San Jose Mercury News

✔ Tom Campbell

US Senator (R) in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:01PM.

✔ Dave Jones

Insurance Commissoner (D) in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:02PM.

✔ Yes

Proposition 13: Seismic Retrofitting in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:10PM.

✘ No

Proposition 17: Auto Insurance in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:12PM.

✘ No

"To understand what's wrong with California's initiative process, all you need to do is look at Proposition 16 on the June 8 ballot. This outrageous measure is funded by more than $25 million from PG&E, and its sole purpose is to protect PG&E profits. Voters must say no. If they do, it will show what's right with the initiative process — and it could discourage other corporations from spending millions on transparently self-serving initiatives that in no way serve the public interest. Proposition 16 is a constitutional amendment that would require local governments to win the approval of two-thirds of voters before providing electricity to residents through a local utility, as Santa Clara does, or instituting a "community choice" program. PG&E calls it the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act, arguing that, though many cities do hold elections to decide whether to get into the power business, citizens should be constitutionally guaranteed a say. In reality, PG&E's initiative would quash any such proposal. Requiring a two-thirds majority would discourage public officials fromeven attempting this kind of vote, especially in the face of a massive PG&E spending blitz. This isn't just conjecture. In Sacramento in 2006 and San Francisco in 2008, PG&E's deep pockets enabled it to defeat simple-majority ballot measures that would have allowed or expanded municipal utilities. Government officials now know Advertisement Click here to find out more! they'd have no chance against PG&E if the threshold were raised to two-thirds, allowing a small minority to block the change. PG&E is capitalizing on mistrust of government and trying to convince voters that up is down. The company's CEO, Peter Darbee, essentially admitted as much in a March 1 meeting with shareholders. Asked why the company was sponsoring the initiative, Darbee referred to the 2006 battle in which it spent more than $11 million to prevent Davis, Woodland and West Sacramento from defecting to the Sacramento Municipal Utility District. "So it was really a decision about could we greatly diminish this kind of activity for all going forward rather than spending $10 (million) to $15 million a year of your money to invest in this," Darbee told the shareholders. "The answer was yes." If that wasn't proof of the cynical intent of Proposition 16, look at the state finance reports: Not a single organization or person other than PG&E has contributed a penny to the campaign. PG&E has said it will spend as much as $35 million to pass the measure. The organized opposition, lacking a wealthy backer, has raised about $20,000. If Darbee is looking for a cheaper way to hold onto his customers, here's a suggestion: Instead of spending tens of millions of ratepayer dollars on political campaigns, PG&E could use that money to lower rates and find more sources of renewable energy — the main reasons cities consider breaking away in the first place. But don't hold your breath. And don't miss the opportunity to send PG&E an unequivocal message by ignoring the barrage of misleading advertising and voting no on Proposition 16. The constitution of the state of California should not be for sale. "

Proposition 16: Public Electricity in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:09PM.

✔ Yes

"Voters are fed up with the ineffectiveness of their elected representatives. And yet few realize that our political system perpetuates the dysfunction — rewarding those who stake out extreme ideological positions rather than encouraging pragmatic solutions to complex problems. Proposition 14 on the June 8 ballot would create a "top-two" primary system to help reverse those incentives. If it passes, all candidates for statewide office and Congress, regardless of party, will appear on the same primary ballot. Voters of all persuasions will choose among them, like they do in most local elections. The top two finishers will appear on the November ballot, even if they turn out to be from the same party. The result, we believe, will be a broader electorate choosing more results-oriented representatives — people who respond to the needs of all constituents, not just the small slice who dominate primary elections. California had open primaries in 1998 and 2000 after the adoption of Proposition 198. According to a study by the reform group California Forward, those elections had higher turnouts, and voters felt they were more fair and offered more choice. "Budgets were more often passed on time and there were more bipartisan coalitions," the study said. A few moderate legislators from both parties were sent to Sacramento in those years. One of them, Republican Abel Maldonado, says he wouldn't have survived a typical Republican primary. Now a senator, he forced the Democratic leadership in Sacramento to put the open primary back on the ballot in exchange for his vote on the budget last year. The U.S. Supreme Court had struck down Proposition 198 in 2000, saying the two political parties have a right to choose their own nominees. Proposition 14 is modeled after a system used in Washington, which the Court upheld because it does not specifically select party nominees. This spring, the Republican primary for governor shows much of what's wrong with the current system. Candidates Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman once were regarded as moderates, but they have raced to the right to get the nomination. Voters in November will just have to guess what the GOP nominee really believes. Proposition 14 would end that ridiculous game. Successful candidates would have to appeal to the broadest number of voters, not the most extreme. The top-two primary system is opposed by both major parties, since it would diminish their power. They also say it would exclude third parties from the general election — but the only member of the Green Party ever sent to the Assembly, Audie Bock of Oakland, was elected after an open primary. One of Proposition 14's strongest supporters is the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, whose CEO members — Democrats and Republicans — ranked its passage among their top priorities. They worry that California's dysfunction will further erode the state's competitiveness. No one, not even Maldonado, believes Proposition 14 will quickly change Sacramento. But combined with the citizens' redistricting process now under way, it should help promote problem-solving over rigid partisanship. Vote yes."

