---
# System prepended metadata

title: Kilo's Ballot Endorsements (Nov 2020)

---

# Kilo's Ballot Endorsements (Nov 2020)

https://ballotpedia.org is my primary resource, which is the source of all quoted text unless otherwise noted.
If you want more background on anything, Ballotpedia is my primary recommendation.

# Heuristics

1. Never make it harder to change our minds.
    * E.g. no "if this passes with 51%, overturning requires 67%".
2. "We have a government at home."
    * Our representative government should decide complicated things, instead of direct popularity democracy.
3. The simpler it is, the more reliable direct democracy will be.
    * Legalizing weed isn't complicated and was popular, but can be hard to get politicians to risk elections on.
4. If you don't have a candidate website that I can find with some basic searches, you aren't serious enough.
5. Default-yes on property/parcel tax increases because nothing is enough to make up for Prop 13.
6. Default-no on sales tax increases, since they're regressive.

# Propositions

## [Proposition 14](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020)): WEAK NO (Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state's stem cell research institute and making changes to the institute's governance structure and programs.

> A "no" vote opposes issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state's stem cell research institute, which ran out funds derived from Proposition 71 (2004) for new projects in 2019.

I'm generally in favor of government spending and funding research, but I'm not sure why this is a proposition and not part of a budget bill: WEAK NO

## [Proposition 15](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020)): STRONG YES (Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to require commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price.

> A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thus continuing to tax commercial and industrial properties based on a property's purchase price, with annual increases equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower.

This unwinds the awful Prop 13 for commercial and industrial properties.
I would be strong-yes for a full repeal of Prop 13, so I'm a STRONG YES for this year's Prop 15.

## [Proposition 16](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)): YES (Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment)

> A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

> A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Well, this is a weird one.

I think this is important background:

> Proposition 209 received 54.55 percent of the vote at the election on November 5, 1996, making California the first state to adopt a constitutional ban on race-based and sex-based affirmative action.
> 
> Ward Connerly, a member of the University of California Board of Regents, led the campaign behind Proposition 209. "Affirmative action was meant to be temporary," wrote Connerly, "It was meant to be a stronger dose of equal opportunity for individuals, and the prescription was intended to expire when the body politic had developed sufficient immunity to the virus of prejudice and discrimination." He added, "Three decades later, affirmative action is permanent and firmly entrenched as a matter of public policy. ... not because of any moral imperative but because it has become the battleground for a political and economic war that has racial self-interest as its centerpiece."[5] In 1997, Connerly founded the American Civil Rights Institute, which supported ballot initiatives modeled on Proposition 209 in Washington, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska, Arizona, and Oklahoma.[6]
> 
> In 2020, Asm. Shirley Weber (D-79) introduced the legislation that would become Proposition 16, stating that "the ongoing [coronavirus] pandemic, as well as recent tragedies of police violence, is forcing Californians to acknowledge the deep-seated inequality and far-reaching institutional failures that show that your race and gender still matter."[7] She also said, "This is probably an opportune time given people’s interest in politics and given the kind of turnout that is anticipated — and given the fact that this is a different generation, that it may be possible for us to begin to work to reverse Prop. 209."[8] Connerly, responding to the proposal to repeal Proposition 209, said, "I believe we would win by a landslide once we let people know what affirmative action is really about."

Basically, Ward Connerly led 1996's Prop 209 on the basis that affirmative action was no longer needed.

Prop 16 is a question of whether you think, perhaps in light of BLM and a rekindling of feeling of racial inequity, that affirmative action may still be something we need after all.

In general, racial discrimination is generally forbidden by the US's 14th amendment, so it's not like this would remove protection against being negatively discriminated based on race.

It feels very weird to "discriminate" based on race, but consider the parallel of "descriminating" based on income (or poverty), property (or homelessness), or perhaps military veteran status. We regularly discriminate in order to provide preferential treatment to disadvantaged classes.

Because I believe affirmative action is still a useful tool for the long-running war for racial equality, I'm a YES here.

## [Proposition 17](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_17,_Voting_Rights_Restoration_for_Persons_on_Parole_Amendment_(2020)): YES (Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment)

> A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote.

