theSheetNews.com

(Photo: rareseeds.com)

Last summer, The Sheet met with Pamm Larry, the self-described “initial instigator” of Label GMOs: It’s Our Right to Know initiative for the 2012 California ballot. At the time Larry was traveling around California bringing awareness about genetically modified organisms in food to residents of the state.

On Aug. 31, 2011 she stopped into Mammoth for about 24 hours and held an Activist Seed Meeting. At the time, Larry was working hard to get the initiative on the ballot.

According to the initiative’s website, www.labelgmos.org, “Getting an initiative on the California ballot is a timed adventure. Once we turn the language of the initiative in, the state has it for anywhere from 40 to 60ish days or so. Once we get it back, we have 150 days to gather 504,760 qualifying signatures. All experts tell us that we should count on gathering 750,000 – 800,000 to make sure we have enough that make it. We’re organizing our signature gathering campaign now so that when we get the initiative back we are ready to start running.”

Getting an early start seems to have worked. On June 11, the California Secretary of State’s office announced that the GMO labeling measure had gathered enough valid signatures to be placed on the Nov. 6 General Election ballot this fall.

According to the press release from the Secretary of State’s office, the measure “Requires labeling on raw or processed food offered for sale to consumers if made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits labeling or advertising such food as ‘natural.’ Exempts foods that are: certified organic; unintentionally produced with genetically engineered material; made from animals fed or injected with genetically engineered material but not genetically engineered themselves; processed with or containing only small amounts of genetically engineered ingredients; administered for treatment of medical conditions; sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant; or alcoholic beverages. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential increase in state administrative costs of up to one million dollars annually to monitor compliance with the disclosure requirements specified in the measure. Unknown, but potentially significant, costs for the courts, the Attorney General, and district attorneys due to litigation resulting from possible violations to the provisions of this measure. (11-0099.)”

Compiled by Geisel

Note: While we have devoted ample space to local candidates this election season, we have not tackled the more regional and statewide races, so here’s a brave attempt. Space prohibited profiling every candidate running on the June 5 Primary Election ballot. We have used a mix of polling data, reader input and local campaign websites to spotlight a cross-section of the more viable candidates.

U.S. Senator

In California, we have three certainties: death, taxes and the presumed re-election of sitting U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, who enjoyed double digit victories in 2000 and 2006. Feinstein, who turns 79 in June, has served in the U.S. Senate for 20 years. With support even among moderate conservatives, a recent SurveyUSA.com poll of the 24 candidates on the ballot found Feinstein drawing 51% of registered voters surveyed going into the June 5 primary.

Her leading GOP opponents so far are Dan Hughes and Elizabeth Emken, who are polling the highest so far at about 2% each, and right behind them Greg Conlon, who previously ran for state office.

There are 24 candidates for U.S. Senate on the ballot

Endorsed by the California Republican Party, Emken is running as a free market supporter, who is very pro 2nd Amendment and has stated she is for “traditional” marriage, opposes the Obama administration’s economic stimulus spending, supports a repeal of President Obama’s Affordable Healthcare Act (aka “Obamacare”) and a guest worker immigration program, but not any form of amnesty.

Hughes, who’s been endorsed by U.S. Congressman Darrell Issa, supports major tax and regulatory reforms needed to support business in particular, replacing Obamacare, e-Verify for workers to cut down on immigration, term limits for members of Congress, and is very pro-Israel.

Greg Conlon is banking on name recognition from his 2002 run for state treasurer. He pulled in more than one million votes in the primary and three million votes in the general election against then incumbent Phil Angelides. Conlon’s platform is largely economic, calling for tax incentives to spur job creations, solving the housing crisis, balancing the federal budget, more protection of U.S. interests around the world, and entitlement reforms for both Medicare and Medicaid.

Of the Democrats, Feinstein’s only significant competition could come from businesswoman and finance manager Diane Stewart, and computer scientist Dr. David Alex Levitt.

A scientist and political outsider, Levitt’s numbers have been surging lately, with pollsters pointing to his popular support of marijuana legalization and regulation, leaving Afghanistan immediately, and Medicare-for-All, among other policies that most Democrats and Republicans try to avoid even discussing, let alone supporting. According to his campaign manager, Sheila Harden, he appeals to both younger and older progressives, who aren’t satisfied with Feinstein’s performance, and want an alternative Democrat on the ballot in November, in which the top two primary finishers will face off, regardless of party affiliation.

