Jerry Brown offers California exactly what it needs in its next governor: a mature politician who can get things done in

Jerry Brown offers California exactly what it needs in its next governor: a mature politician who can get things done in Sacramento and who brings good ideas, strong principles and a reputation for telling the truth.

It's popular in some circles to say we need an outsider with business experience to run government. We tried that. It didn't work. This is the time for a leader who can work the system and who will act in the best interests of the people of California. Capping his career with a second run for the office he held three decades ago, Brown, at 72, has no ax to grind, no simmering ambition that would lead him to trump the public good with pandering to special interests. He is motivated by his desire to leave a shining legacy after a lifetime of public service.

We enthusiastically recommend him for governor.

Jerry Brown offers California exactly what it needs in its next governor: a mature politician who can get things done in

Jerry Brown offers California exactly what it needs in its next governor: a mature politician who can get things done in Sacramento and who brings good ideas, strong principles and a reputation for telling the truth.

It's popular in some circles to say we need an outsider with business experience to run government. We tried that. It didn't work. This is the time for a leader who can work the system and who will act in the best interests of the people of California. Capping his career with a second run for the office he held three decades ago, Brown, at 72, has no ax to grind, no simmering ambition that would lead him to trump the public good with pandering to special interests. He is motivated by his desire to leave a shining legacy after a lifetime of public service.

We enthusiastically recommend him for governor.

To a state desperate for leadership, he brings the seen-it-all-before wisdom of a political veteran.

To a state desperate for leadership, he brings the seen-it-all-before wisdom of a political veteran.

California lt. governor: Vote Gavin Newsom In this race, the edge goes to Newsom for his more expansive and detailed

California lt. governor: Vote Gavin Newsom

In this race, the edge goes to Newsom for his more expansive and detailed vision for California's economic and environmental future. His self-described "passion on environmental stewardship" would assure Californians of a dedicated and articulate voice on commissions overseeing the coast and public lands.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR GAVIN NEWSOM Why is the mayor of San Francisco running for a job he once dismissed as

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

GAVIN NEWSOM

Why is the mayor of San Francisco running for a job he once dismissed as worthless? Simple: he couldn't get elected governor, and he wants a place to perch for a while until he figures out what higher office he can seek. It's almost embarrassing in its cold political calculus, but that's something we've come to expect from Newsom.

We endorsed Newsom's opponent, Janice Hahn, in the Democratic primary. It was hard to make a case for advancing the political career of someone who has taken what amounts to a Republican approach to running the city's finances — he's addressed every budget problem entirely with cuts, pushed a "no-new-taxes" line, and given the wealthy everything they wanted. His immigration policies have broken up families and promoted deporting kids. He's done Pacific Gas and Electric Co. a nice favor by doing nothing to help the community choice aggregation program move forward.

Nevertheless, we're endorsing Newsom over his Republican opponent, Abel Maldonado, because there really isn't any choice. Maldonado is a big supporter of the death penalty (which Newsom opposes). He's pledged never to raise taxes (and Newsom is at least open to discussion on the issue). He used budget blackmail to force the awful open-primaries law onto the ballot. He's a supporter of big water projects like the peripheral canal. In the Legislature, he earned a 100 percent rating from the California Chamber of Commerce.

Newsom's a supporter of more funding for higher education (and the lieutenant governor sits on the University of California Board of Regents). He'd be at least a moderate environmentalist on the state Lands Commission. And he, like Brown, is devoting a lot of attention to improving the state's economy with green jobs.

We could do much worse than Newsom in the lieutenant governor's office. We could have Maldonado. Vote for Newsom.

Gavin Newsom is a strong candidate for lieutenant governor. He has a vision for where California is headed, and has a

Gavin Newsom is a strong candidate for lieutenant governor. He has a vision for where California is headed, and has a plan to create jobs along the way. His vision for creating new jobs is in the inevitable rise of the clean energy industry. He hopes to create a state that is the path-builder for the rest of the world in clean energy. Also, Gavin Newsom is committed to repairing the broken educational system of California. He sees the $800 million budget cut to the UC and CSU schools as counterproductive because it discourages the future of California’s economy—the students—from seeking a higher education. His track record as mayor of San Francisco proves his devotion to education; such as his decision to release $24.5 million from the city’s rainy day fund to prevent the layoff of 405 public school teachers. For these reasons and many more, Gavin Newsom is exactly who California needs in this time of disparity.

CONGRESS, 8TH DISTRICT NANCY PELOSI It's odd that Pelosi's become such a symbol of liberal Democrats and fodder for

CONGRESS, 8TH DISTRICT
NANCY PELOSI

It's odd that Pelosi's become such a symbol of liberal Democrats and fodder for the right-wing attack machine. When you look at her record, she's hardly a San Francisco liberal and certainly no progressive. She's not even a strong supporter of same-sex marriage. She was bad on the war for too long and seems far more interested in raising money than representing her constituents. But she did salvage the health care bill, and she's held up as Obama's chief Capitol Hill ally under enormous pressure, and if the Democrats survive with control of the House, she'll stay speaker. If not, she should think about retiring.

As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has continually fought for the interests of the people. Most recently, she has

As Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has continually fought for the interests of the people. Most recently, she has fought for the Small Business Jobs Act that was signed into law on September 27th. This Act included $12 billion in tax cuts to small businesses. She also played a major role in passing the comprehensive health care reform. Nancy Pelosi has proved to play a key role in the progress of this nation, and she must retain this seat.

Incumbent Barbara Boxer is the U.S. Senate candidate who will best represent Silicon Valley. Don't take our word for

Incumbent Barbara Boxer is the U.S. Senate candidate who will best represent Silicon Valley.

Don't take our word for it. Ask Cisco CEO John Chambers, the vocal Republican who co-chaired John McCain's 2008 presidential run. He backs Boxer over Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard CEO who served for a time as McCain's chief economic adviser.

Fiorina has valley support as well. But if Boxer were as unfriendly to business as Fiorina makes her out to be, she wouldn't have the backing of Chambers or other valley heavyweights such as Google CEO Eric Schmidt, venture capitalist John Doerr and eBay CEO John Donahoe.

Boxer is not the most collaborative senator, but her tech credentials are impeccable. Since taking office in 1993, she's had the valley's back on legislation on expensing stock options, H-1B visas and promoting cleantech and green jobs, among many other issues. Because of this, and because she comes closer to reflecting the overall values of the Bay Area than Fiorina, we recommend her for another term.

The contrast between the Democratic U.S. senator and her Republican challenger, Carly Fiorina, couldn't be starker.

The contrast between the Democratic U.S. senator and her Republican challenger, Carly Fiorina, couldn't be starker.

U.S. SENATE BARBARA BOXER The San Francisco Chronicle made a stunning — and utterly irresponsible — statement

U.S. SENATE
BARBARA BOXER

The San Francisco Chronicle made a stunning — and utterly irresponsible — statement when it refused to endorse either candidate in this race, saying that neither Boxer, the three-term incumbent, nor challenger Carly Fiornia, was qualified for the job. That's insane — this one's as clear and obvious a choice as you could ask for in American politics.

