Senator Mendoza wanted to expand the Board of Supervisors in California counties with a population over 3 million to 7 members (SCA-8 ), but maybe we can refine the idea to offer more representation and more diverse political opinions. Six districts and 1 district would be given to a minority political party where the minority parties would nominate their candidates for election.
For example, in Los Angeles County, the Greens, Libertarians and Republicans would nominate their candidate for vote by the voters. Most likely the Republican would win the choice giving a 5-2 margin. Yes, our local elections are non-partisan, but to most political activists all elections have a partisan edge to them.
Orange County is usually 4-1 in composition, but Republicans are 5-0 on the board, but with the extra seat it will likely be the inverse in that county where the Democrats would win the 6th district and the minority party seat.
I would lower the threshold back to 2 million where Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties would be considered for this regulation.
Cities such as Philadelphia and Washington DC do give seats to minority parties and it would be an idea worth considering.
If we are unable to stop the California Super Majority to be formed, we do face an awful problem that will cripple many working families in our state with higher gasoline taxes. People need to get to work without the consequence of people having to shell out even more money to commute to work. If the Democratic Party in California succeeds after Election Day these gasoline taxes will be happening in the session after November.
I loathe the smug arrogance of billionaire activist Tom Steyner with his Next Gen Climate group who feels dirty that he made his money from the energy industry and now we must pay the price of his wealth. Instead of the saying “Let them eat cake”, it is now “Let them eat taxes”. For example, Lake Arrowhead to Upland is around 46 miles. A Ford Explorer 2011 has the mileage of 23 miles per gallon on the highway. If the proposed gas tax increase is 50 cents per gallon the commuter will expect to pay an extra 2 dollars a day to commute just to earn their daily living. This equals to 520 dollars a year that will be taken from that working family.
I thought Democrats are for the working class, but it seems that is just a marketing fallacy. In my State Senate race in 2014, I did state that my opponent is going to stab working people in the back and it seems these predictions are coming true. People choose to drive because they do not want to spend twice the time compared to driving commuting via public transportation. For some commuters, public transportation does work for example the commuter in Claremont using the Gold Line in Azusa to commute to Pasadena. However, for the commuter in Ontario going to work in Corona or the commuter in the mountains to Upland it will just be a regressive tax.
I know that regional government agencies want us to worship the bicycle and have us commute like we are living in Ho Chi Min City, but our streets and roads are not built for that. People are married to their cars and do not have time to visit the grocery store daily to pick up goods without a car that leads to being carry by hand or in their backpacks. Sustainability is just more government control over the individual and is more about lining the pockets of the government treasury to help backfill the public pensions that are eating the budgets of government agencies alive.
People will use the bus or rail when its personally convenient, not because government kneecaps consumers with higher gasoline taxes, vehicle registration fees or forces five story apartment complexes near bus and rail stations.
I understand people want clean air, my sister has asthma and I understand that. However, people need to work too. If people are not working, then how are we going to pay for those strawberry scented government checks? If we want more people to be working locally then lets remove many of the obstacles and barriers for those entrepreneurs that create those opportunities if we want the clean air.
I am no drug warrior, but if a ballot measure is written badly I am always ready to challenge bad ideas. I would like reasonable safe access for marijuana in all cities in our state, but Measure U is no free market and will be just as destructive as prohibition.
Measure U is going to establish a monopoly where one business interest will control marijuana in the city of Upland. Namely the people who own T&A Video in Upland. Maybe they are thinking the digital market is killing adult video and they need to branch out in the marijuana business. They will want to concentrate the marijuana sector near Cable Airport in the city, but its going to lead to negative externalizes such as crime in the north west part of the city.
If the proponents wanted to try again, they should limit it to 1 marijuana business per individual or corporation. Also they could make set asides for ethnic minorities and even veterans to add some diversity to the marketplace. Maybe establish 2-3 stores in each quadrant of the city instead of just three owned by one owner. The San Bernardino County Republican Party is located above a marijuana dispensary and it leads to vandalism, loitering and other crimes around the business park where its located. I think a private security officer should be employed by the landlord to help facilitate the customers to get in and out of the business. I think when Proposition 64 happens, marijuana is going to be super saturated where the price of the product is going to be reduced which will hopefully kill down the value.
Monopolies suck, spreading the brunt of the establishments in one part of the city is also wrong.
The California Voter Rights Act is leading towards interest groups and trial lawyers suing local governments around the state to force them to elect members by districts. Many of the opponents who are against this because it only makes the district members care about their part of the city or school district than the good of the whole.
I think the main reason why they are wanting districts instead of an at large system is that progressives are having a hard time running locally and they want to stack the local government as how they have dominated state and federal elections in our state.
It should not matter what ethnicity, gender or even sexuality our candidates have. The main focus is the ideas our candidates carry through this upcoming election. As a challenger in the upcoming election the cost of a ballot statement is over five thousand dollars in my race. Although I would like the ability to purchase a cheaper ballot statement I would not want to sacrifice the function of the board either.
