Day: May 21, 2016

As I wrote in Part I, which covered the Federal races: My sample ballot has arrived, indicating that California’s Silly Season has arrived. For me, that means it is time to do my Sample Ballot Analysis. For you, it means it is time for you to read my analysis and try to convince me otherwise. Hint: I’m only going to listen to positive argument based on your candidate’s positions, not negative arguments about why my candidate or choice is so bad. This post will cover the State and Local level offices and measures. Shall we dig in?

❎ State Senator – 27th District

Our current state senator, Fran Pavley, is termed out, and doesn’t appear to be running for new office somewhere else. This has created an open, likely Democratic seat… and loads of folks have jumped in. The leading candidates are Janice Kamenir-Reznik (D) and Henry Stern (D). Kamenir-Reznik is co-founder and president of Jewish World Watch, an organization dedicated to the fight against genocide. She practiced law as a partner of Jeffer, Mangels, Butler and Mitchell, and helped run a law firm with her husband, Ben Reznik, for more than a decade. She’s also served as commissioner on several Los Angeles County commissions.   Stern is a senior policy advisor to Pavley, teaches at UCLA School of Law, and endorsed by the California League of Conservation Voters, California Nurses Association, and Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. He is also Pavley’s choice.

Also running are George Christopher Thomas (D), Shawn Bayliss (D), David Pollock (D), and the lone Republican, Steve Fazio (R). Thomas is the honorary mayor of Van Nuys, as worked as a Congressional Staffer for Rep. Brad Sherman from 1997-2001. Bayliss is an aide to Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Koretz. Pollock is a former child actor who played Rudi on the Bad News Bears, as well as being the mayor pro tem for the City of Moorpark and a long-time city councilman there. Lastly, Fazio is the owner of Fazio Cleaners, a retired reserve police officer, and a former member of the Los Angeles City Fire Commission.

Fazio states no positions on his website, but is endorsed by a bevy of Republicans. Thomas lists no endorsements. Let’s eliminate those two folks.

The remaining democrats have varying levels of endorsements. Pollock has a few supervisors, some councilcritters and mayors, and numerous educators. Bayliss has just a few, including Brad Sherman. Stern has loads of endorsements, including lots of assemblycritters, including Pavley, Waxman, Hayden, and Beilenson. Kamenir-Reznik is endorsed by loads of LA City folks, including Mayim Bialik.

I don’t think the district would be ill-served by either Kamenir-Reznik or Stern (or, for that matter Bayliss or Pollock). Going on the theory that, when in doubt, increase the diversity. Further, I think K-R is stronger on her position regarding Porter Ranch.

Recommendation: Kamenir-Reznik. Stern is an acceptable 2nd choice.

❎ State Assembly – 45th District

This is a district where there is a fair amount of spending. There are three candidates: Matt Dababneh (D), the incumbent who has been so-so; Doug Kriegel (D), who has lots of name recognition from being a consumer reporter on KNBC; and Jerry Kowal (R), the Republican trying to get a foot in the door. According to a Daily News article, campaign filings show independent expenditure committees have poured more than $350,000 into the race to support Dababneh. Keeping Californians Working, an IE funded by oil company Chevron, the California Dental Association, and the California Apartment Association, are supporting Dababneh. Other groups backing him include the California Charter Schools Association Advocates and the Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians. Dababneh won the seat by just 330 votes in a 2013 race against a Republican. Fundraising is also lopsided: Dababneh has more than $837,000 cash on hand for the election, according to filings, while Kriegel has $17,000 and Kowal, 41, reports $2,786 in available funds.

Kowal is a strong gun proponent, and supports English only. I can’t see supporting him.

I was never strongly behind Dababneh — he struck me as someone steered into the position through Bob Blumenfeld. You remember Bob? He had this assembly district. He was reelected for his last term in 2012, and then promptly ran for LA City Council, creating a special election. Out of the 11 candidates for that seat, the war chest was used to paper the district for Dababneh. When the runoff was between Dababneh and Shelly (R), he beat her. At the normal election in 2014, the same contest occurred… and he narrowly lost against her. I don’t have a strong impression of Dababneh, other than he doesn’t seem to be working that much for the district. I wasn’t that much in favor of him during his first primary. I’m not in favor now.  I think Kriegel will be much more working for the people of the district.

