This evaluation of candidates and political options for the upcoming Nov. 2 elections does not represent El Tecolote’s opinion, but it constitutes an evaluation made by the students of the Department of Raza Studies course, RAZA 660, “Raza Politics in the U.S.” from San Francisco State University, under the direction of professor Teresa Carrillo.

One in three Californians is Latino but among California’s voters, only one in five is Latino. Why isn’t the Latino political voice as strong as our numbers? The simple answer is that large numbers of Latinos are either too young to vote or cannot vote because of citizenship status. Since so many Latinos cannot vote, those who are eligible have a great responsibility to represent the entire Latino community and vote for politicians and policies that are responsive to Latino needs. On Tuesday, Nov. 2, 2010, California will hold its elections. In order to vote in the November election voters must have been registered to vote by Monday, Oct. 18, 2010.

It’s not easy to keep up with information about candidates and issues in order to make informed decisions about who to elect. With this challenge in mind, students in the Raza Politics course in the Department of Raza Studies at San Francisco State University researched the front-runner candidates in five statewide races and evaluated all state-wide propositions. Below you will find a summary of each candidate and an evaluation of how responsive she or he has been to Latino political interests. Each candidate was graded on the issues important to Latinos and then given an overall grade that takes into consideration their performance and responsiveness to Latinos and to the Latino community. The grades are followed by one-paragraph explanations of the grades.

Governor’s Race


Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown

Jerry Brown received an overall grade of a B because his support of the Latino community has been apparent throughout his career. Brown received a B- on immigration because he supports immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship as well as the Dream Act. Brown received a B for employment issues concerning Latinos because in 1980, he signed a groundbreaking law (SB 1874) that requires employers to provide information to workers on toxic substances produced or handled in their workplace, including pesticides and fertilizers. As Attorney General, Brown took legal action against a number of companies that exploit and abuse their workers and violate California’s labor laws. As Governor, Brown enacted laws to protect workers, and signed into law the Agricultural Relations Act, giving farm workers the right to organize. Brown’s policies towards education grant him a B+ because he has increased Cal-Grant awards by 50 percent, which benefits our low-income Latino communities. Brown plans to work with the State Board of Education to provide support to English learners and provide after school and summer programs to increase English learning. Brown supports in-state tuition for qualified high school students regardless of their residency status.

Meg Whitman

Meg Whitman

Meg Whitman received the very low overall grade of D- because on the whole, her policy preferences would be damaging to Latinos. Whitman received an F in the area of immigrant rights because she opposes social services that would benefit Latino communities. Whitman is against any pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and she plans to militarize the border. She openly opposes the DREAM ACT, which would allow US high school graduates who are undocumented to become legal residents after spending two years in college or the military. She also wants to eliminate sanctuary cities (such as San Francisco) from protecting undocumented immigrants from federal immigration laws and does not want to issue driver’s licenses to undocumented immigrants. We decided to give Whitman a D for employment concerning Latinos because she supports an established system that allows employers to verify the immigration status of workers (e-verification system). Whitman also supports conducting workplace inspections modeled after drug seizure raids of businesses suspected of hiring undocumented immigrants. For education Whitman receives a D- because she supports Proposition 227, which banned bilingual education in CA. Whitman also promises to ban undocumented students from colleges and universities and not allow further admission to any state-funded institution.

Lt. Governor’s Race

Abel Maldonado

Abel Maldonado

Maldonado received an overall grade of D for discouraging the opportunities of immigrants, Latina/o youth and children throughout his past six years as a California Senator. He supported Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that prohibits illegal immigrants from using health care, public education, and other social services in California. He also voted in favor of three ballot initiatives against illegal immigration, affirmative action and bilingual education. He voted against propositions that support struggling youth (Safe Place to Learn Act, Student Civil Rights Act, Youth Bill of Rights for Incarcerated Youth, Protection for Teen Age Pregnancy Programs, and many that concern LGBTQ youth). Moreover, he supported the Education Law Amendment to expand the gap between wealthy schools/parents and the poor. He is partly responsible for the $8.6 billion budget cut to public education last year.