Believe it or not, its legal for people to run for more than one office in California as long as you are not running for two legislative offices. Paul Vincent Avila is running for State Assembly and Ontario City Council and two members of the Galvez family Sarah is running for Ontario City Clerk and Ontario-Montclair School District, while Richard is running for Ontario City Council and also on the ballot against me for the Chaffey Joint Union High School District this November.
When I ran for State Senate in 2014, I knew that I had to expend my energies only on that race. I could not splinter off in two directions and run for a local office as well. I know the Galvez family wants to build some name ID, but running for two offices makes people wonder which office will the members of the family want to keep if they ended up winning both races?
The only secondary office someone should be allowed to run for in addition to the local or legislative office should be is county party committee seats and President/Vice President.
Local politics watchers should also realize that the last man Christopher Agrella who did this in 2010 ended up being a last place finisher in Montclair City Council and Ontario-Montclair School District race.
This would be one piece of electoral reform I would like to see in the state legislature. This loophole should be closed in the next session.
I sent this email awhile back (May 31) to the general email box, but this was not forwarded to the chairman or the political director.
I know marginal races are not logical for the party to give 100 or even 500 dollar checks to, but perhaps after a candidate is endorsed the CRP could provide an email attachment of voter data for the primary if they are the endorsed Republican candidate (or if unopposed endorsed by at least 1 county party). The voter data would be something valuable and needed for a campaign and be just as good as a 100 dollar plus contribution. Then we could provide an attachment of updated data in August and October for the campaigns if they make it to the general election.
I understand with your presentations to local groups and the state party delegates that we can only fund races that have the best impact with our money such as the Clint Oliver special election, but small efforts to help our candidates would be a big morale booster.
Even if this cant be done in 2016, it could be considered in 2018.
This is one idea that would seriously would result in me paying for general member fees in addition to my delegate fees.
Welcome to another edition of Highlander Archives, these are pieces that were submitted to the newspaper. Many articles were printed, but this one was not.
In February 2003, the Berkeley College Republicans challenged the dominant political establishment on their campus by participating in a demonstration by having an affirmative action bake sale. The bake sale offered baked goods on a sliding scale price structure depending on what ethnicity and gender you are a member. The organization’s president believes that holding people to different standards based on their race is inherently racist. The demonstration at UC Berkeley and UCLA were inspired by the impending Supreme Court case in April regarding the University of Michigan admissions policy retaining affirmative action.
Demonstrations regarding wedge issues do not escape controversy unscattered. Former State Senator Art Torres, chair of the California Democratic Party took offense of the actions of the College Republicans of California. Art remarked that, “Once again we see hard working students of color subjected to racist Republican rhetoric for simply seeking a good education and equal opportunity” and that “These college Republicans have opted to perpetrate the legacy of Trent Lott.” However, Affirmative Action is indeed reverse racism because assumes depending on your race or status you need a leg up. Democrats are not perfect angels either where race relations are a factor. Our Lt.Governor used the n-word accidentally during a Black History Month presentation while presidential candidate Al Sharpton perpetrated racist and anti-homosexual remakes at Kean University in New Jersey. Continue reading Cookies for Admissions Equality (2003)→
Found this on Facebook from one of the political pundits in my area that was worthy to share. -Matt
Do you see how easy it is for you to get illegal, banned drugs? Did anti-drug laws ever stop you from using any illegal drug? Now, take that same exact logic and apply it to guns. You can ban and regulate whatever you want, but buying an illegal gun is as easy as buying any illegal drug. Why? Because government trying to control and ban people’s actions fails every time it is tried. For those of you who don’t know, it is much easier to get an illegal gun than a legal one. The more uncivilized and controlling legislation you call for, the more illegal guns will pop up. If safety is what you actually cared about, then more control wouldn’t be your answer.
But you clearly aren’t interested in gun control or safety. What you’re really interested in is people control and forcing your emotional, baseless opinions on millions of unwilling participants. Next time your brain tells you it is a good idea to believe in something that includes controlling the actions of other human beings you don’t even know via government force, take the time to realize that it is not a problem with guns or any other controlled product, but a problem with your own thought process and behavior. Stop being a control freak. Thanks!
Yes, you may have gotten a flyer from a PAC ran by Charles Munger Jr. stating that these individuals may be good picks for central committee in San Bernardino County’s 4th Supervisor
District. However I have an issue with one of those members on this slate mailer, DO NOT vote for Steve Davey, he has had a horrific attendance record in 2015. If you want a conservative member to represent you, there are other quality individuals you can consider such as Ben Lopez or Earl DeVries.
If people do not regularly attend central committee meetings they should not be running for central committee. I am not against conservative people representing my county party, but people need to be active participants and Ben Lopez has done more for the county party than Steve Davey has ever done.
UPDATE: Steve Davey failed to show up for the May meeting.