Democrats Endorse Candidates That Will Promote Fairness, Inclusivity and Opportunity for Yolo County Communities
(From Press Release) – Yolo County Calif. – The Yolo County Democratic Party (YCDP) has endorsed candidates for local races in the Tuesday, June 5 Primary Election. These endorsements are after the conclusion of a lengthy process by the Yolo County Democratic Party. This year we are seeing the Republican Party adopt obstruction, political intransigence, and exclusionary rhetoric and policy in Washington D.C. and in states and communities across the country. “The turmoil of the present administration seeps down to every level of government, however, we must continue to be the path of resistance,” said Bob Schelen, YCDP Chair.
“Now is a critical time for Democrats, especially at the local level, to guide the nation toward policies of fairness, tolerance, and better economic and educational opportunities for all of us. The Yolo County Democratic Party is confident that our endorsed 2018 candidates embody these principles, and that their election will allow Yolo County and California to continue to lead the nation in fostering the kind of communities we all want for ourselves and for our children,” he added.
YCDP Endorsed Candidates for the Election to Be Held June 5, 2018:
- Dean Johansson, for Yolo County District Attorney
- Tom Lopez, for Yolo County Sherriff
- Garth Lewis, for Yolo County Superintendent of Public Education
- Don Saylor, for Yolo County Supervisor District 2
- Gary Sandy, for Yolo County Supervisor District 3
- Linda Deos, for Davis City Council
Californians must be registered to vote by May 21 to be eligible to vote in the state Primary Election this year. Those that need to register or re-register can also visit the California Secretary 
of State’s website at http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_vr.htm or visit the Yolo County Elections office at 625 Court St
The Yolo County Democratic Central Committee serves as the official representative and governing body of the California Democratic Party in Yolo County, carrying out such duties as are consistent with the Elections Code of the State of California and the By Laws and policies of the California Democratic Party and Democratic National Committee.
The Yolo County Democratic Central Committee serves as the official representative and governing body of the California Democratic Party in Yolo County, carrying out such duties as are consistent with the Elections Code of the State of California and the By Laws and policies of the California Democratic Party and Democratic National Committee.
Interesting that they only endorsed 1 candidate for the 2-seat City Council race.
Apparently they fell a few votes shy of endorsing Gudz
They just didn’t have the gudz.
(my apologies to all civilized and decent people who recognize puns as the lowest form of humor)
Good one, I must be neither civilized or decent because I enjoy your puns.
I figured I got to use that one exactly once in the campaign — seemed like the opportune time.
Interesting that they endorsed the one candidate who is both for and against Measure R
“Interesting that they only endorsed 1 candidate for the 2-seat City Council race.”
“Interesting that they endorsed the one candidate who is both for and against Measure R”
Maybe they in a way did endorse two candidates?
LMAO, she’s got all the bases covered.
I will not be voting for her. I will only vote for candidates who I feel are solidly behind Measure R
How about those who are for a form of Measure R, with vague and unexplained modifications?
They won’t get my vote either, too much weazle room for me.
I hope there are two candidates left who do solidly support Measure R.
Keith/Alan… I think we all know the reasons for the endorsement… none of what you opined. Had absolutely nothing to do with Measure R/J…
As to modifications, etc., please recall that those would be subject to a vote. And/or a referendum… CC cannot change Measure R… but they could allow it to self-extinguish…
What are the reasons for the endorsement if we know – because I sure don’t know why her and not others
Yes, you do, if you were honest with yourself… just read the sub-caption under headline… bolded… will not comment further…
Except, find it interesting that a very partisan group endorses a candidate for a non-partisan (yeah, right… a convenient untruth) office.
I challenge you to find a meaningful difference on that score between Linda and Gloria and Eric, for example. (I’ve singled them out because I’m more familiar with their views on such issues than some of the other candidates).
I don’t think we “opined” that it did. We were just pointing out her conflicting statements about Measure R and my own views of wanting a candidate who supports Measure R.
I think we all know that some of us think we all know, but some of us don’t . . .
Well that clears it up. Not.
Guess we’ll never know . . .
I feel like there needs to be more of a discussion on Measure R – I’m unclear – are there alterations to it that might be acceptable or is any change completely a non-starter? Honest question.
I think the problem is we’re not hearing how candidates might want to update Measure R only that they feel it needs to be changed. The voters need more specifics.
I agree with you.
