I'm working from an absentee ballot labeled:

Your ballot may differ. Mine asks me to vote on Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, State Controller, State Treasurer, State Attorney General, State Insurance Commissioner, Member, State Board of Equalization for District 1, United States Senator, United States Representative, and Member of the State Assembly; on the other side is Judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court, Superintendent of Public Instruction, County Superintendent of Schools, Member, County Board of Supervisors, 2nd Supervisorial District, Member, County Board of Supervisors, 3rd Supervisorial District, County Assessor - County Clerk - Recorder, County Controller, County Coroner, County District Attorney, County Sheriff, County Treasurer - Tax Collector, Proposition 81, and Proposition 82.

---

GOVERNOR

We've got eight choices for Governor. Yay primaries!

My friends over at Speak Out CA have been talking about Phil Angelides a lot, and I like what they say he says. The Guardian endorses Angelides, but their argument is largely about Arnold. This SacBee article from 2005 tells me more about the man -- most of which I like -- while this more recent article largely debunks an attack ad by Steve Westly. I hate attack ads.

My vote (unless something changes my mind): Phil Angelides

---

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR

Whew, only three of these: Jackie Speier, who apparently represents me now; John Garamendi; and Liz Figueroa, who apparently doesn't have a Wikipedia article about her.

SFBG likes Speier, with Figueroa as a close second only because "...her campaign is lagging...." The reason that jumps out at me is that Speier is a consumer advocate and has been focused on privacy, which I always like to see (except when someone is flat-out wrong, which we'll get to in the next section.) A recent SacBee article only serves to show that any of these three have merit, but I'm leaning towards Speier for now.

My vote (unless something changes my mind): Jackie Speier

---

SECRETARY OF STATE

Two state senators are running for this one: Deborah V. Ortiz and Debra Bowen. Time for a sidebar.

My first real involvement with California politics was in 1998, when I put on a suit and tied my long brown hair into a pony tail and drove East to Sacramento to lobby the California Senate Commerce Committee on behalf of the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. I was there, along with Bill Woodcock (representing the Packet Clearing House) and some kook representing the now-dead Forum for Responsible and Ethical E-mail, to speak against Assembly Bill 1676, introduced by Debra Bowen. We failed; it passed anyway.

While this bill is now heralded as the first step towards stopping spam, we can all see what effect it had: it required "ADV" in the Subject: line (or "ADV:ADLT" for adult content), a toll-free phone number recipients could call to be removed, and the removal had to be honored. The law was challenged in Ferguson v. Friendfinders, Inc., but was upheld in 2001. It said nothing about permission, and had no teeth to speak of. Unlike other bills, most spammers didn't even bother to pretend to comply with it.

I didn't like Debra Bowen very much after that experience. I didn't like politics much either -- I came away from the experience feeling dirty, and almost immediately dyed my long hair blue (didn't realize until afterwards that one of my reasons for doing so was to avoid having to be further involved in politics.) But it seems that Bowen learned from the experience, too, because in 2002 she introduced another bill to do pretty much exactly what we'd all told her the previous law was lacking: it required opt-in (rather than begging to be removed after the deluge starts), and had actual teeth. But it also held ISPs legally responsible for mail their customers send, apparently assuming that ISPs are able to read through every message to decide whether to pass it on to the addressed recipient or not. Because of this, most of the industry was against the bill -- but she only attacked Microsoft (where I was working at the time), accusing the company of being in cahoots with spammers.

Microsoft may be evil in all sorts of ways, but this isn't one of them. That part of her bill was a bad idea; it would have required ISPs to either engage in direct censorship or stop offering e-mail services to consumers.

So, I still don't like Debra Bowen very much. In both instances, while she was trying to do something good, she listened to the wrong people and came to the wrong conclusions. Oh, and made my life more difficult in the process.

