Subscribe

My Definitively Official™️ Nov 2024 California Voter Guide For Lazy People and Procrastinators

This is for all y'all that are either too lazy or busy to look up and get informed on every candidate and ballot measure, and who like to procrastinate to the very last second. You're welcome.

My Definitively Official™️ Nov 2024 California Voter Guide For Lazy People and Procrastinators
Photo by Michael / Unsplash

This is for all y'all that are either too lazy or busy to look up and get informed on every candidate and ballot measure, and who like to procrastinate to the very last second.

You're welcome.

Federal Elections

President/Vice President

  • Kamala Harris / Tim Waltz
  • Donald Trump / JD Vance
  • Jill Stein / Rudolph Ware
  • Claudia De La Cruz / Karina García
  • Robert F. Kennedy / Nicole Shanahan

Soft Recommendation: Kamala Harris / Tim Waltz.

Reasoning

By every observable metric except for some people's opinions, they are inescapably the better candidates (Note I'm not saying good, I'm saying better. More on that in a sec) and undoubtedly the most qualified candidates.
R.F.K.'s biggest qualifications were being born into a politically famous family and publicly "questioning" scientific questions that, for the most part, are already settled science for those knowledgeable in the field, drawing in A) voters who understandably had a rough time during COVID, saw some of the chaotic confusion and mismanagement, and who (like most of us) didn't know what they don't know about science and assigned malintent to human error, guided that way by B) grifters and committed known-knowledge-"skeptics" from pre-COVID, such as modern medicine opposers (who reliably always had their own supplement or treatment to sell you instead), and C) voters with a thirst for something different than their other options. He played the role of the supposed "centrist" between the "extreme Left and old" Biden-then-Harria and the "controversial Right" Trump, saying some vague but common sense things loudly that could appeal to people on both sides who were skeptical of their "side's" candidate and equally uninformed. He and his supporters will vehemently deny it, but it was no surprise to me he dropped out once it became apparent he was pulling more voters from Trump than from Biden-then-Harris.

Claudia De La Cruz and Karina Garcia were not serious candidates, despite the surprising, relatively large and warm splash they created as openly self-identifying Socialists and the little wave of support they received; the campaign was a PR one for clout more than a politically strategic one, as most people who know about the Party For Socialism and Liberation (PSL) will tell you they're familiar with. PSL is great at getting publicity, follows and likes on social media, and taking credit for protests; they're severely lacking in deeper substance, both in action and in policy, and difficult to organize with unless you roll over and bend to PSL's method of thinking. They are the true revolutionaries, if you don't agree with them and PSL leadership completely you're an opp, no matter how small the disagreement (see: Democratic Centralism and Followers of Trotskyist thought).

Jill Stein and Rudolph Ware are also not serious candidates, despite Stein and her supporters insistence otherwise. Notwithstanding her, lets call them weird, connections to Russian oligarchs, and really weird inability to call Putin a war criminal for the exact same actions she uses to throw wildly and plaster that label on Netanyahu (see interview with Mehdi Hasan)... She has been running in presidential elections for over a decade now. Her supporters say that shows her commitment, I say yeah maybe; but it's more a commitment to either a grift (she pulls in donations every time she runs), Russian influence (pulls voters from Democrats and won't criticize Russia, both have Putin's approval), or just naivety (lacks knowledge about political power). A serious candidate with 10 years experience and and a serious party with many years more than that would build grassroots support, organizing from the ground up, growing their following in cities around the country and running candidates in races ranging from local and county/municipal elections (Mayor, treasurer, schoolboard, etc) to statewide elections (governor, state assemblies, state DA's, etc), to federal elections (Senate, House of Reps, and President). The fact she only pops up every 4 years to run for the highest race in the land and the party stays mostly quiet the rest of the time shows she's not a serious candidate; even if by some miracle she were to win, she would accomplish nothing, having exactly zero allies in either party that'd make up her Congress, and basically zero infrastructure or allies for support from the ground/community organizers (aka citizens, aka We the People); she'd go down in history as a do-nothing lame-duck president and likely would serve to further entrench our 2-party-monopolized system, as the mistake of doing otherwise would be fresh in the average American's mind.

[Sixteen Nobel Prize Winners for Economics signed a letter warning about the negative impact another Trump presidency would have on our economy, reigniting inflation and destabilizing U.S. economy for decades to come.](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24777566-nobel-letter-final). Economic research institutes from all over the world, including ones not particularly big fans of Biden or Harris, corroborate that Trump presidency would fuck us over economically. He says himself that he will rule as a dictator. His Chiefs of Staff and cabinet members from last time he was president, Republicans, openly call him a fascist, as do military generals (which is unprecedented, as in its never happened before). We would be the laughingstock of the world with our easily manipulated president again like we were from 2016-2020; our country's alliances would weaken because our allies rightfully wouldn't trust us
No, i don't care what people who failed high school economics say about how bad Biden was for our economy. When you have concerns about your car, do you take it to a local art history teacher or a popular Fortnight YouTuber to ask their opinions? Or would you take it the mechanics who have won global awards for their mechanical expertise? Yeah, exactly. (Note: Possible counterpoint in your favor if you still disagree with me: look up the Dunning Kruger Effect for some interesting facts.)