Stewart said she favors decriminalization of marijuana at the federal level. She attributes steep cuts in state schools funding in part to what she calls “the failure of the federal government to extend emergency fiscal aid to states.” Stewart blames rising gas prices on a mix of the auto industry’s heavy promotion of big SUVs, the oil companies for shutting out alternative means of fuel, and “the government for taking so long to persuade the other two industries that we need more accommodating vehicles such as hybrid cars.” She’s also pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage.

Interestingly, 30% of registered voters in the SurveyUSA.com poll declared themselves “undecided.”

U.S. Congress

There are 13 candidates for the new 8th Congressional District, in which Mono and Inyo counties find themselves after being redistricted out of the 25th District, including 10 Republicans, 2 Democrats and a non-partisan.

For the Democrats, law office manager Jackie Conaway was defeated overall by Congressman Buck McKeon in 2008 and 2010, when both squared off in the last two 25th District elections, but she did pull 49% of the San Bernardino, Inyo and Mono portions of what is now the current 8th District.

In her platform, Conaway said she and her attorney husband have been working to litigate against automated red light cameras, and that she’s been active in water and air quality issues. She also wants the government “out of bedrooms, relationships and doctors’ offices,” equal pay for equal work regardless of sex, job creation by requiring federal contractors to base operations in the U.S., supports the Affordable Care Act, and wants to protect and fully fund Medicare, Social Security, Veterans Administration benefits and the National Park Service.

High school counselor John Pinkerton supports “our service men and women, not foreign entanglements,” promoting public education entrepreneurship and mentorship programs, and more research and development opportunities, developing welfare to work programs, rebuilding and maintenance of roads, bridges, rails & ports, promoting regional business access to federal contracts, tax cuts for small businesses, and expanding access to lending for job creation.

On the GOP side, Yucca Valley Town Councilman and decorated Marine Corps Colonel Paul Cook won the endorsement of former governor Pete Wilson. Cook’s platform calls for support of the military (he opposes defense cuts) and veterans, fundamental tax reform, such as a fair, flat tax, and no new taxes, spending reforms and ultimately a balanced budget, and shoring up Social Security and Medicare.

Ryan McEachron, an insurance executive and current Mayor of Victorville, opposes cutting defense budgets and closing military installations, supports easing regulations and tax burdens for working Americans, job creators and small businesses, favors repeal of Obamacare, revamping the tax code, a balanced budget amendment, a comprehensive energy plan that increases domestic production of all forms of energy, and decreases dependence on foreign oil, supports “practical” solutions for the environment that integrate “the human element,” global competition and job growth, local input on public land management and defending Israel’s relationship with the U.S.

Gregg Imus, a custom homebuilder, was formerly Chief of Staff and Campaign Manager for Assemblyman Tim Donnelly. Co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense of California, he and his wife started and ran the “True Love Waits” program in Lake Arrowhead. Imus, a Ron Paul-style Constitutionalist, is for scrapping the Federal Reserve monetary system, a flat tax, no capital gains or death taxes, securing the Southern border, deporting illegal aliens, and changing the 14th Amendment to allow citizenship only to children of both citizens and legal immigrants. He is, however, against what he calls “spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.” He’s received endorsements from several Tea Party-type groups.

State Assembly

District 5, which after redistricting in 2011 now includes Mono County, could come down to a battle between two of the six candidates running.

Republican businessman Rico Oller supports easing regulations and tax incentives for employers to spur job creation, no new taxes, imposing a strict cap on state spending and use revenues above the cap to pay off debt or to refund to taxpayers, wants performance reviews to ferret out waste, fraud and corruption, will push to prohibit pension spiking and prevent people from retiring at higher salaries than they made while working and prohibit pay raises for state employees who earn more than $150,000 a year. Oller believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. He authored the repeal of SB 60, which would have given illegal immigrants the right to driver’s licenses, wants to end taxpayer subsidized college tuition for illegal immigrants, hold the federal government accountable for $750 million annual cost to the state for incarceration of illegal immigrant criminals, supports deporting illegal immigrants who are convicted criminals and checking the immigration status of suspected criminals. Oller wrote Senate Bill 382 requiring notifying of law enforcement and neighborhoods when sex offenders are placed in residential group homes, and defending 2nd Amendment rights.

