For Listeners of “The Bottom Line” Show (and anyone else who might be interested)
12 October 2022
What follows are my recommendations the key election issues of the day, focusing primarily on the races in which votes can actually have some kind of impact. First up, the state propositions; next, the race for Governor. Finally, a look at key races for seats in the House of Representatives, the California State Senate and Assembly. Then, at the end of my recommendations, I’ll provide a link to a couple of places you can turn for a fairly thorough analysis of key state initiatives and races county by county here in California.
The California Propositions:
Proposition 1: The “Right to Reproductive Freedom” Act
- A “yes” vote supports AMENDING the California State Constitution to PROHIBIT the state with or denying a woman’s right to an abortion as well as to obtain contraceptives.
(A “no” vote keeps things as is.)
In Proverbs 28:1, we read that “The wicked flee when no one pursues – but the righteous are as bold as a lion.” (NKJV) So perhaps it might be more appropriate to retitle this measure “Proposition 28:1” instead? 😊 One of the greatest challenges in fighting the battle for the sanctity of life involves how Progressives define what “contraception” involves. For nearly 50 years, they have controlled the media narrative about “Constitutional protections” for abortion and “allowing a woman to control her own health care decisions” regarding this heinous practice. But all of that rhetorical bullying changed on 24 June 2022 when the Supreme Court of the United States upheld Mississippi’s Dobbs vs Jackson ruling and nullified Roe vs Wade and Planned Parenthood vs Casey in the process. Now, the decision as to whether or not to allow abortions to continue to be legally performed lies squarely with the citizens of each state and the respective legislatures of said jurisdictions.
Immediately after Roe was overturned, panic began to set in among hard-core Progressives. Their narrative: “No more Roe means NO MORE ABORTION . . . AND NO MORE CONTRACEPTION.” Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Contraception (the actual PREVENTION of pregnancy taking place either through birth controls, IUD’s, condoms or other forms) was NEVER in “danger” of being branded as illegal. But abortion now IS in at least half of these United States of America – and more states are considering restrictions (eg a ban at 15 weeks’ gestation similar to the original Dobbs case in Mississippi that set this whole turn of events in motion).
So why would a highly “Progressive” state like California seek to enshrine a “Right to Reproductive Freedom” into the State Constitution? Well it appears that the hope would be to provide a blueprint which other states could follow to guarantee the so-called “right” to murder a preborn child in the womb all the way up through labor and delivery – and, in some cases, incredibly allowing for the death of said child up to FOUR WEEKS AFTER he or she is born.
Abortion and contraception are NOT THE SAME. CONTRACEPTION involves PREVENTING a PREGNANCY from occurring . .. . while ABORTION involves ENDING THE LIFE OF A PREBORN CHILD who has already begun to live in the womb! Democrats have been using this “fear of losing your Constitutional rights” mantra to successfully raise boatloads of campaign cash. They’re created a “strawman argument” which suggests that somehow every Independent and “No Party Preference” voter in the Golden State will join forces with each member of the GOP and push to eliminate a woman’s right to get contraceptives and abortifacients . . . but there is no evidence that anything of the sort might happen.
Perhaps the greatest “BIG LIE” in the political realm right now is that ABORTION is ACTUALLY CONTRACEPTION – but that’s simply not true. So why do Progressives keep acting like someone is going to “take away” their right to birth control? Perhaps due to a guilty conscience of what abortion actually involves? Though it is highly likely this measure will pass, even still, a “no” vote on this ridiculous measure WILL send a message to the “guilty” who know abortion is morally wrong but continue to support it. That is why I PASSIONATELY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY recommend a NO vote on Proposition 1.
Proposition 26: The “Legalize Sports Betting on American Indian Lands” Initiative:
- A “yes” vote on Proposition 26 would 1) result in the legalization of sports betting at American Indian gaming casinos at licensed racetracks in California; 2) tax profits derived from sports betting at racetracks at a rate of 10%; and 3) legalize roulette and dice games (like “craps”) at tribal casinos.
- A “no” vote OPPOSES this initiative, thus continuing to prohibit sports betting in California, along with roulette and dice games at tribal casinos.
