For reference, here's a summary list

Endorsements
Part two: Boxer for Senate, Anderson for Berkeley City Council. Yes, yes, yes on 59, no on 71 ... complete endorsements for congressional, state, and East Bay races

AS USUAL, none of the Bay Area congressional and state legislative races are really competitive this year. And Democratic senator Barbara Boxer, whom the pundits always tag as vulnerable, has a comfortable lead over Republican Bill Jones.

But there are a lot of critical state propositions this year, and numerous important battles in the East Bay. Our recommendations follow.

National
Senate
Barbara Boxer

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California is not quite the same politician as Rep. Barbara Boxer of San Francisco and Marin County once was. She now supports the death penalty. She opposed Mayor Gavin Newsom's move to legalize same-sex marriage. She supported former president Bill Clinton's welfare reform and voted for the USA PATRIOT Act. And she supported – to her undying shame – the privatization of the Presidio.

But the U.S. Senate is hardly a bastion of great liberal thought, and she represents a state that keeps electing Republican governors – and by those standards, she's done pretty well. Her voting record is consistently the most progressive in the Senate (surpassed in recent years only by that of the late Paul Wellstone). She opposed the invasion of Iraq, she's a big supporter of tight gun-control laws, and she's one of the most vocal pro-choice advocates in Washington, D.C.

Boxer has been lucky: A senator who is almost certainly to the left of the majority of the voters in California has enjoyed marginal or utterly lame opposition in her past two races. In 1992 she ran against Bruce Herschensohn, a right-wing TV commentator who supported offshore oil drilling and was adored by the religious right (until he got caught going into nude dance clubs). Six years later she handily defeated an inept Matt Fong.

Now she's running against Bill Jones, a Fresno rancher and former secretary of state who's not only a right-wing conservative but also a bad campaigner. He's far behind in the polls, and Boxer will almost certainly win a third term. We have our reservations, but overall, we're happy to endorse her.

House of Representatives
District 6

Lynn Woolsey

Rep. Lynn Woolsey has emerged as one of the strongest advocates for women, particularly low-income women, in Congress – which is no surprise, because she's also the only member of Congress who was ever on welfare. She voted against the PATRIOT Act and, while she voted the wrong way on the war at first, has become a clear antiwar voice. She clearly deserves another term.

District 8

Terry Baum

Two years ago New York Times columnist Bill Keller published a list of the most venal members of Congress, the politicians who, in his estimation, had proved they cared little about anything except money and power. Most of the people on the list were right-wing Republicans, like Max Baucus of Montana and the newly disgraced Tom DeLay. But right up there with those well-known jerks was Rep. Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

Pelosi has made history by becoming the first female minority leader, and if the Democrats take back the House any time soon, she's in line to be the first female speaker. But when people in San Francisco look at her legacy, one of the first things they see is the huge, ugly office complex George Lucas is building at the Presidio. It's because of Pelosi that the Presidio has become the first privatized national park in the country.

Pelosi publicly announced in 2002 that she would support a unilateral invasion of Iraq, and she supported a resolution in favor the war. As the political tide has turned against the war, Pelosi is now one of President George W. Bush's harshest critics, and we give her tremendous credit for that – but even coming from one of the safest (and most antiwar) districts in the country, she didn't have the courage to oppose this misadventure from the start.

Until she agrees to introduce and push for legislation to undo her big mistake and take the Presidio back as a public park, we can't support Pelosi. Instead, we're urging people to write in Terry Baum, the Green Party candidate who's in a legal battle to get official ballot recognition (see Trail Mix, 10/6/04) and in the meantime is running a write-in campaign. Baum, a playwright who worked on the Gonzalez for Mayor campaign, has rather thin qualifications to serve in Congress – but she's not going to win. Pelosi will easily be reelected, and a write-in vote for Baum is at least a credible protest.

District 9

Barbara Lee

Rep. Barbara Lee hasn't been quite as much of a coalition builder and political leader in the East Bay as her mentor, Ron Dellums, was – but she's proved to be every bit a worthy successor in Washington, D.C. She was the only person in Congress with the courage to stand up shortly after 9/11 and vote against giving Bush a blank check to go to war in Afghanistan. She's been a leader in the antiwar movement ever since and a solid progressive on nearly every issue. We wish she was a little more accessible to the press, but we're happy to endorse her for another term.

District 12

Pat Gray

We would have liked to be endorsing Ro Khanna for Congress this fall, but despite a strong campaign, the young, Yale-educated lawyer was unable to defeat Tom Lantos in the Democratic primary. At least, though, he gave Lantos a challenge, which the 24-year incumbent badly needed. Lantos is rarely in the district, is inaccessible – and has a voting record that's way out of touch with his constituency. He strongly supported the PATRIOT Act and was one of only two Bay Area representatives to support Bush's $87 billion appropriation for war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can't endorse Lantos.

His Green Party opponent is Pat Gray, who wasn't our first choice either: we backed small-business activist Barry Hermanson in the Green primary. But Gray, an artist and former public school teacher, is an opponent of the war and the PATRIOT Act, supports single-payer universal health care – and is the only real alternative to Lantos. The incumbent will be easily reelected, but we're backing the Green as a protest vote.

