Tag Archives: Propositions

Live News Update!!: Elections 2018: California General Election 2018: Local and Statewide Voting Results.

Live News Update!!: Elections 2018: California General Election 2018: Local and Statewide Voting Results.

ZachNews has the latest local and statewide voting results from the California General Election 2018 held on Tuesday, November 6th, 2018.

** Voting Results: California General Election 2018: **

**** Local Elections: Needles. California: ****

** Latest Voting Results Update: **

As of 3:23pm PT on Friday, November 9th, 2018

** Next Voting Results Update: **

At 4:00pm PT on Wednesday, November 14th, 2018

  • Needles City Mayor:

2/2 100.00% Precincts Reported
Vote Count — Percent
JEFF WILLIAMS: 580 — 100.00%
Total: 580 — 100.00%

** Jeff Williams — Running Unopposed for Needles City Mayor: **

 

 

  • Needles City Council:

2/2 100.00% Precincts Reported
Vote Count — Percent
ZACHERY LONGACRE: 370 — 18.55%
EDWARD T. PAGET: 519 — 26.02%
TIMOTHY TERRAL: 390 — 19.55%
LOUISE EVANS: 374 — 18.75%
BARBARA L. BEARD: 342 — 17.14%
Total: 1,995 — 100.00%

** Five Candidates — Running for Three Needles City Council Seats: **

 

**** Statewide Elections: California: ****

** As of 4:00pm PT on Friday, November 9th, 2018: **

** Voting Results: Final: **

  • California Governor:
100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Gavin Newsom
(Party Preference: DEM)
4,227,735
59.3%
John H. Cox
(Party Preference: REP)
2,896,411
40.7%

 

  • Lieutenant Governor:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
Ed Hernandez
(Party Preference: DEM)
2,614,679
44.3%
** Eleni Kounalakis
(Party Preference: DEM)
3,291,408
55.7%

 

 

  • Secretary of State:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Alex Padilla
(Party Preference: DEM)
4,333,888
61.7%
Mark P. Meuser
(Party Preference: REP)
2,691,757
38.3%

 

  • Controller:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Betty T. Yee
(Party Preference: DEM)
4,404,698
62.9%
Konstantinos Roditis
(Party Preference: REP)
2,603,061
37.1%

 

 

  • Treasurer:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Fiona Ma
(Party Preference: DEM)
4,273,754
61.2%
Greg Conlon
(Party Preference: REP)
2,713,348
38.8%

 

 

  • Attorney General:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Xavier Becerra
(Party Preference: DEM)
4,259,636
60.7%
Steven C Bailey
(Party Preference: REP)
2,758,602
39.3%

 

 

  • Insurance Commissioner:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Ricardo Lara
(Party Preference: DEM)
3,393,189
50.8%
Steve Poizner
(Party Preference: NPP)
3,287,452
49.2%

 

 

  • United States Senator:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
Kevin De Leon
(Party Preference: DEM)
2,871,488
45.7%
** Dianne Feinstein
(Party Preference: DEM)
3,413,859
54.3%

 

 

  • United States Representative District 8:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 1,298 of 1,298 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
** Paul Cook
(Party Preference: REP)
66,136
60.3%
Tim Donnelly
(Party Preference: REP)
43,589
39.7%

 

 

  • State Senator District 16:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 1,012 of 1,012 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
Ruth Musser-Lopez
(Party Preference: DEM)
56,602
33.1%
** Shannon Grove
(Party Preference: REP)
114,173
66.9%

 

 

  • Member of the State Assembly District 33:

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 858 of 858 ) precincts partially

Candidate Votes
Socorro Cisneros
(Party Preference: DEM)
28,303
37.6%
** Jay Obernolte
(Party Preference: REP)
47,044
62.4%

 

 

**** Statewide Elections: Propositions In California: ****

** Voting Results: Final: **

100.0%
Precincts Reporting
( 24,312 of 24,312 ) precincts partially

  • California Proposition 1:
  • Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs. Legislative Statute:

** Yes: 3,713,218 54.1%

No: 3,154,381 45.9%

 

  • California Proposition 2:
  • Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness. Legislative Statute:

** Yes: 4,216,221 61.1%

No: 2,680,442 38.9%

 

 

  • California Proposition 3:
  • Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage. Initiative Statute:

Yes: 3,248,415 47.7%

** No: 3,568,010 52.3%

 

 

  • California Proposition 4:
  • Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children’s Health Care. Initiative Statute:

** Yes: 4,175,910 60.6%

No: 2,718,855 39.4%

 

 

  • California Proposition 5:
  • Changes Requirements for Certain Property Owners to Transfer Their Property Tax Base to Replacement Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute:

Yes: 2,873,484 41.9%

** No: 3,979,530 58.1%

 

 

  • California Proposition 6:
  • Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees Be Approved by the Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment:

Yes: 3,141,881 44.9%

** No: 3,857,819 55.1%

 

 

  • California Proposition 7:
  • Conforms California Daylight Saving Time to Federal Law. Allows Legislature to Change Daylight Saving Time Period. Legislative Statute:

** Yes: 4,098,868 59.9%

No: 2,740,645 40.1%

 

  • California Proposition 8:
  • Regulates Amounts Outpatient Kidney Dialysis Clinics Charge for Dialysis Treatment. Initiative Statute:

Yes: 2,660,633 38.4%

** No: 4,260,758 61.6%

 

 

  • California Proposition 9:
  • Three States Initiative:

**** On Wednesday, July 18th, 2018, Proposition 9 was removed from the ballot by order of the California Supreme Court. ****

 

 

  • California Proposition 10:
  • Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute:

Yes: 2,675,378 38.3%

** No: 4,310,298 61.7%

 

  • California Proposition 11:
  • Requires Private-Sector Emergency Ambulance Employees to Remain On-Call During Work Breaks. Eliminates Certain Employer Liability. Initiative Statute:

** Yes: 4,096,948 59.4%

No: 2,796,915 40.6%

 

  • California Proposition 12:
  • Establishes New Standards for Confinement of Specified Farm Animals; Bans Sale of Noncomplying Products. Initiative Statute:

** Yes: 4,202,724 61.0%

No: 2,688,382 39.0%

 

 

**** Voting Information Sources: ****

  • San Bernardino County Elections:

https://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/results/20181106/default.html

  • California Secretary of State:

https://vote.sos.ca.gov/

**** Stay tuned to ZachNews overnight and throughout the week for the latest and updated local and statewide voting results from the California General Election 2018. ****

Breaking News!!: California: Presidential Primary Election 2016 Voting Results.

ZachNews - California Presidential Primary Election 2016

Breaking News!!: California: Presidential Primary Election 2016 Voting Results.

**** Here are the latest voting results from the California Presidential Primary Election 2016 being held on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016: ****

** Presidential Race: California Voting Results: **

**** As of 9:00pm PT on Thursday, June 9th, 2016: ****

Democratic Presidential Candidates:

** (Candidate: Percent – Votes): **

Hillary Clinton: 55.8% – 1,940,580

Roque De La Fuente: 0.2% – 5,780

Henry Hewes: 0.2% – 5,270

Keith Judd: 0.2% – 5,433

Bernie Sanders: 43.2% – 1,502,043

Michael Steinberg: 0.2% – 7,905

Willie Wilson: 0.3% – 8,709

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ): **

 

Republican Presidential Candidates:

** (Candidate: Percent – Votes): **

Ben Carson: 3.5% – 54,145

Ted Cruz: 9.2% – 144,125

Jim Gilmore: 0.7% – 11,101

John R. Kasich: 11.3% – 176,620

Donald Trump: 75.3% – 1,174,829

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

**** Here are the latest United States Senate, United States House of Representatives, State Senate, State Assembly, and State Ballot Measures voting results from the California Presidential Primary Election 2016 being held on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016: ****

– United States Senate:

** (Candidate: Percent – Votes): **

President Cristina Grappo (Party Preference: DEM): 41,610 – 0.8%

Kamala D. Harris (Party Preference: DEM): 2,051,048 – 40.3%

Massie Munroe (Party Preference: DEM): 61,271 – 1.2%

Herbert G. Peters (Party Preference: DEM): 21,735 – 0.4%

Emory Rodgers (Party Preference: DEM): 19,982 – 0.4%

Loretta L. Sanchez (Party Preference: DEM): 943,002 – 18.5%

Steve Stokes (Party Preference: DEM): 105,568 – 2.1%

Greg Conlon (Party Preference: REP): 160,164 – 3.1%

Thomas G. Del Beccaro (Party Preference: REP): 213,946 – 4.2%

Von Hougo (Party Preference: REP): 41,832 – 0.8%

Don Krampe (Party Preference: REP): 49,572 – 1.0%

Jerry J. Laws (Party Preference: REP): 38,281 – 0.8%

Tom Palzer (Party Preference: REP): 65,518 – 1.3%

Karen Roseberry (Party Preference: REP): 74,845 – 1.5%

Duf Sundheim (Party Preference: REP): 406,964 – 8.0%

Ron Unz (Party Preference: REP): 64,698 – 1.3%

Jarrell Williamson (Party Preference: REP): 44,234 – 0.9%

Phil Wyman (Party Preference: REP): 246,623 – 4.9%

George C. Yang (Party Preference: REP): 77,826 – 1.5%

Pamela Elizondo (Party Preference: GRN): 59,097 – 1.2%

Mark Matthew Herd (Party Preference: LIB): 27,079 – 0.5%

Gail K. Lightfoot (Party Preference: LIB): 65,203 – 1.3%

John Thompson Parker (Party Preference: P&F): 22,374 – 0.4%

Mike Beitiks (Party Preference: NPP): 19,837 – 0.4%

Eleanor García (Party Preference: NPP): 42,305 – 0.8%

Tim Gildersleeve (Party Preference: NPP): 6,369-  0.1%

Clive Grey (Party Preference: NPP): 18,937 – 0.4%

Don J. Grundmann (Party Preference: NPP): 9,898 – 0.2%

Jason Hanania (Party Preference: NPP): 18,050 – 0.4%

Jason Kraus (Party Preference: NPP): 12,954 – 0.3%

Paul Merritt (Party Preference: NPP): 17,258 – 0.3%

Gar Myers (Party Preference: NPP): 5,802 – 0.1%

Ling Ling Shi (Party Preference: NPP): 22,969 – 0.5%

Scott A. Vineberg (Party Preference: NPP): 8,001 – 0.2%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

United States House of Representatives:

** District 8: ** “Close Contest”

Roger La Plante (Party Preference: DEM): 4,925 – 5.5%

John Pinkerton (Party Preference: DEM): 8,522 – 9.5%

Rita Ramirez (Party Preference: DEM): 19,124 – 21.4%

Paul Cook (Party Preference: REP): 38,740 – 43.4%

Tim Donnelly (Party Preference: REP): 18,039 – 20.2%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 986 of 986 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 27: **

Judy Chu (Party Preference: DEM): 67,318 – 65.9%

Jack Orswell (Party Preference: REP): 29,057 – 28.4%

Tim Sweeney (Party Preference: NPP): 5,850 – 5.7%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 351 of 351 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 31: **

Pete Aguilar (Party Preference: DEM): 34,721 – 43.3%

Kaisar Ahmed (Party Preference: DEM): 8,007 – 10.0%

Joe Baca (Party Preference: REP): 9,452 – 11.8%

Paul Chabot (Party Preference: REP): 19,088 – 23.8%

Sean Flynn (Party Preference: REP): 8,956 – 11.2%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 513 of 513 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 35: **

Norma J. Torres (Party Preference: DEM): 45,049 – 74.6%

Tyler Fischella (Party Preference: REP): 15,361 – 25.4%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 310 of 310 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 39: **

Brett Murdock (Party Preference: DEM): 39,434 – 39.2%

Ed Royce (Party Preference: REP): 61,281 – 60.8%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 397 of 397 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

State Senate:

** District 21: **

Johnathon Levar Ervin (Party Preference: DEM): 34,962 – 33.0%

Steve Hill (Party Preference: DEM): 12,047 – 11.4%

Star Moffatt (Party Preference: REP): 8,420 – 7.9%

Scott Wilk (Party Preference: REP): 50,616 – 47.7%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 476 of 476 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 23: **

Ronald J. O’Donnell (Party Preference: DEM): 34,912 – 29.2%

Mark Westwood (Party Preference: DEM): 17,827 – 14.9%

Mike Morrell (Party Preference: REP): 66,855 – 55.9%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 924 of 924 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 25: **

