 |
|
Welcome to Robyn Nordell's Conservative California Election Website
Please Check Back in October of 2010 for Extensive Voter Information
For the November 2, 2010 California General Election
CALIFORNIA STATE PROPOSITIONS
For the June 8, 2010 Elections
More Proposition Information Will Be Added
ROBYN NORDELL'S CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION RECOMMENDATIONS
For the June 8, 2010 California Primary
Tom McClintock, Chuck DeVore, The CRA, Capitol Resource Institute, SaveCalifornia.com, Congressman John Campbell, and Robyn Nordell all agree on the following positions:
Proposition 13 – YES
Proposition 14 – NO!
Proposition 15 – NO
Proposition 16 – YES
Proposition 17 – YES
A Note on Prop 16 - There are differing points of view among conservatives on Proposition 16. For example, O.C. Supervisor John Moorlach and some Republican groups oppose Proposition 16.
SECRETARY OF STATE Proposition Information for the June 8, 2010 California Primary Election – Texts of Propositions, State Issued Summary/Analysis, Arguments and Rebuttals
EXCELLENT PROPOSITION ARTICLES
Proposition 13
Proposition 14
Proposition 15
Proposition 16
Proposition 17
Congressman Tom McClintock's Proposition Recommendations
For the June 8, 2010 California Primary
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's Proposition Recommendations
For the June 8, 2010 California Primary
Steve Frank of CA Political News
Recommendations for the June 8, 2010 California Elections
Propositions and Statewide Offices
Campaign for Children and Families Proposition Recommendations
For the 6/8/10 Primary Election
They have an excellent proposition analysis on their site.
SUMMARY
Proposition 13 YES
No property tax increase for earthquake-retrofitting of old buildings
Proposition 14 NO
“Jungle primary” denying Republicans and Democrats their own nominees
Proposition 15 NO
Government funding of political campaigns
Proposition 16 YES
Require 2/3rds voter approval for local government-run electricity
Proposition 17 YES
Allows auto insurers to offer new customers “continuous coverage” discount
Listen to Campaign For Children and Families Audio Proposition Presentation
Listen now: Facts about the 5 California ballot propositions >>
The mailers, TV ads and radio commercials can sound so convincing -- from both sides. What are the facts about the 5 California ballot propositions?
Know WHY you're voting yes or no. Listen as principled State Board of Equalization tax attorney and legislative expert Tom Hudson joins SaveCalifornia.com President Randy Thomasson to explain the big picture and the details.
LISTEN >> | DOWNLOAD >> (right click, save)
California Republican Assembly (CRA) Recommendations for the 6/8/10 California Propositions
Proposition 13 YES
Proposition 14 NO
Proposition 15 NO
Proposition 16 YES
Proposition 17 YES
June 8, 2010 CAPITOL RESOURCE INSTITUTE Proposition Recommendations
Proposition 13: YES - Limits on Property Tax Assessment
Proposition 14: NO - Top Two Primaries Act
Proposition 15: NO - Tax Payer Funding of Elections
Proposition 16: YES - Tax Payers Right to Vote
Proposition 17: YES - Auto Insurance Choice
June 8, 2010 Proposition Recommendations from Orlean Koehle
Eagle Forum of California State President
Proposition 13 YES
Proposition 14 NO
Proposition 15 NO
Proposition 16 NO
Proposition 17 YES
Congressman John Campbell's Proposition Recommendations
June 8, 2010 Ballot Proposition Positions
Proposition 13-YES
Proposition 14-NO
Proposition 15-NO
Proposition 16-YES
Proposition 17-YES
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Recommendations for Propositions 13, 14, and 15
HJTA recommends:
Proposition 13 – YES - Exempts earthquake retrofitting from reassessment
Proposition 14 – NO - Makes it easier to elect pro-tax candidates
Proposition 15 – NO - Public funding of political campaigns
HJTA has no recommendation on Propositions 16 and 17. They are not taxpayer issues. HJTA also urges a vote of NO on all local bonds that do not require a two-thirds vote for passage.
