I hate voting for things I don’t understand, so I’ve made an effort to become better informed about the issues on the November 2 ballot. A number of people have asked me to share what I’ve learned and how I’m voting. Here goes:

Prop 1A. Yes. Prop 1A is the result of a deal that the governor made with California cities and counties after local elected officials (including me) got enough signatures to qualify Prop 65 for the ballot. Gov. Schwarzenegger has agreed to stop the state legislature’s practice of raiding local tax dollars from cities and counties to pay for programs mandated (but not funded) by the legislature—starting two years from now. (The gov argued that the state’s financial situation is too precarious to stop the practice immediately.) As part of this deal, we agreed NOT to try to win passage of Prop 65.

Prop 59. Yes. Gives Californians a constitutional right to access government info.

Prop 60. No. State legislators added this proposition to try to confuse voters and make them less likely to pass Prop 62.

Prop 60A. Yes. It’s a fluke that this one is on the ballot. It was part of Prop 60, but a state appellate court ruled that it must be voted upon separately by the voters. It doesn’t matter much whether you vote “yes” or “no” on this one, but I’m voting “yes” because the voter handbook says it may save millions of dollars due to accelerated repayment of bonds.

Prop 61. No. A “yes” vote authorizes a $750 million bond to help expand and equip children’s hospitals. Hospitals that would benefit include the five U.C. children’s hospitals (including UCSF and UC Davis) and a number of private hospitals, mostly in Southern California, but also including Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital at Stanford. Are these hospitals facing a crisis? Do we want to use the ballot to shape our state budget?

Prop 62. Yes. This measure would create open primary elections, giving you more choices. Under the current system, only the top vote-getter from each political party in a primary election advances to the general election. Prop 62 would allow the top two vote-getters, regardless of party, advance to the general election, so you might have a choice, for example, between a moderate Democrat and a liberal Democrat.

Prop 63. You decide. A “yes” vote would impose a tax of 1% on taxpayers with income of more than $1 million to provide expanded mental health services. While mental health services have been in dire shape for many years, is it fair to tax people who aren’t responsible for the problem?

Prop 64. No. A “yes” vote would mean that only those who have directly been injured and lost money or property could bring a lawsuit to the Attorney General under California’s unfair competition law. Consumer rights organizations say the law would limit the rights of private citizens to bring consumer protection lawsuits and that corporations would get away with polluting our air and water.

Prop 65. No. The local elected officials who put this measure on the ballot are no longer campaigning for it because we have agreed to support Prop 1A instead.

Prop 66. No. This measure would limit the “Three Strikes” law to violent and/or serious felonies. It could save millions of dollars on prison costs, but opponents, including county District Attorney Jim Fox (for whom I have a great deal of respect) say that it would allow the release of dangerous repeat offenders and cost millions in resentencing expenses for third-strikers currently in jail.

Prop 67. No. This proposition isn’t very popular with voters because it would impose a surcharge on phone bills to pay for emergency room and 911 services. Proponents warn that more emergency rooms and trauma centers may close if they are forced to continue to provide uncompensated care but, c’mon—should we be funding health services with our phone bills?

Prop 68. No. The proponents of this non-tribal commercial gambling expansion proposal have already conceded defeat and are no longer campaigning for this measure.

Prop 69. You decide. Under this measure, the state would collect DNA samples from more people, including anyone convicted of a felony offense or sex offense or attempt, or anyone charged with a felony sex offense, murder or voluntary manslaughter. Beginning in 2009, it would collect DNA from adults arrested, booked or charged with a felony offense. Once a sample was taken, the person arrested or accused would have the burden of proof for removing the sample even if he or she were found innocent. While proponents say the enlarged database would help solve and prevent crime, opponents worry about privacy rights.

Prop 70. No. This one would require the governor to offer Indian tribes 99-year compacts for casinos with unlimited Nevada-style gaming, with a contribution to the state at normal business tax rates. Give us a break!

