User Login
User Name:
Password:
log in | create new account
Navigation
Home
News
Nancy's Picks
Copyright Nancy Sandoval, 2004. WebDesign by Scott Bailey.
  VotePick:
Vote Picks - New VotePicks
Written By:
Nancy Sandoval



Printer Friendly Version
Introduction
THE NEXT ELECTION IS JUNE, 2018, WHICH IS THE MID-TERM PRIMARIES.

I will research and be making CONSERVATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS available 3-4 weeks prior to that election. PLEASE CHECK BACK at that time.

For those NEW to my RECOMMENDATIONS, I am leaving my site up w/ NOV 8, 2016 RECOMMENDATIONS to historically peruse and evaluate my political philosophy
__________________________________________________

RESULTS OF NOV 8 ELECTION ARE COMPLETE: Scroll down to view, next to recommendations.

NOV 8, 2016 GENERAL ELECTION
EMAIL: NancysPicks12@yahoo.com
By: Nancy Sandoval

Thank you for visiting NANCYSPICKS.COM, the Orange County Ballot Recommendations site for over 20 years to assist the CONSERVATIVE VOTER, who is too busy to research ALL the candidates and issues.

SUGGESTION: DO NOT VOTE EARLY! Be patient! Often pertinent information does not come out until late in campaign. If you VOTE-BY-MAIL, wait and complete & mail ballot a few days before NOV 8.

FYI: Research is done from a CONSERVATIVE/BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW PERSPECTIVE (fiscal & social), looking for candidates/issues that BEST support LIMITED GOVERNMENT, LESS TAXES, PERSONAL FREEDOM, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, PARENTAL RIGHTS, PRO-LIFE, PRO-FAMILY, PRO-2ND AMENDMENT, PRO-BUSINESS, SECURE BORDERS, EDUCATIONAL CHOICE, PROPERTY RIGHTS, and CANDIDATES that STRONGLY ADHERE to the US CONSTITUTION, ETC.

REGISTER TO VOTE: Deadline is Oct 24 to vote in Nov.
Note: If you moved, you NEED to re-register. Unsure? Re-register.
Go to: OCVote.com/registration

TO VOTE-BY-MAIL: Fill out form that comes w/your sample ballot.
OR GO TO: OCVote.com/Vote-by-Mail to make request. Vote-by-Mail Registration Deadline is November 1st

WANT TO DO YOUR OWN BALLOT RESEARCH?
RobynNordell.com: a simple, yet phenomenal 1-Stop site w/tons of links to cut your research time. Spending just a SHORT time on her site can make you a well informed voter. She also posts her own recommendations, and links to others, including mine.

Other helpful sites:
CAVoterGuide.org
ComparePartyPlatforms
CatholicVote.org
Ballotpedia.org
OCVote.com
SmartVoter.org
ElectionForum.org
OCTeaPartyPropRecommendations
ConservativeCraigAlexandersVoteRecommendations
KathyDittnersBallotRecommendations

Live in San Diego County? CarlDemaioRecommendations


FINAL NOTE: I have VIRTUALLY completed my Ballot Recommendations. There are a few, "RESEARCHING. Check back", so DO check back for those. I'm still researching. But MOST OC Ballots should be complete. This has been the MOST grueling Ballot Recommendations to complete EVER! I pray my work helped to make YOU a more informed voter. -Nancy

Offices:
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
PRESIDENT OF UNITED STATES DONALD TRUMP and MIKE PENCE (Results: TRUMP/PENCE WON! TRUMP 290 vs 270 Elect Votes, Whoo-Hoo!)
REASONS WHY I'M VOTING for, and recommending DONALD TRUMP/MIKE PENCE:

NOTE: Many have asked recently, if I am staying with TRUMP after the latest revelations. While I am disappointed, and so not "thrilled" w/ them, it DOES NOT make me want to change my POTUS recommendation, most notably for the SUPREME COURT. As stated below, "I'm much more bothered by WHAT HILLARY HAS DONE, than by WHAT TRUMP HAS SAID." We have very flawed candidates, but HILLARY tips the scale so much more heavily, as compared to TRUMP.

I'm NOT voting for TRUMP because of his character. I'm voting for him because of his direction he has for America.


--THE SUPREME COURT: The US Supreme Court is THE No 1 MOST IMPORTANT REASON I support DONALD TRUMP. The next president will select up to 4 SUPREME COURT JUSTICES in the coming yrs. TRUMP has already announced 11 candidates from which he will choose. I researched ALL of them! They are NOT just "good", they are "EXCELLENT"!!! All are strict CONSTITUTIONALISTS!

--TRUMP CAN'T be "BOUGHT"! He doesn't NEED the job or the money.

--TRUMP has chosen an EXCELLENT conservative Vice Presidential running mate, MIKE PENSE.

--TRUMP'S strong stance on SECURING OUR BORDERS. US citizens DESERVE this!

--TRUMP'S strong stance on vetting immigrants: The US takes in more immigrants than ANY other nation, and WE SHOULD, as God has richly blessed us. But American citizens should be kept SAFE w/CAREFUL VETTING before accepting immigrants.

--TRUMP'S strong stance to REPEAL the FAILED healthcare system, OBAMACARE.

--TRUMP is NOT part of the disappointing WASHINGTON ESTABLISHMENT!

--TRUMP is PRO-LIFE, though he has "evolved" into this position.

--TRUMP is a 2nd Amendment supporter. Has NRA endorsement.

--TRUMP'S OUTSPOKENNESS: I'm more more bothered by WHAT HILLARY HAS DONE, than by WHAT TRUMP HAS SAID. (NOTE: Winston Churchill and George Patton were both gruff and outspoken, but good leaders for their time.)

--TRUMP opposes the Federal Government's COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, saying schools and its standards should remain LOCAL.

--TRUMP’S CHILDREN: TRUMP'S children prove to be all accomplished individuals and show great respect for their dad. ONE CAN'T FAKE GOOD KIDS!

--PRESIDENTIAL CHOICES: DONALD TRUMP was not my first choice, but we NOW only have 2 VIABLE choices. One will win! Voting for a 3rd party candidate is a wasted vote, and is really a vote for Clinton! I haven't been so much a TRUMP fan, as an ANTI-HILLARY foe. However, I have greatly come to appreciate the AGENDA, TRUMP has laid out for the US, one that will RESTORE the UNITED STATES to being a STRONG LEADER of the FREE WORLD.

--TRUMP (on 9-23) received the endorsement of Conservative SENATORS RICK SANTORUM (PA) & TED CRUZ (TX). They, too, understand the "HARM of HILLARY".


"THE HARM OF HILLARY":
--HILLARY'S Supreme Court nominees, contrary to TRUMP'S will be like her, LIBERAL PROGRESSIVES. If she were to win, it MAY be impossible for our country, founded on Judeo/Christian values, to recover. She says in regard to biblical standards, including Christians who oppose ABORTION, "Religious beliefs. . . have to be CHANGED". Click her to view: YouTubeHillarysOwnWords

--HER NEGATIVES ARE STAGGERING and are:
Her series of dishonesty and lying dating all the way back to when Bill was president, her Secretary of State (SOS) Benghazi leadership failures and lies related to it, as SOS, having an ILLEGAL email server, and her BAD JUDGEMENT in using that ILLEGAL SERVER, which put the US in SERIOUS SECURITY RISK (& still a concern), her 33,000 emails that were "MYSTERIOUSLY ERASED" and acid-washed, her part in the foolish and dangerous deal while SOS, that the US made with IRAN, allowing IRAN to "spit" on the US, her acceptance of INFLUENCE MONEY by way of both Bill/Hillary receiving ENORMOUS speaking fees from FOREIGN COUNTRIES (they are not that gifted speakers to warrant 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS/speech. Hmm, what are these countries REALLY seeking?), Bill/Hillary's questionable, at best, if not illegal, CLINTON FOUNDATION (btw, only 10% of the foundation funds go to "CHARITABLY CAUSES"), 90% of the CLINTON'S' personal charitable giving has gone to THEIR OWN "CLINTON FOUNDATION" (like donating to themselves!), her involvement in RUSSIA obtaining 20% of US's uranium, her lack of disclosure on that deal in violation of an ethics agreement w/the Obama Admin, her lack of disclosure & violation to the same agreement on 1,100 donors to the CLINTON FOUNDATION from FOREIGN countries, Bill/Hillary's use of the IRS as WEAPONS against critics, BILL/HILLARY'S trashing of the White House when BILL left the White House, her staunch PRO-ABORTION stance, whether in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd trimester, etc, etc, etc.

An additional interesting fact to note: The CLINTON'S net worth is now $150 million, all gained in 15 yrs since BILL CLINTON left office. Hmmmm!

There are tons more to report, but let's just leave it that HILLARY CLINTON is "ENORMOUSLY DISHONEST"! I used to cringe when TRUMP called her "CROOKED HILLARY", but after doing so much research into her background, I found out, TRUMP IS RIGHT!
US SENATE for CA NO RECOMMENDATION (*or SANCHEZ, see comment below)
Results (as of 11-9-16): KAMALA HARRIS WON, 62.5%

For US Senate, it almost doesn't matter which of the 2 you vote for.

Both KAMALA HARRIS and LORETTA SANCHEZ are very liberal Democrats, hardly indistinguishable.

*I am giving a "NO RECOMMENDATION", but I personally will be voting for LORETTA SANCHEZ because she is the weaker candidate. In 6 yrs, if she were to run for re-election, I think she could more easily be beaten, if the REPUBLICANS had a strong contender, like say, CONDOLEZZA RICE?

Two Democrats running for the same office is the result of CA PROP 14 being approved by voters in 2010, which allowed the top 2 candidates in the primaries to advance to the General Election, regardless of party affiliation. I recommended a "NO" in 2010, believing it would be big mistake, and it is!




US PRESENTATIVE - 38th DIST - IS OUT OF NUMERICAL ORDER.

