Comments

1. How do you suggest we vote? says

   October 9, 2018 at 12:22 pm

   I looked through the above and see no mention that there are candidates for the State Board of Equalization in District 4. Could the “lesser of two evils” standard even apply to this race, pitting Republican Joel Anderson (the alleged Mr “bitch slap”) against Democrat Mike Schaefer, who was indicted in the “Yellow Cab scandal”, which fact is ironically noted in today’s San Diego Union-Tribune:
   http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/150-years/sd-me-150-years-october-9-htmlstory.html

   Mike Schaefer’s Candidate Statement claims he is “most-experienced” but he is a now-disbarred California attorney, whose address listed with the State Bar is one in Las Vegas:
   http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Licensee/Detail/35705

   • Doug Porter says

     October 9, 2018 at 1:05 pm

     I’m not sure “lesser of two evils” fits here. Schaefer at least has it right when he says the BoE should be disbanded. It’s effectively been neutered by Gov. Brown. If the Dems get a Supermajority back in the legislature, it could be on its way to becoming history.
     BTW–The Yellow Cab scandal was the result of reporting by the original San Diego Free Press / Street Journal.

     • Robert Burns says

       November 6, 2018 at 9:14 am

       Schaeffer is even worse than that. He was punished for being a notorious slumlord in L.A. and I witnessed him thuggishly berating a female court clerk in the family court clerk’s office years ago. I couldn’t bring myself to voting for him no matter what. I wish Republicans felt the same about Trump.

2. MJ Walsh says

   October 9, 2018 at 4:05 pm

   Hello: Thank you for putting these comments together. I found you because I am trying to research judges. Now more than ever. Will you have a list for the judges running for office. There is a what I believe is the lincoln club or teaparty site that is rating judges for the whole state. I listed their selections because I could go opposite of them, however I would prefer another voice so I can be sure. I am sharing what I find with a local democrat club. Thank you, MJ

   • Doug Porter says

     October 9, 2018 at 4:53 pm

     There is exactly one judicial contest in San Diego for the general election and it’s listed in the guide. Most judicial contests appear on ballots in the primary and the vast majority of judges run unopposed. That’s because, normally speaking, any lawyer running against a sitting judge is committing professional suicide. In the case of our fall contest, incumbent Gary Kreep vs Matt Brower, the current officeholder is opposed by much of the legal profession due to his conduct on the bench.
     Also, most people consider it an insult –since Republicans have twisted the language– when you say “democrat” in place of democratic.
     On the statewide ballot, there are higher court judges listed. Your choice is to vote “yes” or “no.” There is no organized campaign against these judges, many of whom were appointed by Gov. Brown.

   • Eric G says

     October 21, 2018 at 4:51 pm

     For Associate Justices/Court of Appeals for each district follow this link on Ballotpedia. Super helpful shortcut: https://ballotpedia.org/California_intermediate_appellate_court_elections,_2018

   • Ellezzee says

     October 30, 2018 at 10:02 pm

     Here are a couple of Progressive voter guides to CA judicial races:

     https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/10/an-explainer-on-electing-judges-in-california/

     http://politics.voxpublica.org/2018/10/14/dont-just-say-yes-how-to-vote-in-californias-judicial-races/

     • Doug Porter says

       October 31, 2018 at 7:12 am

       The VoxPublica site is a good one. Thanks for the catch.

   • Heidi says

     November 2, 2018 at 2:15 am

     I need Exactly the same thing. In reply to the other poster that said there’s only one judicial race, the OP and I (I believe) are looking for a voter guide for the associate justices. If you guys could provide that would be AWESOME! I cant find anything, other than, like the OP said, simply taking an opposing list and then voting opposite.

     • Doug Porter says

       November 2, 2018 at 6:01 am

       Here ya go: https://sandiegofreepress.org/2018/10/an-explainer-on-electing-judges-in-california/

       • Heidi says

         November 4, 2018 at 1:16 pm

         Yes, sorry, right after I posted I saw That it was asked and answered, and then I couldn’t Find my comment to delete it. The vox site, btw, has a different list of associate judges than what seems to be on the SD ballot. Is it for a different area?

