General Election Guide

Home » Elections » General Election Guide

State and Federal Republican Candidates

Candidate Details

Proposition Vote Summary

The short answer is vote NO on all the general election ballot propositions. The general theme of all the propositions is continued state government overreach while providing special interest groups with a favorable regulatory environment.

Proposition Details

State Government Candidates


Brian Dahle
State Senator/Farmer

Learn More

Lt. Governor

Angela E Underwood Jacobs
Businesswoman/Deputy Mayor

Learn More

Secretary of State

Ron Bernosky
Chief Financial Officer

Learn More

State Controller

Lanhee Chen
Fiscal Advisor/Educator

Learn More

State Treasurer

Jack M. Guerrero
Councilmember/ CPA/ Economist

Learn More

State Attorney General

Nathan Hochman
General Counsel

Learn More

Board of Equalization

Ted Gaines
Board of Equalization Member

Learn More

Insurance Commissioner

Robert Howell
Cybersecurity Equipment Manufacturer

Learn More

Supt. Public Instruction

Lance Christensen
Education Policy Executive

Learn More

State Assembly District 4

Bryan Pritchard
Winemaker/Business Owner

Learn More

Federal Office Candidates

U.S. Senate

Mark Meuser
Constitutional Attorney

Learn More

U.S. House Dist. 4

Matt Brock
Water Management Expert

Learn More

U.S. House Dist. 7

Max Semenenko
Business Owner

Learn More


Proposition 1

Abortion Amendment

Learn More

Proposition 26

Casino Sports Gambling

Learn More

Proposition 27

Online Sports Gambling

Learn More

Proposition 28

Funding for Arts and Music

Learn More

Proposition 29

Unionizing Kidney Dialysis

Learn More

Proposition 30

Climate Control Taxation

Learn More

Proposition 31

Ban Favored Tobacco

Learn More

NO on Proposition 1 — Establishing Abortion and Contraception as a Constitutional Right

A proposed amendment to the California Constitution to prohibit state government from interfering with or denying someone an abortion or contraception.

We object to passage of the proposition based on the following:

  • The existing abortion laws is California attempt to respect the sanctity of life — the laws have evolved over more than 50 years of debate and established ethical boundaries favored by the majority of residents and are sufficient to continue the practice.
  • Our constitutional government has no role in mandating individuals’ healthcare decisions — they are best made by individuals in counsel with qualified healthcare professionals — even when government’s stated intention is to serve the public’s best interest.
  • Our constitutional government has no role in mandating the services a healthcare organization must provide.
  • Individuals who object to certain medical practices should not be forced to participate or financially support others who avail themselves of the practices — those of like-mind can facilitate access and financial support.
  • A constitutional amendment should not be implemented based on a simple majority vote.

Our government was established to protect the natural rights of ALL individuals — it is not empowered to act as a moral authority.

Back to Propositions

NO on Both Propositions 26 and 27 — Legalized Sports Gambling

Proposition 26 — would allow certain entities with existing legal forms of on-premise gambling to expand their services to include sports betting.

Proposition 27 — would permit online sport gambling, i.e., providing access to betting on sporting events via desktop computers, tablets, and smart phones. It would expand the number of entities providing legalized gambling services.

We object to passage of these propositions based on the following:

  • Both are government regulated gambling for tax revenues and/or promises to support social services with a percentage of the proceeds — it’s speculation the potential harm is compensated with a higher level of public benefit.
  • Enhances the opportunity for political parties to boost their financial contributions from increased gambling profits in exchange for beneficial legislation for the gambling entities.
  • The government has been unsuccessful in collecting and directing the proceeds from regulated vice to the promised the public benefit (e.g., the lottery for public education).
  • The amount of illegal vice expands under the umbrella of legalized vice due to the cost of detection and regulation (e.g., legalized cannabis cultivation).

In the case of Proposition 27, there are two additional concerns:

  • There’s no guarantee minors will not find ways to access gambling — no confidence sufficient identification and security safeguards can be implemented.
  • The ability to profile each individual and maximize their time spent gambling with machine learning, i.e., manipulating brain chemistry, would result in severe addiction and financial devastation for many.

Back to Propositions

NO on Proposition 28 — Mandating Funding for Arts and Music Education

A proposition to require minimum expenditures public K-12 education makes on art and music.


Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) Education is recognized as important to maintain the global competitiveness of our children’s education. Recently, the Arts have become recognized as an important additional element to maintain this competitiveness, expanding the acronym to STEAM. All should be offered and supported in public schools.

However, we believe budget allocations should be based on the actual impact curriculum and programs will have on achieving student literacy and competency requirements.

Parents are becoming increasingly frustrated with the public school system’s inability to educate their children. Major revisions to teaching methods and curriculum that improve student learning require budget flexibility to support individual student learning needs. Mandatory arbitrary amounts and percentages are counterproductive to this endeavor.

The California Teachers Association needs to improve its credibility with results in the classroom. Generally, the problems with student learning and literacy deficiencies are not simply financial in nature.

Back to Propositions

NO on Proposition 29 — Increased Regulation of Dialysis Clinics

A proposition to mandate higher-level licensed medical professionals be present during dialysis treatment and increase reporting and regulatory requirements.

We object to passage of this proposition based on the following:

  • There is no evidence an increase in regulatory requirements are needed to ensure the quality of care provided patients.
  • The unnecessary increased regulation would result in much higher cost of care to patients.

Back to Propositions

NO on Proposition 30 — Increased Taxation to Fund Government Environmental Programs

A proposition to increase the taxes on “high income” individuals to pay for government environmental agencies and programs.

We object to passage of this proposition based on the following:

  • Generally, high income individuals have accumulated wealth by providing high value goods and services to their customers that provide economic benefits to communities in which their companies reside — government should not siphon away funding from these individuals that invest in “real beneficial” economic engines.
  • Much of the current risk of wildfires are the result of government mismanagement and oversight of forest lands, a return to sound open space management and budget priorities, and sustainable forestry practices will reduce this risk without increased regulation and taxation.
  • Much of the current water management crisis is the result of the state government not implementing its promised, and previously funded, programs to increase the water storage requirements.
  • We can improve private development of “green technologies” and sustainable markets by reducing, not increasing, the cost of government regulation and taxation — invite private capital investment and grow local community wealth.
  • Government programs are generally black-holes, without providing their promised benefits, that have a propensity to grow in size and funding requirements resulting in new taxation — “Government Investment” is an oxymoron.

Back to Propositions

NO on Proposition 31: Ban on Flavored Tobacco

A proposition to ban flavored tobacco to lessen the attraction of smoking to individuals under the age of 21.

We oppose the passage of this legislation as it is already illegal for individuals under the age of 21 to purchase tobacco products — unnecessary legislation.

Back to Propositions

Comments are closed.