What's New

The latest additions to the campaign website:

Coming Up

Upcoming campaign events:

11 February 2007 to 7 March 2007
deadline for potential candidates to register out of other parties to run in 3 June 2008 P&F primary
13 November 2007 to 8 December 2007
deadline for potential candidates to be registered as Peace & Freedom to run in 3 June 2008 P&F primary

  

This is the campaign site for the California Peace and Freedom Party in the 2006 elections. For historical information on 2005 special and local election campaigns, and on our 2004 campaign, much of which is still relevant, please visit our 2005 campaign website and our 2004 campaign website, respectively. For information on our current (2008) election campaigns, please visit our 2008 campaign website.

The November 7th General Election

In the June 6th primary, the Peace and Freedom Party nominated a full slate of candidates for the statewide partisan offices, two of whom (Liz Barrón and Tom Condit) achieved the two percent needed to keep the party on the ballot:

  • Governor: Janice Jordan (5th of 6 candidates on the ballot, with 69,934 votes (0.8%))
  • Lieutenant Governor: Stewart Alexander (6th of 6 candidates, with 43,319 votes (0.5%))
  • Secretary of State: Margie Akin (6th of 6 candidates, with 91,483 votes (1.0%))
  • Treasurer: Gerald Sanders (6th of 6 candidates, with 71,726 votes (0.8%))
  • Controller: Liz Barrón (4th of 6 candidates, with 212,383 votes (2.5%))
  • Attorney General: Jack Harrison (5th of 5 candidates, with 100,797 votes (1.1%))
  • Insurance Commissioner: Tom Condit (5th of 6 candidates, with 187,618 votes (2.2%))
  • U.S. Senator: Marsha Feinland (5th of 6 candidates on the ballot, with 117,764 votes (1.3%))

Other Peace and Freedom Party candidates who ran with the support of the party organization for partisan public offices are:

  • Member of Board of Equalization, 1st District: Dave Campbell (4th of 4 candidates, with 67,697 votes (2.9%))
  • Member of Board of Equalization, 2nd District: Richard Perry (3rd of 4 candidates, with 75,419 votes (3.6%))
  • Member of Board of Equalization, 3rd District: Mary Lou Finley (3rd of 3 candidates, with 91,467 votes (4.5%))
  • Member of Board of Equalization, 4th District: Cindy Varela Henderson (4th of 4 candidates, with 42,027 votes (2.6%))
  • State Senator, 6th District: C.T. Weber (3rd of 4 candidates, with 5,573 votes (2.8%))
  • State Senator, 14th District: Vickie Fouts (write-in) (votes not counted because her write-in candidacy was unofficial)
  • U.S. Representative, 1st District: Tim Stock (4th of 4 candidates on the ballot, with 3,503 votes (1.6%))
  • U.S. Representative, 3rd District: Mike Roskey (4th of 4 candidates, with 2,370 votes (1.0%))
  • U.S. Representative, 5th District: John Reiger (4th of 4 candidates, with 2,018 votes (1.3%))
  • U.S. Representative, 11th District: Dina Padilla (write-in) (votes not counted because her write-in candidacy was unofficial)
  • U.S. Representative, 29th District: Lynda L. Llamas (4th of 5 candidates on the ballot, with 2,599 votes (1.8%))
  • U.S. Representative, 30th District: Adele Cannon (3rd of 3 candidates, with 4,546 votes (2.1%))
  • U.S. Representative, 36th District: Jim Smith (3rd of 4 candidates, with 4,592 votes (2.7%))
  • U.S. Representative, 44th District: Kevin Akin (3rd of 3 candidates, with 4,486 votes (3.0%))
  • U.S. Representative, 50th District: Miriam Clark (4th of 4 candidates, with 3,353 votes (1.5%))
  • Assemblymember, 2nd District: Phil Dynan (3rd of 3 candidates, with 3,474 votes (2.4%))
  • Assemblymember, 5th District: Mike Lopez (3rd of 3 candidates, with 4,068 votes (2.9%))
  • Assemblymember, 10th District: Albert Troyer (4th of 4 candidates, with 1,974 votes (1.4%))
  • Assemblymember, 16th District: Eddie Ytuarte (2nd of 2 candidates, with 10,071 votes (9.8%))
  • Assemblymember, 29th District: John Crockford (3rd of 4 candidates, with 3,784 votes (3.2%))
  • Assemblymember, 53rd District: Karl Abrams (4th of 4 candidates, with 2,997 votes (2.3%))
  • Assemblymember, 65th District: Jon Taleb (3rd of 3 candidates, with 3,358 votes (2.9%))

In addition to those listed above, there were also a number of people running for non-partisan offices with the support of the party. For information on these candidates, see the pages for the counties in which they were running.

There were thirteen propositions on the statewide ballot November 7th, assigned proposition numbers 1A through 1E and 83 through 90. At its August 26th-27th State Convention, the Peace and Freedom Party took positions supporting Proposition 87 (oil severance tax to support alternative energy) and Proposition 89 ("Clean Money" public financing of candidates for state offices, limit corporate funding of ballot measure campaigns) and opposing the other eleven propositions.

