June 5, 2012 Primary Election
San Diego County
Who is Penny? Penny Harrington is a close friend who is a highly respected conservative political and legislative analyst who is a Christian and uses the lens of a biblical worldview. She has been publishing "Penny's Picks" for years now, as a voting aid for Christian conservatives here in southern California. I have found her wise analysis and advice to be invaluable in making my own decisions at election time. For more info on Penny, see a brief bio at the bottom of these recommendations. What follows are Penny's words and picks.
Chief among the factors to consider when reviewing candidates from a conservative biblical worldview are their positions on essential core values: the sanctity of life, the preservation of traditional heterosexual marriage, religious liberty, smaller government, original constitutional intent and lower taxes so that families and businesses can thrive. Other considerations include how a candidate matches up against the others in the race in terms of electability (particularly important with the change to a top-two primary system), character (to the extent that this can be known) and experience.
There are no “perfect” candidates. More often than we would like, the choices may be difficult. Perhaps neither candidate is acceptable from a biblical worldview. Try not to think in terms of voting for the lesser of two evils, but of voting for the candidate who would do the greater good in office, or of choosing the one who would keep the greater evil from occurring. Strategically, this may mean that you consider voting for a less conservative candidate than desirable to avoid two even more undesirable candidates moving to the November ballot. If you are uncertain about a race, leaving an office blank does not invalidate your ballot, nor does voting for less than the number of available seats.
The following are my personal recommendations and not those of any organization(s) with which I am involved.
President: Mitt Romney
Republican County Central Committee - 71st Assembly District
Republican County Central Committee - 75th Assembly District
Lee J. De Meo
Republican County Central Committee - 76th Assembly District
Republican County Central Committee - 77th Assembly District
Republican County Central Committee - 78th Assembly District
Republican County Central Committee - 79th Assembly District
U.S. Senate: Dan Hughes
Dist 49 – Darrell Issa
Dist. 50 – Duncan Hunter
Dist. 52 – Brian Bilbray (Not the most conservative candidate, but the best equipped to face Scott Peters, the likely top-two winner from the left – and Rep. Bilbray has received some strongly conservative scores in the past two years, such as a 0% from Planned Parenthood, 100% from National Right to Life, an "F" from the NEA, 100% from Eagle Forum, and 94% from AFA.)
Dist. 53 – Nick Popaditch
Dist. 39 – George Plescia
Dist. 71 – Brian Jones
Dist. 75 – Marie Waldron
Dist. 76 – Sherry Hodges
Dist. 77 – Dustin Steiner
Judge of Superior Court Office No. 24 – David Berry
Judge of Superior Court Office No. 25 – Jim Miller
Judge of Superior Court Office No. 34 – Gary Kreep
County Board of Education
2nd District – Jerry Rindone
4th District – John Rajcic
San Diego Comm. College – District B – Scott Hasson
San Diego Unified Schools – District A – Mark Powell
Mayor – Unfortunately, no candidate on the ballot holds core Biblical positions supporting life, marriage, family and religious freedom; I have no recommendation among them. If you are looking for an alternative candidate, Woody Woodrum is running as a write-in.
Council Dist. 1 – Ray Ellis
Council Dist. 7 – Scott Sherman
STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS (See Kacer’s Call below for more details)
Prop 28 – No
Prop 29 – No
San Diego City Propositions
Prop A – Yes
Prop B – Yes
Christian Citizenship Council’s Frank Kacer outlines the statewide and San Diego City props
Note: “(C)” following Proposition Number indicates a State Constitution change; “(S)” a Statute change
Prop 28 (C): Legislative Term Limits Reform Act of 2012 – Oppose (No)
Concerns:Incumbents will have a significant advantage, once elected to Assembly or Senate they could serve 12 consecutive years (6 terms or 3 terms, respectively) in that chamber with little opposition, decreasing effect of current term limits. Term limits don’t in and of themselves improve the Legislature. Active participation (accountability) in elections is the key, not artificial restrictions.
