I have been asked by several persons to provide my own ballot preferences for the election on Tuesday, June 8th. I have decided to do so, not primarily so as to influence votes (because I would presume that, by now, most everyone on my email distribution list has decided already for whom or what to support), but so as to clarify my own thoughts on the matter. Frankly, I would urge anyone else to do the same, if they remain unsure in their own minds how to vote. The act of writing itself tends to provide a certain resolution of affairs. Here are my thoughts on statewide propositions and candidates.

Proposition 13 - Seismic Retrofits: YES

Presently, when a home owner makes a substantial retrofit of his home, he is treated as if a "new owner" for the purposes of assigning a new, higher property tax. If passed, then this proposition will exclude from that equation those retrofits that are done to make homes more seismically fit. This is a no-brainer, since otherwise home owners are discouraged by the tax code from improving the seismic fit of their own homes.

Proposition 14 - Open Primary: NO

Presently, political parties each have their own, closed primary elections for partisan seats (meaning seats in the State Legislature, Congress, and State Constitutional Offices). Whoever wins their respective primary elections then will face off against each other in the general election in November. If passed, then this proposition would eliminate such closed primary, in favor of an "open" version, where all candidates running for a certain seat, regardless of party registration, face off within such "primary." The top two vote getters in that "primary" would then face off in such general election in November. Effectively, this would mean that in Democrat leading areas, like the San Francisco Bay Area, most often only two Democrats would appear on the ballot in the general election, like we see commonly in run-off elections for San Francisco Mayor.

The proponents suggest that a more moderate legislature will emerge, as "moderate" Democrats defeat their "more liberal" opponents in the general election, due to the fact that Republicans essentially will be forced to support one of the two Democrats in the general election. The problem: as we have seen recently in how the "moderates" folded on Obamacare, there is no such thing as the "moderate" Democrat, at least once elected to office, because of the overwhelming power of their internal, party discipline (which is enforced always by their liberal wing) and because of the influence of the unions and special interests over Democrat fundraising. We shall neuter Republican Parties in these Democrat leading areas, who will fade away if they cannot even participate in general elections, but we shall not obtain the "moderate" officeholders we are promised.

Proposition 15 - Taxpayer Funded Elections: NO

Presently, there is an enormous advantage for incumbents in terms of fundraising and name recognition, and the proponents claim that this measure will balance the field somewhat by providing taxpayer funds to low funded candidates. There is a solution to this problem, but it is not in forcing taxpayers to fund candidates whom they would oppose. Rather, it is in opening up the process to allow candidates (challengers and incumbents alike) to obtain donations in any amount at a time, so long as published within twenty-four hours of being received. Presently, the strict limits per donor hurt the challengers disproportionately: they already suffer from a lower name recognition and yet need to obtain campaign funds from a large number of donors, in order to be competitive with the huge "war chests" and name recognition of their opponents. Of course, what I advocate may allow for candidates to be funded fully by a small number of wealthy persons or special interests; but if the "million dollar donations" are published, then let the voters decide if they approve of a candidate obtaining his financial support in that way. In the meantime, let us not open the door to taxpayer funded elections.

Proposition 16 - Utility Elections: NO

Presently, county governments can form or contract with public utilities, in order to provide their rate payers a competitor to the private cartel (PG&E, Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric). This prevents the rate gouging that is endemic with private monopolies or cartels. If passed, then this proposition will lock into the State Constitution a two-thirds vote requirement in each district to be covered by a proposed public utility (or public utility contract). Effectively, since public entities are prohibited by law from spending funds to influence elections, and since most of the farmers/developers who will favor competitive rates will not be able to spend nearly the level of funds as the cartel in these district wide elections, there will be an impenetrable wall imposed upon future public utilities. Furthermore, this proposition claims to give taxpayers "the right to vote," when in fact they have already the ability to vote on proposed public utilities. The cartel really wants to eliminate the majority vote in favor of a two-thirds super majority and lock in their overwhelming control over our resources.

