Today: US Senate, Local House of Representatives & Ballot Measures
The San Diego Free Press and OB Rag are pleased to present part four of our 2018 Primary Election Progressive Voter Guide. As usual, we tried not to let perfect be the enemy of good in our decision making. This year we’re breaking it into parts to make it more digestible.
We endorsed (or didn’t) contests where editors and contributors had some working knowledge of the contests. Generally speaking, we didn’t endorse in non-competitive races with a Democratic incumbent (who you should probably vote for). Candidates with low fundraising totals or no campaign organization were not included.
Endorsements or lack thereof reflect a majority opinion of the Editorial Board, which includes: Brent Beltrán, Anna Daniels, Frank Gormlie, Patty Jones, Rich Kacmar, Annie Lane, and Doug Porter. It should be noted there were many non-unanimous decisions.
Democratic Candidates are Blue * Republican Candidates are Red
Many candidates names are linked to their websites.
An asterisk (*) next to a name indicates an incumbent.
A Summary of Our ▲Endorsements▲ for U.S. Senate,
Local House of Representatives Districts, and Ballot Measures
U.S. Senate – Kevin DeLeon
House of Representatives, District 49 – Doug Applegate or Paul Kerr
House of Representatives, District 50 – Ammar Campa-Najjar
Measure A (Chula Vista) – Sales Tax to Fund Public Safety ◆YES◆
Measure C (National City) – True Election Term Limits ◆YES◆
Proposition 68 – Clean Drinking Water and Safe Parks ◆YES◆
Proposition 69 – Transportation Taxes & Fees Lock Box ◆YES◆
Proposition 71 – Ballot Measures Effective Date Reform ◆YES◆
Proposition 72 –End Tax Penalty for Rainwater Capture ◆YES◆
United States Senate
Top two will face off in November, each name is linked to their Ballotpedia page.
Our Endorsement – ▲Kevin de León▲
Regardless of the outcome in this contest, de Leon’s candidacy has already paid dividends. Incumbent Dianne Feinstein’s recent shift on marijuana policy is an example of his success in pushing her to take more progressive positions.
Democrats: Dianne Feinstein*, ▲Kevin de León,▲ Adrienne Nicole Edwards, Pat Harris, Alison Hartson, David Hildebrand, Herbert Peters, Douglas Howard Pierce, Gerald Plummer, Donnie Turner
Republicans: Arun Bhumitra, James Bradley, John “Jack” Crew, Erin Cruz, Roque De La Fuente, Jerry Laws, Patrick Little, Kevin Mottus, Mario Nabliba, Tom Palzer, Paul Taylor
Libertarian: Derrick Michael Reid
Peace and Freedom Party: John Thompson Parker
No Party Preference: Colleen Shea Fernald, Rash Bihari Ghosh, Tim Gildersleeve, Michael Fahmy Girgis, Don Grundmann, Jason Hanania, David Moore, Lee Olson, Ling Ling Shi
U.S. Congress -House of Representatives
Clicking on the District name/Number will take you to more information, including a map of the district boundaries.
Doug Applegate
Our Endorsement: A First for us – Split Decision – ▲Doug Applegate OR Paul Kerr▲
Overview – Incumbent Congressman Darrell Issa saw the handwriting on the wall and opted to retire shortly after 2018 began. There are now 16 candidates running to replace him.
A note on the split decision: The editorial board had the hardest time deciding this race of all those we considered. Applegate, Jacobs & Kerr all had supporters.
Paul Kerr
In the end, the arguments came down to Applegate as the most progressive candidate, Kerr as the candidate making opposition to Trump the centerpiece of his campaign ads, and Jacobs as an alternative to the same old, same old. Those readers who know us personally should not assume who backed each candidate: you would be wrong.
The Democrats in this race are:
▲Doug Applegate▲
Facebook page | Twitter | Issues Page | Endorsements
Analysis: Doug Applegate has the highest name recognition and is the favorite of many progressive activists, but their enthusiasm has not translated into campaign funding, nor a well-organized voter engagement field strategy.
