Aside from the decision of President, who are you planning on voting for in the various elections in your area? Are you a straight ticket voter, do you split?
What issues are up for vote in your area and how/why will you vote?

Texas is so Republican that some races do not have Democratic candidates. I will enthusiastically vote for Felix Alvarado to replace Rep. Kay Granger, but I don't look for it to happen.

I will vote for long time acquaintance and fellow liberal incumbent Lon Burnam for State Representative. My State Senatorial District, cujrrently misrepresented by Republican Jane Nelson's covers parts of Denton and Tarrant Counties. I have searched Democratic webpage for both counties and she seems to be running unopposed. Too bad. I have had issues with Nelson since her days on the State Board of Education.

With Tom DeLay's little stunt in the redistricting of Texas before the next census, I think it's a fight for the survival of my party in this state.

Having the mind-set of a "Massachusetts liberal" in the Lone Star State is disaster waiting to happen. LOL

I'm currently researching all the congressional candidates for Texas. While searching the web I found a great website that has all the candidates on the ballot answer a survey about pertinent issues and post them on the web. For those of you who aren't going to vote along the party lines heres the link.
Vote Smart

Edited to add: It beats finding a list of all of the candidates, and then findng their website (if they have one), and then search it to see if they even discuss the issue that you are worried about.

And here is the list of topics that they poll the candidates about:

Abortion Issues
Budgetary, Spending, and Tax Issues, Part 1: Budget Priorities
Budgetary, Spending, and Tax Issues, Part 2: Defense Spending
Budgetary, Spending, and Tax Issues, Part 3: Taxes (A)
Budgetary, Spending, and Taxes, Part 3: Taxes (
Campaign Finance and Government Reform Issues
Crime Issues
Drug Issues
Education Issues
Employment and Affirmative Action Issues
Environment and Energy Issues
Gun Issues
Health Issues
Immigration Issues
International Aid, International Policy, and Trade Issues, Part 1: International Aid
International Aid, International Policy, and Trade Issues, Part 2: International Policy
International Aid, International Policy, and Trade Issues, Part 3: International Trade
National Security Issues
Social Security Issues
Technology and Communication Issues
Welfare and Poverty Issues
Presidential Priorities

Good question Christopher, and I think an interesting opportunity to see what is at stake in all of our states.

For the State Senate, Assembly and US Senate and the Education positions I am considering voting along party lines, but I do want to investigate some of the third party candidates a bit more because I think all these positions are safely Democrat.

For city supervisor of my district, I really need to do some serious thinking still, I actually take this much more seriously than even the presidential election because it has the most direct impact on me. Incidently we are doing ranked run-off voting here for the first time with this position.

Proposition 1A - Yes - Should local property tax and sales tax revenues remain with local government thereby safeguarding funding for public safety, health, libraries, parks, and other local services? Provisions can only be suspended if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature concur.

Proposition 59 - Yes - Californians would have a constitutional right of access to government information. A government entity would have to demonstrate to a somewhat greater extent why information requested by the public should be kept private.

Proposition 60 - Yes - This basically isn't a change to the laws on the books, it is a counter proposition to Prop 62. It ensures that one candidate for each party will be on the ballot for a partisan office giving voters more choices.

Proposition 60A - Yes - The state would be required to use any revenues from the sale of surplus property to accelerate the repayment of some existing bonds. The rebuttal here is that it doesn't force the sale of property, that is fine but forcing the proceeds for this property to pay off our debt is a decent step IMHO.

Proposition 61 - No - Shall $750 million general obligation bonds be authorized for grants to eligible children's hospitals for construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping children's hospitals? Nope, we have enough debt right now, thanks. This also appears to be a handout to contractors with few controls.

Proposition 62 - No - All voters would receive the same primary election ballot for most state and federal offices. The top two vote-getting candidates--regardless of political party identification--would be placed on the general election ballot. This will likely lead to the wealthiest candidates getting on the ballot and I don't think that is in the best interest of democracy.

Proposition 63 - Yes - A surcharge on state personal income taxes would be enacted for taxpayers with annual taxable incomes of more than $1 million to finance an expansion of county mental health programs. Yes, I have no problem taxing the uber rich a little bit. 1/3 of the homeless in CA are on the street strictly due to mental illness.

Proposition 64 - NO - Should individual or class action "unfair business" lawsuits be allowed only if actual loss suffered? Only government officials may enforce these laws on public's behalf. Ah the whole "trail lawyer" boogie man. Sorry, but it is not the state's business to determine which lawsuits are frivolous, judges should do that.