Prop 71. You decide. This controversial measure would issue $3 billion in general obligation bonds to fund stem call research facilities in California. We all know someone who might benefit from this research, but that’s a lot of bucks at a time when the state has a huge deficit.

Prop 72. Yes. This measure would require businesses with 200 or more employees to extend health care insurance to workers, including part-time and seasonal workers. Proponents say taxpayers are now paying indirectly for health coverage for these workers through programs that cover the uninsured. Opponents say the law would severely impact businesses and their ability to compete.

Measure A – You decide. This transportation funding measure would extend the current ½ cent sales tax that ends in 2008 for another 25 years at the rate of $60 million per year. A two-thirds vote is required, and if the measure doesn’t pass this time, proponents will keep trying until another measure does. Measure A would continue to pay for transportation projects, but a couple of new items have been added since last time: funding of BART and ferries based in South San Francisco and Redwood City. Much of the funding would go to local street and road improvements, local transit and separation projects at railroad crossings. But opponents, including San Mateo County Controller Tom Huening, point out that Measure A shifts millions in funding from capital improvements to operations and funds some statewide projects that should be paid out of other pots of money. For example, he argues that the highway improvements proposed (for 101, 92, 280, 380 and 1) are supposed for be maintained and improved with our gas tax. And he says that the transit funding for Caltrain electrification and high-speed rail to Los Angeles should be paid by state bonds.

Measures B, C and D – Yes on all three. These are housekeeping measures for the county and aren’t controversial. 

Measure E – No. This measure would ask the county Grand Jury to recommend salary adjustment for the county Supervisors, who normally must ask the voters for a raise. I like it when they ask.

Measure S – Yes. This measure would extend the current $104 per parcel education tax for six years. Even if you don’t have kids in Burlingame public schools, you benefit from our excellent education system because it helps keep property values healthy.

President – You know who you want.

 

U.S. Senator – Boxer has a big lead.

 

U.S. Representative – Lantos will win again.

 

State Assembly – Mullin has no real competition, and I think he’s doing a great job. (But are you seeing a pattern here? The lack of choice in these general election races is one reason why I’m supporting Prop 62.)

 

 

Trustee Area 4 – Belforte

 

Trustee Area 6 – Lempert. (We are very lucky to have him!)

 

Trustee Area 7 – Morantes

 

San Mateo County Harbor District Commissioners – Fontana, Campbell and Holsinger. There’s quite a feud going on here, with incumbent Sally Campbell trading barbs with President Jim Tucker (who is not up for re-election, but his pals are). Tucker sent a letter to local papers, claiming Campbell made unauthorized charges to the district for two business trips. Campbell accused Tucker of misusing the district’s insurance coverage to pay for plastic surgery on his eyes. Tucker votes with Leo Padreddii and Pietro Parravano, who are running for re-election. Campbell votes with Ken Lundie (not up for re-election). Campbell has criticized recent district decisions such as moving the headquarters from a free office to one costing $5,000 a month and hiring a human resources director for $85,000 a year for just 30 employees. Beverly Fontana, a legal secretary who was deputy secretary to the commission for the past five years, recently resigned to run, saying she thought she could do a better job, “especially in money control, public accountability and employee issues.” She is aligned with Campbell. Will Holsinger is among three challengers running. He is a Burlingame resident and attorney who helped handle the issues on the Bay Meadows Citizens Advisory Committee.

 

Peninsula Health Care District – Ullyot and Navarro. The district leases land to Peninsula Hospital and safeguards the public interests. With plans in the works for a new hospital, this is a critical time for the district. Ullyot is a cardiologist who founded Peninsula Hospital’s cardiac surgery program in 1978 and was its director until he retired in 2001. Ullyot seems to have widespread support, but some people are lobbying heavily for Nylda Gemple, a retired registered dietician, instead of Navarro. They argue that she has practiced locally and is in a better position to know what local residents want in their hospital. However, I believe Navarro, an anesthesiologist at Seton Medical Center and resident of San Mateo, will provide a valuable perspective as an outsider and a strong advocate of getting the best deal possible during negotiations between the hospital and the district.