Sarah Jacobs
Facebook page | Twitter | Issues Page | Endorsements
Analysis: Sarah Jacobs is a fresh face with a progressive leaning agenda, has lots of financial resources (granddaughter of Irwin Jacobs), and the backing of serious movers and shakers who would like to see a woman in the seat. She got into the race late and is fighting an uphill battle for name recognition.
▲Paul Kerr▲
Facebook page | Twitter | Issues Page
Analysis: Paul Kerr is running as moderate anti-Trump Democrat. He is spending a lot of his own money on tv ads to gain name recognition.
Mike Levin
Facebook page | Twitter | Issues Page | Endorsements
Analysis: Mike Levin is clearly the candidate favored by Democratic Party insiders. He’s well-known to Orange County voters; not so much in San Diego. It should be noted that seven Democratic Clubs in San Diego have rated Levin “Unacceptable” due to the manner in which they perceive his campaign is being run. Please don’t vote for Mike Levin
The Republican Candidates are Rocky Chavez, Kristin Gaspar, Diane Harkey, Brian Maryott, David Medway, Craig Nordal, Mike Schmitt, Joshua Schoonover
Other candidates include: Joshua Hancock (Libertarian), Jordan Mills (Peace & Freedom), Robert Pendleton (No Party Preference), Danielle St. John (Green)
Our Endorsement – ▲Amar Campa-Najjar▲
Overview – Incumbent Duncan Hunter screwed up big time and is facing a Justice Department inquiry into how campaign funds were spent. Republicans (+11) and white people (58.6%) are dominant in a district encompassing the mostly rural east and north parts of San Diego County, along with a sliver of Riverside County. The Republicans running are Duncan Hunter, Shamus Sayed, Bill Wells.
▲Ammar Campa-Najjar ▲
Facebook page | Twitter | Issues Page | Endorsements
Analysis: Progressive Ammar Campa-Najar has run a true grassroots campaign, complete with a good canvassing strategy and an amazing amount of small donor cash.
Josh Butner
Facebook page | Twitter | Issues Page
Endorsements – 4 Ret. Military leaders, 1 politician
Analysis: Josh Butner really, really, really wants you to know he’s an ex-Navy Seal. He really doesn’t want you to know he was a Republican (he fibbed about it on his filing papers) until he wasn’t. Plus, the ratf***ing story about Campa-Hajar’s grandfather (who he never met) could have only come (in my opinion) from somebody with connections to the most odious part of the Democratic party.
Generally speaking, we didn’t endorse in non-competitive races with a Democratic incumbent (who you should probably vote for).
Overview – A safe place for Democratic incumbents, with 145,185 registered Democrats and 49,190 registered Republicans.
Juan Vargas*
Congressional Facebook Page | Congressional Twitter | Issues Page
Republicans: Louis Fuentes, Juan M. Hildago, Jr., Juan Carlos Mercado, John Renison
Overview Not so long ago, the 52nd Congressional District was a true partisan battleground. Now its vulnerability exists only the minds of GOP consultants, along with the half-dozen candidates running against Scott Peters.
Scott Peters*
Facebook Page | Twitter
Republicans: Michael Allman, Omar Qudrat, Dr. James Veltmeyer, Danny Casara, Dr. Jeffrey Cullen, John Horst
Overview With a nearly 2 to 1 Dem to GOP advantage in voter registration, District 53 is deep Blue and Susan Davis is there until she doesn’t want to be.
Susan Davis*
Congressional Facebook Page | Congressional Twitter
Republicans: Shawn “Gino” Kane, Matt Mendoza, Morgan Murtaugh, Brett Goda
No Party Preference: Bryan Kim
Ballot Measures, June 2018
Measure A (Chula Vista) Sales Tax to Fund Public Safety ◆YES◆
Shall the measure to provide: faster responses to 9-1-1 emergency calls, increase neighborhood police patrols, reduce gang and drug-related crimes, address homelessness, improve firefighter, paramedic and emergency medical response, and general city services, by enacting a ½ cent sales tax, until the voters decide otherwise, generating an estimated $17 million annually for City services, with all funds staying in Chula Vista, with citizen oversight and independent audits, be adopted?