> A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit people who are on parole for felony convictions from voting.

What it like now?
> Currently, the California Constitution disqualifies people with felonies from voting until their imprisonment and parole are completed. The ballot measure would amend the state constitution to allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote; therefore, the ballot measure would keep imprisonment as a disqualification for voting but remove parole status.

What about other states?
>California is one of three states that require persons convicted of felonies to complete their prison and parole sentences before regaining the right to vote.
>
> As of 2020, 19 states allowed people convicted of felonies, but who were on parole, to vote. Seventeen of these states did not allow people to vote while imprisoned. Two—Maine and Vermont—allow people who are imprisoned to vote.
> 
> The remaining 28 states had additional disqualifications—compared to California—for people convicted of felonies. Eighteen disqualified people who were imprisoned, on parole, or on probation. Seven prohibited people convicted of certain felonies from ever regaining the right to vote. In Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia, people convicted of felonies never regain the right to vote, although their governors can issue orders to restore voting rights to individuals or groups.

I know some people are afraid of criminals voting themselves out of jail or something outlandish. To be frank, if there are enough criminals that they're a big enough voting bloc to accomplish this, society is pretty fucked and maybe we really should just free everyone and start over.

However, from an individual point of view, it sure would suck to be disenfranchised while still on a sometimes-lengthy parole. I'm a YES on this one.

## [Proposition 18](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_18,_Primary_Voting_for_17-Year-Olds_Amendment_(2020)): NO (Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment)

> A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

> A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

Given that we all accept that it's totally arbitrary to give someone 1.0 votes if they're 18.0 and 0.0 votes if they're 17.99, I'm hesitant to make it both arbitrary *and* complicated.

Another point made in the opposition statement from Jon Coupal:
> "Many tax increases and bond debt measures are decided on primary and special election ballots. That’s why only adults should vote."

Now, Jon Coupal is "President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association" and ususally opposition from a "Taxpayers Association" is strong signal that I'll want to vote *for* something. But hey, broken clocks!

While I wasn't a whole lot less stupid at 18 than 17.5ish, I think we're fine being arbitrary here: NO

## [Proposition 19](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_19,_Property_Tax_Transfers,_Exemptions,_and_Revenue_for_Wildfire_Agencies_and_Counties_Amendment_(2020)): WEAK NO (Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment)

> A "yes" vote supports this constitutional amendment to:  
> * allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments anywhere within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more expensive home with an upward adjustment;
> * increase the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments from one to three;
> * require that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences, such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market value when transferred; and
> * allocate additional revenue or net savings resulting from the ballot measure to wildfire agencies and counties.

> A "no" vote opposes this constitutional amendment, therefore continuing to:
> * allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments within counties and to homes of equal or lesser market value;
> * keep the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments at one;
> * allow the tax assessments on inherited homes, including those not used as principal residences, to be transferred from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild.

This is a modification to the infamous Prop 13, and reads like a compromise: Forbid inheriting low-tax rental properties (good riddance, but probably rare), buuut with a give-away for older people (ugh, fine) and people who want to move while keeping their artificially low tax assessment, including moving into a more expensive place? (what a money-grab)

I think it's really gross that they earmark any earned additional revenue from this for wildfires. (I mean who's against wildfire funding?? Don't answer that I'll be sad)

I really don't like the sound of "allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more expensive home" even "with an upward adjustment".

It's interesting that this makes it more possible for people to move while retaining their tax advantage. I have noted before that I expect some amount of california traffic is exacerbated by Prop 13 restricting people's willingness to move.

In the end, I think this is too much of a give-away for what it improves: WEAK NO

## [Proposition 20](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_20,_Criminal_Sentencing,_Parole,_and_DNA_Collection_Initiative_(2020)): STRONG NO (Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.

> A "no" vote opposes this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; recategorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors.

In favor: Devin Nunes
Against: California Democratic Party and the ACLU

Why is this a prop not a bill? STRONG NO

## [Proposition 21](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020)): WEAK YES (Local Rent Control Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to **allow local governments to** enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles or subdivided interests.

> A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, thereby continuing to prohibit rent control on housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units with distinct titles, such as single-family homes.