Boxer's one of the leading voices for the progressives in the U.S. Senate. She was an early and stalwart foe of the war in Iraq; she's been good on immigration (even when other Democrats have been ducking); and she's a leading voice for accountability in financial companies. She's finally come around on same-sex marriage and has a perfect record on reproductive rights and labor issues.

Fiornia's chief claim to fame is that she ran one of the nation's top companies, screwed up its history of excellent labor relations, outsourced 30,000 jobs, orchestrated a train wreck of a merger, and was fired. She left with enough of a golden parachute to help finance her campaign for Senate.

Fiorina's anti-choice. She strongly supported Prop. 8 and opposes marriage equality. She's so rabidly seeking the support of the gun nuts that she actually said that people on the federal "no-fly" list should be able to buy handguns. She supports the Arizona anti-immigration law. She's for tax cuts for the rich and can't even figure out if she's supporting or opposing Prop. 23.

This one is a no-brainer. Vote for Boxer.

The San Francisco Chronicle has declined to make an endorsement in the U.S. Senate race. Excerpts from their editorial:

The San Francisco Chronicle has declined to make an endorsement in the U.S. Senate race. Excerpts from their editorial:

Californians are left with a deeply unsatisfying choice for the U.S. Senate this year. The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation.

The challenger, Republican Carly Fiorina, has campaigned with a vigor and directness that suggests she could be effective in Washington - but for an agenda that would undermine this nation's need to move forward on addressing serious issues such as climate change, health care and immigration.

It is extremely rare that this editorial page would offer no recommendation on any race, particularly one of this importance. This is one necessary exception.

Boxer, first elected in 1992, would not rate on anyone's list of most influential senators.

For some Californians, Boxer's reliably liberal voting record may be reason enough to give her another six years in office. But we believe Californians deserve more than a usually correct vote on issues they care about. They deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts.

In past elections, Boxer has had the good fortune of having Republican opponents who were inept, underfunded, on the fringe right - or combinations thereof.

Her opponent this time, Fiorina, is proving to be articulate, well-funded and formidable.

Unfortunately for Californians who are eager for change, Fiorina has firmly staked out positions that are outside of the state's mainstream values and even its economic interest. The list only begins with her openness to offshore oil drilling, her opposition to the Roe vs. Wade abortion rights ruling and her unwillingness to support even the most commonsense gun-control measures to keep assault weapons off the street or to deny guns to suspected terrorists on the federal "no fly list."

Fiorina has said she would vote to repeal the landmark health care bill, and her support for a state initiative that would halt definitive action on climate change until unemployment reaches 5.5 percent shows a disdain for science and a disregard for this state's potential to take the lead in an emerging green economy.

It is a dismal choice between an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support and a potentially strong advocate for positions we oppose. Neither merits our endorsement for the U.S. Senate.

For us, the choice between Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate is simple. Ms. Fiorina, a former CEO of

For us, the choice between Carly Fiorina and Barbara Boxer for U.S. Senate is simple. Ms. Fiorina, a former CEO of technology giant Hewlett-Packard, has been consistent in her views during the campaign, has rightly defined the relevant issues of the day and described a reasonable path to address them.

Incumbent Barbara Boxer, for all her nearly 18 years in the U.S. Senate, has limited legislative accomplishment and has established a reputation of inaccessibility and distance from her home state. Some would argue, although California leans leftward, Boxer's positions on issues of environment and free trade are out of touch, even extreme, for Californians.

On the issues, Ms. Boxer generally is at odds with virtually every key position important to our Editorial Board, from the cap-and-trade carbon tax scheme to health care to bailouts to the labor code to financial regulation to taxes. Her view of the role of government in America – that its force is a tool to achieve social aims – is antithetical to our view of government, that it is here to defend our individual liberties.

US Senate race: Boxer's time is up The Bakersfield Californian | Friday, Oct 08 2010 07:47 PM After 18 years, it's

US Senate race: Boxer's time is up
The Bakersfield Californian | Friday, Oct 08 2010 07:47 PM

After 18 years, it's time for a change. Barbara Boxer, the junior U.S. senator from California, has been in office long enough to have built bridges in Washington, forged meaningful first-name alliances outside her primary spheres of influence and advanced some of the needs of the Central Valley. But she hasn't -- not to the degree we would have expected or hoped. After three largely noneventful terms, the time has come to send her packing.

Enter Carly Fiorina, a fiery former corporate CEO with a strong pro-business outlook. With the state and national economy still in the dumps -- yes, even though the recession is "over" -- her passionately held views should help maintain the right balance in the U.S. Senate.

Boxer, elected to the Senate in 1992, is a perfect example of an elected official who seems quite comfortable going through the motions without actually accomplishing much except casting party-line votes in the Senate, flinging partisan barbs and defeating the succession of weak or flawed challengers she's been fortunate enough to draw.

It's telling that Boxer's campaign against Fiorina has been negative from the start. From an incumbent, it's a sure sign that there's nothing strong enough to go on in her own legislative history.

Liberal Californians -- and that's a substantial constituency -- have counted on Boxer's vote to support core issues such as abortion rights, a blunt instrument she has used to win past campaigns. She's wielding it again, accusing Fiorina of a willingness to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Californians need a senator who can provide forceful leadership without being a lightning rod for hyperpartisanship. Fiorina matches that job description best. We recommend her for the U.S. Senate.

DESPITE its place as the most populous state in the union (by a wide margin), California gets the same number of Senate

DESPITE its place as the most populous state in the union (by a wide margin), California gets the same number of Senate representatives as the tiniest U.S. state. That means in order for California to have the influence, respect and resources it deserves from Washington, D.C., it needs senators with the ability and presence to fully represent the most dynamic state in the union.

Of the candidates running for one of California's two Senate seats in November, only Carly Fiorina meets that description.

Tom Ammiano is a strong advocate to better the school of our community. He sponsored and helped pass a "Great Schools"

Tom Ammiano is a strong advocate to better the school of our community. He sponsored and helped pass a "Great Schools" charter amendment that added $300 million to public schools in San Francisco. Also, he has fought to drastically increase wages of low-paid workers in the city. He has also sought to fight against the gangs that plague our community by endorsing reach-out programs to at-risk youth.

California attorney general: Vote Kamala Harris Democrat Kamala Harris, San Francisco's district attorney, has

California attorney general: Vote Kamala Harris

Democrat Kamala Harris, San Francisco's district attorney, has pledged to target the recidivism rate as her No. 1 priority if she is elected attorney general. A career prosecutor, Harris is analytical, innovative - and pragmatic - in her approach to crime reduction.

ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA HARRIS This is going to be close, and it's another clear choice. We've had our

ATTORNEY GENERAL

KAMALA HARRIS

This is going to be close, and it's another clear choice. We've had our differences with Harris — she's trying too hard to be a tough-on-crime type, pushing some really dumb bills in Sacramento (like a measure that would bar sex offenders from ever using social networking sites on the Internet). And while she shouldn't take all the blame for the problems in the San Francisco crime lab, she should have known about the situation earlier and made more of a fuss. She's also been slow to respond to serious problem of prosecutors and the cops hiding information about police misconduct from defense lawyers that could be relevant to a case.

But her opponent, Los Angeles D.A. Steve Cooley, is bad news. He's a big proponent of the death penalty, and the ACLU last year described L.A. as the leading "killer county in the country." Cooley has proudly sent 50 people to death row since he became district attorney in 2001, and he vows to make it easier and more efficient for the state to kill people.

He's also a friend of big business who has vowed, even as attorney general, to make the state more friendly to employers -- presumably by slowing prosecutions of corporate wrongdoing. Harris, to her credit, has refused to seek the death penalty in San Francisco, and would bring the perspective of a woman of color to the AG's office. For all her flaws, she would be far better in the AG's office than Cooley. Vote for Harris.

Kamala Harris has always fought for civil rights issues such as marriage equality. She was quoted at a NO on Prop 8

Kamala Harris has always fought for civil rights issues such as marriage equality. She was quoted at a NO on Prop 8 rally as saying "it really has to be said-- we are all the same." She strongly believes that every American citizen should have the equal right to choose who they marry. She has expressed a vow to do everything in her power to help the push to repeal prop 8 if elected attorney general.

L.A.'s district attorney is a true centrist with proven managerial skills. The Republican is the pick over a strong

L.A.'s district attorney is a true centrist with proven managerial skills. The Republican is the pick over a strong Democratic rival, Kamala Harris.

Attorney General - Steve Cooley The difference between San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Los Angeles

Attorney General - Steve Cooley

The difference between San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley can't be found in their law-and-order stances. They both boast tough-on-crime records. They both have gone after elected officials who abuse their office. They both promise to enforce the laws of the state, no matter what they think of them personally.

The difference between them is in style and vision, and in scope and ambition.

Harris, the young charismatic prosecutor from up north, is clearly on an upward trajectory, with the attorney general's position just a stop on the way. But in this case we're supporting Cooley, the
Advertisement
low-key, principled prosecutor. Unlike so many of his elected L.A. contemporaries, Cooley isn't a publicity hound. He's not angling for the next seat. He's not there to score points for his party. Indeed, he's been pilloried by his own party for his balanced approach to California's three-strikes law.

Cooley has been there for Los Angeles County, and we think he would do the same for California

CA: CONTROLLER JOHN CHIANG Chiang's been a perfectly decent controller, and at times has shown some political

CA: CONTROLLER

JOHN CHIANG

Chiang's been a perfectly decent controller, and at times has shown some political courage: When Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to cut the pay of state employees to minimum-wage level, Chiang refused to go along — and forced the governor to back down. His opponent, state Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Los Angeles), wants to use to office to promote cuts in government spending. Vote for Chiang.

As Controller, John Chiang has found more than $2 billion in government waste-- a figure far higher than any other

As Controller, John Chiang has found more than $2 billion in government waste-- a figure far higher than any other previous Controller. Among these findings, he stopped the state from paying $11 million a year to dead employees. He is also a leader in pension reform and has successfully backed legislation that required all state pension programs to adopt disclosure policies. Chiang is committed to keeping a tight oversight on California's funds.

John Chiang Democrat He stood up to Schwarzenegger and refused to lower State workers wages to minimum wage. He went to

John Chiang Democrat He stood up to Schwarzenegger and refused to lower State workers wages to minimum wage. He went to court for the workers and won. Let's reelect him.

California today is better prepared than any other state to take advantage of federal health care reform enacted by

California today is better prepared than any other state to take advantage of federal health care reform enacted by Congress. Now voters need to elect an insurance commissioner with the will and expertise to make this a national model for health coverage. The commissioner will be California's point person to get residents the best coverage possible for the lowest possible price while maintaining a healthy business climate for insurers.

The clear choice on Nov. 2 is Democrat Dave Jones, the Sacramento assemblyman who has served admirably as chairman of both the health and judicial committees in the Assembly.

Jones' opponent, Republican Mike Villines, is a courageous politician by California standards. His principled stand in 2009 to get a balanced budget through the Legislature cost him his position as Assembly minority leader. He would likely do as solid of a job as the current insurance commissioner, Republican Steve Poizner, in fulfilling the basic responsibilities. But Villines is on record as opposing federal health care reform.

Jones has a long record of working to rein in health insurance premiums. Most recently, he was instrumental in passing the legislation making California the first state to set up a health care exchange for the uninsured. He would do far more than Villines to see that consumers get the greatest
benefit possible under federal reforms.

Outside of the governor, the insurance commissioner may have a bigger impact on the lives of Californians than any other elected official. This race is important. And Dave Jones is the right choice.

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER DAVE JONES Jones, currently a state Assemblymember from Sacramento, won a contested

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

DAVE JONES

Jones, currently a state Assemblymember from Sacramento, won a contested primary against his Los Angeles colleague Hector de la Torre and is now fighting Republican Mike Villines of Fresno, also a member of the Assembly. Jones is widely known as a consumer advocate and was a foe of Prop. 17, the insurance industry scam on the June ballot. A former Legal Aid lawyer, he has extensive experience in health-care reform, supports single-payer health coverage, and would make an excellent insurance commissioner.

Villines pretty much follows right-wing orthodoxy down the line. He wants to replace employer-based insurance with health savings accounts. He argues that the solution to the cost of health insurance is to limit malpractice lawsuits. He wants to limit workers compensation claims. And he supports "alternatives to litigation," which means eliminating the rights of consumers to sue insurance companies.

Not much question here. Vote for Jones.

Jones will fight to make sure insurers do not take advantage of California consumers. He is a strong advocate for

Jones will fight to make sure insurers do not take advantage of California consumers. He is a strong advocate for disallowing health insurance companies to discriminate based on existing conditions. His history provides precedent that he is willing to reach across the aisle in order to do what is in the best interest of Californians and reach progressive change. He was named the most effective legislator by Capitol Weekly, and he will continue to work hard for voters needs as Insurance Commissioner.

California insurance commissioner: Vote Mike Villines Mike Villines has shown he can balance competing interests and

California insurance commissioner: Vote Mike Villines

Mike Villines has shown he can balance competing interests and is willing to take the heat for doing the right thing. In a close call between good choices, Villines gets The Chronicle endorsement

Guaranteeing the integrity of California's elections is a serious responsibility, as Florida's debacle in 2000 made

Guaranteeing the integrity of California's elections is a serious responsibility, as Florida's debacle in 2000 made clear. California needs an experienced hand as secretary of state -- and the incumbent, Democrat Debra Bowen, has vastly superior knowledge and expertise on voter issues compared with her Republican opponent, Damon Dunn. She should be re-elected Nov. 2.

