CA: The FlashReport 2006 General Election Ballot Measure Voting Guide .... comments needed..

The Flashreport ^ | October 23, 2006 | Jon Fleischman & others

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So, without any further words, here is the Voter Guide:

BALLOT MEASURES NOVEMBER 2006 - SUMMARY
The FR and Bill Leonard recommend:

Proposition 1A = YES
Proposition 1B = NO
Proposition 1C = NO
Proposition 1D = NO
Proposition 1E = NO
Proposition 83 = YES
Proposition 84 = NO
Proposition 85 = YES
Proposition 86 = NO
Proposition 87 = NO
Proposition 88 = NO
Proposition 89 = NO
Proposition 90 = YES

[Steven W.]

Any links for conservative court nominees?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

fyi

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

***Prop. 83: Jessica's Law - Common Sense for Sex Offenders***
THE FLASHREPORT URGES YOU TO VOTE YES ON PROP. 83

Bill Leonard writes...

By now you have probably heard about Proposition 83, known as Jessica’s Law. The publicity surrounding the measure have focused on the need to close loopholes that allow sex offenders to get off easy, track registered sex offenders using GPS technology, and keep registered sex offenders from living within 2000 feet of schools or parks during their registration. But Prop. 83 does much more than those worthy actions. It eliminates the use of “good-time credits” that allow violent sex offenders to get of prison early. It finally allows district attorneys to charge people in possession of child pornography with a felony. It allows sex criminals to be evaluated and classified as sexually violent predators after just one crime, while current law sadly waits for a second victim before doing such an evaluation. It imposes additional penalties for criminals who use “date rape” drugs. It creates parole terms of up to ten years for the worst sex offenses. Prop. 83 is filled with harsh treatment for the worst sex offenders and those who prey on and exploit our children. Please join me in voting YES on Prop. 83.

[Parley Baer]

Call your local congressmans office if Republican. If not call the nearest Republicans office for the judicial nominees. Thats what we did.

[Finger Monkey]

um, shouldn't people make up their own minds?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

***Prop. 85: Common Sense for Parents***
THE FLASHREPORT URGES YOU TO VOTE YES ON PROP. 85

Bill Leonard writes...

Proposition 85 will sound familiar to those who voted in last year’s special election. It is a reworking of Prop. 73, which lost 53-47%. The idea behind the measure is straightforward: should parents be informed before their child undergoes a serious surgical procedure? Keep in mind that parents must give permission before a child can take an aspirin at school, yet it is currently legal for young ladies to undergo abortions without their parents even knowing they are leaving school for the day.

Instead of tangling this idea up with the controversial issue of abortion, though, think about it from a common sense perspective. The parent/legal guardian of a child is responsible financially, legally and physically for that child. How can that parent exercise that responsibility if medical professionals are allowed to undertake a complex, dangerous medical procedure without the parent knowing?

Prop. 85 has also incorporated some of the suggestions that arose in last fall’s campaign. For example, parents can sign a standing waiver granting permission for their daughter to have an abortion at any time without specific notification. The point of this measure is common sense protection for California’s parents and for their children. Please join me in voting YES on Prop. 85.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

***Prop. 90: Protect Your Home***
THE FLASHREPORT URGES YOU TO VOTE YES ON PROP. 90

Bill Leonard writes...

Proposition 90 is perhaps the most important measure on the November ballot and its impact might ultimately rival that of Proposition 13 from 1978.

First, Proposition 90 would amend the California Constitution to prohibit state and local government from taking private property from one private owner and transferring it to another private owner for private use.  In other words, government could not take your home and sell it to a developer to build a shopping mall or golf course or more expensive homes.  That kind of abuse has become increasingly common in California and entire industries have been established to help rich people get richer by taking private property from one owner and transferring it to someone with more political power.  Whether they call it redevelopment, urban renewal, or smart growth, the concept is the same.  If Prop. 90 were to pass, that sort of abuse of power would be outlawed.

Last year's infamous Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London called nationwide attention to this problem because the narrowly divided Court declared that the city could legally take well-maintained private homes and demolish them, then sell the land to private developers to build a for-profit hotel and other private facilities on the site.  This decision is contrary to the traditional understanding of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which contains the phrase known as the Takings Clause: “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”  The Kelo decision made it clear that there is nothing to prevent government from taking property for private use, rather than public use.  If effect, the Supreme Court majority has declared that unless Prop. 90 passes we are all just one city council vote away from losing our homes to developers with more money and more influence.

The City of Oakland recently provided an example of the need for reform by condemning Revelli’s Tires to make room for a private development that will include a Sears Tire Store.  John Revelli, who had owned Revelli’s Tires since 1949, has been unable to find another location for his business.  Taxpayers' money was spent to shut down one successful tire store so that a different tire store could be opened at the same location.

