![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timIn what follows, I'll assume you already have a passing familiarity with the candidates and ballot measures. For background information, http://smartvoter.org/ and https://ballotpedia.org are helpful.
Like most such guides, this one will start out being relevant to everyone eligible to vote in the US, then quickly narrow itself to just California, then further narrow itself to Alameda County and then Oakland (specifically City Council District 1).
tl;dr: Californians, vote no on 60 if you want to protect sex workers, yes on 62 to abolish the death penalty, and Oaklanders vote no on Measure HH to oppose fat-shaming and vote yes on Measure JJ to extend protection against unjust evictions. In writing this, I was helped by the Alameda County Green Party's voter guide and the Friends Committee on Legislation of California (FCLCA) voter guide.
President: Hillary Rodham Clinton
I don't believe that Clinton is the lesser of two evils, or in fact, evil. I believe she is the best-qualified person to be president. I'm not considering making a protest vote; to me, there's nothing to protest.
I'm leaving this part brief both because you've probably already made up your mind, and other people have already said the rest (I don't, of course, agree with every point made in every one of the following articles):
US Senator: Loretta Sanchez
I'm a single-issue voter -- in this specific case, that issue is not attacking sex workers:
US Representative, 13th Congressional District: Barbara Lee
Barbara Lee speaks for me, and has for the past 15 years.
Proposition 51: Yes
More funding for schools is good.
Proposition 52: No
This is a complicated one (suggesting it probably should never have been a ballot measure in the first place, already suggesting no), but I'm persuaded by the FCLCA's argument: " In bad economic times it would further limit the Legislature’s ability to pass a budget without making deeper cuts to programs that are not constitutionality protected, namely services to the poor and disabled and support for higher
education. The Legislature should retain the flexibility to modify the fee and to determine how the funds will be spent in accordance with changing circumstances."
Proposition 53: No
This measure would make it more difficult for the state to issue revenue bonds. It's on the ballot because of one rich farmer in the Central Valley who wants to stop one specific water project. Passing general legislation because of a specific issue is usually a bad idea. Vote no
Proposition 54: Yes
Greater transparency in legislation; probably can't be a bad thing.
Proposition 55: Yes
Tax the rich to support education and health care -- where's the down side?
Proposition 56: No
I've changed my mind about tobacco taxes as I've gotten older. Regressive taxes are bad; punishing people for self-harm is ineffective. If you want to make people want to live, then make it so life is worth living -- don't punish them for wanting to die.
Proposition 57: Yes
This would reform juvenile sentencing: notably, by making it harder for people under 18 to be tried as adults. That's a good thing -- as long as minors aren't allowed to vote, they shouldn't have all the responsibilities of adults.
Proposition 58: Yes
This would reverse a xenophobic law and give schools more freedom to teach their students English in the way that is best for those students. Vote yes.
Proposition 59: Yes
While largely symbolic, making a statement in favor of overturning Citizens United has little cost.
Proposition 60: NO
If you don't pay attention to anything else, vote no on 60:
Image from![[tumblr.com profile]](https://www.tumblr.com/favicon.ico)
amputate.
Quotingerykahisnotalright, who says it better than I can:
Proposition 61: No
This is another one that's too complicated for the public to be voting on directly. I believe the FCLCA's analysis when they say that it could have unintended consequences, namely making prescription drugs more expensive.
Proposition 62: Yes
Abolish the death penalty.
Proposition 63: No
I'm generally in favor of gun control, but this measure -- which would regulate ammunition sales -- has an exception for retired cops. That's a dangerous precedent to set, given that cops are among the most violent members of the population.