But, does her poor judgement regarding e-mail & spam disqualify her for California Secretary of State? In recent years, that position has been focused on elections issues -- certifying and/or uncertifying Diebold's insecure voting machines, for example. And on that particular issue, Debra Bowen has (as far as I can tell) been doing the right things: she leads the Senate Elections Committee, and differs from Deborah Ortiz and Republican appointed incumbent Bruce McPherson in that she does not think Diebold machines should be used in this upcoming election.

Elections reform -- starting with technological & procedural review -- is a hot-button issue for me, even more than spam (because solving spam requires long-term widespread social change; see all these articles for some hints.) So I think I'm going to have to hold my nose and vote for Debra Bowen, hoping all the while that she'll continue getting smarter on the other, less immediately urgent issues. And, as my pal jwb says, electing her to Secretary of State would get her out of the Legislature.

My vote (unless something changes my mind, which I wish it would but don't think it will): Debra Bowen

---

CONTROLLER

Okay, first question: what the hell does the Controller do? SFBG, which can always be counted upon for the cynical view of any government position, says "It's a powerful post, entailing the authority to conduct audits of state agencies and operations and a seat on the Board of Equalization and the Lands Commission. It's also a job that offers good political exposure without the downside of visible controversy." The State Controller's own web site says "The Controller is the state’s independent fiscal watchdog, providing sound fiscal control over more than $100 billion in receipts and disbursements of public funds a year, offering fiscal guidance to local governments and uncovering fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars." So why isn't the Controller more visible? Sounds like he or she should be out there rampaging against fiscal irresponsibility, an old west sheriff with a calculator.

This year we're choosing between Joe Dunn, who styles himself "the man who cracked Enron" (not to be confused with this other Joe Dunn) and John Chiang (not to be confused with this other John Chiang.)

I gotta tell 'ya, "the man who cracked Enron" is a powerful slogan. SFBG agrees, and gives Dunn the nod. Dunn also represented California (under Gray Davis) in the suit against Big Tobacco. In a recent SacBee article, "Dunn says that as controller he would continue his investigations, using the office's audit power to keep watch over state departments and spending. He would restore auditing staff lost due to recent budget cuts, and would analyze the efficacy of programs such as enterprise zones, underdeveloped areas where companies are lured by tax breaks." (This will surely turn my libertarian friends against him, but that's to be expected.) Clearly, Joe Dunn fits my mostly-unrealistic vision of what a Controller should be.

Chiang seems more subtle. In that same article, he says "he has sponsored numerous bills that have been signed into law, such as one allowing businesses to file taxes electronically. He has emphasized taxpayer education, expanding programs to teach Californians what kind of taxes they owe and to collect taxes from independent contractors such as construction workers. He says he is also one of the only elected officials to provide free income-tax assistance." He's also quoted as saying "The controller is the state's chief financial officer. It's time for more than a politician. It's time for someone who has fiscal experience."

My vote: undecided for now. I like both of 'em, for different reasons.

---

TREASURER

The only Democrat in the primaries is current Attorney General Bill Lockyer. No point to a write-in, so I'll wait and do my research in a few months.

My vote: Bill Lockyer

---

ATTORNEY GENERAL

First time I ever voted was in the 1992 primaries -- I was seventeen, but was allowed to vote in the primaries in Maryland as long as I'd be 18 by the time of the election -- and I had a hard time deciding between Jerry Brown and Paul Tsongas. I actually can't remember which of them I voted for. But I've kept an eye on Jerry since then, and lived in Oakland for most of the time he's been Mayor.

My only question is what he'd do as Attorney General. Does he want it simply to stay in politics, or will he actually fit well into the role? Wikipedia answers that to my satisfaction. As Secretary of State in the early seventies, he brought "...suits against corporations such as Standard Oil of California, International Telephone and Telegraph, Gulf Oil, and Mobil for violation of campaign-finance laws..." and "...enforced laws requiring members of the California State Legislature to disclose sources of campaign funds...."