Proposition 14: "Open"/ "Top Two" Primaries in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:06PM.

✔ Yes

"YES Proposition 15, the initiative on the June ballot to publicly finance the 2014 and 2018 campaigns for secretary of state, won't eliminate the influence of money in politics. It's a small step in the right direction, however — and if it's successful, it could lead to much-needed broader campaign finance reform. Vote yes. The problems with the existing system are well-chronicled. Candidates spend so much time fundraising that they don't have time to talk to voters. Politicians become so beholden to contributors that they can't — or won't — do what's right for constituents. Proposition 15 is a pilot project that attempts to remove the corrupting influence of money in one race. Given that the secretary of state oversees elections, it's a good place to start. Democratic and Republican candidates would have to show broad support by collecting 7,500 $5 contributions. In return, they'd get at least $1 million for the primary and $1.3 million for the general election. And they could receive up to $4 million for the primary and $5.2 million for the general to match a candidate who declines public financing and its limits — think Meg Whitman — or for counterattacks against independent groups. The money to do this would come from a $350 annual fee on lobbyists, who are regulated by the secretary of state. The plan includes provisions to accommodate minor-party candidates as well as tight restrictions Good-government groups like Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are behind the proposition. They hope the method of financing is so successful that it's expanded to include other offices, further reducing special-interest power. In other states with public financing, voters and politicians strongly support it. Opponents of the initiative, primarily lobbyists who would lose business if it becomes law, admit campaign finance reform is needed, just not this way. But they have no ideas of their own, and some of their arguments against Proposition 15 are misleading. They suggest that public financing could attract fringe candidates. But that hasn't happened in other states. They say the fact that candidates could raise some private money if there were a shortfall in state funding negates the effect of the reform. That's silly. The potential for corruption would still be reduced. And — exploiting a hot-button issue — they keep repeating that it "raises taxes." Not true. The $350 fee affects only registered lobbyists; no one else pays a dime. The Legislature would need to find another source of revenue to expand this to other races. But it can't impose a new tax or approve a budget without a two-thirds vote. Even then, taxpayers would not end up paying more: Publicly financed campaigns in other states have saved taxpayers millions by limiting special-interest influence. In Connecticut, for example, lawmakers last year reformed the state's bottle recycling program, requiring recyclers to return millions in unclaimed deposits to the state, rather than keeping it for themselves. The changes had been proposed for years, but they were approved only after public financing was introduced. Proposition 15 authors spent years studying how the strengths and flaws of other states' systems would relate to a big state like California. What they've proposed will make government more accountable to people, not special interests. There's no doubt that this is worth trying. Vote yes on Proposition 15. "

Proposition 15: CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 6:08PM.

✔ Meg Whitman

"As we've watched and talked with both of them, we've concluded that Whitman has the better chance of providing fresh leadership and keeping the state focused on what must be its core priorities: rebuilding the economy and our system of education. We say "chance" because we don't really know Whitman. The former eBay CEO has just recently begun having unscripted conversations with editorial boards and reporters; voters mostly have seen just the image she has chosen to present in more than $60 million worth of campaigning so far — much of it spent on mean-spirited attacks against Poizner. While she is the better choice for the GOP, she has a ways to go to show she's capable of governing. We thought we knew Poizner. We still admire his success as an entrepreneur and his volunteer teaching stint at an East San Jose high school. He has been a good insurance commissioner. But the man we supported in both his previous bids for public office has become a stranger in this campaign. On many issues, Whitman's positions are only marginally different from Poizner's. But it's a margin that leaves room for independents and moderates — including us — to feel more comfortable with her. Her statements on immigration are less inflammatory; she is less likely than Poizner to encourage the anti-immigrant fervor that is poison to California. She has reservations about AB 32 and would re-examine the details — but she told us she believes California should continue to be a leader on environmental and energy standards, and she has a personal history of supporting environmental causes. We believe she would be a better steward of the environment and would promote better policies, green and otherwise, for California's economy "

Governor (R) in California Primary on May 23, 2010 at 5:59PM.