> The ballot measure would replace the **Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act** (Costa-Hawkins), which was passed in 1995. **Prior to the enactment of Costa-Hawkins, local governments were permitted to enact rent control**, provided that landlords would receive just and reasonable returns on their rental properties. Costa-Hawkins continued to allow local governments to use rent control, except on (a) housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and (b) housing units with distinct titles, such as condos, townhouses, and single-family homes.[1]
>
> The ballot measure would allow local governments to adopt rent control on housing units, except on (a) housing that was first occupied within the last 15 years and (b) units owned by natural persons who own no more than two housing units with separate titles, such as single-family homes, condos, and some duplexes, or subdivided interests, such as stock cooperatives and community apartment projects.[2]
>
> Under Costa-Hawkins, landlords are allowed to increase rent prices to market rates when a tenant moves out (a policy known as vacancy decontrol).[1] **The ballot measure would require local governments that adopt rent control to allow landlords to increase rental rates by 15 percent during the first three years following a vacancy.**

This would overturn parts of the Costa-Hawkins statute, as passed by the state government in 1995. If the state gov wants it, they can just add it back.

I would generally ALLOW local govs to gov, and I'm generally anti-landlord.

**I'm a WEAK YES here because I think it's the right change, but I don't think it matters either way.**


## [Proposition 22](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)): NEVER (App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to define app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies.

> A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative, meaning California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) could be used to decide whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.

### Notable support
* California Republican Party
* DoorDash
* Lyft
* Uber
* Instacart
* Postmates

### Notable opposition
* California Democratic Party
* Elizabeth Warren
* Kamala Harris
* Joe Biden

When it's a bunch of megacorps championing a proposition to repeal a law passed by the state legislature, it's an easy strong-no.

But that's not all!
[Article 7: Amendment](https://cdn.ballotpedia.org/images/5/55/California_Initiative_-19-0026A1_(App-Based_Drivers).pdf#page=21) reads:
> After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislahire may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, **seven-eighths** of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent  with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter. No bill seeking to amend this chapter after the effective date of this chapter may be passed or ultimately become a statute unless the  bill has been printed and distributed to members, and published on the Internet, in its  final form, for at least 12 business days prior to its passage in either house of the Legislature.

Fuck these awful assholes, I don't think *heliocentrism* has a 7/8ths majority among voters: **NEVER**.

## [Proposition 23](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)): WEAK NO (Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.

> A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative to require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.

This sounds like a good thing, and if it's a good thing, someone really ought to pass a law about it, eh? :)

Let the legislature legislate: NO

## [Proposition 24](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_24,_Consumer_Personal_Information_Law_and_Agency_Initiative_(2020)): WEAK NO (Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative)

> A "yes" vote supports this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers to direct businesses to not share their personal information; remove the time period in which businesses can fix violations before being penalized; and create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.

> A "no" vote opposes this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws or create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.

I'm fairly persuaded by the EFF's opinion here:
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) issued a statement taking no position on Proposition 24—"EFF does not support it; nor does EFF oppose it." EFF described Proposition 24 as "a mixed bag of partial steps backwards and forwards."

I think I'm generally in favor of the changes here, but this really seems like something that the legislature should hammer out: WEAK NO

## [Proposition 25](https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_25,_Replace_Cash_Bail_with_Risk_Assessments_Referendum_(2020)): STRONG YES (Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum)

> A "yes" vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), which would replace cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects awaiting trials.

> A "no" vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 10 (SB 10), thus keeping in place the use of cash bail for detained suspects awaiting trials.

The legislature already passed SB10, and a "no" vote would effectively veto it.

I think the fundemental friction here is that cash bail is not being set reasonably, creating a market for bail bonds, which (I'm of the opinion) provides more value for the owners than the involuntary customers.