California
State senate
District 3

Carole Migden

We don't known anyone else in politics quite like Carole Migden. Her fast-talking, take-no-prisoners, shoot-from-the-hip style is refreshing in an era of tailored sound bites, and her voting record, while not perfect by any means, is generally progressive. She's also a political operator, who raises big money from all sorts of powerful (and sometimes dubious) interests and cuts deals on legislation. She supported energy deregulation and never said a word against the privatization of the Presidio. She was way too friendly with the Willie Brown machine.

But she's still a progressive at heart. She defied the machine by backing Harry Britt over Mark Leno in the 2002 state assembly primary, and she put up some of her impressive personal war chest to help the public power campaign. On the state Board of Equalization, she won a major victory for same-sex couples who own their homes by pushing through a plan to eliminate property-tax penalties for surviving partners.

She will almost immediately become a powerhouse in the state senate, and we're happy to endorse her.

State assembly
District 12

No endorsement

Assemblymember Leland Yee made headlines when he introduced a bill urging state and local governments to allow feng shui principles in building codes. Beyond the late-night TV jokes, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with the idea. The problem is that it's hard to think of anything else Yee has done in Sacramento.

He's been largely invisible in local politics. He's in a leadership position in the legislature (somehow) but is doing nothing to promote any sort of political agenda that would help his constituents. Compared with his colleague Mark Leno, Yee's an embarrassment. He's going to win reelection, but we can't endorse him.

District 13

Mark Leno

There are pleasant surprises in politics, and Leno has been one of them. Once a cautious, moderate supervisor, friendly to the Brown machine, Leno has become an active, effective, and remarkably progressive leader in Sacramento. As chair of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender caucus, he's elevated queer issues to an all-new level in state politics. He's been a champion of tenants rights (he passed, and got the governor to sign, a bill exempting residential hotels from the Ellis Act), sunshine (he's pushed a bill to allow journalists access to state prisons), and even progressive taxation (he introduced a bill that would allow cities to collect higher motor vehicle license fees and another that would allow city income taxes).

He endorsed Gavin Newsom for mayor, which was a disappointment, but this fall he's backing tenant and labor organizer Robert Haaland (who worked two years ago for Leno's primary opponent, Harry Britt) for supervisor. Leno has his drawbacks, but he continues to impress us, and we're happy to see him cruising toward another term.

District 14

Loni Hancock

The former mayor of Berkeley has been one of the most consistently progressive members of the legislature. She's an advocate for education and youth issues and has maintained her roots as a leader of the progressive movement in Berkeley. We're happy to endorse her for reelection.

District 16

Wilma Chan

Although she portrays herself as an advocate for children and families (which she is), Chan introduced a bill last year to bring income taxes on the richest Californians back to the level of the 1990s. She will easily win reelection.

Ballot measures
Proposition 1A

Protection of local government revenues

NO The local government officials pushing this measure have our complete sympathy. The state of California for many years has been robbing local governments – snatching portions of their sales, property, and vehicle license taxes – simply because the legislature and governor lack the political courage to do the right thing and raise the taxes they need to pay for the services Californians require.

Yet forever locking status quo funding formulas into the state constitution, as this measure does, is the wrong way to deal with the problem.

The bottom line is that this measure is just too inflexible, making it almost impossible to implement the fundamental political changes that are now so desperately needed (such as creating a single-payer health care system run by the state, which would require some funds that counties now spend on indigent care). The one exception built into the measure for fiscal emergencies requires a two-thirds vote of the legislature and the governor's approval, and even then the money must be repaid within three years. Vote no.

Proposition 59

Public records, open meetings

YES, YES, YES The California Sunshine Amendment, as this proposition is known, would make access to government meetings and records a basic right under the state constitution. At a moment when government secrecy is becoming worse than any time since the Watergate era, this amendment is sorely needed and long overdue. It's been more than 50 years since California passed the Ralph M. Brown Act, which set a standard for openness at public meetings. It's been 36 years since the California Public Records Act was introduced. Meanwhile, private interests have been chipping away at these laws, aided by the fact that the state constitution is silent on the public's right to know. The Sunshine Amendment would change that.

The sponsors of Proposition 59, including state senate president pro tem John Burton (D-San Francisco), Californians Aware, and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, realize it's impossible to change the culture of secrecy in government overnight. But over time, introducing sunshine to the state constitution will give activists legal ammunition to fight for transparency in government. It'll put the burden on government officials to justify a decision to decline access to the public. Vote Yes.

Proposition 60

Election rights of political parties

YES, YES, YES This measure would make only minor changes in how elections are conducted; in effect, it would give existing law the voters' stamp of approval. But it's extremely important that you vote for it anyway: it's on the ballot to compete against the disastrous Proposition 62 – which would seriously damage small political parties and lock Democrats and Republicans into almost total control of state offices – and the one that gets the most votes will be implemented. Prop. 60 would ensure that each political party that qualifies for the primary election would be able to have its nominee on the general election ballot – as is now the case. The only change it makes is to remove the minimum threshold for primary write-in campaigns that keeps some parties out of the general election (as was the case with Terry Baum in this fall's congressional race after the San Francisco Department of Elections invalidated several ballots).

A coalition of wealthy special interests wants to change election law in a way that would effectively shut out the smaller parties(see Prop. 62, below). This is the best way to stop that. Vote yes.

