(Ventura County, Ca) Voters across California head to the polls today with decisions on a confusing array of candidates.
If you live in Ventura County and want to obtain a copy of your sample ballot, click here
In the race for U.S. Senate, the list of candidates fills almost 1 whole ballot page with 32 total candidates running for office, including the incumbent, Dianne Feinstein. In conservative circles, Erin Cruz is among the more favored.
In US Congress, four candidates are in the race with two from each party. It is widely believed Antonio Sabato, Jr. will prevail as the Republican candidate with Julia Brownley as the incumbent Democrat.
With the jungle primary for all state races, voters choose the top 2 candidates regardless of party. This means that it is possible to have two candidates from the same party.
Considering the jungle primary and each party’s need to have at least one candidate in the November general election, voters are surprised to see that many races do not have an endorsed candidate from either party.
In the governor’s race, neither of the major parties have an endorsed candidate. Travis Allen is widely seen as the most popular candidate among conservatives. In Democratic circles, Gavin Newsom is believed to be the favored candidate. Twenty-five other candidates appear on the ballot.
For Lieutenant Governor, eleven candidates are named on the ballot with Cole Harris favored among conservatives.
For Secretary of State, Mark Meuser is widely favored in conservative circles and Democrat Alex Padilla likely to succeed to general election.
For Controller Konstantinos Roditis is favored by Conservatives and Betty Yee favored as incumbent.
For Treasurer, Jack Guerrero is expected to be favored among conservatives while Vivek Viswanathan is favored by democrats.
In a critical race for Attorney General, conservatives favor Eric Early while democrats favor Xavier Becerra.
In the race for Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner leads the pack for conservatives and Ricardo Lara is favored for democrats.
In the Board of Equalization seat, conservatives favor G Rick Marshall.
For state assembly of the 44th District, Ronda Baldwin is favored for conservatives and Jacqui Irwin for the democrats.
For state assembly of the 38th district, Incumbent Dante Acosta, a Republican, and Christy Smith, a Democrat, are running.
For state assembly of the 45th district, Justin Clark, the only Republican, and Jesse Gabriel, the favored Democrat, are expected to be the top two. The seat became vacant following Matt Dababneh’s resignation effective January 1, 2018, due to sexual misconduct allegations. He said the allegations against him were not true.
For Judge of the Superior Court, Office No 4, Anthony Sabo is favored among conservatives.
For Judge of the Superior Court, Office No 6, Derek Malan is favored among conservatives.
For State Superintendent, conservatives support Marshall Tuck while democrats support Tony Thurmond.
All other races are unopposed.
Five propositions will also be voted upon across the state.
Proposition 68 is entitled “Authorizes Bonds Funding Parks, Natural Resources Protection, Climate Adaptation, Water Quality and Supply, and Flood.” A YES vote on this measure means: The state could sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to fund various natural resources-related programs such as for habitat conservation, parks, and water-related projects. A NO vote on this measure means: The state could not sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to fund various natural resources- related programs.
The argument against Proposition 68 states, “I’m not here to tell you that addressing drought, water, parks, climate, coastal protection, and outdoor access is wrong. Borrowing for them is wrong. California has enough debt. It has the worst balance sheet of all 50 states. The last thing the State of California needs is more debt.”
The argument in favor of Proposition 68 states, “California faces droughts, wildfires, floods, and other challenges to our water and natural resources. YES ON 68: Invests in natural resources and disaster prevention, cleans up contaminated drinking water, increases local water supplies, provides safe parks for children and future generations. Annual audits ensure accountability.”
Proposition 69 is entitled “Requires That Certain New Transportation Revenues Be Used For Transportation Purposes. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.” A YES vote on this measure means: The Legislature will be required under the State Constitution to continue to spend revenues from recently enacted fuel taxes and vehicle fees on transportation purposes (such as repairing roads and improving transit). A NO vote on this measure means: The Legislature in the future could change current law, allowing it to spend a portion of the revenues from recently enacted fuel taxes and vehicle fees on purposes other than transportation.
The argument against Proposition 69 states, “Sacramento’s broken promises have led to a rundown, outdated, and congested transportation system throughout California. Proposition 69 protects transportation money that will not fix or build any new roads. Proposition 69 fails to protect more than $1 Billion in gas tax revenues. Vote NO on Proposition 69.”
The argument in favor of Proposition 69 states, “Prop. 69 guarantees existing transportation taxes can ONLY be used for transportation improvement projects. It prevents the legislature from redirecting these funds for non-transportation purposes. Prop. 69 protects taxpayers. Does NOT raise taxes.”
Proposition 70 is entitled “Requires Legislative Supermajority Vote Approving Use Of Cap-And-Trade Reserve Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.” A YES vote on this measure means: Beginning on January 1, 2024, revenue collected from the sale of state greenhouse gas emission permits would be deposited into a new special fund. These deposits would continue until the effective date of a bill that spends money from that fund, passed with a two-thirds vote of each house of the Legislature. The current state sales tax exemption for manufacturing and certain other equipment would be suspended during the same period that auction revenue is deposited into the special fund. A NO vote on this measure means: The Legislature could continue to authorize spending state revenue collected from the sale of greenhouse gas emission permits with a majority vote. The current state sales tax exemption for manufacturing and certain other equipment would remain in effect until July 1, 2030.
The argument against Proposition 70 states, “Proposition 70 grew out of an oil industry-backed effort to weaken the state’s premier program to curb harmful air pollution and climate change. It will increase legislative gridlock, hurt public health, and empower anti-environmental special interests.”
The argument in favor of Proposition 70 states, “Proposition 70 is supported By Democrats And Republicans, Labor, Business; And Farmers who want to protect our environment and grow our economy. Forcing a two-thirds legislative vote ensures money is spent wisely for high priority programs that benefit all Californians and that it is not diverted for pet projects.”
Proposition 71 is entitled “Sets Effective Date For Ballot Measures. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.” A YES vote on this measure means: Most state ballot measures (also called propositions) would take effect after the statewide vote has been counted and certified—about six weeks after Election Day. A NO vote on this measure means: Most state ballot measures would continue to take effect the day after Election Day.
The argument against Proposition 71 states, “Although surely well-intended, Proposition 71 is unnecessary and would prevent future ballot measures from (retroactively) taking effect “the day after the election” as is currently permitted by the California Constitution. Sometimes it is important that changes in the law made by voters apply as soon as possible.”
The argument in favor of Proposition 71 states, “Proposition 71 will prevent confusion over implementation dates for ballot measures in future elections. Currently, measures are effective the day after the election, unless otherwise specified. Proposition 71 will provide a clear point at which measures shall be effective, eliminating confusion when election outcomes have yet to be certified.”
Proposition 72 is entitled “Permits legislature to exclude newly constructed rain-capture systems from property-tax reassessment requirement. Legislative constitutional amendment.” A YES vote on this measure means: Installing a system to collect and store rainwater on a property could not result in a higher property tax bill. A NO vote on this measure means: Installing a system to collect and store rainwater on a property could result in a higher property tax bill.
The argument against Proposition 72 was not submitted.
The argument in favor of Proposition 72 states, “Proposition 72 will prevent a property tax increase on homeowners who install rainwater recycling systems that benefit our entire state. Eliminating this tax penalty will preserve precious drinking water; help fish and wildlife; lower water bills. People shouldn’t pay a tax penalty for conserving water. Yes on Proposition 72.”