This could have been a trickier decision if this were a replacement for legislation, but there's *literally already legislation*, and this is a last-ditch attempt by sore losers to stop it. The legislature has already legislated: STRONG YES


# Local Measures (San Jose, California)

## [Measure G](https://ballotpedia.org/San_Jose,_California,_Measure_G,_Police_Auditor_Powers,_Redistricting_Procedures,_and_Planning_Commission_Charter_Amendment_(November_2020)): YES *(but shame on City Council for bundling)* (Police Auditor Powers, Redistricting Procedures, and Planning Commission Charter Amendment)

> A "yes" vote supports amending the city's charter to make the following changes:
> 1. authorize the independent police auditor to review reports and records related to officer-involved shootings and uses of force that resulted in death or injury in order to make policy recommendations,
> 2. change the size of the city's planning commission from seven to 11, and 
> 3. authorize the city council to establish redistricting timelines following the release of the census.

> A "no" vote opposes amending the city's charter, thereby maintaining the following provisions:
> 1. the independent police auditor does not have access to reports and records related to officer-involved shootings and uses of force that resulted in death or injury in order to make policy recommendations;
> 2. the city's planning commission consists of seven members; and 
> 3. the city council must pass the redistricting ordinance by October 31 of the year following the census.

Ugh, this is three things wrapped up in one.

The ballot question text is probably better:
> Shall the City Charter be amended to: expand the Independent Police Auditor’s oversight, including unredacted review of officer-involved shootings and use of force incidents causing death or great bodily injury, review of department-initiated investigations against officers, and other technical amendments; increase the Planning Commission to 11 members with Council appointing one member from each Council District and one “at-large” member; and allow the Council to establish timelines for redistricting when Census results are late?

### 1. Authorize the independent police auditor

STRONG YES on this. The independent police auditor *should have already had* access to literally any police record, and they definitely need it for use-of-force incidents.

### 2. Change the size of the city's planning commission from seven to 11

This potentially sounds exploitive, but the official explaination is sound:
> ...11 members with Council appointing one member from each Council District and one “at-large” member...

I would be a WEAK YES on this.

### 3. Redistricting timelines

"authorize the city council to establish \[its own] redistricting timelines following the release of the census" instead of "by October 31 of the year following the census".

This would newly-allow setting a longer timeline, allegedly in response to late census results. Surely the council could already redistrict sooner rather than waiting for the current deadline? Are we really concerned that late census results would cause a real problem hitting our deadline?

I would be a WEAK NO on this without more info.

### Together

Shame on you, San Jose City Council. These should have been separate, and there's no good reason for them to be glued together, which makes me *really* suspicious of #2 and #3 given the probable popularity of #1.

It's not enough for me to vote against, but it does drop me from strong-yes to just YES.
Fuck you, City Council.

## [Measure H](https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/appointees/city-clerk/elections/2020-elections/measure-h-cardroom-tax): YES (Card Room Tax Increase)

>  To fund general San Jose services, including fire protection, disaster preparedness, 911 emergency response, street repair, youth programs, addressing homelessness, and supporting vulnerable residents, shall an ordinance be adopted increasing the cardroom tax rate from 15% to 16.5%, applying the tax to third party providers at these rates: up to $25,000,000 at 5%; $25,000,001 to $30,000,000 at 7.5%; and over $30,000,000 at 10%, increasing card tables by 30, generating approximately $15,000,000 annually, until repealed? 

We already have card tables, and this only a 30% increase (100+30). It's also an increase on tax rate for them.

In general I'm in favor of vice legalization+taxation, as long as enabling the vice isn't too exploitive. Gambling isn't great, but if they aren't doing it already at existing card tables here, they'll do it elsewhere.

This doesn't seem too complicated otherwise, so I'm YES.

# National elections

Note that for all elections, I'll make a recommendation. Some elections will get something like "FOO (over Bar)", where FOO is the preference but Bar is probably okay too. If I don't put an over parenthetical, I would probably rather not vote than vote the runner-up.

## President: JFC BIDEN/HARRIS

I'd rather return to a time when I could be merely mad about extrajudicial drone strikes, rather than watching a near-total breakdown of checks and balances in government.

We're one angry stimulent-fueled bender away from having to see if the military would really veto a nuclear strike on e.g. North Korea, and I'm not confident enough to bet civilization on it.

I am hopeful that we'll look backwards in a few years in (feigned) confusion, much like we look back and ask "why did they vote for the Nazis" or "why did we draft Americans to fight in Vietnam?".

