Endorsement:  The Los Angeles Times’ endorsements in the Nov. 4 elections

Many aspects of the Nov. 4 election have an old and familiar ring for the generation of Californians who went to the polls 40 years ago. Jerry Brown first ran for governor in 1974 and is running again, this time for a fourth term. Henry Waxman first ran for Congress that same year and is now retiring. Los Angeles residents have seen Zev Yaroslavsky on their ballots since 1975; he moved from the City Council to the county Board of Supervisors 19 years later and is now leaving due to term limits, another 20 years on. California capped pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases in 1975; a measure on this year’s ballot would update that cap for the first time. Questions about crime and sentencing, water and the state budget are still in the news and on the ballot.

Also this year, Los Angeles County voters are picking a new sheriff after years of controversy over the treatment of jail inmates, a new assessor after a corruption scandal and criminal charges against the incumbent, and, having already picked a new supervisor to succeed Gloria Molina, another to replace Yaroslavsky.

Below are The Times’ recommendations. Each is discussed in depth at .latimes.com/endorsements.

Governor: Jerry Brown. It’s the final gubernatorial campaign for Brown, who has led California to recovery by convincing voters to adopt a tax increase, cutting spending and steering a pragmatic and moderate course. Republican challenger Neel Kashkari makes no convincing case for why Brown should be replaced.

Lieutenant governor: Gavin Newsom. Like generations of lieutenant governors, Newsom has struggled to make something of his office. He’s a better choice than Republican challenger Ron Nehring mostly because he would make a better governor should that office unexpectedly become vacant.

Secretary of state: Pete Peterson. In the office that manages state elections and should use technology and innovation to keep voters informed, termed-out incumbent Debra Bowen proved disappointing. In the race to succeed her, Peterson, a Republican, has wisely kept partisanship out of his campaign and properly emphasized public participation. The office probably would be a mere place holder for ambitious Democrat Alex Padilla.

Controller: Ashley Swearengin. As mayor of Fresno, Swearengin has led her city through financial crises, and she is a good pick as chief cash-flow officer for California. Betty Yee is also capable, but Republican Swearengin probably would provide more independence from public employee unions in her oversight of state pension funds.

Treasurer: John Chiang. Chiang, the accomplished state controller, is an easy choice to move over to the treasurer’s office to guide the state’s investments and bonded indebtedness.

Attorney general: Kamala Harris. Harris, the incumbent, has been more potential than performance in her first term but is smart and capable and an easy choice over challenger Ronald Gold.

Insurance commissioner: Dave Jones. Jones has served California insurance consumers well in his first term and should be reelected.

Supreme Court Justices: Yes. Voters should retain Justices Goodwin Liu, Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar and Kathryn Mickle Werdegar for another 12 years by voting yes. Werdegar has served with distinction for 20 years, Liu for just over two. Cuéllar’s appointment is due to take effect in January. The voter retention process gives the public some oversight of the courts. When voters focus on the justices’ competence, rather than any particular rulings they wrote, they help safeguard the court’s independence.

Court of Appeal Justices: Yes. Voters should retain the 11 justices up for retention this year in the 2nd District Court of Appeal, the intermediate court with jurisdiction over Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties. As with the Supreme Court justices, each Court of Appeal justice comes before voters every 12 years.

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 61: Jacqueline H. Lewis. Currently a Superior Court commissioner serving in dependency court, perhaps a trial judge’s most demanding assignment, Lewis has served well and merits elevation to a full judgeship. Her opponent, Deputy Dist. Atty. Dayan Mathai, is also a worthy candidate.

Judge of the Superior Court Office No. 87: Andrew M. Stein. On a Superior Court bench dominated by former prosecutors, Stein, an accomplished criminal defense lawyer, would make a good addition and is a better choice than Deputy City Atty. Tom Griego.

Superintendent of public instruction: Marshall Tuck. In a job that comes with little policymaking authority and is perhaps more symbolic than substantive, challenger Tuck, generally aligned with forces of school reform, has a better sense of vision and urgency than incumbent Tom Torlakson, who is backed by the California Teachers Assn.

Assessor: John Morris. The Los Angeles County assessor’s office needs a new start after a period of scandal from incumbent John Noguez, currently awaiting trial on corruption charges, and it can get it with veteran criminal prosecutor Morris. Rival Jeffrey Prang has helped the office recover from Noguez, but this is one of those times when change should be valued over continuity.

Sheriff: Jim McDonnell. The choice for Los Angeles County sheriff is straightforward: McDonnell, the Long Beach police chief and a member of the commission that examined problems and recommended reforms in the county’s jails, is well-positioned to guide the department through a careful but concerted and substantive makeover. Former Undersheriff Paul Tanaka is closely associated with the department’s recent problems and represents a step backward.

Board of Supervisors, District 3: Sheila Kuehl An accomplished state lawmaker steeped in the very issues for which the county is responsible — including child welfare, public safety and healthcare — Kuehl offers expertise and a strong work ethic. Former Santa Monica Mayor Bobby Shriver’s experience as a part-time official in a small city would translate less well to a district with 2 million constituents, an area of 431 square miles and human service needs more typical of a state than city government.

Proposition 1 (water bond): Yes. This $7.5-billion bond will bring much-needed funding to Los Angeles to help clean up the groundwater basin in the San Fernando Valley, among other projects that will allow the city to rely less on expensive and increasingly scarce imported water — and will do much the same for cities and farms around the state.

Proposition 2 (state budget): Yes. This measure strengthens the state’s rainy-day fund to build up and protect reserves during good budget years to prevent drastic cuts during times of lean budgets.

Proposition 45 (health insurance): No. This measure would add a new level of regulation of health insurance rates without coordinating with Covered California, the state’s new insurance exchange. Covered California should be given the chance to fulfill its mission to the best of its ability before the state adds another layer of complexity to an already complex process.

Proposition 46 (medical malpractice): No. Two of the measure’s goals are worthy but would be implemented carelessly. The cap on pain and suffering damages probably should be raised from its 1975 level, but quadrupling it overnight could cause chaos. Doctors should consult the state’s prescription database before prescribing particular controlled substances but shouldn’t be fined for failing to comply when the state hasn’t yet registered providers.

Proposition 47 (criminal sentences): Yes. Proposition 47 would provide some rationality to sentencing and stem the flow of inmates to prison for long terms for nonviolent drug and property crimes.

Proposition 48 (Indian gaming compact): Yes. This measure is a referendum in which voters are asked to uphold an agreement under which the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians can build a casino on non-tribal land as part of a complex swap. Voters should say yes. Passage does not permit similar agreements for other tribes with different circumstances.

Proposition P: No. Instead of a public hearing process in which the public could have helped shape a parcel tax for parks, the Board of Supervisors adopted this take-it-or-leave-it approach in which every property, no matter how large or small, will be assessed the same amount and supervisors will have enormous discretion over how to spend the money. This measure should go back to the drawing board.

Congress, District 33: Ted Lieu. Moderate Democrat Lieu is an experienced state lawmaker and is a better a fit than moderate Republican Elan Carr for the district long represented in Congress by Henry Waxman.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion