EDITORIAL: Election 2004: Almanac Endorsements EDITORIAL: Election 2004: Almanac Endorsements (October 20, 2004)

14th Congressional District

Democrat Anna Eshoo has put her stamp on the Midpeninsula's congressional seat, representing the 14th district for six consecutive terms, beginning in 1992. She is not afraid to speak up on national issues, but she is rock-solid in serving the needs of her home base.

As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, she has criticized the Bush Administration for going to war in Iraq "without a shred of intelligence," diverting resources from the threat of global terrorism, and running the economy into debt.

Chris Haugen, her Republican opponent, says her votes are "an exact contradiction to the values he finds important, saying he takes issue with her on terror, taxes and teaching." Mr. Haugen is a civil engineer who co-founded and teaches at the Kings Academy, a small Christian school in Sunnyvale. He ran unsuccessfully against Ms. Eshoo in the 2000 campaign.

During her 12 years in Congress, Ms. Eshoo has become a respected leader, with a special interest in the health of women and children. She is chair of the Medical Technology Caucus, and a bill she authored to promote safe formulation of drugs for children was signed by President Bush in 2002.

Reflecting her Silicon Valley base, she has authored numerous bills of interest to the high-tech industry, including legislation authorizing electronic signatures. She has worked to protect stock options for rank and file employees and is a founding member of a bi-partisan group dedicated to educating Congress and the public on Internet policy issues.

Ms. Eshoo has worked hard to protect the environment in California and elsewhere, opposing the administration's plans for offshore oil drilling in the state as well as drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In addition to the Intelligence Committee, she serves on the Energy and Commerce Committee and chairs the Medical Technology Caucus.

Anna Eshoo knows her constituents and how to represent them. She is accessible at home and effective in Washington. We urge voters to return Anna Eshoo to Congress.

County Board of Education

Eight candidates are running for three seats on the County Board of Education, which oversees county schools and programs, court and community schools, special education classes and the Regional Occupational Program. The board will have an $86 million budget this year.

In this race, candidates must reside in the area they seek to represent, but voters from throughout the county elect them to four-year terms.

In Trustee Area 6, which includes Redwood City, Redwood Shores and San Carlos, incumbent and former state Assemblyman Ted Lempert of San Carlos faces challenger John "Jack" Hickey of Redwood City, a perennial candidate and Libertarian Party member who now serves on the Sequoia Healthcare District board. Mr. Lempert, founder of Ed Voice, is our choice in this race.

In Trustee Area 7 which includes Woodside, Portola Valley and Menlo Park, incumbent and community activist Memo P. Morantes faces challenger Noria Zasslow, a mother and a translator. Both candidates are from Menlo Park. Our choice is Mr. Morantes, whose priorities include keeping community schools open for children at risk and advancing technology skills for teachers.

In Trustee Area 4, which covers San Mateo and Foster City, four newcomers are vying for the seat. Our choice is retired school administrator John Belforte over Anthony "Fel" Amistad, who we consider the only other serious candidate. Mr. Belforte has had a distinguished career in education and would be an excellent addition to this board.

County ballot propositions

Besides Measure A, the transportation question we endorsed last week, county voters will also decide Measures B, C, D, and E. The first three are housekeeping measures that deserve passage, and the fourth, Measure E, takes on the sticky question of raising the pay of county supervisors.

In a relatively novel twist, this measure asks the county grand jury to assess the need for a pay increase and make a recommendation. Under current law, the board can set a supervisor's salary, but any increase -- other than for the cost of living -- cannot take effect during the current term of any supervisor.

Supervisors could accept or reject the grand jury's recommendation, but could not set a salary higher than that recommended by the grand jury.

Such a system, while somewhat cumbersome, appears to be a good way to possibly increase the relatively low pay of the supervisors, who earn about $79,000 a year while presiding over a $1.3 billion budget. While this charge is not normally in the grand jury's purview, the jurors are neutral observers and well-qualified to evaluate a pay increase for supervisors. We urge a yes vote on Measure E.

State ballot propositions of interest

State propositions 1A and 65

Both measures are designed to restrict state legislators from dipping into the tax revenue that is earmarked for local governments. In this case, Proposition 1A is the compromise endorsed by Gov. Arnold Schwartzenegger and representatives of local government, in lieu of passing Proposition 65, which would have set stricter guidelines on the governor and legislators.

Under 1A, the stipulations on local taxes can be suspended if the governor declares it necessary and two-thirds of Legislature concurs. The parties also agreed to delay implementation of 1A for two years, to give the state more time to balance its budget.

Local government officials hope this measure will force legislators to either adjust spending or raise taxes if the state's revenues fall short, rather than take away monies for local governments.

This measure was born out of the desperation of local governments that had no recourse when the state raided their income. We urge a yes vote on Proposition 1A.

Proposition 59 for open government

Voters have a golden opportunity to advance the cause of open government if they approve Proposition 59 on November 2.

This measure, proposed by the Legislature after a unanimous vote of the state Assembly and Senate, will amend the state constitution to protect the public's right to attend government meetings and access government writings. If adopted, Proposition 59 will substantially strengthen the public's right of access and make it more difficult for legislative bodies and the courts to restrict that right.

The amendment would shift the burden from citizens to government officials to prove the need to keep public records and meetings secret. We urge a yes vote on Proposition 59.

Don't fall for promises of change in '3 Strikes'

In recent weeks, every district attorney in the state, including Jim Fox of San Mateo County, has come out against Proposition 66, which would restrict a third-strike conviction to serious felonies.

The problem for the district attorneys and virtually every other California law-enforcement agency is that the proposition sets new definitions for serious crimes, and also permits "limited resentencing" for persons incarcerated for third-strike convictions. Mr. Fox said he believes passage of Proposition 66 will result in a parade of serious criminals walking out of jail following review of their convictions.

With its prisons already overcrowded, state voters may be tempted to approve this measure just to reduce inmate populations. But that would be a mistake. We trust our law-enforcement agencies and district attorneys and recommend voters say no to Proposition 66.

E-mail a friend a link to this story.