Recommendation: Doug Kriegel

❎ Superior Court Judges

EWQ – Extremely Well Qualified > WQ – Well Qualified > Q – Qualified > NQ – Not Qualified

📚 Office No. 11

An open seat, with four candidates: Jonathan Alexan Malek (NQ), Debra R. Archuleta (Q), Steven Schreiner (WQ), and Paul Kim (Q). I’m going with the Well Qualified candidate, who is also the LA Times endorsement.

Recommendation: Steven Schreiner

📚 Office No. 42

An open seat, with four candidates: E. Matthew Aceves (WQ), Michael P. Ribons (WQ), Cyndy Zuzga (WQ), and Alicia Molina (NQ). Three well-qualified candidates, with Zuzga having the most experience already in the court. She’s the Times endorsement.

Recommendation: Cyndy Zuzga

📚 Office No. 60

This office has an incumbent judge, James A. Kaddo (Q), and a challenger, Stepan W. Baghdassarian (NQ). We have only one qualified candidate. LA Times endorses Kaddo.

Recommendation: James A. Kaddo

📚 Office No. 84

Another open seat, with the candidates being Aaron J. Weissman (Q), Javier Perez (Q), Hubert S. Yun (Q), and Susan Jung Townsend (Q). All are qualified. I personally know Weissman, as he is a member of our congregation and has attended MoTAS meetings. The times endorsed Townsend, without giving a strong reason why. Given that all are qualified, and that Aaron has loads of endorsements, I’m going to go with the man I know.

Recommendation: Aaron J. Weissman

📚 Office No. 120

This is another case of a challenger, Eric O. Ibisi (Q) going against the incumbent judge, Ray Santana (WQ).  Ibisi won’t say why he is running and has established no website. Santana has been out lately on disability, but is more qualified… and has no website. LA Times endorses Santana.

Recommendation: Ray Santana

📚 Office No. 158

Another open office. Five candidates: Kim L. Nguyen (WQ), Onica Valle Cole (Q), Naser “Nas” Khoury (Q), Fred Mesropi (WQ), and David A. Berger (NQ).  The Times explicitly disregards the NQ rating and recommends Berger. Additionally, someone has domain-squat the Berger for Judge domain and put up a blog advising folks not to vote for him. It has a private registration, so it isn’t easy to find out who is behind it.  Metropolitan News has a good background piece on Berger,  and it looks like the NQ rating, as well as the website, are the work of parties or parties offended by Berger’s Blog.  I was going to lean towards a WQ candidate, but I think I need to stand up for a blogger. There’s something fishy in the NQ rating, given the endorsement.

Recommendation: David A. Berger

📚 Office No. 165

Another challenge to an incumbent, Kathryn Ann Solorzano (WQ), this time from Tami L. Warren (Q). Warren doesn’t say why Solorzano needs to be replaced, even though she worked in her courtroom. Solorzano has the better rating, and is endorsed by the times.

Recommendation: Kathyryn Ann Solorzano

❎ County District Attorney

The incumbent, Jackie Lacey, is running unopposed.

Recommendation: Jackie Lacey

❎ Member, Party County Committee, 45th Assy District

We have 9 candidates (Cecile BenDavid, Elizabeth Badger, Raymond J. Bishop, Marcos Sanchez, Jeff Daar, Leah K. Herzberg, Richard Mathews, Scott Abrams, and Barbara Rae Rolbin) for 7 seats in a position no one really cares about.  Only one candidate (Mathews) has a campaign website; most of the rest have some information online except for Rolbin. Abrams was the campaign manager for Brad Sherman and filed FEC complains against Howard Berman in that campaign. My suggestion would be to vote for most the folks already on the committee (Bendavid, Badger, Bishop, Daar, Herzberg), except for Abrams and Rolbin. Abrams because his position strikes of patronage, and Rolbin for having nothing to inform people voting for her. That leaves space for Sanchez.

Recommendation: The incumbents — Bendavid, Badger, Bishop, Daar, Herzberg, Mathews, and Sanchez.

❎ Proposition 50 – Suspension of Legislators

We’re lucky. Only one proposition. There may be as many as 18 in November.

With respect to the one we’ve got, Ballotpedia has a good analysis.  The LA Times is against this. I’m not sure I buy their reasons; I see it as a tool that is available when necessary, but that when is rarely.