It takes chutzpah to run for secretary of state when you not only have never held office but also haven't even bothered to vote until 2009. This is the case with Dunn. The former Stanford football star and NFL player seems to be bright and full of energy and good ideas. But that doesn't qualify him to make complex decisions on, for example, tamper-proof electronic voting machines and voter registration methods -- any more than being in great physical shape qualifies somebody to play wide receiver in the NFL.

Given four more years on the job, the incumbent Bowen could bring several important modernization efforts to fruition.

Given four more years on the job, the incumbent Bowen could bring several important modernization efforts to fruition.

California secretary of state: Vote Debra Bowen This state office needs a leader who is experienced, savvy and able

California secretary of state: Vote Debra Bowen

This state office needs a leader who is experienced, savvy and able to act with impartiality. Debra Bowen, a former Democratic legislator knowledgeable about both the advantages and drawbacks of electronic vote counting, meets all such qualifications, and should be elected to a second term.

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION TOM TORLAKSON We fully expected a November runoff between Torlakson and

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

TOM TORLAKSON

We fully expected a November runoff between Torlakson and state Sen. Gloria Romero. Both Democrats had strong fundraising and political bases — and very different philosophies. Romero's a big charter school and privatization fan; Torlakson has the support of the teachers unions. But to the surprise of nearly everyone, a wild-card candidate, retired Los Angeles educator Larry Aceves, came in first, with Torlakson second and Romero third. Now Aceves and Torlakson are in the runoff for this nonpartisan post.

Aceves is an interesting candidate, a former principal and school superintendent who has the endorsement of the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Francisco Green Party. But he's too quick to take the easy line that the teachers' unions are the biggest problem in public education, and he wants the unilateral right to suspend labor contracts.

Torlakson wants more charter-school accountability and more funding for primary education. He's the far better candidate.

Larry Aceves Not much choice is there? Without him who would supervise how we are publicly instructed?

Larry Aceves Not much choice is there? Without him who would supervise how we are publicly instructed?

California's next superintendent of public instruction has to find ways to help educators close the achievement gap and

California's next superintendent of public instruction has to find ways to help educators close the achievement gap and lower the dropout rate, two crises schools must overcome to prepare the workforce of tomorrow.

Larry Aceves, a longtime administrator who was superintendent of San Jose's Franklin-McKinley School District, has the best combination of experience and independence for the job.

His opponent, Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, 61, is a former teacher who has focused heavily on education in the Legislature. But Torlakson is beholden to the powerful California Teachers Association, which is spending a fortune to elect him. He recently helped kill a sensible bill to require the rate of layoffs at low-performing schools be the same as the district average, so that already struggling schools aren't further handicapped by instability.

The CTA -- more concerned about seniority rights than equity for poor and minority students -- lobbied fiercely against the bill.

Aceves, the former president of the Association of California School Administrators, seems to be clear-eyed about California schools' strengths and flaws. He's reasonably supportive of charters, recognizing that they're part of the solution but not a cure-all. He says principals should be able to consider student test scores when evaluating teachers. He knows the school finance system needs an overhaul, and that more money isn't the only answer.

Aceves strikes us as a thoughtful pragmatist. In this race, he's the candidate most capable of making progress on California's pressing education challenges.

The pragmatic former superintendent would balance a commitment to reform with a grasp of the difficult task facing

The pragmatic former superintendent would balance a commitment to reform with a grasp of the difficult task facing teachers.

Larry Aceves understands the importance of focusing less on paperwork and more on the actual learning of California's

Larry Aceves understands the importance of focusing less on paperwork and more on the actual learning of California's students. The state of California has forced mandate after mandate on teachers and superintendents taking their attention away from the students and more towards unneeded paperwork. It's time to direct focus back on the students, and Aceves understands this. He also recognizes the need to adequately fund the education system that has lacked enough funding to make in progressive for decades.

If it seems like Bill Lockyer's been around forever -- well, he has, just about. The Hayward Democrat has done well at a

If it seems like Bill Lockyer's been around forever -- well, he has, just about. The Hayward Democrat has done well at a number of jobs over several decades, from the Legislature to attorney general. But as state treasurer for the past four years, he has really shone, maturing to near-statesman stature. At a time of turmoil for California, the treasurer needs to be a good manager of the state's investments and a voice of reason on budget matters.

On Nov. 2, Lockyer is the right choice for voters, perhaps now more than ever.

His opponent, Orange County Republican Mimi Waters, has never voted in favor of a budget while in the Legislature and has taken an ironclad pledge to oppose any new taxes. Thoughtful political leaders know absolutist pledges are a bad idea, shutting out possibilities of compromise that could help the very interests they claim to represent. And the last thing California needs in the treasurer's office is someone rigid in ideology. It is a job for a pragmatist.

Bill Lockyer is committed to job creation in these though economic times. Over the past three years as Treasurer, he has

Bill Lockyer is committed to job creation in these though economic times. Over the past three years as Treasurer, he has sold $68.2 billion of bonds to finance infrastructure projects to create thousands of jobs throughout California. He has also directed $1.3 billion of financial assistance to help preserve 73,120 jobs in California. He is also strongly for a greener California as he has moved to fund projects fighting global warming and sustainable energy. Additionally, he is a pioneer in expanding college funding for young Californians through his ScholarShare project that he has now expanded 64%.

TREASURER BILL LOCKYER Lockyer's almost certain to win reelection as treasurer against a weak Republican, Mimi

TREASURER

BILL LOCKYER

Lockyer's almost certain to win reelection as treasurer against a weak Republican, Mimi Walters. He's done an adequate job and pushed a few progressive things like using state bonds to promote alternative energy. Mostly, though, he seems to be waiting for his chance to run for governor — and if Jerry Brown loses, or wins and decides not to seek a second term, look for Lockyer to step up.

Bill Lockyer is committed to job creation in these though economic times. Over the past three years as Treasurer, he has

Bill Lockyer is committed to job creation in these though economic times. Over the past three years as Treasurer, he has sold $68.2 billion of bonds to finance infrastructure projects to create thousands of jobs throughout California. He has also directed $1.3 billion of financial assistance to help preserve 73,120 jobs in California. He is also strongly for a greener California as he has moved to fund projects fighting global warming and sustainable energy. Additionally, he is a pioneer in expanding college funding for young Californians through his ScholarShare project that he has now expanded 64%.

Charles Crittenden Green Party Bill Lockyer the Democrat is a dreary political hack. It's for California Treasurer, not

Charles Crittenden Green Party Bill Lockyer the Democrat is a dreary political hack. It's for California Treasurer, not exactly a stepping stone to anywhere.

