CA: Voters guide for immigrants stirs debate

Mercury News ^ | 10/27/04 | Edwin Garcia

[NormsRevenge]

Hoping to decipher the state's perplexing ballot propositions, a coalition of advocacy groups has published an unprecedented ``immigrant voters guide'' for tens of thousands of foreign-born citizens across California.

But while the coalition claims to be non-partisan, its guide might create a different impression: The recommendations side 100 percent with the official position of the state Democratic Party.

``It's ridiculous,'' said Nhut Ho, an alternate member of the Santa Clara County Republican Central Committee, and Vietnam native. He said the guide incorrectly characterizes all immigrants as Democrats.

Some local and state Republican leaders are questioning how the coalition came to its conclusions.

``It sounds more like a coordinated campaign with the Democrats,'' said Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia, a Republican who represents Imperial County along the border with Mexico.

A spokeswoman for the coalition that produced the guide in six languages strongly denies any such connection to the Democratic Party.

``Our tax-exempt status prohibits us from doing any partisan work,'' said Larisa Casillas, who oversaw the guide's development for the Northern California Citizenship Project, based in San Francisco. ``We're able to take positions on issues, but we can't take positions on particular parties or candidates,'' she said.

The guide focuses on eight of the state's 16 measures on Tuesday's ballot.

It recommends a ``yes'' vote on Proposition 66, the measure to ease sentencing requirements for ``three strikes'' criminals, because ``immigrants and people of color are disproportionately sentenced.'' The guide suggests ``yes'' on Proposition 72, which seeks to order more businesses to provide health care for workers.

[NormsRevenge]

NO and NO on Props 66 and 72

[NormsRevenge]

IF YOU'RE INTERESTED

The immigrant voters guide can be downloaded from

www.immigrantvoice.org/miv2004.

[Bonaparte]

The only 3 state props I haven't quite made up my mind on are 60A, 70 and (to a lesser extent) 65.

McClintock and the Republican Assemblies appear to be at odds on these.

Your thoughts?

[NormsRevenge]

fwiw - These thoughts will cost ya, however, I do have a long-term payment plan available. TomBots may qualify for a significant break. ;-)

60A - NO,, Not worth the savings in paying off the bonds early.

70 - Yes ,, we can always break the 99 year compact (Indians are used to getting shafted .. Gambling has been their first real shot to get an upper hand at anything) should conditions dictate it is in the state's best interest, NOT special interests to do so.

65 - Yes ... Like Tom says, 1A seems to be getting more support anyway but the vote tote may still impress on voters that there were and are alternatives available. This whole local revenue sharing thing is a mess in the overtaxed over-regulated (both state and fed-wise) socialist state we have become.

Good luck.