Analysis: As Chula Vista has grown, its fire and police departments have not kept up. A November survey of about 1,000 residents found that roughly 60% would consider raising the sales tax to support increased staffing. If approved, the measure would set the city’s sales tax rate at 8.75% and generate $16 million annually, according to city staff. As always, we feel obliged to point out the inherent regressiveness of sales taxes. Given that there doesn’t seem to be a viable alternative capable of raising the needed funding, we’ll say okay this time.
Measure B (National City) Deceptive Term Limit Plan NO
Shall an ordinance be adopted repealing the existing voter-approved limit of three consecutive four-year terms upon the office of the Mayor, and in its place, imposing a limit of two consecutive four-year terms upon the offices of the Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Clerk, and City Treasurer?
Analysis– This is simply horrible. National City’s incumbent mayor, whose primary role lately has been to block change, is coming up against term limits approved by voters some time ago. The solution he supports would reset the clock on his incumbency (boo, hiss), while adding term limits for city council persons (meh). What’s really horrible about this measure is the financial support of Mickey Kasparian’s Working Families Council, an action many people believe is revenge directed at the progressive Latinas (who vocally supported the women accusing Kasparian of misconduct) on the council.
Measure C (National City) True Election Term Limits ◆YES◆
Shall an ordinance be adopted preserving the existing voter-approved term limit of three consecutive four-year terms upon the office of the Mayor, imposing a limit of three consecutive four-year terms upon the offices of City Councilmembers, City Clerk, and City Treasurer, and limiting the offices of the Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Clerk and City Treasurer to a lifetime total of six four-year terms in all of those offices combined?
Analysis- This measure was placed on the ballot in response to the crafting of Measure B. It speaks to the popular support for term limits while denying the Mayor a chance to stand in the way of progress in the future.
A note about June State Ballot Propositions: All are put there by the legislature; initiatives from the public now are consigned to the statewide November ballot.
Proposition 68 – Clean Drinking Water and Safe Parks ◆YES◆
Authorizes $4 billion in general obligation bonds for: parks, natural resources protection, climate adaptation, water quality and supply, and flood protection. Fiscal Impact: Increased state bond repayment costs averaging $200 million annually over 40 years. Local government savings for natural resources-related projects, likely averaging several tens of millions of dollars annually over the next few decades.
Analysis: This would upgrade parks and make sure the state’s water supply is clean and protected. as the Sacramento Bee editorialized: “This $4.1 billion bond measure is intelligently constructed and a reasonable ask.”
Proposition 69 – Transportation Taxes & Fees Lock Box ◆YES◆
Requires that certain revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law be used only for transportation purposes and generally prohibits Legislature from diverting funds to other purposes. Fiscal Impact: No direct effect on the amount of state and local revenues or costs but could affect how some monies are spent.
Analysis: The measure would require new revenues arising from SB1 go into special accounts that could be spent exclusively on transportation. from the Los Angeles Times: “California leaders have wisely decided to invest again in building and maintaining the state’s transportation infrastructure. Proposition 69 will help ensure the work gets done.” PLUS– The campaign against 69 by the Republicans (pun intended) is an attempt to enable passage of their attempt to repeal SB1 in November by saying the monies could be misused.
Proposition 70 – Greenhouse Gas Reserve Gridlock >>>>NO!
Beginning in 2024, requires that cap-and-trade revenues accumulate in a reserve fund until the Legislature, by a two-thirds majority, authorizes use of the revenues. Fiscal Impact: Beginning in 2024, potential temporary increase in state sales tax revenue, ranging from none to a few hundred million dollars annually, and possible changes in how revenue from sale of greenhouse gas emission permits is spent.
Analysis: Currently, a simple majority of the Legislature determines how cap-and-trade revenues are spent. Prop. 70 would increase that threshold to two-thirds. Haven’t we had enough of the 2/3’s crap already? And why is the dirty energy lobby supporting this proposition? From the Mercury News: “Prop. 70’s two-thirds approval requirement would, if anything, give more power and money to special interests seeking their pieces of the revenue pie. In sum, there’s nothing to be gained from Prop. 70. It’s bad public policy and a waste of voters’ time. Vote no.”