3. Shaun Martinez says

   October 10, 2018 at 2:46 pm

   RE: Prop 11 comments

   You’re right this is an attempt to avoid paying workers for lost breaks and lunches. Your comment “Nobody opposes having EMT’s/drivers available for emergencies.” is wrongheaded as it implies we believe these workers should have to be on call during their rest and meal periods. This is an extremely stressful job and workers work long shifts. They deserve uninterrupted rest and meal periods to rest, eat, decompress, nap or whatever else they need to do to survive this stressful job. Just think you need to clarify that this is a cynical initiative on two fronts – both to avoid the pending lawsuit but also to permanently strip the ability for these workers to have rest and meal periods they desperately need.

   • Doug Porter says

     October 10, 2018 at 3:00 pm

     Assembly Bill 263, introduced by Democratic Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez, and backed by labor groups, would have allowed an employer to interrupt a rest or meal period, provided that it was “an emergency call in response to which the operators of the emergency vehicle in which the employee works would sound a siren and make visible the vehicle’s emergency lights. OR
     an unforeseeable, natural, or man-made disaster.” In return, the employee had to be paid for an extra hour of work AND given another break as soon as was practical.
     What killed the bill was the fact that the industry couldn’t get a provision included exempting them from past violations of labor law.
     In sum, everybody at the table had worked out a deal, and the companies got greedy. So they walked away and paid to get this piece of labor law by ballot box voted on in the general elction.

     • bob dorn says

       October 11, 2018 at 12:54 pm

       Wowsie. I wonder how one man does this much work to get to so many issues.

4. Wendi Brick says

   October 11, 2018 at 6:46 am

   I would so love for you to include your recommendations on Judges. It is so difficult to find and decipher the information on them, and it’s so critical to our system we have the right people on these benches. :)

   • Doug Porter says

     October 11, 2018 at 7:26 am

     ONCE AGAIN
     There is exactly one judicial contest in San Diego for the general election and it’s listed in the guide. Most judicial contests appear on ballots in the primary and the vast majority of judges run unopposed. That’s because, normally speaking, any lawyer running against a sitting judge is committing professional suicide. In the case of our fall contest, incumbent Gary Kreep vs Matt Brower, the current officeholder is opposed by much of the legal profession due to his conduct on the bench.
     On the statewide ballot, there are higher court judges listed. Your choice is to vote “yes” or “no.” There is no organized campaign against these judges, many of whom were appointed by Gov. Brown.

     • Summer says

       October 12, 2018 at 8:14 pm

       I have 16 other judical voting options on my ballot in Oceanside for November. They are all yes/no.

       2 for Associate Justices of Supreme Court

       7 for Associate Justices of Court of Appeals to District One

       4 for Associate Justices of Court of Appeals to District Two

       3 for for Associate Justices of Court of Appeals to District Three

       • Doug Porter says

         October 12, 2018 at 8:59 pm

         Yup. There is no organized opposition that I’m aware of for any of the Yes/No judges. It’s very rare. And they are shoo-ins to get in.

         • Corbin Record says

           October 13, 2018 at 9:47 am

           I did what Jenn Padilla-Rogers did below. So NO on Haller, Huffman, Benke, Miller, and Mckinster.

     • Ryan says

       October 16, 2018 at 10:25 pm

       Carol a. Corrigan is a vote no by the LGTBQ+ group “Democrats for Equality” because of how she ruled on the legality of prop 8 a few years ago. She stated that she was in favor of gay marriage but sided with the prop 8 people.

     • Alison Borel says

       October 21, 2018 at 9:24 am

       This is very helpful information, especially when you read it. Thank you so much!

5. Jenn Padilla-Rogers says

   October 11, 2018 at 5:13 pm

   I couldn’t find much out about the voting records for the Justices for the Courts for my district. My method was to look at the Secretary of State website to see when the Justices were appointed and compared that to what party had the Govenorship at the time. I based my vote on that. I’m not sure if it’s technically right but I thought at least it’s a method some people may like to use if they have no idea who the people are. And thank you SD Free Press for the guidance list!!! It was super helpful!

