CA Ventura County June 2018 Primary Election voting recommendations

By Debra Tash & George Miller

 

The electorate is so polarized that Citizens Journal will continue its tradition of listing voting recommendations from all over the political map  ….

But first- who’s running and for what?

June 5, 2018 Statewide Direct Primary Election Candidate List – Local Offices

June 5, 2018 Statewide Direct Primary Election Candidate List – State and Federal Offices

 

Democratic Party

Statewide Candidates
US Senate: No Consensus*
Governor: No Consensus*
Lieutenant Governor: No Consensus*
Attorney General: No Consensus*
State Controller: Betty Yee
Insurance Commissioner: Ricardo Lara
Secretary of State: Alex Padilla
State Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond
State Treasurer: Fiona Ma
State Board of Equalization District 3: No Consensus*

*No Consensus means that no candidate was able to clear the 60% threshold required for endorsement.

Congressional Candidates
Congressional District 24: Salud Carbajal
Congressional District 25: No Consensus*
Congressional District 26: Julia Brownley
​Congressional District 30: Brad Sherman

State Assembly
District 37: Monique Limon
District 38: Christy Smith
District 44: Jacqui Irwin
District 45: Jesse Gabriel

County Seats
Ventura County, Board of Supervisors District 4: Bernardo M. Perez
Ventura County Superior Court Judge, Office 4: Caleb Donner
Ventura County Superior Court Judge, Office 6: Michael Magasinn

State Propositions
Proposition 68: Yes
Proposition 69: Yes
Proposition 70: No
Proposition 71: Yes
Proposition 72: Yes

Source: http://www.venturacountydemocrats.com/endorsements1.html  5-11-18

 

Indivisible Conejo

Has not responded

 

CAUSE

We were informed that they are not doing a primary voter guide but will do one for the general election.

 

Ventura County Taxpayers Association (VCTA)

VOTE NO ON PROP 68 – CALIFORNIANS FOR CLEAN WATER AND SAFE PARKS     Why we’re against it: Proposition 68 would allow the state to borrow $4 billion by selling general obligation bonds to investors, then repaying the debt with interest. The state Legislative Analyst estimates that the interest cost will total $3.8 billion, and the cost to taxpayers will be $200 million per year for 40 years. The money would be used for parks, natural resource protection programs, climate adaptation, water quality and flood protection.   VCTA is not opposed to all bonds, but we think projects funded with bond dollars should last at least as long as the debt obligation, typically 40 years. Otherwise your kids will spend their lives paying off the debt for something that is long gone. California’s debt service ratio – the amount of money we spend out of our General Fund solely to pay off bond debt each year – is slightly over five percent. That’s five percent of funds not supporting our colleges, our prisons, pensions or any other priorities.   There is not a good track record regarding how previous bond dollars have been spent. In 2006, voters approved Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion bond of which $400 million went to fund 126 park projects, predominately in low-income communities. According to a recent analysis done by the California Natural Resources Agency, 42 projects remain in progress 12 years after the bond was approved. VCTA believes bond money should be spent in a timely manner and fund projects that last the length of the bond.

VOTE NO ON PROP 69 – MOTOR VEHICLE FEES AND TAXES     Why we’re against it: Proposition 69 was placed on the ballot the same day the SB 1 gas and car tax increase was approved in 2017. Supporters want you to believe that it 100% guarantees that the gas and car taxes can only be spent on repairing and maintaining roads. But the measure has loopholes that can be easily exploited. It is fake reform.   Consider: Proposition 69 exempts all the new gas and car tax revenue from applying against the Gann Spending Limit. The more taxes we exempt out of the limit, the more worthless it becomes as a method to control spending. If any future state General Obligation transportation bonds are approved by voters, under Proposition 69 they can be paid for with money from the car tax out of SB 1. Voters have long said that they want gas and car tax money to go toward repairing and maintaining our roads, not paying off bond debt. Currently, a billion dollars a year worth of truck weight fees (fees truckers pay because they tear up our roads) are being diverted to pay off bond debt, and some of the money is even going into California’s General Fund. It’s not being used to repair and maintain roads. Proposition 69 could have easily altered this, but does not.

VOTE YES ON PROP 72 – PROPERTY TAXATION: NEW    CONSTRUCTION: RAIN WATER CAPTURE SYSTEM     Why we’re for it: Proposition 72 would create a property-tax exemption for rain water capture systems, allowing property owners to purchase and install rain barrels and other water-capture solutions without facing higher property taxes for that improvement to their property. This is similar to existing exemptions for seismic retrofit and solar energy installations.