Substitute teacher Marc Boyd could well be the most viable Democrat for the seat. Boyd said in his platform that if voters approve Gov. Jerry Brown’s tax initiative package in November, he would support legislation to repeal the $150 Rural Fire Fee. He also supports state funds to cover the additional expenses to counties for AB 109 prison realignment, and Gov. Brown’s tax hike initiatives on the November ballot. Boyd is also a supporter of the California High Speed Rail effort and SB 810, the California Universal Healthcare Act, a single-payer plan that would be paid for through expenditures already being made. The major difference is that insurance companies will be required to lower their overhead expenses to 5% versus the current average of 25%. Boyd is for so-called “feed-in tariffs” that allow homeowners the opportunity to sell excess solar power to electric utility companies to make up a $200 million budget shortfall in the California Solar Initiative. He’s against unlimited, undisclosed campaign funding, supporting AB 1648, the California Disclose Act.

Props 28 and 29

Proposition 28: Limits Legislators’ Terms In Office, Constitutional Amendment. Seeks to change Proposition 140, approved in 1990. Lowers term limits from 14 years to 12 years in either the Assembly or Senate. Changes would NOT apply to any legislator already in office at the time that the initiative goes into effect. Sponsors: Los Angeles AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce put this on the ballot. Pro: The courts have opened up a loophole allowing politicians to serve up to nearly 17 years by filling partial term vacancies that don’t get counted as part of their limit. Prop. 28 closes that loophole by imposing a strict limit based on the number of years served in the Legislature, not on the number of terms. Con: Prop. 28 allows politicians to be in the California State Assembly for 12 years, not the 6 year maximum permitted under current law.

Proposition 29: Tax On Cigarettes For Cancer Research. Increases California’s current cigarette tax (87 cents per pack) by $1. Additional tax revenue will be used to fund cancer research, smoking reduction programs and tobacco law enforcement.

Pro: “The $1 cigarette tax increase will help so many people quit smoking that they’ll spend a billion dollars less a year on cigarettes. And $800 million of that billion which is now being sent out of state to Philip Morris, RJ Reynolds and other tobacco interests will stay here in California creating almost $2 billion in new economic activity and 12,000 new jobs.” -Stanton A. Glantz, Professor of Medicine, UC San Francisco.

Con: Taxpayer advocates say the additional revenue will mostly be used to expand an already bloated bureaucracy and do nothing to help the state out of its financial mess. The federal government already spends $6 billion a year on cancer research and any research on a serious disease like cancer should be coordinated at the national level rather than a patchwork of research done at the state level, and they maintain there are no guarantees that research money will be spent in the U.S., much less in California.

Voters get to cross party lines during primary balloting

When California and Mono County voters head to their respective polling places this June 5, they’ll be using a new ballot format.

In nonpartisan contests, such as those for county Board of Supervisor seats, voters won’t notice any difference … as in the past a candidate wins if he or she pulls in 50 percent plus one vote. No change there.

But, in partisan races, such as those for state legislature, and Congressional seats, voters will participate in what has been referred to as an “open primary.” Democrats can vote for Republicans and Republicans can vote for Democrats.

“On the ballot they’ll see what are now called voter-nominated offices … congressional offices, state, legislative offices,” said Deborah Seiler, the San Diego County Registrar of Voters in an interview with KPBS TV. “Where these used to be restricted to that voter’s political party, now they will be a combination of all the candidates running in that primary election, which will include Democrats and Republicans.”

Enacted by state voters in June 2010, Prop 14 provides for a “voter-nominated primary election” for each state elective office and congressional office. “Since anybody can vote for anybody, you might have to appeal more toward moderates, toward independents,” said Carl Luna, a professor at San Diego Mesa College, said in an interview with PBS. “So you get two Democrats who win in one district [such as the 52nd Congressional District, in which two Democrats are running] … they go to the general election and the Democrat that can get Independents and even moderate Republicans to vote for them has a better chance to win.”

Luna posited that in the closed primary system, voters elected “polarized candidates,” liberal or conservative, who can’t agree on much once they reach the legislature.

