2022 Midterm Elections

The midterms are almost upon us and given the increase in early voting, many people have already cast their ballots. Midterm races are typically not very “meaty”, and it is not very different this time, at least in terms of the propositions in front of California voters. However, this midterm is likely one of the most consequential ones in any of our lifetimes. That alone would be reason enough to break me out of my blogging stupor, but it has since acquired a greater poignancy because of something that happened earlier this week (more about this later).

We have been told ad nauseam that the party in the White House always loses seats in the Congress, but to put this perspective — since 1934 (when the Democrats under FDR gained 9 seats each in the House and Senate), there have been only two instances in which the President’s party gained seats in the House — the Dems gained 5 House seats (with no change in the Senate) in Clinton’s second mid-term election and the GOP gained 8 and 2 seats in the House and Senate, respectively, during W’s first midterm (held in the wake of the 9/11 attacks). The gains under Clinton’s second term were all the more remarkable considering that the Dems had lost a whopping 52 House (and 8 Senate) seats in his first term. W’s second midterm was back to the norm, with the GOP losing 30 House and 6 Senate seats, respectively. Obama, of course, had one of the worst reversals in losing 63 House and 6 Senate seats in his first midterm and had to preside with a GOP run Congress for the next six years.

So, it is hardly prescient to note that the GOP is going to gain seats in Congress. But, what is worth noting is that despite the seismic impact of Dobbs, the small, but significant, improvements in economic outlook, and the strong public support for the administrations actions in favor of Ukraine, a powerful red wave is looking more and more likely. Persistent inflation (& accompanying high fuel prices) was always going to be an issue for Biden, but the fears around an increase in crime (which are not necessarily borne out in actual statistics), stoked furiously by GOP candidates and their affiliated interest groups, has caused a swing towards the Republicans in the waning days of the campaign. For whatever reason, the GOP continues to be the party that is “strong on crime” (despite all the evidence to the contrary) and when people feel under threat, there is always a rush to safety, or the perception of it.

As a general principle, it is a sign of a healthy democracy that the party in the White House loses Congressional seats in the midterms. However, it feels existential this time around. We seem to be poised on the knife edge of whether our democracy will survive or not. A substantial majority already believes that no less than a civil war is coming within the next decade, maybe sooner. The sanguine amongst us wanted to believe that the consequences of the Trump win in 2016 while terrible, were still largely limited to his term. But, in fact, what has become increasingly apparent is that we are only now reaping the harvests of the malign seeds that he poisoned our democracy with. The destruction of public trust is a death knell to the American form of government. Trust in institutions is the bedrock of civilization and when that is lost, chaos and anarchy is what we can expect.

And on that cheery note, I will segue to my recommendations for this election cycle.

First the easy part — for all offices up for election, I recommend the Democratic party candidate, unless you have specific reasons to choose the alternative.

Now for the props.

Prop 1 (Right to Reproductive Freedom Amendment): This measure proposes to amend the CA constitution to enshrine the universal right to abortion. Given Dobbs and the promises by various GOP candidates to enact a nationwide ban on abortion, this is an easy choice. Vote YES.

Prop 26 & 27 (Legalize Sports Betting): These two ostensibly competing props have very similar goals at their core — legalize sports betting in CA. Prop 26 is supported by current gaming tribes while 27 is a Trojan horse for the big online gaming outfits (Fanduel, BetMGM, etc) to get a foothold in the lucrative CA market. 26 has its flaws — it’s a transparent attempt to chip away at non-tribal card rooms and provide even more gaming options at Indian casinos (separate from sports betting). However, 27 is clearly the more cynical prop — it is presented as a way for non-gaming tribes to get in on the action and supposedly a way to fund solutions for homelessness. Ultimately, these differences are moot for my core objection to both these props — we don’t need even more avenues for gambling. Vote NO on 26 & 27.

Prop 28 (Funding for K-12 Art & Music Education): I am a bit ambivalent on this one. On the surface, the arguments in favor are obvious — let’s ensure funding for arts and music education, which are fast disappearing from the majority of CA public schools. On the flip side is the argument that we just have to stop trying to get so granular with funding allocations. What seems like a good idea today doesn’t often seem that way in a few years time or when circumstances change, but initiatives such as these take away flexibility from funding choices. Climate change, homelessness, wildfires, etc are problems that need a lot of funding, but it’s a lot easier to convince parents that more taxpayer money needs to be earmarked for education. Having said that, I am going with my heart on this one. Vote YES.

