I also generally check out what Pete has to say.
Governor: Newsom. I have my qualms about The Gav, but I'm certainly not voting for a Republican.
LtGov: Koulanakis, although it was a difficult choice. We had ranked Koulanakis over Hernandez when we looked at the primary ballot, but we didn't review her or Hernandez that closely because they were our 3rd and 4th choices -- we were mostly struggling with 1st/2nd between Bleich and McLaughlin. Hernandez appears to win on experience, but Koulanakis' priorities -- housing first -- make sense to me relative to what the state actually needs, and a lot of people whose judgment I respect (including Obama and Harris) think she has the chops to handle the job.
SecState: Padilla. Only Dem.
Controller: Betty Yee. Only Dem.
Treasurer: Fiona Ma. Only Dem.
AttyGen: Xavier Becerra. Only Dem.
InsComm: Lara. Honestly, Poizner is going to win, and I think he'll do fine in the job. But I've never forgiven him for his 2010 campaign.
State Board of Equalization, 2nd District: Malia Cohen. Only Dem.
Senator: Kevin de Leon. Feinstein was a good representative for the state when she was first elected. The state has changed; she hasn't.
Rep: Jackie Speier. Only Dem. Also, she's pretty great.
22nd AD: Kevin Mullin. Only Dem, and he's always seemed like a good guy.
Carol Corrigan retention: No. She appears to be a self-hating lesbian. Voted against gay marriage in two separate cases, and her dissent in the Prop 8 case was bullshit sophistry.
Leondra Kruger retention: Yes.
Appeals district judges: Yes for retaining all of them. There don't seem to be any complaints about them.
Super: Thurmond. Tuck has gotten into bed with some really nasty school privatizers, including a guy who leads an org previously headed by DeVos.
San Bruno Park School District: Chavez, Mason, Sanchez. It sounds like Zelnik would not be terrible, but his vision of what the schools should be is based on what the city was like twenty years ago, not what it actually is now.
Harbor District. Larenas and Richardson. Larenas is an easy choice -- he's incumbent, and seems to be regarded as one of the most thoughtful and effective members of the board. Richardson seems to have the most relevant experience among the other three.
Prop 1: Yes. Bond for affordable housing. Endorsed across the board by all the papers.
Prop 2: Yes. Bond for improving housing for the mentally ill -- working on the damage done when we shuttered institutional care centers and failed to replace them with local care. Again, universally endorsed.
Prop 3: No. Again all the papers agree. It might do some good stuff, but at much too high a cost.
Prop 4: Yes. Broadly endorsed. It's a bond for an important public infrastructure investment, at a time when bond rates are still pretty low.
Prop 5: No. It's a giveaway to people who are already rich.
Prop 6: No. We still have a low gas tax relative to most parts of the world. I'd raise it higher if I could. We haven't hit the efficient Pigouvian level yet.
Prop 7: Yes. This is basically a symbolic vote expressing that we would like to get rid of the semiannual clock shift; actually implementing the always-DST rule apparently requires Congressional coöperation. I don't really care if we do permanent standard time or permanent daylight savings. The clock shift is ridiculous. There's a fair amount of evidence that it results in a spike of car crashes, literally killing people.
Prop 8: No. A little torn on this; you can definitely make the argument that by putting the clinics into a "cost plus" model, they'd be forced to take whatever revenue they can collect, and then distribute it to costs until what they're keeping as profit is at the 15%-of-costs level. That very likely would mean that more money flows to workers. But the way it's structured appears to be poorly considered; there would be ways to game it. (Split off a piece of the business into a contractor / vendor, and magically it turns into a cost center that you can pad.) We probably need some kind of reform on this. But this isn't it.
Prop 10: No. There are more positive reviews of this than I would've expected, which made me at least re-consider. But fundamentally, the core argument in favor here is about local control. And frankly, no, I don't trust local control on this issue. Local politics is more subject to the whims of highly-active minorities. The folks that end up with power locally, constantly make the choice to build offices but not housing. NIMBY residents don't want new neighbors at all. This is an issue on which it's better to keep the decision-making at a higher level, where we have to make choices for all of us at once, rather than town by town. (This is the same problem we have with transit in the Bay Area: Too much local control. We actually NEED a regional authority that runs roughshod over local complaints. The local complaints are bullshit attempts to push costs onto neighbors. Somebody has to put an end to them.)
Prop 11: No. Does some reasonable stuff, that even the affected workers' unions agree with, that nearly passed the legislature. But then it also smuggles in changes that void lawsuits over backpay -- it's a few companies trying to spend $2M, to save $20M or more on a case they deserve to lose. I was surprised that most of the papers went yes on this, while the Chronicle, which is quite conservative relative to its town, says no.
Prop 12: Yes. Read Pete's summary. It will probably make meat a bit more expensive. I'm OK with that.
San Bruno School District Measure X: Yes. Appears to be a perfectly reasonable school investment. Will add ~$300 to property tax per $1M of property value, for the duration of the bonds.
San Mateo County Transit District Measure W: Yes. Not a huge fan of sales taxes, but the investment is needed and it's not like anyone is offering a great alternative.
San Mateo County Board of Ed: Alvaro. The Daily Journal endorsement is pretty compelling.