You are here:
Rick -> Rick's Election Analyses -> Nov. 8, 2022

Tuesday, 2022-11-08 statewide general election

Notes by Rick Moen

(Last updated 2023-03-22)

This election rundown will cover offices and issues votable at our precinct 3402 in West Menlo Park, California. Unless you live close by, your ballot will differ to some degree.

As always, definitive outcomes are not possible for several weeks, partly because some categories of ballots aren't counted until after Election Day (vote-by-mail/absentee including overseas and military / RAVbM, provisional, conditional-voter-registration provisional, and damaged).

Also as always, this page includes separate "RM partisan analysis" sections for each issue/candidate, just in case you're curious what I personally think. No, I'm not lobbying to persuade, in part because that doesn't work.



Jump To...



How to Check / Fix / Create Your Voter Registration

California's registration deadline is 15 calendar days before each election; in this case, Monday, Oct. 24, 2022. Some counties permit checking and correcting registration online, and California also has a statewide voter registration Web site. I would recommend checking your county information first. If you see signs of trouble or have doubts or find no information, contact your county registrar of voters immediately. Or, just visit that office in person, bringing state photo ID or passport.

After official registration deadline and through Election Day, you can still do new registration (or change existing registration personal details or address) "conditionally" aka Same Day Voter Registration and then vote, doing both at any Early Voting Location. (This is also how to vote if you turn age 18 after official registration deadline but before Election Day.) If your name isn't on the voter list for your precinct, you can still vote a "provisional ballot", which means your ballot will be counted after eligibility gets checked.



Candidate Information

I've had a small epiphany: We have better ways of getting information than the (state) Official Voter Information Guide and (county) County Sample Ballot & Official Voter Information Pamphlet.

As 2016 U.S. Senate candidate Jason Hanania pointed out, the state charges candidates $25 per word to include a Candidate Statement in the statewide Guide — thus over $6,000 for a full-paragraph statement, plus a $3,480 Filing Fee, thus difficulty staying under the Federal Elections Commission cap of $5,000 in campaign expenditures, exceeding which brings many expensive other requirements and a host of other ills.

All of that is unnecessary: We have the Web, and nobody need pay by the word. Therefore, for each candidate, I have hyperlinked the candidate Web site or best other Web resource. The Web can give you much deeper and better information than the Official Voter Information Pamphlet and County Pamphlet. Use it.



Federal Offices

USA Senator

Full Term

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 21 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

This is a very unusual situation, resulting from Gov. Newsom in Dec. 2020 having appointed Alex Padilla to (begin to) serve the remainder of Kamala Harris's Senate term. Per California law, voters must now vote to determine whether Padilla or someone else will complete the very short remainder of Harris's term (from the Nov. 8th general election to Jan. 3, 2023), and separately for the regular six-year Senate term that follows. Candidates for the remainder (to Jan. 3, 2023) term will be covered further down. Those for the subsequent full (2023 to 2029) term are listed immediately below.

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Alex Padilla has a commanding lead over attorney Mark P. Meuser. Meuser, the standard-bearer for the Republicans, has spent the past four years suing Gov. Newsom over just about everything. He's a major Trump supporter who doubts the 2020 election's validity, supports overturning Roe v. Wade, and is a climate change denier.

As a further note about Meuser, his incessant suing, unsuccessfully attempting to challenge just about every COVID-19 pandemic emergency measure, including stay-at-home orders, temporary restrictions on in-person religious services, business closings, beach closings, face-covering orders, the governor's order to mail out vote-by-mail ballots to all voters during the pandemic emergency, etc., etc., were in conjunction with Dhillon Law Group and the so-called Center for American Liberty. Meuser also states that he would sue to attempt to block any attempt to mandate COVID vaccination for public school students, and claims that the vaccines aren't even vaccines at all. That is what Meuser means when he says "fighting for people's Constitutional rights".)

Above was my assessment as of the primary, and nothing since then has changed my mind. This race is a competent public servant (Padilla) versus a crank public-health enemy and election-denier.

I'm voting for Padilla.

Outcome (official)



USA Senator

Partial Term

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 6 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

This is a very unusual situation, resulting from Gov. Newsom in Dec. 2020 having appointed Alex Padilla to (begin to) serve the remainder of Kamala Harris's Senate term. Per California law, voters must now vote to determine whether Padilla or someone else will complete the very short remainder of Harris's term (from the Nov. 8th general election to Jan. 3, 2023), and separately for the regular six-year Senate term that follows. Candidates for the remainder term (to Jan. 3, 2023) are listed below. Those for the subsequent full (2023 to 2029) term were already covered, above.

