Election Endorsements

Candidate and Proposition Endorsements for February 5, 2008 Election

CAPA is nonpartisan. Our Board's candidate recommendations are based on, whenever feasible, candidate interviews, qualification analyses, and various debate forums. Our Board Members also studied, analyzed, and debated the merits of each Proposition. We make our recommendations in the interests of CAPA and its members. A 2/3 majority vote of the Board is required for each endorsement. These results are published as guidelines for your use.

Presidential Primary

As a member of 80-20, a national organization promoting an Asian American bloc-vote, CAPA has chosen to follow the recommendation of 80-20 and endorses Senator Clinton in the Democratic Primary. For more information, please visit http://www.80-20initiative.net.

Democrat : Hillary Clinton

Republican : CAPA is neutral on the Republican Presidential Primary - we do not endorse any Republican Presidential Candidate over any other Republican Candidate

Statewide Propositions

Proposition 91 . Transportation Funds (Initiative Constitutional Amendment): NO

This California Constitution Amendment is not necessary since voters already passed Proposition 1A in 2006 which stopped the politicians from taking gas tax dollars to use for non-transportation purposes.

Proposition 92 . Community Colleges Funding (Initiative Constitutional Amendment) : YES

The California Constitution should be amended to formally recognize a community college system with separate funding formulas for public schools (K-12) and community college districts. Proposition 92 doesn't raise taxes. It lowers community college fees to $15 per unit, limits future fee increases, and stabilizes funding.

Proposition 93 . Limits on Legislators' Terms in Office (Initiative Constitutional Amendment): NO

This measure actually lengthens politicians' time in office by doubling Assembly terms from 6 to 12 years, and increasing Senate terms from 8 to 12 years and would benefit 42 termed-out incumbent politicians by giving them more time in office.

Proposition 94 . Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact, Referendum: NO

The Pechanga tribe would still be able to continue operating its existing casino, but would not be able to significantly expand its casino operations. The tribe's current payments to the state would not be affected.

Proposition 95 . Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact, Referendum: NO

The Morongo tribe would still be able to continue operating its existing casino, but would not be able to significantly expand its casino operations. The tribe's current payments to the state would not be affected.

Proposition 96 . Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact, Referendum: NO

The Sycuan tribe would still be able to continue operating its existing casino, but would not be able to significantly expand its casino operations. The tribe's current payments to the state would not be affected.

Proposition 97 . Amendment to Indian Gaming Compact, Referendum: NO

The Agua Caliente tribe would still be able to continue operating its existing casino, but would not be able to significantly expand its casino operations. The tribe's current payments to the state would not be affected.