Below are Government for the People’s recommendations for the June 8^th Ballot Measures and Los Angeles County Judicial Candidates.  We have incorporated all the Los Angeles County Bar Association’s (LACBA) ratings in (Red).

 

L. A. County Superior Court:

 

Office No. 28: Elizabeth Moreno (Qualified)

 

Office No. 35: Honorable Soussan “Suzanne” Bruguera (Well Qualified)

 

Office No. 73: Honorable Laura Matz (Well Qualified)

 

Office No. 107: Valerie Salkin (Qualified)

 

Office No. 117: Alan Schneider (Well Qualified)

 

Office No. 131: Maren Nelson (Exceptionally Well Qualified)

 

California Ballot Measures:

 

Yes on Proposition 13:  LIMITS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT. SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

Yes on Proposition 14:  ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

 

No on Proposition 15:  CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT.

 

Yes on Proposition 16:  IMPOSES NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

Yes on Proposition 17:  ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

 

Write up for the 2010 Primary

 

Government for the People received a solid questionnaire response from Candidates again this year and we look for continued growth of our organization.  This year is particularly interesting as three incumbent Judges are being challenged for no explainable reason.

 

I have mentioned this before; we ask that you disregard endorsements from Sheriff Lee Baca as he habitually endorses multiple candidates.  At a meeting that Baca was the main speaker, he was asked that very question, does he endorses multiple candidates for races? Baca responded that he did not endorse multiple candidates in races (look for Sheriff Baca Watch).  Perhaps Sheriff Baca just does not keep track of the candidates and which races they are in, and gives out multiple endorsements by accident. Or perhaps, candidates claim an endorsement without actually getting one. 

 

Having the experience of running for office and reviewing candidates for a while now, I propose that ‘multiple endorsements’ is a political calculation.  You make all the candidates that you endorse happy and more importantly the candidates promote your endorsement which provides free advertisement for you. This does not, however, give you any indication as to which candidate he recommends as the best candidate for the job.

 

L. A. County Superior Court:

 

Office No. 28 Elizabeth Moreno (Qualified)

 

We had a lot of difficulty coming up with a recommendation for this race.  The LACBA came out with their evaluations after we came to a decision.  The LACBA had two rating levels for this race, Qualified and Not Qualified.  The qualified candidates were Mark Ameli, Chris Garcia, Randy Hammock, C. Edward Mack, Elizabeth Moreno, and Edward Nison.  The Not Qualified candidates were Kendall Reed and Kim Smith.

 

Sheriff Baca Watch: in this race he has endorsed Mark Ameli, Chris Garcia, and Randy Hammock.  These three happen to be the most prominent of the group of candidates.

 

We weight a response to our questionnaire very heavily and after our initial review, we decided for this race to eliminate any candidate that had failed to respond to our questionnaire.

 

Elizabeth Moreno has an interesting background and has an outside shot in this race, but of all the candidates, we believe that she is the most likely to not stray into judicial activism.  Moreno had been endorsed by one of her opponents, who latter decided to file for the same seat.  Moreno’s bio is interesting, her grandparents emigrated from Spain via Argentina and because her grandfather only understood Spanish, his career choices were limited.  He impressed upon his children to learn English.  Moreno’s family has become an American success story with all the siblings obtaining graduate degrees.

 

Mark Ameli has lots of support, money, and is running as the first Iranian American Candidate according to the Met News.  He failed to respond to our questionnaire and he has endorsements from groups and individuals that are responsible for California and Los Angeles being in the financial mess that we are.

 

Chris Garcia was rebuffed by the Registrar-Recorder’s Office for his ballot designation that not only failed to meet the guidelines, but was deceptive as well.  Mr. Garcia has other issues as well and should not be supported.

 

Randy Hammock was on track to receive our support as we were not overly thrilled in our evaluations into this race.  Hammock has gone to great lengths to acquire judicial experience by acting as a Superior Court Referee in the seat that he is running for. He is also endorsed by the retiring judge that holds the seat he is filling in for.  With this additional experience, it was a moderate surprise that LACBA reduced his 2006 Well Qualified Rating to Qualified.  We gained additional insight when he included his questionnaire from the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers Association of Los Angeles (LGLA).  This LGLA questionnaire indicated one of two things to us, he will be an activist judge or that he was dishonestly pandering, either way we cannot support him for this office.

 

C. Edward Mack has run many times and is not as qualified as the other candidates.  Based on responses from Mack and associations, he has a judicial activist bent.  Mack finally has a webpage, but good luck finding it on your own.  Mack has been accused of puffing up his resume for whatever reason it happened.  Mack has proceeded to show poor judgment by getting into it for two years with a legal newspaper that took him to task, not a good idea.

 

Edward Nison has a fairly substantial list of Los Angeles Superior Court Judicial endorsements and he is a criminal prosecutor which is normally a leg up.  Overall we may have recommended Nison but had to go with Moreno who had the edge, based on responding to our inquiry.

 

Kendall Reed was anticipating a Not Qualified rating and he received it as expected.  No need to go into additional detail.

 

Kim Smith has many issues floating out there and was rated Not Qualified by the LACBA.  Smith has an abrasive personality that would have to be worked on before even considering being recommended for a judicial position.  Generally goes by Kim Edward Smith, but may be trying to angle for the women’s vote by dropping the Edward and going with the normally feminine Kim.  This campaign is brought to you by the deceptive political consultant, Fred Huebscher, who gave us the bagel lady in 2006.  Huebscher is connected into the deceptive slate mailers, paid advertisements that masquerade as advocacy groups.  Unfortunately people use these deceptive slate mailers to vote; hopefully it does not pay off again.

 

Office No. 35: Honorable Soussan “Suzanne” Bruguera (Well Qualified)

 

We do not need to go into detail on this one.  Bruguera is a highly respected sitting Judge vs. a Not Qualified Dougalss W. Weitzman.  It is unfortunate that Bruguera has to anglicize her name, but after the 2006 bagel lady winning over the Exceptionally Well Qualified sitting judge with the unusual name, you have to do what you have to do.

 

Office No. 73: Honorable Laura Matz (Well Qualified)

 

This one is still not explained, but is not as large a stretch as the other incumbents being challenged.  Marvin Fischler is actually rated Qualified.  In another race and with additional information, Fischler may be the right choice, but not in this race.

 

Office No. 107: Valerie Salkin (Qualified)

 

Sheriff Baca Watch: in this race he has endorsed Tony De Los Reyes and Valerie Salkin, two out of three is not bad, but it is not good either.

 

This race is fairly troubling.  All the candidates have a potential to make law from the bench.  We are bucking the trend of the LACBA on this one and we went with the lower rated candidate before the ratings were out.  Salkin has a lot of support from across the spectrum so it is hard to determine how she will actually rule.  Hopefully she does not disappoint.

 

Tony De Los Reyes had people lobbying for him, but we decided to go with Salkin.  De Los Reyes would likely be a good choice, but there are concerns about him from the folks that run the Met News and I respect there opinion.  Also, De Los Reyes is recommended by the L.A. Times which is always a warning bell for whom to vote for.

 

R. Stephen Bolinger  is a solid candidate as indicated by his Well Qualified rating by the LACBA.  Some of Bolinger’s endorsements are very troubling.

 

Office No. 117: Alan Schneider (Well Qualified)

 

Alan Schneider was praised in glowing terms by sources on the Los Angeles Superior Court that I respect.  Schneider is the most qualified candidate in this group.  Schneider had some interesting perspectives on the Constitution, but will defer to the appropriate body to make law, the Legislature.

 

Tom Griego well connected politically, but not the makings of a good judge as attested to by his Not Qualified rating by the LACBA.

 

William Margolin is an interesting candidate, but unfortunately for him, he is running against a more qualified candidate.  If he runs again, he is definitely on the radar.