California Republican Party's Recommendations for Propositions
For the June 8, 2010 Election
California Federation of Republican Women's 6/8/10 Proposition Recommendations
Orange County Register Editorial: June 8, 2010 Primary: Proposition Round-Up, May 9, 2010
OC Register's Recommendations for California State Propositions
Yes on Prop. 13: Quake upgrades should be encouraged
No on Prop. 14: Open invitation to bland candidates
No on Prop. 15: Campaign finance measure flawed
Yes on Prop. 16: Not perfect, but good
Yes on Prop. 17: Partial fix of bigger problem
OC Register's Recommendations
ORANGE COUNTY MEASURES
NO on Measure A in Garden Grove
NO on Measure B: More Taxes for fewer Kids
No on Measure C: State needs cash from selling fairgrounds
No on Measure D in Mission Viejo
For Contrast with Register - YES on OC Measure C Ballot Argument
By Alan Mansoor and Costa Mesa City Council Members
Other OC LOCAL MEASURE INFO
Congressman Tom McClintock's Proposition Recommendations
For the June 8, 2010 California Primary Election
Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Earthquake proofing your house shouldn't trigger a tax increase until you're ready to sell. Any questions?
Prop. 14. Distorted Primary. NO: This was the result of the corrupt deal for the tax increase engineered by Abel Maldonado that included this measure to by-pass party primaries in a manner Maldonado believed would enhance his future election prospects. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely.
Prop. 15. Taxpayer Funded Elections. NO: The real purpose of this measure is to allow the legislature to tap taxpayers to finance political campaigns. Jefferson said it best: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Prop. 16. Utility Elections. YES: Cash-guzzling city governments have been taking over the territory of utilities through eminent domain and PG&E wants to put it to a vote. This measure gives you the choice upon whose mercy your future electricity bills will depend: the monopoly of city hall or the monopoly of your utility. Here's a better idea: restore the freedom of individual consumers to choose among competing providers who actually have to earn their business. Alas, that part was left out by the suits at PG&E.
Prop. 17. Insurance Rates. YES: A simple question: should drivers be able to take their “continuous coverage” discount with them when they change insurance companies? A simpler question: why are our laws such a micro managing mess that we have to vote on something as self-evident as this in the first place?
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore's Proposition Recommendations
For the June 8, 2010 Primary
Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Making needed improvements to buildings to make them less prone to earthquake damage may cause a tax increase under today's law. This proposition fixes that and prevents a tax hike for seismic retrofitting.
Prop. 14. Open Primary. NO: This is the open primary initiative brought to you by former State Senator (now Lieutenant Governor) Abel Maldonado in exchange for his vote for the largest tax increase in U.S. history at the state level. It will blur party differences and allow the government labor unions to elect more people.
Prop. 15. Taxpayer Funded Campaigns. NO: This proposition will open the door to taxpayer funded political campaigns. The campaign finance system isn't perfect, but it is a reflection of free speech. Forcing taxpayers to fund campaigns is contrary to free speech.
Prop. 16. Utility Elections. YES: PG&E, a government-protected utility monopoly wants protection against municipal governments who can carve out their territory and create government utilities without a vote of the people. I haven't been a fan of PG&E (they opposed Prop. 8 and have fought against bringing modern nuclear power to the state) but, on balance, this is good policy.
Prop. 17. Car Insurance Discount Portability. YES: Allows drivers to take their "continuous coverage" discount with them if they switch insurance carriers.
HELPFUL PROPOSITION ARTICLES
Proposition 13
Editorial: Prop. 13: Quake upgrades should be encouraged, The Orange County Register, May 9, 2010
EXCERPTS: “The original Proposition 13 was the 1978 California initiative that rolled back property taxes, capped their annual increase at 2 percent per year, and sparked a nationwide tax revolt.
On the ballot June 8 is a new Proposition 13, which slightly modifies the original. The Original Prop. 13 also allowed tax re-assessments – typically at a much higher, full-market tax rate – if a property was sold, or if significant improvements were made to it. The reassessment is made at 1 percent of the property's current value.
Existing law allows two exclusions from reassessment. According to the Legislative Analyst's Office, the first exclusion, for 15 years, is for “earthquake safety upgrades on 'unreinforced masonry buildings'" required by local ordinances.”
"The second excludes from reassessment other earthquake safety modifications to any type of building and has no time limit. Both exclusions apply only until the property is sold."
“This new Prop. 13 makes things much simpler: it exempts from reassessments any improvements related to seismic retrofitting...”
YES on Proposition 13-Official Ballot Argument
By: Tom Bordonaro, Jr, San Luis Obispo County Assessor, Barbara Alby, Chief-Deputy Board Member, Board of Equalization District 2 , and Roy Ashburn, California State Senator
EXCERPTS: “Proposition 13 makes a necessary change to our state's constitution in order to eliminate a dangerous and unfair disincentive for property owners to upgrade certain types of buildings in order to improve earthquake safety. This proposition promotes equity and fairness among taxpayers by eliminating the unequal treatment of different types of property which undergo seismic safety improvements.”
