My Personal Voting Guide for Fall 2018
I'm going to do something different this time.
In the past, I've looked at the candidates at the order they appear on my sample ballot. (If you haven't looked at your own sample ballot, you really owe yourself a visit to the Georgia My Voter page.)
This time, I'm changing it up a little. Three-candidate races are actually interesting, so I'm going to give them top billing. Two-candidate races, not nearly so interesting, they get pushed down. One-candidate races get ignored altogether, as I have in the past. Last of all, as always, I will look at the proposed constitutional amendments and ballot referendums.
The only thing Kemp had going for him was that he wasn’t Cagle. Other than that, his appeal is strictly "good old boy" Trumpian. The only reason to vote for him is if you don't like Democrats.
Abrams is an outright socialist, and outright against private ownership of guns. She is delinquent on her taxes, but takes positions that require raising taxes on others. I talked with a friend of mine who has encountered her professionally, she is smart and personable, but her ideals are totally not in line with my own. The only reason to vote for her is if you don't like Republicans.
Metz is an interesting guy. He’s been in the Navy, he’s been in the private sector, and he’s been in politics at the grassroots level. His take on the issues of the day is solidly in line with the idea of empowering people.
I have heard complaints on all of these issues from both Democrat friends and Republican friends. Both sides have the same complaints, both sides are convinced that only their own guy can fix the problem, but neither side actually takes the problems on directly, and only the guy out of left field actually has new ideas.
If you still aren't sure about this guy Smythe, he does regular Facebook Live casts where he takes questions from anyone. I watched his last night, and he was spot on with things that I have done some research on myself.
Beck has come under fire lately for working jobs on both sides of the line between government and private practice at the same time, apparently without notifying his bosses. That's not a good sign. Foster is the only one I have seen to come out with a promise not to take any money or gifts from anyone in the insurance industry.
Creating a trust fund out of tax money. Here's a crazy idea: If we are collecting that much tax money that we can fund this without taking any more, how about we cut taxes? Let people decide for themselves to donate to wildlife conservation and so on?
2 - Creates a state-wide business court to lower costs, enhance efficiency, and promote predictable judicial outcomes. Maybe?
This is a tough one. My first gut reaction was, why should businesses get a separate system of courts? Then, I learned a few things. First, this will only be for a subset of business-to-business civil disputes. Also, these cases would have started in the regular courts. They would only be handed over to the special courts if certain criteria were met. The theory is that a judge with special experience will be able to knock those cases out more efficiently than a “generalist” judge. And there is supposedly already a pilot program for this idea going on in Georgia. I would be interested to hear if any of my law-circle friends know about this. As it stands, I don't see any state power grab in this, just the state (theoretically) trying to do a better job in its role in settling civil disputes. But I'm still suspicious.
3 - Encourages the conservation, sustainability, and longevity of Georgia's working forests through tax subclassification and grants. - NO
Again, instead of giving people grants out of their own money, how about we let them keep more of their own money to begin with?
4 - Provides rights for victims of crime in the judicial process. - NO
I believe that the ACLU has it right on this one. The effort to impose a single solution on all states ignores the laws that individual states have already. It undermines the important principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. It weakens protections against abuse of power by the state. I want to help victims, but not like this.
5 - Authorizes fair allocation of sales tax proceeds to county and city school districts. - NO
In a nutshell, the question is how many schools do you need on board with a tax proposal to put it on a county ballot. Yes means it can be done with most schools cooperating, No means that you need all schools cooperating. I'm all for making it harder to pass taxes.
Okay, breaking this down. “Municipal corporation” is legalese for city or town. You've got a city that spans multiple counties. Your city levies taxes for public transit and schools. Sounds very specific. Wikipedia actually has a list of multi-county cities. I don't live in one. But let's keep on looking at this.
Under this new law, people in these cities would be able to claim exemptions on taxes that fund city services if their cities send money into school and public transit systems that encompass multiple counties. This gets slightly more touchy in that there are apparently some governments trying to lobby other governments to buy into transit plans that those other governments don't necessarily want. So, by supporting this, am I supporting lowering of taxes, which I generally always like? Or am I supporting just a redirect of tax money from city services into public schools and transit? I’m not sure.
B - Provides a tax exemption for certain homes for the mentally disabled. - YES
There's a tax exemption currently on the books for homes for the mentally disabled. The way the law is worded now, there's a vagueness that might be construed as denying that exemption to homes that are under mortgage. This bill fixes that problem. This seems like a good thing to me, fixing a tax rule so that the government is actually imposing less.
In the past, I've looked at the candidates at the order they appear on my sample ballot. (If you haven't looked at your own sample ballot, you really owe yourself a visit to the Georgia My Voter page.)
This time, I'm changing it up a little. Three-candidate races are actually interesting, so I'm going to give them top billing. Two-candidate races, not nearly so interesting, they get pushed down. One-candidate races get ignored altogether, as I have in the past. Last of all, as always, I will look at the proposed constitutional amendments and ballot referendums.
Interesting races
For Governor
- BRIAN KEMP Republican
- STACEY ABRAMS Democrat
- TED METZ Libertarian
The only thing Kemp had going for him was that he wasn’t Cagle. Other than that, his appeal is strictly "good old boy" Trumpian. The only reason to vote for him is if you don't like Democrats.
Abrams is an outright socialist, and outright against private ownership of guns. She is delinquent on her taxes, but takes positions that require raising taxes on others. I talked with a friend of mine who has encountered her professionally, she is smart and personable, but her ideals are totally not in line with my own. The only reason to vote for her is if you don't like Republicans.