Chris Chahinian (Party Preference: DEM): 10,705 – 6.7%

Teddy Choi (Party Preference: DEM): 8,845 – 5.6%

Katherine Perez-Estolano (Party Preference: DEM): 22,049 – 13.8%

Anthony J. Portantino (Party Preference: DEM): 43,195 – 27.1%

Phlunte’ Riddle (Party Preference: DEM): 10,452 – 6.6%

Michael D. Antonovich (Party Preference: REP): 64,114 – 40.2%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 522 of 522 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 29: **

Sukhee Kang (Party Preference: DEM): 30,667 – 26.1%

Josh Newman (Party Preference: DEM): 34,334 – 29.2%

Ling Ling Chang (Party Preference: REP): 52,611-  44.7%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 487 of 487 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** State Assembly: **

** District 33: **

Scott Markovich (Party Preference: DEM): 20,262 – 38.4%

Jay Obernolte (Party Preference: REP): 32,479 – 61.6%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 648 of 648 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 36: **

Steve Fox (Party Preference: DEM): 14,661 – 28.5%

Ollie M. McCaulley (Party Preference: DEM): 3,246 – 6.3%

Darren W. Parker (Party Preference: DEM): 7,711 – 15.0%

Tom Lackey (Party Preference: REP): 25,764 – 50.1%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 230 of 230 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 40: **

Abigail Medina (Party Preference: DEM): 27,738 – 49.7%

Marc Steinorth (Party Preference: REP): 28,051 – 50.3%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 413 of 413 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 41: **

Chris Holden (Party Preference: DEM): 49,044 – 59.3%

Casey C. Higgins (Party Preference: REP): 22,184 – 26.8%

Dan M. Taylor (Party Preference: REP): 6,582 – 8.0%

Alan S. Reynolds (Party Preference: NPP): 4,916 – 5.9%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 271 of 271 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 42: **

Greg Rodriguez (Party Preference: DEM): 27,993 – 40.8%

Chad Mayes (Party Preference: REP): 35,597 – 51.9%

Jeff Hewitt (Party Preference: LIB): 4,938 – 7.2%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 311 of 311 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 47: **

Cheryl R. Brown (Party Preference: DEM): 17,403 – 44.8%

Eloise Reyes (Party Preference: DEM): 13,214 – 34.0%

Aissa Chanel Sanchez (Party Preference: REP): 8,231 – 21.2%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 304 of 304 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 52: **

Paul Vincent Avila (Party Preference: DEM): 13,277 – 35.6%

Freddie Rodriguez (Party Preference: DEM): 24,036 – 64.4%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 217 of 217 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

** District 55: ** “Close Contest”

Gregg D. Fritchle (Party Preference: DEM): 23,486 – 36.0%

Phillip Chen (Party Preference: REP): 14,081 – 21.6%

Ray Marquez (Party Preference: REP): 7,990 – 12.2%

Mike Spence (Party Preference: REP): 13,417 – 20.6%

Steven M. Tye (Party Preference: REP): 6,262 – 9.6%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 258 of 258 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

State Ballot Measures:

** Proposition 50: (Suspension of Legislators):

Yes: 3,756,975 – 75.3%

No: 1,234,537 – 24.7%

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ): **

(Voting Results: Source: Secretary of State of California)

 

**** Note: “Close Contest“: ****

According to the Secretary of State of California website, as election results come in, contests in which there is less than a 2 percent difference between first and second place for presidential candidates or between yes and no votes for ballot measures. Also, list all top-two primary contests in which there is less than a 2 percent difference between the second and third place candidates.

** Election results may change throughout the 30 day canvass period as vote by mail ballots, provisional ballots, and other ballots are tallied. **

 

**** Here are the latest voting results affecting San Bernardino County, California from the California Presidential Primary Election 2016 being held on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016: ****

Board of Supervisors District 1: 369/369 100.00%

(Candidates: Vote Count – Percent)

ROBERT A. LOVINGOOD: 18,281 – 37,78%

ANGELA VALLES: 12,281 – 25.57%

BILL HOLLAND: 5,238 – 10.83%

RICK ROELLE: 7,012 – 14,49%

PAUL RUSS: 5,481 – 11.33%

Total: 48,382 – 100.00%

Board of Supervisors District 3: 562/562 100.00%

(Candidates: Vote Count – Percent)