Proposition 64: Yes
I had to think about this one -- I'm in favor of cannabis legalization, but this measure had been criticized for being over-regulatory. I was eventually persuaded by this post from criminal defense lawyer David Pullman; just read it, it's good. He points out that contrary to misinformation, 64 would create no new crimes; all the changes it would make would reduce felonies or misdemeanors to misdemeanors or infractions, or eliminate crimes altogether. One of the most important reasons to vote yes on 64 is that people currently in jail for cannabis-related crimes that would be legalized by 64 would be able to appeal for re-sentencing. Freeing people -- disproportionately people of color -- from prison for crimes that should never have been illegal in the first place is an unambiguous win.
Proposition 65: No
This measure was written by plastic bag industry lobbyists and exists solely to cause grocery store owners to oppose Proposition 67. In short, Proposition 67 would ban plastic grocery store bags statewide and require stores to charge for any non-reusable bags; 65 would, contingent on 67 or any future legislation like it passing, force grocery stores to give away paper or reusable-plastic bags at a loss. As it is, 67 allows grocery stores to keep the bag fees to pay for the costs of bags. That's why grocery store owners support it -- they would rather not keep giving away free bags. 65 would force grocery stores to give away those bags for free and pay a fee per bag, out-of-pocket, to a state environmental fund. 65 is an attempt to sabotage 67, and thereby, the environment. Vote no.
Proposition 66: No
This measure would make it easier for the state to kill people; vote no on it, and yes on 62.
Proposition 67: Yes
Ban plastic bags; they're bad for the environment. Vote yes and this and no on 65.
State senator, District 9: Nancy Skinner
State assembly, District 15: Tony Thurmond
Superior Court Judge, Office #1: Scott Jackson
AC Transit District Director, at large: Dollene Jones (see the Green Party voter guide for more about this race)
AC Transit District Director, Ward 2: Greg Harper
BART Director, District 7: Lateefah Simon
East Bay Regional Park District Director, Ward 2: Audree V. Jones-Taylor
County measure A1: Yes
More affordable housing. That's good.
School measure G1: Yes
More school funding. That's good.
Oakland measure HH: NO
This is another regressive tax that has the side benefit of promoting "obesity epidemic" panic. Again, you can't punish people into being healthy.
Oakland measure II: Yes
This is rather obscure, but possibly could have the effect of making it easier for the city to provide affordable housing, so, yes.
Oakland measure JJ: Yes
Did you know that Oakland has the 4th-highest rents in the country? Oakland is rapidly losing racial and economic diversity as rising rents drive out longtime residents. Measure JJ would help with that, by extending protections from unjust evictions from buildings built before 1980 to all buildings built before 1995 and by putting responsibility on landlords to notify tenants about rent increases.
Oakland measure KK: Yes
More money for public facilities. That's good.
Oakland measure LL: Yes
More public oversight of the police. That's good.
AC Transit district Measure C1: Yes
More money for AC Transit. That's good.
BART district Measure RR: Yes
More money for BART: That's good.
The remaining four contests are ranked-choice voting, which sounds good in principle, but only one out of four actually has more than two candidates!
Oakland City Council, at large:
Oakland City Council, District 1: Dan Kalb
Oakland City attorney: There's only one candidate, Barbara Parker, and she has a bad record on police accountability. Is there a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ option?
Oakland school directory, District 1: Don McLeay. He opposes charter schools and wants to bring back art and music -- sounds good to me. (See the Green Party voter guide for more details.)
Like most such guides, this one will start out being relevant to everyone eligible to vote in the US, then quickly narrow itself to just California, then further narrow itself to Alameda County and then Oakland (specifically City Council District 1).
tl;dr: Californians, vote no on 60 if you want to protect sex workers, yes on 62 to abolish the death penalty, and Oaklanders vote no on Measure HH to oppose fat-shaming and vote yes on Measure JJ to extend protection against unjust evictions. In writing this, I was helped by the Alameda County Green Party's voter guide and the Friends Committee on Legislation of California (FCLCA) voter guide.
President: Hillary Rodham Clinton
I don't believe that Clinton is the lesser of two evils, or in fact, evil. I believe she is the best-qualified person to be president. I'm not considering making a protest vote; to me, there's nothing to protest.