   • michael-leonard says

     October 13, 2018 at 7:42 pm

     sounds like you are blindly putting party before knowledge. isn’t that one of the things that the reptiles do?

     • Doug Porter says

       October 13, 2018 at 8:04 pm

       Have you got a better method in mind?
       Voting on higher court judges is a yes/no process. There are no competing candidates. There is no easily available transcript of their rulings; and I would argue that digging very hard on this is hardly worth the time, given all the other issues and candidates we have to understand before casting our ballots.

       • ow do you suggest we vote? says

         October 14, 2018 at 2:31 am

         Doug:

         1) “There are no competing candidates.”

         ?? Do not understand what you mean, especially since you mention above the contest for the Judgeship currently occupied by Kreep.

         2) “That’s because, normally speaking, any lawyer running against a sitting judge is committing professional suicide.”

         Not true. In California each side of a lawsuit gets a “peremptory challenge” against one judge, which means no reason need be stated.
         https://saclaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sbs-peremptory-challenge-of-a-judge.pdf
         An attorney having run against a judge to which his case was randomly assigned would exercise a peremptory challenge.

         3) The partisan conflict over the appointment of Kavanaugh to the US Supreme Court apparently has made some people conclude the same partisan process applies to state trial and intermediate appellate judges. Deciding to vote yes/no based upon the political party of the appointing governor, in my opinion, makes little sense.

         Suggest your readers review the following, written by a California appellate judge:
         https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/291016-judicial-election-presents-political-dangers

         • Doug Porter says

           October 14, 2018 at 8:11 am

           1. There are no competing candidates for the judicial elections for appellate and supreme court. Kreep vs Brower is a superior court contest.
           2. The judges (at least in San Diego) act as a hive. One challenge does little good when you got the entire bunch of judges upset about an outlier messing with their “tradition.” Judges (Again, we’re talking superior court judges) time their “retirements” to fall outside the window where a competitive election would be mandated by law. The system truly is rigged when it comes to judges.
           Gary Kreep’s upset over Garland Peed (wierd names,huh?) was caused by the legal establishment not paying attention. Everybody “knew” Kreep was an extremist, so they assumed he’d lose.
           According to the OC Weekly (https://www.ocweekly.com/updated-with-kreep-wins-did-dirty-trickster-james-lacy-help-minuteman-birther-gary-kreep-win-judge-race-6453372/) Kreep got a boost thanks to a mysterious robo call campaign (originally reported at City Beat–the link is dead) from a PAC claiming Peed would be “the worst kind of county judge” because he used plea bargains to put a drug dealers back on the streets.
           3. So the higher court positions are all yes/no votes. I’ll have a longer post on this as my column on Monday, October 15, since there seems to be so much interest.

       • michael-leonard says

         October 14, 2018 at 8:47 am

         oops, lost my place here.
         i simply do not cast a vote in any contest that where a candidate is unopposed. that person is gonna be ‘elected’ to the office no matter what, so i don’t play that game.
         of course,that’s just me.

   • Barbara Smith says

     October 15, 2018 at 2:59 pm

     I am having the same problem with all these associate justices for the 5th Appellate District up for a yes or no vote (Madera County ballot).

     I don’t just want to rubber stamp them, but I don’t have any clue to who they are or how they’ve ruled on what cases.

     So, lacking any other method, I will follow Jenn Padilla-Rodgers’ advice.

     • Doug Porter says

       October 15, 2018 at 3:16 pm

       Knock yourself out.
       I get it that you intend to do the right thing. I’m just saying the odds are so long on this having an impact, you’d be better off using those minutes out of your life calling voters, knocking on doors, or sending postcards would be a better investment.
       How many higher court judges have ever been voted out without a well-funded campaign against them? Zero. Zip. Nada.

       • How do you suggest we vote? says

         October 15, 2018 at 4:06 pm

         I agree. I do not recall an incumbent losing who was not opposed, so a non-attorney trying to make an intelligent decision is a waste of his/her time.

         Anyone over age 50 should be asking if they really want to be spending a portion of their remaining years trying to figure out how to vote in an uncontested judicial “race”. The fact that a particular judge has no opponent should give voters a strong “clue” that the judge in question has not made any “strange” decisions.