Prop 26 legalizes sports gambling at Indian casinos. Allowing this type of betting at these facilities could potentially provide a financial boon for Native Americans living in California. Individuals choosing to participate must be at least 21 years of age to place their bets. And with the passage of Prop 26, California would join 30 other states (along with the District of Columbia) to allow sports gambling – though only 5 other states have created this option through ballot measure.
An overwhelming majority of tribal communities support this measure – and, as you might imagine, the stiffest opposition to its passage comes from local “card clubs” where sports betting would remain illegal. A total of over $125 MILLION has been spent waging war in this campaign – with the majority of those fund spent in favor of its passage.
If passed, Prop 26 would impose at 10% tax on total earnings by the casinos (with 15% of that total going to the California Bureau of Gambling Control for enforcing control over sports gaming throughout the state; 15% going to the California Department of Public Health to create and maintain programs for those with gambling addictions; and the remaining 70% going to the California State General Fund). The remaining 90% would stay with the tribal casinos.
The passage of Prop 26 would create an additional revenue stream for the Native American community – but it could also encourage those with compulsive gambling tendencies to further lose themselves in addictive behavior. And that’s the part of this measure that leads me to recommend a “NO” vote on Proposition 26.
Proposition 27: The “Legalize Sports Betting and Revenue for Homelessness Prevention Fund” Initiative
- A “yes” vote supports legalizing online and mobile sports betting for anyone aged 21 or older. It also establishes regulations for the MOBILE sports betting industry, imposing a 10% tax on sports betting revenues and licensing fees. Those monies would be allocated for programs to help the homeless as well as placed into a fund for tribes which choose not to operate in sports betting.
- A “no” vote opposes the legalization of sports gambling, keeping it illegal in California.
Perhaps you’ve seen the ads for Prop 27 which encourage voters to “Vote NO on 26 – but YES on 27.” They seemingly address the same kinds of issues (establishing sports betting opportunities for tribal community casinos) but Prop 27 is being billed as also “providing solutions to HOMELESSNESS” as well as increased opportunities in construction and other areas.
So – which measure actually does the most good? The short answer is . . . NEITHER. 😊
Though a few tribal communities were featured in the early ad campaigns for Prop 27 expressing their support, the new focus has shifted almost exclusively to the issue of providing a solution for the homeless crisis in California. But does it?
According to Ballotpedia, “Proposition 27 proposes a constitutional amendment and statute to authorize a gaming tribe, an online sports betting platform with an operating agreement with a gaming tribe, or a qualified gaming company with a market access agreement with a gaming tribe may operate online sports betting for individuals 21 years of age or older in the state but outside of Indian lands. The amendment would prohibit online sports betting on youth sports.”
Currently, mobile and in-person sports betting is illegal in California.
The real selling point for supporters of Prop 27 is the fact that 85% of the fund’s revenues would be allocated to California Solutions to Homelessness and Mental Health Support Account for permanent and interim housing. In addition, 15% of revenues to the Tribal Economic Development Account, which would be established by the initiative to provide funds to Indian tribes for expanding tribal government, public health, education, infrastructure, and economic development.
Sounds good so far, doesn’t it! But keep in mind that there is one part of the equation that supporters gloss over: The proposed law would create the Division of Online Sports Betting Control within the Department of Justice. The initiative would give the division authority to regulate the online sports betting industry and investigate illegal sports betting activities.
So what exactly does THAT mean? It means yet ANOTHER government agency designed to “regulate” a segment of the economy, thus draining the program of a large portion of its revenue before they ever receive it. In addition, the proposed law would ALSO establish the California Online Sports Betting Trust Fund – yet ANOTHER NEW GOVERNMENT AGENCY to oversee this fund. The revenue from licensing fees, renewals, and the sports wagering tax would be deposited into the fund – but ONLY after deducting these new “regulatory costs.” Perhaps that’s why three of the largest Native American communities in the state are OPPOSED to this proposition. Gambling initiatives disguised as “welfare projects” have plagued our state for decades (see my analysis of Proposition 28 for more on that 😊) and this latest batch of measures doesn’t seem much different. That is why I recommend a “NO” vote on Proposition 27.