Though he's often accused of contributing to Oakland's gentrification, I think those accusers are forgetting what a big and diverse city Oakland is. I lived just off High Street for a year, and I've got friends who own a house in West Oakland. These aren't gentrifying neighborhoods. Temescal and the area surrounding Lake Merritt are wonderful examples of cultural diversity. Sure, Rockridge has become the place where hip San Franciscans go to spawn, but is that so bad?

(Have I mentioned that I love Oakland?)

My vote: Jerry Brown

---

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

I voted for Cruz Bustamante for goveror in 2003, but it was really a vote against Arnold Schwarzenegger and the recall in general. But he's the one getting all the press; John Kraft is barely there, and his hard-to-find web site scares the fuck out of me.

Yet, the SFBG reports that "Bustamante has taken thousands of dollars in contributions from insurance-industry interests." And this while his opponent claims to work in the insurance industry. I guess I'll vote for Bustamante now because he appears to be the only real candidate in this primary, but I'm much more likely to vote for scraggly Berkeley leftie Tom Condit in the general election.

My vote (reluctantly): Cruz Bustamante

---

MEMBER, STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
DISTRICT 1

Acting incumbent Betty T. Yee is the only Democrat running.

My vote: Betty T. Yee

---

UNITED STATES SENATOR

Can't say I'm much of a fan of DiFi, but she wields a lot of the Democrats' power inside the beltway -- and we cannot lose that right now. Hopefully we can retire her after 2008, though.

My vote (due to purely short-term concerns): Dianne Feinstein

---

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE

The only choice in my district is incumbent Anna Eshoo. Far as I can tell, she's been doing a good job of representing the 14th District...but since nobody else is running...*shrug*.

My vote: Anna G. Eshoo

---

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY

Incumbent Ira Ruskin running unapposed.

My vote: Ira Ruskin

---

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, OFFICE NO. 11

And on the other side of the ballot, the first of the nonpartison offices. I've always been torn on elected judges: how can they be fair when they're about to run for re-election? But how could they be fair if they're appointed by elected officials? Judgin' ain't easy.

Lisa Maguire grew up here, and has her own law practice in Redwood City; she's endorsed by (among others) the judge she'd be replacing. I like the simplicity of her web site and her message, focusing on endorsements and links to voter information rather than campaigning.

By contrast, Susan Etezadi's web site, while ugly, is clearly focused on campaigning. Her focus is, in short, "look at how many cases I've tried!" -- but this doesn't give me any sense of whether she'd be a fair judge.

My vote (unless something changes my mind): Lisa Maguire

---

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

I'm not a parent and never attended school in California, so it's difficult for me to figure out who to vote for here. My dear friend Susie is a teacher in San Francisco, and her parents are both retired teachers, so I tend to look to her for advice. Perhaps she'll comment.

In the meantime, perusing the SmartVoter page gives me some ideas. Retired School Superintendent Daniel L. Bunting and incumbent Jack O'Connell appear to favor heavy testing, which any student or teacher will tell you is just plain dumb. Dianne Lenning goes even further, and supports the Orwellian-named No Child Left Behind.

That leaves teachers Grant McKicken -- I like his First Step document -- and Sarah Knopp. Knopp is clearly a progressive (perhaps even socialist) activist, and I like her for that -- but her platform seems to be made up of protest signs, rather than actual initiatives.

My vote (unless something changes my mind): Grant McKicken

---

COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Jean Holbrook's stated occupation is "Appointed Incumbent." I hope that shows a sense of humor.

My vote: Jean Holbrook

---

MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
2ND SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT

The only person on the ballot is incumbent Jerry Hill.

My vote: Jerry Hill

---

MEMBER, BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
3RD SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT

This one is more interesting. Running against mustachioed incumbent Richard Gordon are Libertarian inventor Jack Hickey (who says that "government actions hinder the formation of a natural continuum") and Green activist Jo Chamberlain.

While Hickey's writings are amusing, and I've long thought that Libertarians should be forced to live in the world they're asking for, I'm not a Libertarian and don't want to live in that world (or even that county) myself. Interestingly, according to the San Mateo Daily Journal he got nearly 30% of the vote the last time he ran against Gordon (who was already an incumbent.)