Like with my car, I know enough to know that if I have concerns about the safety of driving a car, I'm going to take the advice of the global award winning mechanics over the opinions of art history teachers, social media influencers, or other non-experts in the field every single time.

United States Senator (Partial Term)

  • Adam Schiff
  • Steve Garvey

Recommendation: Adam Schiff

United States Senator (Full Term)

  • Adam Schiff
  • Steve Garvey

Recommendation: Adam Schiff

Ballot Measures

California

Proposition 2

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 2

Proposition 3

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 3

Proposition 4

AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 4

Proposition 5

ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 5

Proposition 6

ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 6

Proposition 32

RAISES MINIMUM WAGE INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 32

Proposition 33

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Recommendation: YES on Proposition 33

Proposition 34

RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. (NOTE: MISLEADING)

Recommendation: NO on Proposition 34
Misleading proposition to trick voters into supporting it with talk of "restricting spending of prescription drug revenues by certain healthcare providers." The language is highly specific in a way that targets the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and seemingly no other healthcare providers; With 99% of its funding coming from The California Apartment Association, who vehemently oppose Proposition 33, while AIDS Healthcare Foundation have been big supporters of Proposition 33, it is a pretty transparent retaliatory proposition by landlord organizations against one specific healthcare provider for supporting a proposition they oppose.

Proposition 35

PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. (NOTE: MISLEADING)

Recommendation: NO on Proposition 35
While making permanent an existing tax on managed care organizations (MCO's) that otherwise expires in 2026, the revenue of which funds Medi-Cal and various healthcare services as well as increasing reimbursement rates for patients with Medi-cal encouraging more providers to accept it sounds good (it doesn't just sound good, it is good), there's a catch: it is a California state law and that is still subject and subordinate to Federal government.

Currently the federal government matches California dollar-for-dollar on MCO tax revenue used for Medi-Cal services, meaning lots of funding is coming from the federal government. Prop 35 would require California Department of Health Care Services to request federal approval for MCO tax on an ongoing basis to attempt to continue receiving this federal funding. However California has already been warned by both the Biden AND Trump administrations that its current MCO tax structure is exploiting a legal loophole in federal regulations; specifically, Medi-Cal disproportionately taxes Medi-Cal insurers over commercial insurers, bearing 99% of total tax burden while representing only about 50% of insured Californians. Federal requirement changes that force California to balance its MCO taxation structure are likely, as the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have explicitly stated their intention to close the loophole it sees California as currently exploiting, and communicated as much last year. This risks restrictions or possibly elimination of the federal government's matching of funds (one could easily imagine a Trump administration doing this simply out of spite for California), leaving California short billions of dollars and Medi-Cal services would ultimately suffer tremendously.

While the intended aim of the proposition is a good one, given that both Biden and Trump administrations have warned California it is out of compliance with federal requirements, unfortunate reality makes it very likely this would backfire; an almost guarantee should Trump win the Presidency.

Proposition 36

ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Recommendation: NO on Proposition 36
Will increase the prison industrial complex, further increase militarization of police forces, and put more people in prison when that is not what they need. Trying to put a bandaid over a gaping wound.

County of San Diego

Measure G

INCREASE OF FUNDING FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION TO EXPAND RAILROADS, ADD MORE PUBLIC BUS ROUTES, etc

Recommendation: YES on Measure G

City of San Diego

Measure C

Soft Recommendation: NO on Measure C
The elimination of a primary election when there are two or fewer candidates that qualify for a Board of Education seat has relatively convincing arguments both supporting and opposing it. Supporters say it will simplify the election process, making the only vote necessary be the one in November when voter turn-out is highest, and allegedly saving money for the school district.

Alternatively, an electoral race without a primary lends itself to potentially being controlled by big moneyed/corporate interests and give voters less opportunity to assess the candidates, harming the chances for grassroots candidates to challenge well-funded candidates, particularly incumbents: corporate-backed incumbents could potentially maintain control of the board by dominating only the general election.

Supporters of Measure C claim the opposite: that special-interests can more easily manipulate low-turnout primaries.

As stated there are relatively convincing arguments for both, but in the interest of encouraging more democracy rather than less, voting no to keep the primary election and general election is softly recommended.

Measure D

Soft Recommendation: YES on Measure D
The idea that an Ethics Commission overseeing City Council should be independent of City Council and able to appoint its own Director without City Council approval, initiate its own investigations, grant it power to compel witness testimony and access records, and make its own referrals to law enforcement seems to be a good one. The fact that City Council members and Mayor Todd Gloria, who has notoriously engaged in shady behavior and has an interest and incentive in the Ethics Commission not being independent, have come out strongly in opposition to Measure D, provides some potentially important context; should Measure D fail, Mayor Gloria would continue to appoint all Commissioners with confirmation from City Council who also retain control over the Ethics Commission's Directors appointment and powers, as well as holding the purse strings making budgetary decisions for the Ethics Commission.