That is exactly my point. My jaw was adrop during the “debate” at the community church, because several of them said they support Measure R with changes, and none said what those changes were — which is the perfect dodge — IF your audience is a bunch of imbeciles. If so, each audience member fills in what they don’t like about Measure R, what they do like about Measure R, assumes the candidate is making the changes they want, and bob their head in agreement.
If not, if there is a shred of intelligence in the community, YOU DON’T GET TO SAY THAT.
Up until recently the conversation was only whether to support or oppose measure R. It would be an incredible risky to be the first candidate to propose amendments. Out of curiosity what amendments would you or others be willing to accept?
I don’t think what we would be willing to accept is the question. I think the question is what changes or modifications do the candidates want to initiate is the question. They are the ones running for office, we need to know exactly what their proposals are.
Keith I understand and agree with you there. But none of us are candidates. So isnt it worth it to explore how Measure R could be made better? That isnt a conversation I’ve seen explored at all in a real world or online forum.
None of us are candidates and that’s the point. We need to know what plans the candidates have for Measure R. We don’t need opinions from them on what they feel is the best answer to get themselves elected, we need to know how they REALLY believe. That’s the only way we can elect a candidate that we can trust when it comes to making actual decisions.
Even though I’m not votong for Mark West because of his stance against Measure R, at least he’s being honest about his position.
But I’m interested in knowing whether people would even be willing to entertain the notion of changes to Measure R.
Some would rather not commit to what they want, rather have someone get specific, with no community input to inform them, so they can spit-ball…
Well, I can play that game, too… knowing confusion will increase the chances that the Measure will just sunset… that would not bother me at all…
What matters (regarding the upcoming election) is what potential changes the council candidates propose, regarding Measure R. Along with any justification for doing so.
Quote from Davisite.org (which the Vanguard doesn’t allow direct links to):
Fortunately, there are two candidates (Ezra, and Larry) who are smart enough to support it, as is.
I find it interesting that no one is willing to state their preference.
I guess you’re referring to those who are proposing undefined changes, rather than the two who clearly support it, as is (Ezra, and Larry).
It ain’t rocket science.
> Out of curiosity what amendments would you or others be willing to accept?
Willing to accept? I just don’t want people saying they want changes without saying what those changes are.
Then I’ll vote based on their positions.
Unnamed changes is not a position, it’s a dodge
Got it… Alan, Keith, Ron, etc., seem to say (by not proposing any room for modifications) Measure R, as it exists, or nothing… OK…
The vote (if/when it occurs) will be telling… no action by CC means “sunset”… end of… finito…
Keith did not answer your question… changed the field… and then you agreed with him… so, for what purpose was your question?
I did agree with that point. But you are also correct that he didn’t answer my question.
Thx… noted…
Jeff Reisig all the way.
Keeping Yolo County safe… what a DA is supposed to do. Jeff is the type of DA that traditional Democrats would support.
And he has a great first name!
I’m with you…..
Jeff
Jeff Reisig let Frank Rees, a known meth dealer, walk free in our communities for months, during which time he fathered yet another meth affected baby. This was done as part of a deal to allow Reisig to get the murder conviction that he wanted against the mother of baby Justice.
So much for equality under the law. Rees had as much responsibility for the welfare of the baby as did the mother by agreement, injected her with the substance that he, by his own statement, knew was in no condition to care for the newborn.
So much for law and order. So much for community safety in Yolo County. Just saying someone is the “law and order candidate” does not make it true.
PS – I don’t vote on the basis of first name recognition, regardless of name.
And they give the guy who embezzles $53,000 over six years for probation while the guy who steals less in burglarizing places over two years gets life.
By the way… the DA did not vote to convict/acquit, the DA did not sentence.
Checks and balances? Or are juries and judges impotent?
The DA decided what charges to file. The DA accepted a plea agreement.
Judges can overturn charges… juries can vote to acquit. Don’t understand your point, unless someone has died and the DA is God… or that judges and juries are impotent, mere tools of the DA…
Judges can overturn charges, they don’t do it very often in this county even when the sentence is absurd.
So, Tia, what would have been a “just”/equal result of the Rees case(s)?
So, David, what would have been a “just”/equal result of the cases involving the embezzler (who did not “home invade”) and the burglar (who did)?
More importantly, how would Johansson have proceeded? He should be asked that… like the CC candidates are asked about Measure R. Johansson should be more than a bit familiar with all those proceedings. And I say that, being inclined to vote against the incumbent.
