Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee Profile & Endorsements - eVoter
ORGANIZATION
San Mateo County Republican Central Committee
ORGANIZATION ENDORSEMENTS
2010 Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee Organization Endorsements
| Picture | Profile | Election | Office | State |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Meg Whitman | 2010 California General Election | Governor | ca |
|
|
Abel Maldonado | 2010 California General Election | Lt. Governor | ca |
|
|
Damon Dunn | 2010 California General Election | Secretary of State | ca |
|
|
Tony Strickland | 2010 California General Election | State Controller | ca |
|
|
Mimi Walters | 2010 California General Election | State Treasurer | ca |
|
|
Steve Cooley | 2010 California General Election | Attorney General | ca |
 |
Mike Villines | 2010 California General Election | Insurance Commissioner | ca |
 |
Kevin R. Scott | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Board of Equalization, 1st District | ca |
|
|
Carly Fiorina | 2010 California General Election | U.S. Senator | ca |
|
|
Mike Moloney | 2010 California General Election | U.S. Representative, 12th Congressional District | ca |
|
|
Dave Chapman | 2010 California General Election | U.S. Representative, 14th Congressional District | ca |
|
|
Alfonso Faustino, Jr. | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Assembly 12th Assembly District | ca |
|
|
Alberto Waisman | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Assembly 19th Assembly District | ca |
|
|
Greg Conlon | 2010 California General Election | Member, State Assembly 21st Assembly District | ca |
|
|
Greg Conlon | 2010 California General Election | San Mateo County, Member, Republican Party County Committee Member, District 3 | ca |
|
|
Alberto Waisman | 2010 California General Election | San Mateo County Republician Party Central Committee Member, District 2 | ca |
|
|
Doo Sup Park | 2010 California General Election | San Francisco County, Republican County Central Committee, District 12 | ca |
|
|
Peter Ohtaki | 2010 California General Election | City of Menlo Park, City Council Member | ca |
|
|
Jerry Shefren | 2010 California General Election | Sequoia Healthcare District, Member Board of Directors | ca |
|
|
Arthur J. Faro | 2010 California General Election | Sequoia Healthcare District, Member Board of Directors | ca |
|
|
Alpio Barbara | 2010 California General Election | Sequoia Healthcare District, Member Board of Directors | ca |
PROPOSITION ENDORSEMENTS
2012 Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee Proposition Endorsements
Check back for 2012 Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee proposition endorsements.
2011 Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee Proposition Endorsements
Check back for 2011 Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee proposition endorsements.
2010 Official San Mateo County Republican Central Committee Proposition Endorsements
City of Menlo Park Measure T
We endorse saying YES on City of Menlo Park Majority Approval Required
Shall the voters affirm the decision of the Menlo Park City Council to approve the Menlo Gateway project and amend the City’s General Plan to permit construction of offices, research and development space, a hotel, health club and restaurant on property located east of Highway 101 near Marsh Road?
Statewide Proposition 27
We endorse saying NO on Eliminates State Commission on Redistricting. Consolidates Authority for Redistricting with Elected Representatives
Eliminates 14-member redistricting commission selected from applicant pool picked by government auditors. Consolidates authority for establishing state Assembly, Senate, and Board of Equalization district boundaries with elected state representatives responsible for drawing congressional districts. Reduces budget, and imposes limit on amount Legislature may spend, for redistricting. Provides that voters will have the authority to reject district boundary maps approved by the Legislature. Requires populations of all districts for the same office to be exactly the same. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Likely decrease in state redistricting costs totaling several million dollars every ten years.
Statewide Proposition 26
We endorse saying YES on Increases Legislative Vote Requirement to Two-Thirds for State Levies and Charges. Imposes Additional Requirement for Voters to Approve Local Levies and Charges with Limited Exceptions
Increases legislative vote requirement to two-thirds for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to majority vote. Changes Constitution to require voters to approve, either by two-thirds or majority, local levies and charges with limited exceptions. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potentially major decrease in state and local revenues and spending, depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies, and local voters.
Statewide Proposition 25
We endorse saying NO on Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Retains Two-Thirds Vote Requirement for Taxes
Changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the state budget from two-thirds to a simple majority. Provides that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Unknown changes in the content of the state budget from lowering the legislative vote requirement for passage. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future Legislatures. Minor reduction in state costs related to compensation of legislators in years when the budget bill is passed after June 15.
Statewide Proposition 24
We endorse saying NO on Repeals Recent Legislation That Would Allow Businesses to Carry Back Losses, Share Tax Credits, and Use a Sales-Based Income Calculation to Lower Taxable Income
Repeals recent legislation that would allow businesses to shift operating losses to prior tax years and that would extend the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years. Repeals recent legislation that would allow corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations. Repeals recent legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales-based income calculation, rather than a combination property-, payroll- and sales-based income calculation. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Annual state revenue increase from business taxes of about $1.7 billion when fully phased in, beginning in 2011-12.
Statewide Proposition 23
We endorse saying YES on Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws Requiring Major Polluters to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year
Suspends State laws requiring reduced greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California's unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Requires State to abandon implementation of comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until suspension is lifted. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Potential positive, short-term impacts on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. Potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
Statewide Proposition 21
We endorse saying NO on Establishes $18 Annual Vehicle License Surcharge to Help Fund State Parks and Wildlife Programs and Grants Free Admission to All State Parks to Surcharged Vehicles
Establishes an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge and grants free admission to all state parks to surcharged vehicles. Requires deposit of surcharge revenue in a new trust fund. Requires that trust funds be used solely to operate, maintain and repair the state park system, and to protect wildlife and natural resources. Exempts commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches from the surcharge. Requires annual independent audit and review by citizen's oversight committee. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from the imposition of a surcharge on the VLF to be used mainly to fund state parks and wildlife conservation programs. Potential state savings of up to approximately $200 million annually to the extent that the VLF surcharge revenues were used to reduce support from the General Fund and other special funds for parks and wildlife conservation programs. Reduction of about $50 million annually in state and local revenues from state park day-use fees. These revenue losses could potentially be offset by increases in other types of state park user fees and revenues.
Statewide Proposition 20
We endorse saying YES on Redistricting of Congressional Districts
Removes elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Redistricting commission is comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four voters registered with neither party. Requires that any newly-proposed district lines be approved by nine commissioners including three Democrats, three Republicans, and three from neither party. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local government: Probably no significant change in state redistricting costs.
Statewide Proposition 19
We endorse saying NO on Changes California Law to Legalize Marijuana and Allow It to Be Regulated and Taxed.
Allows people 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. Permits local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older. Prohibits people from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. Maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.