See after after US REPRESENTATIVE -49th Dist. I'm tech-challenged, and can't fix it easily.
US REPRESENTATIVE - 39th DIST ED ROYCE (Results: ROYCE WON, 60%)
ED ROYCE has been a consistent CONSERVATIVE in Congress
US REPRESENTATIVE - 45th DIST MIMI WALTERS (Results: WALTERS WON, 59.5%)
US REPRESENTATIVE - 46th DIST LOU CORREA (Results: CORREA WON, 70.2%)
This is a weak recommendation as both candidates are Democrats. However, my research indicates LOU CORREA is more moderate. Do NOT vote BAO NGUYEN, who is an EXTREME liberal.
US REPRESENTATIVE - 47th DIST ANDREW WHALLON (R) (Results: WHALLON LOST, 47.1%)
ANDREW WHALLON is a fiscal Conservative, running an uphill battle against an incumbent. Uncertain of his social conservatism. He supports the REPEAL of Obamacare, strongly supports a balanced budget, and is a constitutionalist. He has won the endorsement of the Republican Parties of both Los Angeles and Orange Counties, and many respected conservatives. TELL ALL YOU KNOW in 47th to VOTE WHALLON!
US REPRESENTATIVE - 48th DIST DANA ROHRABACHER (R) (Results: ROHRABACHER WON, 58.8)
Solid, consistent Conservative. On all the conservative sites that track votes, ROHRABACHER scores always as one of the highest.
US REPRESENTATIVE - 49th DIST DARRELL ISSA (R) (Results: ISSA WON, 60.8%)
ISSA's voting record has received some criticism from conservatives on some of his votes in the past. But, overall, and on all of the most critical issues, he has been a reliable, consistent conservative vote.

US REPRESENTATIVE - 38th DIST (Out of numerical order) RYAN DOWNING (R) (Results: DOWNING LOST, 46%)
RYAN DOWNING is the best of those on the ballot, running an uphill battle against very liberal, LINDA SANCHEZ, the sister of US Senate candidate, LORETTA SANCHEZ.
STATE GOVERNMENT:
STATE SENATOR - 29TH DIST LING LING CHANG (R) (Final Results: NEWMAN WON, CHANG Lost by 2,498 votes)
Chang is a fiscal conservative, but not a social one. HOWEVER, she is the best on the ballot.

And, IT IS CRITICAL REPUBLICANS RETAIN THIS SEAT to keep the Democratic majority from having run-away votes, 2/3 majority. The Democrats are only one seat shy of attaining this status in the upper chamber, a distinction that would allow DEMS to raise taxes and rewrite rules, unhindered by Republican objections. So, for the 29th, a CHANG VICTORY IS CRUCIAL!
STATE SENATOR - 37TH DIST JOHN MOORLACH (R) - (Results: MOORLACH WON, 58%)
Incumbent State Senator JOHN MOORLACH is "THE BEST", one of my VERY FAVORITE Conservative candidates EVER!!!!! His intelligence, integrity, boldness, energy, and CPA background is EXACTLY what we need more of in Sacramento. Can we please CLONE this guy?

VOTE MOORLACH, early and often (just kidding!), and tell ALL in 37th to do the same!
STATE ASSEMBLY - 55TH DIST PHILLIP CHEN (R)---(Results: WON, 63.2%)
All my research points to PHILLIP CHEN being a strong fiscal conservative and is the best candidate to represent the 55th in Sacramento. He has received the endorsement of virtually all elected Republicans that straddle LA & OC counties, including the Republican Party of OC. Still researching and will update his SOCIAL conservatism.

STATE ASSEMBLY - 65TH DIST YOUNG KIM (R)---(Results: KIM LOST 48.8%) Bummers!
YOUNG KIM is a sharp, conservative incumbent, who previously worked for conservative Ed Royce. Has she voted PERFECTLY these past 2 years? NOT EXACTLY! Many conservatives are upset about her vote in favor of mandatory vaccinations, interfering with parental rights, whose rights I strongly support. But this is not a "hill to die on", I believe.

She is running for re-election to retain this seat in the 65th District, after unseating liberal Democrat, SHARON QUIRK-SILVA 2 yrs ago by 55.1% of the vote.

QUIRK-SILVA is again "gunning" for KIM to get her seat back, w/the strong support (and lots of money) from her DEMOCRATIC PARTY. THEY WANT THIS SEAT BACK TO GET BACK THEIR 2/3 VOTE MAJORITY. And, QUIRK-SILVA is supported by virtually every labor union around and they are giving her lots of money. QUIRK-SILVA is endorsed by PLANNED PARENTHOOD.


FYI, in the Assembly, Democrats need to pick up just two seats to win back a 2/3 SUPER MAJORITY they lost two years ago when KIM won. So, IT IS CRITICAL TO RETAIN THIS SEAT. Tell all you know in the 65th to VOTE KIM.

STATE ASSEMBLY - 68TH DIST STEVEN CHOI (R)---(Results: CHOI WON, 61.1%)
STEVEN CHOI has a reputation of being a strong fiscal conservative, but not known for being a social conservative. But, he is better than the his Democratic opponent, SEAN JAY PANAHI who is solidly endorsed by abortion provider Planned Parenthood
STATE ASSEMBLY - 69TH DIST OFELIA VELARDE-GARCIA (R) (Results: VELARDE-GARCIA LOST, 31.1%)
Running an uphill battle against DEM incumbent TOM DALY, OFELIA VELARDE-GARCIA needs your vote in the 69th to keep the Democratic majority from having a "run-away" 2/3 majority in legislative voting. Endorsed by CA Pro-Life Council.

TOM DALY is endorsed abortion provider by Planned Parenthood.
STATE ASSEMBLY - 72ND DIST TRAVIS ALLEN (R)---(Results: ALLEN WON-58.08%)
TRAVIS ALLEN is a fiscal Conservative, but is NOT a social conservative, as he NOT Pro-Life.

But ALLEN is better than the Democratic alternative, LENORE ALBERT-SHERIDAN, who has posted on her site, "“I strongly support the abolition of income inequality." An interesting and telling statement that only a Socialist/Anti-Capitalist would make.
STATE ASSEMBLY - 73RD DIST BILL BROUGH (R) (Results: BROUGH WON, 69.1%)
Solid conservative in all areas, accompanied by a solid conservative VOTE RECORD.
Endorsed by CA Pro-Life Council.
STATE ASSEMBLY - 74TH DIST MATTHEW HARPER (R) (Results: HARPER WON, 56.9%)
Solid conservative in all areas, accompanied by a solid conservative VOTE RECORD.
Endorsed by CA Pro-Life Council.
COUNTY GOVERNMENT:
ORANGE CO SUPERVISOR - 1ST DIST ANDREW DO (Results: DO WON, 53.1%)
Andrew Do is OC County Supervisor for the 1st Dist. He won the seat in Special Election in Jan 2015 to replace State senator Janet Nguyen, who vacated the Supervisor seat to join the CA legislature. Do, a former Orange County deputy district attorney, previously served as Nguyen's chief of staff and on the Garden Grove City Council from 2008 to 2011.

He is the only supervisor on the ballot, b/c he did not win by more than 50% in the primary, as the vote was split among several condidate.

In the 16 mos he has served so far, it appears he has done a good job along conservative principles. And certainly better than what his liberal opponent, Michelle Martinez, would do whose site looks like she would like to put "a chicken in every pot". While he appears to be a fiscal Conservative, I have not as YET, been able to determine if he is also a social conservative. Do is a Republican, however.
SCHOOLS:
NO OC COMMUNITY COLLEGE-TRUSTEES SEE BELOW
AREA 2 - ART MONTEZ - (Results: MONTEZ Lost, 31.5%)
All 3 candidates for Area 2 are Democrats. MONTEZ is perhaps the best of the 3, per JOHN MOORLOCH.

AREA 7 - RYAN BENT - (Results: BENT, WON, 70.8%)
Pledged not accept any campaign contributions from government unions. Is the ONLY Republican running for this office. He needs your vote.
COAST COMM COLLEGE-TRUSTEES SEE BELOW
AREA 2 - VONG XAVIER NGUYEN- (Results: NGUYEN Lost, 32.8%)
A "newbie" to politics, this young Republican is attempting to unseat the entrenched Democratic incumbent, JERRY PATTERSON.

Democrat incumbent PATTERSON, 81, first was elected to this seat in 1996. New blood is dearly needed. 20 yrs is too long already. Don't give him 4 more!

AREA 3 - NO RECOMMENDATION (unable to determine a conservative)

But, FYI:
----Valladares is a Democrat;
----Fishel is a NPP (No Party Preference)
--- And, do NOT EVEN CONSIDER, L PRINKSK, who is LIBERAL and supported by Liberal Unions

AREA 4 - MARY HORNBUCKLE - (Results: HORNBUCKLE Won, 66.1%)
Endorsed by CA Senator John Moorloch
RANCHO SANTIAGO COMM COLLEGE DIST SEE BELOW
AREA 1 - MATTHEW SCHAUER- Results: SCHAUER Lost, 27%)
Republican Schauer appears to be the best of 3 candidate

AREA 3 - THOMAS GORDON - (Results: GORDON Lost, 24.2%)
Conservative Republican

AREA 5 - STEVEN A NGUYEN - (Results: 38.0%)
A young and energetic Republican Conservative

AREA 7 - RUDY DIAZ (Results: DIAZ Lost, 44.6%)
Rudy is a conservative Republican, recommended by CA Senator John Moorloch. He needs your vote to replace liberal incumbent, Arianna Barrios. She is registered a NPP (no party preference), but the Democratic blog, "Liberal OC" supports her. Additionally, she supports OUSD's MEAS S, the tax raising $288 million bond. Vote RUDY DIAZ!
SO OC COMM COLLEGE TRUSTEES SEE BELOW
AREA 3 - GARY MILLER, (LOST, 16.9%) referred candidate of CA Senator John Moorloch.

AREA 4 - JIM LEACH (LOST, 31.2%)

AREA 6 - JAMES WRIGHT - Only Republican in race. (WON, 62.9%)
BREA OLINDA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST PAUL RUIZ -Area 3 (Results: WON, 22%) and JASON KRAFT-Area 4 (Results: LOST, 15%)
PAUL RUIZ is a Republican, and I would vote for him for AREA 3, if I lived in this district.

Both PAUL RUIZ and JASON KRAFT are the only non-incumbents.

RUIZ discovered that board members receive up to $20,000 per year for a health benefits. He believes this is WRONG for a part-time voluntary position, and states he would decline the benefits or donate the funds to classroom teachers, until he could work on removing this benefit, if elected.