         • michael-leonard says

           October 15, 2018 at 6:45 pm

           yeah, like i said ;-)

6. judi curry says

   October 16, 2018 at 8:28 pm

   Hey Doug, find it very interesting that I received my absentee ballot early last week. With “help” from you and my own reading, I filled it out and mailed it in. Today I finally received the sample ballot, 6 days after I completed and mailed in the absentee ballot. What’s with that? I always remember getting the sample ballot first; then the mail-in. Someone answered my post on Next Door and said that the Republicans had not received either of the ballots yet. True? And why the delay in getting the sample ballots?

   • Doug Porter says

     October 16, 2018 at 9:02 pm

     My guess would be mailing fu. Not necessarily the post office.
     I got my local voter guide online a few days before my ballot. I think my state guide arrived the day before my ballot.

7. Micporte says

   October 18, 2018 at 6:53 am

   Thank you thank you thank to the SDFP so smart and dedicated volunteers, one of the best press in the nation, you do US proud,

8. Patricia Mooney says

   October 18, 2018 at 12:54 pm

   This “California Voting Guide” posted by Carl DeMaio was super-helpful. I voted OPPOSITE of all his “suggestions” –

9. Igor Goldkind says

   October 18, 2018 at 1:58 pm

   FAO: Doug Porter

   I’ve been enjoying your articles. Can I add your email address to my press list for arts and cultural events with a progressive focus?

   Thanks,
   Igor Goldkind

   • Doug Porter says

     October 18, 2018 at 3:15 pm

     Everybody else does. LOL. Why should you be any different? dougporter@sandiegofreepres.org

     • Igor Goldkind says

       October 18, 2018 at 11:44 pm

       TY!

10. Julie Malino says

    October 20, 2018 at 7:43 am

    Thank you. Very helpful. So much needed information !!!

11. Eddie says

    October 21, 2018 at 8:24 am

    What is the reasoning for endorsing Feinstein? She is the quintessential corporate democrat who will never champion a progressive cause. She is running against Kevin De Leon who is running on “Medicare for All” and Tuition Free public college, among many other progressive positions. Obviously he is the progressive in the race and is a much better candidate to represent California in the senate.

    I can somewhat (not really) understand why you would say she is acceptable, but a full endorsement? It does not make sense to me for the full endorsement.

    • Doug Porter says

      October 21, 2018 at 8:58 am

      We gave our reasoning in the article. You don’t agree.

      • Eddie says

        October 21, 2018 at 10:36 am

        “The editorial board split–Feinstein won 5 – 2. We know she is a tool of the military-industrial complex. For now anyway, she’s in a better position to inflict damage on the Trump agenda.”

        I’m sorry but this is inadequate and there is hardly any “reasoning” in this. The article is titled the “San Diego Progressive Voter Guide” yet the first candidate endorsed in not progressive at all, actively fights AGAINST progressive policies, and shows no signs of adopting progressive policies in the future. Her candidate is running on multiple progressive policies and is clearly the progressive candidate in the race. Your “reasoning” is that “for now anyway, she’s in a better position to inflict damage on the Trump agenda”? What does that even mean? Like voting in favor of multiple policies of his? What could she do that another Senate Democrat could not? What could she do that her opponent could not if elected? HOW is she in a better position?

        Like I said, I can somewhat (not really) understand listing her as acceptable, like is the case with many other democrats in the guide. However, a full endorsement when she is running against a more progressive candidate? Unfortunately, that makes me question the motives behind the endorsement. I am a big fan of SDFP but I am disappointed in this endorsement.

        • Doug Porter says

          October 21, 2018 at 12:18 pm

          Okay. Say we’re not “Progressive” if it makes you happy. Sue us even. Or you could say you disagree with us.
          We have six and a half years of publishing what we thought were progressive views.
          Bottom lines here: a majority thought Good shouldn’t be the enemy of Perfect in this case. For this race. For this election.
          And we/I thought there were more pressing matters to focus our energy on.