Under the new open primary system for partisan races, the top two candidates with the most votes go to the general election in November. That’s true even if one candidate has already secured more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary.

Strictly speaking, though, California’s new Proposition14 system isn’t exactly an “open primary.” “Open primary” has been defined in political science textbooks since 1907, and in US Supreme Court decisions starting in 1972, as a system in which each party has its own primary ballot and its own nominees, but on primary day any voter is free to choose any party’s primary ballot.

By contrast, California no longer has party nominees or party primary ballots (except for President), and is more officially referred to as a “top-two” system. On several websites and blogs, supporters suggest that a true “open primary” format would be far better because it would not limit choices in November general elections to just two. Proposition 14 wasn’t on the June 2010 ballot as an “open primary” because a state court ruled it doesn’t fit the formal definition.

Who’s living in YOUR district?

Some voters have questioned how recent state redistricting affects the rules governing where a candidate lives versus where he is running for certain seats. According to an analysis by the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law, California redistricting is governed by Article XXI of the state constitution, modified significantly in 2008 by a ballot initiative that was in effect for the 2011 redistricting process. At the County level, supervisorial candidates are required to live in the district for which they are running. However, in state legislative races, that might not necessarily be the case. According to the analysis, Candidate residences “may not be considered, and districts may not be drawn to favor a candidate or party.”

In addition to local races, on Nov. 6 voters will vote for several federal and state offices, including the U.S. House of Representatives, and for one of the state’s two seats in the U.S. Senate. Democrat Dianne Feinstein, incumbent U.S. senator first elected in 1992, will defend her current seat.

Feinstein could face challenges from a raft of declared Republican candidates, such as Elizabeth Emken, former Autism Speaks VP and 2010 11th Congressional District candidate, U.S. Naval Officer Rogelio Gloria, perennial candidate Timothy Kalemkarian, Rabbi and 2010 State Senate candidate Nachum Shiffren, Tea Party activist Michael Stollaire and Dr. Orly Taitz, a dentist and 2010 GOP candidate for California Secretary of State.

There is also still a potential for a challenge from some notable names, such as Carly Fiorina, former Hewlett-Packard CEO and 2010 GOP U.S. Senate nominee, Congressman Darrell Issa, who has raised eyebrows as the Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee in the ongoing House investigation into “Operation Fast & Furious,” and Steve Poizner, former Insurance Commissioner and a 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidate.

Not running: Congressman Devin Nunes (R-21st District), Michael Reagan, conservative radio host and son of former President Ronald Reagan, and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, who ran for governor as a Republican in 2010. –KPBS/Ballotpedia

Could CVRA create further money woes for school districts?

California school districts that think budget cuts are their biggest issue could be in for a rude awakening as more about the California Voting Rights Act becomes clear. Currently, there is only one sure way to safeguard a district from lawsuits stemming from supposed CVRA violations. The Eastern Sierra Unified School District has been examining this safe harbor for the past few months.

Presently, ESUSD elects its Board members via “at-large” elections (as does Mammoth Unified School District, which also discussed CVRA in September, according to the minutes). This means that any community member in the Eastern Sierra Unified School District is allowed to vote for any and all seats on the Board.

In May, Mono County Superintendent of Schools, Stacey Adler made a presentation to the Board regarding the California Voting Rights Act, which was enacted in 2002. The law purports to make it easier for racial and ethnic groups to challenge at-large elections than under the Federal Voting Rights Act. According to Adler’s PowerPoint in May, “moving from the current ‘at-large’ election system to a ‘by-trustee’ system is the ONLY sure protection from a CVRA suit.” Other publications such as California Schools Magazine report the same.

Several CVRA suits have been filed against elected bodies in the past few years, including suits against Madera Unified School District and Hanford Joint Union School District. According to the Santa Clara Weekly, in the case of Madera, the District lost and had to pay $1.2 million in the plaintiff’s lawyer fees. While Hanford chose to settle, it was required to pay the plaintiff’s lawyer fees as well to the tune of $110,000.

In a “by-trustee” system, the voters residing in the area that the candidate will represent conduct elections. For example, residents of June Lake would only be allowed to vote for the school board member that represents June Lake. This would mean voters would only get to vote on school board members every four years rather than every two.

