilling to spend the surplus, voters saw the situation as absurd. Worse, critics of Prop 13 who pointed out its eventually disastrous effects on government finances were told by tax revolters that the state could simply use its billion dollar surplus to bail out local governments.

Facing reelection in 1978 Brown came out in favor of Prop 13, though not enthusiastically and after an earlier period of opposition. It passed by an overwhelming margin in June, and Brown knew that if he were to be reelected, he would have to embrace it. He did in fact use the surplus funds to bail out local governments, but though this was only a short-term fix, it set the precedent that the state has been following ever since, as more and more of the general fund has been going to pay for local government costs that property taxes used to cover.

Moreover, state projects never recovered from Brown’s spending freeze. A few were finished, but many others were postponed, a delay that’s now lasted over 30 years. While CA’s problems cannot be wholly laid at Brown’s feet, he did fail to provide leadership to solve them.

The above historical detour is valuable in shedding light on what kind of governor Brown might be. He has always preferred a centrist course, and though he is not especially friendly to corporations, neither has he been sufficiently skeptical of their power. His populism is real, but it has never found a clear manifestation in politics or policy. His term as Oakland’s mayor did not see significant improvement in its fortunes, although as anyone who’s driven down 880 near Broadway knows, he did prove a friend to developers.

My gut tells me Brown will not run in 2010, but in discussing this theoretical possibility, we can also determine what we DO want from our gubernatorial candidates. A commitment to single-payer universal health care seems paramount. Some sort of plan to fix this state’s chronic financial problems also would be good – a gubernatorial campaign built around a well thought-out and well-researched proposal could generate significant political momentum of its own. All governors who have taken office since Brown left in 1982 have merely offered as-needed solutions, which have typically only worsened our budget problems.

Our gubernatorial candidates need to address infrastructure questions, from transportation to water, in a way that emphasizes sustainability, not sprawl. They need to have a good grasp on the state’s economic situation and have some idea of where we can promote job growth for the next decade. They also need to be committed to equal rights, whether it’s equal marriage or protecting all immigrants’ human rights.

The above isn’t an ideal, it’s instead a sensible list of goals. Both the Westly and Angelides campaigns offered much of the above, although were inadequate on the long-range infrastructure and budget issues. Their 2006 platforms should be considered a minimum benchmark for 2010, while we also help build the more long-range and visionary answers to budgets and infrastructure that these times demand.

OK, so I’m feeling tired today…
And I still have so many things to do…
So here’s a new weekend tradition that I’m starting here…
Yes, I’m starting it just for you!
SURREAL OC WEEKEND!

So here are some wild and wonderful Orange County stories that you may have missed while you were, I dunno, watching Gavin Newsom and Peter Ragone become the Lindsay Lohan and Paris Hilton of California politics, or following our own fit of melodrama with the still unresolved Special Election for County Supervisor:

– He’s free! Finally free! My friend Art Pedroza at Orange Juice has finally LIBERATED HIMSELF FROM THE ORANGE COUNTY REPUBLICAN PARTY!! The OC GOP should really mourn his leaving, because he was actually trying to HELP THEM in Central County. Oh yes, and we Dems should probably take heed to what he says, and make sure that we never make the same mistakes that the OC GOP has made:

I wrote this week about what the O.C. GOP could do to rebuild in central O.C. – and predictably Tim Whitacre [linkies for a little history] came on anonymously and asked why I was revealing Central Committee secrets. He’s right. What he and his cronies do ought to be kept secret – or the public might gag to death when they read about it.

I also wrote about my disappointment with the apparent election of Mexican hater Trung Nguyen [link] – and the doom that is coming when he teams up with Chris Norby and John Moorlach [link]. And predictably I got ripped by all sorts of anon GOP posters – and by [Red County/OC Blog Master] Cunningham himself…

My fellow Democrats, this is not just a warning to Republicans. This should also be a warning to us. Let’s never allow machine politics blind us from connecting with our communities. Let’s never, ever make the same mistakes that the Republicans have made.

– How would you feel if you were arrested in Costa Mesa for not having your ID? Wingnut Mayor Allan Mansoor says that he is arresting undocumented workers in order to rid Costa Mesa of “dangerous criminals”. But how does a poor man riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the street qualify as a “dangerous criminal”? And who is now filling his job?

– Romney, Romney, Romney! So why is Presidential Hopeful Mitt Romney so popular in GOP elite circles here, even as the rest of the country casts doubt as to whether Romney has the right stuff. A guest poster at Red County/OC Blog suggests that it may be because “Romney’s biggest financial supporter in O.C. also employs the county party chairman”. No wonder why my friend Art Pedroza is leaving that lame party.