Proposition 28: The “Art and Music K-12 Education Funding” Initiative
- A “yes” vote establishes as las that K-12 Public school districts will provide funding for arts and music education programs equal to AT MINIMUM 1% of the total state and local revenues that local agencies receive under Proposition 98. Passage of this measure would also require schools with 500 or more students to use 80% of the funding for employing teachers with the remaining 20% going for materials and teacher training.
- A “no” vote opposes using this annual source for funding of arts and music education in K-12 public schools.
Over the past several decades, the public education here in the People’s Republic of California has had a love/hate relationship with the arts. On the one hand, countless studies have shown the benefits of having a comprehensive arts program in public education introduced in the curriculum for students as young as Kindergarten. The introduction of classic music, art appreciation and the like has shown significant increases in test scores for both boys as well as girls in students of all socio-economic backgrounds. At the same time, Arts programs have seen their budgets slashed if not altogether eliminated by school districts beholden to union contracts requiring perpetual increases in teachers’ salaries. The burden for funding arts programs has largely been shifted to parents and families, resulting in many students simply forgoing any kind of arts education simply due to exorbitant costs.
Proposition 28 seeks to change all of that. A “yes” vote on Prop 28 would increase spending on arts-related programs in public and charter schools by anywhere from $800 million to $1 billion. Divide that by the nearly 6 million students still in the California public school system and the cost per student is somewhat nominal, but it’s a start.
FULL DISCLOSURE: My father was a music educator. My oldest daughter earned her California teaching credential in instrumental music and her younger brother is currently completing his as well. The arts were and still are a big deal in the Marsh household. And it is a bit disappointing that the majority of the funding (80%) goes to hiring new teachers and staff while the children ostensibly are left with the remaining 20%. And the measure has no guarantees that the KINDS of arts programs will be edifying or God-honoring. But this seems like a good start for potentially revitalizing our dying public educational system here in the Golden State. That’s why I recommend a “YES” vote on Proposition 28.
Proposition 29: The “Dialysis Clinic Requirements” Initiative
A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to require dialysis clinics to have at LEAST ONE PHYSICIAN, NURSE PRACTITIONER or PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT one site while patients are being treated. It also requires reporting of data on dialysis-related infections and would not discriminate against patients based upon the source of payment for their care.
A “no” vote opposes this measure.
“Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. . . .”
If Proposition 29 sounds familiar, that’s because . . . it IS. You HAVE seen this measure before – and rather recently at that. Primary funding for Prop 29 comes from the SEIU, Service Employees International Union, one of the largest labor unions in the U.S. This organization has sponsored two other iterations of this legislation in California over the last 2 election cycles:
- In 2018, SEIU was the driving force behind Proposition 8, which was billed as a measure to “refund to patients any funding over 115% of total procedure costs billed by insurance companies.” (This practice is quite common in the insurance industry as many plans are loathe to pay full value for services rendered. Companies routinely bill at a markup of anywhere from 300 to 400% of fees in hopes of collecting the full 100%. Under the guise of “improving care” for the patients at dialysis centers, SEIU seemed primed to place more of their unionized employees in dialysis center (as if the “gravy train” of insurance money was enough incentive for them to boost treatment costs . . . and then watch some of that “gravy” splash into the SEIU “boat.”)
- Then, in 2020, SEIU was again the primary sponsor of Proposition 23 . . . which may look familiar to you because its wording is virtually IDENTICAL to Prop 29 on the 2022 ballot. 😊
Needless to say, had either Prop 8 in 2018 or Prop 23 in 2020 emerged successful, you wouldn’t be reading my analysis of Prop 29 right now – but here we are. Prop 8 was defeated by a margin of 60 to 40; Prop 23 came up short by a margin of 63 to 37. Evidently, California voters saw through the SE’U’s tactics and have told them TWICE of their displeasure with this measure. Count me in as part of that chorus. As I have both in 2018 and 2020, my position on this issue remains unchanged in 2022. That’s why I recommend a “NO” vote on Proposition 29.