Since 2003, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights (LCCR), whose members were drafters of the CVRA according to the Santa Clara Weekly, started bringing lawsuits against all kinds of elected bodies. The main goal, it seems, is to put Latinos in office, the article stated.

“Despite California’s diversity and status as a minority-majority state, the LCCR’s lawsuits and threats appear to focus almost exclusively on electing Latinos to public office,” it continued.

ESUSD Superintendent Don Clark, however, explained that there was an additional catalyst for looking at this potential change. “Every 10 years when the census is done we reevaluate our district numbers and board election system,” he explained. “Our legal counsel has reviewed our minority numbers and determined that we are not underrepresenting the Hispanic population [with the way the District currently holds elections].” Currently four out of five Board members are Caucasian.

Emails between community members have circulated throughout the district regarding the topic, and it seems that the public is split on the idea of the change. Some argue that the by-trustee approach would allow the elected board member to have a better understanding of his or her area’s needs and concerns, and therefore he or she would better represent the students in his or her area. Others argue that because anyone running for a Board position must live in their portion of the school district in order to run, the representation and understanding of their specific area is already present.

At last month’s ESUSD Board meeting held in Coleville, the topic drew in a large crowd.

“We probably had about 150 people there,” Clark said. The majority of the group requested that the Board change to a “by-trustee” election system. The Board, however, was not in favor of this change, according to Clark.

The confirmation from legal counsel that no population in the District was being underrepresented, plus the feeling of the Board that each member should represent the entire district, not just one portion, were some of the reasons the Board did not feel it was necessary to make a change, according to Clark.

There could, however, be one more reason that the Board may not want to shake up the electoral procedure: fiscal constraints. According to a 2009 article in California Schools Magazine, “School districts and county offices with budgets strained by tough fiscal times are understandably reluctant to devout resources to changing districts’ electoral systems.”

If the Board did decide to change the electoral system, the change would then have to go before the voters.

According to Lynda Roberts, County Clerk/Recorder, if the item were put on the ballot the cost would be pro-rated with how many other items were on that same ballot.

“If it were on a June ballot where there are more items, they would only pay a portion of the cost,” Roberts said. If, however, it were the only thing on the ballot (such as MUSD’s Measure S in November), the District would pay the entire cost.

ESUSD is still reeling from its budget issues in the 2009/10 fiscal year when it met with a more than $2 million shortfall. Like many other California school districts, today ESUSD is facing even more cuts from the state in the upcoming months. The Board is expected to discuss a potential $350,000 loss from the state at its Dec. 19 regular meeting.

A special board meeting is being held on Monday, Dec. 12 at 6 p.m. at the District Office in Bridgeport. According to Clark, the Board will again receive public testimony on the subject of changing the electoral system at this meeting.

Regardless of whether or not the Board is swayed to change the electoral system, the district lines for ESUSD will have to be redrawn because currently, the numbers represented in each segment of the district are out of whack.

For example, Lee Vining has about 250 constituents while the Walker/Coleville area has more than 1,000. The new configuration of the lines is presently undecided.

“We need more equal representation and will be working with a consultant in the coming months to accomplish this,” Clark said. He estimated that each segment of the district should represent approximately 800 people.

Bishop considers rolling into Inyo election cycle

Bishop City Council discussed the possibility of an election consolidation with Inyo County beginning as early as 2012 at Monday night’s City Council meeting on W. Line Street.

The proposed consolidation would eliminate the city’s stand-alone council elections beginning in 2012 or 2014, which would shorten the terms of City Council Members up for reelection in those particular years by four months. Council elections that would normally take place in March of odd years — in this case March 2013 or March 2015 — would now take place at the same time as Inyo and Statewide Primary and General elections in November of even years, in this case November 2012 or 2014.

According to County Clerk-Recorder Kammi Foote, City Council elections and statewide Primary and General elections have been consolidated in the past under special circumstances, such as a vacancy in an unexpired term, or the death of a seated official. What the city is currently proposing is not a special circumstance consolidation, but a consolidation that could last for many years.

Bishop is contemplating the consolidation primarily as a cost-saving measure; the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 election budget is currently $18,450, while the estimated cost for a consolidated election would be only $3,035.