Measure E

Soft Recommendation: NO on Measure E
A 1% proposed increase in sales tax in order to invest in the city's infrastructure and services sounds acceptable on its surface; Lord knows they're badly needed, and the estimated $400 million in additional revenue could go a decent way to addressing long standing issues. Plans to address issues and allocate the funds have already been outlined, and the requirement of citizen oversight and independent audits seems to be a good safety measure to ensure they happen.

However a closer look at Measure E uncovers issues: there is no provision earmarking the funds from the tax increase for addressing the issues supporters claim; instead the money goes in the the city's General Fund. Furthermore, the citizen oversight and independent audits are toothless; they have no power to enforce compliance; if the independent audits identify issues, its up to city officials or other legal bodies to take corrective actions. The citizen oversight committee this measure establishes can make recommendations and raise concerns, but lack authority to enforce consequences for misallocation of the funds; it is an advisory board, not a regulatory one.

Due to political pressure and the fallout from the flooding that occurred within the past year, its (hopefully) likely that atleast some of the revenue from this tax increase will go to addressing infrastructure issues. However, given the city's disregard for the citizen privacy advisory board's recommendations in regards to Automated Licence Plate Recognition (ALPR) technologies in the past year and the increased law enforcement budget for other such technologies, among other shady actions and allocations of city funds, it seems likely the money will not all (or even mostly all) go where it is claimed it will go; and realistically iit could go into funding projects that we actively oppose.

Ultimately the way you vote on this measure depends on how much you trust city officials to properly allocate the funds in the way they claim they are planning to do; while there are certainly incentives to allocate atleast some of it correctly, the lack of meaningful oversight makes it hard for us to trust.

Measure HH

Recommendation: YES on Measure HH
This measure aims to authorize $3.5 billion for San Diego Community College to make much-needed improvements and repairs to its aging facilities as well as maintain affordable educational options and job training programs in order to continue providing education to its students in careers like nursing, and to be able to offer courses in cutting edge technological careers such as biotech and cybersecurity.

The primary arguments against it are basically people whining about the potential for increased property taxes at some point in the future.

There are relatively strong oversight provisions to ensure the money is allocated correctly and not used for administrative salaries; additionally the San Diego Community College District has a perfect AAA credit rating and perfect audits of bond expenditures every year since 2003

Candidates

California

State Senate - District 39

  • Akilah Weber
  • Bob Divine

Recommendation: Akilah Weber

State Assembly District - 74th District

  • Chris Duncan
  • Laurie Davies

Recommendation: Chris Duncan

State Assembly - 75th District

  • Carl DeMaio
  • Andrew Hayes

Anti-Recommendation: Carl DeMaio

State Assembly District - 76th District

  • Darshana Patel
  • Kristie Bruce-Lane

Recommendation: Darshana Patel

State Assembly District - 77th District

  • Tasha Boerner
  • James Browne

No Recommendation

State Assembly - 78th District

  • Chris Ward
    • Unopposed.

State Assembly District - 79th District

  • Colin Parent
  • Lashae Sharp-Collins

Recommendation: Lashae Sharp-Collins

.

State Assembly District - 80th District

  • David Alvarez
  • Michael Williams

Recommendation: David Alvarez

County of San Diego

San Diego County Board of Supervisors District 1

  • Nora Vargas
  • Alejandro Galicia

Soft Recommendation: Nora Vargas

San Diego County Board of Supervisors - District 2

  • Joel Anderson
  • Gina Jacobs

Soft recommendation: Joel Anderson

San Diego County Board of Supervisors - District 3

  • Terra Lawson-Remer
  • Kevin Faulconer

Anti-Recommendation: Kevin Faulconer

San Diego County Board of Education - District 1

  • Gregg Robinson
    • Unopposed.

San Diego County Board of Education - District 2

  • Guadalupe Gonzalez
    • Unopposed.

San Diego County Board of Education - District 4

  • Sarah Song
  • Erin Evans

Recommended and Endorsed: Erin Evans

City of San Diego

Mayor

  • Todd Gloria
  • Larry Turner

Recommendation: Todd Gloria

City Attorney

  • Heather Ferbert
  • Brian Mainschein

Recommendation: Heather Ferbert

City Council District 3

  • Coleen Cusack
  • Stephen Whitburn

Recommendation: Coleen Cusack

City Council District 9

  • Sean Elo-Rivera
  • Terry Hoskins

Recommendation: Sean Elo-Rivera

City of Chula Vista

City of Chula Vista Council District 3

  • Michael Inzunza
  • Leticia Munguia

Recommendation: Leticia Munguia