And last, but certainly not least, follow me after the flip…

– I call hypocrisy! My friend Gila at The Liberal OC asks whether GOP Godfather Mike Schroeder is employing irony or just being hypocritical for declaring that Janet Nguyen is a “sore loser” for asking for a recount for a race with ONLY A SEVEN-VOTE SPREAD…
While SUING TO INVALIDATE JERRY BROWN’S ELECTION AS ATTORNEY GENERAL…
And Brown won by OVER 1.5 MILLION VOTES!

Now ain’t that surreal or what? ; )

I told you I’d be back bright and early! Well, all in all, a pretty good night.  So, let’s get to some results:

Yes, Arnold won.  But the only thing he proved is that the Democratic vision for this state is alive and well.  By co-opting our platform, Arnold showed that the Republican vision for this state is just not one that we are prepared to deal with.

CA-11: Jerry won!  Ding-dong the environmental witch is dead. Congratulations, this was really a victory for the netroots, a victory for ethics, and a victory for the environment.

Arnold’s coattails were non-existent, well, unless you can add Poizner’s $15million of his own money to those tails. The GOP took only the two statewide races, Gov and InsComm, and they were resoundigly defeated elsewhere.

• CA-LtG: McClintock’s name ID wasn’t sufficient to propel him over the top and John Garamendi will be our next lite gov.  I know this position is essentially powerless, but would you really want McClintock to have gubenatorial powers when Arnold leaves the state?  Or to give him any further platform? Me neither.
• CA-SoS: Woohoo! Debra Bowen won!!! Finally, somebody will address the issues of electoral integrity from the SoS office. Bowen will be a phenomenal SoS.  You’ve done a good job, California.
• CA-Controller: All that money that Intuit and the Indian gaming interests dumped into IEs for Strickland were completely unsuccessful.  Chiang won this one going away.  Again, he’ll do a great job.
• The less competitive races: As expected Jerry Brown defeated Pooch and Lockyer defeated the repo’d man. Both were far better than their scary competition.
• CA-InsComm: Well, Poizner was right, we cruzed, we losed.  Next time, we’ll get some better candidates.  However, in the interim, Poizner is now primed to run for governor, the position he wanted anyway.  It’s time to start branding him the way we want.

DiFi won.  Oh look, we have our “independent” senator back. We missed our shot to push her back to the left by running a primary challenger, but I think we learned a lesson from CA-36, where Marcy Winograd forced Jane Harman to pay attention to her consitituents. Perhaps that’s a lesson that some other Congress people should pay attention to

Right now it looks like Lynn Daucher(R) won by 13 votes in SD-34.  Yes, thirteen. Currently the tally stands at 38,666 for Correa and 38,679 for Daucher.  There will be a recount for sure and a thorough counting of all ballots and a check for provisionals.  There was a lot of dirtiness in the OC’s elections, so this one is far from over.

Props: Well paint me stupid.  I thought that some of the bonds would go down, but it looks like they all came through easily.  Hmm, well, I was wrong. It happens sometimes when you go out on a limb, but Arnold and the DemGang went all out in the last two weeks and that seems to have worked.  However, Props 85 and 90 were both defeated.  Yay! Maybe they will stop trying to put that stupid parental notification on the ballot again and again.  But I doubt it. This time it was beaten more soundly receiving only 45.9%,as compared to 47.2 last year. 

We barely squeaked by on Prop 90.  Whew!! That was way too close for comfort at 47.4% Yes. We’ll need to address paid signature gathering soon.  I’m really sick of the Howie Rich’s of the world coming here and trying to mess with our system.

Props 86-89 all failed.  The forces against them, Big Tobacco, Big Oil, the monied special interests and well I don’t know about 88, but they just got wiped out by the TV ads.  They obfusicate the issue and hope people will just vote no.  It worked this time.  Next time we’re going to work just as hard.  Particularly, Clean Money and the Alternative Energy/Oil Tax were good ideas. You haven’t heard the last of them.

Ok, I’ll be back soon; I need to take a nap.

I figured this might be a nice thing to share, since a lot of people don’t know some of the downticket races and props so much… again these are my views, and not that of Calitics.

Hi everybody, so I filled out my absentee ballot and already sent it in, it’s the only way to fly in Oakland since our know nothing Elections Supervisor bought a bunch of Sequoia systems fraud machines despite popular outcry… anyway here’s how I voted:

Partisan Offices – statewide
—-
Governor – Phil Angelides
Lt. Governor – John Garamendi
Secretary of State – Debra Bowen
State Controller – John Chiang
State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer
Attorney General – Jerry Brown
Insurance Commisioner – Cruz Bustamente (with waffling)
United States Senate – (blank) or Diane Feinstein (see below)
United States Representative – Barbara Lee
State Assembley – Sandre Swanson
Judges – re-elect
Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A-NO!
Propositions 1B-1E Yes.
Proposition 83 – NO!!
Proposition 84 – Yes
Proposition 85 – FUCK NO!!!
Proposition 86 – Yes
Proposition 87 – HELL YES!
Proposition 88 – No
Proposition 89 – YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
Proposition 90 – NO!
—
City of Oakland
—
Measure M – yes
Measure N – YES!
Measure O – YES YES YES!

