Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

Recommendations in Selected Races

Endorsements in Tuesday's Election

Propositions, other measures, offices in various jurisdictions

November 03, 1996

The Times policy is to endorse selectively, on a case-by-case basis. Here are our recommendations on state, county and municipal measures, congressional and legislative races and local nonpartisan contests for Los Angeles and Orange counties.

State Propositions

Proposition 204 (Water Bonds) YES. Funds essential projects in the San Francisco Bay-San Joaquin Delta area that would benefit every Californian.

Proposition 205 (Jail Bonds) YES. An obvious and compelling need for more and better state jail facilities would be filled by passage.

Proposition 206 (Veterans Bonds) YES. Establishes a $400-million bond issue for low-interest loans for California's military veterans.

Proposition 207 (Attorney Fees) NO. Would prohibit Legislature from limiting attorney fees. No ban is needed.

Proposition 208 (Campaign Limits) YES. Caps campaign contributions for state office.

Proposition 209 (Prohibit Preferential Treatment/Affirmative Action) NO. This measure would eliminate gender and race as factors to consider in government hiring, contracting and public education. It would eliminate affirmative action for women and minorities and is contrary to the best interests of California.

Proposition 210 (Minimum Wage) NO. Times supported federal hike in minimum wage but setting wages by state ballot measure is unwise.

Proposition 211 (Securities Lawsuits) NO. Among its other flaws, 211 permits "fraud on the market" suits, a prescription for frivolous litigation.

Proposition 212 (Campaign Limits) NO. Lifts the ban on cash gifts and other payola for elected officials.

Proposition 213 (Damage Recovery) NO. This confusingly written measure unfairly targets uninsured drivers. It's an issue for the Legislature, not a ballot initiative.

Proposition 214 (Health Care) NO. This measure and Proposition 216 would increase regulation of managed care programs, to the detriment of patients.

Proposition 215 (Medical Marijuana) NO. This measure to allow medical use of marijuana for cancer also would allow the drug for "any other illness for which marijuana provides relief." A huge loophole.

Proposition 216 (Health Care) NO. Like its sister measure, 214, Prop. 216 offers faulty solutions to managed care problems.

Proposition 217 (Tax Rates) NO. California's counties and cities need funds, but 217's solution, selectively raising state income taxes, is not the way to go about it.

Proposition 218 (Tax Approval) NO. This measure would prohibit assessments for such things as police and fire services, which would tie the hands of local government.

L.A. County Measures

Proposition A (Parks) YES. Provides necessary improvements for our park-deficient urban areas.

Proposition B (Campaign Gifts) YES. A flawed regulation on big-money contributors, but nonetheless needed.

Proposition C (Executive Slots) YES. Authorizes county supervisors to increase non-Civil Service positions.

L.A. City Measures

Amendment D (Pensions) YES. Provisions for surviving spouses.

Amendment E (Ethics Commission) YES. Appointments of commission members

Amendment F (Retirement System) YES. Sets vesting provisions.

Amendment G (DWP) YES. Permits Department of Water and Power to expand business activity.

Amendment I (Funds) YES. Permits uniform standards for Airport, Harbor, and Water and Power departments for borrowing and investing.

Amendment J (Civil Service) YES. Permits certain Civil Service exemptions.

Ordinance K (Parks) YES. Raises funds for needed city parks and recreational projects.

L.A. Community

College District

Proposition AA (Improvement Tax) NO. Existing funding is sufficient for district's needs.

L.A. Unified

School District

Proposition BB (School Bonds) YES. This $2.4-billion measure is required for desperately needed repairs and computers on campuses throughout the district. L.A. County

District Attorney

JOHN F. LYNCH, a veteran prosecutor who presents a solid record of trial experience and management.

L.A. County

Board of Supervisors

4th District. GORDANA SWANSON, a former mayor of Rolling Hills, is the superior candidate in this South Bay race for the only open supervisorial seat.

L.A. County

Superior Court

Municipal Judge KARL W. JAEGER, a solid jurist with deep experience, for the only Superior Court seat on the ballot.

Congress

24th District. BRAD SHERMAN (D). Sherman, a member of the state Board of Equalization, has a command of policies that makes him the best choice to fill the seat of the retiring Anthony C. Beilenson.

36th District. JANE HARMAN (D). Incumbent Harman, a moderate, has been an intelligent advocate for the South Bay.

38th District. STEVE HORN (R). We have sometimes disagreed with incumbent Horn, but he has been effective in supporting important regional projects like the Alameda Corridor.

State Senate

21st District. ADAM SCHIFF (D). A federal prosecutor, Schiff is tough on crime but supports working with juvenile offenders to lead them off the criminal path.

State Assembly

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|