Recommendation: For Proposition 50.

❎ Conclusion

And that’s it for the June ballot. As always, I welcome your opinion.

 

My sample ballot has arrived, indicating that California’s Silly Season has arrived. For me, that means it is time to do my Sample Ballot Analysis. For you, it means it is time for you to read my analysis and try to convince me otherwise. Hint: I’m only going to listen to positive argument based on your candidate’s positions, not negative arguments about why my candidate or choice is so bad. This post will cover the Federal level offices; a subsequent post will address the rest. Shall we dig in?

❎ President

I’m a registered Democrat, meaning that Republicans are off the table (and off my ballot, at least for the primary). I’m also simply ignoring the candidates who haven’t made any media inroads: Willie Wilson, Roque De Le Fuente, Henry Hewes, Keith Judd, and Michael Steinberg. They have no chance of winning the nomination, and no chance of influencing the platform.

That narrows the field to two: Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. If you’ve read my previous long posts (“Election Decisions”, “Presidential Musings, Take 2 (Updated)”), you should know where this is going. I’m with Hillary.

First, let’s start with the negatives. Hillary has a load of them. However, in the scheme of things, they are minor. For most of them, if you believe them, you have drunk the GOP Kool-Aide (so to speak) — you are rewarding 25 years of GOP attempts to smear the Clinton family over minor issues. Hillary hating has become a hysteria that is not based in reality. Here’s a great quote from that last article: «Every single accusation is trivial. Petty. Penny-ante. Yes, even the business about Clinton’s private email server. And especially the septic tank full of hyped-up, conspiracy-laden nonsense that goes by the name of “Benghazi.” […] In an ideal political world, all administrations would be as clean as Obama’s. But as the events of this election cycle have demonstrated quite vividly, this is most emphatically not an ideal political world — and in the deeply troubling world we do inhabit, the prospect of a president dogged by minor scandals shouldn’t distract us from the far higher stakes involved in the upcoming election.»

The stakes are high. This is not a place for on-the-job training, even if you surround yourself with experts. Trump certainly does not have the experience. Bernie does not have the experience (especially in Foreign Policy). The LA Times said it best: «For all her faults, Hillary Clinton is vastly better prepared than Bernie Sanders for the presidency». In particular, the LA Times noted: «Sanders lacks the experience and broad understanding of domestic and (especially) foreign policy that the former secretary of state would bring to the presidency. Although Sanders has tapped into very real and widespread anxieties about economic inequality, deindustrialization and stagnant economic growth, his prescriptions are too often simplistic, more costly than he would have us believe and unlikely to come to pass.». That last point is true: Sanders proposals would increase the Federal Debt by 18 Trillion, and not provide improved benefits. Such an increase in the debt would have significant impacts on the nation.

Clinton and Sanders are congruent on most of their positions. As for Hillary’s positions, I tend to agree with them. I even agree that the military budget is required: this is especially true when you realize that most of that budget doesn’t go to bombs and guns, but to people. The engineering behind them and other advanced technology, and to our warfighters. In many ways, the DOD is the best job program — especially for well-paying white collar jobs — in the Nation. It also is one of the few programs that encourages people to go into technology fields, and encourages research into technologies on the edge. Cut that back, and imagine what happens to unemployment.

Now: With respect to Sanders, I think he is a good man with good ideas. As President, he wouldn’t get those ideas through — he doesn’t have the skill to persuade Congress — especially a strong Republican Congress. Should he drop out? That’s his decision, and I understand why he is staying in. After all, Hillary did in 2008. It provides him with the ability to influence the Democratic Platform, and that will have a significant impact for years to come. He will return to the senate with vastly more power, and will be a tireless advocate for his positions there. If you wish to vote for Bernie based on his positions, go for it. If you are voting for Bernie solely based on the fact that he isn’t Hillary, then I suggest you rethink your position. Don’t believe the smears. Examine her positions.

What is most important is after the Primary. Non-partisans and Democrats, as well as Republicans who love this country, must come together to make sure that Donald Trump does not win. We need experience. We need diplomacy. We need someone who understands the complexities of decisions. We need someone who will pick reasonable Supreme Court justices, as there will be multiple openings.

Recommendation: Hillary Clinton

❎ United States Senate

Thanks to California’s open primary rule, there are 34 candidates for State Senate. 30-frigging-4. That is so many that there are worries about ballot confusion, as the candidates are spread across two pages. Let’s see if we can separate the dregs from the fine wine.