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom

Gavin Newsom receives an overall grade of B because while he is responsive to Latinos, his long-term political plans seem to be contradictory with his short-term policies. Recently, he launched Kindergarten to College (K2C), the first universal children’s saving account program in the nation, designed to send all children to college. He also supports an Anti-Truancy Program, which offers local supports for youth to stay in schools. He enthusiastically supports ending furloughs and cuts for faculty and workers in public education, as well as providing health care for K-12 students. He advocates for illegal immigrants and promises safe access to city services such as medical care and criminal reports regardless of residential status. Despite this record of Latino responsiveness, Newsom’s perspective is not perfect since the Sit and Lie Ordinance marginalizes underprivileged groups, including Latina/os and immigrants.

Senate Race

Barbara Boxer

Barbara Boxer

Boxer’s overall grade for this election was an A-. She started her career in public service on the local level, then moved her way up the political ladder until 1982 when she was elected to the House of Representatives to represent the Bay Area, which she did for over 10 years. This will be her fourth term in office as a Senator and representative of California. Boxer has a track record of job creation through clean energy, transportation, infrastructure, and supportive legislation for lending to small businesses. She has fought to increase the minimum wage, cut taxes for the underprivileged, and help families afford child care. She has a long track record of action and results when it comes to legislation that directly affects the Latino community and Latino economic well-being. This is why we chose to give her an A- for her economic policies. Boxer earned an A in education policy for consistently signing legislation to support public schools, minorities in higher education, and provide tax relief to lower-income families for college. Boxer believes that all Americans should be covered for health insurance and that healthcare should be affordable for all. She calls for more oversight and helped to draft the Patient’s Bill of Rights. For her extensive healthcare policies and legislation, which largely help minority groups and Latinos, we gave her an A. One of her more striking attributes, Boxer has long recognized the impact and importance of immigration on our culture and economy. She supports a pathway to full citizenship for those already here and she believes in comprehensive immigration reform and the Dream Act, which provides citizenship for children of immigrants either through higher education or military service. For her support of immigration reform we gave her a B+. Almost in complete contrast to her opponents on environmental policy, Boxer has developed clean energy jobs, passed successful carbon reduction legislation, believes that polluters should pay for their cleanup, not the taxpayers, and strongly opposes drilling off the California coast. She receives her best grade here with an A+. Barbara Boxer’s concerns are tied into the Latino community and overall Latino wellbeing.

Carly Fiorina

Carly Fiorina

Fiorina’s overall grade for this election was a D. Her experience stems from a background in business. She was the former CEO and Chairman of Hewlett-Packard for six years. During that time she doubled the company’s revenue from $44 billion to $88 billion. If elected, this will be her first term as a political representative. While Carly Fiorina has worked in business for a long time, she has little planned in the way of specifics to help jump-start California’s job market. She pays a lot of lip service to the people she thinks will listen, but the content just isn’t there. This is why we chose to give her a D for her economic policies. In regards to education, Fiorina believes that we should create accountability with schools and acknowledges that there are “some” problems, though she lacks solutions. We gave her a C-. Fiorina, like many with a conservative agenda, has jumped on the bandwagon of her political party and followed the rhetoric to the letter. She wants to repeal the current healthcare reform legislation and then pass her own healthcare reform legislation but it looks remarkably like the one already signed into law. Fiorina is big on private business, with little or no oversight. From a Latino perspective, this leaves the underprivileged and lower-income groups vulnerable to financial hardship. As a result, she’s earned a D-. On immigration Fiorina’s platform is to secure the borders and stop the influx of “illegals” into the country. While she states that she wants to develop new temporary worker programs, she targets these at highly-skilled jobs, leaving service workers in the cold. For these reasons, we gave her a grade of C on immigration. On environmental policy she shows indifference and irresponsibility. She supports offshore drilling in California, opposes Cap and Trade laws, which call for a mandatory cap on emissions, and strongly supports Prop. 23, the Global Warming Law on the ballot this year. Fiorina received her worst grade of an F for the environment. She is not the candidate for America, for California, and most importantly, she is the worst candidate for the Latino community.

Attorney General’s Race

Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris is consistently responsive to Latino issues so she receives an A for her overall grade. Harris’ record shows that she will crack down on criminal activity. She takes a humanitarian approach towards youth, which is a very large proportion of the Latino community. She is supportive of the Healthcare Reform, which provides healthcare for all citizens and will not waste the little money California has to fight against health care reform that will benefit all. She is against the “Arizona Law” SB1070 that allows for racial profiling by police officers. She supports a judge’s ruling that Prop 8, which bans same-sex marriages, is unconstitutional and refuses to challenge his ruling.