## U.S. House California District 19: LOEFGREN

I'm pissed because Ivan Torres was my pick in the Primary, and he didn't lose second place by a ton:

| Candidate | Percent | Votes |
| - | - | - |
| Loefgren (D) | 62.7% | 104,456 |
| Aguilera \(R\) | 12.3% |  20,469 |
| Cruz \(R\)     | 11.5% |  19,109 |
| Torres (D)   | 11.4% |  18,916 |
| Mallory (I)  |  2.1% |   3,516 |

I don't think he would have beaten incumbent Loefgren, but it'd be nice to try. On the flip side, I'm not worried about Aguilera winning either, so that's nice.

Loefgren dragged her feet on Trump's impeachment, and on that alone I want her out. By being slow to impeach, she was showing she didn't think there was enough to "indict" Trump, which is pretty insane post-Mueller. I'm not saying convict: That's the senate's job. The house just says "you should really have a trial to figure out if this bad stuff is real".

Now that I've dragged her, Loefgren does appear to vote in line with my values, so I'm for LOEFGREN.

## U.S. House California Discrict 12: STRONG BUTTAR (over Pelosi)
This is a bonus endorsement, because this isn't my district.

I'm not satisfied with Pelosi though, and that matters nationally.
I would rather have Shahid Buttar, and I really suspect SF would rather have him too, if they would look.

Notably, Buttar bothered to fill out the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey, while Pelosi did not.

There have been allegations about gender and labor improprieties in Buttar's campaign but months on, nothing seems to have come of it. Unfortunately, it seems like it was enough to blow the wheels off the campaign, so it's unlikely that we'll see change here this year.

Even if this were Pelosi vs G. Burt Lancaster (the placeholder Republican I discuss later), I would be tempted to oust Pelosi for two years just to reroll someone else from the Dem side. That said, we had that chance this time and it looks like we had a great-policy-poor-execution candidate in Buttar that we're going to pass over.

STRONG BUTTAR is a great choice, even if just as a protest vote.

# State elections

## California State Senate District 15: WEAK CORTESE over Ravel

**Update: Endorsement is now Cortese over Ravel, see end of section.**

This is between Cortese and Ravel, which were my two recommendations in the primary. So that's sweet!

Comparing their issues pages, I don't see anything objectionable:
* https://davecortese.com/the-issues/
* https://ravelforca.com/issues/

https://sanjosespotlight.com/poll-shows-dave-cortese-leads-senate-race-opponent-calls-it-unethical/:
> Ravel nabbed endorsements from San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, County Assessor Larry Stone, District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Supervisors Joe Simitian and Susan Ellenberg, among others. She had hoped that Obama’s recent endorsement will continue to boost her profile before ballots get to voters in October.
>
> Cortese is endorsed by the California Democratic Party, local teachers, nurses, firefighters, Rep. Ro Khanna, Supervisor Cindy Chavez, Sheriff Laurie Smith, among others.

Jim Beall is the current senator, but has hit his term limit. Beall does endorse Cortese.

About the only wrinkle I can find is that Cortese prides himself on fully supporting Sheriff Laurie Smith, who has in turn donated to his campaign. I don't love money in politics, but Ravel's happy to point out that there's allegations of pay-to-play for concealed carry weapons permits from the Sheriff's office, as investigated by the DA's Public Integrity Unit: https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/12/12/concealed-guns-probe-new-records-further-suggest-influence-of-power-money-on-permitting-process/

~~In light of *that*, as well as seeing Sheriff Smith supporting Cortese but DA Jeff Rosen for Ravel, I'm leaning WEAK RAVEL.~~

**Update (Nov2):** Late breaking deal breaker? Ravel is pro-prop22 and the majority of her campaign donations were from Uber, Lyft, et al.

It might not be as bad as it sounds, given that my main recommendation for prop22 proponents is "hammer it out in the legislature", and I'm sympathetic to the feeling that AB5 is pretty weird. Given my position on prop22, I retract my endorsement of Ravel.

Cortese is generally does somewhat better with labor and YIMBY concerns, while I don't really trust him on police reform. However, I don't think he's *bad* on police reform, just over-soft.

My endorsement is WEAK CORTESE, but honestly Ravel is probably fine. 