While I am not able to find his party affiliation, JASON KRAFT, supports the above reform also, and appears to be running on a ticket w/RUIZ. Both recommendations have been recommended by a conservative adviser from this school district."
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT WENDY SHROVE (AREA 1), JIM REARDON (AREA 2), LAURA FERGUSON (AREA 3) and JAKE VOLLEBREGT ( AREA 5 )
COMMENTS: My 4 recommendations are the VERY BEST to represent the Conservative viewpoint on the Capo School Board, that will support Parents and Students best. They are all NON-BACKED union candidates.

AREA 1 - WENDY SHROVE (LOST, 40.9%)

AREA 2 - JIM REARDON (WON, 80.5%)

AREA 3 - LAURA FERGUSON (LOST, 43.6%)

AREA 5 - JAKE VOLLEBREGT

JIM REARDON is the lone incumbent, and has been the ONLY voice of the CONSERVATIVE on the board.

I applaud all of my 4 recommendations for running. A school board race can be BRUTAL for any candidates that are NOT Union-selected. While teachers, in general, are wonderful individuals who work hard and care for their students, their unions are NOT wonderful, but instead RUTHLESS. Unions are willing to do/spend WHATEVER IT TAKES, to get and keep "their" candidates and "their" bidding in office.

Quote from my conservative, SENATOR JOHN MOORLOCH (dated today, Oct 22):

"Until public employee unions take ownership of the fiscal havoc they have created, we need to avoid voting for their anointed candidates. Or we will dig a hole so deep that our children will resent us for letting it happen in front of our eyes."

In my opinion, MOORLOCH nailed it!

MEAS M: On the staggeringly expensive MEAS M, also on this ballot, which will cost all property owners $300-$600 a year more on your tax bill, EVERY YEAR FOR THE NEXT 35 YEARS., the 4 candidates I recommend STRONGLY OPPOSE Meas M. All their opponents strongly SUPPORT it, and were responsible for the ridiculous, poorly written MEAS M being on the ballot. NO on MEAS M!
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT SEE BELOW
AREA 1 - NICHOLAS DIBS - this is a weak recommendation, merely the better of 3.

AREA 5 - NO RECOMMENDATION




IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT - IS OUT OF PROPER SEQUENCE. See below under "HUNTINTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT"
LAGUNA BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HOWARD HILLS (Vote HILLS only, even tho 2 slots)
HOWARD HILLS is the ONLY one who could be identified as a conservative. I suggest a "Bullet Vote", voting for him ONLY, so as give him a better chance to win in this 3 candidate race.
LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST DAVE BOYER and ROBT AGUILAR, JR
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIEDSCHOOL DIST SEE RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW
AREA 1 - DANA BLACK

AREA 3 - MARTHA FLUOR

AREA 6 - VICKI SNELL

Per my conservative cohort, RobynNordell.com

"In all three Newport-Meas races, I'm recommending these incumbents as the best available candidates BLOCK the challengers who are being supported by the liberal OC Labor Federation union and very Liberal City Council member."




ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT IS OUT OF PROPER SEQUENCE. See below under "OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DIST".
PLACENTIA-YORBA LINDA UNIFIED SCHOOLS SUSI KHAN, IRENE YEZBAK, and HELEN KINGSBURY (ALL 3 LOST)
The 3 candidates I have recommended (Khan, Yezbak, and Kingsbury) are solidly conservative, and deserve your vote.

Reasons to vote for them:
1. The 3 OPPOSE COMMON CORE (CC), the OBAMA Administration's National Education Standards that have been shoved down the throats of states, the "one-size-fits-all" standards that intrude on FAMILY PRIVACY. (The National Republican GOP Committee OPPOSES COMMON CORE, too.)
2. The 3 believe schools do better under LOCAL CONTROL and oppose Sacramento and Washington intrusion.
3. The 3 support PARENTAL CONSENT and involvement of controversial/family school issues.
4. The 3 support Back-to-Basics type of Education.
5. The 3 support Public Charter School choices.

VOTE SUSI KHAN, IRENE YEZBAK, and HELEN KINGSBURY for PYLUSD School Board.
SADDLEBACK VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST MARK TETTEMER (Results: LOST, 9.4%)and AMANDA MORRELL (Results:WON, 20.3%)
MARK TETTEMER and AMANDA MORRELL are 2 of the best to represent the conservative viewpoint on SVUSD.

Even though 3 slots are available, I suggest voting ONLY TETTERMER and MORRELL for better chance to win, by not diluting votes.

SANTA ANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST ANGIE CANO and CECIIA IGLESIAS
TUSTIN UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST TAMMIE BULLARD, JAMES LAIRD, and FRANCINE SCINTO
FULLERTON JT UNION HS DIST SEE BELOW
AREA 2 - BARBARA KILPONEN - This is a weak recommendation. Better of 2.

AREA 3 - NO RECOMMENDATION.
HUNTINTON BEACH UNION HS DIST *MICHAEL SIMMONS and COLIN MERLOTT
COLIN MERLOTT is endorsed by the Conservative local unit of the CA Republican Assembly

*Per my fellow researcher, Christian Conservative, RobynNordell.com

ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST - AREA 1 JACKIE FILBECK (Area 1)
Republican JACKIE FILBECK, is the better of the 2. Other candidate is Democrat, Billie Joe Wright
BUENA PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT SEE BELOW
AREA 3 - MARVIN ACEVES - A "soft" recommendations as minimal information available. However, if I lived in this School District, I would vote AGAINST the Democrat incumbent, BARBARA MICHEL, and instead vote for Republican MARVIN ACEVES. As in many School Board races, if one is not union endorsed, they experience harassment. ACEVES states that is the case w/his compaign

AREA 4 - NO RECOMMENDATION - Minimal information available. Encumbent L. CAROLE JENSEN is the only Republican in race
CENTRALIA SCHOOL DISTRICT IRVIN TRINKLE
I have researched and recommended IRV TRINKLE in past elections, and he still comes out on top here.
CYPRESS SCHOOL DISTRICT-2 YR SHORT TERM RESEARCHING. Check back.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT JEANNE GALINDA
JEANNE GALINDA has the endorsement of the conservative local unit of the California Republican Assembly.
FULLERTON SCHOOL DISTRICT - AREA 5 NO RECOMMENDATION, *but see below.
*If I lived in this voting district, I probably would vote for LEONEL TALAVERA. Both are Democrat and neither are conservative. However, TALAVERA appears to be the better of the two.
HUNTINTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BRIDGET KAUB
BRIDGET KAUB is only conservative I am able to identify. I suggest voting only KAUB.
IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO RECOMMENDATION at this time.
I have withdrawn my recommendation for MARK NEWGENT due to information revealed, which has also convinced the OC GOP to drop their support of Mr. Newgent.
LA HABRA CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT RESEARCHING. Check back.
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DIST NORM WESTWELL and KATHRYN GONZALES
WESTWELL and GONZALES are endorsed by the OC GOP, and appear to be the best of those on the ballot.
ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST See Below
These 2 Candidates are by far the best ones for this office. Both support Public Charter School, which I wholeheartedly support, as being good for children and their parents

For: AREA 2 - JOHN ORTEGA (Results: WON, 62.8%)

For: AREA 6 - BRENDA LEBSACK (Results: WON, 57.7%)
SAVANNA SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTINA KARANICK
CHRISTINA KARANICK is endorsed by the conservative Stanton Republican Assembly.
WESTMINSTER SCHOOL DISTRICT FRANCIS NGUYEN
CITY GOVERNMENT:
ALISO VIEJO CITY COUNCIL MIKE MUNZING (*See comments-3 seats open)
Results: MUNZING WON, 32.3%, highest vote-getter!)

MIKE MUNZING: Is mayor of this city and a solid fiscal and social conservative, who has done a great job for the City of Aliso Viejo in his 4 yrs on the council. Because of his strong performance and energetic personality, he has the endorsement of virtually every conservative office holder in Orange County, including EVERY mayor in SoOC, plus the conservative SADDLEBACK REPUBLICAN ASSEMBLY and OC Republican Party. MUNZING is an American Patriot who led the campaign, too, to have “In God We Trust” put by the entrance to the city council chambers. His campaign button reads, "I LIKE MIKE" and I do.

Endorsed by conservative State Senator John Moorlock

*Of the 3 others candidates, RIOS and CHUN, are registered DEMOCRATS. Because of the LIBERAL platform of the Democratic Party, socially and fiscally, I CANNOT recommend either of them. The only other candidate, besides MUNZING, that is a Republican is BILL PHILLIPS, but he does NOT appear to be a CONSERVATIVE. So, AV voters, you decide if you want to put a mark by his name. He may be the best of the remaining 3.

Vote MUNZING, for sure!
.
.
.
.
NOTE: ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL - Out of order (I'm tech-challenged!) See at the bottom of CITY GOVERNMENT after YORBA LINDA CITY COUNCIL
BREA CITY COUNCIL MARTY SIMONOFF (WON, 35.9%)
MARTY SIMONOFF is a Republican endorsed by conservative State Senator John Moorloch.


NOTE: CITY TREASURER - No Recommendation
BUENA PARK CITY COUNCIL-WARD 3 FRED SMITH - Ward 3 (WON, 50.6%) No Recommendation (Ward 4)
COSTA MESA CITY COUNCIL STEVE MENSINGER (LOST, 15.4%), ALLAN MANSOOR (WON, 16.1%) and LEE RAMOS (LOST, 10.7%)
These 3 candidates are solid conservatives, good guys. Opponents are liberal and union-backed candidates.

I suggest to NOT even consider SANDY GENIS, JAY HUMPHREY, OR JOHN STEPHENS. They are supported and endorsed by many liberal groups, including the OC Labor Federation (AFL-CIO).
CYPRESS CITY COUNCIL ROB JOHNSON (WON, 32.2) and MARIELLEN YARC (WON, 30.3%)
DANA POINT CITY COUNCIL MICHELLE BROUGH (LOST, 22.7%)
MICHELLE BROUGH is a solid, fiscal and social Conservative.
FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY COUNCIL PATRICK TUCKER and KIM CONSTANTINE (Both LOST)
PATRICK TUCKER and KIM CONSTANTINE in my research appear to be solid conservatives. They both oppose FOUNTAIN VALLEY CITY TAX INCREASE (MEASURE HH), which is a business killer for the city.