Metz is an interesting guy. He’s been in the Navy, he’s been in the private sector, and he’s been in politics at the grassroots level. His take on the issues of the day is solidly in line with the idea of empowering people.
For Secretary of State
- BRAD RAFFENSPERGER Republican
- JOHN BARROW Democrat
- SMYTHE DUVAL Libertarian
I have heard complaints on all of these issues from both Democrat friends and Republican friends. Both sides have the same complaints, both sides are convinced that only their own guy can fix the problem, but neither side actually takes the problems on directly, and only the guy out of left field actually has new ideas.
If you still aren't sure about this guy Smythe, he does regular Facebook Live casts where he takes questions from anyone. I watched his last night, and he was spot on with things that I have done some research on myself.
For Commissioner of Insurance
- JIM BECK Republican
- JANICE LAWS Democrat
- DONNIE FOSTER Libertarian
Beck has come under fire lately for working jobs on both sides of the line between government and private practice at the same time, apparently without notifying his bosses. That's not a good sign. Foster is the only one I have seen to come out with a promise not to take any money or gifts from anyone in the insurance industry.
For Public Service Commissioner
- CHUCK EATON (Incumbent) Republican
- LINDY MILLER Democrat
- RYAN GRAHAM Libertarian
For Public Service Commissioner
- TRICIA PRIDEMORE (Incumbent) Republican
- DAWN A. RANDOLPH Democrat
- JOHN TURPISH Libertarian
Typical Red and Blue races
For each of these races, the incumbent is Republican. Each candidate is portraying the issues through the lens of their party, with the Republican saying “Look what great stuff I’ve done” and the Democrat saying “Look what bad things the Republicans are doing”. Let's face it: You've probably picked your side already.| Race | Republican | Democrat |
|---|---|---|
| Lieutenant Governor | Geoff Duncan | Sarah Riggs Amico |
| Attorney General | Chris Carr (Incumbent) | Charlie Bailey |
| Commissioner of Agriculture | Gary Black (Incumbent) | Fred Swann |
| State School Superintendent | Richard Woods (Incumbent) | Otha E. Thornton, Jr. |
| Commissioner of Labor | Mark Butler (Incumbent) | Richard Keatley |
| U.S. Representative | Drew Ferguson (Incumbent) | Chuck Enderlin |
| State Senator | Marty Harbin (Incumbent) | Bill Lightle |
PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
1 - Creates the Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Trust Fund to protect water quality, wildlife habitat, and parks. - NOCreating a trust fund out of tax money. Here's a crazy idea: If we are collecting that much tax money that we can fund this without taking any more, how about we cut taxes? Let people decide for themselves to donate to wildlife conservation and so on?
2 - Creates a state-wide business court to lower costs, enhance efficiency, and promote predictable judicial outcomes. Maybe?
This is a tough one. My first gut reaction was, why should businesses get a separate system of courts? Then, I learned a few things. First, this will only be for a subset of business-to-business civil disputes. Also, these cases would have started in the regular courts. They would only be handed over to the special courts if certain criteria were met. The theory is that a judge with special experience will be able to knock those cases out more efficiently than a “generalist” judge. And there is supposedly already a pilot program for this idea going on in Georgia. I would be interested to hear if any of my law-circle friends know about this. As it stands, I don't see any state power grab in this, just the state (theoretically) trying to do a better job in its role in settling civil disputes. But I'm still suspicious.
3 - Encourages the conservation, sustainability, and longevity of Georgia's working forests through tax subclassification and grants. - NO
Again, instead of giving people grants out of their own money, how about we let them keep more of their own money to begin with?
4 - Provides rights for victims of crime in the judicial process. - NO
I believe that the ACLU has it right on this one. The effort to impose a single solution on all states ignores the laws that individual states have already. It undermines the important principle of “innocent until proven guilty”. It weakens protections against abuse of power by the state. I want to help victims, but not like this.
5 - Authorizes fair allocation of sales tax proceeds to county and city school districts. - NO
In a nutshell, the question is how many schools do you need on board with a tax proposal to put it on a county ballot. Yes means it can be done with most schools cooperating, No means that you need all schools cooperating. I'm all for making it harder to pass taxes.
PROPOSED STATEWIDE REFERENDA
A - Provides for a homestead exemption for residents of certain municipal corporations. - Maybe?Okay, breaking this down. “Municipal corporation” is legalese for city or town. You've got a city that spans multiple counties. Your city levies taxes for public transit and schools. Sounds very specific. Wikipedia actually has a list of multi-county cities. I don't live in one. But let's keep on looking at this.
Under this new law, people in these cities would be able to claim exemptions on taxes that fund city services if their cities send money into school and public transit systems that encompass multiple counties. This gets slightly more touchy in that there are apparently some governments trying to lobby other governments to buy into transit plans that those other governments don't necessarily want. So, by supporting this, am I supporting lowering of taxes, which I generally always like? Or am I supporting just a redirect of tax money from city services into public schools and transit? I’m not sure.
B - Provides a tax exemption for certain homes for the mentally disabled. - YES
There's a tax exemption currently on the books for homes for the mentally disabled. The way the law is worded now, there's a vagueness that might be construed as denying that exemption to homes that are under mortgage. This bill fixes that problem. This seems like a good thing to me, fixing a tax rule so that the government is actually imposing less.
Comments