 

Republican Party

Have not responded to our request

 

Libertarian Party

State-wide Candidates

Governor – 
Two candidates are LPCA endorsed:
Zoltan Istvan
Nickolas Wildstar

Lt. Governor

Tim Ferreira

US Senate 
Derrick Reid

Secretary of State

Propositions:

Prop 68 Bonds Funding Parks
Issues $4 billion in bonds for parks, environmental protection, and water infrastructure.

NO: We favor direct budgeting, rather than borrowing, for essential government services.
—

Prop 69 New Transportation Revenues allocated to Transportation 
Requires certain tax and fee revenue related to transportation be used for transportation purposes.

YES: We oppose any tax increases or diversion of funds. This initiative limits expenditures from the gas tax receipts to transportation.
—
Prop 70 Budget
Requires a one-time two-thirds vote to use revenue from the cap-and-trade program.

YES: We oppose the program, but favor constraints on expenditures.
—
Prop 71 Direct Democracy
Changes the date for when voter-approved ballot measures take effect.

YES: Laws should go into effect as soon as they are official adopted.
—

Prop 72 
Excludes rainwater capture systems from property tax assessments.

YES: We oppose any increase in taxes on any property improvements.

Three District School Bonds: Measure A, Oxnard Union High School District, Measure B, Hueneme School District, Measure C – Pleasant Valley School District

NO on all three (See Voter Information Guide Arguments Against) Not one DIME of any school bond money will EVER go to benefit any student. Your tax dollars, millions of dollars can only be used for construction of buildings long after your student graduates..  

For information on the Libertarian Party of Ventura County, please visit our website at http://LPVC.org – email: [email protected]
phone: 805-642-LPVC, (805-642-5782)

 

Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Governor- John Cox

State Treasurer- Jack Guerrero

U.S. Congressional District 45- Mimi Walters

Statewide Measures

Proposition 68- NO
Why we’re against it: Proposition 68 would allow the state to borrow $4 billion by selling general obligation bonds to investors, then repaying the debt with interest. The state Legislative Analyst estimates that the interest cost will total $3.8 billion, and the cost to taxpayers will be $200 million per year for 40 years. The money would be used for parks, natural resource protection programs, climate adaptation, water quality and flood protection.

HJTA isn’t opposed to all bonds, but we think projects funded with bond dollars should last at least as long as the debt obligation, typically 40 years. Otherwise your kids will spend their lives paying off the debt for something that is long gone.

California’s debt service ratio, the amount of money we spend out of our General Fund solely to pay off bond debt each year, is slightly over five percent. That’s five percent of funds not supporting our colleges, our prisons, pensions or any other priorities.

There’s not a good track record regarding how previous bond dollars have been spent. In 2006, voters approved Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion bond of which $400 million went to fund 126 park projects, predominately in low-income communities. According to a recent analysis done by the California Natural Resources Agency, 42 projects remain in progress 12 years after the bond was approved. HJTA believes bond money should be spent in a timely manner and fund projects that last the length of the bond.

Proposition 69- NO
Why we’re against it: Proposition 69 was placed on the ballot the same day the SB 1 gas and car tax increase was approved in 2017. Supporters want you to believe that it 100% guarantees that the gas and car taxes can only be spent on repairing and maintaining roads. But the measure has loopholes that can be easily exploited. It is fake reform. Consider:

• Proposition 69 exempts all the new gas and car tax revenue from applying against the Gann Spending Limit. The more taxes we exempt out of the limit, the more worthless it becomes as a method to control spending.
• If any future state General Obligation transportation bonds are approved by voters, under Proposition 69 they can be paid for with money from the car tax out of SB 1. Voters have long said that they want gas and car tax money to go toward repairing and maintaining our roads, not paying off bond debt.

Currently, a billion dollars a year worth of truck weight fees (fees truckers pay because they tear up our roads) are being diverted to pay off bond debt, and some of the money is even going into California’s General Fund. It’s not being used to repair and maintain roads. Proposition 69 could have easily altered this, but does not.

Proposition 72- YES
Why we’re for it: Proposition 72 would create a property-tax exemption for rainwater-capture systems, allowing property owners to purchase and install rainbarrels and other water-capture solutions without facing higher property taxes for that improvement to their property. This is similar to existing exemptions for seismic retrofit and solar energy installations.

 

POV (Point Of View)

A spokeswoman told us that they do not endorse candidates, but will send us issues they feel strongly about and urge you to find candidates who support them. Stand by!

 

League of Women Voters

The League also does not endorse candidates but advances political, civic and social positions, as follows: http://www.lwvventuracounty.org/Positions.html

 

Ventura County Tea Party