Proposition 60A

Surplus state property

NO This measure was originally part of Prop. 60, even though it had nothing to do with election law. The idea was to draw more votes from fiscal conservatives and other antigovernment types, the very people who might be drawn to vote for the competing Prop. 62. That was a dumb idea, and the courts forced the measures to be split up (the state constitution requires that ballot measure address a single topic).

What Proposition 60A would do is require the state to use the proceeds from surplus property sales to pay off the economic recovery bonds it sold earlier this year to balance the state budget.

We agree the state should do everything in its power to quickly repay those bonds, which were a horrible idea in the first place, mortgaging our children's future to pay for our current fiscal irresponsibility. But this measure might well encourage the state to sell off more property (mostly a bad idea) – and would earmark it for one use, when there are so many desperately underfunded programs that need money. This was, and is, a foolish political ploy. Vote no.

Proposition 61

Children's hospital projects

YES This measure is straightforward and badly needed.

California's 13 children's hospitals treat kids with the most serious and deadly diseases, without regard to their families' ability to pay. Approximately 75 percent of the care is paid for by Medi-Cal, which has notoriously low reimbursement rates. Virtually all of these hospitals are overburdened and cramped; many are also dilapidated.

Oakland Children's Hospital, for instance, is housed in a 92-year-old building that lacks rooms where parents of sick patients can stay overnight. The hospital is planning a complete renovation that will cost an estimated $400 million. Proposition 61 would authorize at most $75 million for the project, but the money would certainly help.

In fact, Prop. 61 would authorize the sale of $750 million in general-obligation bonds to help fund capital improvements at the 13 children's hospitals.

One-fifth of the bond money would go the acute care hospitals run by the University of California; the rest would be given to nonprofit children's hospitals and would be targeted at diseases that ravage the sickest children in the state, such as sickle-cell anemia, cancer, and cystic fibrosis. These hospitals, which are typically not part of big chains and which have a mission to treat the uninsured and the poor, also treat children injured in car crashes, fires, and other accidents.

The measure would cost the state $1.5 billion over 30 years, but it's money well spent. Investing in the health of children is not only morally imperative but also cost effective. And the bond money would fund dozens of renovation and expansion projects as well as the purchase of new medical equipment. So vote yes on Prop. 61.

Proposition 62

Elections and primaries

NO, NO, NO Presented as an open-primary plan designed to include independent voters, this dangerously disingenuous measure is really about helping rich candidates and those backed by wealthy interests destroy small political parties and narrow the public debate over important issues. Basically, it would remove political parties from the primary process and send just the two top vote-getters on to the general election – virtually ensuring that no minor-party candidate would ever appear on a fall ballot.

Not surprisingly, every small party in the state, including the Greens, is actively opposing it. But it could wind up hurting major-party candidates too: as ballot-access consultant Richard Winger noted in a Bay Guardian op-ed piece, a primary in which two Republicans and five Democrats competed in a majority-Democratic district could very easily lead the Democrats to split the vote so that the general election would feature only the Republicans.

In the end, it would help the candidates with the most money, depriving voters of any kind of real choice. Vote no.

Proposition 63

Mental health services expansion, funding

YES We're not fond of set-asides – they tie the hands of legislators and make the budgeting process even more excruciating than it needs to be. But Proposition 63 is a set-aside we're willing to get behind, for two important reasons.

First of all, Prop. 63 would fund mental health programs, which are sorely needed and perpetually neglected. Ever since the state closed its mental health hospitals in the 1960s and shunted the burden of caring for the mentally ill to the counties, those programs have failed to get the funding they require. With our health care system in shambles, everything is getting squeezed, but mental health programs are always the first to get cut. Without this sort of law, they're unlikely to ever get the money they need.

Second, Prop. 63 would create a new, dedicated funding stream, making it the most acceptable kind of set-aside. The initiative would fund mental health programs of all kinds, with an emphasis on prevention and early intervention. Some money would also be earmarked for housing, general health care, and job training for the mentally ill. And it would do this by instituting a relatively modest tax on people making more than $1 million a year. It's very hard to argue with that.

As a state, California pays for its lackluster mental health programs in dozens of ways – from spending more on hospitalizations that could be avoided to higher law enforcement costs. The state legislative analyst believes Prop. 63, which would also prohibit the state from reducing expenditures on mental health below their present level, would save money and increase state revenues. Vote yes.

Proposition 64

Limitations on unfair-business suits

NO, NO, NO The backers of Proposition 64 would like you to believe they're a band of small entrepreneurs valiantly crusading against a repressive law and a legion of avaricious trial lawyers. That's complete nonsense.

Here's what's really going on: Megacorporations – Allstate, Bank of America, Citigroup, Intel, GlaxoSmithKline, Microsoft, etc. – are bankrolling Prop. 64. They're doing so because they despise California's antifraud law (Business and Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500), one of the nation's toughest antifraud statutes. The law allows private citizens to sue corporations that harm them, and, importantly, it carries harsh financial penalties – harsher, in fact, than the criminal antifraud laws on the books in some states.

In other words, the law does a little bit of equalizing, giving the average consumer at least some hope of taking on the corporate crooks who seem so bent on siphoning cash out of our pockets at every opportunity.

