Santa Cruz County Races
County Supervisor — District 3
Neal Coonerty
Since his election to the Board of Supervisors four years ago, Neal Coonerty has not been full of surprises. That’s a good thing. As expected, he’s cast socially progressive but fiscally sensible votes, moving ahead on issues like alternative transportation while protecting social services during last year’s nightmarish budget session. On one sensitive issue—granting pay raises last year for the highest-paid county employees—Coonerty now says he thinks the board erred. But his opponents’ criticisms that the supervisors aren’t imaginative enough in the face of the economic difficulties aren’t very convincing. One challenger, Cove Britton, is an architect best known for contesting the planning department’s restrictive rules. The other challenger, five-time candidate and community activist Doug Deitch, has an interesting vision but is fixated on a handful of issues, including groundwater, the city of Santa Cruz’s sanctuary status and supervisor pay. Neither challenger has Coonerty’s eight years of experience as a public servant (he was a Santa Cruz councilmember for four years), which is what we think is needed right now. We recommend reelecting him to the board.
County Supervisor — District 4
Tony Campos
This one falls in the “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” category. Incumbent Tony Campos seems to have served his district in good faith since being elected to the office in 1998, and he’s certainly won the support of many in local government. He helped secure funding for Watsonville’s new Civic Plaza, and he serves on a number of boards. His critics complain that he must recuse himself from too many votes owing to his scattered real estate holdings, but even so, he’s likely to be more effective in the position than either of his challengers. Greg Caput and Emilio Martinez, both of whom serve on the Watsonville City Council, are spirited and independent-minded people with lots of ideas and energy. We look forward to their continued public service, and recommend Campos for District 4.
Superior Court Judge Seat 3
Phil Crawford
In this three-way race for the seat of retiring Superior Court Judge Robert Atack, the clear establishment choice is John Gallagher, and it’s easy enough to see why. Seven years of work as a public defender and 23 years as a civil attorney have given him a broad background that would serve the public well. He claims a long, long list of endorsements, including those of 15 current and retired local judges.
Jim Sibley, a prosecutor in Santa Clara County, has established himself as the law-and-order candidate and emphasizes his experience prosecuting sex and high-tech crimes. If elected, he would bring the number of former prosecutors on the bench to eight—an imbalance, in our view.
Candidate Phil Crawford, who teaches law at San Jose City College and practices law in Santa Cruz County, is probably the most well-rounded of the field. A former police officer, Crawford went on to study law and developed a reputation as a skilled mediator; he pioneered a mediation program in family law in Contra Costa County and repeated it in Santa Cruz. He also worked as a deputy executive officer overseeing the operations of a court district—an unusual position for a judge to have had. Though he’s fighting an uphill battle, Crawford’s won the endorsement of groups like the Progressive Coalition. We think his breadth of experience would make him a tremendous asset to the bench. We recommend Phil Crawford for Superior Court Judge.
Superior Court Judge Seat 10
Rebecca Connolly
Candidate Steve Wright likes to point out that if elected on June 8, he’ll be the first public defender/criminal defense attorney to serve on the Santa Cruz Superior Court bench. That in itself is compelling, given Santa Cruz’s history of progressivism, and so is Wright’s populist perspective on how the law affects people of different social classes. Wright, who calls prison “graduate school for gangs,” would likely make some use of alternative sentencing—yet he’s won endorsements from decidedly tough-on-crime groups like the Santa Cruz Sheriffs Deputies and Watsonville Police associations. Clearly he has credibility with the groups working close to this pressing community issue, and his 32 years of local experience would be an asset on the bench.
His opponent has a different, and potentially even more valuable, set of strengths. Candidate Rebecca Connolly is an impressive and polished civil attorney with two federal clerkships under her belt and a long list of professional achievements. She’s represented farmworkers during a stint with California Rural Legal Assistance, is serving as a pro-tem family court judge and speaks Spanish fluently. She’s also tech-savvy, unlike Wright, and better prepared for coming technological developments in the courtroom. She’s won the endorsement of most elected officials in the county. We agree with their assessment: with her wide-ranging background and history of excellence, Rebecca Connolly would strengthen the Superior Court bench.
Statewide Office
Assembly District 28 — Democrat
Luis Alejo
There’s a reason Luis Alejo has amassed a comprehensive list of endorsements, including from Democratic central committees throughout the 28th District: he’s been laying the groundwork for this race for a long time. A Watsonville native with a Harvard education, a law degree and stint as a legislative aide under his belt, Alejo currently serves as Watsonville’s mayor when not at his day job as a staff attorney for the Monterey County Superior Court. In keeping with the district’s profile, he cites jobs creation, health care reform and education as top priorities, along with amending the two-thirds majority requirement on passing a budget. His main challenger, Janet Barnes, has strong Salinas Valley support and a 12-year track record on the Salinas City Council, but she lacks the breadth of support Alejo has, including the connections in Sacramento that will enable him to be an effective representative right out of the gate. We recommend Luis Alejo for the 28th Assembly District.
Statewide Ballot Initiatives
Proposition 13
Yes
In one day last week, 15 earthquakes occurred worldwide. Of course, one of them was in California, a small 1.7 magnitude temblor on the Mexican border. Earthquakes are a daily occurrence in the Golden State, and this year’s Proposition 13 is aimed at making homeowners at least a little bit safer when the next big one hits.
Like its 1978 namesake, this proposition deals with property taxes. But unlike the other, still-controversial one, this Prop 13 is virtually unopposed.
