Voter Guide 2016 California District 39

Preface: I would like to start off this voter guide with an insight to my governing
philosophy. This philosophy can then be extrapolated and possibly help understand
my decision to endorse candidates or propositions as I do.
I believe in a limited government as set forth by our founding document and the
supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution. I am an originist, meaning I
take the Constitution at face value, the way the founders described it, and feel that
it is transcendent, not constantly evolving. I believe in strict fiscal policy, minimal
taxes, and a balanced spending plan, preferably with a rainy-day fund. I take the
position that the government has no business in your personal life, so long as you
do not infringe on another person’s right to self or property.
In deciding candidates, I take the pragmatic position that there is never a perfect
option, but that does not mean there are no good options. If someone can represent
liberty in a positive light, regardless of party affiliation, I am open to them. No more
pure party ballots, or voting for letters, it’s time for that paradigm to end.
In deciding on propositions, I start with a premise of a “No” vote. If the proposition is
overly convoluted with language meant to confuse or overwhelm the reader to the
point of insecurity of support, a “No” vote keeps the status quo, not allowing for
new laws to be made in misinformation. Secondly, if it’s a new tax, on anyone the
proposition will nearly every time receive a “No” from me. The government should
not be able to take your hard-earned money, and continue to misallocate in
different slush funds that continue to go unaudited, especially with no balanced
budget amendment.
As Thomas Paine put it, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil;
in its worst state, an intolerable one.”

The Federal Office Elections
President of the United States
Democrat- Hillary Clinton/Tim Kaine
Republican/American Independent- Donald Trump/Mike Pence
Libertarian- Gary Johnson/Bill Weld
While I have my disagreements with some policy stances this ticket has
taken, and I find Bill Weld to be an awful candidate in general, my vote for
the LP ticket is larger than them. For far too long the duopoly has
controlled your voice by limiting options for POTUS. No more voting out of
fear. In CA, Clinton is likely to win the state by 15-20% and being that we
are a winner take all electoral state, even if she wins by a single vote, all
55 votes will be added to her tally. For the GOP a vote in CA is ultimately
wasted, however a vote for any third party pushes them closer to “Minor
Party” status, allowing for access to Federal Election Funds, and easier
ballot access in many states. Since I am politically closely aligned with the

LP, and for the many great down ballot candidates the party has, I will
vote for Johnson/Weld.
Green- Jill Stein/Ajamu Baraka
Peace & Freedom- Gloria Estella La Riva/Dennis Banks
United States Senator From California
Democrat- Kamala Harris (Attorney General of California)
Democrat- Lorretta Sanchez (Congresswoman)
I am abstaining my vote for Senator from CA, simply put the options we
are given do not represent open politics. They are both heavily
progressive Democrats. Sanchez, a Congresswoman from parts of Orange
County, is as slimy as they come. This top two general election law again
limits your voice, especially if you’re for limited government in the state of
United States Representative 39th District
Republican- Ed Royce (Incumbent Rep of District 39)
Since I believe in freedom of social sphere as much as I believe in freedom
of economic, I can no longer in good faith support Royce. Though I have
voted for him in the past, mostly since he hasn’t been opposed,
essentially since is first election in 1993, Royce’s record which limits the
rights of certain Americans of which he has a social disagreement is
extremely troubling. Royce has also supported and nominated legislation
which would limit the 1st Amendment, and 4th amendments. Voting Yes to
ban gay adoption rights in DC, and on making permanent the PATRIOT ACT,
among other things. After closely examining Royce is record, it is clear
that he doesn’t have a fundamental understanding that rights are not to
be infringed regardless of the fear tactics you employ to qualify such
Democrat- Brett Murdock (Businessman and Seniors Advocate)
List of why Murdock is not worth a vote either: Repeal Citizens U, Still
thinks you can buy a gun online without background check, wants
background check for ammunition sales, government leadership (not
private innovation) is way to fix climate change, Fund and Expand a
dysfunctional VA system (voucher it!), thinks gender pay gap is relevant
without explaining how the numbers actually say otherwise, minimum
wage and income inequality.
Again, I will abstain from this race, there is nobody who I would feel
comfortable in supporting. Both need to be held accountable, especially
Royce who seems to believe this is his kingdom. Where are the RLC
republicans on this? He hasn’t had to be honest and involved in years.
Same old establishment GOP.

