Information in this form is the personal opinion of Nancy Sandoval.

NANCY’S PERSONAL PICKS

By Nancy Sandoval

Special Election of November 8, 2005

Email:nancyspicks@yahoo.com

Web:www.nancyspicks.com

I am a conservative Christian and spend a lot of time researching the ballot for acceptable candidates and proposition selections. Because of this, I was often asked my ballot opinions and started, many elections ago, to record my choices to give to those who ask. The criteria I use in making selections are described in the following paragraph. If you agree with my criteria, you probably will agree with the results of my research.

The following ballot choices are, in my opinion, the best to uphold strong family values, to oppose the senseless killing of innocent unborn children, to oppose granting special minority status based on sexual orientation, to provide parents with educational choice, to protect community standards of decency, to reduce the size of government and control government spending, to install judges that will only interpret the law and not make laws, and to perform the job successfully based on good character qualities and office qualifications. The selections are made from personal knowledge, interviews, research, various voter guides, voting records, party platform positions, candidate statements, testimonies of reliable secondary sources, and various news media.

OFFICE: SAN CLEMENTE CITY COUNCIL STEVE KNOBLOCK
Remarks: Special election called to replace a city councilwoman who resigned. In this field of seven, Steve has been shown to be superior. An attorney, he has been previously involved in No. OC and San Diego County politics. He is a solid conservative and a Christian, according to my research with all the qualifications to be an outstanding councilman. He is endorsed by the OC Republican Party and the CA. Republican Assembly.

PROPOSITIONS/COUNTY MEASURES

SUMMARY:

PROPS 73 thru 77 are GREAT, COMMON SENSE MEASURES! = BIG YES!!!

PROPS 78 thru 80 + COUNTY MEASURES B, C, D, and E = NO!!!

PROP 73 PARENTS RIGHT TO KNOW BIG YES!
Requires parent notification before a minor can have an abortion. This makes so much sense, it is a wonder why we even have to vote on it. Whether one is pro-life or pro-choice, all voters should be PRO-73 and should be supported as a parent rights issue. 30 other states have a similar law. I think California should join them. A similar parental consent initiative passed in 1987 but was overturned in the Courts. This parental notification initiative is a constitutional amendment and can finally make it into law. The measure is OPPOSED by the usual liberal groups: Planned Parenthood, NOW, National Abortion League, ACLU, Calif. Democratic Party, Green Party, Calif. Federation of Teachers, etc. It is supported by virtually every conservative and Christian organization in CA.

PROP 74 TEACHER TENURE YES!
This measure simply increases the teacher probationary period from 2 years to 5 years before a teacher can have a job for life. It also improves the system by providing a means to dismiss poor performing teachers. The only ones who should be against this one are POOR PERFORMING teachers. Good for students, their parents and good for teachers!

PROP 75 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES PAYCHECK PROTECTION BIG YES!
Right now, public employee union members have no say over how their union leaders spend their dues in political campaigns. Often member’s dues are used to promote issues with which large numbers of union members disagree. With this proposition, public labor organizations will be required to get members’ written consent each year to use their dues for political purposes. Power goes back to the member, instead of the union bosses. Makes sense to me!!!!! A BIG FAT YES!!

PROP 76 STATE SPENDING/SCHOOL FUNDING YES!
This is really an act that says that California must LIVE WITHIN OUR MEANS. What a concept!!! Just like you and me! Per Tom McClintock, “This measure restores the authority that the Governor of California had between 1939 and 1983, to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaced revenue without having to return to the Legislature”. Oh, so much good sense! YES! YES!

PROP 77 FAIR DISTRICTING HUMONGOUS YES!
This constitutional amendment puts a stop to allowing politicians to decide how their own districts boundaries are drawn, thereby, controlling who will get to vote for them. In the Nov. 2003 election, not a single seat changed parties. WHEN THERE IS NOT COMPETITION BETWEEN PARTIES, THE PEOPLE LOSE! With this measure, district boundaries would be drawn by judges and approved by voters. While this may not be a perfect system, it will greatly improve what we have now. Its passage is crucial to the political reform that this state desperately needs.

PROP 78 VOLUNTARY PRESCRIPTION DRUGS NO!
 

PROP 79 MANDATED PRESCRIPTION DRUGS BIGNO!
 

PROP 78 and 79 are competing initiatives. If both were to win, the one with the most votes over 50% would prevail. They both promise to lower prescription costs for some low & middle income individuals. PROP 78 is voluntary, and is backed by the pharmaceutical industry and initiated to counteract PROP 79. PROP 79 is a mandated program backed by the public employee union leaders. Both programs would have the California Dept. of Health Services involvement. For PROP 78, the dept. would merely oversee the program. For PROP 79, IT WOULD CREATE ANOTHER HUGELY EXPENSIVE BUREACRACY within the department. For that reason, I am voting a big, resounding NO on PROP 79. For 78, conservative groups/ individuals are conflicted. I, personally, have struggled after reading everything I can on this issue. But, as of this printing, I have decided on NO, mainly because even PROP 78 would expand government, though not as much, with taxpayers footing the bill.

PROP 80 ELECTRIC SERVICE PROVIDERS NO!
Who provides California with electricity is way to complex to be voted on in the initiative process. This initiative is so poorly written that what it purports to do, that is, help the consumer, in actuality would hurt the consumer. Prop. 80 would give the state an electricity monopoly and prohibit private enterprises from competing, with the consumer losing.

COUNTY MEASURES NO on all 4 Measures
County Measures B, C, D, &E are all competing measures and all relate to PROP 172 passed in 1993, which increased our sales tax one half cent to benefit local public safety. (Whichever, if any, get the most votes over 50 % will prevail.) PROP 172 was intended to make up for the 1992 shift of State Tax revenue from counties/cities to help fund school (ERAF). Because the OC Fire Authority(OCFA) wasexempt from this revenue shift at the time, they lost no revenue from it. Therefore, the County Supervisors allocated the one half cent tax after it passed to go to OC Sheriff’s Dept. (80%) and to the District Attorneys Office (20%). These departments were the ones who suffered the loss in the shift in the first place.

MEASURE D (Note: out of order from your Ballot) Big NO!
Now, however, the OC Fire Authority (OCFA) is trying to siphon a portion of that one half cent increase, pitting several agencies against them. Our County Supervisors have determined that the OCFA does NOT need the funds as their revenue comes from property taxes which is why the supervisors did not give them a portion of these funds in 1993 and why they do not believe they deserve them now. The OCFA is banking on the soft hearts that us, the voting public, have for firefighters. While we appreciate them for their work, this is underhandedness on the part of their union leaders again. Additionally, the OCFA only services 43% of the county yet want to collect money from 100% of OC taxpayers. All the supervisors unanimously OPPOSE Measure D as does the Republican Party of Orange County, Orange County Republican Assembly, Orange County Taxpayers Association, Senator Dick Ackerman, Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, Assemblymen Todd Spitzer and Chuck DeVore, Senator Tom McClintock, and ME.

MEASURES B, C AND E WERE PUT ON THE BALLOT BY THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS TO COUNTERACT MEASURE D

MEASURE B NO!
Put on by the Board of Supervisors to keep things as they are, but so would a “No” on all four measures.

MEASURE C NO!
Takes $10 million of the one-half cent sales tax increase and shifts it to the Homeland Security Infrastructure Fund.

MEASURE E NO!
Takes 5% of the County’s same tax’s share & shifts to probation dept. The remaining 95% would be allocated to the Co. Public Safety Services (or pretty much as it is now).

I am voting NO on all four of the COUNTY MEASURES.