Steve Cooley

Steve Cooley receives an overall grade of a D+ due to his lack of attention to important Latino issues. Cooley proves to be tough on criminal prosecution, yet does not show interest in helping youth, which is a large proportion of the Latino population. He says he does not support the Healthcare Reform and WILL use California’s limited resources to join the “Southern Attorney Generals” in suing the national government to undo this reform. If the “Arizona Law” SB1070, which allows for racial profiling by police officers, were to be passed in California, Cooley has made it clear that he will support it. He has made it very clear that he supports Prop 8, which bans same-sex marriages, and will do all he can to uphold Prop 8.

State Superintendent of Public Instruction Race

(The Superintendent of Public Instruction manages the Department of Education, enforces state education laws, provides educational policy and serves as the state’s chief spokesperson for public schools.)

Larry Aceves

Larry Aceves gets an A+ for Superintendent of Public Instruction. He is the first Latino elected official running for State Superintendent and with more than 30 years of education experience he is more of an educator than a politician; he is very familiar with the classroom environment. Putting a halt to budget cuts, increasing equitable funding, and securing adequate teachers with accountability are some of his goals. He also wants to put serious work into reforming school curriculum, updating school research tools, promoting community apprenticeships, service learning projects, and expanding foreign language options. Larry will also work to establish programs and facilities that include free medical and dental clinics for low-income children, parenting classes, English language development, and gang prevention training. Last but not least, Larry wants to reduce class size, improve student achievement and reduce the dropout rates.

Tom Torlakson

Tom Torlakson receives a B for State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Tom is an Assembly member and was elected to a final term in the Assembly in 2008, representing California’s 11th District. He previously served as a state Assembly member from 1996–2000 and in the California State Senate from 2000–2008. During his time in the Senate, he served as chair of several Senate committees, including the Appropriations Committee and the Select Committee on Schools and Community. Torlakson is a second-generation science teacher and coach. He has also championed legislation to increase funding for instructional materials and bills to enhance campus safety, close the digital divide, eliminate the achievement gap, improve student health, and reduce the dropout rate. However, Torlakson’s perspective on reforming the educational system is geared toward politics; he uses the polls to determine the dominant concerns of the voting population but Latinos account for only 20 percent of voters but 50 percent of the school population. Latino educational issues are best understood by people with lots of classroom experience.

Proposition Grade Card from Raza 660 Raza Politics

Proposition 19 – Vote YES on Prop 19

We recommend that you vote YES on Prop 19 to legalize and tax marijuana. Marijuana use will persist regardless of its legal status. We can harness an estimated $ 1.6 billion in taxes each year that we can use to restore our crumbling public education system. Legalizing marijuana will also lead to less crime and fewer resources wasted in the criminal justice system. Also, this proposition will create hundreds of legitimate jobs with benefits. Medical marijuana has generated millions of dollars, boosted our economy and created jobs. It is time to take a common sense approach to marijuana by voting YES on Prop 19.

“Far too many of our brothers and sisters are getting caught in the cross-fire of gang wars here in California and the cartel wars south of our border. It’s time to end prohibition, put violent, organized criminals out of business and bring marijuana under the control of the law.”

—Argentina Dávila-Luévano, League of United Latin American Citizens of California (LULAC)

Proposition 20 – Vote YES on Prop 20

We recommend that you vote YES on Prop 20. It removes elected representatives from the congressional redistricting process and transfers that authority to citizens on a 14-member re-districting commission comprised of five Democrats, five Republicans, and four representatives from neither party. This new way of redistricting does not increase the cost of state redistricting but it does give citizens a greater voice in the process. YES on Prop 20 and NO on Prop 27 could increase Latino political representation through redistricting.

“When voters can finally hold politicians accountable, politicians will have to quit playing games and work to address the serious challenges Californians face.”

—Ruben Guerra, Latin Business Association

Proposition 21 – Vote YES on Prop 21

We recommend a YES Vote on Proposition 21, which will create a State Parks and Wildlife Conservations Trust. The trust will provide a stable, reliable, and adequate source of funding for the California state park system by adding $18 to vehicle registration fees. By voting for Proposition 21 we will keep State parks open, properly maintained, and safe. Once you pay for your vehicle registration you can enter and use state parks for free. This will provide free access to safe, clean parks and beaches for Latino families.

Proposition 22 – Vote NO on Prop 22

We encourage a NO vote on Proposition 22. If it passes, the state constitution will be amended so that the state government will lose control over local gas tax money, usually allocated to local redevelopment. Without access to these funds, money for local development will have to come out of the general fund, leaving even less money for education and health care in this time of crisis. Vote NO on Prop 22 in order to keep as much money as possible in our schools during this time of economic struggle.