Statewide Offices

State of California Senator 29th District
Republican- Ling Ling Chang (Incumbent State Senator 29th District)
Chang is not a perfect candidate, she is endorsed by Royce, who as stated
above, I have some serious concerns with. However, her stance on taxes
has been very good. She has a 100% rating from the California Taxpayers
association. Compared to her competitor who is tax hungry and
progressive in every manner.
Democrat- Josh Newman (Veteran’s Advocate)

Member of the State Assembly 55th District
Democrat- Gregg Fritchle (Social Worker)
Republican- Phillip Chen (Small Business Owner)
I again will take a small bite in philosophy to vote for Chen. He has signed
a no new tax pledge in a state which seems to come up with something
new to tax at every turn, and he appears to be very strong on the 2 nd
Amendment, also in a state which is highly gun fearing.

Irvine City Council
Courtney Santos

Yorba Linda City Council
City of Yorba Linda City Council (select up to 3)
Ryan Smith (Business Attorney/Economist)
Paul Dippolito (Small Business Owner)
Eugene “Gene” Hernandez (Yorba Linda City Councilman)
Beth Haney (Businesswoman/Nurse/Professor)
Cristy Lomenzo Parker (Retired Business Adviser)
Tara Campbell (Yorba Linda Commissioner/Businesswoman)
Craig Young (Councilman/Investor/Attorney)

Propositions Submitted to Voters
Prop 51- School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College
Facilities Vote NO
Prop 51, while not a tax increase is a bond measure that would cost $500m/year. While this is a small chunk of
change in comparison to the California budget, it’s hard to fathom further spending in a state with no control. As it
sits, we misallocate funds in nearly every way possible to the tune of a deficit of $400b dollars. It will also centralize
a bit more control of education, and subsidizes construction companies with taxpayer promises.

Prop 52- Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program Initiative Constitutional
Amendment and Statute Vote NO
I agree with the SEIU… who thought we’d see the day. However, this prop would allow for the indefinite extension of
fees on hospitals which makes government the middle man, doling out cash back to the hospitals it deems needy. It
allows the state to take federal matching funds in the meantime, odd right? The effect of this is two-fold, it forces
California Health care systems to become more federally dependent, and limits the oversight of allocation to the
government… which has a stellar record of placing money in the right hands and being effective.

Proposition 53- Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval

Vote YES

This proposition is one of the few good versions of definitive good government. Forcing transparency on Bond
measures above $2B as well as returning the power to the voters to approve such measures. It would have
protected the state from things such as the lovely high speed rail to the middle of nowhere… who knows where
Shafter is… anyone?

Proposition 54- Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings

Vote YES

This is another good bill for the voters of California. Essentially a transparency bill, it requires every bill be posted
and distributed to lawmakers at least 72 hours before a legislative vote. If the worst thing that can be said about
this prop is that it may hold up the passage of legislation, well count that as a win.

Prop 55- Tax Extension To Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative
Constitutional Amendment VOTE NO
This bill will extend income taxes on the “wealthy” and should expire sometime in the future, you know between
2018 and 2030… enough said. Especially when the wealthy and business are fleeing the state in record numbers.
Gov. Brown seems to not care at all for economics, proof given by his statement on the min wage increase.

Prop 56- Cigarette Tax To Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention,
Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and
Statute. Vote NO
Did you say tax again? No thanks. This prop would effectively increase taxes on cigarettes by nearly $2, and extend
those taxes to E-Cigarettes. While some may say that we should tax things as a disincentive to purchase, (a
premise I also disagree with) this would adversely affect those who use e-cigs to ween off tobacco products as well.
Not to mention only a small percentage of the funds actually go where the ads are claiming while the majority go
into Medi-Cal making it new revenue for already flailing markets.