          • Summer says

            October 21, 2018 at 12:40 pm

            This is a GUIDE not a Bible. If people are going to rely on a guide for be their sole source for information their that is their own ignorance. I didn’t vote for Feinstein,but I’m not raging against those who are advocating for her. That’s just ridiculous. This inter-party fighting is exactly what we don’t need. Chill and vote how you want. I did. Don’t like how things are run? Run yourself and make changes.

      • Karl says

        October 29, 2018 at 9:08 am

        As someone who worked as a legislative aide for Senator Kennedy in DC, I can say with certainty that (1) Feinstein is the least progressive Senator in the Democratic Party; BUT (2) seniority on Capitol Hill means EVERYTHING. So the reason I might support her is that she would do far more for California, and in support of Sen Harris’ future, than De Leon. But as for YOUR reasoning, that she would be best to fight the Trump agenda, is absolutely ludicrous. When I checked earlier this year, FiveThirtyEight’s chart of voting with or against the Man in the West Wing, there were like a dozen Republicans who voted against Trump more than she did relative to the state’s vote for President. That’s just insane. MORE IMPORTANTLY, you know Republicans are going to be voting for her, and most center Democrats are fine with her, so I’m 75% certain she’ll win this vote in a landslide. So I’m voting De Leon without hesitation, in order to hopefully SEND HER A MESSAGE to get more in line with the progressive wing of the party. And since De Leon is also “acceptable” to you, and favored by two of seven on your board, if by some miracle he won because of progressives’ endorsement, then you shouldn’t have a problem with that. And your endorsement of the anti-progressive Dem in the Senate really kinda calls into question the rest of your “progressive” endorsements, sadly. So much for a “resistance.”

        • Doug Porter says

          October 29, 2018 at 10:02 am

          This business of “I disagree with you on this one thing, so therefore I’m entitled to call you names, and furthermore everything else you say is full of shit” has got to stop. Six human beings with many years of activist experience had a discussion and came to a (non-unanimous) conclusion. We disagree. Now go do something more than complain.

12. James says

    October 28, 2018 at 11:54 am

    I am still confused about Prop 8. It seems like a yes vote will just shift more money from dialysis centers to insurance companies. Will a vote either way actually help or hurt patients? It seems like a yes vote might cause some services to cease.

    • Doug Porter says

      October 28, 2018 at 12:43 pm

      I don’t know where you get the $$$ to insurance companies. The process that would occur if 8 passes and profits are capped will mean two things: rates will go down (maybe) spending on services within the companies will go up — better treatment for patients and employees.

      The “we gonna take something from you” strategy represents the desperation of these dialysis companies to protect obscenely high profits.

      That said, this could and should have been settled in the legislature.

      I voted Yes on 8.

13. James says

    October 28, 2018 at 1:02 pm

    I appreciate the feedback. I remain undecided although leaning yes. The nurses union is usually for progressive platforms which is throwing me off although I realize they may have a conflict of interest here. Where I get the “$$$ to insurance companies” is straight from the “Argument in favor of Prop 8” in the voter guide. They claim that insurance companies will be able to lower costs for everyone since these treatments are so high. If you believe that I have a bridge to sell you. This will mean higher profits for them. They will never pass along the savings. I would like to see a bill that caps the profits of insurance companies rather than 1 segment of the health industry. Until we get smart and get single payer we are left with nothing but out of control costs and confusing half measures in the form of ballot initiatives. My silver plan for next year is over $500/mo with no assistance. In any case, thanks again for this guide.

    • Heidi says

      November 4, 2018 at 12:52 pm

      It seems to me that voting yes on 8 is just a way for health insurance companies to save money. I agree With you— I doubt They’ll pass on the savings to the people they insure. Furthermore, a family member who is in emergency services brought up a good point— if those clinics close, many ppl may be forced to come to hospitals and emergency rooms, which are already impacted, oftentimes with non emergency situations. Dialysis patients would either further impact the system or wouldn’t be able to be treated in a timely manner.

14. Katherine says

    November 2, 2018 at 8:38 pm

    Thank you for this helpful overview! I do appreciate the deep dive you did on every measure/prop/candidate.