Proposition 65 - No - This was dropped in favor of 60A.

Proposition 66 - No - Should the "Three Strikes" law be limited to violent and/or serious felonies? Permits limited re-sentencing under new definitions. Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children. This law is a mixed bag, the intentions are in the right place but I can't condone it in its current form because it will immediately put criminals on the streets and create legal loopholes in the future.

Proposition 67 - Yes - The state would impose a 3 percent emergency telephone surcharge, in addition to the existing surcharge, on bills for telephone services for calls made within the state. These revenues would be used to provide additional funds to reimburse physicians and hospitals for uncompensated emergency and trauma care and to fund other specified programs. This adds about $500 million to the coffers to be used for uncompensated emergency and trauma care. With the current healthcare and hospital crisis, there really isn't any choice but to vote for this.

Proposition 68 - No - Slot machines would be authorized at 16 specific racetracks and card rooms, unless all Indian tribes with existing tribal-state gambling compacts agree to certain terms within 90 days. Nope, sorry I don't want more eyesores and traffic on the California highways by allowing gambling in more spots.

Proposition 69 - Absolutely NOT - The state would expand the collection of DNA samples to include all convicted felons, and some convicted nonfelons, as well as individuals arrested for certain offenses. Criminal penalties would increase to fund the expansion of DNA collection. The state currently collects samples from people convicted of serious felony offenses, this would allow the state to collect information on some for simply being arrested. No thanks.

Proposition 70 - No - Upon tribe's request, should the Governor be required to execute a 99-year compact? Tribes contribute percentage of net gaming income to state funds, in exchange for expanded, exclusive tribal casino gaming. First, this destroys the agreement that Swartzenegger made with them, which is better. Secondly, it paves the way for tons of new casinos in CA which I don't want because they cause traffic problems and are eyesores on our state.

Proposition 71 - Absolutely YES - Should the "California Institute for Regenerative Medicine" be established to regulate and fund stem cell research with the constitutional right to conduct such research and with an oversight committee? Prohibits funding of human reproductive cloning research. If the United States government won't fund stem cell research because of the President's moral convictions then I'm just as happy with California leading the way as they usually do. This research is incredibly important and will create new industries, jobs and move forward American innovation. It also authorizes significant funds, $350 million a year up to $3 Billion.

Proposition 72 - No - Should legislation requiring health care coverage for employees, as specified, working for large and medium employers be approved? The idea behind this is something I support, increasing health care coverage, but this is the wrong solution. It will cost the state, tax payers and businesses a lot of money for gains that don't seem to measure up.

That does it for California initiatives, there are a few interesting ones for San Francisco, but this list is already getting too long so I'll wait till a few more folks respond.

I'll definitely check out that Vote Smart link you provided Rev, I was planning on just looking for their websites, but that may be easier.

I am not always a straight ticket voter, but this year the choices that are most compatible with my views are all Democrat.

Colorado House - Fran N. Coleman (Democrat)
U.S. House - Diana DeGette (Democrat)
U.S. Senate - Ken Salazar (Democrat)

On the ballot:

Construction Liability Amendment (34) - No

Tobacco Tax Increase For Health - Related Purposes Amendment (35) - No.

Selection of Presidential Electors Amendment (36) - Yes

Renewable Energy Requirement Amendment (37) - Undecided

State Personnel System Referendum A - Yes

Obsolete Constitutional Provisions Referendum B - Yes

Kentucky is an interesting study in politics. Not sure of the current ratio but 8 years ago it was approximately 60/40 registered Dem’s to Rep’s. However both of our Senators are Republican as are a majority of our representatives, and we just elected our first Rep governor in 32 years. Typical conservative Southern Democrats.

We have some important races this year. Senate Republican/incumbent Jim Bunning is in a battle with an upstart Dem candidate and it’s getting ugly. After avoiding a debate for months, Bunning finally agreed, picked a date under the condition that he would remain in Washington and debate via video feed, using the excuse that he didn’t want to miss a vote.

Well, it seems there was no senate vote that day and he also used a teleprompter which his aides claimed qualified as ‘notes’ that were spelled out in the debate rules. Uh, OK.

Then just three days ago Bunning claimed his opponent’s staff beat his wife black and blue at a political rally earlier in the years. There have been questions raised concerning his mental health, many claiming he’s suffering from alzheimer’s or parkinsons. He had a 10+ point lead but between the debate ‘scandal’ and the recent claims about his wife the lead is now about 5 points and decreasing every day. The more he speaks the closer the race gets.

