|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Mountain View City Council
Mike Kasperzak (i)
John Inks (i)
John McAlister
Chris Clark
Mountain View Whisman Board of Education
Peter Darrah
Bill Lambert
Jim Pollart
El Camino Hospital District Board
Wes Alles
John Zoglin
Bill James
El Camino Hospital Measure M
Vote no
Santa Clara County Measure A
Vote yes
Santa Clara County Measure B
Vote yes
Foothill-De Anza College District Board of Trustees
Joan Barram (i)
Betsy Bechtel (i)
Laura Casas Frier (i)
County Board of Education
Grace Mah (i)
U.S. House of Representatives
Anna Eshoo (D) (i)
State Senate
Jerry Hill (D)
State Assembly
Rich Gordon (D) (i)
State Propositions
Proposition 30: Yes on Brown tax proposal
Prop. 30 would raise income taxes on those earning $250,000 or more for seven years, and raise the sales tax by a quarter-cent for four years. Most of the $6.8 billion raised from the tax hike will go to K-12 schools, and some will go to community and state colleges and universities. Prop. 30 is a critical part of Governor Brown’s effort to stabilize the state’s financial situation after the Legislature was unable to pass a tax increase measure. Its failure would trigger cuts to education spending at all levels. Even with these tax increases, due to taxes that have expired over the last two years, the actual tax burden will be lower than it was two years ago.
Proposition 31: Yes for political reforms
Prop. 31 packages a number of measures developed by the bipartisan California Forward political reform group. It will establish a two-year state budget, which will at the very least make the current annual state-budget crisis an every-other-year embarrassment. It will also require bills before the Legislature be made public three days prior to a vote preventing laws from being rushed through before state-elected officials have a chance to digest what’s really in them. It would also allow the governor to make “emergency” spending cuts if the Legislature fails to act.
Proposition 32: No on banning payroll deductions for political action
Prop. 32 would change campaign-finance rules in California to prohibit collecting voluntary union dues through payroll deductions for political purposes. It’s touted as a political reform measure, but in fact is designed to severely limit union political activity. Both the League of Women Voters and Common Cause oppose it, based on the fact that free-flowing corporate and Super PAC money would continue to be allowed. Even if you don’t like unions, this isn’t reform and it’s undemocratic.
Proposition 33: No on latest auto-insurance scheme
Prop. 33 is a virtual repeat of the attempt by Mercury Insurance in 2010 to overturn current law that prevents auto-insurance companies from discriminating against drivers who have had a lapse in their coverage, even in the absence of any claims or points on their driving record. The campaign for Prop. 33 is being financed almost entirely by Mercury chairman George Joseph.
Proposition 34: Yes to end death penalty
Prop. 34 would replace California’s death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole, and would convert the sentences of the 725 prisoners currently on death row to life in prison with no possibility of parole. It has cost the state a total of $4 billion to put to death 13 inmates, an absurd use of public funds. Whether due to the financial drain of the system or a belief that vengeance shouldn’t be a part of our criminal-justice system, it’s time to join the 17 other states and 135 nations that have banned the death penalty.
Proposition 35: Yes to increase penalties for human trafficking
Prop. 35 would establish longer prison sentences and larger fines for people convicted in California of human-trafficking crimes, and require them to register as sex offenders. Modeled after a New York law, it would address what law enforcement says is a rapidly growing problem in California, and especially in the Bay Area and Los Angeles.
Proposition 36: Yes to revise Three Strikes
Prop. 36 would revise California’s Three Strikes law to impose a life sentence only when the third felony is “serious or violent.” It would also authorize re-sentencing for current Three Strikes lifers whose third conviction was not serious or violent. District attorneys currently have discretion about how to charge third-strike offenses so that minor drug or other offenses won’t lead to life sentences, but that has led to inconsistent practices across the state and to many unfair results. Jeff Rosen, our district attorney in Santa Clara County, supports the measure.