Consider:While term limits can remove corrupt but powerful politicians, it also removes solid, effective ones (Prov 22:29). Absence of any term limits can breed powerful, entrenched representatives insulated from the public (Prov 17:8). Single term limits would have littlerestraining effect because of the lack of re-election pressures. Balance seems appropriate. Extending current time allowed in either chamber will tend to minimize accountability and reduce opportunity for newrepresentatives to reflect general public concerns (Prov 11:14)
Prop 29 (S): Imposes Additional Tax on Cigarettes for Cancer Research – Oppose (No)
Concerns: Oversight Committee making grant and loan decisions are from organizations that can compete for funds (conflict of interest) (Prov 17:8). Increases size of government. Continues expansion ofgovernment attempts to manipulate legal behavior; Taxing of distributors prior to sales tax sets pattern for double taxation (buys state & local support).
Consider: State has record of using new revenue sources to replace existing, related appropriations (like Lottery & school funding bait and switch) thus it’s an indirect general revenue increase (Prov 20:14). Increasing tax revenue when state has massive overspending deficit is not fiscally responsible (Prov 13:11). Is government’s role to discourage activity (declare it bad) then benefit from it (Rom 3:8; Prov 17:26a)? Is purpose to improve health, protect children & decrease healthcare costs (No – can buy on Internet or out of state); increase effective tax base for the State (Yes)
Proposition A: Prohibits Requirement for Project Labor Agreements in Construction Projects – Support (Yes)
Concerns: Government is to be a good steward of tax moneys (Deaconal role; Romans 13:4,6). Government should seek most cost-effective approach to all necessary work. Discrimination based on arbitrary factors is unjust (e.g. companies with or without PLAs).
Consider: Discriminating using irrelevant factors is unjust (Deut 1: 17; Proverbs 11:1; 20:10, 23). Limited pre-selection reduces opportunity for most cost-effective option/solution (Proverbs 22:29). Posting relevant information allows public assessment of bias or pejorative treatment of bidders (Eph 5:13; John 3:20). Discriminatory decisions based on potential ccess to state/federal funds is doing wrong to gain benefit (Roman 3:8)
Proposition B: Comprehensive Pension Reform – Support (Yes)
Concerns: Estimates of expected/future costs or savings are very difficult to evaluate on either side. Implications of the proposed reforms are difficult to assess. Government is required to dispense justice, not provide life-long benefits with no return for the future cost.
Consider: Family member is responsible to provide for family (1 Tim 5:8), not government. Personal responsibility implies saving/investing in work years to provide during non-work years (Prov 6:6-8; 13:11). The worker is worth his wages (1 Tim 5:18), particularly those in hazardous duty, but obligating taxpayers to decades of high financial obligation during non-work years is not providing value to city. Future government obligation can be presumption on future (James 4:13-16), better to reward accordingly during career when revenues are known, than into far future which is volatile. Making changes without substantive impact on current employees is prudent – honoring current obligations (Eccl 5:4-6). Prop makes costs more visible since pay increases must be approved by 2/3 vote of city council (John 3:20).
For other local propositions, please check the FamilyVoterInfo guide page 2 (www.familyvoterinfo.org) to see how various groups line up on these issues.
Valuable Voter Resources
Bear in mind that these recommendations are just that – recommendations. You may have personal knowledge or other data that lead you to different conclusions. The point is: take the time to study the choices. To that end, below are links to online sources that you may find helpful in your research. Visit these links and candidate websites (lists of organizations and individuals endorsing them are helpful). Attend forums and other election events. Ask questions.
For information on judicial seats in various counties, visit: (www.judgevoterguide.com)
Finally, now more than ever it is incumbent upon us to be ready to defend traditional marriage. Therefore, I have included just a few links below to several items that will help equip you and those in your sphere of influence to do so.
Testimony in opposition to Senate Bill 241
Peter Sprigg, Senior Fellow for Policy Studies, Family Research Council
Maryland State Senate, Judicial Proceedings Committee
Who is Penny? Penny Harrington serves as a public policy analyst assisting conservative organizations in tracking legislation and related issues. She was involved in state leadership with Concerned Women for America of California from 2001 to 2011. As director of legislation she tracked bills, wrote numerous articles and legislation updates for CWA and other groups, lobbied elected officials and provided media updates. She has conducted seminars on the legislative process and critical social issues for CWA members, area churches and community groups. She is passionate about making a difference in support of biblical values and equipping others to do the same.
E-mail contact: firstname.lastname@example.org