(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
2022 General Election Local Ballot Analysis (San Diego County/unincorporated/CD-48/AD-75) [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-10-13
Welcome to my analysis the local ballot portion of the 2022 General Election! This may or may not be useful to you, in whole or in part. The closer you live to me, the more likely this is to be helpful. I am assessing what’s on my own ballot. I live in East San Diego County, on unincorporated land.
Similar to how I laid out the statewide ballot, there are three portions to the local ballot. This time though, we’ll give each section its own section in this post. The sections are Candidate Races: Judicial Retentions, and Measure A (yep, just the one local proposition for us non-city folk here in San Diego County!)
1. CANDIDATE RACES
For most of these races, we once again, have the simple bit: Vote for the Democrat. A lot of these races are D-vs-R, and furthermore, a lot of them were covered in the primary analysis – we’ve just cut down to two candidates. Even though most races are nonpartisan in theory, county party endorsements give away the partisanship of the candidates, and I will be referencing the endorsement guides of the county parties frequently below. The only race that doesn’t do this is Assembly District 75, and as such, I will do it last. I will also frequently reference my primary election analysis.
US Representative, District 48: Steven Houlahan – The primary election comments hold, and unlike most of the races here, this is an explicitly partisan race, and so is obvious.
Superior Court Office 35: Rebecca Kanter – I didn’t vote for Kanter in the primary, but she’s the clearly correct choice of those remaining, as the Dem-endorsed candidate with a Rep-endorsed opponent in a theoretically nonpartisan race, and my earlier comments on her are still valid.
Superior Court Office 36: Peter Singer – The primary election comments hold.
County Board of Education District 3: Alicia Muñoz – Theoretically a nonpartisan race, but Muñoz has the Democratic endorsement and her opponent has the Republican endorsement. Her opponent, Marvin Attiq, has a very basic website in which he acknowledges Republican support and has very boilerplate platform with no real meaning. Muñoz has no website, but submits a ballot statement (which Attiq fails to do). Even here, her ballot statement is just about her (admittedly impressive) qualifications and she takes no real positions on anything. So all the information we have is the endorsements, and I thus accept the Democratic endorsement.
Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District 2: Debbie K. Justeson – The primary election comments hold.
County Board of Supervisors, District 4: Nathan Fletcher – I wasn’t impressed with Fletcher for the primary, but Hooker was a not-obviously-worse alternative. But she didn’t make it this far. Fletcher’s Rep-endorsed opponent is obviously worse (as I mentioned in the primary election analysis), and he has the Democratic endorsement himself. Support Fletcher, make sure to keep anti-science individuals off th eboard.
Assessor/Recorder/County Clerk: Barbara Bry -- Theoretically a nonpartisan race, but Bry has the Democratic endorsement and her opponent has the Republican endorsement. Her opponent, Jordan Marks spends most of his website statements railing against taxes. Bry talks specifically about corruption in the office (which there has been), and presents at least the beginnings of a plan to combat it. Even better, she specifically talks about an actual problem easily fixable by the office -- the fact that the website is very old, several things that the County should be able to provide are outsourced, and that many processes are disjointed. She also points out her background in tech, implying that she has the knowledge to fix them. I like this.
District Attorney: Unopposed race and is pointless; I will be leaving it blank, but it does not matter at all.
Sheriff: Kelly Anne Martinez – I didn’t vote for Martinez in the primary, but she’s the clearly correct choice of those remaining, as the Dem-endorsed candidate with a Rep-endorsed opponent in a theoretically nonpartisan race, and the other guy has very little in the way of real policy mentioned on his website – it’s all boilerplate claims with no real meaning.
Treasurer/Tax Collector: Greg Hodosevich -- Theoretically a nonpartisan race, but Hodosevich has the Democratic endorsement and his opponent has the Republican endorsement. The incumbent opponent, Dan McAllister, has a ballot statement that has some fairly standard policies in this race, and doesn’t say anything particularly interesting. He has no campaign website. Hodosevich did not submit a ballot statement, but does have a website. His theme is quite similar to Bry’s, in that he talks primarily about the need to be more technologically savvy, calling the current system vulnerable, and mentioning how the current office has allowed someone access who ended up going to trial for misusing public funds, as well as the fact that the incumbent still uses AOL. A bit silly? Yes, but fair point. Let’s bring the office into the modern day.
California State Assembly, District 75: Randy Voepel (R) -- Because the Democratic Party failed to run anyone in this district, Republicans Randy Voepel and Marie Waldron go head-to-head. They both got redistricted into the same district, and both are current incumbents. The county Republican Party has endorsed Waldron. The County Democratic Party takes no position on this race, and that is very understandable, but I have to actually vote here. So it’s a case of who is worse, then vote against them. Both candidates have ballot statements where they rail against taxes and the cost of living. Both decide to demonize the homeless. Voepel yaps on quite a bit on his website about protecting the 2nd Amendment. On the flip side, Waldron shows a dangerous contempt for our public school system. They both claim to support public safety and law enforcement without providing any real plans to help with any of it. Overall, I’m going to vote for Voepel here, because as an educator, I would prefer someone that doesn’t actually state outright that they want to use charter schools and “school choice” to further damage our public schools, even if it is highly likely that both candidates have similar positions (but this part is true in all cases).
2. JUDICIAL RETENTIONS. There are 12 judges in the Fourth Division of the Court of Appeal that are up for retention. I did a quick search to see if anything stood out news-wise as a reason to vote either way; I found nothing for any of them. However, I did make a note of which judges were appointed initially by what parties. Judges Ramirez, Codrington, and Bedsworth were appointed by Republican Governors, and the other nine by Democratic Governors. We also have another resource: the right-wing site Judge Voter Guide, which so helpfully explains what the Right thinks of these judges, allowing us to easily scoop those opinions up and do the complete opposite. JVG says to retain Ramirez and Codrington and to vote to replace all the others – so we will do the opposite: I will vote NO on Ramirez and Codrington and YES on everyone else – even though Bedsworth was appointed by a Republican, the fact that the Right wants to get rid of him is enough for me at the time. If someone has a reason to disagree with this assessment, please do note this in the comments.
3. MEASURE A: CANNABIS BUSINESS TAX. The tax is, to quote the official question text, “taxing cannabis businesses in the unincorporated area on gross receipts at maximum 6% for retail, 3% for distribution, 2% for testing, cultivation at 3% or $10 (inflation adjustable) per canopy square foot, and 4% for other businesses”. This only taxes cannabis businesses on unincorporated land – that is, land not part of a city. Most cities within San Diego County already pay city taxes, so this essentially normalizes the relation between unincorporated businesses and city businesses, in terms of their tax rates. This seems like a reasonable procedure. The tax revenue would become part of the County’s General Fund. The argument against points out that the revenue benefits all residents, not just unincorporated residents, which… yes, that is how County taxes work, and how living on unincorporated land works. You don’t pay city taxes but have to deal with your administration being in a larger area. I find the argument unsatisfying, and still believe that the tax revenue will only help here. I am a YES on A.
So that’s the rundown for my local ballot – those of you in my area will find some use for this. A lot of this is countywide, so San Diego County as a whole can probably use a lot of this. In any case, as usual I await comments.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/10/13/2128874/-2022-General-Election-Local-Ballot-Analysis-San-Diego-County-unincorporated-CD-48-AD-75
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