Proposition 37: No on genetically engineered food labeling
Prop. 37 would require that genetically engineered foods sold in California be specifically labeled as such. Genetic engineering has been used for some 15 years to make plants grow bigger, stronger, faster and resist spoilage or insect damage. It is estimated that more than 40 percent of food products contain some genetically engineered ingredients. Although no studies have found any health impacts, the industry is too young to know with certainty. Labeling isn’t a bad idea, but imposing it by initiative in California prior to further studies and absent any evidence of harmful effects seems premature, and better addressed on a national level by the FDA or Congress.
Proposition 38: Yes on school tax measure
Prop. 38 is presented as a more ambitious alternative to Prop. 30, but unfortunately it has created sufficient controversy to imperil both measures. And it is critical that at least one of these two propositions passes in order to maintain needed funding of schools. Prop. 38 raises income taxes for the next 12 years by increasing the marginal tax rates on a sliding scale up to 2.2 percent for those making over $2.5 million. It would raise about $10 billion a year and would support K-12 schools and early childhood programs. Prop. 38 has a number of flaws. It is overly complicated and proscriptive in how funds get distributed and spent (for example, no money can be spent on teacher salaries) and it moves us further away from needed reform of our entire public education financing system. Flaws and all, we recommend voting for both Prop. 30 and 38.
Proposition 39: Yes to fix tax loophole
Prop. 39 would generate an estimated $1 billion in new tax revenue by simply requiring companies located outside of California to pay income taxes based on their sales within the state. It corrects a loophole passed at the end of the 2009 legislative session, and it eliminates a horrible incentive for companies to not have a physical presence in the state. About half of the new revenues would go toward clean-energy programs for the first five years, after which all funding would go to the general fund, where it would primarily benefit public education.
Proposition 40: Yes to confirm redistricting
Prop. 40 challenges the redistricting of California’s Senate districts, completed in 2011 by the independent Citizens Redistricting Commission. The State Supreme Court has already ruled in favor of the new boundaries, which are the districts in place for this November’s election for all state and federal legislative races in California. As a result, opponents have suspended their campaign, but too late for Prop. 40 to be removed from the ballot.
(i) = Incumbent
(D) = Democrat
By Voice editorial board
By Voice editorial board
By Voice editorial board
Pollart is anti-teacher. Vote for Steve Nelson!
Vote yes twice, no three times to raise our taxes? Absurd! Vote No on 30 and 32!
Do we get a pay raise like the head of El Camino hospital to afford those new taxes? No! Vote Yes on Measure M!
And those union dues are not voluntary. You have to pay them! Do some research next time. Vote Yes on 32!
And keep the Death Penalty and the Three Strikes law in place.
You certainly can have your opinions that differ from the Voice. However, please do not bash any of the opponents.
If you wish to vote for Steve Nelson – good for you. Tell us, and go ahead and do it.
But, Jim Pollart is certainly NOT anti-teacher. That is ridiculous and mean-spirited.
I am sure many people would like to hear your opinions but not your insults. Keep those to yourself.
The Voice: bought and paid for the Democratic Socialist Party. Love your independent original thought when choosing how to vaote.
I don’t need to keep my opinions to myself when Jim Pollart is the one saying them. Quote from a letter by Jim Pollart:
“I’m sure it’s not easy being in education these days, with a constant stream of bad press and budget cuts. Unfortunately, many educators take on a victim mentality and point to funding cuts to justify mediocre performance. Maurice and his team are not about complaining or making excuses.”
Sounds pretty anti-teacher to me. He’s all about CEO’s know better.
Here’s the link http://www.mv-voice.com/story.php?story_id=5583
Maybe you guys should post these election recommendations earlier.
I voted two weeks ago by mail.
It’s not like the issues change or the candidates’ platforms oscillate wildly.
The recommendation is to vote for all the tax measures to keep feeding the spending beast. Recommend all the politics that created the beast and keeps the beast going.
Yes on prop 32 to dampen the public employee unions strangle hold in Sacramento. Union dues are not voluntary and members have no say in how they are spent politically.