Proposition 71 – Ballot Measures Effective Date Reform ◆YES◆
Provides that ballot measures approved by a majority of voters shall take effect five days after the Secretary of State certifies the results of the election. Fiscal Impact: Likely little or no effect on state and local finances.
Analysis: There’s no need to say anything more than what the League of Women Voters had to say: “Currently, an initiative that is approved takes effect the day after the election unless the measure provides otherwise. Election results are not officially certified until five weeks after the election. While most election results are clear shortly after election day, that is not always the case. Prop 71 would provide that an initiative would take effect 5 days after the Secretary of State certifies the election results. This is a common-sense measure, ensuring clarity about what is – and is not – California law.”
Proposition 72 – End Tax Penalty for Rainwater Capture ◆YES◆
Permits Legislature to allow construction of rain-capture systems, completed on or after January 1, 2019, without requiring property-tax reassessment. Fiscal Impact: Probably minor reduction in annual property tax revenues to local governments.
Analysis: This is simple. If you build (or add) a rainwater collection system on your property, it cannot be used to increase your property tax assessment.
Already Published:
Progressive Voter Guide for County of San Diego Elected Offices
A Summary of Our County ▲Endorsements▲
Judicial Office #37– Victor Torres
Assessor/Recorder/Clerk – Matt Strabone
Sheriff – Dave Myers
District Attorney – Geneviéve Jones-Wright
Board of Supervisors District 4 – Omar Passons
Board of Supervisors District 5 – Michelle Gomez
Community College Board – Maria Nieto Senour, Craig Milgrim, Rafael Perez
SD County Board of Education – Alicia Munoz, Rick Shea
San Diego City Council | Progressive Voter Guide 2018
A Summary of Our San Diego City Council ▲Endorsements▲
City Council District 2 – No Endorsement
City Council District 4 – Monica Montgomery
City Council District 6 – No Endorsement
City Council District 8 – No Endorsement
California Statewide Offices & Local Legislative Seats
A Summary of Our ▲Endorsements▲ in These Races
Governor – John Chiang
Attorney General – Xavier Becerra
Controller – Betty Yee
Treasurer – Fiona Ma
Secretary of State –Ruben Major
Insurance Commissioner –Ricardo Lara
Superintendent of Public Instruction –Tony Thurmond
Senate District 36 – Marggie Castellano
Senate District 38 – Jeff Griffith
Assembly District 71 – James Elia
Assembly District 75 – Alan Geraci
Assembly District 76 – Tasha Boerner Horvath
Assembly District 77 – Sunday Gover
Upcoming:
Tuesday: Voter Guide Crib Sheet (All Contests)
Doug Porter
Latest posts by Doug Porter (see all)
- Last Call. Last Column. - December 14, 2018
- Which Presidential Candidate Will You Support in 2020? - December 13, 2018
- Mounting the Assault on Big Gay and Other Drivel From SDSU’s Minimum Wage Scrooge - December 12, 2018
I am not voting for neoliberal Kevin de Leon who takes big money. Vote Alison Hartson. She will actually represent the voters over the donors.
I agree, why is this “progressive” paper taking Kevin de Leon over Alison Hartson? Vote the true progressive who doesn’t take any big money!!!! Alison Hartson!
We disagree on a candidate.
It seems to me like we all just might have bigger fish to fry.
Why not add Alison Hartson as a potential top runner candidate then instead of openly supporting Kevin de Leon? She takes no corporate money, openly goes against Feinstein’s center right values, has been the National Director of Wolf-Pac to get money out of politics, sponsors medicare for all, already outraised everyone else in individual contributions, including Feinstein… who donated 5 mil to her own campaign because she couldn’t keep up with Hartson.
Trying to understand your pick with Kevin as your “sole” pick, yes, he has some good values and has been around awhile and can see his records, but the country is moving in a different direction now and picking Kevin outright, especially with 2.756 mil in outside contributions, when there are other candidates that have the same values, and then some that are on the same voting block.