The current election budget goes toward supplies like ballots, envelopes, absentee information and sample ballots, as well as public notices and poll workers. Were Bishop to consolidate with Inyo, Inyo County’s printing and ballot costs would help cover the City’s former costs, drastically reducing the overall cost of the election for Bishop. In turn, Bishop would pay $2,000 (out of the $3,035) to Inyo for consolidated election services.

Ultimately the Inyo County Board of Supervisors will have to approve the consolidation, Foote explained, “unless it’s a burden to the county, and it’s not going to be.” She maintained that consolidating a general municipal election with a statewide election would be cost effective for all parties.

Foote also noted that the consolidation wouldn’t require Inyo to alter its current voting technology. “In larger counties, you could have a situation where adding another contest would be detrimental,” Foote said; “for instance, you would have to purchase more voting machines to accommodate the increased population. But because we’re so small, we already have the equipment to accommodate Bishop voters.”

The change would be a minimal one for Bishop voters as well. Bishop citizens already vote in the Statewide election, so the consolidation would add only the council election to the same Statewide election ballot.

“$15,000 in savings is pretty attractive,” said Council Member Jeff Griffiths. Added Mayor Pro-Tem David Stottlemyre, “If we are looking to save some money in our budget, we certainly have to consider this.”

City Attorney Peter Tracy explained to Council Members that the most savings would come from a 2012 consolidation, because four seats would be up for reelection rather than two in 2014, but noted that the timeline for consolidating in 2012 couldn’t afford any delays.

“I think it can be done,” he said, “but the safer course in our opinion is 2014.”

Whether a consolidation would be in effect for the sooner 2012 or later 2014 ballot is uncertain, but the election consolidation discussion will continue in a public hearing at the next Town Council meeting on Dec. 12. Staff is also currently drafting an ordinance. Final authorization would need to be granted by the Board of Supervisors.

With the Mammoth Unified School District Special Measure S election less than two weeks away, The Sheet spoke with MUSD School Board Member and long-time local resident Greg Newbry to talk about the measure.

The Sheet: There has been some talk that the school board gave teachers raises last school year. People are wondering why the Board would do this if the District had a budget shortfall. Can you explain?

Greg Newbry: We didn’t give raises. It was a one-time lump sum from the educational stimulus package. We couldn’t hire or give raises with it because it wasn’t sustainable. Since our teachers haven’t had raises in three or four years, we wanted to give them something.

Sheet: So it was more like a bonus?

Newbry: Yes.

Sheet: How does Measure S relate to class sizes?

Newbry: You can’t clump all class sizes together and use an average. Schools are required to have certain classes for areas such as Special Education. If you have a Special Ed. class with one student, but then you have a standard English class with 34 students, an average doesn’t work. You can’t say that on average Mammoth classes have 21 students.

AP classes are also very small but are very important. We could cut these classes, and may have to if S doesn’t pass, but it would be such as mistake.

Sheet: How do second homeowners play into Measure S? Do they have a right to vote on it?

Newbry: By law (California Election Codes 321, 349, 2150) a second homeowner is not allowed to vote in an election if their primary domicile is not in the area where the election is being held. The suggestion that absentee owners whose primary residence is elsewhere, register to vote in order to control our town’s future is illegal.

Sheet: It seems reasonable to think, however, that second homeowners would be concerned about what is happening in a place where they are invested.

Newbry: Of course they are concerned about what happens, but when you choose to invest in an area that is not your home, you take obvious risks. There’s concern from both sides, but we want the people living here to control the town’s destiny. We don’t just want people that have money to buy a second home to control our destiny.

Sheet: Why did the school district choose to hold the vote on Measure S as a special election when special elections are so much more expensive?

Newbry: Special elections are expensive, but if we waited we would lose money. The District has already cut $900,000 from the budget. We need Measure S to slow the bleeding. We don’t really have the money [for the special election], which is why there haven’t been flyers sent out and we haven’t done a lot of publicity. If the District didn’t fund the election we’d just have to find someone else to do it, but the Board passed the resolution for Measure S so we have to fund it.

Sheet: What type of vote will Measure S require?

Newbry: A two-thirds vote.

Sheet: Can you provide a concrete example of the direct impacts on students and their families if Measure S fails to pass?