I suggest to NOT vote for STEVE NAGEL and CHERYL BROTHERS as my research revealed they are in full support of the 1% SALES TAX INCREASE on your ballot.
FULLERTON CITY COUNCIL LARRY BENNETT (LOST), BRUCE WHITAKER (WON)
In the large field of 12, these are 2, so far, that I can comfortable recommend, LARRY BENNETT and BRUCE WHITAKER. They are both solid fiscal and social conservatives.

WHITAKER is running for re-election to his 2nd term on the CC, and has the endorsement of the OC GOP and the Lincoln Club (which supports limited government, lower taxes, and the expansion of free enterprise).

This is LARRY BENNETT'S first try at elected office, but he familiar with the city's issues as he currently serves on the Fullerton's Planning Commission. He supports all the issues that us conservatives are looking for in a candidate.
GARDEN GROVE - MAYOR STEVE JONES (WON, but ONLY candidate)
GARDEN GROVE CITY COUNCIL See Below
WARD 2 - NO RECOMMENDATION (unable to identify a conservative)

WARD 3 - CLAY BOCK (is the better of the 2)-(LOST)

WARD 5 - STEPHANIE KLOPFENSTEIN (is the better of the 2) -(WON)

WARD 6 - NO RECOMMENDATION (unable to identify a candidate to recommend)
HUNTINTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL LYN SEMETA (WON, 1st) RON STERUD (LOST, 4th), and PATRICK BRENDEN (WON, 3rd)
LYN SEMETA and RON STERUD are solid Conservative, both fiscally and socially.

LYN SEMETA: While she is new to elective office, the attorney is NOT new to HB involvement. She has served as a HB Planning Commissioner, and on many HB committees. So, she is familiar w/the needs of HB. See www.Lyn4HB.com for more information

PATRICK BRENDEN appears to be a good 3rd choice, on several conservative vote guides lists.
HUNTINTON BEACH CITY CLERK ROBIN ESTANISLAU (WON, 73.6%)
Of the the 2 on the ballot, my research indicates ROBIN ESTANISLAU would be the best for the City Clerk job.
HUNTINTON BEACH CITY TREAS ALISA CUTCHEN (WON, ONLY candidate)
IRVINE - MAYOR DON WAGNER (WON), 38.9%)
DON WAGNER is a solid conservative who had a strong conservative voting record during his time in the CA State Assembly. He would do a good job for Irvine, too, I'm sure. VOTE WAGNER for Irvine Mayor
IRVINE CITY COUNCIL ANTHONY KUO (LOST, 3rd) and CHRISTINA SHEA (WON, 1st)
Both of these candidates are endorsed my conservative ATLAS PAC and CA Senator John Moorloch.
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL STEVE DICTEROW (WON, 2nd place)
STEVE DICTEROW is the only conservative I was able to identify. I suggest just singly voting for him, as a 'bullet" vote.
LAGUNA BEACH CITY CLERK NO RECOMMENDATIONS
LAGUNA BEACH CITY TREAS LAURA PARISI
Endorsed by STATE SENATOR JOHN MOORLACH.
LAGUNA HILLS CITY COUNCIL JANINE HEFT (WON, coming in 1st, 45.6%)
DORE GILBERT - Also won, coming in 2nd, 32.1%.

JANINE HEFT - A solid conservative, fiscal and social, and well qualified.

LAGUNA NIGUEL CITY COUNCIL LAURIE DAVIES, JERRY SLUSIEWICZ, and JOHN MARK JENNINGS (All 3 WON!)
Comments and supporting comments MAY follow.
LA HABRA CITY COUNCIL DAWN HOLTHOUSER (LOST) TIM SHAW (WON) and TOM BEAMISH (WON)
DAWN HOLTHOUSER is a fiscal and social conservative. She has been actively involved in her community, including currently serving as La Habra's Planning Commissioner.

TIM SHAW is also a solid conservative and previously worked for Conservative Congressman, DANA ROHRABACHER.

All 3 are endorsed by the Republican Party of Orange Co.
LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL DWIGHT ROBINSON (Leading by 211 votes over NICKS) and FRANCISCO BARAJAS (LOST)
RESULTS: As of 11-16-16, LEAH BASILE, WON in 1st. DWIGHT ROBINSON, 2nd, leading by 211 votes, over 3rd place, ADAM NICK.

Both DWIGHT ROBINSON and FRANCISCO BARAJAS are solid conservatives, fiscal and social and would do an EXCELLENT job on the LF City Council.

ROBINSON is seeking re-election for CC, after having served as MAYOR in 2014. He is bright, ethical, and totally understands the issues of LAKE FOREST. He is the city's rep to the OC Fire Authority, and in 2016 was elected to the So Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Board, a very responsible position, where we definitely need a CONSERVATIVE. Recently, ROBINSON was OC Elected Official of the Year, too. He has tons of local Conservative's Endorsements, and deserves to be re-elected.

BARAJAS is a "newbie" to elected office, but not to Lake Forest service. He currently serves as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner in Lake Forest. And his computer "day job" skill will be an asset to LF government, too. He has the endorsement of some of my favorite officials, namely CA State Senator JOHN MOORLOCH, local Assemblyman DON WAGNER, LF Mayor ANDREW HAMILTON, and LF council members, SCOTT VOIGHTS, and DWIGHT ROBINSON to name a few.

PLEASE DON'T GIVE A MINUTES THOUGHT to RE-ELECT ADAM NICK! In my opinion, he is detrimental to quality Lake Forest leadership. NIX NICK!

I strongly recommend DWIGHT ROBINSON and FRANCISCO BARAJAS for LAKE FOREST CITY COUNCIL.
LA PALMA CITY COUNCIL PETER KIM and GERARD GOEDHART (Both WON!)
LOS ALAMITOS CITY COUNCIL DEAN GROSE (LOST) and RICHARD MURPHY (WON)
DEAN GROSE is a solid conservative, fiscally and socially and deserves to be re-elected.
MISSION VIEJO CITY COUNCIL CATHY SCHLICHT (LOST, 19.2%, 3rd)
TRISH KELLEY, 32.2%, BRIAN GODDELL, 28.9% were the winners.

CATHY SCHLICHT not only has my "RECOMMENDATION", but as a resident of MV, I have personally, "ENDORSED", her, too. (I rarely do this!)

CATHY SCHLICHT is a staunch, "dyed in the wool" solid conservative. She cannot be bought or coerced from her conservative principles. A rarity in politics! She has done an exemplary job in watching over the city and it's funds, so revenue is not squandered. Her votes are ALWAYS in the BEST INTEREST of MV residents.

B/C CATHY desires to remain an INDEPENDENT conservative vote, she does not seek/accept funds from unions or developers, or anyone who could possibly attempt to influence her vote. WHO DOES THAT? (A couple of the other top candidates in this race, do NOT have that same kind of integrity against influence.) Accordingly, her campaign is minimally funded.

*As a way to secure her election, I am recommending you Vote ONLY CATHY SCHLICHT, even though 2 slots are open. I am! This is called "bullet voting". It will help to NOT dilute the votes in this 2 top vote-getter race.

Her website says she is:
"Independent – Dedicated – Honest - Fiscally Responsible". SHE ABSOLUTELY IS ALL THOSE! Cathy4Council

CATHY has the valuable endorsement of my favorite, SENATOR JOHN MOORLACH, and the Conservative Saddleback Republican Assembly (SRA), the ONLY MV candidate to earn it, plus the Family Action Pac, Altas PAC, and just recently the OC Register newspaper.

MV citizens, CATHY SCHLICHT needs and deserves your re-election vote.
NEWPORT BEACH CITY COUNCIL BRAD AVERY, Dist 2 (WON), LEE LOWREY, Dist 5 (LOST), and WILL O'NEILL -Dist 7 (WON)
These 3 are fiscal Conservatives, and would be a solid addition to the other conservatives currently serving.

IMPORTANT! NEWPORT BEACH'S CITY MEASURE MM, vote YES! It requires a two-thirds vote by the City Council to put any tax increase measure on the ballot. MEASURE MM is a good way to ensure the there is a solid consensus of the City Council before a tax increase is submitted to city voters. YES on MEAS MM!
PLACENTIA CITY COUNCIL JEREMY YAMAGUCHII (WON, 2nd)
PLACENTIA CITY TREAS KEVIN LARSON (WON)
Per www.RobynNordell.com .
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CITY COUNCIL TONY BEALL and CAROL GAMBLE (Results: Both WON!)
SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL BOB BAKER and DAN BANE (Results: Both LOST)
DAN BANE is endorsed by Fiscal Conservative *ATLAS PAC and conservative, www.RobynNordell.com, and OC Republican Party.

BOB BAKER is endorsed by Fiscal and Social conservative group, the local chapt of the CA Republican Assembly, (SOCRA).

*Atlas is made up of business, political, and community professionals who promote free enterprise, limited government, reduced government regulatory burdens, low taxation, and individual liberty.
SAN CLEMENTE CITY CLERK NO RECOMMENDATION -But Running Unopposed
SAN CLEMENTE CITY TREAS MARK A. TAYLOR -But Running Unopposed
ENDORSED BY STATE SENATOR JOHN MOORLACH.
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO CITY COUNCIL RONDA MOTTL, Div 5 (Results: LOST), SERGIO FARIAS, Div 1 (Results: WON)
RONDA MOTTL has been identified as a solid conservative and deserves your vote.

For SERGIO FARIAS, I give a weak recommendation. Both of the candidates vying for this office are Democrats. However, upon seeking information from a very informed Conservative SJC resident, I was advised that SERGIO FARIAS is the better candidate for Div 1 of the City Council.
SANTA ANA - MAYOR NO RECOMMENDATIONS - (Results: PULIDO WON)
No candidate, let alone Conservative candidate has ever been successful against "Mayor-for-Life" Miguel Pulido, Pulido has been in this office since 1994. With long time power like that, it is easy for corruption to creep in.

Per the OC REGISTER NEWSPAPER:
In May of 2015, "Mayor Pulido agreed to pay $13,000 in fines stemming from a personal land deal with a city contractor – a transaction from which he may have profited."

"Pulido committed six violations of the state’s Political Reform Act, including voting to renew the city contract of auto parts provider Rupen Akoubian four months after Akoubian gave a house to Pulido in exchange for a parking lot."

"Because of Pulido’s financial transaction with Akoubian, the mayor was prohibited by law from voting for one year [should be forever!] on any city measures that could benefit Akoubian."