Chamberlain's platform involves public transportation (which I agree is inadequate in San Mateo County, except for Caltrain), protecting the coast (she'd be the only coastal resident on the board), and district elections rather than all seats being county-wide. And since this is a local, theoretically non-partisan position, a Green (or even a Libertarian) can attract a noticable chunk of the voters.

My vote: Jo Chamberlain

---

ASSESSOR - COUNTY CLERK - RECORDER

Incumbent.

My vote: Warren Slocum

---

CONTROLLER

Incumbent.

My vote: Tom Huening

---

CORONER

Incumbent, and it doesn't seem like the kind of job that'd attract many challengers.

My vote: Robert Foucrault

---

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

Incumbent.

My vote: James P. Fox

---

SHERIFF

Wow, Gregory Munks is not an incumbent! But he's the current Undersheriff (wacky title), and he's still the only person running. Oh, and look, the second search result shows that he donated to the Bush campaign in 1999.

My vote: leaving it blank

---

TREASURER - TAX COLLECTOR

Incumbent.

My vote: Lee Buffington

---

PROPOSITION 81
CALIFORNIA READING AND LITERACY IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC LIBRARY CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF 2006.

SFBG says it simply: "Proposition 81 would allow the state to issue $600 million in bonds to build, upgrade, and improve public libraries. It's hard to think of a single reason not to vote yes." Hmm...how about the need to pay back those bonds in the future? Though I suppose $600,000,000 isn't much money to California these days. Arnold could raise that by sneezing at dinner.

As usual, SmartVoter explains further: "...in order to receive a state grant a local agency must provide 35 percent of the project cost." So if San Mateo County wants a new bookshelf, they have to put up 35% before the state will pay the rest. This means the richer counties will, as usual, have a better chance of building better libraries than poorer counties.

Also as usual, the official argument against the proposition can be summarized as "spending money is bad!" with an undercurrent of hysteria. But they're not entirely wrong.

As I stated at the beginning (long, long ago), I like to take a long-term view. And for this one, it has to be a very long term view. Any bond measure will cost the state (and us residents) over the next few decades, but the continued decline in literacy (and simultaneous increase in truthiness) will fuck things up for generations.

My vote (unless something changes my mind): no -- changed May 27 due to comment below

---

PROPOSITION 82
PRESCHOOL EDUCATION. TAX ON INCOMES OVER $400,000 FOR INDIVIDUALS; $800,000 FOR COUPLES. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.

Whee. I'd rather fix the tax system by fixing it, rather than attempting to plug loopholes that only the extremely wealthy can afford by imposing new taxes for extremely wealthy folks to find loopholes in. And I'd rather fix the education system by...hell, I don't know, but a wholistic fix seems better than one controversial chunk of cash at a time.

Over at SmartVoter, the official argument against prop 82 says the new program "will only increase enrollment by four or five percent." As I search for the source of this statistic, it seems that almost all of the articles seem to focus on polls, rather than digging out the facts. *sigh*

Somewhat hidden in the debate is a requirement that pre-school teachers have (or be actively working towards) Bachelors degrees.

Aha! The analysis by the legislative analyst says "Survey data suggest that 62 percent of the state’s 4-year olds attend some kind of center-based program prior to attending kindergarten." She goes on to say that "Reports from other states that have implemented voluntary public preschool programs suggest that as many as 70 percent of California's 4-year olds many opt to participate in the program over the long run. ... Combining both private and public preschool expected participation rates, the percent of 4-year-olds attending center-based preschool may increase to as high as 80 percent statewide."

4-5% (as the opponents claim) ain't much, but 8-18% is a lot of kids who'll learn from an early age that 8 is more than 5.

My vote: undecided, leaning towards yes

---

And that's it! Whew. Only took me about five hours.

Thanks for reading this far, and please do comment. For this article, I'll approve any comment that isn't off-topic or deliberately insulting. Even so, I'd appreciate it if you'd include links to support whatever point you're trying to make.