In every election, someone will tell you that voting is a matter of life and death. This year, it’s literally true in California, as Proposition 34 would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Oddly, life and death may not even be the most important thing to you on the ballot this year. If you’ve been under a rock, we are also electing a new mayor, deciding who controls City Council, and possibly changing the majority of San Diego’s Congressional delegation.
Hate candidate politics and don’t care about the death penalty? There’s still probably something for you on the ballot this year, what with education, food labeling, taxes, human trafficking, car insurance, and energy initiatives all affected by propositions this year.
What follows is a rundown of some of those races and ballot propositions, so no excuses about not voting down ballots because you don’t understand the issue. More guidance is always available on the Web sites of the secretary of state, the county board of elections and your party of choice.
Polling information is included for some races and initiatives. Where various pollsters generally agreed, I tried to choose recent representative polls from reputable sources. Where polls disagreed significantly, I have included multiple polls.
Race: Mayor of San Diego
In the June primary, Councilmember Carl DeMaio bested Rep. Bob Filner 32-30 percent, with the remainder going largely to Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher and District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis, who didn’t make it through to the general. While the race is technically non-partisan, typically Republican constituencies, such as social conservatives and the business community, are lining up behind DeMaio, while Democratic allied labor and environmental groups are backing Filner. Recent polling has been all over the map, with the DeMaio backing Union Tribune releasing a poll that oddly excluded city employees and showed DeMaio up by 10 points with a 5 point margin of error. Meanwhile, a memo from Competitive Edge unearthed by LGBT Weekly shows the race nearly tied. Who to believe? Perhaps SurveyUSA, whose last primary poll was within 2 points of every candidate’s final margin, and who have Filner up by 7. Filner’s team will take nothing for granted given the size of DeMaio’s war chest for the final days of the campaign. Unions and other outside groups will try to help Filner narrow the spending gap.
Poll: SurveyUSA (10/15/12) Filner 47 percent, DeMaio 40 percent.
Race: San Diego City Council
The race between incumbent Sherri Lightner and Ray Ellis is non-partisan and only for District 1, but party control of City Council hangs in the balance. Four Councilmembers didn’t have to run this year: two Democrats, Young (D-4) and Alvarez (D-8); and two Republicans, Faulconer and Zapf (D-6). Four races were decided in the 2012 primary, with victors including incumbent Democrats Gloria (D-3) and Emerald (D-9) and new Republican faces Kersey (D-5) and Sherman (D-7). Lightner v. Ellis will break that 4-4 tie, and determine if San Diego’s next mayor has the Council pushing his agenda forward or holding it back.
Ellis narrowly beat Lightner in the primary, but endorsements from the two other primary candidates and the more Democratic November electorate should help Lightner. In the plus column for Ellis are the $50,000 he has contributed to his own campaign and the endorsement of Republican turned Independent Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher.
Poll: None.
Race: County Board of Supervisors, District 3
The retirement of incumbent Supervisor Pam Slater-Price means the board of supervisors will have its first new face in almost 20 years, and it will either be Dave Roberts, the deputy mayor of Solana Beach, or North County resident Steve Danon. This is another non-partisan race where no one is hiding their affiliations. Roberts, an openly gay Democrat, has benefited from a cross-party endorsement from Slater-Price, a party motivated to reclaim a spot on the board, and an LGBT community looking for a seat at the table. Danon is well connected in Republican circles as a former chief of staff to both Supervisor Ron Roberts and Congressman Brian Bilbray, and scored the endorsement of primary foe Carl Hillard. Danon won the primary by only 2 points, and the lack of internal polls released suggests that the race may still be close.
Poll: None.
Race: U.S. Representative, CA-52
The new CA-52 has a chunk of incumbent Rep. Brian Bilbray’s old CA-50, but underwent significant changes in voter affiliation. The new district is split nearly evenly between Democrats, Republicans, and Decline to State voters (DTS), and would have voted for President Obama in 2008 (55 percent) but would have elected Gov. Meg Whitman in 2010 (50 percent).
Those numbers make Rep. Bilbray the most beatable incumbent in the San Diego congressional delegation since now Rep. Susan Davis bested Rep. Bilbray in 2000. After placing second in the primary with 22.5 percent of the vote, former San Diego City Council President Scott Peters has worked hard to solidify his Democratic support and win over DTS voters. The latter effort was recently helped by this year’s must-have moderate street cred – the endorsement of Independent Assemblymember Nathan Fletcher.
The path for Democrats to take back the house runs through CA-52, so the race has gotten national attention, with more outside spending than any other Congressional race. Those dollars, along with well-financed campaigns and engaged local parties may make this the most expensive race in San Diego this year. If you’ve somehow missed the barrage of advertising, the narratives are fairly clear. Bilbray wants to tie Peters to San Diego’s pension problems. Peters wants voters to see Bilbray as a lobbyist and Tea Party extremists. Each attacks the other on planned Medicare cuts. A recent Union-Tribune poll shows Bilbray ahead, but within a wide five point margin of error. Each campaign has released polling showing their candidate ahead. Bilbray is notably below 50 percent in all three polls, often considered dangerous territory for incumbents.
