ballots
Nic Coury

To read our full analysis and endorsements for ballot measures, check out our Oct. 6 cover story; for the candidates, read our Oct. 13 cover story.

 

The election-season ritual at the Weekly goes something like this: We invite dozens of candidates to our office in Seaside to tell our editorial board why they’re running and what they hope to achieve. The discussions often gets feisty, sometimes between candidates, sometimes between members of our editorial board and the candidates. (In some races, due to scheduling, we instead asked candidates to email us answers to our questions.) After they leave, we deliberate, and consider the sum of our knowledge about the candidates – the performance of incumbents, previous reporting we’ve done and what their supporters and opponents say.

Part of the ritual includes a welcome speech, before the feisty part begins, by Publisher Erik Cushman. He tells everyone we respect what they’re doing – seeking a thankless, and, in many cases (for City Council seats), volunteer position. That we think people in local politics are in it for the right reasons – they think their ideas will make their community better. We might disagree with those ideas, and if they’re elected we’ll be sure to hold them accountable in our news pages, but we admire their willingness to make our democracy go.

This year’s endorsement process was especially heartening. Most races, from the local level to the U.S. Senate (the presidency is a clear exception) have multiple qualified candidates who sincerely want to contribute to the greater good.

Our clip-n-vote recommendations on who to vote for are below; we did not endorse for uncontested seats. Vote-by-mail ballots became available Oct. 10, and Oct. 24 is the last day to register to vote for this election. 

UNITED STATES:

Hillary Clinton, President

Kamala Harris, Senate

Jimmy Panetta, House of Representatives, District 20

CALIFORNIA:

Bill Monning, State Senate District 17

Mark Stone, Assembly District 29

Anna Caballero, Assembly District 30

Yes on Prop. 56, raising the cigarette tax by $2

Yes on Prop. 61, requiring state agencies to pay the same prices for prescription drugs as the VA

Yes on Prop. 62, ending the death penalty and No on Prop. 66, which would change the appeals process for death penalty cases

Yes on Prop. 64, legalizing recreational marijuana

No on Prop. 65, overturning the statewide plastic bag ban and Yes on Prop. 67, upholding the statewide plastic bag ban

SALINAS:

Joe Gunter, Mayor

Brian Contreras, City Council District 1

Gloria De La Rosa, City Council District 4

Jyl Lutes, City Council District 6

SEASIDE:

Kay Cline, Mayor

Dave Pacheco and Kayla Jones for City Council

MONTEREY:

Libby Downey and Alan Haffa for City Council 

MARINA:

Bruce Delgado, Mayor

PACIFIC GROVE:

Bill Kampe, Mayor

Robert Huitt, Cynthia Garfield and Jenny McAdams for City Council

DEL REY OAKS:

Mike Ventimiglia and Kristin Clark for City Council

LOCAL BALLOT MEASURES:

Yes on Measure A, taxing cannabis in Del Rey Oaks

Yes on Measure E, continuing an existing parcel tax for the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District

Yes on Measure G, H and I, updating and modernizing Monterey city code

Yes on Measure J, taxing cannabis in King City

Yes on Measure L, taxing cannabis in Salinas

Yes on Measure O, taxing cannabis in Greenfield

No on Measure P, taxing special events and admissions to venues in Pacific Grove

Yes on Measure T, a $167 million Hartnell College bond

Yes on Measure W, taxing cannabis in Gonzales

Yes on Measure X, a countywide three-eighths-cent sales tax for transportation projects

Yes on Measure Y, taxing cannabis in unincorporated Monterey County

Yes on Measure Z, banning fracking and wastewater injection, and halting the expansion of the oil industry in Monterey County 

Recommended for you

(1) comment

John Thomas

Sorry, but we should definitely vote "NO" on Measure Y. -- There is some justification for extra taxes on alcohol and tobacco. Since they are extremely destructive to health, the extra taxes compensate, at least partially, for the huge social costs they create.

Science and widespread experience have shown marijuana has no significant harms. Hence, there are no real social costs and NO justification for extra taxes.

Marijuana consumers have suffered for decades because of the fraudulent war on marijuana consumers. - As we finally end that insane persecution, we should not be slapping these victims in the face by gouging them with totally unjustifiable extra taxes.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.