PROP. 19 LEGALIZE MARIJUANA YES, YES, YES The most surprising thing about Prop. 19 is how it has divided those

PROP. 19

LEGALIZE MARIJUANA
YES, YES, YES

The most surprising thing about Prop. 19 is how it has divided those who say they support the legalization of marijuana. Critics within the cannabis community say decriminalization should occur at the federal level or with uniform statewide standards rather that letting cities and counties set their own regulations, as the measure does. Sure, fully legalizing marijuana on a large scale and regulating its use like tobacco and alcohol would be better — but that's just not going to happen anytime soon. As we learned with the legalization of marijuana for medical uses through Prop. 215 in 1996, there are still regional differences in the acceptance of marijuana, so cities and counties should be allowed to treat its use differently based on local values. Maybe San Francisco wants full-blown Amsterdam-style hash bars while Fresno would prefer far more limited distribution options — and that's fine.

Other opponents from within marijuana movement are simply worried about losing market share or triggering federal scrutiny of a system that seems to be working well for many. But those are selfish reasons to oppose the long-overdue next step in legalizing adult use of cannabis, a step we need to take even if there is some uncertainty about what comes next. By continuing with prohibition Californians and their demand for pot are empowering the Mexican drug cartels and their violence and political corruption; perpetuating a drug war mentality that is ruining lives, wasting resources, and corrupting police agencies that share in the take from drug-related property seizures; and depriving state and local governments of tax revenue from the California's number one cash crop.

Bottom line: if there are small problems with this measure, they can be corrected with state legislation that Assemblymember Tom Ammiano has already pledged to carry and that Prop. 19 explicitly allows. But this is the moment and the measure we need to seize to continue making progress in our approach to marijuana in California. Vote yes on Prop. 19.

There are several reasons why the state of California would benefit from the passing of prop 19. Strictly from an

There are several reasons why the state of California would benefit from the passing of prop 19. Strictly from an economic standpoint, this proposition could help California's troubled economy greatly. It has been estimated by state officials that legalizing marijuana would produce $1.4 billion in tax revenue yearly. Also, eliminating the estimated 60,000 arrests made each year in the state of California would free up much more concentration and funding for more violent crimes to be prosecuted. Additionally, violent drug trade would DECREASE after this proposition went into effect. Looking back at historical evidence of this, bootleggers during the prohibition of alcohol nearly disappeared after the prohibition was repealed. As Californians, we must press for this proposition to be passed.

Yes! Of course we should legalize marijuana!

Yes! Of course we should legalize marijuana!

The state Board of Equalization estimates that 400,000 Californians smoke marijuana every day. More than 3 million use

The state Board of Equalization estimates that 400,000 Californians smoke marijuana every day. More than 3 million use it at least once a year. Clearly, the war on drugs is a massive failure, at least regarding pot.

A well-crafted proposal to legalize and regulate marijuana for adults in California might well be a better approach, but Proposition 19 isn't it. Voters should say "no" on Nov. 2.

In 1996, we supported Proposition 215, the landmark initiative legalizing marijuana for medical purposes, which some other states have imitated. We don't regret it. Pot can relieve pain and nausea for victims of cancer, AIDS and other diseases, in some cases saving lives. An initiative was the only way to make this humanitarian change.

But let's face it: Implementation has been a mess, rife with unintended consequences. The lesson is that any move to legalize marijuana for broader adult consumption needs to prescribe tight, clear regulation throughout the state.

Proposition 19 fails on that front. Instead of statewide rules, regulation is left to individual cities and counties. That's right. Every one of California's 478 cities and 58 counties would be allowed, but not required, to establish its own laws on how marijuana can be grown, sold, taxed and used. On some issues, local control makes sense, but this isn't one of them.

The marijuana legalization measure is poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions.

The marijuana legalization measure is poorly thought out, badly crafted and replete with loopholes and contradictions.

Proposition 19 is entitled "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010." In truth, it does none of these. Let us

Proposition 19 is entitled "The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010." In truth, it does none of these. Let us show you just how flawed and misleading the ballot initiative is.

Among the unintended consequences of Prop. 19, employees will be able to show up to work under the influence of marijuana while being within their legal rights.

That's right, truck drivers, fork lift operators, school bus drivers, doctors, nurses, teachers and essentially anyone else will be able to smoke marijuana before coming to work and will not face any disciplinary action by their employer.

Similarly, the rights of employers will be downsized as they will no longer be able to conduct employee drug tests and even if they know an employee is under the influence they can only take action if they are able to prove impairment. This subjects employers to more lawsuits as they will inevitably fail to provide a safe work environment.

It's also a costly problem for places of business. According to the California Chamber of Commerce, not only will business owners have to accommodate marijuana users by providing smoke breaks and designated smoking areas strictly for marijuana use, but they will also have to pay more in insurance fees to make up for the increased danger in the workplace and will also be required to pay for marijuana-related accidents.

Moreover, the research shows that by failing to comply with the Federal Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, businesses across the California will lose millions of dollars in federal funding, as well as federal research grants for state colleges and universities.

Our law enforcement officers will also inherit an albatross if Prop. 19 passes. The way the initiative is written, local governments throughout the state will have the responsibility of passing a framework for taxing marijuana sales, meaning each of the 58 counties and 478 cities in California very well could have a different set of laws for people to follow creating a patchwork of ordinances and confusion for those trying to enforce them.

Furthermore, while provisions in the ballot measure prohibit drivers from smoking while driving, nothing prevents people from smoking just before getting behind the wheel of a vehicle. There is also no language that explains what constitutes being "under the influence" of marijuana and unlike alcohol, there are no conclusive tests that can be conducted to detect the level of marijuana in one's system. Just like with workplace issues, law enforcement officers will be responsible for proving a driver was impaired after an incident occurs.

Finally, regardless of the outcome in November, United States Federal Law views marijuana as an illegal substance, therefore overruling any state law in place.

The federal government has already made it clear that legalization of any drug is not on its agenda. President Obama's 2010 National Drug Strategy states that "We have many proven methods for reducing the demand for drugs. Keeping drugs illegal reduces their availability and lessens willingness to use them. That is why this Aadministration firmly opposes the legalization of marijuana or any other illicit drug. Legalizing drugs would increase accessibility and encourage promotion and acceptance of use."

Our state cannot afford to face the tribulations surrounding Proposition 19. The initiative has too many loopholes and takes legalization too far. All facts aside, California would be the only state to legalize marijuana, but if we simply look to other parts of the world where marijuana was decriminalized, such as the Netherlands, it's easy to see how public safety was damaged and clearly this is not what we want for our state.

Voters should not risk the well-being of our state. Vote "no" on Proposition 19.

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to gerrymander districts for their own benefit -- and gave it to an independent citizens' commission. Hoping to build on that reform, good-government groups put Proposition 20 on the Nov. 2 ballot to expand the commission's purview to congressional seats.

Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their party. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work.

Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27

Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 20, no on Prop. 27 In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's

Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 20, no on Prop. 27

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to gerrymander districts for their own benefit -- and gave it to an independent citizens' commission. Hoping to build on that reform, good-government groups put Proposition 20 on the Nov. 2 ballot to expand the commission's purview to congressional seats.

Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their party. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work.

Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27

Democrats prosper by drawing themselves solidly Democratic seats, and Republicans benefit equally by lines drawn to

Democrats prosper by drawing themselves solidly Democratic seats, and Republicans benefit equally by lines drawn to protect their elected officials. It's time to undo this system, so yes on Prop. 20.

PROP. 20 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REAPPORTIONMENT NO Prop. 20 seeks to transfer the power to draw congressional

PROP. 20

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT REAPPORTIONMENT
NO

Prop. 20 seeks to transfer the power to draw congressional districts from elected officials to the 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission, the state agency created in 2008 to draw boundary lines for California state legislative districts and Board of Equalization districts.

Supporters argue that Prop. 20, (which is backed by Charles Munger Jr., the heir to an investment fortune) would create more competitive elections and holds politicians accountable. And indeed, there's been some funky gerrymandering going on the the state for decades.

But the commission is hardly a fair body — it has the same number of Republicans as Democrats in a state where there are far more Democrats than Republicans. And most states still draw lines the old-fashioned way, so Prop. 20 could give the GOP an advantage in a Democratic state. States like Texas and Florida, notorious for pro-Republican gerrymandering, aren't planning to change how they do their districts.

That's why former state Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), who lost his recent bid for the State Senate thanks to gerrymandering and an August special election, calls Prop. 20 "the unilateral disarmament of California."

It could also create a political mess in San Francisco, Laird said. "An independent commission could end up dividing the city north/south, not east/west. Or it could throw Sen. Mark Leno and Leland Yee into the same district." Vote no.

Two years ago, California voters decided to change the way legislative districts are drawn, handing the job to a citizen

Two years ago, California voters decided to change the way legislative districts are drawn, handing the job to a citizen commission.

That panel hasn't even been picked, much less started its work, yet advocates on both sides are back at the ballot box.

There are two diametrically opposed measures before voters on Nov. 2. Proposition 20 would have the commission also redraw lines next year for California's 53 congressional districts. Proposition 27 would kill the panel and return legislative redistricting to lawmakers. If both propositions pass, the one with the most votes would go into effect.

Voters should just say no to both.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/09/17/3035757/endorsements-leave-redistricting.html#ixzz10C49lNbV

No. This would give the Republicans much more power in the State Congress. I might be ready to undo gerrymandered

No. This would give the Republicans much more power in the State Congress. I might be ready to undo gerrymandered Democratic districts in California when the Republicans give up their gerrymandered districts in Texas.

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS VOTE YES ON 21 With an $18 annual surcharge on the vehicle license fee -- about $1.50 per

SAN JOSE MERCURY NEWS
VOTE YES ON 21

With an $18 annual surcharge on the vehicle license fee -- about $1.50 per month -- Proposition 21 would create a trust fund to be used exclusively to repair, maintain and operate state parks and to conserve wildlife and ocean habitats. It would fix what's dilapidated, hire adequate staff, improve public facilities and protect wild lands at Henry Coe, Big Basin and other beloved destinations.

In return for the $18, Californians will get unlimited day-use admission to state parks and beaches, which now costs about $125 for an annual pass or $10 or more per day. (Out-of-state tourists would still pay at
Advertisement
the gate.) They will help preserve the jobs created by the $4 billion a year in spending by park visitors. And they get the satisfaction of preserving the parks for all time.

California's state parks should be our legacy. The refuge they provide will only grow more precious with time. On Nov. 2, vote yes on Proposition 21.

Yes, California's parks need the money. But so do many programs. Proposition 21's special tax to help the parks would

Yes, California's parks need the money. But so do many programs. Proposition 21's special tax to help the parks would just further tie the Legislature's hands on budget matters.

PROP. 21 VEHICLE LICENSE FEE FOR PARKS YES Part of the reason California is in the fiscal crisis it is now

PROP. 21

VEHICLE LICENSE FEE FOR PARKS

YES

Part of the reason California is in the fiscal crisis it is now facing — underfunding schools, slashing services, and considering selling off state parks — is because Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for office on a pandering pledge to deeply cut the vehicle license fee, costing the state tens of billions of dollars since then. It was the opposite of what this state should have been doing if it was serious about addressing global warming and other environmental imperatives, not to mention encouraging car drivers to come closer to paying for their full societal impacts, which study after study shows they don't now do. This measure doesn't fully correct that mistake, but it's a start.

Prop. 21 would charge an $18 annual fee on vehicle license registrations and reserve at least half of the $500 million it would generate for state park maintenance and wildlife conservation programs. As an added incentive, the measure would also give cars free entrance to the state parks, a $50 million perk. Of the remaining $450 million, $200 million could be used to back-fill state general fund revenue now going to these functions, which means most of this money would go to parks and wildlife.

We'd rather see funds derived from private car use go to mass transit and other alternatives to the automobile, but we're not going to quibble with the details on this one. California desperately needs the money, and it's time for drivers to start giving back some of the money they shouldn't have been given in the first place.

Prop 21: Vote No to vehicle fees for parks With Proposition 21, California is taking the wrong path for a good cause.

Prop 21: Vote No to vehicle fees for parks

With Proposition 21, California is taking the wrong path for a good cause. The measure carves out a hands-off budget for state parks, which badly need financial support. But this piecemeal approach to budgeting via the ballot box is not the way to set priorities in a state with myriad pressing needs, especially in these lean years.

Cal-Tax Position: OPPOSE. Proposition 21 is an example of ballot-box budgeting that imposes a new car tax –

Cal-Tax Position: OPPOSE. Proposition 21 is an example of ballot-box budgeting that imposes a new car tax – misleadingly described as a "fee" in the initiative – to raise additional money for the state park system.

Cal-Tax urges you to vote NO on Proposition 21 – a car tax increase of $500 million per year during a major economic recession.

Lawmakers in Sacramento have for years borrowed or outright raided billions from cities and redevelopment and transit

Lawmakers in Sacramento have for years borrowed or outright raided billions from cities and redevelopment and transit agencies, blowing holes in local spending plans in an attempt to paper over the state's structural deficit. It's dishonest and may even be illegal, and it contradicts the will of voters.

Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would -- once and for all, we hope -- protect local governments and agencies from these money grabs. It would also force a more honest accounting of the state's budget picture. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 22.

Mercury News: Vote yes on Prop. 22 Lawmakers in Sacramento have for years borrowed or outright raided billions from

Mercury News: Vote yes on Prop. 22

Lawmakers in Sacramento have for years borrowed or outright raided billions from cities and redevelopment and transit agencies, blowing holes in local spending plans in an attempt to paper over the state's structural deficit. It's dishonest and may even be illegal, and it contradicts the will of voters.

Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would -- once and for all, we hope -- protect local governments and agencies from these money grabs. It would also force a more honest accounting of the state's budget picture. We recommend a yes vote on Proposition 22.

Yes on prop 22 would ensure that the taxes we pay at the gas pump would go purely towards transportation needs, not to

Yes on prop 22 would ensure that the taxes we pay at the gas pump would go purely towards transportation needs, not to unrelated areas as they do now. Also, prop 22 would ensure the support of our deeply-needed programs such as 9-1-1, police, fire, and senior services. Prop 22 will not raise taxes, it will just prevent State raids of local funds.

The ballot measure would bar the state from diverting certain types of local revenue. It's not the right solution.

The ballot measure would bar the state from diverting certain types of local revenue. It's not the right solution.

Prop 22: Vote No for state restriction on borrowing local funds Though an appealing concept on the surface, the

Prop 22: Vote No for state restriction on borrowing local funds

Though an appealing concept on the surface, the boundaries between local and state funds have been blurred in myriad ways since the passage of Prop. 13 in 1978. Prop. 22 does not fix this distorted system: It most protects cities' interests - at the expense of others

No. There might be more important needs than transportation like keeping health clinics or day care centers open. In a

No. There might be more important needs than transportation like keeping health clinics or day care centers open. In a fiscal emergency we shouldn't remove the option of shifting money around in the budget.

The most important vote Californians cast in November may not be in the governor's race but on Proposition 23, the

The most important vote Californians cast in November may not be in the governor's race but on Proposition 23, the measure to suspend the state's landmark global warming law. The initiative would devastate efforts to create a vibrant clean-energy sector and have a disastrous impact on the state's economy.

Vote no on Proposition 23.

The so-called California Jobs Initiative would suspend Assembly Bill 32, the4-year-old law that requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The law would be put on hold until unemployment falls from its current level, 12.3 percent, to 5.5 percent for a full year -- which has happened just three times since 1976.

Proponents -- primarily oil companies who have donated millions to the campaign -- say that when it's implemented through a cap-and-trade system, AB 32 will raise energy prices so much that businesses will be forced to lay off workers or move out of state. (That assertion is very much in question.) With more than 2 million Californians unemployed, they argue that it's the wrong time to implement it.

With that many people out of work, though, it would be an absolute calamity to turn off the magnet that's attracting billions of dollars in job-creating investment. In 2009, 40 percent of cleantech venture capital went to California, where some 12,000 companies are working on ways that could help businesses and consumers reduce energy consumption. More than 500,000
Advertisement
people work in the industry, including 93,000 in manufacturing and 68,000 in construction.

If Proposition 23 passes, clean-energy investment will come to a halt. That's what seems to be happening nationally.

Mercury News editorial: Vote No on Proposition 23 The most important vote Californians cast in November may not be in

Mercury News editorial: Vote No on Proposition 23

The most important vote Californians cast in November may not be in the governor's race but on Proposition 23, the measure to suspend the state's landmark global warming law. The initiative would devastate efforts to create a vibrant clean-energy sector and have a disastrous impact on the state's economy.

Vote no on Proposition 23.

Suspending California's global warming law would take the state, and the country, in the wrong direction.

Suspending California's global warming law would take the state, and the country, in the wrong direction.

PROP. 24 BUSINESS TAXES YES Prop. 24 repeals some special-interest tax breaks that the Legislature had to accept

PROP. 24

BUSINESS TAXES
YES

Prop. 24 repeals some special-interest tax breaks that the Legislature had to accept as part of the latest budget deal. In essence, it restores about $1.7 billion worth of taxes on corporations, particularly larger ones that hide income among various affiliates. Vote yes.

Why would we allow tax breaks to large corporations in a time where our education system faces $17 billion in funding

Why would we allow tax breaks to large corporations in a time where our education system faces $17 billion in funding cuts and thousands of educators face termination. Prop 24 would benefit 2% of the wealthiest cooperations of this state. It is time that everyone-- especially the most well-off corporations-- pay their share in this mess that we're in.

No. Taxes pay for necessary services.

No. Taxes pay for necessary services.

ReprintPrint Email Font Resize Mercury News editorial: Vote no on Proposition 24 Mercury News Editorial

ReprintPrint Email Font Resize
Mercury News editorial: Vote no on Proposition 24

Mercury News Editorial
Posted: 10/03/2010 12:01:00 AM PDT

In 2008 and 2009, the Legislature included three controversial business tax cuts, along with some tax increases, in a complex deal to get a budget passed. Proposition 24, on the Nov. 2 ballot, would rescind those cuts, increasing state revenue about $1.3 billion a year.

The tax breaks are not perfectly crafted. Rescinding them through an initiative, however, would be equally problematic. We recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 24 but urge the Legislature to come back next year and fix the tax breaks.

Mercury News editorial: Vote no on Proposition 24 In 2008 and 2009, the Legislature included three controversial

Mercury News editorial: Vote no on Proposition 24

In 2008 and 2009, the Legislature included three controversial business tax cuts, along with some tax increases, in a complex deal to get a budget passed. Proposition 24, on the Nov. 2 ballot, would rescind those cuts, increasing state revenue about $1.3 billion a year.

The tax breaks are not perfectly crafted. Rescinding them through an initiative, however, would be equally problematic. We recommend a "no" vote on Proposition 24 but urge the Legislature to come back next year and fix the tax breaks.

Proponents argue that the tax breaks it seeks to repeal will do little to create jobs and that they were sneaked into

Proponents argue that the tax breaks it seeks to repeal will do little to create jobs and that they were sneaked into the budget to avoid public scrutiny. But the initiative process is the wrong way to address those complaints.

George Lakoff, the original author of this bill, is rumored to have withdrawn his support as the bill has changed so as

George Lakoff, the original author of this bill, is rumored to have withdrawn his support as the bill has changed so as to continue a 2/3rds majority to raise taxes, which means the democrats will continue to be unable to move, but will now take the blame.

I'm with Dennis Collective on this one. I liked the original idea of changing the legislative vote requirement for BOTH

I'm with Dennis Collective on this one. I liked the original idea of changing the legislative vote requirement for BOTH budget and taxes, but it seems to me that if you change it only for budget, all you do is pressure the majority (i.e. Democrats) to pass a budget without giving them the tools to pay for that budget -- i.e. taxation -- as a result, ironically forcing the Democrats to be responsible for cutting services.

Cal-Tax Position: OPPOSE. Proposition 25 increases the likelihood of state tax increases – and makes it less likely

Cal-Tax Position: OPPOSE. Proposition 25 increases the likelihood of state tax increases – and makes it less likely that the Legislature will carefully evaluate programs for waste and inefficiency – by reducing the vote requirement for passing the state budget and tax increases that are part of the budget. The initiative also effectively eliminates voters' right to use the referendum process to stop taxes that are disguised as "fees" and other bad legislation.

