California 2018 June Primary Ballot Recommendations

by Tony Medley

Governor: John H. Cox

I have a good friend who is very knowledgeable who, although conservative, is leaning to voting for Villaraigosa, not because he likes him or thinks he will be a good governor, but because he views Gavin Newsom as an existential threat, and that is true. But I think it is more important to get a Republican on the ballot to try to achieve a large turnout in the fall to get rid of the ruinous Brown gas tax and to re-elect conservatives to Congress. With a Republican running for governor, it’s almost axiomatic that there will be more Republican voters than if two democrats are vying for Governor.

Attorney General: Eric Early. I don’t know him and have no knowledge of any of the candidates, but my above-referenced friend recommends Early highly “by far the best.” That’s good enough for me.

Judges: I generally don’t know any of them and generally don’t vote because of that. In this one I have met two of them at a fund raiser. But these recommendations that follow come from a person well acquainted with these contests and an honest, conservative guy who has sorted this out:

Office #4: Alfred A. Coletta.

Office #16: Sydne Jane Michel

Office #20: Wendy Segall (I’ve met her and liked her, although I don’t know her politics).

Office #60: Tony J. Cho

Office #71: David A. Berger (I’ve met him and liked him, too, but I don’t know his politics, either).

Office #113: Javier Perez

Office #118: Troy Davis

Office #126: Ken Fuller

Office #146: Armando Durón

Propositions:

#68: No. Increases state bond repayment costs averaging $200 million annually! For 40 years. That equals $8 billion dollars more debt for a state whose debt already is estimated at $443 billion!

#69: No. Although Republicans required this as a condition for supporting a 2017 transportation funding law, I don’t like Constitutional Amendments, unless they are absolutely necessary, like Prop 13.

#70: No. Another Constitutional Amendment relating to the Democrats’ pie-in-the-sky Cap and Trade scheme which is just part of their mantra that man is the sole cause of global warming. If man is causing it, it’s because man is burning down the rainforest, but you never hear any of these Gore-inspired zealots mention the rainforest. Who do they blame for the periodic changes throughout the millennia of the different hot and cold periods earth endured (natural occurrences that come when they will come) for the 4 billion years before homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago? And did the cave men cause the fluctuating temperatures that have occurred since then?

#71: No. I was initially ready to vote for this, even though it’s a Constitutional Amendment. But upon further reflection I’m against it even though all the Republicans and Democrats in the state legislature voted for it (not that that should influence anyone). As the law now stands, a voter-approved initiative takes effect the day after the election. This would change that to state that it will not take effect until “five days after the Secretary of State certifies the election.” That could take a long time and could be abused by chicanery by the elected officials who don’t like the law. Without this change, any subsequent “certification” would be retroactive to the day after the election anyway, so this is not needed.

#72: Yes. A constitutional Amendment that protects homeowners who have spent their own money to build rain-capture systems for use of water that will reduce the use of public water from having a tax assessor increase their property tax by re-assessing the property by the value of the system installed. People should not be penalized for spending their own money trying to save water.