California | Local
National
World
Business
Sports
Washington
Science
Environment
Opinion
Entertainment The Hot List Company Town Arts & Culture Calendar The Envelope TV Listings Movie Showtimes
Travel Health Autos Home & Garden Food Image Books Brand X Magazine
Data Desk
Photography
Obituaries
Crosswords/Sudoku
Your Scene
Blogs
Columnists
Print Edition
Readers Rep
Corrections
All Sections
Buy, Sell & More Jobs Cars latcars Real Estate Foreclosure Sale Rentals Personals Local Values Coupons Newspaper Ads
Place an Ad In the Newspaper Online
Settings/Services Sign In Register E-Mail Newsletters
RSS Feeds
Help
Contact Us
L.A. Times Archives
Reprint Requests
Work for Us
Home Delivery Customer Support Subscribe
Entertainment The Hot List Company Town Arts & Culture Calendar The Envelope TV Listings Movie Showtimes
Travel Health Autos Home & Garden Food Image Books Brand X Magazine
Buy, Sell & More Jobs Cars latcars Real Estate Foreclosure Sale Rentals Personals Local Values Coupons Newspaper Ads
Place an Ad In the Newspaper Online
Settings/Services Sign In Register E-Mail Newsletters
RSS Feeds
Help
Contact Us
L.A. Times Archives
Reprint Requests
Work for Us
Home Delivery Customer Support Subscribe
Editorial
Endorsements so far
The Times' recommendations for parts of the Nov. 4 ballot.
It's often called the Nov. 4 election, but many Californians began voting by mail this week, and many more will vote in the 3 1/2 weeks between now and election day. The Times began rolling out its recommendations early, to help inform those who want to vote early. A recap of our endorsements so far is set forth below.
Voters have their work cut out for them. In Los Angeles County alone, ballots in various communities include 16 school bonds, three community college bonds, five sales tax increases, nine utility tax increases, two parcel taxes, two City Charter changes, a restriction on water softeners and five land use measures. That's in addition to the 12 state measures, five Superior Court runoffs, and congressional and state legislative races. We chose those with the broadest effect on the largest number of people.
Voters have their work cut out for them. In Los Angeles County alone, ballots in various communities include 16 school bonds, three community college bonds, five sales tax increases, nine utility tax increases, two parcel taxes, two City Charter changes, a restriction on water softeners and five land use measures. That's in addition to the 12 state measures, five Superior Court runoffs, and congressional and state legislative races. We chose those with the broadest effect on the largest number of people.
But we're not finished. In coming days, The Times will endorse a candidate for president and offer opinions on candidates and measures in some areas of Southern California outside Los Angeles County -- so watch this space. Meanwhile, the online version of this editorial includes links to the full endorsements we offered for each of these candidates and ballot measures. Or you can go to latimes.com/endorsements.
Los Angeles Superior Court
Office No. 72: Hilleri Grossman Merritt
Los Angeles Superior Court
Office No. 72: Hilleri Grossman Merritt
Office No. 82: Cynthia Loo
Office No. 84: Pat Connolly
Office No. 94: Michael J. O'Gara
Office No. 154: Michael V. Jesic
Los Angeles County supervisor (Second District voters only): Bernard C. Parks
California measures
Proposition 1A: Yes. It's a tough time for more bonded indebtedness, but this $9.95-billion bond to build a high-speed rail system is forward looking and a good investment.
Proposition 2: No. A measure to curtail the suffering of farm animals would be most welcome if crafted properly, but this one would simply outsource farm cruelty -- and California's egg production.
Proposition 3: Yes. This $980-million bond for public and private children's hospitals would take enormous pressure off embattled public general hospitals.
Proposition 4: No. Under this abortion-curtailing measure masquerading as child protection, a girl would be barred from getting a legal abortion unless she could prove that she either told her parents or turned them in for child abuse (or obtained permission from a court).
Proposition 5: No. Well-intentioned drafters may have wanted to make drug treatment a viable alternative to prison, but their measure would undermine drug courts and allow addicts to continue committing dangerous crimes.
Proposition 6: No. The latest tough-on-crime measure requires new bureaucracies, imposes astounding new financial obligations and would pack already overcrowded jails and prisons, driving California to the brink of fiscal ruin.
Proposition 7: No. One of the top clues as to how wrongheaded this supposed environmental initiative is comes from major environmental groups, which are opposed. In the name of increasing renewable energy mandates, it could slow the transition to solar power.
Proposition 8: No. If this measure to bar same-sex marriage passes, California voters would revoke what the state Supreme Court has recognized as a basic constitutional right. Assertions that it would require schools to promote gay marriage are utter nonsense.
Proposition 9: No. This purported "victims' rights" measure would give enormous and inappropriate power over the criminal justice system to families of crime victims.
Office No. 84: Pat Connolly
Office No. 94: Michael J. O'Gara
Office No. 154: Michael V. Jesic
Los Angeles County supervisor (Second District voters only): Bernard C. Parks
California measures
Proposition 1A: Yes. It's a tough time for more bonded indebtedness, but this $9.95-billion bond to build a high-speed rail system is forward looking and a good investment.
Proposition 2: No. A measure to curtail the suffering of farm animals would be most welcome if crafted properly, but this one would simply outsource farm cruelty -- and California's egg production.
Proposition 3: Yes. This $980-million bond for public and private children's hospitals would take enormous pressure off embattled public general hospitals.
Proposition 4: No. Under this abortion-curtailing measure masquerading as child protection, a girl would be barred from getting a legal abortion unless she could prove that she either told her parents or turned them in for child abuse (or obtained permission from a court).
Proposition 5: No. Well-intentioned drafters may have wanted to make drug treatment a viable alternative to prison, but their measure would undermine drug courts and allow addicts to continue committing dangerous crimes.
Proposition 6: No. The latest tough-on-crime measure requires new bureaucracies, imposes astounding new financial obligations and would pack already overcrowded jails and prisons, driving California to the brink of fiscal ruin.
Proposition 7: No. One of the top clues as to how wrongheaded this supposed environmental initiative is comes from major environmental groups, which are opposed. In the name of increasing renewable energy mandates, it could slow the transition to solar power.
Proposition 8: No. If this measure to bar same-sex marriage passes, California voters would revoke what the state Supreme Court has recognized as a basic constitutional right. Assertions that it would require schools to promote gay marriage are utter nonsense.
Proposition 9: No. This purported "victims' rights" measure would give enormous and inappropriate power over the criminal justice system to families of crime victims.
- Single Page
- |
- 1
- |
- 2
- |
- Next »
|
OPINION »
The U.S. needs to create a system that responds to labor market needs, provides more effective enforcement and offers a fair way to deal with those living here illegally.
|
 |
The best in Southern California opinion journalism
In today's pages: reform. Reform of the health care system, reform of...
The business and culture of our digital lives, from the L.A. Times
Social networks are partly about broadcasting information to a far-flung...
|
||
