With the end in sight, The Times recommends ...
Every election seems like none that ever came before, but this year’s may be one for the ages: a presidential race between a former first lady (and U.S. senator and secretary of State) against a bombastic real estate developer (and reality TV star) who has never before been elected to office. The nation’s values and relationship with the rest of the world hang in the balance. So, in separate races across the country, does control of Congress.
In California, the questions include which woman to send to the U.S. Senate to succeed the woman who is stepping down after 24 years, and how to vote on a mind-boggling 17 state ballot measures on subjects that include death, taxes, crime, drugs and more taxes.
For two months, The Times has made its arguments for and against candidates and ballot measures. Full endorsements are available at http://www.latimes.com/opinion/endorsements/. What follows is an abbreviated version.
Polls open Tuesday at 7 a.m. and close at 8 p.m.
President: Hillary Clinton. Clinton has the experience, wisdom, demeanor, thoughtfulness and policy positions to make a good U.S. president. Donald Trump is manifestly unfit in each of those areas. U.S. Senator: Kamala Harris. It’s a race between two Democrats to succeed retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer. Harris, a smart and pragmatic criminal justice reformer, is a better choice than Loretta Sanchez, a hardworking but often erratic congresswoman.
U.S. Representative, 44th District: Nanette Barragán. In another battle between Democrats, attorney Barragán has strong environmental credentials. State Sen. Isadore Hall’s environmental record is dismal.
L.A. County Supervisor District 4: Janice Hahn. A congresswoman and former City Council member, Hahn articulates the needs of the homeless, the jailed, the sick and the poor.
L.A. County Supervisor District 5: Kathryn Barger. Barger is an accomplished policymaker who would bring pragmatism and creativity to the board. Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 11: Stephen Schreiner. A criminal prosecutor, Schreiner has decades of trial experience. Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 42: Efrain Matthew Aceves. Experience in many jury trials makes Aceves the superior choice. Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 84: Susan Jung Townsend. Townsend is the better of the two veteran prosecutors running for this judicial seat. Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 158: David A. Berger. Berger has 20 years of experience in jury trials, which makes him much more prepared than his otherwise promising opponent.
Proposition 51 (school bonds): No. This bond perpetuates an inequitable school construction funding system that favors the wrong school districts for the wrong reasons. Proposition 52 (Medi-Cal hospital fees): Yes. The measure would support Medi-Cal, the healthcare program for the poor, by requiring hospitals to continue paying an existing tax on their services. The main advantage: the federal government kicks in extra dollars to double what the tax raises for Medi-Cal. Proposition 53 (revenue bond voter approval): No. It makes no sense to require voters statewide to weigh in on local bond funding for large local projects such as bridges or reservoirs that are financed by tolls or other user fees. Proposition 54 (legislative transparency): Yes. To improve transparency, the measure would require the Legislature to publish bill language at least 72 hours before voting on it. Proposition 55 (income tax extension): No. A temporary income tax on the wealthy lifted California out of the recession. Now it is time to move forward and rework state taxation to make it fairer and more stable.
Proposition 56 (tobacco tax): Yes. Increasing state tobacco taxes has been proven to reduce smoking, and in this case would also raise money to help pay California’s healthcare costs. Proposition 57 (criminal sentencing and parole): Yes. The measure keeps criminal sentences intact for felonies but allows inmates to apply for parole and rehabilitation credits to shorten the additional prison time tacked on by various sentence “enhancements.”
Proposition 58 (bilingual education): Yes. Parents would be given the option to choose between intensive English or dual-language immersion programs, and local districts would receive more flexibility on how schools teach English-language learners.
Proposition 59 (Citizens United constitutional amendment): No. When lawmakers finally start trying to fix the mess in campaign finance, their first step shouldn’t be to rewrite the 1st Amendment. Proposition 60 (condom use in adult films): No. There are better routes to performers’ safety than this proposition, which would allow any resident to sue film productions and participants that depict sex but don’t use condoms.
Proposition 61 (state prescription drug
purchases): No. Preventing the state from paying more for drugs than the Veterans Administration pays could prompt companies to jack up prices for everyone else.
Proposition 62 (repeal death penalty): Yes. This measure would replace the death penalty with life without parole for the state’s worst criminals. Proposition 63 (gun regulation): Yes. Requiring felons and others who lose their gun rights to actually get rid of their firearms would help curb gun violence, as would this measure’s other reasonable steps to restrict gun possession to the law-abiding. Proposition 64 (marijuana legalization): Yes. The time has come for the state to treat marijuana more like alcohol and less like heroin or cocaine. Proposition 65 (carryout bag fees): No. This confusing measure is little more than a ploy by the plastic bag industry to distract voters from keeping in place the muchneeded statewide ban on single-use plastic bags. Proposition 66 (accelerate death penalty): No. This attempt to accelerate executions in California is likely unworkable, and if it succeeds it would require unacceptable compromises of basic constitutional rights.
Proposition 67 (plastic bag ban referendum): Yes. Voting yes on this measure would keep in place a statewide ban on free plastic grocery bags that end up polluting oceans and degrading the environment. Measure A (L.A. County parcel tax for parks): Yes. The cost of having to do without funding for parks in Los Angeles County would be higher than the 1.5 cents per square foot of built space that would be imposed by this parcel tax. Measure M (L.A. Metro sales tax for transportation): Yes. A permanent sales tax increase will help keep roads and sidewalks in good repair, expand the region’s rail lines and fund maintenance and operations so that L.A.’s transit service does not deteriorate as badly as those in other cities have.
Measure CC (L.A. Community College District bond): Yes. This measure funds the construction of needed facilities and amenities on the nine campuses of the Community College District.
Measure FF (Mountains Recreation and
Conservation Authority parcel tax): Yes. This $15 tax enhances fire protection and helps preserve open space in a hillside district in the San Fernando Valley.
Measure GG (Mountains Recreation and
Conservation Authority parcel tax): Yes. This $35 parcel tax supports property values in a Hollywood Hills district by funding fire patrols, trail repair and preservation of open space. Measure HHH (L.A. City homelessness housing bond): Yes. This city bond would finance the construction of housing for people living on the street and begin, at long last, a serious effort to alleviate the misery of the homeless.
Measure JJJ (L.A. City affordable housing
mandate): No. This measure purports to provide affordable housing and good-paying jobs but will likely make low-cost units far too expensive for developers to build. Measure RRR (L.A. DWP reform): Yes. These incremental management and oversight tweaks fall short of what’s needed but would bring some improvement to the Los Angeles utility that provides residents and businesses their water and electricity.
Measure SSS (L.A. City airport police pensions): No. Even the airport police union that negotiated this proposed charter change isn’t supporting it. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF AND PUBLISHER