Proposition 30: The “Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emission Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention” Initiative
- A “yes” vote SUPPORTS increasing tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and then dividing that revenue between 3 state-run subsidies: a) one for enhancing zero-emission vehicle infrastructure; b) another for wildfire suppression programs; and c) a third for “prevention” programs.
- A “no” vote opposes this measure and leaves tax rates as is (which are still among the HIGHEST of any state in the U.S.).
Another “Soak the Rich” tax-and-spend scheme has been set before California voters in the 2022 midterm elections. The question is – will we bite?
Well, before we consider “the numbers” involved, here’s perhaps the most telling statistic about this measure: it is opposed by both the Howard Jarvis Tax Initiative organization as well as . . . Governor Gavin Newsom. 😊
The monies collected from this latest “tax-the-rich” scheme would be placed in the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund. And according to our esteemed Governor, only one company would truly stand to benefit. Lyft, a leader in the world of ride-sharing, has been providing the bulk of the campaign funding to push Prop 30 across the proverbial line. Evidently Governor Newsom doesn’t like the idea of a privately-held company swooping in and grabbing up all of the “surplus” tax dollars that HE routinely spends on his own pet projects.
As for me, it’s not too difficult to take a pass on yet another push away from the dreaded fossil fuels in lieu of the “miracle” of “zero-emission” electricity . . . of which we don’t manufacture enough and for which we have perilously no storage. That’s why I recommend a “NO” vote on Proposition 30.
Proposition 31: The “Flavored Tobacco Products Ban” Referendum
- A “yes” vote would uphold contested legislation (Senate Bill 793) which would ban the sale of flavored tobacco products WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS.
- A “no” vote would REPEAL SB 793 thus keeping the sale of flavored tobacco legal in the state.
On the surface, Prop 31 sounds like a no-brainer. Back in 2020, the California State Legislature passed SB 793 which bans the sale of most flavored tobacco products. In August of that year, Governor Newsom signed the bill into law. But then came the complaints from the small business community as well as advocates for free business practices – and then, not surprisingly, from the tobacco industry as well. And it appears these entities DO have a legitimate gripe with this law.
It’s no secret that the tobacco industry has been using just about every trick in the book to lure consumers to try their products. And one of the most vulnerable groups of potential buyers are children. But opponents of this measure rightly point out that the original reason for pushing this legislation appears to be little more than a strawman argument: selling tobacco products to those under the age of 21 is already illegal in the State of California so how does this measure address what was already settled law? And why the sponsors of SB 793 choose to title the original bill, the “Stop Tobacco Access to Kids Enforcement” Act . . . when laws preventing as such were already on the books?
In addition, according to the California Coalition for Fairness, “We agree that youth should never have access to any tobacco products, but this can be achieved without imposing a total prohibition on products that millions of adults choose to use. This law goes too far and is unfair, particularly since lawmakers have exempted hookah, expensive cigars and flavored pipe tobacco from the prohibition.
Moreover, a prohibition will hurt small, local businesses and jobs as products are pushed from licensed, conscientious retailers to an underground market, leading to increased youth access, crime and other social or criminal justice concerns for many California residents.”
If California residents actively sought a ban of this sort, the proper channel for following such action would have been a ballot initiative rather than an overly aggressive legislature attempt to score points with voting constituents. THIS ballot measure helps correct that legislative overreach. That is why I recommend a “NO” vote on Proposition 31.
Governor – Brian Dahle
(basically ANYONE but the incumbent)
Lieutenant Governor – Angela E. Underwood Jacobs
Secretary of State – Rob Bernosky
Controller – Lanhee Chen
Treasurer – Jack M. Guerrero
Attorney General – Nathan Hochman
Insurance Commissioner – Robert Howell
Superintendent of Public Instruction – Lance Ray Christensen
United States Senator – Full Term, General Election
Mark P. Meuser, Republican *** (Endorsed)
Alex Padilla *
United States Senator, Short-Term, General Election
Mark P. Meuser, Republican *** (Endorsed)
Alex Padilla *
California; United States Representative, District 1
Doug LaMalfa
California; United States Representative, District 2
Douglas Brower
California; US House of Representatives, District 3
Kevin Kiley
** This was a tough call. As a California State Assemblyman, Kevin Kiley has done a first-rate job of calling the Governor into account for his lawless executive orders. Kermit Jones is a fine candidate as well – but I’m endorsing Kevin Kiley this time around.