Cal-Tax urges you to vote NO on Proposition 25 – a misleading initiative that would pave the way for higher taxes and restrict the public's right to reject bad legislation at the ballot box.

Mercury News: Vote yes on Prop. 25, no on Prop. 26 Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to

Mercury News: Vote yes on Prop. 25, no on Prop. 26

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a budget on time, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions in interest payments and leaving schools, municipalities and state workers holding the bag. The primary reason? The requirement that two-thirds of lawmakers approve the budget. The supermajority mandate turns democracy on its head, handing veto power to the minority.

Proposition 25 should end budget gridlock by reducing the threshold to a simple majority. And just in case that doesn't work, it would withhold salaries and per-diems from lawmakers who miss the budget deadline. We recommend a yes vote.

For similar reasons, we recommend voting no on Proposition 26, which would raise the vote threshold to two-thirds for certain fees collected by state and local governments. This would give more power to the minority and force the general public to pick up the cost of services, like cleaning up toxic waste, that now are borne by those responsible.

Proposition 25 would help ease the budget gridlock and deserves passage

Proposition 25 would help ease the budget gridlock and deserves passage

Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 25 Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a

Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 25

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly
has failed to pass a budget on time, costing
taxpayers hundreds of millions in interest payments
and leaving schools, municipalities and state
workers holding the bag. The primary reason? The
requirement that two-thirds of lawmakers approve
the budget. The supermajority mandate turns
democracy on its head, handing veto power to the
minority.

Proposition 25 should end budget gridlock by
reducing the threshold to a simple majority. And
just in case that doesn't work, it would withhold
salaries and per-diems from lawmakers who miss
the budget deadline. We recommend a yes vote.

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a budget on time, costing taxpayers hundreds of

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a budget on time, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions in interest payments and leaving schools, municipalities and state workers holding the bag. The primary reason? The requirement that two-thirds of lawmakers approve the budget. The supermajority mandate turns democracy on its head, handing veto power to the minority.

Proposition 25 should end budget gridlock by reducing the threshold to a simple majority. And just in case that doesn't work, it would withhold salaries and per-diems from lawmakers who miss the budget deadline. We recommend a yes vote.

For similar reasons, we recommend voting no on Proposition 26, which would raise the vote threshold to two-thirds for certain fees collected by state and local governments. This would give more power to the minority and force the general public to pick up the cost of services, like cleaning up toxic waste, that now are borne by those responsible.

Cal-Tax Position: SUPPORT. Proposition 26 protects Californians from hidden taxes by stopping state and local government

Cal-Tax Position: SUPPORT. Proposition 26 protects Californians from hidden taxes by stopping state and local government from disguising taxes as "fees" to get around the two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases. The initiative strengthens the legal definition of a tax, places the burden of proof regarding whether an exaction is a tax or a fee on the government rather than the taxpayer, and continues to allow for legitimate user fees to be approved by a majority vote.

Cal-Tax urges you to vote YES on Proposition 26 to define a tax so the Legislature and local governments can no longer circumvent the state constitution's restrictions on taxes simply by disguising them as "fees."

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a budget on time, costing taxpayers hundreds of

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a budget on time, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions in interest payments and leaving schools, municipalities and state workers holding the bag. The primary reason? The requirement that two-thirds of lawmakers approve the budget. The supermajority mandate turns democracy on its head, handing veto power to the minority.

Proposition 25 should end budget gridlock by reducing the threshold to a simple majority. And just in case that doesn't work, it would withhold salaries and per-diems from lawmakers who miss the budget deadline. We recommend a yes vote.

For similar reasons, we recommend voting no on Proposition 26, which would raise the vote threshold to two-thirds for certain fees collected by state and local governments. This would give more power to the minority and force the general public to pick up the cost of services, like cleaning up toxic waste, that now are borne by those responsible

Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 25, no on Prop. 26 Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has

Mercury News editorial: Vote yes on Prop. 25, no on Prop. 26

Over the past 20 years, the Legislature repeatedly has failed to pass a budget on time, costing taxpayers hundreds of millions in interest payments and leaving schools, municipalities and state workers holding the bag. The primary reason? The requirement that two-thirds of lawmakers approve the budget. The supermajority mandate turns democracy on its head, handing veto power to the minority.

Proposition 25 should end budget gridlock by reducing the threshold to a simple majority. And just in case that doesn't work, it would withhold salaries and per-diems from lawmakers who miss the budget deadline. We recommend a yes vote.

For similar reasons, we recommend voting no on Proposition 26, which would raise the vote threshold to two-thirds for certain fees collected by state and local governments. This would give more power to the minority and force the general public to pick up the cost of services, like cleaning up toxic waste, that now are borne by those responsible.

Proposition 26's attack on business fees is wrong; it should be defeated.

Proposition 26's attack on business fees is wrong; it should be defeated.

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to gerrymander districts for their own benefit -- and gave it to an independent citizens' commission. Hoping to build on that reform, good-government groups put Proposition 20 on the Nov. 2 ballot to expand the commission's purview to congressional seats.

Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their party. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work.

Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27.

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to

In 2008 voters took the power to draw California's legislative districts away from politicians -- who have used it to gerrymander districts for their own benefit -- and gave it to an independent citizens' commission. Hoping to build on that reform, good-government groups put Proposition 20 on the Nov. 2 ballot to expand the commission's purview to congressional seats.

Politicians despise the independent commission because they no longer get to choose their own voters and keep seats safe for their party. This is particularly true of Democrats because they currently hold more of those seats than Republicans. They fought the redistricting proposal in 2008, and now they're bankrolling Proposition 27 on the November ballot to kill the commission before it has even begun its work.

Californians must reject this unconscionable power grab by voting yes on Proposition 20 and no on Proposition 27.

Democrats prosper by drawing themselves solidly Democratic seats, and Republicans benefit equally by lines drawn to

Democrats prosper by drawing themselves solidly Democratic seats, and Republicans benefit equally by lines drawn to protect their elected officials. It's time to undo this system, so vote no on Prop. 27.

PROP. 27 ELIMINATING REDISTRICTING COMMISSION YES We opposed the 2008 ballot measure creating the redistricting

PROP. 27

ELIMINATING REDISTRICTING COMMISSION
YES

We opposed the 2008 ballot measure creating the redistricting commission, arguing that, while allowing the state Legislature to draw its own seats is a problem, the solution would make things worse. The panel isn't at all representative of the state (it has an equal number of Republicans and Democrats) and could be insensitive to the political demographics of California cities (it makes sense, for example, to have Senate and Assembly lines in San Francisco divide the city into east and west sides because that's how the politics of the city tend to break).

This measure abolishes that panel and would allow the Legislature to draw new lines for both state and federal offices after the 2010 census. We don't love having the Legislature handle that task — but we like the existing, unaccountable, unrepresentative agency even less. Vote yes.

No. Keep those districts in the hands of Democrats.

No. Keep those districts in the hands of Democrats.