Kathy Dittner’s Picks
June 8, 2010, California Primary Election Recommendations

I am a Christian conservative who has spent hours researching candidates and issues. My "Pics" reflect a viewpoint that is pro-life, pro-family, pro-Constitution, pro-choice in education, as well as decentralized and limited government in both size and spending. I generally do not recommend anyone from the Democrat Party, as it does not reflect the values and issues I support. The American Independent Party is generally pro-life and pro-family and, occasionally, I must choose principle over party and register a protest vote. Third party candidates typically do not get enough votes to influence an election

View the full text of Kathy’s Pics at: http://www.robynnordell.com/county_orange.aspx

* denotes a California Republican Assembly Endorsed, Pro-Life, Pro-Family candidate

State Offices
Governor: Steve Poizner*
Lieutenant Governor: Sam Aanestad*. Endorsed by Tom McClintock
Secretary of State: Damon Dunn*
Controller: Tony Strickland*
Treasurer: Mimi Walters*
Attorney General: John Eastman*
Insurance Commissioner: Mike Villines, endorsed by California Pro-Life Council
State Board of Equalization, District 3: Michelle Steel*
U.S. Senate: Chuck DeVore*

U.S. Congressional Representatives
I do not adhere to the “throw all Congressman out.” Each should be evaluated for their record and votes on our values. All of these candidates uphold our values

42nd District: Gary Miller*

State Assembly
District 71: Jeff Miller* (unopposed)

Orange County Central Committee
71st Assembly District
Mark Bucher*
John Williams
Jack Anderson
Mark Dobrilovic*
Tony Beall*
Todd Spitzer*

Non- Partisan Offices

Judicial: All California Superior Court Judges are elected to 6 year terms. Of those, 50 are up for re-election in June, but you will only find 5 on the June 8 ballot. This is because the remaining 45 judges filed papers to run again for their jobs, but nobody filed to run against them. Therefore, these judges will not even appear on the ballot. It is interesting that this does not apply to all unopposed offices. The office numbers do not mean anything; they are only for record keeping. All of these judges serve the County at large and thus, office numbers do not refer to a specific district within the County.

Superior Court Judge Office No. 2: unopposed
Superior Court Judge Office No. 13 unopposed
Superior Court Judge Office No. 16: Andy Manssourian*
Superior Court Judge Office No. 39: unopposed
Superior Court Judge Office No. 50: Julian Bailey*

Schools
Superintendent of Public Instruction: Diane Lenning*
County Superintendent of Schools: William Habermehl
County Board of Education Area 2: Alexandria Coronado*
County Board of Education Area 5: No recommendation
Recall of Capistrano Unified School District Trustees: NO! They don’t deserve to be recalled.

County Offices
Supervisor, 5th District: Pat Bates*
Assessor: Claude Parrish
Auditor-Controller: David Sundstrom
County Clerk-Recorder: Hugh Nguyen* is a Republican and Tom Daly is a Democrat
District Attorney: Tony Rackauckas*
Public Administrator: John Williams*
Sheriff-Coroner: Bill Hunt* (He seems like a principled sheriff and will certainly shake up the Dept. )
Treasurer-Tax Collector: Shari Freidenrich. Current treasurer of Huntington Beach and endorsed by John Moorlach, she is the only treasurer running in the race.

Propositions
Proposition 13: Yes*
This constitutional amendment provides equal protection to all homeowners and builders who decide to improve their property for earthquake (seismic) retrofitting. In the spirit of Prop 13 of “78,” it will not result in higher property taxes until the building or home is sold.

Proposition 14: Elections. Increases Right to Participate in Primary Elections. NO*
This Proposition will eliminate the purpose for the Primary Election, which is to have each party choose a candidate from their party to run against each other in the general election. Candidates would also no longer have to list their party affiliation on the ballot. Both Republicans and Democrats oppose this change. Vote No

Proposition 15: California Fair elections Acts: NO*

Do you want public funds (your tax dollars) to go towards political campaigns? If not, then vote No! Politicians, specifically candidates for Secretary of State, could choose to receive public funds for 2014 and 2018, if you do not vote NO. 

Proosition 16: Two-Thirds Voter Approval for Local Public Electricity Providers. NO
This will enable taxpayers to vote, by a 2/3 margin, before local governments can spend or borrow tax payer money to enter the retail electricity business. That sounds good! Upon further research, I found out PG&E is the sponsor of this initiative and has spent $28.5 million to see it passed. They seemingly want to eliminate competition by having the new electric company fund a very expensive special election requiring 2/3 vote, thus guaranteeing their monopoly of the market.

Proposition 17: Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base their Prices, in part, on a Driver’s History of Insurance coverage. YES*/NO

Mercury Insurance Company has funded this ballot initiative. Prop 17 amends the current law to allow current drivers who have maintained auto insurance with the same company and are eligible for a continuous coverage discount, to take that with them if they change insurance companies to get lower rates. This seems reasonable, but I find many contradictions between No and Yes. For instance, No on Prop 17 states the Dept. of Insurance reports “it will result in a surcharge” whereas a Yes on Prop 17 states it will eliminate an existing surcharge for changing Insurance Companies. The No side says rates will rise on the Military if they stop their coverage for 91 days. Yes, says it adds protection for soldiers to maintain their continuous coverage. Yes on 17 is right according to the legislative analysis and will protect the Military exemptions. YOU DECIDE! If you think the continuous coverage discount is enough, then vote Yes. If you see some contradiction and feel conflicted, vote No.

MEASURE D: Mission Viejo Right–To-Vote Initiative. YES!

This measure was initially put on the ballot in response to the Casta Del Sol golf course being considered for sale with a senior care facility being built on a small portion of the land that would not be in a flood channel. The developer wanted the rest of the golf course to be sold to the city for a park or open space that the city/tax payers would need to maintain. The developer backed out when the building market collapsed and residents came to meetings in M.V to oppose the sale.

The Right to Vote Measure will:

• REQUIRE voter approval of major zoning changes.
• PROTECT present standards for single family home permits, reconstruction and additions not involving major changes to zoning. Businesses would also maintain present standards for changes in their buildings.
• PRESERVE our original Master Plan of the Mission Viejo Company. It provided a balance between housing, business, and recreation areas.
• PREVENT election costs by having the companies that are proposing the major zoning changes to pay for the regular or special elections, NOT THE TAXPAYERS! The City Council will approve or reject regular land use changes or affordable housing required by state law.
• KEEP recreation and open spaces by VOTERS approving changes or development of open spaces, and rezoning recreation property, unless being changed to open space. This would prevent the City Council from taking a park and selling it to a developer to build houses or apartment. The City Council would still approve sports parks or dog parks.

This measure is a win-win for the citizens of Mission Viejo.