The “why’s” are below the cut.

Partisan Offices – statewide
Governor –
Phil Angelides

It’s an easy decision really, Arnold has been playing the part of a moderate ever since he got his ass handed to him in the last “special election”. Phil Angelides, has the brains, the know how, and the plan to lead this great state, and it’s the rare case where the establishment backed candidate is actually the best one of the bunch. It breaks my heart that his idiot campaign manager is such a fool and might blow it.

Let’s be clear, no Democrat or Independent should vote for Arnold… Period.

oh and Pete Camejo used to be cool, but is kind of a dick now.
I voted for him over Gray Davis, and would gladly do so again, but the Democratic Nominee is a Pragmatic progressive, what the hell is Pete doing in this race anyway?

I really hope Phil can pull it off, but rather then just hope, i’m going to canvass and call for him this weekend.

Lt. Governor –
John Garamendi
Tom McClintock is an asshole. One of the biggest assholes in CA.
Garadmendi is kind of “eh.” but has his moments. I’m not his biggest supporter like some folks, but he’s good… I like Phil a hell of a lot better personally. He’s big on stem cell research… so am I, ’nuff said.

Secretary of State –
Debra Bowen
uh… Verified Voting activist/superstar vs. Arnold’s Diebold loving appointee?
no fracking contest. I am totally all about Debra Bowen, and you should be too.

State Controller –
John Chiang
He’s a good dude.

State Treasurer –
Bill Lockyer
I could make a statement about the statewide office “revolving door”, but i’ll save that for my buddy Cruz.
Lockyer has done a decent enough job as AG, why not let him handle the money?
Sure.

Attorney General –
Jerry Brown
I had my issues with him as mayor of my city, and it bugs me that he’s so adamant on the very Draconian Death Penalty, but Poochigian is far worse and has way more of a douchebaggy name. ha ha! I guess Jerry’s plan is to hold every office in the state before he dies…

Insurance Commisioner –
Cruz Bustamente
I literally felt dirty in the recall after I voted “NO” (esp. since Gray Davis was an ass and I wanted him gone, just not that way), and then voted for Bustamente, even though I really wanted to vote for Arianna. I have rarely felt “dirty” after voting except for when I voted for that useless waste of flesh. The ONLY thing I can think of that he did that I liked was the lawsuit against Enron after the rolling blackmail… which was admittedly heroic and kind of awesome. Otherwise… he’s a jackass! And… it seems like you see the same 6 or 7 names every cycle as they all play this game of musical chairs changing positions. Totally lame. Ugh, a tactical vote at best… but at least i get to vote FOR Phil and Debra this cycle.

United States Senate –
Oh DiFi! DiFi, DiFi, DiFi… you bum me out, i’m glad this will be your last Senate term, as you are a constant source of elitism and frustration. I hate that you are so beholden to big business, you’re most “reliable” when it comes time for the one liberal boilerplate issue I am most mushy on… gun control. I hate that you embolden torturers, and need to have crushing amounts of public outrage before opposing real a-holes like John Roberts confirmation. There are a few things you are ok on, but overall, the only reason to vote for you is because Democrats need to take control of the Senate to keep checks and balances and such around. I may vote for you, I may not… I wrote myself in for the primary, because quite frankly, I could do a hell of a lot better job. If I do vote for you, it’s because Dick Mountjoy, while a wonderful pr0nstar name would be a absolutely horrid Senator, not because you are worth a damn at all.

United States Representative-
Barbara Lee
One of my top 10 politicians ever, and my representative, if half of the congresspeople out there had even a quarter of her integrity and guts we’d be a lot better off.

State Assembley-
Sandre Swanson
Seems like a good dude, smart progressive type, and Babs likes him. Besides what am I going to do, vote “Peace and Freedom”? It’s Oakland baby!

Judges
re-elect all… got caught with my pants down on this one, but since I don’t have any beefs rightn ow, i’ll just be ready next time.

Statewide propositions.
Proposition 1A
NO!
I already have to do the legislatures job a couple times a year because so many props like this have the budget locked down.
fuggit. Transportation funding is vital, but mandatory amounts are dumb, and i’m sick of it, and having to research these stupid things.

NO!

Propositions 1B-1E
Yes.
I’m still pissed that this somehow has turned into “Arnold’s issue” when he had to be dragged kicking and screaming into it just in time for election season. But whaever… infrastructure is important.