Newbry: If S does not pass class sizes would be larger, we could lose AP classes and busing and we may not be able to continue the recent upswing in student grade-point averages. It would impact students’ abilities to be college bound and would therefore impact families immediately and forevermore. Essentially MUSD would just turn into big buildings that babysit kids.

It would also have an impact on the community as a whole because people in the upper income brackets looking to move are looking for areas with good schools. If we can’t provide that the town would just turn into one big hotel.

If it fails to pass I may not stay on the Board. If the community doesn’t support schools, I’d feel like I was wasting my time.

Synopsis

Measure S is a renewal of the $59 parcel tax that property owners have paid annually, regardless of lot building or size, for the past eight years. Measure S, if passed by the voters on Nov. 8, would preserve funding for a specific list of school needs: high quality academic programs (such as AP classes), books and supplies, smaller class sizes, music and arts programs, technology, and highly qualified teachers.

All revenue raised by Measure S would be invested in Mammoth’s local schools and cannot be taken by the state. An independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee of parents, teachers and community members accounts for funds brought in by the Measure S. The measure would last for a limited period of five years and exempts senior citizen property owners 65 and older, although if these individuals wish to pay the tax they simply need not apply for the exemption.

Currently Measure S provides more than $600,000 in funding to the schools, annually.

SACRAMENTO — Newly elected California State Senator Ted Gaines, (R — Roseville), announced earlier this month that he has introduced a bill that he says is designed to help cut the cost of special elections in smaller California counties.

Senate Bill 109 would give counties with populations under 400,000 the option to hold solely vote-by-mail elections in situations where a special election is called.

“My bill will help cut the costs counties incur to conduct special elections by eliminating the mandate to open polling places and hire staff for these elections,” Gaines commented.

Mono County Clerk/Recorder Lynda Roberts estimated the Jan. 4 Special Election, which Gaines won to secure his senate seat, cost the county just shy of $55,000, and that was for a one-item ballot.

By contrast, Roberts said a solely vote-by-mail election would have saved the county more than $10,000 from a reduction in the number of poll workers, setup and cleanup which are required for typical elections.

“Should Senate Bill 109 become law, I estimate a savings of about $50,000, and that is on the conservative side,” Bill Schultz, the County Clerk-Recorder for El Dorado County, said, “It comes down to not just saving money, but also avoiding the issues our smaller foothill communities face during elections held in the winter months. Delivery of equipment, transportation issues – all those are negated with the ability to vote by mail.”

Roberts was cautious in responding to questions from Mono County’s Board of Supervisors on Tuesday as to whether the County could realize cost savings not just for special elections but for larger elections as well.

Roberts said there has been some cost-savings research done, but added her department would need to run a very detailed cost analysis taking into account all associated factors before she would have an idea of what types of savings could be realized for various strata of elections.

Gaines said Senate Bill 109 has already received support from county supervisors and election officials. “I have spoken to several county election officials who support the option to conduct all-mail ballot special elections,” Gaines said. “My measure will lower the costs they face and streamline the special election process.”

Gaines represents the 1st Senate District. – Press Release/Sheet Staff

According to a late-breaking report in the Sacramento Bee, Republican Assemblyman Ted Gaines is favored to win the special election run-off against Democratic challenger Ken Cooley.

The polls in the  district, which includes parts of Sacramento and Placer counties, close at 8 p.m., though the bulk of the ballots in the low-turnout election are expected to be cast by mail.

A Gaines win would spark a special election to fill his 4th Assembly District seat.

Roseville City Councilman John Allard, a Republican, has already announced his candidacy. Gaines’ wife, Republican Beth Gaines, is also considering a run for the seat.

The Sheet also recently received an e-mail from Jeff Randall, a teacher in the Sacramento region who is also considering running for the office.

“There is a Senate Election coming up, but if Ted Gaines wins, there will be another special election needed to fill his assembly seat,” Randall wrote. “There are a lot of well connected people who are running, but I am tired of seeing this- and think we should go back to the days of the citizen legislator- and get away from those career politicians. I have pulled paperwork to look into a run for this office, and have a web site you can check out: www.voterandall2011.info.”

Yes, voters, you are being asked to head to the ballots once again on Jan. 4 for a Special General Election, in which Ted Gaines (R) and Ken Cooley (D) square off for the final decision on who will take over the State Senate District 1 seat.