Proposition 57- Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings
and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. VOTE
Now while I am in favor and believe it necessary to find some common ground in criminal justice reform of truly and
well defined “non-violent” offenders, and while on its face, and as reported by Gov Jerry Brown’s radio ads, this is a
bad bill riddled with loopholes and poorly defined “non-violent crimes.” In fact, some of the crimes which would be
considered non-violent are hardly so. See the list as follows: rape by intoxication, rape of an unconscious person,
human trafficking involving sex act with minors, drive-by shooting, assault with a deadly weapon, taking a hostage,
domestic violence involving trauma, possession of a bomb or weapon of mass destruction, hate crime causing
physical injury, arson causing great bodily injury, discharging a firearm on school grounds, corporal injury to a child,
and false imprisonment of an elderly person, etc. Sounds like it can’t get worse right? Wrong, the bill then allows
bureaucrats to give “good behavior time” credits to any inmate in jails, including those convicted of heinous acts.
Again, a real conversation of criminal justice reform is beyond due, but this is terrible, broad stroke, lazily written
proposition which Gov. Brown thinks a real solution to the problem. Unfortunately, its ideas like this that end up
closing the conversation on CJ reform to many voters, especially in CA.

Proposition 58- English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative
Statue. Vote NO
English is already being taught to immigrants at a faster rate than ever before, and there is no way this prop would
modernize that in any way. It would for subsidization on local districts who try to implement this education, placing
them under the thumb of more central government due to the attachment of incoming funds. If it was a local
measure and local taxpayers this may be a better idea, however as a broad scale state proposition, we do not need
to take any sovereignty away from schools than has already been done.

Proposition 59- Corporations, Political Spending, Federal Constitutional
Protections. Legislative Advisory Question Vote NO
This bill is nothing but an instruct. It holds no legal weight, as it is asking the politicians in California to use their
entire legal access to attempt to amend the US constitution to repeal the 2010 SCOTUS decision on Citizen’s
United, which allows corporations to use money as free speech in the political arena. Whatever your opinion is on
CU decision, this is a fluff piece that if approved, could cost taxpayer dollars in attempts to amend the US

Proposition 60- Adult Films Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative
Statute. Vote NO
Nothing like government trying to regulate business, one of the few left in the state. While is may seem well
intentioned, the industry is already one of the most heavily tested, and most is self-imposed. We do not need
government to make decisions for consenting employees and employers, effecting their cost, product and ability to
do business in a state that is in dire need of businesses. Irrelevant of your emotional opinions on porn.

Proposition 61- State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards.
Initiative Statute. Vote NO
Prohibits the state from purchasing prescription drugs from manufacturers at a price
greater than that paid by the US Dept of Veteran Affairs. Which could cause many
other drug prices to rise, and potentially create a complete cutoff of others due to
Proposition 62- Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

Vote YES

As somebody who is staunchly pro-life, and philosophically trying to weigh out how you move this forward in the
most compassionate and understanding way, in terms of producing legislation or moral societal growth and
understanding, I have also done some serious soul searching on the issue of the death penalty. In California, the DP
is overly expensive and allows for appeals processes to perpetuate forever on end. The result of this alone is
immense tax dollars from the state, as well as extension of the pain for victim’s families, all reasons to remove the
DP. Now beyond this, I looked at what I mean when I call myself pro-life, and what that means to me is that I value
life, and that means that I believe that neither I or the state is perfect enough to take life, without immediate threat
or aggression to private property, which includes one’s person. Therefore, I can no longer in good conscience vote
for the continuance of the DP, and if you are truly pro-life I ask you to soul search on this issue as well.
This bill would also reduce state cost due to lessening the burden of repetitive and expensive appeals.

Proposition 63- Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.