I'm leaving this part brief both because you've probably already made up your mind, and other people have already said the rest (I don't, of course, agree with every point made in every one of the following articles):
- What Hillary Clinton's Fans Love About Her, by Chimamanda Adichie
- Goodbye to all that: I’m done with Election 2016, by Sady Doyle
- Hillary Clinton: My President, My Patronus, by Tierney Wisniewski
- The Leftist Case for Clinton, by Milo Beckman
- Admit It. The Clinton Email Controversy Bothers You, Yet You Don’t Actually Know What the Clinton Email Controversy Is, by Ken Crossland
- Trump’s history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton supposedly the corrupt one?, by Paul Waldman
- Hillary Clinton’s 3 debate performances left the Trump campaign in ruins, by Ezra Klein
- To find Hillary Clinton likable, we must learn to view women as complex beings, by Caroline Siede
- Not your feminist dream girl, by Raquel Rosario Sanchez
- This may shock you: Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest, by Jill Abramson
- Hillary Clinton isn't progressive. She's just the lesser evil in the general election, by Kiese Laymon
US Senator: Loretta Sanchez
I'm a single-issue voter -- in this specific case, that issue is not attacking sex workers:
A sex work activist group, the Erotic Service Providers Legal Education Research Project (ESPLERP), today joined sex worker rights groups and civil rights organisations in condemning yesterday’s raid on Backpage’s Dallas offices and the arrest of their CEO and controlling shareholders.
“This is just the latest attempt to shut down online sex work advertising,” said Maxine Doogan, President of ESPLERP. “It will not stop sex work. All it will do is force sex workers back onto the streets, where they are far less safe and vulnerable to violence and extortion. In effect, Kamala Harris is deliberately making the lives of sex workers more dangerous to boost her Senate hopes. Disgusting.”
US Representative, 13th Congressional District: Barbara Lee
Barbara Lee speaks for me, and has for the past 15 years.
Proposition 51: Yes
More funding for schools is good.
Proposition 52: No
This is a complicated one (suggesting it probably should never have been a ballot measure in the first place, already suggesting no), but I'm persuaded by the FCLCA's argument: " In bad economic times it would further limit the Legislature’s ability to pass a budget without making deeper cuts to programs that are not constitutionality protected, namely services to the poor and disabled and support for higher
education. The Legislature should retain the flexibility to modify the fee and to determine how the funds will be spent in accordance with changing circumstances."
Proposition 53: No
This measure would make it more difficult for the state to issue revenue bonds. It's on the ballot because of one rich farmer in the Central Valley who wants to stop one specific water project. Passing general legislation because of a specific issue is usually a bad idea. Vote no
Proposition 54: Yes
Greater transparency in legislation; probably can't be a bad thing.
Proposition 55: Yes
Tax the rich to support education and health care -- where's the down side?
Proposition 56: No
I've changed my mind about tobacco taxes as I've gotten older. Regressive taxes are bad; punishing people for self-harm is ineffective. If you want to make people want to live, then make it so life is worth living -- don't punish them for wanting to die.
Proposition 57: Yes
This would reform juvenile sentencing: notably, by making it harder for people under 18 to be tried as adults. That's a good thing -- as long as minors aren't allowed to vote, they shouldn't have all the responsibilities of adults.
Proposition 58: Yes
This would reverse a xenophobic law and give schools more freedom to teach their students English in the way that is best for those students. Vote yes.
Proposition 59: Yes
While largely symbolic, making a statement in favor of overturning Citizens United has little cost.
Proposition 60: NO
If you don't pay attention to anything else, vote no on 60:
Image from
Quoting
By the way, that man is Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
You would think the president of a foundation supporting some form of sexual health would be a good person, but Michael Weinstein is notoriously shit. He uses the non-profits funds for personal agendas all the time.