Currently, homeowners who perform seismic retrofits on their homes, particularly those built of nonreinforced masonry (known to most of us as “bricks”), may find their home values reassessed after they’ve made improvements. Under the new Prop. 13, seismic retrofitting would not result in higher property taxes until the building is sold, giving homeowners a chance to act before it’s all a rubble.
Estimations are that there may be a small drop in local property tax revenues resulting from the passage of Prop. 13, but no other ill effects are forecast.
Proposition 14
Yes
We were thrilled when the bi-partisan group California Forward announced last year that it was working on a package of constitutional amendments designed to shatter the gridlock that has paralyzed Sacramento and made California essentially ungovernable. And we were disappointed a few months later when inertia forced the group to back down from the challenge.
The substance of Prop 14 comes from that reform effort. Prop 14 would do away with party primaries and replace them with an “open primary,” in which Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians and Peace & Freedom candidates would battle it out. The top two vote-getters would win the opportunity to face off in a general election.
Supporters claim the amendment would diminish the power of the two main parties, and more importantly, the special interests—unions and big business—that wield such power over the parties. They also say it will help bring candidates toward the center.
Opponents say there’s no guarantee that simply doing away with the primaries will have any such effect. In fact, they ask: what’s to keep lobbyists and party insiders from holding back-room meetings with their moneyed sponsors, and then funneling gobs of cash to their chosen candidates?
We have more faith in the system than that. While it’s true that California needs comprehensive political reform, along the lines of what California Forward recommended, Prop 14 is a good first step. This was to be a year of governance reform; let’s at least get something done in that department.
Proposition 15
Yes
The California Fair Elections Act would take a baby step toward getting special interests out of campaigns by creating a pilot program for publicly funded elections. It would focus, for symbolic reasons, on the very state office that oversees elections. Candidates for Secretary of State would have the option of tapping into a pool of money collected from registered lobbyists (in the form of a $700 fee every two years) and using it to fund their campaigns, ostensibly freeing them from obligations to big donors. The initiative would also lift California’s 20-year ban on public financing of campaigns, paving the way for future publicly funded races.
The most common criticism of this initiative—that it would waste taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars—utterly overlooks the fact that funding would come from lobbyists, not taxpayers. Another criticism—that taxing lobbyists to fund elections has been proven unconstitutional—doesn’t take into account the fact that this is a fee, not a tax, and a modest one at that (the failed tax, levied in Vermont, was a hefty 5 percent of gross income). Others fret that it’s a gateway to a gold rush by fat cat politicians eager to stick taxpayers with their campaign bills.
We say one step at a time. Supporters point to successful “fair elections” frameworks in five states and relate intriguing anecdotes about what elected officials can accomplish when they’re beholden to no one. There’s very little to lose here and an awful lot to gain. We recommend a yes vote on Prop 15.
Proposition 16
No
The “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” as it’s been dubbed by its corporate sponsor, has a proud ring to it. But this initiative has nothing to do with any existing right to vote. In fact, many local politicians say Prop. 16’s sole purpose is to eliminate consumer choice and cripple local governments seeking alternative energy sources.
Prop.16 is really about energy and who owns the right to sell energy to the public. If it passes, opponents say, Californians would be tied to just a handful of energy companies, and their dominance in existing and new markets would essentially be written into the state constitution. Though three investor-owned utility companies would benefit from this arrangement, so far there has been just one contributor to the Yes on 16 campaign. Since the beginning of this year, PG&E has donated more than $35 million to the cause. If Prop. 16 passes, it would amend the state constitution to require a two-thirds approval (rather than a simple majority) by local voters before a Community Choice Aggregation (CCA) could provide electricity to any new customers if there was any public money or debt involved. It would require the same two-thirds approval by any community that a CCA wanted to expand into, whether or not public money or bonds were involved. In its assessment of the initiative, the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office said the voter-approval requirements could deter communities from pursuing CCA at all. District 3 State Senator Mark Leno has called it “a stake in the heart of CCA.”
Proponents of the measure say the electricity business is risky, and voters should be able to vote when public money is being leveraged. Opponents say Prop. 16 is just a thinly veiled manipulation of the initiative process, and that it would constitutionally guarantee a monopoly for companies like PG&E. We recommend voting against it.
Proposition 17
No
If the Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act sounds too good to be true, it’s because it is. This act allows consumers to qualify for a continuous coverage discount while still shopping around for the lowest rate, promoting competition in the free market. But it would also have a pernicious effect: it could cost the most needy Californians some serious money.
If passed, insurance companies would be permitted to ask a consumer for proof of auto insurance for the last five years without any lapse over 90 days, even if he or she hadn’t been driving during that time. If the consumer can’t prove coverage, an automatic penalty of up to $1,000 could be added to the premium. Like Prop. 16, it’s entirely backed by one company, in this case, Mercury Insurance.
The allure of Prop. 17 is that consumers who choose to switch insurers can keep their continuous coverage discount and take it with them, saving up to $250 a year. Prop. 17 promises a 90-day grace period if drivers lapse on their car insurance payments. Under current law, if drivers qualify for the continuous coverage discount and then switch insurers, they cannot take that discount with them to a new company.
Penalties based on coverage history were made illegal in 1988 by voters as a discriminatory practice. Prop. 17 could easily make insurance companies less accountable while giving them the ability to raise premiums and add penalties.