## California State Assembly District 27: KALRA

This is another D-over-R from the start for me, but I'll check into it.

Kalra was arrested for misdemeanor drunken driving in 2011: https://www.mercurynews.com/2011/05/08/san-jose-city-councilman-ash-kalra-arrested-on-drunken-driving-charge/

Policy-wise, he seems fine.

Man, G. Burt Lancaster though? I can't find anything useful about him. I can only imagine he's a GOP placeholder candidate that runs when someone's otherwise unopposed. He ran against the otherwise-unopposed Loefgren for US-House in 2016, and against otherwise-unopposed then-incumbent Nora Campos for CA-Assembly in 2014. When he says "vote for me" ask "what are you running for this year?".

KALRA.

# Local elections

## San Jose City Council District 6: STRONG TONKEL (over Davis)

I was Tonkel+Navarro in the Primary, so it's clear who my choice here will be.

Devora "Dev" Davis first: Previously affiliate with the Republican Party, she doesn't have anything otherwise grossly disqualifying in her positions, though she definitely leads with "Protecting Our Neighborhoods".

It seems inconsequential but it's funny to me that, in her First Term Accomplishments, she lists "Voted for a new police helicopter". Police chopper is a running joke in our neighborhood with how often it's flying around squawking unintelligible sounds at the ground.

I will note that she has as a goal "Ensure increased police transparency and accountability through the Independent Police Auditor’s office", which is great!

For a councilmember, she's probably fine. I don't have any real complaints, however...

Jake Tonkel's just fantastic. He canvassed in-person, and after COVID did calls to check on people in the district and hear their troubles and concerns.

His endorsements are hot fire too: https://jake4d6.com/endorsements/
* San Jose Teachers Associate
* California Nurses Association
* South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council 
* Stonewall Democrats Silicon Valley
* San Jose Firefighters Local 230
* SEIU Local 521
* Local Union 393 (Plumbers, Steamfitters, HVACR Service Techs, Pipefitters)
* Silicon Valley Young Democrats
* Services, Immigrant Rights and Education Network
* Our Revolution
* Democratic Socialists of America - Silicon Valley
* Sunrise Silicon Valley
* South Bay YIMBY
* California Progressive Alliance
* South Bay Progressive Alliance
* Green Party of Santa Clara County

I doubt he'll be our councilmember for long, because I'm sure he's headed to state legislature in no time.

STRONG TONKEL is my single most positive endorsement for office this year.

## Santa Clara County Board of Education Trustees

Given how much of local budgets are education, I should probably have stronger opinions here than I do.

However, who the heck are these people? They're ghosts!

### Area 1: WEAK MAH (over Caswell)

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/10/07/meet-the-two-candidates-for-santa-clara-county-board-of-education

Grace Mah's generally pro-charter, but Melissa Baten Caswell's not anti-charter either. Mah says, "There should be some kind of floor that the school district can retain and get credit for keeping the local students who don't go to charter schools,"

Mah is seeking a fourth term, and interestingly voted against putting a three-term-limit measure up for public vote, but I don't find that necessarily disqualifying.

Caswell says, "Clearly they haven't seen anything change in 13 years with the current board member," she added. "So I'm another person running."

> Several unions also contributed to \[Caswell's] campaign: Plumbers, Steamfitters & Refrigeration Fitters Local 393 Political Action Fund ($1,000); the Cement Mason's Local 400 Political Action Committee ($250); and Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local No. 104 ($1,000).

I'm really not sure what it means when the local plumber's union prefers one Board of Education Trustee candidate over another.

> When \[Caswell] was first elected to the Palo Alto school board, she focused on reinvigorating the district's strategic plan by persuading the management-consulting firm McKinsey & Company to help the district develop a new document and new process with stronger community input.

Oookay, I'm not sure "more consultants" is really what the board of trustees needs?

WEAK MAH

### Area 4: STRONG GOMEZ

Joseph Di Salvo is the incumbent, *however:* https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-education-leader-censured-for-racial-and-gender-bias/

Lucia Garcia is a ghost. The only positive for her I can find is the intriguing possibility that this is actually Lucia Garcia Cordoba, the professional football forward currently playing for Athletic Club in the Spanish First Division.