According to the LA Times, the top candidates are: Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez on the (D) side, Tom Del Beccaro and George “Duf” Sundheim on the (R) side. I’ll add Ron Unz (R) and  Gail K. Lightfoot (L) (as they both have name recognition).

As for the rest, they are extremely unlikely to make it past the primary. Let’s escort Phil Wyman (R), Jarrell Williamson (R), Greg Conlon (R), Jason Kraus (-), Don Krampe (R), Mark Matthew Herd (L), Von Hougo (R), Jason Hanania (-), Gar Myers (-), Paul Merritt (-), Massie Munroe (D), Eleanor Garcia (-/Socialist Workers), Tim Gildersleeve (-), Clive Grey (-), Don J. Grundmann (-), President Christina Grappo (D), Herbert G. Peters (D), Tom Palzer (R), John Thompson Parker (P&F), Karen Roseberry (R), Emory Rodgers (D), George C. Yang (D), Jerry J. Laws (R), Mike Beitiks (-), Pamela Elizondo (G), Scott A. Vineberg (-), Steve Stokes (D), and Ling Ling Shi (-) off the stage. Some may have reasonable position, and from seeing their pages, many are kooks. All are extremely unlikely to have a change in their status over the next three weeks. I’ve attempted to link to their pages; if you think they are worth considering, let me know.

Let’s look at the remaining candidates, from least to most likely. We’ll start with Gail K. Lightfoot (L). She’s a basic minimal government libertarian, wanted to cut back the government to specific constitutionally enumerated powers. On the surface, this seems good. When you read deeper, problems emerge. Her approach minimizes foreign policy and depends on NGOs — an approach similar to depending on donations and churches to protect the poorest in society. She does not believe in taxation, and would get the government out of social welfare and healthcare.  She doesn’t want experts in government. Although I agree with some of her positions, I think she goes to far for my taste. I tend to believe that only government can balance the greed of business. Much as we believe people will do good when unfettered, that hasn’t been borne out in practice. So, given that a key (L) tenant is that people will do the right thing if the government lets them, I can’t support their position. Just. Doesn’t. Work.

This brings us to the top 3 Republican candidates: Ron Unz, Tom Del Beccaro and George “Duf” Sundheim. Realistically, in California, they don’t stand a chance unless the Democrats split their vote too much.  Let’s start with Unz, and why he’s on the ballot. According to his page: «I entered this race because the worthless Republicans in the California Legislature wholeheartedly supported the repeal of my 1998 Prop. 227 “English for the Children” initiative.» Unz believes in “English Only”, fighting immigration, and fighting affirmative action. Other than that, his positions seem remarkably … liberatarian. They also seem a lot like Sanders: Raise the minimum wage. Get out of Iraq. Dismantle Wall Street. Given California, he might have a chance if he could get a listen, especially from those who like Trump.  I could see myself supporting many of his ideas, if it wasn’t for his anti-immigration, English-only, stance. I’ll note that it is refreshing that his page makes no demands on social issues, and does not attempt to bash Obama or his accomplishments.

Tom Del Beccaro strongly supports a flat tax (which tends to hurt the poor proportionately more), is a strong supporter of private gun ownership, and believes that immigration is our biggest national security threat.  He wants to end divisiveness in the Senate, and work to eliminate tax loopholes by moving to the flat tax. What’s interesting is what isn’t on his website: social issues, church and state, his position on the military. Knowing his party affiliation, I’m very very suspicious — especially as he is currently chair of the California Republican Party.

George “Duf” Sundheim comes right out of the door using the “Second Amendment” codewords. He talks about extreme left politicians, lowering marginal tax rates, eliminating loopholes. He wants a strong military and endorses intelligence efforts.  He believes in offensive cybersecurity, as demonstrated by his statement: «technology must be thought of as a defensive and offensive priority.  As much as we should try to plug every hole in our technology network, we will never be able to do so.  People who try to undermine our network need to understand the price they will pay if they try.» He is strongly against the front-runner, Kamala Harris. There is no mention of his positions on social issues, or Obama’s accomplishments. He opposes the minimum wage increase. The Fresno Bee notes that Sundheim is “not willing to wage culture war over a woman’s right to choose, immigration, higher wages or climate change”, and supports the nomination of Garland

This brings us to the two Democratic front-runners.