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Alex Padilla has a commanding lead over attorney Mark P. Meuser. Meuser, the standard-bearer for the Republicans, has spent the past four years suing Gov. Newsom over just about everything. He's a major Trump supporter who doubts the 2020 election's validity, supports overturning Roe v. Wade, and is a climate change denier.

As a further note about Meuser, his incessant suing, unsuccessfully attempting to challenge just about every COVID-19 pandemic emergency measure, including stay-at-home orders, temporary restrictions on in-person religious services, business closings, beach closings, face-covering orders, the governor's order to mail out vote-by-mail ballots to all voters during the pandemic emergency, etc., etc., were in conjunction with Dhillon Law Group and the so-called Center for American Liberty. Meuser also states that he would sue to attempt to block any attempt to mandate COVID vaccination for public school students, and claims that the vaccines aren't even vaccines at all. That is what Meuser means when he says "fighting for people's Constitutional rights".)

Above was my assessment as of the primary, and nothing since then has changed my mind. This race is a competent public servant (Padilla) versus a crank public-health enemy and election-denier.

I'm voting for Padilla.

Outcome (official)



U.S. 16th Congressional District

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 6 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Although Eshoo will need to retire eventually, she's been in my view a quite effective public servant. If tempted to vote for Kumar, see links above (and my prior write-ups) for some incidents in which he behaved very badly indeed. I am just not impressed.

I'm voting for Eshoo.

Outcome (official)



Statewide Offices

State Assembly Member, 23rd District

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 4 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

This election is a different proposition from the ones where Berman has won in the past, because decennial redistricting has added some rural, conservative areas to the redrawn 23rd District.

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Berman's main issues in office have been education, climate change, and voters’ rights. In the recent past, there has been a scandal involving a sexual harassment issue involving one of his staffers, in which Berman didn't look very good. Meanwhile, Tim Dec is running on fiscal conservatism, environmental issues, and easing regulations, and has a background in tech. at Apple. He seems an admirably good fellow.

I would be be happy with either of these two fine gentlemen winning, but:

I'm voting for Berman.

Outcome (official)



Governor

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 24 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: For reference and comparison, I summarized Newsom's record in office, to date, during Sept. 2021's recall election campaign.

Polls before the June primary showed that Newsom had a commanding lead as before with support of 50% of likely voters. Republican state Senator Brian Dahle had 10%, and pushes the usual far-right crazy talk (climate-change denier, opposed to abortion rights, opposed to government vaccine mandates, voter reforms caused crime waves).

Mr. Dahle reminds me of my cranky right-wing Uncle Joe in Danville, basically pleasant, a bit deranged on some topics, a bit out of touch, generally. Meanwhile, we have Newsom, who is hardly my favorite politician (see link above), but better on balance than your average politician.

I'm voting for Newsom.

Outcome (official)



Lt. Governor

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 6 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Angela Underwood Jacobs, Deputy Mayor and former City Council member for Lancaster in the L.A. County high desert, is campaigning on lower taxes and law'n'order, but has little relevant experience. Meanwhile, incumbent Eleni Kounalakis focuses on housing issues, because of her background in the real estate development, and seems to generally have her act together, albeit keeping a low profile and working behind the scenes, primarily on international trade, climate change, and reproductive rights (along with sundry state commissions).

I'm voting for Kounalakis.

Outcome (official)



Secretary of State

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 5 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: I'll admit that, despite being a policy wonk, I don't know enough about candidate Bernosky, who has a credible background as a corporate CFO. Most of what can be readily gleaned about him is on his Web site, which distressingly appears to be mostly about emotive wedge issues and dog-whistling having little relevance to the Secretary of State's office. Then, on the other hand, we have Shirley Weber, who has been consistently impressive in the conduct of that office.

I'm voting for Weber.

Outcome (official)



Controller

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 4 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Incumbent Betty Yee is termed-out.

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Here, we have a most curious contrast. Malia Cohen is, frankly, an ideologue for trendy leftist causes, currently chair of the increasingly dubious state Board of Equalization. Meanwhile, Chen is that rara avis, an old-school, adult-in-the-room, utterly sane, fiscal-responsibility Republican, a proponent of sound financing and a high degree of transparency. Guess what?.

I'm voting for Chen.

Outcome (official)



Treasurer

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 2 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Here, we have scandal-plagued but highly capable State Treasurer Fiona Ma facing off against charter-school partisan and antiabortion activist Jack Guerrero. On the one hand, I have no patience for charter-school attacks on the public schools or anyone going after the right to lawful and safe abortions when needed. On the other, those issues' relevance to the Treasurer's office is slight at best. Pretty much everyone concedes that, scandals notwithstanding, Ma is the better candidate, so:

I'm voting for Ma.