That these big corporations would even have the temerity to put Prop. 64 on the ballot during an era of unprecedented scandal in the business sphere – anyone remember Enron, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen? – is a testament to their shamelessness. Vote no.

Proposition 65

Local government funds, revenues

NO This was the measure local government used as leverage against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger during the budget process before the two sides got together and crafted Prop. 1A. Neither side now supports this measure, and neither do we. Vote no.

Proposition 66

Limitations on Three Strikes law

YES, YES, YES Proposition 66 would amend what is easily California's most draconian criminal statute, the so-called Three Strikes law. Approved a decade ago in the wake of the Polly Klaas kidnapping atrocity, Three Strikes redefined harsh, giving authorities the power to lock thieves and small-time dope dealers in cages for perpetuity. It drew criticism from both fiscal conservatives (endless prison terms aren't cheap) and human rights campaigners (there is, after all, a constitutional prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment).

By now most people are familiar with the basic gist of Three Strikes: commit three felonies, and get a 25-to-life prison sentence. Although the law was pitched as a way to keep rapists, drive-by shooters, and axe murderers from re-offending, it also covers people who've committed nonviolent felonies – thus the stories you've heard about hapless two-bit crooks doing life sentences for stealing pizzas.

Don't take our word on it: check out the California Department of Corrections' Web site (www.corr.ca.gov), which offers a bunch of data on Three Strikes. According to the CDC, as of June 30, 1,331 Third Strikers were in for burglary, 357 for petty theft, 173 for receiving stolen property, 235 for vehicle theft, 70 for fraud or forgery, 1,283 for drug crimes (including 28 for marijuana sales), and 44 for driving under the influence.

If you don't think your friendly neighborhood weed dealer should spend eternity in a six-by-eight box, vote yes on Prop. 66. It would narrow the Three Strikes net, exempting property and drug crimes, which would go a long way toward making the law equitable and reducing the state's outsize incarceration bill.

What they're really worried about is the revised law taking a small bite out of their vast, ever expanding powers, which have ballooned like a weight lifter on BALCO steroids during the past 25 years. Honest law enforcers will admit – off the record, of course – that if 66 passes, they'll still have a veritable encyclopedia of criminal charges carrying hefty sentences at their disposal.

The proposition is backed by San Francisco state assembly member Mark Leno, the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, the NAACP, and the National Black Police Association. Vote yes – and while we're at it, will politicians please stop passing off sports jargon as deep thinking on public policy? It's just embarrassing.

Proposition 67

Emergency medical care

NO On the surface, there are good reasons to support nearly any health care initiative these days. Hospitals are closing up and down the state, most recently two trauma centers in San Jose and Los Angeles. Because of these closures, it'll take longer for paramedics to reach people in need of emergency care, and patients will have to wait longer before they can even see a physician.

Dr. Karl Sporer, a San Francisco General Hospital physician who supports Proposition 67, told us one in four people actually leave emergency care centers before ever seeing a doctor. Clearly, California's health care system is in a state of emergency.

Prop. 67 would raise $500 million through a surcharge on telephone service. These sorts of backdoor taxes are generally a bad idea because they ignore the fact that some phone users can afford to pay a lot more than others. But that's not the biggest problem here. What bothers us about this initiative is that many of the hospitals that would receive these funds aren't struggling municipal hospitals like San Francisco General, but private institutions with dubious track records.

Unlike Prop. 61, which would give money to community-based nonprofit children's hospitals that treat the poor, Prop. 67 would channel cash to massive hospital chains like Sutter Health (based in Sacramento) and Catholic Healthcare West (headquartered here in S.F.), which began as small charitable organizations but increasingly behave like cutthroat corporations, paying their execs millions and shortchanging the poor. At this moment Sutter is being sued for overcharging uninsured patients, and both Sutter (which runs the California Pacific Medical Centers and St. Luke's) and CHW (which runs St. Mary's and St. Francis) have been slammed by the public health department for failing to provide free care to the indigent. In other words, while Prop. 67 will make you poorer, there's no guarantee it would truly triage the state's health care crisis – and it would probably make some health care execs a little richer.

We're very doubtful these days about anything that sends public cash to private entities like Sutter and CHW. The supporters of this should come back next year with a plan to spend the public's money on public hospitals. In the meantime, vote no.

Propositions 68 and 70

Tribal gaming compacts

NO We're opposing both Propositions 68 and 70, the two competing gambling initiatives.

Prop. 68 is a bid by the non-Indian gambling institutions – Nevada casinos, racetracks, and card rooms – to get into the lucrative slot-machine game.

In effect, the law would hold the Indian casinos hostage: Prop. 68 says all Indian tribes must start paying 25 percent of their revenue to the state within 90 days or the tracks and card rooms can start running slot machines, which at present they're barred from doing.

Prop. 70 is the brainchild of several Indian tribes that want to lock in their monopoly on slot machines – the biggest moneymaker at any casino – and other casino games. It would require the tribes to pay an 8.84 percent tax annually – but they would cease making payments if the state grants any non-Indians the right to run Nevada-style games. And the state wouldn't be able to audit the books of the tribal casinos.