Santa Ana voters, you desperately need, as a city measure, TERM LIMITS on your next ballot. NEW leadership is vital to stem corruption and keep a city healthy. 22yrs as Mayor is ridiculous!

On another note, SA Voters, I strongly recommend a NO on SA's MEASURE PP. No raise for MAYOR PULIDO or the CITY COUNCIL. You pay them enough!
SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL SEE BELOW
WARD 1 - JESSICA CHA (Results: LOST)

WARD 3 - JOSHUA MAURAS (Results: LOST)

WARD 5 - JUAN VILLEGAS (Results: WON)

All 3 of the above are NOT strong recommendations. They are the best of those running in their wards.
SEAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL - DIST 2 SEE BELOW RECOMMENDATIONS.
DIST 2 - THOMAS MOORE - (Results: WON) Not a strong recommendation. Republican Moore appears to be the better of the 2 candidates

DIST 4 - NO RECOMMENDATION. Minimal information available on candidates.
STANTON CITY COUNCIL AL ETHAN (Results: WON)
TUSTIN CITY COUNCIL AUSTIN LUMBARD (Results: LOST) , CHUCK PUCKETT (Results: WON), and ALLAN BERNSTEIN (Results: WON)
All 3 of these candidate are endorsed by the Republican Party of Orange County.

AUSTIN LUMBARD: He is a solid conservative, fiscally and socially. believing in restrained government. As Chairman of Tustin's City Planning Commission, he has a good handle on the city's government already. An attorney by day, he also served 3 yrs as a Reserve Deputy w/the OC Sheriff's Dept. In addition to his OCGOP's endorsement, he has the endorsement of the local affiliation of the California Republican Assembly (TARA).

Besides, he and his family attend a great church, mine, Saddleback Church.

Comments on PUCKETT and BERNSTEIN to follow.
VILLA PARK CITY COUNCIL VINCE ROSSINI (Results:Won 1 of 2 slots)
Endorsed by the OC Republican Party and known staunch conservative, and former Villa Park City Council member, DEBORAH PAULY.
WESTMINSTER - MAYOR TRI TA (Results: WON)
TRI TAH is endorsed by the Conservative CA Republican Assembly.
WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL KIMBERLY HO (Suggestion: Vote ONLY HO) (Results: Won 1 of 2 slots)
KIMBERLY HO is endorsed by the Conservative CA Republican Assembly. "Bullet" voting for only HO will enhance chance to win.
YORBA LINDA CITY COUNCIL GENE HERNANDEZ (Results: WON), and CRAIG YOUNG (Results: LOST)
Two CONSERVATIVES to get behind in Yorba Linda.




(N's trivia: Though, I now live in Mission Viejo now, I love YL! I was saved and married there at YL Friends Church)
ANAHEIM CITY COUNCIL SEE BELOW
WARD 1 - DENISE BARNES (WON. 27.9%)

WARD 3 - ROBERT NELSON (LOST. 15.5%)

WARD 4 - LUCILLE KRING - Not great, but better of the 2.(WON. 45.0%)

WARD 5 - Still researching. Ward 5 (and much of Anaheim) has been a hot bed of controversy. Still trying to weed thru it. Please check back in next day or 2.
WATER DISTRICTS:
EL TORO WATER DISTRICT JOSE VERGARA and MARK MONIN (Results: Both WON 2 of 3 slots)
While you have 3 slots for this office open for this office, I am only recommending 2, JOSE VERGARA who is the incumbent, and only Republican, and MARK MONIN, a NPP (no party preference), but the better of the other 3 on ballot, and w/water board experience.

FYI, SCOTT GOLDMAN is a registered Democrat and the incumbent. KATHRYN FRESHLEY is a NPP.

It is difficult to research Water Districts, as candidate tend to wage NO, or minimal campaigns to determine their political philosophies.
IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT JOHN WITHERS and MARY AILEEN MATHEIS (Results: Both WON)
JOHN WITHERS is a solid Conservative, and my research shows MARY MATHEIS is the best of the others.
MOULTON-NIGUEL WATER DISTRICT RICHARD FIORE, Div 1, (Results: WON), DUANE CAVE (Div 6)
MESA WATER DISTRICT JAMES FISLER (Div 2) (Results: WON)
ORANGE CO WATER DISTRICTS SEE BELOW
DIV 3 - ROBER C YOH (Results: WON)

DIV 4 - PHILIP L. ANTHONY (Results: WON)

DIV 6 - CATHY GREEN (Results: WON)

The 3 above are endorsed Senator JOHN MOORLOCH also.
SO COAST WATER DISTRICT ROBERT W MOORE (Results: LOST), RICK ERKENEF (Results: WON) and BOB OAKLEY (Results: LOST)
ROBERT MOORE is a solid conservative. Recommendations of ERKENEF and OAKLEY is based on minimal information available. All 3 are Republicans.
YORBA LINDA WATER DISTRICT RICHARD COLLETT (Results: LOST), and ANDREW HALL (Results: WON)
Both are Endorsed by OC GOP.
RECALL ROBT KILEY FROM YL WATER DIST? NO (Results: YES WON)
IF ROBT KILEY RECALLED, WHO TO REPLACE? EILEEN BARME (Results: LOST)
RECALL GARY MELTON FROM YL WATER DIST? NO (Results: YES WON)
IF G.MELTON RECALLED, WHO TO REPLACE? ROBERT W WREN (Results: LOST)
MUNICIPAL WATER DIST OF OC SEE BELOW
DIV 4 - JOAN FINNEGAN (Results: WON)

DIV 6 - JEFF THOMAS (Results: WON)

DIV 7 - EVAN CHAFFEE (Results: LOST)
SANTA MARGARGARITA WATER DIST BETTY H OLSON, CHARLEY WILSON and CHARLES GIBSON (Results: All 3 WON)
These are the best of those on ballot.
SPECIAL DISTRICTS:
ROSSMOOR COMM SERVICES TONY DEMARCO, RON CASEY and MICHAEL MAYNARD (Results: All 3 WON)
SURFSIDE COLONY COMM SERVICES RUDY LALONDE (Results: WON)
Limited research information available. LALONDE is a Republican is about all I know.
SILVERADO-MODJESKA REC/PARK DIST NO RECOMMENDATIONS
Sorry, minimal information available. All candidates are Democrats.
COSTA MESA SANITATION GARY MONAHAN and JIM FITZPATRICK (Results: Both LOST)
MIDWAY CITY SANITATION JOY NEUGEBAUER (Results: LOST) and CHI CHARLIE NGUYEN (Results: WON)
These 2 are endorsed by the Conservative local unit of the CA Republican Assembly. NEUGEBAUER is ENDORSED by Costa Mesa Resident and well-known conservative, Senator John Moorloch, too.


Propositions:
PROP 51 - $9 BILLION BOND, SCHOOLS & EDUCATION Strong No
Results: YES PASSED, 53.9%

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

PROP 51 supports the state issuing $9 BILLION in bonds (that is, "BORROWING"), to fund improvement & construction of school facilities for K-12 schools & community colleges.

THIS SOUNDS LIKE A VERY NICE "IDEA", huh? But I am recommending a BIG FAT NO, because of "HOW" we get the $9 Billion to make these lovely improvements!

First (and more minor), schools & school improvements should be a LOCAL issue, NOT a state issue. Individual School Districts receive money annually for school repairs & improvements. They should be setting aside these funds and incrementally making school improvements. Instead, they spend it on other things. CA residents should not have to suffer b/c school district don’t properly budget.

Second, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, our state CANNOT AFFORD TO TAKE ON MORE BOND INDEBTEDNESS. And this PROP 51 is HUGE! CA’s Bond DEBT is out of control! W/what we currently owe in Bonds and our UNFUNDED PENSION INDEBTEDNESS, CA is headed for a financial disaster.

Per State Senator John Moorlach (who is also a CPA):
“One need only look at Puerto Rico and their recent default on a $779 million [payment] of bonded debt to see the perils of issuing too many future [debt] obligations. They kept racking up the "credit card" with over $70 Billion in total debt, but currently CANNOT make even the simple maintenance payment. CA VOTERS SHOULD CONSIDER Puerto Rico’s challenges before allowing a similar scenario here at home.”

BONDS are the MOST EXPENSIVE way to pay for things. Issuing BONDS is like paying for project w/a credit card. It needs to be paid back w/interest, which usually DOUBLES THE AMOUNT BORROWED.

In PROP 51’s case, the interest ALONE will be $8.6 Billion. Per the state's Financial Impact Statement, the repayment will be about $500 million each year for 35 YEARS! This is money CA does NOT have!

CA and CA schools, just like you and me, needs to LIVE WITHIN THEIR MEANS, and BUDGET for projects, and NOT BORROW! BORROWING presumes upon the future for repayment. If passed, our kids & grandkids will be paying on PROP 51 long after I am in glory. "Lord, help voters see the TRUTH!"
PROP 52 - VOTER APPROVAL OF CHANGES, HOSPITAL FEE PROGRAM Yes
Results: YES PASSED-69.8%


PROP 52 has been difficult to call, because there is both good and bad aspects. Even conservatives are on both sides on this one. I have actually changed my recommendation from a NO to a YES, after doing more research and pondering.

PROP 52 requires voter approval to change the "dedicated" use of certain Hospital fees used to draw matching federal money to help fund our Medi-Cal program. It would require a 2/3 vote of both the Senate and Assembly to amend or end the hospital fee program. It would also extend the Hospital fee from "temporary" to "indefinite" program. Got it? If not, read background to better understand.!

BACKGROUND: The federal government helps pay for health care for low-income patients. In CA, this program is called Medi-Cal. In order for CA to receive federal funds, however, CA must contribute matching funds.

In 2009, a program was created that required certain CA hospitals to pay FEES to help CA qualify for the federal matching program. However, at times CA legislature has diverted some of the Hospital fees to the state's general fund.

PROP 52 would add wording in the CA constitution to make it harder for the legislature to divert funds. This would be the “GOOD” in the prop.

The “BAD” would be that PROP 52 would extend the Hospital fees "indefinitely", rather than let it expire in Jan, 2018, as scheduled.

In my analysis, I think the good ever so slightly outweighs the bad, and am recommending a YES. However, on this one, I understand and wouldn't argue a "NO" either.