The second key provision of Prop. 90 would force governments to compensate property owners when government regulations result in substantial economic loss to private property, unless those regulations are taken to protect public health and safety.  Opponents have called this a "taxpayer trap," but they ignore the fact that the Takings Clause and current law already requires compensation for the same kinds of “regulatory takings” to which this provision applies.  Setting aside the legal debate, I believe that it is moral and proper for governments to compensate property owners when regulations significantly reduce their property values.

If government officials are so concerned about having to compensate the property owners injured by their regulations, perhaps they should change their behavior and avoid passing so many regulations that damage property values, especially when their regulations are not designed to protect public health and safety.  I urge you to ignore the opponents' efforts to confuse the issues and join me in voting YES on Proposition 90.  This may be the most important property rights measure to reach the ballot in a generation.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

*** Prop. 1A: Close the Loophole***
THE FLASHREPORT URGES YOU TO VOTE YES ON PROP. 1A

Bill Leonard writes...

Three years ago, a majority of California voters overwhelmingly approved Prop. 42. Voters were tired of our roads and highways lagging in upkeep, much less building new byways that we desperately need as our population and economy grow. Prop. 42 dedicated the existing state sales tax on gasoline to our roads and state transportation system. Despite that very clear and overwhelming message sent to Sacramento politicians by Californians, they continued to steal money from state transportation projects to pay for other programs. In the three years since Prop. 42 was passed, they stole another $2.5 billion! Prop. 1A seeks to close the loophole that let such thieving continue unabated and requires repayment of that $2.5 billion. It does allow a common sense clause allowing loans in the event of fiscal emergency, but it puts safeguards in place to prevent abuse: no more than two loans in any ten year period, and no new loan until the previous loan has been repaid. Prop. 1A will let us get started on the backlog of transportation projects, and it will finally put into practice the will of the voters: the taxes we pay at the pump should go to help improve and expand the roads on which we drive. I urge a YES vote on Prop. 1A.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

My plan was to vote NO on everything until I understood them better.... What's yours?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

I see if this site has anything...don't know if it is on the conservative side though!

[So Cal Rocket]

Tough to argue with these recommendations... that's how my ballot is marked - exactly.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

For LA County,...city voters :

The sleaziest ballot measure in America

******************************AN EXCERPT ******************************

By Paul Jacob
Sunday, November 5, 2006

Are voters stupid? The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce and the city’s League of Women Voters apparently think so. Both groups are pushing Proposition R on L.A.’s ballot next Tuesday.

Prop R is the ultimate test of whether the slick power elite in the City of Angels can fool the people into voting to weaken the city’s eight-year term limits law by not telling voters what the measure actually does . . . by pretending that it “establishes” term limits already established.

Oh, it also adds phony ethics “reforms” that sound dandy in the ballot title, but will do nothing to end the corruption that even politicians and insiders in L.A. admit is widespread.

In fact, the thrust of the Prop R campaign amounts to saying, We are so corrupt that you voters must pass Prop R to clean up our cesspool . . . by letting us stay 50 percent longer in power.

Except, of course, that second part of the statement vanishes. Mustn’t tell the voters about the extended terms!

The key to this swindle’s success? (1) Hide the anti-term limits provision, conning as many voters as possible into believing the measure is pro-term limits, and (2) sell the phony ethics changes as an anti-lobbyist reform.

As former League President Cindy O’Connor, now running the campaign for R, put it: “We know for a fact that [weakening] term limits alone would fail.”

But the added ethics reforms in Proposition R merely super-size the sleaze. For instance, opponents of Prop R point out that it “allows lobbyists to remain hidden from public view until after winning favors for a client.”

The measure does ban lobbyists from buying travel for city council members. That’s good. But, of course, that’s already state law.

Prop R also mandates ethics training for city officials. Who can oppose that, right? But, again, such training is — you guessed it — already required.

From the beginning, R has been a backroom scam. The measure’s plotters violated any sense of ethical behavior, not to mention city law, in the way they placed it on the ballot. Right off, the Chamber and League found a law firm to draft this anti-lobbyist measure. The law firm chosen just happened to boast many of the big city’s biggest lobbyists as clients.

Then, the wording of the proposal was given to city council members just two hours before it was voted on and passed. There was absolutely no opportunity for the public to speak out to their so-called representatives on the council. One can surmise from this the value the R Conspiracy places on citizen input.

Moreover, even though the measure contained a number of ethics provisions, it bypassed the city’s Ethics Commission. Wonder why?

It also bypassed the city’s voter-enacted Neighborhood Councils — a violation of the city charter. (You can bet there won’t be any “activist” judges to enforce this provision, however.)

What did the lobbyist law firm come up with? A monstrosity that Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo said, “weakens current ethics laws, places the city in legal peril and is misleading to voters.”

The legal peril comes from the fact that Proposition R joins separate subjects: ethics changes and a change to term limits. This conjunction violates the state’s single-subject law for ballot measures.