Before California was California, it was Indian country, and we recognize the sovereignty of the tribes – they should be able to do as they please on what remains of their territory. We also agree that the casinos impact surrounding communities and ought to pay some sort of fair tax rate to the state. Schwarzenegger is negotiating with the tribes to make some sort of payment.

But Props. 68 and 70 are essentially political blackmail. We don't like the commercial gambling interests telling the state that if the tribes don't pay, the Vegas crew gets to come in and turn California into another Nevada. Nor do we like to tribes telling the state that it can't ever allow slot machines outside of a reservation.

While we don't like much Schwarzenegger does, his approach to Indian gaming is more thoughtful and less rash than either Prop. 68 or Prop. 70. Vote no.

Proposition 69

DNA samples

NO, NO, NO Over the past four years it's become a cliché to conjure up George Orwell while writing about the repressive tenor of our times. But what the hell, Orwellian is by far the best term to describe über-creepy Proposition 69, the initiative that would create a mammoth DNA database of anybody in California accused of a felony.

You can probably discern the potential problems:

1. Privacy People not convicted of any crime have a right to keep their intimate information, genetic code included, to themselves. How long before the state starts selling our DNA to biotech firms or HMOs, or disgruntled public employees start blabbing about our DNA to the press? In the name of national security – and credit cards – we've already ceded way too much privacy to the government and corporate America. This is over the top.

2. Severity Should convicted rapists and murderers have their DNA taken? Yeah, obviously, society benefits when we plop their DNA into a database and find links to other heinous crimes, and California already has such a system. But people accused of less-serious offenses – property crimes, drug possession, DUI, etc. – shouldn't have their DNA chucked into a supercomputer along with that of Richard Ramirez et al. Prop. 69 is another step in the ongoing criminalization of everyone.

And just imagine the potential for serious, disastrous human error. Can you really see the San Francisco police taking cheek swabs from 800 people arrested at an antiwar protest – and never mixing any of them up? Suppose you're one of those peaceful protesters, and the wrong DNA goes into your file, and someone else who happened to be booked and tested the same day later commits a serious crime. Then you get arrested, hauled away from work or home and publicly charged with rape, murder, whatever, severely and permanently damaging your reputation – and you have to hire a lawyer to prove the DNA in the computer isn't yours.

3. Money The state estimates Prop. 69 would cost up to $20 million a year. At a moment when rubble-strewn public schools in Baghdad are looking better than some grade schools in our inner cities, spending more loot on the prison-industrial complex is insane.

This is one of the most frightening ballot measures in years. Vote no on 69.

Proposition 71

Stem-cell research

NO There are plenty of good reasons to want to support Proposition 71. The Bush administration has been wrong to restrict funding for stem-cell research, which could eventually lead to treatments and even cures for a vast array of diseases, and it's tempting to think the state should take matters into its own hands.

But while we fully support stem-cell research – including the kind performed on embryos – Prop. 71 is the wrong approach.

This measure would authorize the sale of $3 billion worth of bonds – at an ultimate cost, after interest payments, of $6 billion – when we're facing a very bleak fiscal future. Proponents say Prop. 71 would stimulate the California economy, but while it would certainly be a boon to the state's genetic researchers, there's a real chance it wouldn't benefit the public at all. In fact, Prop. 71 could make health care less equitable than it already is, by creating exorbitantly priced treatments that only the very rich could afford. Of course, that's assuming stem-cell research leads to some cures, when there's no guarantee this very young field will ever pan out.

When it comes down to it, Prop. 71 would put a group of biotech insiders in charge of a massive amount of taxpayer money, with very thin requirements for public disclosure and no guarantee of public benefit (see "Cell Division," 9/29/04).

Perhaps even more alarming, Prop. 71 also tacitly endorses a process called embryo cloning, or therapeutic cloning, that is the first step on the path to the full-blown cloning of human beings. Embryo cloning requires women to donate their ova at unknown health risk, and if not properly monitored could very well lead to widespread genetic engineering.

There are far too many moral issues related to cloning that our country and our state haven't worked out yet – and those scientific discussions desperately need public oversight. Prop. 71 would allow the biotech industry to make crucial decisions behind closed doors that affect us all. Vote no.

Proposition 72

Referendum on health care coverage requirements

YES, YES, YES Soaring health care costs and the growing ranks of the uninsured are some of the most important – and least addressed – issues facing this country. In a rare showing of political courage, then-governor Gray Davis last year signed state senator Burton's S.B. 2, which required that large companies provide affordable health insurance to their employees and created a statewide buying pool for those who slipped through the cracks. The California Chamber of Commerce howled – and then sponsored this referendum to repeal Burton's legislation.

Don't believe the chamber's scare tactics – Burton's law is a reasonable compromise measure with a drawn-out implementation process that would improve the health of Californians, force businesses to provide for the well-being of their employees instead of pushing that burden onto government, and save counties hundreds of millions of dollars in the process. It wouldn't affect the smallest businesses – those with fewer than 50 employees are exempt.

But even if the Chamber of Commerce's worst-case scenario comes to pass and this proves to be a heavy burden on the business community, that will only serve to build political support for the long-term solution California really needs: a single-payer system that covers all Californians and cuts insurance companies out of the equation.