In November, Cooley and Gaines staved off challenges from Republicans Barbara Alby and Roger Niello in order to make it the January runoff. Mono County residents would have put Cooley into office in November if the choice had solely been up to them. Cooley received 1,779 votes and Gaines received 1,348 in the county; however, there were 1,011 votes between Alby and Niello that are now up for grabs between Cooley and Gaines.

District 1 stretches from the Oregon border on the north, to Mammoth Lakes on the south, and includes approximately 850,000 residents. The winner of the election on Jan. 4 will step in and take over for Senator Dave Cox (R), who passed away on July 13, 2010, and had held the seat since 2004.

Mono County District 2 Supervisor Hap Hazard was recently in Sacramento for a round of meetings, and while there met with both candidates. He did not endorse either one, but during his Board reports on Dec. 21, Hazard said that he thinks the interests of the district would be well served by whoever wins the seat.

Gaines, a staunch “grass roots”-style conservative, is a small business owner and 5th generation resident of Roseville, and currently serves as 4th District Assemblyman. Hazard described Cooley as a well-spoken, intelligent candidate, fiscally fairly conservative and with a background that includes private sector business experience. Cooley is currently Mayor of Rancho Cordova, where he has served on the City Council since he was elected in 2002.

According to a Dec. 30 report in the Sacramento Bee, GOP voters have an 11-point registration advantage over Democrats in District 1, which gives the Republican, Gaines, 52, an “indisputable leg up” over his Democratic rival Cooley, 57. But 18 percent of the district’s voters are nonpartisan and Cooley could benefit from Gaines coming under attack by his GOP rivals during the November primary fight.

To learn more about Ken Cooley visit, http://www.kencooley.com/

To learn more about Ted Gaines, visit http://www.tedgaines.com/

Prop 19 didn’t pass statewide, but Mammoth was all about the “adult” brownie. (Photo: Thies)

Mono County voters are often hard to predict. They like to buck election trends … when it suits them.

In recent elections, the County has voted increasingly democratic. In 2004, for example, John Kerry tied George W. Bush in Mono County, even though W. won nationally. In 2008, Mono County and the country-at-large supported Obama.

This year, Mono County voted largely “red” (Republican), mirroring national results, but in contrast to their fellow Californians.

We even voted in sharp contrast on non-partisan issues. The state turned down the pot initiative by 54-46%, but in Mono County, the electorate favored the measure by 13 percentage points

You’d think that liberal sort of stance would carry over to top office races, but Mono County went for Republicans Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina in the Governor’s and Senate races, respectively. Each candidate lost handily statewide.

Still, local voters weren’t “red” through and through. Democrat Bill Lockyer got the nod for State Treasurer, and Ken Cooley topped GOP candidate Ted Gaines for State Senator in the primary, though Gaines edged out Cooley, as well as survived a vote-splitting challenge from two other Republicans. The two will square off in a final Special Election in January.

Another interesting race was the one for Mono Superior Court Judge, in which Mark Magit bested Randy Gephart.

Magit beat Gephart in the primary back in June by roughly 150 out of approximately 3,400 votes cast. A third candidate, Therese Hankel, garnered enough votes so that Magit did not receive 50% of the vote, pushing the race to a November runoff.

According to Tuesday’s tally, Magit beat Gephart 2,186-1,895.

Those numbers would indicate that Magit ended up winning a majority of the new votes, as well as a significant portion of Hankel supporters – though Hankel had endorsed Gephart.

With Tuesday’s defeat of Democratic Missouri Congressman Ike Skelton, U.S. Congressman Buck McKeon (R-25th District), Mono County’s representative, appears poised as next in line to take over as the ranking majority member on the very powerful House Armed Services Committee.

And clearly, campaigning from Mexico seems to work around here, at least if you’re Dr. Dennis Crunk, who won a seat on the Southern Mono Healthcare District by a landslide, despite zero advertising of any sort and a pre-election vacation.

The same held true for Fire Commission candidate Richard Good, who happened to be in Nepal last week on a trip for Habitat for Humanity.

Fellow Commissioner Richard Blanco made the mistake of staying in town. He lost.

One other note: turnout was unusually robust, with 71% of voters casting ballots, as opposed to 59% in June. See our Election Results graphic on page 7 for more details on several key races.