Hard to hit a target unless you can see the target.
[moderated… by self]
One of the big differences in how they charged it is they charged the embezzler with one count while the charged the burglar for each separate incident. I would prefer to see both charged in a similar banner.
David… your 8:52 post… I sort of agree with that logic… but the judge could have acted, as could have the jury… so, I agree that the DA over-reached, but there were remedies…
That said, I cannot vote for the incumbent… many reasons, other than yours… wish we had a ‘none of the above’ choice… might yet be convinced to vote positively for the challenger… not there yet… the “lesser of two evils” thing has rarely come into my calculus… had to throw my vote to a third party in Nov ’16… had the advantage of knowing it didn’t matter in the electoral college…
One of the points I made during a speech I gave is that while DA’s have the most power in the criminal justice system, Judges are not using their limited discretion in the name of justice in this county.
So, David, is the problem the DA’s, the judges, or both?
Maybe we should heavily “prune” both…
BTW you skirted my direct question… now I see why you permit that from others… too inconvenient…
70-30 DA’s
“I agree that the DA over-reached, but there were remedies…”
I agree with this statement
Howard
The question re what would have been a just outcome is one that I cannot address fully. I have some HIPAA sensitive knowledge of what happened prior to discharge home from the hospital. Having said that, I think it is undeniable that both parents agreed equally to care for the infant upon discharge.
Frank Rees, in his own testimony, stated that at the time that he left the home he knew that Justice’s mother was not in a mental state compatible with caring for the newborn and he still left ( not to go to work, or to care for another family member, or to go to the store for necessities, but rather to go engage in sex with another woman). So from my point of view, this was also precedent to the death of baby Justice. I believe that both parents essentially abdicated their responsibility to the infant and should have been treated equally in their contribution to his death.
There is one other factor that has haunted me ever since this case was heard. I have not reviewed the trial records so cannot be sure. But at no time was it reported that an alternative medical diagnosis had even been considered but which can manifest in this manner. That is post partum psychosis ( not depression, psychosis as in an actual break from reality). Having had a similar case, with much happier ending years ago, I am concerned that this possibility may not even have been presented at trial for the consideration of the judge/jury.
I think it is absolutely amazing that any single candidate is willing to even discuss modifying Measure R, much less overturning it. It has been the 3rd rail of Davis politics since it was enacted as Measure J that it was untouchable. This is a sea change in Davis politics. How it will play out in a crowded field with 7 candidates that have no public track record and only 2 that have even served on a commission, that is anyone’s guess. I expect that at least one candidate will get elected despite being opposed by a majority of Davis voters. That could lead to some turbulent times, especially since we have almost nothing to go on with regards to most of them. But the changed political atmosphere, with more people recognizing the need for housing and the more active role of students, is undeniable.
This Measure R discussion shows just how pathetic this council election is. “I was before for it before I was against it.” “I’m for it…damn the consequences.” Leadership? None. Totally pathetic.
I cannot believe Measure R is being made a litmus test. My litmus test is leadership. What are the challenges? What are your proposals for addressing the challenges? So far, all I’ve heard is blah, blah, blah. Or in some cases, “Yes, no, and maybe”. Better yet, .”It was so much better in the ‘70’s.”
Davis deserves better. My kids deserve better.
“One of the points I made during a speech I gave is that while DA’s have the most power in the criminal justice system, Judges are not using their limited discretion in the name of justice in this county.”
Both points raised here are not accurate. For every decision any prosecutor (or judge) makes in the administering of criminal justice, law enforcement officers exercise their powers a hundred times more. If the police do not arrest or cite, the crime “never happened”‘ for the rest of vast criminal justice system.
Law enforcement decides whether or not to introduce somebody into the criminal justice system. Many more times than not, the choice is to not arrest or cite and every such judgment and exercise of power eludes the view of every other criminal justice participant or observer.
If a judge chooses not to intervene in a case before him/her, that is an exercise of discretion and is a judgment. Of course, anybody can criticize a judge’s decision. but do so at your peril.
Please bear in mind that nobody criticizing a sitting magistrate’s judgment has possession of all these crucial elements: vast legal training, rules of law and evidence, and experience; awareness of all known variables; and fully informed on all available facts or circumstances. Who better than that particular magistrate can best determine, “the interests of justice?”