Further — and tellingly — the ethics changes are simple ordinances that could be passed by the council without going to the people; term limits, on the other hand, requires a charter amendment. Highly unusual. And very questionable, constitutionally.

Neal Donner, a citizen of L.A., filed suit on single subject grounds and the U.S. Term Limits Foundation funded that lawsuit. The court struck Prop R from the ballot, agreeing with the challengers, but a California court of appeals stayed the decision, keeping R on the ballot. This past week, Donner and U.S. Term Limits announced they would not seek to overturn a vote of the people. So that if Prop R wins, they’ll drop the suit. Another L.A. citizen has since said he would file suit on these same grounds.

[Steven W.]

Roger Hedgecock has a post about CALIFORNIA JUDGES

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks makes sense to me....are you in LA City?

[agooga]

I am a pro 90 zealot. See why here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1733339/posts

[So Cal Rocket]

Not in LA... I'm in OC.

[Political Junkie Too]

Any links for conservative court nominees?

Here

-PJ

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Found this from the Flashreport:

California Republican Lawyers Association Announces Judicial Endorsements

***************************

***************************************

 

by Mike Houston - Political Law (bio) (email)(print)

 

10-26-2006 4:37 pm

The influential California Republican Lawyers Association has announced its endorsements for the retention votes for appellate judges.  Judicial elections in California are often well below the radar screen and many voters have no idea who they are voting for.  In fact, many people tell me that they often do not vote in judicial elections because they know so little about the judges on the ballot.

The CRLA endorsement list (below) is helpful because not only does it provide the CRLA's weight to identifying judges worthy of Republican support but it provides the Governor who appointed the particular judge.

Here is the text of the CRLA press release and the endorsements:

CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN LAWYERS MAKE JUDICIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

Dear Fellow Republican:

Every year Republican voters complain about the lack of information regarding Judges appearing on their ballots. In an attempt to provide Republican voters with the information they need, the California Republican Lawyers Association have prepared a list of Justices that we recommend.

It is important to point out that in preparing this list we have researched judicial opinions, considered party registration, considered what Governor appointed each Justice, the length of service and spoke to lawyers who have practiced before them. We considered all of these factors in preparing our recommendations. No one factor was dispositive. Furthermore, certain Justices do not appear on our list because their time on the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals has been too brief.

The following list is the result of this research. To learn more about the California Republican Lawyers Association you can visit our website at www.californiarepublicanlawyers.org.

Steven Baric
Chairman, California Republican Lawyers Association

The Following Justices are those we recommend for retention:

COURTS OF APPEAL – DISTRICT 1

JAMES MARCHIANO - Appointed by Gov. Deukmajian
PAUL HAERLE – Appointed by Gov. Wilson
WILLIAM McGUINESS – Appointed by Gov. Wilson
PETER SIGGINS – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.
IGNAZIO RUVOLO – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger.
PATRICIA SEPULVEDA - Appointed by Governor Wilson.
BARBARA JONES – Appointed by Gov. Wilson

COURTS OF APPEAL – DISTRICT 2

ROGER W. BOREN - Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
VICTORIA CHAVEZ – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger
PATTI S. KITCHING - Appointed by Gov Wilson
RICHARD DENNIS ALDRICH - Appointed by Gov. Pete Wilson.
NORMAN L. EPSTEIN – Appointed by Gov Deukmejian
THOMAS L. WILLHITE, JR - Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
STEVEN C. SUZUKAWA –Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger
SANDY R. KRIEGLER – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger
FRED WOODS – Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian

COURTS OF APPEAL – DISTRICT 3

FRED K. MORRISON: – Appointed by Gov. Wilson.
TANI CANTIL SAKAUYE: - Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger

COURTS OF APPEAL – DISTRICT 4

PATRICIA D. BENKE: – Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
RICHARD D. HUFFMAN: Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
JUDITH L. HALLER: Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
ART W. McKINSTER – Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
BETTY Ann RICHLI – Appointed by Gov. Wilson
DOUGLAS P. MILLER – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger/Wilson
RAYMOND J. IKOLA – Appointed by Gov's Wilson/Davis

COURTS OF APPEAL – DISTRICT 5

THOMAS A. HARRIS – Appointed by Gov. Deukmejian
REBECCA A. WISEMAN – Appointed by Gov. Wilson
STEPHEN KANE – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger
BRAD R. HILL – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger

COURTS OF APPEAL – DISTRICT 6

NATHAN D. MIHARA – Appointed by Gov. Wilson
WENDY CLARK DUFFY – Appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

He seems to track what the Ca Rep Lawyers asid but has this note:

********************************

ALTHOUGH THE REPUBLICAN LAWYERS ASSOC DID NOT MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT - PLEASE VOTE NO ON LIBERAL JUDGES, KENNARD AND CORRIGAN