Vote NO

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed” 2nd Amendment. For those of you who claim that “well-regulated militia” doesn’t mean
citizen, please read some of the Federalist Papers, explaining in further detail what the amendment was intended to
A. The Federalist Papers, No. 28: Alexander Hamilton expressed that when a government betrays the people by
amassing too much power and becoming tyrannical, the people have no choice but to exercise their original right of
self-defense — to fight the government.[Halbrook, p. 67]
B. The Federalist Papers, No. 29: Alexander Hamilton explained that an armed citizenry was the best and only real
defense against a standing army becoming large and oppressive. [Halbrook, p. 67]

C. The Federalist Papers, No. 46: James Madison contended that ultimate authority resides in the people, and that if
the federal government got too powerful and overstepped its authority, then the people would develop plans of
resistance and resort to arms. [Halbrook, p. 67]
D. There was no National Guard, and the Founders opposed anything but a very small national military. The phrase
“well-regulated” means well-trained and disciplined — not “regulated” as we understand that term in the modern
sense of bureaucratic regulation. [This meaning still can be found in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary, 2d
ed. 1989, Vol 13, p. 524, and Vol 20. p. 138.]
E. The Federalists promised that state governments and citizen militias would exist to make sure the federal
military never became large or oppressive. To say that the National Guard replaces the notion of the militia runs
contrary to what the Founders said and wrote.
F. The Third Amendment: Expressly restrains the federal government from building a standing army and infiltrating
it among the people ...and at the people’s expense ... in times of peace. The Third Amendment runs against the
idea of a permanent standing army or federalized National Guard in principle, if not by its words.

Source of surmised info above:

Proposition 64- Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute. Vote NO
Wait…what?!? A Libertarian voting against a “legalize MJ” bill. Yes that is correct, because this is a crap attempt to
appease both sides of the issue. I vote for the integrity of the bill to inact the correct effect, not simply because it
on its face looks like something that aligns with my beliefs. This prop, which will probably pass and affect the actual
ability to fix this issue, gives all the control to the government with high tax rates, government approved business
actions, and obviously does not change the fact that the Federal government still considers MJ a schedule 1 drug,
meaning they believe I holds less medical value than thing like Meth or Cocaine. This bill could also add addition
criminal actions with MJ as well as reduce its medical availability. Simply, its pure lunacy. Let’s have an honest
discussion about this issue and do it right.

Proposition 65- Carryout Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute. Vote NO
While this prop can be seen as a way to remove potential collusion between grocery stores and the state, it still
reroutes your tax on plastic bags to another cause, for environmental programs. There is no definitive place the
money would allocated except to say a generic environmental programs.

Proposition 66- Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statue.

Vote NO

Given my stance on prop 62, this should be no surprise. I am pro-life, consistently .

Proposition 67- Ban On Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum.

Vote NO

This is a referendum on the 2014 law which prohibits both “single-use” plastic bags, as well as the giveaway of free paper bags, in
California grocery stores. Proposition 67 is flawed in many ways:

Plastic bags were originally a replacement for paper bags, which were deemed environmentally destructive as making
paper requires cutting down trees. Some studies have shown that reusable bags actually require more energy to make than
plastic bags, even accounting for multiple uses.

Plastic bags are not necessarily single use, and have many alternate purposes (provided they were not carrying meat),
such as for carrying items, picking up dog poop, and trash bags.

The issue environmentalists have with plastic bags is more of a littering issue, and less about how they are produced. As
libertarians, we should hold trash and recycling companies responsible for not having garbage trucks with lids to prevent the
escape of not only plastic bags, but Styrofoam cups and other debris.
To allow for the bill to be passed without a 2/3 vote, and to get grocery stores on board, the law allows grocery stores to keep the
$0.10 fee, instead of diverting it to environmental cleanup or a related purpose (customers should be allowed to keep getting free
paper bags should a store choose).
(source Libertarian Party of Orange County Voter Guide 2016)