PROP 53 - PROJECTS THAT COST MORE THAN $2 BILLION Strong Yes
Results: NO PASSED

PROP 53, aka, the "No Blank Checks Initiative", would REQUIRE VOTER APPROVAL before the state could issue more than $2 BILLION in public infrastructure bonds, that would RAISE our TAXES or RAISE FEES to repay.

I know, this all sounds like a lot of "gobbley-gook", if you are not an accountant or a numbers person. Basically, it is saying that the legislature can get us CA residents in a lot of debt without our consent or knowledge, via REVENUE BONDS. (Google if need to understand difference)

You see, current law mandates that GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS REQUIRE voter approval.

PROP 53 would also add "REVENUE BONDS", that are over $2 Billion to require VOTER APPROVAL.

While many CA voters don't seem to understand BOND INDEBTEDNESS (& tend to vote for most!), at least, this measure would shine some light on CA's HUGE INDEBTEDNESS. Also, it would put spending power back into the hands of voters, and NOT give ALL to our (Democratically-led) "tax-and-spend" legislature.

Endorsed by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

For you and me, VOTE YES on PROP 53!
PROP 54 - CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH BILLS CAN BE PASSED Strong Yes
Results: YES PASSED-64.3.6%

PROP 54 PROHIBITS the Legislature from passing any bill, unless published on Internet for 72 hours prior to the vote. Includes both houses. Also requires Legislative procedures to be recorded and posted on internet.

This sounds like a wonderful idea to make government more TRANSPARENT!

Endorsed by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

YES, ABSOLUTELY YES, ON PROP 54!

PROP 55 - PERSONAL TAX INCREASES OVER $250,000 No
Results: YES PASSED-62.3%

Background: In 2012, voters approved Proposition 30 which was a TEMPORARY tax increase for 7 yrs. Gov Brown, pleaded, at the time for voters to pass it until the CA economy could recover. His plea reiterated that it was only a "TEMPORARY TAX",

BUT LIBERAL POLITICIANS HATE TO GIVE UP A TAX.

PROP 55 would break that 2012 PROMISE and seeks to extend the tax another 12 years (to 2029), even though our CA economy HAS RECOVERED!

The TEMPORARY Tax should stay that way, and allow to expire as promised. Education spending has soared by $24.6 billion since 2012 — a 52% increase. Medi-Cal spending has increased by $2.9 billion a 13% increase. And the State boasts a SURPLUS.

If passed, our TAX & SPEND legislators will just grow our government, and when PROP 55 expires in 2029, they will have grown accustom to the extra spending and ask for a PERMANENT renewal of the "TEMPORARY TAX". Don't wait, say NO now on PROP 55.

WHO ELSE OPPOSES PROP 55?
-State Senator JOHN MOORLOCH (my favorite!)
-CA REPUBLICAN PARTY
-CA LIBERTARIAN PARTY
-HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
-CA TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION Association
.
PROP 56 - INCREASE CIGARETTE TAX TO $2/PACK No
Results: YES PASSED-63.3%

PROP 56 Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack and would add nicotine electronic cigarettes to tax. Currently, the FedGov taxes cigarettes $1.01 per pack. And CA has an 87 cent tax. W/PROP 56, CA would raise increase CA tax to $2.87/per pack, w/ total tax of $3.88/pack.

Estimated tax would be $1 billion to $1.4 billion/yr. Who gets the TAX?
1. Some replaces the reduced revenue. ie less smoking.
2. 5% to run the tax bureaucracy
3. $48 million to enforce tobacco laws
4. $40 million to physician training
5. $30 million to prevent/treat dental disease
6. $400 thousand to State Auditor to audit funds.
7. If anything left, most would go to MediCal funding and some to tobacco use prevention

A lot of groups of people don't like this measure for distinctly DIFFERENT reasons.

CONSERVATIVES REPUBLICANS don't like it because it raises taxes for NO GOOD REASON, giving more money to certain entities to squander.

LIBERTARIANS don't like it b/c it means more government involvement, where they should have no business.

Unions don't like it (esp. the education unions), b/c they WILL NOT be getting ANY of the TAX INCREASE funds, which they feel they are entitled.

I am a non-smoker, and don't like smoking, but I agree w/both the CONSERVATIVE/REPUBLICAN and LIBERTARIAN reasons, and therefore, recommending a NO!
.
PROP 57 - FELONS CONVICTED OF NON-VIOLENT CRIMES Strong No
Results: YES PASSED-63.7%


Proposition 57 would increase the chances for parole for felons convicted of non-violent crimes, giving them more credit for good behavior.(Already their sentence is cut in half for"good behavior")

It would also allow judges, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court, instead of prosecutors.

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the federal government ordered CA to reduce its prison population. It did. Then in 2011, CA was AGAIN ordered to reduce prison overcrowding. It did. With the passage of Prop 47 in 2014, certain non-violent felonies for inmates were reduced to misdemeanors, which gave even more inmates a higher chance for parole. This, too, reduced the prisons further.

Now, with PROP 57, Gov Brown cites "OVER-POPULATION" again! (No court order this time. He just wants to save money for pet projects, like his boondoggle, "bullet train".) Brown says because ONLY "NON-VIOLENT FELONS" would be eligible under PROP 57, the reduction "SHOULDN'T" have a negative impact on public safety. But NOT SO!

PROP 57 has been poorly drafted. Because neither PROP 57, nor CA state law "DEFINES" what constitutes a "NON-VIOLENT FELON", inmates convicted of crimes such as assault with a deadly weapon, rape, lewd acts against a child, hostage taking, attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school, hate crimes causing physical injury, false imprisonment of an elder through violence, drive-by shootings, and human trafficking COULD BE released early, or COULD BE eligible for early parole. NO BUENO!

Regarding a judge being given the authority to decide how a juvenile is charges, it is totally wrong. Why give 1 man the authority to decide? That decision/authority should stay with the prosecutor's office.

BROWN needs to put the safety of law-abiding CA citizens first. OVERCROWDING? He needs to figure it out and be creative like other states's leaders. That's why CA Voters put him in office. That's why we pay him the "BIG BUCKS". NO on PROP 57.
.
PROP 58 - BILINGUAL EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS Strong No
Results: YES PASSED-72.6%%

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! PROP 58 would REPEAL PROP 227 of 1998, which was an EXCELLENT Prop. Repealing it would be A TERRIBLE IDEA!

BACKGROUND: In 1998, voters overwhelming approved PROP 227, which gave millions of NON-ENGLISH speaking children in CA hope for a better future by requiring them to learn English by taking classes that were taught in English ("English Immersion"). "ENGLISH IMMERSION" HAS BEEN INCREDIBLE SUCCESSFUL!

After its '98 implementation, immigrant children's school test scores improved dramatically. WHY WOULD WE WANT TO GO BACK?

Those supporting PROP 58, falsely believe PROP 227 prevents students from having a "multilingual educational experience". SO NOT TRUE!

PROP 27 allows parents of students to obtain a waiver to learn in their own language, if they choose. However, the majority of parents of immigrants PREFER their children to have ENGLISH IMMERSION, as they know it will it is so beneficial to their children's welfare.

NOTE: This PROP would not interfere with the programs of "SPANISH IMMERSION", where English-speaking children are taught in SPANISH-ONLY classes to learn SPANISH. This has also been successful for English-speaking children to become fluent in Spanish.

"A NATION UNITES W/ONE COMMON LANGUAGE, AND DIVIDES W/MANY UN-COMMON LANGUAGES."

Immigrants can be bi-lingual, speaking native language at home, and learning English in school. Let's continue the WIN-WIN! Let's NOT go backwards!

SAVE ENGLISH FOR THE CHILDREN! A BIG FAT NO on PROP 58!
.
PROP 59 OVERTURN OF CITIZENS UNITED ACT Strong No
Results: YES PASSED- 52.7%


PROP 59 is one weird and confusing measure, that SHOULDN'T BE ON THE BALLOT. I had to read it 5 times to get the gist of it.

Basically, it asks you CA voters what is your OPINION of a Supreme Court ruling. Nothing can be done with the answer. It just hopes that elected officials will make some attempt to do SOMETHING on the issue, if the majority of voters agree w/the proponents of PROP 59. BUT, they can't!

BACKGROUND: The US SUPREME COURT (Note: NOT the CA Supreme Court) ruled in 2010, that political contributions and spending were protected as "free speech" under the First Amendment. Whether you agree or don't agree, this is a DONE DEAL.

However, there are some in CA, specifically in the legislatures (all liberal and all Dems) that disagree with this 2010 Supreme Court ruling. W/PROP 59, they are asking CA voters to AGREE w/their DISAGREEMENT, and hope if it passes, it MAY encourage legislators to "tinker" with this "free speech" ruling.

PROP 59 IS AN INCREDIBLY RIDICULOUS, INCREDIBLY WASTE-OF-TIME, and WASTE-OF-MONEY MEASURE, w/ NO BINDING AUTHORITY TO MAKE ANY CHANGES. I guess it just makes the liberal legislator proponents, who put it on the ballot to "FEEL GOOD" for doing "something!"

A BIG FAT NO on DUMB PROP 59!

OTHERS SUPPORTING A "NO":
CA Senator JOHN MOORLOCH
Conservative, CRAIG HUEY, of: ElectionForum.org
HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYER ASSOCIATION
.
PROP 60 CONDOM REQUIREMENT IN PORN FILM No
Results: NO PASSED-54.2%


A SILLY PROP FOR CA VOTERS! Why should the State be MANDATING personal hygiene/protection for one particular industry? Vote NO!

CA REPUBLICAN PARTY also recommends a NO!
PROP 61 PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICE REGULATIONS No
Results: NO PASSED

PROP 61 would PROHIBITS CA agencies from buying prescription (RX) drugs from drug companies if the price is MORE THAN the lowest price being paid for same drug. The VA (Veterans Affairs) always gets the lowest prices, so PROP 61 RX prices would be tied to VA prices.

BACKGROUND: CA spends nearly $3.8 billion yr on RX drugs for low-come Medi-Cal and retired CA employees (CalPERS) patients. Because agencies independently negotiate, it often leads to different prices being paid for the same drug. W/PROP 61, it would force RX companies to accept VA rates for all of CA’s public agencies.

While this may sounds good, that is, lower prices for a few recipients, in fact, it is NOT! Here are some negatives:

1. Drug companies ARE going to make their money. By FORCING lower prices on one group, it will just increase them on another, like NON-Medical/CALPERS patients, like you and me.