Weinstein actively argues against the use of PrEP, pre-exposure prophylaxis, because he considers it a “party drug” which encourages men who have sex with men to engage in “casual, anonymous sex” which will lead to a public health disaster (whatever the hell that means). PrEP, in case you aren’t aware, is a medical regimen which can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV by 99 percent, and in some cases, a solid 100%.
Other HIV activists have come forward with stories about Weinstein and his organization such as:
denying their clinic doctors the right the unionize under the National Union of Healthcare Workers,
paying to distribute his editorials which contain unsubstantiated personal claims that are presented as fact,
regularly denying scientific evidence regarding HIV-relevant issues and treatments (including PrEP),
intentionally overbilling LA County by $5.2 million for patient treatment which is you know defrauding the fucking government,
issuing an internal email stating that the AHF foundation needed to go after Zev Yaroslavsky “directly and hard” because he was “the real power behind [their] problems with the county on porn, the audit, and fee-for-service… he is a lame duck and an arrogant jerk… his power base is dead and he and others need to be taught a lesson”; this came after Yaroslavsky criticized Weinstein for using his organization in a “crass and bullying political manner” to get his way and avoid personal accountability,
directly promoting HIV stigma and fearmongering by creating and disseminating advertisements which prey on the lack of trust and sex-negative views in reagrds to the contraction and transmission of HIV,
using their funding and political power to bully and intimidate smaller, more community-oriented HIV and AIDS organizations, the most egregious case of which being when they pulled funding from an advocacy event in Louisiana because a whisteblower who was suing them (AHF) was going to be planning it, they then reinstated the funding (without apologizing), and countersued the whistleblower,
hiding a financial scandal which has been brought to light by former AHF managers who allege that AHF has defrauded over $100 million from the federal government by giving employees illegal kickbacks for creating false HIV/AIDS referrals and paying patients to come to its clinics and pharmacies,
And, finally, this bullshit proposition which is being headed under the guise of HIV prevention. Other HIV activists not affiliated with the cesspool that is AHF have argued that this proposition will not actually do anything but create limitations on the access to other preventative options which may be more effective (like fucking PrEP), and threatens performers with serious infringements on their medical and personal privacy (considering the passing of this proposition would essentially deputize Californians as Condom Cops™ as its been phrased).
Public health officials have warned over and over that this proposition is a complete and total waste of money, especially given the fact that the adult film industry has had zero on-set contractions/transmissions of HIV in the last ten years.
Yes, you read that right.
Zero on-set contractions/transmissions of HIV.
Michael Weinstein is completely and totally uncaring to the safety and well-being of LGBTQ+ folks who are at risk of HIV/AIDS. He absolutely does not give a shit about the well-being or livelihood of people who are living with HIV/AIDS.
The only thing this disgusting asshole cares about is money, and he makes that money off of the fear and illness of the millions of Americans who are concerned with, at risk for, or living with HIV/AIDS.
Supporting this Prop is not supporting people with HIV, it is not supporting HIV prevention, it is only putting more people at risk for a more restrictive HIV healthcare monopoly lead by this shitbag.
Vote no on prop 60.
Proposition 61: No
This is another one that's too complicated for the public to be voting on directly. I believe the FCLCA's analysis when they say that it could have unintended consequences, namely making prescription drugs more expensive.
Proposition 62: Yes
Abolish the death penalty.
Proposition 63: No
I'm generally in favor of gun control, but this measure -- which would regulate ammunition sales -- has an exception for retired cops. That's a dangerous precedent to set, given that cops are among the most violent members of the population.
Proposition 64: Yes
I had to think about this one -- I'm in favor of cannabis legalization, but this measure had been criticized for being over-regulatory. I was eventually persuaded by this post from criminal defense lawyer David Pullman; just read it, it's good. He points out that contrary to misinformation, 64 would create no new crimes; all the changes it would make would reduce felonies or misdemeanors to misdemeanors or infractions, or eliminate crimes altogether. One of the most important reasons to vote yes on 64 is that people currently in jail for cannabis-related crimes that would be legalized by 64 would be able to appeal for re-sentencing. Freeing people -- disproportionately people of color -- from prison for crimes that should never have been illegal in the first place is an unambiguous win.
