Posted by Richard Winger, a resident of another community, on May 11, 2012 at 9:25 am

It is not true that our primary election this year is unlike any other in modern history. All during 2011 California used this system in special elections for Congress and legislature. Also, during 1998 and 2000, we also used primary ballots that include all candidates running, all on a single primary ballot.

Posted by Henry, a resident of another community, on May 11, 2012 at 11:44 am

In the supervisors race, vote NO on Joe.

Last Fall there was much lamentation in the media when Gov. Brown vetoed Simitian's SB 29, a bill Joe had claimed would reform red light cameras.

In many of those articles Joe said that the bill would have prohibited “Snitch Tickets.” (If you're not 100% sure of what that they are, Google the term.)

But it wasn't so. The bill DID NOT contain a ban on Snitch Tickets. (The reporters were copying from an erroneous press release sent out by Joe.) SB 29 would have done the opposite of a ban, legitimizing the fake tickets. From the bill:

"(c) This section and Section 40520 do not preclude the issuing agency or the manufacturer or supplier of the automated traffic enforcement system from mailing a courtesy notice or any other notice other than a notice to appear to the registered owner of the vehicle or the alleged violator prior to issuing a notice to appear."

Worse, the phrase "prior to issuing a notice to appear" seems to give the issuing agency more time, limited only by the one-year statute of limitations, to issue a real ticket (a Notice to Appear). The present deadline to issue a real ticket is 15 days.

Many articles said that the bill: "Required adequate signage to notify drivers when red light cameras are in use."

Again, not so. The bill would have decreased the number of warning signs at camera enforced intersections, from four per intersection to one or two. (The reporters were copying from Joe's press release, again.)

So why is this important, considering that the bill has been vetoed? Partly, because the bill is back, in 2012, as SB 1303. But more importantly, because it offers us a peek into Joe's mind. Clearly he thinks that he can pull the wool over our eyes - legislate to make it worse for us, but tell us that he is helping us (too appease our anger about the ticket mills on the Peninsula) - and that's it's OK to deceive us in this fashion.

I think that this mind set comes from Joe being in politics too long. Simitian can't change his stripes, so needs to go.

Posted by Lucky, a resident of Menlo Park, on May 11, 2012 at 4:51 pm

This article doesn't begin to show Sally Lieber's achievements during 3 terms in the state legislature or the breadth of issues she has worked on and will work on if elected. Please go to her website to learn more!

Posted by Bob, a resident of the Community Center neighborhood, on May 11, 2012 at 10:05 pm

Given the demographics and voter registrations in California, all political parties except Democrats have been dis-infranchized (except maybe parts of the Central Valley) and their votes mean nothing because they are a minority. Why bother?Only the top vote getters in the primaries even get on the ballot regardless of party.

As for Joe Simitian, he had close ties with ABAG when he was a county supervisor before going to the State Assembly and probably still does. Poor Joe. He's been waiting for years for

Anna Eshoo to retire (aren't a lot of people?) so he can move to Washington.