Prop 29 (Dialysis Clinic Requirement): There are a couple of props on this year’s ballot that may trigger deja vu and this is one of them. As is well known by now, the vast majority of private dialysis clinics in CA are owned and operated by just two companies — DaVita and Fresenius — and it’s a very profitable business. A powerful labor union (SEIU-UHW West) has been trying for a while to unionize the labor force in those clinics and having failed to do so with normal means, have been using these props to put pressure on the clinic owners. Now, I don’t have any particular sympathy for the owners — they are spending huge amounts of money to defeat this prop (as they have for the previous editions) for good reason. However, the prop is presented as an altruistic effort to enhance “patient safety” even though there is scant evidence that the current setup is endangering patients. Vote NO.

Prop 30 (Tax on high incomes to support zero emission vehicles & fighting wildfires): This prop proposes to levy an additional tax on incomes greater than 2 million in order to fund subsidies for the switch to zero emission vehicles and fire fighting. The appeal to every bleeding heart liberal in CA is obvious — who wouldn’t love to play Robin Hood, especially for such worthy causes? But, if you follow the money, this initiative is really being pushed by one business (Lyft) in order to subsidize it’s intended switch to an EV-fleet. CA income taxes are already some of the highest in the nation and while I am far from being a target of this measure, I think this prop is an end-run around the resistance people have to raising taxes even when they are not directly subject to it. I am all for everyone paying their fair share, but let’s be honest about it. Vote NO.

Prop 31 (Ban on Flavored Tobacco Products): This yet another prop (like 28) that seems a fait accompli at first gasp. Flavored tobacco products (basically vaping products or e-cigarettes) are generally accepted to be the gateway to cigarette smoking among teens and enacting a ban on them seems a no-brainer. But, there are a couple of other factors to consider: (1) The ban is universal and not just for teens. If this ban is enacted, adults will also not have access to these products. And that is of concern because flavored e-cigarettes are often used by adults who are trying to quit smoking as a means to get there. And the second factor is that nobody should be selling these products to teens anyway — nobody under 21 is legally allowed to purchase any tobacco products, flavored or otherwise. So, the question is, why not enforce those restrictions more forcefully rather than resorting to the universal ban that this initiative wants?

Unfortunately, the practical reality is that laws are ultimately only as effective as the willingness to enforce them, but cutting off (or restricting) supply is a sure means to reduce the odds of abuse. Vote YES.

Measure A (Cannabis Business Tax): This one proposes to add a tax on marijuana businesses located in the unincorporated areas of San Diego county and use that as part of the general fund. This is yet another measure whose supporters are no doubt counting on the reflexive instinct to “punish” unsavory businesses such as recreational marijuana (setting aside the fact that a majority of Californians had voted in favor of it). The arguments in favor are weak at best. It is also somewhat weird that everybody in SD county gets to vote on a tax that will be imposed on only a small sub-sect of the county. Vote NO.

Measure B (Waste Management Fee): San Diego is somewhat unique among big cities in the US that it doesn’t charge residents for trash pick-up. But, actually it is a bit worse than that — it’s only the single family homes that are not charged. Apartments, condos, and businesses have to pay a trash pickup fee. This quirk dates back to a measure that is more than a century old and is clearly unfair. Multiple attempts have been made to add this fee, but they have all been defeated at the polls, not surprisingly — who is going to agree to adding a tax on themselves? I predict that this one will fail as well. However, even though I will be subject to this fee (should it make it through), I have to recommend a yes vote — there is really no justification for persisting with this historical anchronism. Vote YES.

Measure C (Remove Building Height Limit in Midway-Pacific Community): Another one of the deja vu measures. Yes, we have voted on the exact same one before (and it had passed). This one is not even worth explaining (or debating). Vote YES.

Measure D (Project Labor Agreements): This measure can seem a bit arcane, but a simplistic interpretation is that it’s passage would strengthen city employee labor unions while (possibly) putting private contractors at a disadvantage. More directly, it will overturn a measure that was voted in about 10 years ago. This prop has support among most local (Democratic) leaders and even Gov Newsom has taken the rare step of endorsing a local city measure. But, I am not really sure why this is needed — the proponents point to problems that largely theoretical (at least so far) and I suspect most of the support is by way of throwing a bone to the labor unions. I am going to fall back on that old saw — if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Vote NO.