Loretta Sanchez is very similar to Kamala Harris in terms of the issues. Very few of the articles I could find highlighted different issues positions. Where they differ is in style. The Sacramento Bee captures the contrast well: «Harris comes off as a 21st-century aristocrat – poised, disciplined, distant. Born and raised in the Bay Area by two academics who also were immigrants, she graduated from Howard University (the “Black Harvard”). In this, she’s representative of the rising Bay Area, an upper-middle-class island of advanced education in a struggling state. Sanchez was born in Lynwood, a poor city in southern Los Angeles County, and graduated from high school in working-class Anaheim. One of seven children born to Mexican immigrants, a machinist and a secretary, she earned her degree from Chapman, an underdog college that more recently gained renown. She represents a Southern California that has become more working-class, with education levels stagnant, median income falling and fewer payroll jobs than two decades ago.» That difference in style leads to a difference in effectiveness, and Sanchez has a reputation in the style of Ted Cruz, whereas Harris is more polished. The lack of polish leads Sanchez into more gaffes and political landmines.  Sanchez has more legislative experience than Harris, which can be significant in the Senate.

Making the recommendation is a hard decision. Unz has some good positions, and would be strong choice for those with Libertarian leanings. If it wasn’t for his immigration and English stances, I could see supporting him. I don’t like Del Beccaro — I think he is too tied to the Republican establishment. Sundheim seems to be a Republican that is acceptable to California — i.e., a moderate. I think he could put up a real battle against a Democratic candidate… but would his positions remain the same under pressure from Republican senate leadership? As for Harris vs. Sanchez. I like Sanchez in many ways: she’s a voice for Southern California (which is needed to offset Feinstein), she’s Latina, representing a growing segment of the state. She has legislative experience. Harris is more careful and measured, and might be the stronger candidate in the general election if running against a Republican. This is especially true against a Republican that might use Sanchez’s style and gaffes against her. Harris is like Clinton, and has quite a few negatives.

Recommendation: Loretta Sanchez, at least at the present time.

❎ United States Representative, 30th District

In our district, we have the current incumbent, Brad Sherman (D), facing off against 7 lesser-known candidates, where only two previous Republican candidates have any sort of name recognition: Mark Reed (R) and Navraj Singh (R). The remaining 5 you’ve probably never heard of are Luke Davis (D), Patrea Patrick (D), A. (Raji) Rab (D), and Christopher David Townsend (R).

As before, let’s look at the Republicans first. Mark Reed (R) hammers — rightfully so — on Sherman being late to the party with respect to the difficulties in Porter Ranch. But Reed also opposes the ACA. Reed is strongly for Israel. He is strongly backed by the Republican Party.  Navraj Singh (R) is running again, after running into ethics violations with his last campaign. He thinks we are in the worst economy in years, and views the ACA as socialistic. Christopher David Townsend (R) opposes the ACA, and wants to eliminate Welfare. Looking at their web pages, the best of the bunch is Reed. He has a professional website (something Townsend lacks), and no issues with ethics violations (a Singh problem). But Reed still has a major issue — that (R) behind his name that would lead him to support issues from the (R) coalition.

Turning to the democratic side: Brad Sherman is entrenched, meaning he has better committee positions than a clueless newbie. The other candidates would need to be significantly stronger to override the power of seniority. Luke Davis is a tech candidate, a founder of PlaceAVote.Com, which allows anyone on the Internet to vote on issues before Congress. He seems to have no positions of his own. Patrea Patrick has a position very much in line with Bernie Sanders. Looking at her page, if I was a Sanders voter, I might go for her (in fact, she endorses Sanders on her page). A. (Raji) Rab has the basic Democratic positions, but doesn’t distinguish himself enough from Sherman to make it worth the change.

As for Sherman, I generally agree with his issues. He also has seniority.

Recommendation: Brad Sherman. If you are a Sanders voter, I could understand a vote for Patrea Patrick. Such a vote could help move Sanders agenda program, which needs to start in the house. I don’t really like any of the (R) candidates, but Reed is perhaps the best of the bunch.

❎ Coming Up

Thus ends the first part. The second half of this will focus on the state legislative races, the county commission, judicial races, and the one ballot proposition.