2. VA recipients could see their RX drug prices go up, as a way for companies to recoup forced lower prices. (This is why so many VETERANS groups are opposing this prop. They DON’T WANT this prop linked to their low drug prices).

3. PROP 61 places no obligations on drug companies to even offer a particular drug. They could simply DECLINE to make an RX available altogether in CA.

4. PROP 61 will set up another COSTLY bureaucracy (WHICH CA DOESN’T NEED!) to oversee this whole program. Historically, government is NEVER very efficient at this.

5. PROP 61 interferes w/the Free Market by forcing controls and PRICE FIXING on private business.

6. The Author of PROP 61, Michael Weinstein, has written this prop to give his own health care companies a HUGH advantage.

VOTE NO on PROP 61.
PROP 62 REPEAL THE DEATH PENALTY Strong No
Results: NO PASSED


Proposition 62 and Proposition 66 are competing measures. If both are approved, then the the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede the other.

PROP 62:
1. Repeals the death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder.
2. Replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
3. For persons already sentenced to death, it would apply to them, as well.
4. Would require these life prisoners to work while in prison w/ 60% of their wages going to pay restitution to the victims' families.

Supporters say CA Death Penalty system has failed w/only 13 executions since 1978, and wastes $150 million annually to keep on death row.

Opponents say the worst murderers get to stay alive, at the taxpayers' expense, decades after committing their crimes. They note that the death penalty is reserved only for the worst murderers, like child killers, rape/torture murderers, serial murderers, and cop killers. Just 1- 2% of about 2,000 murders in California annually end up with a death sentence.

I agree with "AMEND, NOT END the Death Penalty" proposal of PROP 66 to make changes and to make process more efficient and oppose this REPEAL.

POLICE, SHERIFFS and other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, along w/virtually all of CA's County District Attorneys all oppose this repeal

NO on PROP 62!
.
PROP 63 BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR AMMUNITION PURCHASES No
"UNOFFICIAL" Results (as of 11-9-16): NO FAILED-37.9%


NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! PROP 63, proposed by ULTRA-LIBERAL DEMOCRAT, GAVIN NEWSOM, is trying to WHITTLE DOWN OUR CA 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS DOWN TO NOTHING! There are so many restrictions and laws on CA gun owners/dealers ALREADY. This PROP 63, will just pile on a ton more.

Do you think TERRORIST or CRIMINALS will comply? OF COURSE NOT! Do you think TERRORIST or CRIMINALS will still get GUNS/ AMMUNITION? OF COURSE THEY WILL!! PROP 63 will just leave LAW-ABIDING citizens more vulnerable and w/o protection. PROP 63 will make CA w/ the most Restrictive gun/ammunition laws in the Nation.

What does PROP 63 actually do? It would require background checks for anyone seeking to purchase AMMUNITION. It would also require those who ALREADY own over 10 rounds of ammunition, previously permitted, to now be in violation, IF they don’t go back and seek a permit. It would also require $50 for ever ammo purchase to cover administration cost. PROP 63 has a ton of other restrictive provisions, but the above is the gist of it.

Already, under Federal and State Laws, certain individuals are not allowed to have firearms. And these same individual are also NOT allowed to have ammunition. Under Federal Law, dealers MUST do a background checks using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), checking a number of databases.

Plus, the CA legislature in July of this this year, added a ton more restrictions. Don't let CA continue to TRAMPLE ON OUR 2nd AMENDMENT RIGHTS! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

And, PROP 63 is overwhelmingly OPPOSED by the Law Enforcement community, too.

A STRONG NO on PROP 63!
.


PROP 64 LEGALIZATION OF MARIJUANA Strong No
Results: YES PASSED, 56.2%

PROP 64 legalizes marijuana for use by adults 21 or older and imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation.

This is a terrible law and should be voted DOWN:

1. There hasn’t been sufficient research into the long-term health effects of using marijuana.

2. Known fact: Marijuana harms developing brains.

3. Known fact: For people predisposed to schizophrenia, marijuana can trigger its onset and intensify symptoms.

4. Legalization gives another form of intoxication to cause more highway deaths. Since Washington approved legalization, deaths in marijuana-related car crashes have doubled.

5. PROP 64 does not include a DUI standard (like there is w/alcohol) making it difficult to keep impaired drivers off our highways.

6. Legalization would allow another way to endanger our kids, as there is no provision to restrict growing near schools and parks.

7. PROP 64 has no restriction on Marijuana advertisements in print or aired to protect children. Children could be exposed to ads promoting marijuana gummy candy and brownies, the same products blamed for a spike in emergency room visits in Colorado.

8. Legalization allows underage youth easier access to this form of intoxication, even while knowing marijuana harms a developing brain.

9. While some say legalization will reduce illegal drug cartel activity, in reality, since Colorado's marijuana legalization organized crime filings have skyrocketed.

10. California is still fine-tuning its regulations on medical marijuana, and hasn't done a good job to date.

NO on PROP 64!
.
PROP 65 GROCERY AND RETAIL CARRY-OUT BAGS No
Results: NO PASSED-55.3%

PROP 65 directs that (if PROP 67 passes), the money collected by grocers & other retail stores from the sale of mandated "government-approved" carryout bags, be set aside to fund specified environmental projects.

The money going to "environmental" projects, is in opposition of the funds to going to grocers & other retail stores to offset costs, that PROP 67 proposes.

NOTE: Should Proposition 67 be defeated and Proposition 65 pass, then there would be no single-use bag ban, and this prop unnecessary.

Confusing, huh? I think that was the intention!

KEEP IT SIMPLE! VOTE NO on 65 and 67.
.

PROP 66 DEATH PENALTY PROCEDURES Strong Yes
Results: YES PASSED-50.9%, so far. Tight margins. Could change.

Proposition 66 and Proposition 62 are competing measures. If both are approved, then the one with the most "yes" votes would supersede the other.

PROP 66:
1. Keeps the Death Penalty (DP) in place
2. Makes system changes in the (DP) process to speed up the appeals process, while ensuring that no innocent person is executed
3. Establishes a time frame for death penalty review
4. Requires appointed attorneys to work on DP cases
5. Require (DP) prisoners on death row to work while in prison and pay 70% of wages in restitution to victims' families

DP REFORM is long overdue. It is ridiculous prisoners stay on Death Row for 20-30 yrs.

Also supporting the DP and it's reform are virtually all POLICE, SHERIFFS, and other LAW ENFORCEMENT agencies, along w/virtually all of CA's county District Attorneys.

YES on REFORM! YES on PROP 66
.
PROP 67 PROHIBIT PLASTIC SINGLE-USE CARRYOUT BAGS No
Results: YES PASSED-52,3%

PROP 65 and PROP 67 are competing measures.

PROP 67 would prohibit grocery stores, pharmacies, convenience stores, and liquor stores from providing plastic single-use carryout bags.

It further mandates stores to charge a minimum of 10 cents for reusable grocery bags. In PROP 67, the money collected from the bags would go to grocers to cover costs, and some to education.

BACKGROUND: PROP 67 is really a 2014 passed law (SB 270). But the law did not go into effect, due to a successful citizens's VETO REFERENDUM which, instead placed the law on the ballot.

The same supporters that forced this law on the ballot, then sought their own CONFLICTING measure (PROP 65), which is also on the ballot.

(PROP 65 mandates that the funds collected from the sale of the GOVERNMENT-MANDATED bags of PROP 65, if it passed, must go to certain environmental causes, instead of grocers, schools, and education.)

BACK to PROP 67: I'm recommending a NO on 67, b/c we should not be forced to pay for bags. If we want to use our own re-usable bag, fine! But Government should NOT be "shoving it down our throats". Government should stay out of businesses and citizen choices.

The CA Legislature should stop micro-managing businesses and concentrate on doing a better job at managing CA's fiscal condition.

NOTE: If both PROPS 65 and 67 are approved, but Proposition 67 receives more "yes" votes, this allocation provision would supersede Proposition 65's allocation provision.

If PROPS 65 and PROP 67 are confusing for you, KEEP IT SIMPLE! VOTE NO on BOTH of them.

.
.
.
.
.
.

CITY MEASURES or SCHOOL DISTRICT MEASURES, SPECIFIC TO CERTAIN ORANGE COUNTY CITIES OR SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
x MEASURE J - ANAHEIM SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS J is a local $318 million bond to make infrastructure improvements in this school district.

BONDS: A BOND is a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time. Over the period of the BOND/LOAN, w/ interest, the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed. A BOND is TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”.

But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts need to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things!

Continuing to approve School Bonds measures only ENCOURAGES School Districts to RELY on BONDS/LOANS for improvements, instead of applying the “B” word. (55% Approval Required)
NO on MEASURE J! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE K - BREA OLINDA SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: NO PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEASURE K is a $148 million bond to make infrastructure improvements in this school district.

BONDS: A BOND is a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of the BOND/LOAN, w/ interest, the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed. A BOND is TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”.

But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts need to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things!

Continuing to approve School Bonds measures only ENCOURAGES School Districts to RELY on BONDS/LOANS for improvements, instead of applying the “B” word. (55% Approval Required)
NO on MEASURE J! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE M - CAPISTRANO SCHOOL BOND Strong No
Results: NO PASSED, 55.4%

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT! NO on this poorly written, horribly expensive MEASURE M!

MEASURE M is a whopping $889 million BOND or LOAN to make infrastructure improvements in this school district. W/ MEAS M, if you own property in the CAPO School Dist, YOU WILL PAY $300-$600 MORE IN PROPERTY TAX each year FOR THE NEXT 35 YEARS. If you rent and this passes, you rent will likely be adjusted up to compensate.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money.

Say NO to higher taxes. That is, NO! NOT! NEVER! NADA! NOPE! NA! NEE! NON! NAH! In whatever language, A BIG FAT NO on MEASURE M! (55% Approval Required)
x MEASURE N - CENTRALIA SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

MEAS N is a $49 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in the Centralia Elementary Schools.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money. (55% Approval required)

NO on MEASURE N! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE O - FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS O is a $63 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in FOUNTAIN VALLEY Schools.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money.

NO on MEASURE O! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE P - GARDEN GROVE SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS P is a $311 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in GARDEN GROVE Schools.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money.