  • Proposition 1A (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Transportation Funds." This measure eliminates the loopholes in provisions of the state constitution requiring gas sales tax money to be used for transportation. We don't think the legislature's hands should be tied to require the state to spend money on roads and transit even if it may be needed more urgently for education and health care. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 1A. Despite our opposition, Proposition 1A passed by a statewide vote of 6,400,587 (77.0%) Yes to 1,916,925 (23.0%) No.
  • Proposition 1B (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Transportation Bonds." This measure authorizes the sale of $19.9 billion in bonds to be used for various transportation projects. We generally oppose bonds, that require ordinary people to pay taxes to those who can afford to invest in bonds, instead of taxing those who can afford to pay in order to meet social needs. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 1B. Despite our opposition, Proposition 1B passed by a statewide vote of 5,112,142 (61.4%) Yes to 3,218,657 (38.6%) No.
  • Proposition 1C (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Housing Bonds." This measure authorizes the sale of $2.85 billion in bonds to be used for various housing-related programs. We generally oppose bonds, that require ordinary people to pay taxes to those who can afford to invest in bonds, instead of taxing those who can afford to pay in order to meet social needs. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 1C. Despite our opposition, Proposition 1C passed by a statewide vote of 4,814,850 (57.8%) Yes to 3,521,055 (42.2%) No.
  • Proposition 1D (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "School and College Bonds." This measure authorizes the sale of $10.4 billion in bonds to be used for construction projects at K-12 schools and public universities and community colleges. We generally oppose bonds, that require ordinary people to pay taxes to those who can afford to invest in bonds, instead of taxing those who can afford to pay in order to meet social needs. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 1D. Despite our opposition, Proposition 1D passed by a statewide vote of 4,754,868 (56.9%) Yes to 3,602,055 (43.1%) No.
  • Proposition 1E (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Flood Control Bonds." This measure authorizes the sale of $4.1 billion in bonds to be used for various flood control projects. We generally oppose bonds, that require ordinary people to pay taxes to those who can afford to invest in bonds, instead of taxing those who can afford to pay in order to meet social needs. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 1E. Despite our opposition, Proposition 1E passed by a statewide vote of 5,305,852 (64.2%) Yes to 2,962,546 (35.8%) No.
  • Proposition 83 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Punishment for Sex Crimes." This measure increases the penalties for people convicted of sex crimes, prevents all registered sex offenders from ever living in a city, and requires life-long electronic monitoring of many registered sex offenders. This measure will waste money by increasing the number of people in prison and harassing low-risk ex-prisoners while failing to reduce crime. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 83. Despite our opposition, Proposition 83 passed by a statewide vote of 5,926,800 (70.5%) Yes to 2,483,597 (29.5%) No.
  • Proposition 84 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Bonds for Water & Natural Resources." This measure authorizes the sale of $5.4 billion in bonds for water quality, flood control and parks. We generally oppose bonds, that require ordinary people to pay taxes to those who can afford to invest in bonds, instead of taxing those who can afford to pay in order to meet social needs. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 84. Despite our opposition, Proposition 84 passed by a statewide vote of 4,431,945 (53.8%) Yes to 3,807,005 (46.2%) No.
  • Proposition 85 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Parental Notification about Abortion." This initiative was part of the anti-choice movement's strategy to chip away at legal abortion in the United States. It would have endangered the lives of teenage women who are afraid to tell their parents about preganancies. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 85. With our opposition, Proposition 85 was defeated by a statewide vote of 3,868,714 (45.8%) Yes to 4,576,128 (54.2%) No.
  • Proposition 86 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Cigarette Tax." This measure would have quadrupled the state tax on cigarettes and used the money raised for various health and child development programs. We oppose cigarette taxes as regressive, making lower-income people pay relatively more than higher-income people. More lower-income people are smokers, and low-income smokers would pay a much higher part of their incomes in cigarette taxes than higher-income smokers. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 86. With our opposition, Proposition 86 was defeated by a statewide vote of 4,136,358 (48.3%) Yes to 4,425,689 (51.7%) No.
  • Proposition 87 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Oil Severance Tax for Clean Energy." This measure would have created a new oil severance tax, raising $4 billion that would have been used for research, development and promotion of alternative clean and renewable energy. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote YES on 87. Despite our support, Proposition 87 was defeated by a statewide vote of 3,861,217 (45.4%) Yes to 4,635,265 (54.6%) No.
  • Proposition 88 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Parcel Tax for Education." This measure would have created a new, regressive statewide parcel tax to be used for various programs in K-12 education. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 88. With our opposition, Proposition 88 was defeated by a statewide vote of 1,947,312 (23.3%) Yes to 6,396,956 (76.7%) No.
  • Proposition 89 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Public Funding of Political Campaigns." This is the "Clean Money" initiative put on the ballot by the California Nurses Association. It would have provided public funding of campaigns for state elective offices to candidates who agree not to spend any other money and show broad support by collecting enough $5 "qualifying contributions" from potential constituents, funded by an increase in the corporate income tax. The measure would have also limited corporate contributions to campaigns for and against ballot measures. While this measure wasn't perfect (among other things, Demopublican candidates can much more easily qualify for more public funding than can progressive third party and independent candidates), it would still have been a big step forward to reducing the control of corporations and the rich over electoral politics. The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote YES on 89. Despite our support, Proposition 89 was defeated by a statewide vote of 2,124,728 (25.7%) Yes to 6,132,618 (74.3%) No.
  • Proposition 90 (the voter pamphlet's summary, analysis, arguments for and against and rebuttals, and the full text (as PDF) are available): "Property Rights." This measure was a deceptive Trojan Horse. While promoted as protecting small property owners from losing their homes or businesses to well-connected developers, what it actually would have done was to restrict government's ability to take any action that might reduce the value of property (e.g., protect the environment, regulate land use, require fair treatment of tenants). The Peace and Freedom Party urged that you vote NO on 90. With our opposition, Proposition 90 was defeated by a statewide vote of 3,932,043 (47.6%) Yes to 4,324,722 (52.4%) No.
 

How you can help

Sign up now for the campaign email list