Outcome (official)



Attorney General

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 3 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: I have respect for Mr. Hockman's track record as an aggressive and capable Federal prosecutor (in which regard, he reminds me of my bio-dad, the late Robert Howard Schnacke, 1913-1994). Meanwhile, Mr. Bonta has (in his appointed role, taking over from Xavier Becerra) already been an effective and capable Attorney General. I would be happy with either candidate winning, leaving aside for a moment partisan and national-politics considerations. That being said:

I'm voting for Bonta.

Outcome (official)



Insurance Commissioner

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 7 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: I concur with the SF Chronicle.

I'm voting for Lara (with scant enthusiasm).

Outcome (official)



Member, State Board of Equalization, 2nd District

2022-11-08 general election)

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), candidate Michaela Alioto-Pier having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Of the two candidates, Verbica is a finance/real-estate figure who seems completely disconnected with the (few remaining) duties of this office, and Lieber, of late a Mountain View City Council member, at least seems to know what the office is about but candidly admits she wants the office mostly to speak to "issues that don’t relate to the Board of Equalization". I judge the latter the less-bad of the two sorry choices, and concur with the two editorial writers saying this Board should be axed.

I'm voting for Lieber.

Outcome (official)



Superintendent of Public Instruction

This is a Top-Two runoff for a voter-nominated office (thus, no write-ins), 5 candidates having been eliminated in the June primary.
(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: As before, the choice is between sometimes-problematic but basically meritorious and capable candidate Thurmond and yet another chief figure of the charter-school industry, Mr. Christensen. No, the "vouchers"/"school choice" Trojan Horse for dismantling and defunding public education and redirecting tax money to private schools is definitely not my cuppa.

I'm voting for Thurmond.

Outcome (official)



Statewide Judicial

Supreme Court Justices

(twelve-year terms, nonpartisan)

Patricia Guerrero, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California, to be elected Chief Justice

Joshua P. Groban, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California

Goodwin H. Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California

Martin J. Jenkins, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California

Information:

RM partisan analysis: As usual, I see nothing wrong with the judicial nominees.

I'm voting "yes" on all four.

Outcome (official)



Court of Appeal Justices

Victor A. Rodriguez, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2

Therese M. Stewart, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 2

Alison M. Tucher, Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, District 1, Division 3

Information:

RM partisan analysis: As usual, I see nothing wrong with the judicial nominees.

I'm voting "yes" on all three.

Outcome (official)



County Offices

San Mateo County Board of Supervisors

3rd District (coastside, Redwood Shores, SC, West Menlo)

(vote for one)

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: Mueller has a longer history in office, with a decade on the Menlo Park City Council, to Palmer-Lohan's four on San Carlos's council (during which she's done very little). Mueller's answers about the area's problems are well-informed and detailed, while Palmer-Lohan's veer towards ideology. The biggest policy difference is that Palmer-Lohan enthusiastically endorsed the now-abandoned, poorly thought out, untimely county parcel tax proposal vaguely aimed at climate change that was a prominent issue in the primary, while Mueller did not. (Also, Mueller has a bit more developer money.)

I'm voting for Mueller.

Outcome (official):



Special Districts

Menlo Park Fire Protection District Board of Directors, Members

(vote for no more than three)

Information:

RM partisan analysis: Of the candidates, Gary L. Bloom is a CalPoly graduate and executive at several tech companies since the 2000s. Dionis Papavramidis has sadly given very little information about himself or his candidacy. Robert Jones (especially) and Chuck Bernstein have been solid contributors on the Board. So:

I'm voting for Bernstein, Jones, and Bloom.

Outcome (official):



Statewide Measures

(vote yes or no for each)



Proposition 1
Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislatively Referred Constitutional Amendment.

Legislative Analyst's summary: "Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual's fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This amendment does not narrow or limit the existing rights to privacy and equal protection under the California Constitution. Fiscal impact: No direct effect, because reproductive rights already are protected by state law."

Note about numbering: S.B. 131, signed into law June 30, 2022 required, 'to avoid voter confusion" and clearly distinguish it on the ballot, that this proposed constitutional amendment, then pending in the State Senate, if passed, be designated as Proposition 1 on our ballot. Otherwise, this bill would have become Prop. 26, the following number after Nov. 3, 2020's Prop. 25. Likewise, any further proposed constitutional amendments sent by the Legislature to voters this Legislative session would be numbered Prop. 2, Prop. 3, etc.

Normally, Elections Code Section 13117 requires all statewide propositions follow a 10-year numeric sequence from Proposition 1, with those decade-long cycles having started at the Nov. 3, 1998 general election.

Verbatim text: "The state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. This section is intended to further the constitutional right to privacy guaranteed by Section 1, and the constitutional right to not be denied equal protection guaranteed by Section 7. Nothing herein narrows or limits the right to privacy or equal protection."