Proposition 65: No
This measure was written by plastic bag industry lobbyists and exists solely to cause grocery store owners to oppose Proposition 67. In short, Proposition 67 would ban plastic grocery store bags statewide and require stores to charge for any non-reusable bags; 65 would, contingent on 67 or any future legislation like it passing, force grocery stores to give away paper or reusable-plastic bags at a loss. As it is, 67 allows grocery stores to keep the bag fees to pay for the costs of bags. That's why grocery store owners support it -- they would rather not keep giving away free bags. 65 would force grocery stores to give away those bags for free and pay a fee per bag, out-of-pocket, to a state environmental fund. 65 is an attempt to sabotage 67, and thereby, the environment. Vote no.
Proposition 66: No
This measure would make it easier for the state to kill people; vote no on it, and yes on 62.
Proposition 67: Yes
Ban plastic bags; they're bad for the environment. Vote yes and this and no on 65.
State senator, District 9: Nancy Skinner
State assembly, District 15: Tony Thurmond
Superior Court Judge, Office #1: Scott Jackson
AC Transit District Director, at large: Dollene Jones (see the Green Party voter guide for more about this race)
AC Transit District Director, Ward 2: Greg Harper
BART Director, District 7: Lateefah Simon
East Bay Regional Park District Director, Ward 2: Audree V. Jones-Taylor
County measure A1: Yes
More affordable housing. That's good.
School measure G1: Yes
More school funding. That's good.
Oakland measure HH: NO
This is another regressive tax that has the side benefit of promoting "obesity epidemic" panic. Again, you can't punish people into being healthy.
Oakland measure II: Yes
This is rather obscure, but possibly could have the effect of making it easier for the city to provide affordable housing, so, yes.
Oakland measure JJ: Yes
Did you know that Oakland has the 4th-highest rents in the country? Oakland is rapidly losing racial and economic diversity as rising rents drive out longtime residents. Measure JJ would help with that, by extending protections from unjust evictions from buildings built before 1980 to all buildings built before 1995 and by putting responsibility on landlords to notify tenants about rent increases.
Oakland measure KK: Yes
More money for public facilities. That's good.
Oakland measure LL: Yes
More public oversight of the police. That's good.
AC Transit district Measure C1: Yes
More money for AC Transit. That's good.
BART district Measure RR: Yes
More money for BART: That's good.
The remaining four contests are ranked-choice voting, which sounds good in principle, but only one out of four actually has more than two candidates!
Oakland City Council, at large:
- Rebecca Kaplan
- F. Matt Hummel
- Peggy Moore (who I would have ranked higher if not for her support of charter schools and opposition to Measure JJ)
Oakland City Council, District 1: Dan Kalb
Oakland City attorney: There's only one candidate, Barbara Parker, and she has a bad record on police accountability. Is there a ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ option?
Oakland school directory, District 1: Don McLeay. He opposes charter schools and wants to bring back art and music -- sounds good to me. (See the Green Party voter guide for more details.)
(no subject)
Date: 2016-11-06 07:15 pm (UTC)In simplest terms, Prop 52 tithes hospitals, the money goes into a central pot, is matched by dollars from the federal government, and then redistributed to hospitals based on the share of Medi-Cal and other publicly insured patients they see, because the rates paid by public insurance don't come near to covering the actual realized expenses for those patients, especially among those with very complex illnesses.
At a non-profit hospital, whose patient population is 75%-80% publicly insured and often highly complex, the provider fee translates to millions of dollars in otherwise lost revenue. And put plainly, we are fucked without it. And not in any of the fun ways.
Don't know if you've voted early, but if not, could I possibly cajole you to reconsider your vote on that issue? And if it's too late, I figure I may as well leave this comment here in case anyone else is looking for perspectives :)