“For seismic safety for all Californians—North, South, East and West—please vote Yes on Proposition 13.”
PROPOSITION 14
Official NO on Prop 14 Website - http://www.savevoterchoice.com/
The Great Voter Silencer: CA's Prop 14, by Thomas Del Beccaro
EXCERPTS: “California's June primary features one of the most undemocratic initiatives ever foisted upon voters by politicians. Falsely called an ‘Open Primary,' when actually it is a Top 2 Primary, the initiative actually reduces voter choices, effectively silences third parties and will harm our democratic process.”
“Our current system features a primary process in which various partys, Green and otherwise, participate. The nominees of those partys then square off in November throughout the state along with “write in” candidates. Prop 14, which is opposed by The California Republican Party, and is pushed by some of the proponents of the failed 2009 Prop 1A tax increase, would end that system in favor of a Top 2 Primary. Under Prop 14, all of the parties and candidates are forced into a single primary in June and then only the Top 2 vote getters square off in the Fall – no one else has a voice.”
PROP. 14 “Top Two” Primary Will Lead To Higher Taxes, by Reed Royalty, President, Orange County Taxpayers Association, FlashReport, May 3, 2010
EXCERPTS: “Under Proposition 14, political organizations with big money could deny the will of the voters by manipulating the electoral process. For example, Orange County is conservative; it's possible that the two candidates who advance from the primary to the general election in an Orange County district both would be Republicans. Scenario 1: public employee unions, traditionally Democratic, could direct their ample money and organizational support to the ‘weak' Republican candidate who quietly promises to reward the unions with increased pay and benefits. (History shows that there are plenty of Republicans willing to do that.) Scenario 2: public employee unions encounter two ‘strong' Republicans in the general, decide they can't win with either, and shift 100% of their money and support to a candidate in a more liberal district, overwhelming the will of conservative voters there.”
“OCTax is non-partisan, but we are conservative about taxes and government growth. We see a looming danger. Almost 50% of voting-age people pay no income taxes at all. Those people think government services are ‘free,' so naturally they want more of them. Another 20% of the people work for governments at the local, state and federal levels. So almost 70% of the people have a vested interest in bigger government and higher taxes, to be paid by the remaining 30% of us. Proposition 14, designed to elect more ‘compromising' officials and ‘make it easier to raise taxes,' would push the state closer to the tipping point at which we would have, essentially, one-party rule.”
PROP 14-Why Two Elections? Oppose Special Interest Deception, Vote NO on Prop. 14, by
Keith Carlson, Treasurer, California Republican Party, FlashReport, March 31, 2010
EXCERPTS: “Everything about Prop 14 is deceptive. It is billed as ‘reform,' but is really just insiders gaming the system. It is supposed to create ‘open' primaries, but actually closes the general election to only two people. Advocates tell you it will end gridlock in Sacramento, but they fail to tell you that much of the current (gridlocked) legislature came to power under a previous ‘open primary' scheme. Supporters say it will make elections more fair, but it is an exact copy of the primary system in Louisiana—that bastion of political integrity.
But if integrity, openness, fairness, and apple pie were truly the drafters' intent, why was this measure slipped onto the ballot in the middle of the night by legislator's horse trading over last year's massive tax increase and budget? Why did a judge recently strip the word ‘reform' from the ballot statement? And if ridding the state of primaries is the so-called reformers' point, why are there still two elections?”
Prop 14 VIDEO (5 Minutes) – Jon Fleischman Part One: More Maldonado's Make Things Worse, Not Better.
Prop 14 - Arnold Kicks In $500k To The Prop. 14, The "Make It Easier To Pass Tax Increases" Measure, by Jon Fleischman, FlashReport, 3-26-10
EXCERPT: “How ironic that successful international movie star and businessman Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is literally volunteering his time as Governor of California, has overnight become the largest donor to the campaign to pass Proposition 14, the ‘Top Two' initiative, which purports to somehow make things work ‘better' in Sacramento.”
PROPOSITION 15
Editorial: Prop. 15: Campaign finance measure flawed, The Orange County Register, May 9, 2010
EXCERPTS: “There's a fundamental problem with forced taxpayer funding of political campaigns. It is not right to force taxpayers (in their role as voters) to support candidates through taxation that they would not support at the ballot box.”