Because this is a referendum, a yes vote means you want to save Burton's bill, and a no vote means you want to overturn it. Vote yes.

Alameda County
Ballot measures
Measure BB

AC Transit parcel tax

YES Measure BB would increase the parcel tax by $2 a month to improve transit options in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It would preserve discount passes for students, seniors, and disabled people, many of whom are expected to rely more on public transportation over the next 10 years. Rebecca Kaplan, an AC Transit Board director, notes that the discount passes are especially important for the first generation of older Americans who drove cars their entire adult lives and are now faced with losing their driver's licenses. They're also essential for low-income youths whose schools generally don't provide bus transportation. The tax increase is small, and it can be deducted from federal income taxes – so in part it's a transfer of money from Washington, D.C., to Alameda County. Vote yes

Measure CC

East Bay Regional Park District parcel tax

YES In 1998, Bay Area environmental groups opposed a tax measure placed on the ballot by the East Bay Regional Park District because nobody believed the park district would spend the money effectively. The measure was defeated – and the park district, to its credit, decided to work with environmental groups on something they could all support. That led to Measure K, which won widespread support four years ago in parts of Alameda County but fell short because of opposition in Contra Costa County. Now the park district returns with a measure focused on the parks most in need of habitat enhancements and maintenance projects that will improve public safety. The area that would be affected by this $1 a month parcel tax increase also happens to be the area that strongly supported previous park improvements. Vote yes.

Peralta Community College District board
Harry Hartman (Area 1), Johnny Lorigo (Area 2), Nicky Gonzalez Yuen (Area 4), and Cy Gulassa (Area 6)

Accountability and competent management skills – those are what voters need to consider when choosing the next trustees of the Peralta Community College District. Because the community college district represents the best hope for thousands of Bay Area students, and they deserve to know college administrators aren't blowing public cash on overseas "recruiting" junkets and the like. Peralta has a new chancellor and a new building going up for Vista College, so there's reason for hope. But the board will continue to face huge budget difficulties, and it has to find a way to uphold the community college's mission of teaching every student who shows up for classes.

We're endorsing Harry Hartman, Johnny Lorigo, Nicky Gonzalez Yuen, and Cy Gulassa because of their demonstrated commitment to the community college mission. Each of these candidates has strong ties to the community, and they would all bring a unique and valuable perspective to the board. Hartman is a product of the San Joaquin Delta Community College who went on to study at UC Berkeley. He has been involved in labor and environmental organizing for 20 years and has won a lot of community support as a candidate for the Peralta board. Lorigo was a student at Laney College and has been a longtime employee and advisor there ever since. Gonzalez Yuen has 15 years of experience as a teacher at DeAnza community college. He also has a solid understanding of what's wrong with education priorities in this country, having worked with former senator Paul Wellstone as a congressional fellow three years ago. Another longtime DeAnza professor, Gulassa has taught English to more than 10,000 students over the past 30 years. He's also spent 15 years as president of the Foothill-DeAnza faculty association and has helped institute state reforms to boost diversity and make leadership more democratic in California's community colleges.

Berkeley City Council
District 2

Darryl Moore

The Berkeley City Council needs a strong progressive leader to work alongside Kriss Worthington, and south Berkeley needs someone who'll step up and focus on neighborhood issues. Darryl Moore, with his long history of community service and experience in public office, can easily step into both of these roles. After working as an aide in Worthington's office, Moore won election to the Peralta Community College District board and helped secure a building for Vista College, which is now under construction. He understands how to craft a budget in tough times and has good ideas for affordable housing, economic development, community policing, and youth programs. His opponent, Sharon Kidd, is a relative newcomer to city politics. Vote for Moore in District 2.

District 3

Maxwell Anderson

Four years ago we endorsed Maudelle Shirek for this seat, as we have throughout her illustrious 20-year career on the Berkeley City Council. A veteran of the civil rights movement (and the person who first convinced Ron Dellums to run for public office), Shirek has forever left her mark as a champion of so many progressive issues: low-income housing rights, health care for AIDS patients, and workers rights, to name a few. And although we're endorsing her opponent Maxwell Anderson, nothing that happens in this election will alter Shirek's proud legacy of service to her community.

That said, there are some good reasons why it's time for new leadership in District 3. At age 93, Shirek has struggled to meet the needs of all her constituents. She's become a less reliable vote for progressives in recent years, and after she failed to make the ballot last month (because of a technical filing error), it was unclear if she would even seek reelection. Now she's running as a write-in – always a difficult task.

Meanwhile, Anderson, a registered nurse, has built an impressive record as a planning commissioner and current chair of the Berkeley Rent Board. He's committed to working with neighborhood groups on youth education, living-wage jobs, and affordable housing. And he would certainly be much better than the third serious candidate in the race, Laura Menard, who's challenging both Anderson and Shirek from the right.

With heartfelt thanks to Shirek, one of the leading figures in Berkeley political history, we're ready to pass the torch. Vote for Anderson in District 3.

District 5

Jesse Townley

A lot of people think this race has already been decided in favor of Laurie Capitelli, a real estate developer selected by Mayor Tom Bates and state senator Don Peralta to succeed Miriam Hawley after she announced plans to retire last December. District 5 is, after all, fairly conservative (by Berkeley standards), and Capitelli has the resources to make himself the front-runner. (He raised more than $25,000 as of Sept. 30, twice the amount of his closest competitor.)