Reproductive rights in California have a complex history, reasonably well covered by Wikipedia's piece. The current proposal is one of six abortion- and contraception-related state proposals immediately prompted by the May 2, 2022 leak of the far-right US Supreme Court's pivotal Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision that overturned Federal abortion rights and threatened that contraception rights would be next on the chopping-block. In just over a month, even before Dobbs was formally decided, this response was certified for the November ballot.

Prop. 1 would firmly fix into the state constitution abortion and contraception as fundamental rights — but controversy (and propaganda) has revolved around what specific legal effect passage would cause. This is a vital question, so I'll address it citing relevant legal authorities.

Some commenters say Prop. 1 would merely "codify existing reproductive rights into the constitution". Other commenters say the effect on abortion rights would be to remove California's current "fetal viability" standard state enacted in 2002's Reproductive Privacy Act, our current ruling statute:

Health and Safety Code Section 123468. The performance of an abortion is unauthorized if either of the following is true:
(a) The person performing or assisting in performing the abortion is not a health care provider authorized to perform or assist in performing an abortion pursuant to Section 2253 of the Business and Professions Code.
(b) The abortion is performed on a viable fetus, and both of the following are established:
(1) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, the fetus was viable.
(2) In the good faith medical judgment of the physician, continuation of the pregnancy posed no risk to life or health of the pregnant woman.

Which position is correct? (Hold that thought.)

The problematic "viability" standard (often claimed to mean 24 weeks, but please see above for real definition in state law), familiar to many from the 1992 revised-Roe Planned Parenthood v. Casey Federal standard that Dobbs overturned, has already been discarded by Colorado, New Jersey, Vermont, and D.C.

Studies have shown (1, 2) that late-term abortions are extremely rare, about 1.2% nationwide, and are overwhelmingly sought because extreme medical complications have put the pregnant woman life's and heath at grave risk, and/or where the fetus is doomed anyway. The notion of late-term abortion on a whim is an ideologue's fantasy.

Bear in mind, while reading opponents' polemics focussed on decrying "late-term abortion up to the moment of birth", not to mention "taxpayer-funded abortion on demand to the moment of birth for any reason or no reason at all" (both real quotations), that these are not only extremely rare edge-cases, but also tragic ones, not abortion "for no reason", as they disingenuously allege (and certainly not "taxpayer-funded").

On the key question of specific legal effect, the "codify existing reproductive rights into the constitution" faction is correct. The "late-term abortion up to the moment of birth" faction is entirely wrong. Why? Because top legal experts say so:

So will the broad language of Proposition 1 supplant state laws around viability? That’s not how it works, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law. The state’s Constitution is currently being interpreted as protecting abortion rights and yet there are restrictions after viability, Chemerinsky said. "There is no reason why this right would not be interpreted the same way," he said. "Rights are not absolute even if enumerated. Free speech is an example. The same would be true of abortion rights. I think the opponents’ argument is misguided."

If that is unclear, consider the First Amendment's free speech clause's sweeping wording: "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech." Yet, false testimony under oath, defamation, fighting words, obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that violates copyright or trade-secret law, true threats, commercial speech such as advertising, student speech in government K-12 schools, speech on the public airwaves, speech subject to professional ethics, speech of military servicemen, speech of the incarcerated, etc., are all legally constrained or unlawful — because legislatures and courts make it so.

That's the way these things actually work.

When reading Prop. 1 coverage/endorsements, bear in mind many commenters either misunderstand this legal principle, or pretend to.

In the event of the amendment passing, the last word on the limitations or parameters of abortion rights would (necessarily) will come from the state's judiciary. In that context, too, official proponents' declaration that their intent is simply to reaffirm the right to abortion (and contraception) in California would be persuasive in court, as Santa Clara University School of Law constitutional law professor Margaret Russell has stressed.

Last, my standard warning about state constitutional amendments:

It is important to know that California voters passing a constitutional amendment (instead of a normal statute) puts that law's contents off-limits to legislative alteration — repeal or alteration by our elected legislature (without submitting the proposed change to the voters). It is a remedy that explicitly ties our elected representative's hands, preventing them from doing that part of their jobs, and therefore should rationally be considered an extreme measure, to be used only as a last resort against Legislatures running amok, not just for the convenience of some political bloc.

In Prop. 1's case, abortion and contraception would be broadly declared fundamental rights that no future Legislature could revoke without voter concurrence.

Coverage:

RM partisan analysis: I'm a firm supporter of abortion and contraception rights, and feel it is only common sense, given US Supreme Court developments, to protect those rights against both renegade state courts and any future renegade Legislature by forthrightly declaring those to be fundamental rights in the state Constitution. As that is exactly what this measure would do:

I'm voting "yes".

Outcome (official):