Proposition 17 - Automobile Insurance Rates: NO

Presently, automobile insurance companies cannot charge you more due to a break in automobile insurance coverage. This was a reform passed by the voters some years ago (Proposition 103), and over time it has saved California motorists an estimated $60 billion in rate hikes. If passed, then this Mercury Insurance funded proposition will do away with that restriction, thus allowing Mercury and others to increase rates on new customers, simply because there has been a break in their coverage. Thus, persons who had a break in coverage because they were serving overseas in the military, or had to drop automobile insurance coverage because of temporary unemployment or disability, will be paying higher rates than otherwise if and when they resume coverage. In return, consumers are allowed to hold onto their "continuous coverage discounts," even when they move from one company to another. In the aggregate, those "discounts" are balanced out by "surcharges," so in effect rates will increase under this proposition.

Governor - Steve Poizner.

Mr. Poizner does not have a perfect past on several issues, and frankly I question his suddenly tough talk on illegal immigration, which seems tailored for a conservative electorate in a closed, Republican primary contest. Still, his is a better record than the stated positions of Meg Whitman, who articulated early on in her race a support for more taxpayer funded abortions (in line with the policy of her protege, former Governor Pete Wilson), benefits for illegal immigrants (until her sudden drop in the polls several weeks ago forced her to talk tough on that issue), and even gun control. Ms. Whitman did not vote at all for the span of nearly thirty years; and, prior to her recent registration into the GOP, her only public political stance was in supporting the re-election of Barbara Boxer to the United States Senate. By contrast, Mr. Poizner has a record of conservative advocacy as said State Insurance Commissioner and has given financial support to conservative causes of late, such as in bankrolling opposition to Proposition 93 several years ago. Certainly, candidates like Mr. Neritelli and Mr. Miller are much better on the issues, but as they have no chance of defeating Ms. Whitman, I urge a vote for Mr. Poizner as our best bet for this election.

United States Senate - Carly Fiorina.

This has been the toughest for me, since I have been an admirer of Chuck DeVore for years. Mr. DeVore has been a leader in the trenches of the State Legislature for some time on behalf of principled, conservative positions, such as in withdrawing from a leadership position when others in the GOP caucus went along with Schwarzenegger and Maldonado to erect a huge tax increase. By contrast, Ms. Fiorina was a John McCain supporter in the previous election and, at least in the past, stated support for the bank bailouts of 2008. Nevertheless, if there is any year that Barbara Boxer reasonably can be defeated, then this is that year; and I believe that Ms. Fiorina is best positioned to defeat her and to become at least a moderate to conservative vote in the United States Senate. Admittedly, she is more "establishment" than Mr. DeVore, but that is one of the reasons why she has a chance of defeating Boxer in November. The fact is, if DeVore wins the primary, then the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee) almost certainly will write off California as "unwinnable" and spend virtually nothing here. DeVore will be overwhelmed by the union and special interest dollars spent to prop up the Boxer campaign. Fiorina will be able to match that money onslaught, thus allowing for a competitive race all the way to November.

Lieutenant Governor - Sam Aanestad.

He has been a principled conservative in the State Legislature and, most importantly, is the primary opponent of that RINO "Benedict Arnold" Abel Maldonado.

Attorney General - John Eastman.

He is a respected, constitutionalist scholar and member of the Claremont Institute.

Insurance Commissioner - Anyone but Mike Villines.

I agree with Congressman Tom McClintock on this one. Mr. Villines was a key architect in the Schwarzenegger-Maldonado tax increase of a year ago, even after signing a "no new taxes" pledge. We really should not reward duplicity with a promotion to any statewide constitutional office.

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Diane Lenning.

She is a committed conservative who will take on the entrenched teachers' union in defense of the education of our youth. Her Democrat opponent has purchased space on phony "Republican" slate mailers, trying to trick a lot of Republicans into thinking that he is in line with their values. Hopefully, voters will not be fooled, as she is the only real, conservative choice for this office.

State Board of Equalization District 1 - Rae Williams.

She is a committed conservative who will defend taxpayers' rights. She is also a Tea Party activist who has refused donations, as her way of providing principled opposition to the "big money" and career politicians/lobbyists that all too often subvert these offices for their own, personal interests.