But while Capitelli has said affordable housing is one of the key issues in his campaign, he has emphasized the need to make Berkeley more business-friendly and hasn't done enough to address tenant issues, even though he's been criticized for alienating renters.

There are two other candidates in the race. Barbara Gilbert, an antitax activist, has run for office before, without much success, and it looks as if she won't do any better this time around.

That leaves Jesse Townley, best known as a musician and the producer of the local radio show Soapbox Derby.

Townley bills himself a "pragmatic progressive." He supports rent control, unlike the other two candidates, but he also appears to have the most comprehensive vision for development. And although he's just in his mid-30s, Townley has valuable experience in the community. He served on the Berkeley disaster council and has been a longtime representative of the arts community. He's got a tough race ahead of him, but he has our support.

District 6

Norine Smith

City Council member Betty Olds is running for a fourth term as representative of this north Berkeley hills district against Norine Smith, a retired software consultant who unsuccessfully challenged Olds four years ago. We endorsed Smith the last time around out of hope that she would bring an independent viewpoint to the council, and we're still hoping she'll get a chance. Smith is a genuine neighborhood preservationist who would vote her conscience on the City Council. And she would do a much better job than Olds at getting public benefits from downtown development. For too long, Olds has been a voice for landlords and real estate interests, and she's almost always on the wrong side of progressive causes and citizens initiatives like those on the ballot this November.

Berkeley Rent Board
Jesse Arreguin, Jack Harrison, Jason Overman, and Eleanor Walden

Jesse Arreguin, Jack Harrison, Jason Overman, and Eleanor Walden are running on a pro-tenant slate for the Berkeley Rent Board. Arreguin and Overman are Cal students, Harrison is a labor attorney, and Walden is a retired patients health advocate and a current Rent Board commissioner. The property owners didn't put up an opposing, pro-landlord slate, leaving Seth Morris, a Boalt Hall law student, as the only other candidate in the race. The pro-tenant candidates have the support of most of the progressive community in Berkeley, and each is eminently qualified to serve on the Rent Board.

Berkeley Unified School District board
Karen Hemphill and John Selawsky

Berkeley's is one of only a few school districts in the area that have managed to avoid financial disaster. Oakland's, for example, has been forced to accept a state bailout – and with it, has essentially given up local control of the public schools. And while we understand it's hard to be enthusiastic about a school board president who increased class sizes while cutting programs and staff, John Selawsky – a Green Party member – deserves credit for helping get the Berkeley Unified School District through a very tough four years. And despite the red ink, he hasn't given up on his hopes for improving the schools. Selawsky deserves another term.

It's more difficult to make the case for Joaquin Rivera, who was heavily criticized for not doing enough during these tough times. Rivera has already served two terms, and school directors almost never run for a third term.

Of the remaining three candidates, we like Karen Hemphill best. She'll be an effective representative for Berkeley's communities of color, and she seems most capable of addressing the achievement gap in Berkeley schools. Vote for Hemphill and Selawsky for school board.

Berkeley ballot measures
Measure H

Public financing of election campaigns

YES This historic reform measure would make Berkeley the first city in the country to adopt full public financing of elections. And though wealthy private interests don't control Berkeley to the extent they control Sacramento and D.C., Berkeley still needs to level the playing field for its candidates. Consider this: Berkeley mayor Tom Bates, who supports this measure, spent more than $235,000 while running for office in 2002. Spread over four years, he would have to raise more than $1,000 a week to pay off campaign expenses. Rich developers don't usually mind when elected officials come calling for money. But you should. Vote yes on Measure H.

Measure I

Date of mayoral elections

YES This measure would change the date of mayoral elections in Berkeley to coincide with presidential elections, temporarily adjusting the mayor's term to two years in 2006 so the next four-year election would take place in 2008. Just like that, Berkeley would increase voter turnout for its most important elected position. This would give more of a voice to all Berkeley residents, and especially those who don't traditionally vote in nonpresidential races. Vote yes on Measure I.

Measure J

Utility users tax

YES Berkeley (unlike San Francisco) has always looked to creative revenue-side solutions to budget crises, and this year, with the city facing the same kinds of problems municipalities across California face, Berkeley voters have the chance to approve several measures that would together bring millions of dollars into the city coffers. Measure J would increase the utility users tax from 7.5 to 9 percent; the temporary hike would last four years. It's not the most progressive type of tax, but it's not awful: big commercial users pay a lot more than residential tenants. Vote yes.

Measure K

Real property transfer tax for youth services

YES Measure K would increase the transfer tax on property sales of more than $600,000 to fund youth services and youth safety programs. The tax would go up 0.5 percent on sales between $600,000 and $1 million, and 1 percent on sales above that.

Among the limited arsenal of tax measures cities are allowed to enact these days, real estate transfer taxes rank fairly high on the progressive scale. Vote yes.

Measure L

Library services tax

YES Berkeley already has a special parcel tax to help pay for public libraries, and this would simply raise it a relatively modest amount to make up for budget shortfalls. It would also allow the tax to increase by 5 percent a year to account for inflation. Again, this is a reasonably fair tax. Vote yes.