Also on the ballot this year is the Gay Amendment which would ban official unions between members of the same sex, I’ll be voting against the amendment. This has gotten so little attention that the first time I realized it was up for vote was when I ran into the ad here on America’s Debate.

I have crossed the party line to cast my vote in the past. Most instances I personally knew the Dem candidate and didn’t feel they were qualified for the position.

I was thinking of how we could bring up this topic. I was looking more for the humor in some of the states ballot measures, but that can probably be worked in here.

Ok, what is at stake in Oregon, how I plan to vote and why:

Measure 31:
Amends Constitution
Authorizes law permitting postponement of election for a particular public office when one nominee for office dies.

I will vote for this measure as I feel it will help to insure that voters, not the appointment process determines our elected officials. This bill should pass as there is little to no opposition.

Measure 32: (Anyone else have similar laws that need to be changed)
Amends Constitution (If you can believe it)
Deletes reference to MOBILE HOMES from a provision dealing with taxes and fees on motor vehicles.

I will vote yes on this, as I do not see the importance of mobile home owners having to deal with the DMV every 2 years, and having those fees go to the highway department. Fees paid in regards to MOVING these homes will still go to the highway dept. but other fee associated with owning one will now go to the Building Codes Division where they belong. Again, Zero opposition to this one and will pass easily.

Measure 33:
Amends Constitution
Amends Medical Marijuana Act: Requires marijuana dispensaries for supplying patients/caregivers; Raises patients' possession limit.

Well duh, of course I am voting for this one. Patients currently prescribed medical marijuana have no access to it. They are given a handful of seeds and if all goes perfectly, will have their first dose in 3 MONTHS!!! This is wrong. This law will allow people like me to establish a qualified list of patients/clients and legally grow upto 6 pounds of marijuana per year per patient. Law enforcement is for the measure as they are tired of wasting time investigating sick people that are simply trying to get the medicine that their doctors have prescribed. I bet ASHCROFT loves this one. Oh well, we in Oregon have told John to go groom himself in the past, and I think that we will do it again with the passing of this measure.

Measure 34:
Requires balancing timber production: (Specifically addresses 2 forests)
This is a thorny issue in Oregon. This state's forest industry has been decimated over the last decade, and any attempt to further restrict them is met with tooth and nails. I for one would rather see the industry decimated than the forest, however there are always 2 sides of a story.

The measure would require managing our forests equally between timber production and conservation. It still allows for logging, but on an equal basis as conservation. Anything that protects my fish and streams gets my vote as long as it doesn't completely tie the industry's hands. I will vote for the measure, and I don't think that the loggers have a chance of stopping it. The measure effects a small area of Oregon and the entire state get's to vote. Oregon will vote for conservation.

Measure 35
Amends Constitution
Limits Noneconomic damages recoverable for patient injuries caused BY healthcare professionals.
No, no and no. If they are going to be called 'professionals' they should be held accountable for their actions and there should not be a limit to what they may owe due to their mistakes. The limit proposed with this measure is 50k. If the limit was 50 million I might vote for it, but not at 50k. My guess is that this will be shot down by the voters.

Measure 36
Amends Constitution (This is the biggie for our state and others have similar measures)
Only marriage between one man and one woman is valid or legally recognized as marriage.

I have flip-flopped (to use a highly over used and hypocritic term) on this issue. I feel that marriage is between a man and a women, but I do not believe in changing the constitution in a manner that that NEVER EVER CHANGES. A NO vote on this measure does NOT make gay marriage legal, but it leaves the book open, as our minds should remain on the issue. Regardless of my feelings on marriage, I have stronger opinions on discrimination. There are many argument both FOR and AGAINST this measure, but 4 of the FOR arguments that made the State voter's guide were radically sarcastic arguments that this voter found amusing. (Marriage is for HETEROSEXUALBREEDING.COM is a classic)

Measure 37:
Governments must pay owners, or forgo enforcement when certain land use restrictions reduce property value.

Sounds right doesn't it. This is one that might get through as it is cleverly disguised as being good for Oregon and fair to Oregonians. That it is not. We are talking about people building in the National Forests. If you plan to vote in Oregon, read this measure very carefully. If it passes, we will lose control of valuable land at the cost of the state and local governments in excess of 400 million dollars. Another sarcastic argument in FAVOR is in the guide. LAND OWNERS, "GETRICHQUICKWITHMEASURE37.com..........classic!