I can not believe, well maybe now looking back with experience can, understand why a local paper would even get into politics. It is plain stupid and will alienate your subscribers, dip sh*%s! Plus some of the omissions and poor comments on some of the non “recommended” caniidates makes me that much more positive that we are canvising our neighborhood and everyone we know in the city to vote out EVERY SINGLE incumbant!
@MV Resident:
If you need this paper to tell you how to vote, you shouldn’t vote.
A correction my dear supporter from Gemello – The Teachers Union endorsed Pollart (along with Chiang and Lambert, but not Darrah or myself). To me, he does seem definitely tilted toward the District Office. That might make him inclined to accept DO recommendations like “efficiency” by class-size expansion, and a teacher “bonus” that is temporary and in place of a small inflationary adjustment. But – that’s JUST A GUESS on my part – candidates were never asked that question and I haven’t talked to Jim on that!
CI (Continuous Improvement) does not have to be “anti-teacher”. Applied in a teacher-led work improvement circle (like Fuji Xerox, Xerox, GE, Monta Loma under Cathy Baur) this is very much like candidate Chiang has noted as “21st Century Schools”. Pollard and I both strongly support CI. At least I strongly support the “bottom up” versions! As a worker at Xerox PARC, I felt strongly empowered by this, and I saw the same joy in the story from two Monta Loma teachers!
@Worried:
LOL, that’s right! But they do it mostly for pageviews, if I understand modern online media correctly.
Clearly, having voted a couple of weeks ago, I am not one who needs this newspaper for voting advice.
Why not change the name of the “newspaper” to PRAVDA WEST ?
Follow the Socialist line, keep the Democrat control, raise the taxes without any benefit to society…
As to the Union Dues… at least the other PACS are all VOLUNTARY MONEY, not blood sucked money from the workers.
Clean up the Judicial Backlog on Death Row Cases and efficiantly go forward with exececutions..
Bye George.
Prop 37: I can’t believe you are endorsing not knowing what goes into our food! In 60 countries labeling GMO products is law.
“Although no studies have found any health impacts, the industry is too young to know with certainty. Labeling isn’t a bad idea, but imposing it by initiative in California prior to further studies and absent any evidence of harmful effects seems premature, and better addressed on a national level by the FDA or Congress.”
This is an opportunity to NOT wait for FDA and lobbyist deciding what we need and not need to know about what we eat. Demand your right as informed consumer! or is ignorance blissful…?
Monsanto and other food producing multinational are pumping a lot of money into stopping this initiative.
Vote for transparency.
I already voted and too late in game. On Prop. 32 deal. Anyway I can deny my dollars being used in the giving to Super PAC’s by guess who? CEOs, hedge fund managers and others who will use the system for their private gain. Don’t mess with my IRA, mortage industry, S & L’s, or whatever will cause hardship and pain to shareholders, stakeholders. Wait they did it already, Carry On Greed.
@Regina
If non-GMO good producers thought it was important for you to know if your food is GMO or non-GMO, they would label their food non-GMO. Problem solved.
Lovely to see how the social democrats will vote. Maybe the voice needs a change of leadership, it’s obvious the current staff are the wrong people running the Voice.
The MV Voice is a great negative indicator. Do the opposite of what they say.
Despite the large number of propositions most of them are worthless. Here is my simple rule: Yes on 32 and 33, No on everything else.
@Steve
As far as I know, it is illegal to label your food as GMO or non-GMO
If they put swine genes in your broccoli, is it Kosher? Do we have the right to know that?
If the food producers have nothing to hide, why are they spending all that money to defeat the “right to know”? If you remember California Proposition 65 (1986), we now have the right to know what hazardous chemicals may be in the products we use.
@MV resident
If they put human genes in your carrots, would that be cannibalism? Who knows what they are doing to our food supply.
@MV Resident
“As far as I know, it is illegal to label your food as GMO or non-GMO”
Nope. Any other excuses for not solving the problem without legislation?