Measure M

Emergency medical services tax

YES Another creative approach to revenue generation, Measure M – the fourth piece of the city's overall tax-increase package – would hike up the parcel tax dedicated to emergency medical services. It also includes an interesting annual-adjustment clause: Currently, the city can raise this fee each year by an amount equivalent to the Bay Area cost-of-living increase. Measure M would tag that increase to personal income growth in California – probably a better indicator of how much tax people can afford to pay. Vote yes.

Measure N

Appropriation limit approval (Gann override)

YES This measure would authorize Berkeley to continue spending tax funds previously approved by the voters. It's required by the state constitution thanks to Paul Gann, a leader of the conservative tax revolt in the 1970s and '80s. If this measure is rejected, it would drain Berkeley's emergency services, libraries, and parks programs of millions in already collected tax revenues. By all means, vote yes on Measure N.

Measure O

Rent ceilings – annual general adjustments

YES Berkeley's rent control laws do a good job of keeping housing affordable for tenants in an expensive city. But over the years, the Rent Board has found that its system for deciding annual rent increases is unnecessarily costly and somewhat insane. The way it works now, the Rent Board has to hire private consultants to analyze data on each unit where there's a dispute over a rent hike. Then the Rent Board holds hearings to decide how much the rent should be. This ballot measure, the result of an agreement between the Rent Board and property owners, would make this process more predictable by tying allowable rent increases to a percentage of the consumer price index – as San Francisco did 12 years ago. Vote yes on O.

Measure P

Rent stabilization and eviction for good cause

YES Like Measure O, this one also blends tenant and landlord interests. We're not so excited about passing laws that protect landlords, but the fact is, this one has a lot of good things for renters. It would regulate Section 8 housing to prevent landlords from exploiting rule changes pushed through by the Bush administration. It would set security deposit interests rates in line with those settled on by the Federal Reserve, thereby preventing stupid disputes over small amounts of money. It would allow the Rent Board to share information with other Berkeley city departments, and it would allow people to take on a replacement roommate without fear of eviction (which will really help Cal students). Vote yes on P.

Measure Q

Enforcement of state prostitution laws

YES With Measure Q, known as Angel's Initiative, Berkeley has the opportunity to reverse a long-standing tradition of using law enforcement to marginalize and stigmatize sex workers. Measure Q would establish a city policy that enforcement of the laws against prostitution would be the lowest police priority. If approved, the initiative would serve as a strong statement to the country that the old practice of throwing prostitutes in jail hasn't been good for anybody, least of all sex workers themselves. And there's no need for people to worry about sex shops opening up next to schools or anything crazy like that – this is decriminalization, not legalization. Vote yes.

Measure R

Access to medical cannabis

YES The Berkeley City Council has spent a lot of time discussing how many cannabis plants people should be allowed to grow for medicinal use. The current limit, set three years ago by the council, is 10 plants. The problem is that some people need more than 10 plants, leaving them to choose between having adequate access to medical marijuana and breaking the law. Measure R would eliminate any specific limit and would make it easier to open a medical marijuana dispensary. In passing Proposition 215 eight years ago, Berkeley residents overwhelmingly decided that using medical marijuana should not be considered a crime. So the city should stop wasting its time setting and enforcing restrictive limits on access to medical marijuana. Vote yes.

Measure S

Public trees

YES You know there's something wrong in City Hall when tree enthusiasts have to write a citizens' initiative to keep healthy trees from being chopped down. But they did. It's surprisingly easy to cut down trees on public land in Berkeley, and each time it happens, the city adds to the problem of global warming and the urban landscape gets a little bit uglier. This legislation isn't perfect, but it begins to address a real problem in Berkeley. While the council was voting against this measure, it should have been working to make it better. Vote yes on S.

Oakland ballot measures
Measure Y

Violence prevention

NO, NO, NO Last March we supported a violence-prevention initiative sponsored by Oakland City Council member Nancy Nadel. The campaign for Measure R brought together a strong coalition of community groups to push funding for youth programming and job opportunities for young people while giving some money to police programs. The measure failed by a handful of votes. Now Oakland City Council members, including Nadel, are coming back with another violence-prevention package – only this time, they seem to have left the community behind.

Most of the money raised by Measure Y would go to hiring more cops. Police alone are never an answer to youth violence, and shifting the funding in that direction is a mistake. Besides, at a time when Oakland cops have a horrible track record on civil rights and are actively trying to eliminate civilian oversight – going so far as to walk out of police review board hearings – the last thing the city should do is give them more money. Vote no on Measure Y.

Measure Z

Marijuana law enforcement

YES A public opinion poll released last month showed a strong majority of Oakland residents support legalizing marijuana. Oakland residents agree by and large that the war on drugs has been a total failure and that police should focus more time investigating violent crimes instead of minor marijuana offenses. Accordingly, Measure Z, known as the Oakland Cannabis Initiative, would make marijuana offenses the lowest legal priority for Oakland police and prosecutors while directing city officials to lobby the state government for the authority to tax and regulate marijuana. It would also indicate to Oakland City Council president Ignacio de la Fuente that he was out of step with voters early this year when he led a crackdown on medical marijuana dispensaries in the growing commercial district known as Oaksterdam. Vote yes.