Measure H (Allow Child Care on Public Land): If this measure passes, the city will be allowed to lease space on public lands and parks for child care operators. The acute shortage of child care facilities is well known and I can’t think of any reason to not pass this. Vote YES.

And now for some key races:

San Diego County Sheriff Race: While this is ostensibly a non-partisan race, the candidates do have party affiliations. Kelly Anne Martinez, who is a veteran of the department, is officially a Democrat although she used to be a Republican until recently. Meanwhile, her challenger, John Hemmerling used to be an independent, but is now a registered Republican. He also used to be the head criminal prosecutor for the SD City Attorney’s office, a SD police officer, and a Marine Corps officer. It would seem that both candidates have sufficient qualifications for the job. Martinez would largely continue the policies of the current sheriff (Gore) and while there are a number of problems (jail deaths being the most glaring) that need fixing, it is not clear that a wholesale change is needed. And not to put too fine a point on it, but I think having a woman in charge of law enforcement could be a good thing. Vote for Kelly Martinez.

San Diego City Council: Four seats on the council are up for election this time. The leftward drift of San Diego has become significant enough that two of the races are between Democrats, which is of course fairly common in the rest of the California. Here are the choices:
District 2: Jennifer Campbell (incumbent, Democrat) vs Linda Lukacs (Rep): Lukacs is the only candidate in any of the races that is endorsed by the SD GOP and this race is being seen as a test of how much support remains for the GOP in SD, post-Trump. She is running on a platform of fully funding the police, but interestingly, the Police union has endorsed Campbell (which is saying something since the Police as a group tend to be GOP-leaning). Campbell has been the council member behind the restrictions on short-term rentals, which has been welcomed by many of the coastal neighborhoods that are a bit tired of disruptive AirBnB parties. Not that it matters in any way, but interesting enough to note: both candidates are doctors. Vote for Jennifer Campbell.

District 4: Monica Montgomery-Steppe (incumbent, Democrat) vs Gloria Evangelista (Rep): Montgomery-Steppe is among the most outspoken voices on the City Council for police reform and she has pushed through real changes in her first term. Her challenger is an almost complete unknown, who is not even endorsed by her own party. Vote for Montgomery-Steppe.

District 6: Two Democrats — Tommy Hough and Kent Lee — are vying to replace the only Republican on the current council — Chris Cate — who has been termed out. Given that both are Democrats, there is not a lot to choose between the two when it comes to policy positions. However, Hough comes across as an opportunist who is looking to exploit latent NIMBY-ism and anxiety about change in order to get elected, while Lee seems much more pragmatic and interested in finding middle ground. Vote for Kent Lee.

District 8: Incumbent and Democrat Vivian Moreno is being challenged by another Democrat Antonio Martinez. This is a re-do of the 2018 race which Martinez lost by a few hundred votes. Both have a very similar platform — not enough is being invested in District 8 communities (which include San Ysidro and many of the cities along the border). However, Moreno seems to have done enough over the last four years to have won the June primary (which also between the same two candidates) by 27 points and seems poised to win re-election quite easily. I am not sure if anybody reading this blog is a District 8 voter, but if you are, Vote for Vivian Moreno. I think she deserves a second term.

And now, I have to reluctantly circle back to an allusion in the opening paragraph: Generally speaking, while my blog entries have very few readers, my pre-election blogs do have a small group of dedicated followers. Among them was Srinivas Patwari, who was a contemporaneous engineer at Qualcomm (although we never worked together), and whom I got to know a lot better through the yoga studio that we both attended. We were not in regular contact, but just last week he messaged me, asking if my 2022 elections blog was ready. I hadn’t even started on it, but promised him that I would share it with him very soon. Before I could do that, something completely unexpected and shocking happened— Srinivas took his own life on Tuesday, Nov 3rd. Srinivas was a gentle soul who would always greet you with a smile and genuine warmth. As a yoga teacher he brought a semblance of meaning and structure to a vast legion of students. This blog is dedicated to his memory.