Measure 38:
Abolishes SAIF (State accident insurance fund)
This measure proposed and supported by Liberty Mutual of Boston. Liberty is the second largest provider of workman's comp insurance in the state. SAIF, a non-profit org that rolls excess money into the state government is the leader. The state will lose $700 million in revenue if this passes, and a majority of that money will go to Boston and the execs there. Keep an eye on this one as their stock might be a great buy on the 3rd of November. I will vote against the measure.

Regrettably, our city propositions this year are pretty boring and not worth comment, but there are a few that are worth mentioning.

Proposition H - Yes: Shall the city-owned sports stadium at Candlestick Point be named "Candlestick Park"?

The questioin sounds rather ambiguous, but basically it prevents the city from selling the name of the park to a corporation (which it has plans to do in the near future). The first paragraph of the for argument reads: Proposition H would officially designate our city-owned stadium as Candlestick Park, giving voters an opportunity to send a signal that San Francisco remains on the front lines against the increased corporatization and commercialization of everyday life.

I couldn't agree more.

Proposition N - Yes: Proposition N is a declaration of policy that would urge the United States government to withdraw all troops from Iraq and bring military personnel in Iraq back to the United States.

The site yes on N gives the legal text of the proposition (in other words the statement the city would make) for your information.

Other interesting Bay Area Local Propositions
Berkeley
Measure Q - Shall an ordinance be adopted to: 1) make enforcement of prostitution laws the lowest priority; 2) oppose state laws making prostitution a crime; and 3) require semi-annual reporting of prostitution-related Berkeley Police Department law enforcement activities?

If I lived in Berkeley I'd be voting yes for this one.

Oakland
Measure Z - Shall the ordinance requiring the City of Oakland (1) to make law enforcement related to private adult cannabis (marijuana) use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession, the City's lowest law enforcement priority; (2) to lobby to legalize, tax and regulate cannabis for adult private use, distribution, sale, cultivation and possession; (3) to license, tax and regulate cannabis sales if California law is amended to allow such actions; and (4) to create a committee to oversee the ordinance's implementation, be adopted?

Again, if I lived in Oakland, I'd be voting yes for this one.

Thanks for the link DelFuego.

It also lists candidates for state office. Apparently State Senator Jane Nelson isn't up for reelection this cycle. I can't wait to mark my ballot for whoever runs against her next time

There may be some light at the end of the tunnel. The local paper did endorse State Representative Lon Burnam.

Well, I joined the Democratic Party for the first time in about 3 decades. Like my wife, I responded "George W. Bush" to a question on the application, "Who recommended that you join the Democratic Party? I will be voting straight ticket this year, including knowing the party affiliation of the "non-partisan" candidates, judges and the like.

There will be a proposed Constitutional Amendment to "Define marriage as being between a man and a woman." I have seen that debated on AD enough to know where I stand. I will vote NO. Lesly's signature has been captured and run through 3 photo shop programs before I figured how to re-size it, and I am now wearing a button that says "4 out of 5 Baptist divorcees want gays to stop undermining the sanctity of marriage."

I believe that a tax increase to fund our libraries will be on the ballot. It will get my vote. I've visited about 3 - 400 web sites today looking for a specific wording of something that I thought I heard George W. Bush say on TV the other day, as he was exiting Air Force One. "The next President will have to be able to adapt to the changes in a changing world." It had to be a dream, I found about 10 times that I was able to use CTRL-F and find the word change uttered by W. It apparently has only crept into his vocabulary since he began his "Victory Tour" after the last debate. ("Mission Accompished again?) When the election is over, I will still want to be able to borrow a novel, relax, and read simply for the enjoyment. Although, there were some pleasant surprises, like the photo I am now using for my avatar. I found it in a link to a Canadian Press story on George Bush's plans to import flu vaccine from Canada, as explained in the third debate.

There is a proposal to require voter permission before any casinos are built, or changes made in state gambling laws. As worded, It has no effect on Indian owned Casinos, may impact the state lottery, (and its funding of the schools), and would be "retroactive;" which as I recall, is unconstitutional. The Governor feels it is bad law, and I intend to vote against it.

Hah! Glad to know a sardonic sense of humor can be of assistance--Baptists aside. I have to resize the buttons to meet signature rules. Although it's no longer up (I think I have the original at work) here's the source.

Rev, your link is very useful. I'm asking my senators/legislatures/governor to take the NPAT.