Ketzal Gomez must have been in the same study-group as Tonkel:
https://www.gomezforboe.com/endorsements

STRONG GOMEZ.

### Area 5: WEAK CHON (over Song)

Anna Song has an actual web presence! http://www.annasong2020.com/ (though it doesn't support https, alas)

> Anna is the first Korean-American to be elected in Santa Clara County and first Korean-born woman to be elected to any position in California. In fact, Anna Song is the *longest serving female Korean-American elected official in the United States*.

Victoria Chon also has a website, and hers supports https!
https://www.victoriachon2020.com/platform
There's not much to see there, but there's more than Song's.

WEAK CHON.

## Superior Court of Santa Clara County (Office 24)

### Stuart Scott: WEAK NO

Stuart Scott is running again for judge of the superior court.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/03/24/mercury-news-editorial-another-flawed-judge-raises-question/

He wasn't great back in 2015, but not much comes up since, so maybe he's better now? 

I don't know, and if I don't know, I'm voting WEAK NO.

## San Jose-Evergreen Community College District

### Area 1: WEAK LIVENGOOD

Ruby Nasol (incumbent) vs Bob Livengood, ex-mayor of Milpitas.

https://www.boblivengood.com/

https://milpitasbeat.com/bob-livengood-running-for-trustee-on-sjeccd-board/:
> He spoke of students who need such housing because they’re working while attending school, and facing not only stress, but a real risk of poverty and homelessness.
>
> The next issue? “It takes too long for some of these students to get through 2 years. The danger is if they get into college and because of economic hardship, they have to drop out. And it’s difficult to come back… 
> 
> “We’ve got to figure out ways to get these young adults enrolled in our college. That we do everything we can to get them in and out quickly, enrolled in the workforce or into a 4-year university…finding ways to get them through their coursework quicker.
> 
> “Those are the kind of things I think I can help with if I get elected.”

I'm not hella-enthused, but I can't find anything out about Ruby Nasol, so WEAK LIVENGOOD it is.

### Area 7: ALI (over Torres)

#### Aimée Escobar
Occupation: Senior Policy Analyst 
https://www.escobarfortrustee.com/

I like that she has a button on her website labelled "2018-2025 SJECCD Strategic Priorities". However, if it's supposed to be a link it doesn't do anything, so these priorities will remain a mystery.

#### Joseph Scotte Heady-Perez
Occupation: Robotics Manager/Businessman
Or, based on his lack of online profile: A ghost, possibly spooky.

#### Alicia "Ali" Victoria Sapirman (they/them)
Occupation: Covid-19 Relief Navigator 

https://ali4trustee.com/about
https://ali4trustee.com/issues

Generally stuff I'm on-board with, and it seems inconsequential but "they/them" is a strong signal that they'll *get* students better.

#### Omar Torres
Occupation: Community Relations Director 
https://www.omartorres.org/about-me
https://www.omartorres.org/platform

He sees community college as primarily preparing people for employment, which is what it is these days.

I generally like his platform, with is both fairly broad and deep, with one notable exception:

I think he doesn't realize it, but his platform on LGBT is othering and rubs me the wrong way:
> Creating a Supportive Inclusive community
> 
> As a trustee, I will advocate for resources to be allocated to student or faculty-led groups that champion and empower the LGBTQ community and align them with straight allies. These groups often promote advocacy and education for the larger student body and provide an outlet for socializing, finding support and encouragement, and talking about the challenges faced on and off campus. 
> 
> As further statistics and research emerge about the damaging effects of LGBTQ discrimination on school campuses, we must take an active stance against prejudiced behavior. Whether enacting policies and disciplinary protocol for those who engage in this behavior or educating all students about the importance of equal rights for all students. Our district must lead the charge in shifting from thought into action by establishing LGBTQ offices that encourage student advocacy, alumni relations, media awareness, and faculty support.

It's not reassuring that he wants to prioritize LGBT discrimination *"as further statistics and research emerge about the damaging effects of LGBTQ discrimination on school campuses".* You should be against LGBT discrimination because it's wrong and hurtful, not because stats tell you. I think he just doesn't quite get it.