California; United States Representative, District 4
Matt Brock, Republican **** (Endorsed)
California; US House of Representatives, District 5
Tom McClintock
** If you’ve gotten used to voting for Congressman McClintock in the 4th District for all these years, remember he has a new district this time around.
California; US House of Representatives, District 6
Tamika Hamilton
California; US House of Representatives, District 7
Max Semenenko
California; US House of Representatives, District 8
Rudy Recile
California; US House of Representatives, District 9
Tom Patti
California; US House of Representatives, District 10
(toss a coin)
California; US House of Representatives, District 11
John Dennis, Republican
(time for Nancy Pelosi to go!)
California; US House of Representatives, District 12
Stephen Slauson
California; US House of Representatives, District 13
John Duarte
California; US House of Representatives, District 14
Alison Hayden Republican
(incumbent Eric Swalwell’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party are too great ignore)
California; US House of Representatives, District 15
(another coin toss)
California; US House of Representatives, District 16
(no clear-cut favorite)
California; US House of Representatives, District 17
Ritesh Tandon Republican
California; US House of Representatives, District 18
Peter Hernandez
California; US House of Representatives, District 19
Jeff Gorman
California; US House of Representatives, District 20
Kevin McCarthy
California; US House of Representatives, District 21
Michael Maher
California; US House of Representatives, District 22
David G. Valadao
(not an overwhelming endorsement – but definitely a much better choice than the alternative)
California; US House of Representatives, District 23
Jay Obernolte
California; US House of Representatives, District 24
Brad Allen
California; United States Representative; District 25
Brian E. Hawkins, Republican
California; United States Representative, District 26
Matt Jacobs
California; United States Representative, District 27
Mike Garcia, Republican
California; United States Representative, District 28
Wes Hallman
California; United States Representative, District 29
(your choice)
California; United States Representative, District 30
G. “Maebe A. Girl” Pudlo
(Pudlo is a Democrat but anyone is better than Adam Schiff in this district)
California; United States Representative, District 31
Daniel Bocic Martinez
California; United States Representative, District 32
Lucie Lapointe Voltozky
California; United States Representative; District 33
John Mark Porter
California; United States Representative, District 34
(no preference)
California; United States Representative, District 35
Mike Cargile, Republican
California; United States Representative, District 36
Joe E. Collins III
(Incumbent Ted Lieu has been wreaking havoc on this district for far too long)
California; United States Representative, District 37
(coin toss)
California; United States Representative, District 38
Eric J. Ching
(ABSOLUTELY endorsing Eric Ching!)
California; United States Representative; District 39
Aja Smith
California; United States Representative; District 40
Young Kim
California; United States Representative; District 41
Ken Calvert
(not a “perfect” candidate on the issue of marriage, but the best choice in this district)
California; United States Representative, District 42
John Briscoe, Republican
California; United States Representative, District 43
This is Maxine Waters’ district. She definitely needs to be retired. Challenger Omar Navarro really doesn’t stand a chance here – but an upset WOULD be most appealing.
California; United States Representative, District 44
Paul Jones
California; United States Representative, District 45
Michelle Steel
California; United States Representative; District 46
Christopher J. Gonzales
California; United States Representative; District 47
Scott Baugh
(KEY race involving the incumbent from the former 45th District, Katie Porter. Baugh brings a Conservative vote and voice back to a region that was overtaken by ballot harvesting in 2018.)
California; United States Representative; District 48
Darrell Issa
(A CONSERVATIVE incumbent moving Districts after redistricting.)
California; United States Representative; District 49
Brian Maryott
California; United States Representative; District 50
Corey Gustafson
California; United States Representative; District 51
Stan Caplan
California; United States Representative; District 52
Tyler Geffeney