Yes, De Leon takes big donor money. Who do you think he will represent the most? HIS DONORS like every other politician that takes big money. I am supporting Alison Hartson. She will fight for us and get money out of our corrupt political process!!! If this paper is claiming they are progressive, picking DeLeon over Hartson makes that a highly questionable claim.
It is what it is.
Decisions on who to endorse are made by a seven-member editorial board. They are determined by a majority vote, and there are lots of split decisions. Our ability to survive as an all-volunteer group and publish daily for six years is based on the premise that, once a decision is made, that’s it, unless truly extraordinary circumstances warrant a revisit. I am not persuaded that this is one of those situations.
Literally tens of thousands of people have read our endorsement articles, so that cat’s effectively out of the bag anyway.
I appreciate your support for Alison Hartson and urge readers who are interested to check her out.
You just argued against yourself. You said these picks are based on an editorial boards decisions, yet you said that you are not persuaded.
I think you should go back to the Board and re-evaluate the decision on Alison Hartman with the other board members, not just by yourself on this blog, and base it on all the relevant information that is out there, including interviews, voter! paid for commercials and all the facts in hand and understand that the progressive community base wants Alison Hartman, not a Democrat that has the best chance to win based off of money and reputation.
I am not persuaded that your request for us to reconvene to support a candidate who is polling at zero as far as I can tell constitutes an extraordinary situation… It ain’t gonna happen. End of story.
Alison is polling at zero? What!? I wonder why? Alison Hartson OMITTED From Polls Of US Senate Race In California https://shomitrend.com/alison-hartson-omitted-from-polls-of-us-senate-race-in-california/
However, In California senate race, a political neophyte topping Feihttps://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/20/alison-hartson-kevin-de-leon-dianne-feinstein-california-senate/nstein and de León in small-dollar donations
In California senate race, a political neophyte topping Feinstein and de León in small-dollar donations https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/20/alison-hartson-kevin-de-leon-dianne-feinstein-california-senate/
They’re omitting her in the polls for a reason, it’s rigged, everything actual PROGRESSIVES are against and about ever since the elites rigged the Primaries against Bernie Sanders for Hillary. Again, if you followed the news, you’d know that Progressives are for Alison Hartson, not Kevin de Leon. Didn’t you learn anything from the non-count in California they did for Hillary and proclamation of her victory based on no numbers? Based on the way the system is rigged… Congrats, you just lost 2 readers based on your misunderstanding of how the system works and how progressives actually work.
Look at the 15th’s vote just to understand the way the nation is going, especially in Idaho, Pennsylvania and Omaha.
You people just lost a reader! You people are no progressives! You are apologists for corporate establishment Democrats who represent money over people. BYE!!!
Thank You Mr. Porter
Why would you make the specific request “Please don’t vote for Mike Levin”? That seems a little brash. What has he done to deserve this?
Seven Democratic Clubs in San Diego have passed resolutions saying he is unacceptable as a candidate. That’s the only time something like this has ever happened to my memory.
Mr. Porter. Each of those clubs is run by Doug Applegate supporters who have run an lie-filled, and one-sided, vendetta against Levin. It is unfair for you to base your comment on the word of a few prejudiced people. Mr. Levin is a good and decent man. He does not deserve this treatment. Voters should have the right to figure out for themselves what is true and untrue.
Ron “Buster” Herbert is a leading online surrogate for Mr. Levin’s campaign. To say that the San Diego Democrats for Equality (example) is “run by Doug Applegate supporters who have run a lie-filled, and one-sided, vendetta against Levin” is tantamount to “gaslighting. The President of the group and its members voted unanimously to vote Mr. Levin’s campaign “unacceptable” after hearing several accounts by members of their experiences with members of Mr. Levin’s campaign. The debate occurred with DNC member Jess Durfee and others present, who most assuredly would have stepped in if the proceedings had even approached that of an unjust kangaroo court “Buster” portrays. Those in the LGBTQ community have gone through years of being gaslit over their experiences of bullying and abuse. Mr. Herbert’s comments is another example of this. It seems rather “Unacceptable” to this reader. I wish I lived in the District.