NO on MEASURE P! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE Q - HUNTINGTON BEACH SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS Q is a whopping $159 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in HUNTINGTON BEACH Schools.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money, instead of Budgeting. (55% Approval Required)

NO on MEASURE Q! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE R - OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS R is a $ $169 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in OCEAN VIEW SCHOOLS.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money, instead of Budgeting. (55% Approval Required)

NO on MEASURE R! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE S - ORANGE SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS S is a $288 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOLS.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money, instead of Budgeting. (55% Approval Required)


NO on MEASURE S! (And ALL Bonds)
x MEASURE T - WESTMINSTER SCHOOL BOND Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

(My comments in opposition to CA's statewide PROP 51, could be applied here, too.)

NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY NOT!

MEAS T is a $76 million BOND (or LOAN) to make infrastructure improvements to schools in ORANGE UNIFIED SCHOOLS.

BONDS in General: A BOND is really a LOAN that has to be paid back w/interest. Who will pay it back? YOU WILL w/higher property taxes over a very long period of time, typically 25-35 yrs. Over the period of this BOND/LOAN, w/ interest the repayment will approximately double the amt borrowed.

A BOND is a TERRIBLE and EXPENSIVE way to make improvements, and “presumes on the future”. But schools are in need of repair, you say? Well, just like you and me, School Districts needs to BUDGET (yep, the "B" word), set aside money, and incrementally make improvement. Schools GET MONEY for these things! They just CHOOSE to spend it for other things! And, they have become "ADDICTED" to asking Tax Payers for Bond Money, instead of Budgeting. (55% Approval Required)


NO on MEASURE T! (And ALL Bonds).
x MEASURE U - ANAHEIM, REQUIRE 2/3 VOTE OF CITY COUNCIL TO PROPOSE TAXES Yes
(Results: YES PASSED, by 82%

Would require a 2/3 Vote of the City Council to Propose New Taxes, instead of a simple majority. (High threshold to win, 2/3 Approval Required)

A GREAT IDEA, Anaheim Voters! YES for MEASURE U!
x MEASURE V - COSTA MESA, ALLOW UP TO 8 MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES No
(Results: NO PASSED)

MEASURE V would authorize up to eight medical marijuana dispensaries in the city.

BACKGROUND: In 1996, California was the first state to establish a medical marijuana program. Prop. 215, also known as the "Compassionate Use Act", was approved, allowing people with cancer, AIDS and other chronic illnesses the right to grow or obtain marijuana for medical purposes when recommended by a doctor.

I recommended a NO in 1996, anticipating what we have now, a totally abused program. ANYBODY, with a hang nail can get a pot RX. Terminal sufferers, cancer, HIV/AIDS, or glaucoma account for a tiny fraction of medical marijuana users. The average user is a male in his 30's with no terminal illness, but w/a history of drug abuse. Dispensaries tend to attract problems, which is why cities are NOT THRILLED to welcome them. Costa Mesa isn't and for good reason. No on MEAS W.
x MEASURE W - COSTA MESA, ALLOW OPERATION OF UP TO 4 MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES No
(Results: NO PASSED)

MEASURE W would authorize up to four medical marijuana collectives to operate within the city, establish a 6 percent sales tax on cannabis and enact certain restrictions.

BACKGROUND: In 1996, California was the first state to establish a medical marijuana program. Prop. 215, also known as the "Compassionate Use Act", was approved, allowing people with cancer, AIDS and other chronic illnesses the right to grow or obtain marijuana for medical purposes when recommended by a doctor.

I recommended a NO in 1996, anticipating what we have now, a totally abused program. ANYBODY, with a hang nail can get a pot RX. Terminal sufferers, cancer, HIV/AIDS, or glaucoma account for a tiny fraction of medical marijuana users. The average user is a male in his 30's with no terminal illness, but w/a history of drug abuse. Dispensaries tend to attract problems, which is why cities are NOT THRILLED to welcome them. Costa Mesa, like other cities are wary and for good reason. No on MEAS W.
x MEASURE X - COSTA MESA, MEDICAL MARIJUANA ZONES Yes
(Results: YES PASSED)

MEASURE X would allow Medical Marijuana ("MMJ") businesses to be located in one specific area of the city, provided they obtain the appropriate city permits. A good idea! YES on MEAS X!
x MEASURE Y - COSTA MESA, No
MEASURE Y would require Voter Approval on certain city development projects. This is known as "ballot-box" city planning.

While it may SOUND good to some, in reality, the prospect of having years of planning for a new development, which would then be subject to a city-wide vote is a risk most business people won’t take.

(Results: YES PASSED)

For the most part, CM is a built-out city. Measure Y would cripple the city's ability to re-invigorate areas of the city that are starting to decay.

This kind of planning may work for a small town, but would be devastating to a city the size of COSTA MESA.

NO ON MEAS Y.
x MEASURE Z - COSTA MESA, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF OPEN SPACE & RECREATION Yes
(Results: YES PASSED)

MEASURE Z is an appropriate response and a good balance to MEAS Y.

MEASURE Z would add a development fee which would be used for the purpose of increasing active recreation, open space and public park facilities within the City.

xx MEASURE AA - COSTA MESA, CHANGE OF USE REQUIREMENT No
(Results: YES PASSED)

MEASURE AA is about 2 factions in Costa Mesa disagreeing on planned development of Fairview Park, with one not wanting changes the city had planned. This measure would require voter approval before certain changes be done to the park.

This is one of those issues where passions run high on both sides. The city thinks they have taken into considerations residents preferences, w/100's of hours of citizen involvement that ended up with a Master Plan for the park. And the other side saying they have other preferences for the park that are not in the plan.

I am recommending a NO, just looking at the measure OBJECTIVELY and without passion that many of you CM citizens may feel. The reason I support a NO is that micromanagement by voters of development, does not work well for ANY city, and always wastes time and money.

While micromanagement by an outsider like me, does not make sense, CM residents, it is YOUR city! You choose your passion.
xx MEASURE BB - COSTA MESA, PROHIBITION OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AT FAIRVIEW PARK Yes
(Results: NO PASSED)

MEASURE BB is a competing measure with Measure AA. It is an attempt to address the concerns that the Citizen Initiative of MEASURE AA had, without requiring voter approval.

I think this is an appropriate process for all concerned in the development of Fairview Park, and recommend a YES.
xx MEASURE EE - COSTA MESA, VOTER DISTRICT FORMATION Yes
Currently, Costa Mesa has 5 City Council members elected at-large to staggering terms of four years each.

MEASURE EE would establish six districts from which city council members are elected. A candidate would have to live in their district in order to be a candidate for their district.

I don't feel a strong on this, as sometimes it is difficult for districts to have qualified candidates willing to serve. But many cities are going that way to more evenly spread the representation. So, I give a mild YES
xx MEASURE GG - CYPRESS, TOWN CENTER & COMMONS SPECIFIC PLAN No Recommendation
(Results: NO PASSED)

In MEASURE GG the city's leaders are asking Cypress Residents for approval of the “Cypress Town Center and Commons Specific Plan” to allow for development for:

-Town Center
-Single-Family & Multi-Family Housing
-Commercial/Senior Housing and
-Public Park (on portions of Los Alamitos Race Course, the former Cypress Golf Club and adjacent properties)

Because this changes a previous "Specific Plan", a vote of the Cypress residents is required.

In looking at the specifics of what is being planned, I think it looks like responsible planning. I would probably vote YES, if I lived in Cypress. But, it is your community and your call, Cypress Voters.


xx MEASURE HH - FOUNTAIN VALLEY, POLICE/FIRE/ESSENTIAL CITY SERVICES No
(Results: YES PASSED)

This is a FOUNTAIN VALLEY Sales Tax Increase, from 8% to 9%. I recommend a NO. Instead, tell the city's leaders to "tighten the city's belts", and budget better. I recommend a NO to TAX ALL INCREASES. It is a business-killer, sending buyers to nearby cities w/lower taxes to shop! NO on MEASURE HH!
xx MEASURE II - FULLERTON, DISTRICT ELECTIONS Yes
(Results: YES PASSED)

Per: RobynNordell.com

"City of Fullerton Measure ll –Regretfully, I will be voting YES. Unfortunately, voting yes is the bestwe can do with a bad situation. District voting (which I oppose forseveral reasons, including that it diminishes the influence that most
residents can have with multiple citycouncil members) is inevitable. IF residents turn down this measure, then a judge will draw up the district boundaries and we will likely end up with significantly worse boundary lines."

I support Robny Nordell's position.
xx MEASURE JJ - LA PALMA, 1 CENT SALES TAX No
(Results: YES PASSED)

This is a LA PALMA Sales Tax Increase, from 8% to 9%. I recommend a NO! Instead, tell the city's leaders to "tighten the city's belts", and budget better. Vote NO to TAX INCREASES. It is a business-killer, sending buyers to nearby cities w/lower taxes to shop! NO on MEASURE JJ!
xx MEASURE KK - LAGUNA BEACH, RESCIND BAN ON AND AUTHORIZE MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Strong No
(Results: NO PASSED)

BACKGROUND: Currently, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code bans medical marijuana dispensaries within the entire City.

This is a citizens-qualified measure. If approved, MEAS KK would REPEAL that ban, and allow one medical marijuana dispensary for every 10,000 residents.

I recommend a NO, as medical marijuana is fraught w/abuse.

And also VOTE NO on CA's PROP 64 which would legalize all marijuana use.

xx MEASURE LL - LAGUNA BEACH, VITAL SERVICES Strong No
(Results: YES PASSED)

MEASURE LL seeks to increase Laguna Beach's Hotel Tax 2%, from the current 10% to 12%. Funds are not earmarked for anything, but would go into the GENERAL FUND.

I recommend a STRONG NO! Even though the taxes would generally not be paid by residents, it still is a TAX. Good grief, isn't a 10% Sales Tax high enough to charge city visitors? Say NO to higher taxes of all kinds. NO on MEASURE LL!
xx MEASURE MM - NEWPORT BEACH, REQUIRE 5 OF 7 VOTES OF CITY COUNCIL TO PROPOSE TAXES Yes
(Results: YES PASSED)

Requires 5 of the 7 on the City Council to vote in favor of placing a tax increase on the ballot. (Currently, it is a simple majority.)

Yes, a very sound idea! The possibility of raising taxes should require a higher threshold.
xx MEASURE NN - PLACENTIA, ESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICT ELECTIONS No