Polls: U-T/USD (10/14-10/17) Bilbray 47 percent, Peters 38 percent; Bilbray campaign (10/18) Bilbray 48 percent, Peters 44 percent; Peters Campaign (10/26) Bilbray 40 percent Peters 45 percent
Race: California State Senate, District 39
LGBT trailblazing Sen. Christine Kehoe could probably have kept this seat forever if it weren’t for term limits. Democratic Assemblymember Marty Block bested George Plescia in the primary, but didn’t hit the 50 percent mark, leading to the run off. Block’s 3 point margin in the primary makes the race sound closer than it is, assuming most of the 18,500 voters who chose fellow Democrat Patrick Marsh in June line up behind Block.
Poll: None.
Prop. 30: Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment
Gov. Brown supports Prop. 30 so he can use money from tax increases to prevent further cuts to education. My friend the teacher supports it to keep her salary from being cut. Opponents argue that tax increases are bad, or that the money won’t so clearly go to education. Support has dropped under 50 percent, which is a dangerous place for a ballot proposition (unless, sadly, it supports LGBT rights).
Polls: Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC)(10/14-21) Yes 48 percent No 44 percent
Prop. 32: Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute
If you haven’t heard about this proposition, you’re not watching much TV. Supporters say it helps decrease the power of special interests in politics. Opponents say it attacks unions and accepts powerful business interests. Here are direct quotes from the state voter guide: “Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors” and “Other political expenditures remain unrestricted, including corporate expenditures from available resources not limited by payroll deduction prohibition.” Seems kind of like vegetarians proposing we ban eating meat, and claiming it affects them, too.
Poll: PPIC (10/14-21) Yes 39 percent No 53 percent.
Prop. 33: Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute
This initiative would allow insurance companies to give discounts to drivers with prior, or continuous coverage. It also allows cost hikes on drivers who have had more than a 90-day gap in coverage. Proponents say Prop. 33 “will result in more competition between insurance companies and better insurance rates.” Opponents rebut with potentially legitimate snark: “When was the last time an insurance company executive spent $8 million on a ballot initiative to save you money?”
Poll: CA Business Roundtable/Pepperdine (10/7-10) Yes 54 percent No 34 percent
Prop 34: Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
Opponents of the death penalty are back, and it’s all about the money, at least in the official summary: convert death sentences to life imprisonment, save $100 million or more annually, and give it to law enforcement for homicide and rape cases. It’s not until the “Argument in Favor” page that we get to preventing the death of innocent people. Opponents argue that the ACLU is the problem, and ask “Do you think giving vicious killers lifetime housing and healthcare benefits saves money? Of course not!” The problem with the latter argument is that the legislative analyst’s estimate suggests it will save money.
Poll: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times (10/15-21) Yes 42 percent No 45 percent
Prop. 36: Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.
If you’re wondering how a good law might have unintended consequences, look no further. Proponents argue that the “three strikes law” enacted in 1994 has contributed to prison overcrowding and costs by mandating life imprisonment for perpetrators whose third felony conviction wasn’t serious or violent. Prop. 36 would allow those re-sentencing of many of those cases where sex, drug, or firearm offenses weren’t involved. Opponents argue that the law, as is, decreased the crime rate and that Prop. 36 would release dangerous criminals from prison. Advocates say Prop. 36 is tough and smart on crime. The analyst agrees it could save nearly $100 million annually.
Poll: USC Dornsife/L.A. Times (10/15-21) Yes 63 percent No 22 percent
Prop. 37: Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.
As a scientist, I feel that I should be able to make this food labeling initiative digestible for you. I can’t. The first bullet point “Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways.” Proponents say consumers have a right to know what’s in their food to make healthy choices. Opponents see no proof it will help, wonder why the third bullet point exempts products like certified organic food and alcoholic beverages, and fear a flood of bureaucracy and lawsuits. Mendel’s peas were simpler.
Poll: CA Business Roundtable/Pepperdine (10/7-10) Yes 48 percent No 42 percent
Prop. 38: Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute
Hmmm … increase taxes to fund education … sounds a lot like Prop. 30. True, but those in favor argue Prop. 38 will do a better job of ensuring that the legislature can’t divert the money, and that it goes to students, not salaries and pensions. The opposition’s Web site encapsulates many of their arguments: StoptheMiddleClassTaxHike.com. I’m told that Props, 30 and 38 are written such that if both pass, the one that gets more votes gets implemented.
Poll: PPIC (10/14-21) Support 39 percent Oppose 53 percent.
Prop. 40: Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.
Some people didn’t like the state Senate Districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission, so they gathered enough signatures to put Prop. 40 on the ballot as a referendum to “approve” the Commission’s Senate Districts. If that’s seems confusing, it is: the important point is that you should vote YES. If that seems one-sided, it’s because even the people who forced the referendum say “The Supreme Court reviewed the process and intervened to keep the district lines in place … this measure is not needed and we are no longer asking for a NO vote.” Finally, everyone agrees!