 

Patricia Vienna would be a great choice for Municipal Court Judge if we had not voted to get rid of them in the 90’s.  Having tried to make a transition from full time employment to running for office, I appreciate the difficulties.  Vienna’s primary source of income is being a Flight Attendant.  If Vienna lands in a race with less than stellar competition, we may back her, but not in this race.

 

Office No. 131: Maren Nelson (Exceptionally Well Qualified)

 

Another head scratcher, Jim G. Baklayan who apparently only represents his family’s hotel, is rated Not Qualified, and is running against an Exceptionally Well Qualified incumbent.  Hopefully we do not have a 2006 repeat.

 

Propositions:

 

Yes on Proposition 13:  LIMITS ON PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT. SEISMIC RETROFITTING OF EXISTING BUILDINGS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

There is no argument against this law. Allows an owner of an un-reinforced masonry building to seismically retrofit a without being penalized with additional taxes down the road.

 

Yes on Proposition 14:  ELECTIONS. INCREASES RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PRIMARY ELECTIONS.

 

While not close to perfect, this ballot measure makes a lot of sense.  This ballot measure gets the state elections closer to the existing model of almost every other election at the City and County level.  If the parties want to limit their field to one candidate, then they should use another mechanism than a taxpayer subsidized institution that we have now.  This opinion will not be popular with the two main parties, but it is the right direction to take.  Now, party bosses have an inordinate power over who is elected at the deficit of the people.  The argument that “third” parties will be hurt is dishonest. Our current system almost ensures that third parties are irrelevant, other that being used to siphon off a few votes that could make a difference.  In this new system, it partially opens the door to allow a third party a legitimate chance at winning an election.  Anytime both parties actively oppose something, it is either really horrible or really good; we have to lean to the good side of this.

 

Yes side website: Californians for an Open Primary

 

No side website: Protect Voter Choice

 

No on Proposition 15:  CALIFORNIA FAIR ELECTIONS ACT.

 

This is a very problematic ballot measure, especially in light of Proposition 14.  The Secretary of State should be a non-partisan office; however, it is being targeted across the country because of its ability to skew election results.  Proposition 14 should be decided on first, before we consider any other election changes.  This proposition also shifts more money to the two parties with lower thresholds than the third parties, which seems very unfair.  If we were serious about fostering competition, the thresholds would be reversed.

 

Yes side website: California Fair Elections Act

 

No side website:  Stop Prop 15

 

Yes on Proposition 16:  IMPOSES NEW TWO-THIRDS VOTER APPROVAL REQUIREMENT FOR LOCAL PUBLIC ELECTRICITY PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

 

We desperately need this bill to pass; otherwise we will be like Los Angeles across the state.  The LADWP has become a cash cow for the unions, politicians, and the welfare city.  Utilities are already regulated. If we remove the adversarial relationship between ‘for profit companies’ and the ‘government regulators’, then all taxpayers will hear is that sucking sound as politicians suck them dry through their power bills.

 

Yes side website: Taxpayers Right to Vote

 

No side website:  Stop the Power Grab

 

Yes on Proposition 17:  ALLOWS AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES TO BASE THEIR PRICES IN PART ON A DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

 

This is apparently a flaw in the law as touted in commercials.  This ballot measure would allow more competition between companies, by allowing customers to change companies and still receive a discount from continuing coverage.  Downsides seem remote and the somewhat free market should be able to avert major problems.  This is a somewhat free market, because in fact, it is heavily regulated and overseen by a political office with all the problems from such a system.

 

Yes side website: Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates

 

No side website:  Stop Prop 17

Government for the People

Long Beach, CA 90808-0609

CA FPPC# 1264355

Donations are not tax deductible

The information on this website is the opinion and analysis of the staff of “Government for the People”.  We believe that all the information is true and correct.  The information is provided to you in order to assist in making an informed choice on Election Day.