“Prop. 15 is a bad idea that takes the power out of the hands of concerned citizens and voters and instead puts more power in the hands of bureaucrats and public employee unions.”
“Vote ‘no' on Prop. 15. The last thing the state needs is government-controlled political campaigns.”
Vote No On Proposition 15: Welfare for Politicians, BY Jon Fleischman, FlashReport, 4/21/10
PROPOSITION 16
Prop 16 Will Protect Voters & Taxpayers, by Mike Spence, Red County, 5/9/10
EXCERPTS: “Much has been made in the media about Proposition 16, the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act, and unfortunately many of the media reports have bought into the opponents' misinformation campaign.
Prop 16 focuses on one simple principle – it ensures voters have the final say before local governments can spend public money or incur public debt to get into the retail electricity business. Prop 16 would guarantee Californians the right to vote before their local government can spend public funds or incur public debt to develop a government-run electricity business. Local governments that want to use public dollars to take over an electric system or start a community choice aggregation program would need a two-thirds majority vote of the people to do so.”
Campaign For Children and Families –YES on Prop 16
Require 2/3rds voter approval for local government-run electricity
”What Prop. 16 would do: This measure makes it harder for local governments to start up electricity entities which local residents are responsible to pay for. PG&E, the state's largest electricity and natural gas provider is regulated by the state government. However, PG&E was shocked when locally elected officials of the City of San Francisco and the County of Marin decided to set up an electricity municipality of their own, cutting out PG&E. The mammoth utility therefore went to the ballot with Prop. 16 to propose that a two-thirds voter approval is needed before local governments get into the electricity business.
Why we urge you to vote YES on Prop. 16: We were initially very skeptical of Prop. 16 due to the self-serving interest of the very liberal Pacific Gas & Electric utility (services most of Northern, Central and Coastal California) and because Prop. 16 appears to squelch competition. Yet once we researched it, we discovered that Prop. 16 DOES NOT affect private energy companies or lessen the hope of cheaper private electricity providers being allowed in the future (indeed, it indirectly encourages it). We remembered that local government usually provides worse service and higher prices, and we were alarmed to learn that local governments can form a new monopoly that effectively shuts out private electricity providers. And we remembered that we want private sector solutions most of all. After all, you don't want government-run gas stations, do you? We get closer to the goal of privatization by passing Prop. 16, which not only serves PG&E's interests but serves the best long-term interests of average consumers. We believe the best choice right now is to pass Prop. 16 to make it harder for governments to be electricity providers, which will keep open the door to cheaper, better managed private energy suppliers in the future. While it's not good to have hugely-regulated, almost-monopolistic utilities like PG&E, it's even worse to have government-run electricity, because new electrical utilities run by cities or counties will likely increase ratepayers' costs faster and more than PG&E would. Remember, PG&E's prices are still regulated by the Public Utilities Commission, but prices of local government electrical municipalities are not. If you support voter rights but don't have a problem with the government running formerly private sector entities, you'll still want to vote for Prop. 16 because it increases voter power by requiring a two-thirds vote threshold before local governments can take over the important role of electricity provider.”
PROPOSITION 17
Editorial: Prop.17 partial fix of bigger problem, The Orange County Register, May 9, 2010
Campaign For Children and Families –YES on Prop 17
Allows auto insurance companies to offer “continuous coverage” discounts to new policy holders
”What Prop. 17 would do: This measure deletes a small part of the state law that currently prohibits automobile insurance companies from providing “continuous coverage” to new customers. This prohibition was a strange part of Prop. 103, which was narrowly passed in 1988 to establish a number of insurance regulations). Even Democrats and Republicans in the Legislature agreed with removing the ban several years ago, but the courts struck that down, ruling only the voters can amend Prop. 103. That's how simple and narrowly focused Prop. 17 is.
Why we urge you to vote YES on Prop. 17: If you have been a long-time customer of an automobile insurance company and want to keep your “continuous coverage” discount, passing Prop. 17 will mean the opportunity for a deeper discount when you change insurance companies. In addition to financial freedom, Prop. 17 promises a little bit better government since will also roll back a little bit of anti-free market government regulation. Why is Mercury Insurance, one of the smaller California insurance companies, funding Prop. 17? Probably because they think they can win new customers, and we think that's just fine. Let's open up more competition among private insurers, because competition ultimately benefits consumers the most.”
|
|