Proposition 23 – Vote NO on Prop 23

Prop 23 would suspend California’s environmental control law to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution standards that strive to promote a clean and healthy environment. People who want Prop 23 to pass say that we can either have a clean environment or jobs. Latinos need to insist upon both jobs and a clean environment so we do not support suspension of California’s clean environment law. We believe it is in the Latino political interest to vote NO on Prop 23.

Proposition 24 – Vote YES on Prop 24

Vote YES on Proposition 24 to repeal recent 2009 changes to tax laws for businesses. The predominant impact on the Latino community comes in the form of tax breaks for large corporations and the wealthiest one percent, while simultaneously removing support service funds for the remaining 99 percent. Big business is funding the propaganda against Prop. 24, which claims that these tax breaks will create more jobs. Unfortunately, the “Reagonomics” trickle-down theory has long since proven ineffective; therefore, a No vote will mean less money for schools, hospitals, and public safety programs which have already been cut. Vote YES on Proposition 24 to tax big businesses and put money back into the hands of the people.

Proposition 25 – Vote YES on Prop 25

We recommend a Yes vote on Prop 25 because it will help put a stop to budget games and gridlock, and hold legislators accountable when they fail to do their jobs. It reforms California’s badly broken state budget process, so taxpayers, schools and services are protected. Latinos make up a large part of the service workforce. Latinos should not have to worry about receiving a layoff notice due to poor budget decisions. Prop 25 breaks budget deadlock by allowing a simple majority of legislators to approve the budget. Prop 25 holds legislators accountable for late budgets and ends budget gridlock. For responsible budgeting and fiscal accountability, vote Yes on Prop 25.

Proposition 26 – Vote NO on Prop 26

Proposition 26 helps corporations in California but it hurts the Latino population, so we recommend a No vote. Right now California has mitigation fees, which make companies pay for the damages their products cause. In turn these fees help fund schools, health care, and other social services programs. Passing Proposition 26 would take away these funds because companies would not have to pay fees for damages. In addition, it would increase the need to raise taxes in order to replace the missing fees. To defend Latino political interests vote NO on Prop. 26.

Proposition 27 – Vote NO on Prop 27

We recommend that you vote NO on Prop 27 because it would allow the power to determine the boundaries of Legislature and Board of Equalization districts to remain in the hands of politicians. Politicians behind Prop 27 want to repeal the voter-approved Citizens Redistricting Commission. They want the power to draw district lines that are safe for themselves and their re-election and will spend lots of money to get that power back. NO on 27 will make politicians more accountable to Latino taxpayers and citizens.

“By pushing Proposition 27, politicians want to silence voters so they don’t have to address the tough problems our state faces.”

—Maria Luisa Vela, Los Angeles Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Professor Teresa Carrillo with Daniel Arreola, Chris Bell, Robert Brown, Matthew Carter, Alejandro Chavez, Kristya Garcia, Odet Garnica, Karina Gomez, Mauricio Gutierrez, Javier Guzman, Umi Hagitani, Daniel Ilario, Nick Moone, Jeffrey Navarro, Miguel Palacios, Jeannette Parada, Felipe Rivera, Vanessa Serpas, Beauty Sip, Tremaine Thomas, Rachyl Underwood, and Micheal Valle.

One reply on “Which Candidates and Propositions Are Best for Latinos?”

  1. With all due respect, why is El Tecolote publishing a sympathetic analysis of Newsom’s political positions?

    Newsom has led the charge for gentrification, and consistently opposed rent control increases that could help retain Latino and African Americans from being pushed out of San Francisco. Under Newsom’s watch, he has aggressively attacked San Francisco’s sanctuary city ordinance, permitting the ruthless deportation of minor youth and children. Undocumented Latino’s have suffered car impounds and police referring people to ICE after being detained on MUNI for failing to have a bus transfer. Newsom’s policies towards the Chicano/Latino community in practice are not that different from the moderate republican political line.

    Though the disclaimer says this is SFSU students opinions, El Tecolote is still disseminating a confusing message to its readers. Conservative papers like the Examiner and the Chronicle do enough damage to Latinos, so we need El Tecolote to more assertively advocate for us.
    If Latino’s want to stay in San Francisco we need to do a better job of holding Newsom and politicos like him accountable.

Comments are closed.