Now again, don’t we elect a fracking legislature for this crapola???
STOP BOTHERING ME!!!

Proposition 83
NO!!
A Blatant sop to get out the religious types that are always concerned about “focusing on the family” as well as authoritarian a-holes. Look, I think sex offenders are horrible too, but this is Draconian! GPS monitoring for life?
That’s a slippery damn slope. All of the empty posturing that goes over sex offenders sickens me almost as much as the offending itself. Ok, not really… but still… come now. The standards are fine now.

Proposition 84
Yes
Bond measure make me curl up my lip like Billy Idol, because the mantra seems to be “borrow, borrow, borrow”, but this is about water safety and flood control. Every week in rainy times when I drive to Roseville and I see the Delta swelling, I get images of the levees and New Orleans.

no thanks.
It’s a begrudging yes, but a yes, nonetheless.

Proposition 85
FUCK NO!!!
Yet again another winger “base turner outter”, a “waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy”. Right, because it’s far too easy to have this horrible operation performed now right? I am for personal freedom, and that includes a woman’s right to have dominion of her own body, including minors.
I cannot emphasize FUCK NO, enough.

Proposition 86
Yes (with some waffling)
Sorry smokers! Try to see beyond the pocketbook on this one.
I’m all for everybodies personal freedom to fuck up their lungs and give themselves cancer, but we still don’t have real education about the drug that is tobacco and we need that.

a few concerns have been raised by some friends of mine on this… mainly that it goes to private hospitals and adds stuff into the constitution, which bums me out… but still, i’m a soft yes.

Proposition 87
HELL YES!
Reduce dependence on foreign oil? Reduce air pollution?
Wait, why would anybody be against this again?
Oh yeah… the oil companies.
Screw them!

Proposition 88
No
It sounds good on first read, property tax to pay for more funding for schools right?
It creates a bad amount of bureaucracy, and who decides what are “academically successful” schools anyway?
lame!
no.

Proposition 89
YES YES YES! HELL YES!!
This is the public financing of elections, if you are going to vote for only two things this year… well… then you are being silly, but the key is to vote for Phil Angelides and this. Because god damn… I mean GOD DAMN… this will fix soooo many of our problems. Not the least of which is that you need to be an eccentric billionaire to win a statewide race in this damn Nationstate of ours called CA.

Proposition 90
NO!
Uh… dude? Why are NY Libertiarians writing propositions for California?
Eminant domain is BS, but so is this:
From speakout:

This measure has so much to dislike that it brings together in opposition one of the most unusual alliances imaginable. Joining virtually every environmental group in the state in opposition are taxpayers rights groups, the California Chamber of Commerce, consumer groups, scientists and public health agencies and even the California Farm Bureau.

That a-hole Tom McClintock likes it too, so that should be reason enough to vote no. A good rule of thumb is if the left and right both agree on something, there’s probably something significant happening.

Pretty much everybody agrees this one is BS.
NO!

—

City of Oakland

Measure M
yes
Whatever. Some BS about the polce and fire retirement board… just reading about it made my attention wander, there’s no argument against, no penalty. If it wasn’t about peoples retirement I wouldn’t have voted either way at all.

Measure N
YES!
Kick ass new library at Henry J. Kaiser center?!
HELL YEAH!

edit: and also more funding for critical library infrastructure and other things my librarian friends can tell you more about.

Measure O
YES YES YES!
If you are against this Measure you are truly against Democracy… come on… ranked choice voting! Who loses? We’d be looking at city council member Aimee Allison if this already went through!
besides less elections = better in my book.

Chuck Poochigian’s surrogate’s lawsuit arguing that Jerry Brown is not qualified under the law for the AG position has been stalled until after the election.:

A decision on whether candidate Jerry Brown is eligible to be attorney general will have to wait until after the November 7 election. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne Chang Tuesday denied a request to have the legal case challenging Brown’s qualifications heard before the fall vote. … Government Code Section 12503 requires attorney general candidates to be “admitted to practice before the California Supreme Court for a period of at lease five years immediately preceding his or her election to office.”

According to the California State Bar’s Web site, Brown was first admitted to the bar in 1965 but let his membership lapse between 1997 and 2003. The Republican activists say that does not meet the five year requirement.

Chang did not rule on the merits of the case and the plaintiffs may still challenge Brown’s eligibility after the election is held.

For Pooch, even though the suit will go forward after the election, this is essentially equal to a loss.  If Brown wins, and the lawsuit succeeds, Arnold would surely not so obviously thwart voter will by appointing Pooch.

UPDATE: I don’t know when this lawsuit would conclude. The inauguration of the new governor is in January I believe, so the appointment would probably fall to the new governor. Well, probably, and that’s on the very remote chance that the GOP wins the suit.