DONNA MUNOZ: 21,633 – 34.97%

JAMES C. RAMOS: 40,236 – 65.03%

Total: 61,869 – 100.00%

Measure D – City of Colton: 43/43 100.00%

(Vote Count – Percent)

YES: 4,267 – 75.56%

NO: 1,380 – 24.44%

Total: 5,647 – 100.00%

– Measure E – Morongo Valley CSD: 4/4 100.00%

(Vote Count – Percent)

YES: 361 – 38.69%

NO: 572 – 61.31%

Total: 933 – 100.00%

(Voting Results: Source: San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters)

 

**** The latest voting results from the Presidential Primary Election 2016 in Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Mexico can be found at the following website addresses: ****

************************************************************************

– Montana Voting Results:

Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Bernie Sanders: 51% – 63,078

Hillary Clinton: 45% – 55,134

No Preference: 4% – 5,357

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 95% **

Republican Presidential Candidates:

Donald Trump: 74% – 113,842

Ted Cruz: 9% – 14,417

John Kasich: 7% – 10,595

No Preference: 5% – 7,277

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 94% **

(Voting Results: Source: NBC News)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/MT

************************************************************************

– New Jersey Voting Results:

Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Hillary Clinton: 63% – 542,656

Bernie Sanders: 37% – 315,194

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 98% **

Republican Presidential Candidates:

Donald Trump: 81% – 350,784

John Kasich: 13% – 57,679

Ted Cruz: 6% – 26,743

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 92% **

(Voting Results: Source: NBC News)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/NJ

************************************************************************

– New Mexico Voting Results:

Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Hillary Clinton: 52% – 110,506

Bernie Sanders: 49% – 104,006

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 98% **

Republican Presidential Candidates:

Donald Trump: 71% – 73,747

Ted Cruz: 13% – 13,836

John Kasich: 8% – 7,869

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 77% **

(Voting Results: Source: NBC News)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/NM

************************************************************************

– North Dakota Voting Results:

Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Bernie Sanders: 64% – 253

Hillary Clinton: 26% – 101

Uncommitted: 10% – 40

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 100% **

(Voting Results: Source: NBC News)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/ND

************************************************************************

– South Dakota Voting Results:

Democratic Presidential Candidates:

Hillary Clinton: 51% – 27,046

Bernie Sanders: 49% – 25,957

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 99% **

Republican Presidential Candidates:

Donald Trump: 67% – 44,862

Ted Cruz: 17% – 11,351

John Kasich: 16% – 10,659

** Precincts Partially Reporting: 99% **

(Voting Results: Source: NBC News)

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/SD

************************************************************************

Stay tuned to ZachNews for the final voting results from the Presidential Primary Election 2016 being held on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016.

 

Election Watch 2012 Coverage: The Latest Voting Results.

Election Watch 2012 Coverage: The Latest Voting Results.

ZachNews has the latest voting results from the Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 elections.
———————————————————————————————-

——————————
**** Final voting results news update from the Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 elections. ****

**** Information regarding the latest voting results from the Tuesday, November 6th, 2012 elections was obtain from the County of San Bernardino Registrar of Voters website. ****

** Last Updated: November 30th, 2012 2:54pm PT. **

** The Latest Voting Results for United States President and Vice United States President: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Democratic Party:

Barack Obama and Joseph Biden: 52.55%

Vote Count: 305,109

– Republican Party:

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan: 45.19%

Vote Count: 262,358

– American Independent Party:

Thomas Hoefling and Robert Ornelas: 0.42%

Vote Count: 2,418

– Libertarian Party:

Gary Johnson and James P. Gray: 1.01%

Vote Count: 5,883

– Green Party:

Jill Stein and Cheri Honkala: 0.38%

Vote Count: 2,227

– Peace and Freedom Party:

Roseanne Barr and Cindy Sheehan: 0.45%

Vote Count: 2,608

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for United States Senator: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Democratic Party:

Dianne Feinstein: 54.05%

Vote Count: 298,067

– Republican Party:

Elizabeth Emken: 45.95%

Vote Count: 253,433

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for United States Representative District 8: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Republican Party:

Gregg Imus: 42.14%

Vote Count: 71,111

– Republican Party:

Paul Cook: 57.86%

Vote Count: 97,631

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for Member of the State Assembly District 33: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Democratic Party:

John Coffey: 40.96%

Vote Count: 51,215

– Republican Party:

Tim Donnelly: 59.04%

Vote Count: 73,836

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for San Bernardino County Supervisors District 1: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Rick Roelle: 48.64%

Vote Count: 46,876

– Robert A. Lovinggood: 51.36%

Vote Count: 49,502

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for City of Needles Mayor in Needles, California: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Edward T. Paget: 100.00%

Vote Count: 1,057

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for Members of the Needles City Council in Needles, California: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Tom Darcy: 32.36%

Vote Count: 720

– Tony Frazier: 36.49%

Vote Count: 812

– Jim Lopez: 31.15%

Vote Count: 693

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for Measures in San Bernardino County, California: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Measure Q:

Yes: 67.28%

Vote Count: 344,226

No: 32.72%

Vote Count: 167,369

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Measure R:

Yes: 64.25%

Vote Count: 326,939

No: 35.75%

Vote Count: 181,907

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Measure S:

Yes: 81.11%

Vote Count: 962

No: 18.89%

Vote Count: 224

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Measure T:

Yes: 51.64%

Vote Count: 599

No: 48.36%

Vote Count: 561

—————————————————————————————————————————-

** The Latest Voting Results for Propositions in California: **

**** With 100.00% of the precincts reporting: ****

– Proposition 30:

Yes: 47.42%

Vote Count: 267,182

No: 52.58%

Vote Count: 296,306

– Proposition 31:

Yes: 40.22%

Vote Count: 214,633

No: 59.78%

Vote Count: 319,069

– Proposition 32:

Yes: 48.86%

Vote Count: 276,168

No: 51.14%

Vote Count: 289,104

– Proposition 33:

Yes: 49.90%

Vote Count: 279,153

No: 50.10%

Vote Count: 280,251

– Proposition 34:

Yes: 38.79%

Vote Count: 218,111

No: 61.21%

Vote Count: 344,198

– Proposition 35:

Yes: 82.83%

Vote Count: 465,308

No: 17.17%

Vote Count: 96,426

– Proposition 36:

Yes: 62.42%

Vote Count: 349,877

No: 37.58%

Vote Count: 210,606

– Proposition 37:

Yes: 41.63%

Vote Count: 235,632

No: 58.37%

Vote Count: 330,329

– Proposition 38:

Yes: 27.78%

Vote Count: 153,973

No: 72.22%

Vote Count: 400,262

– Proposition 39:

Yes: 56.74%

Vote Count: 308,381

No: 43.26%

Vote Count: 235,145

– Proposition 40:

Yes: 67.51%

Vote Count: 352,761

No: 32.49%

Vote Count: 169,738

—————————————————————————————————————————-

For more voting and election information, please head to the following County of San Bernardino Registrar of Voters websites and contacts:

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/rov/home.aspx

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/rov/Elections.aspx

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/current_elections/110612/electionresults/defaultdnn.htm

1 (800) 881-VOTE (8683)

1 (909) 387-8300

San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters

777 East Rialto Avenue

San Bernardino, California, 92415

** Polling Places and Mail Ballot Drop Offs are Open from 7:00am to 8:00pm PT. **

—————————————————————————————————————————-

ZachNews is an independence news outlet and will remain independence so that all sides are heard.

ZachNews dose not endorse, campaign, or recommend any of the voting measures, propositions, or candidates in the elections and candidates interviewed on ZachNews to remain independent and fair without bias.

ZachNews reports the news and information independent and fair without bias.

The people have the choice, the right, and the power to choose who they want to elected, vote for, not against, or not vote at all.

Please don’t forget to register to vote and don’t forget to vote during the Presidential Elections being held on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012.

—————————————————————————————————————————-

Election Watch 2012: Information regarding propositions in California.

Election Watch 2012: California: Information regarding propositions in California.

On Tuesday, November 6th, 2012, voters in California will have several propositions to vote on. Here is a summary about those propositions in California:

**** Information and websites regarding propositions in California was obtain from the California Secretary of State website. ****
** Proposition 30: **Temporary Taxes to Fund Education. Guaranteed Local Public Safety Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.Increases taxes on earnings over $250,000 for seven years and sales taxes by ¼ cent for four years, to fund schools. Guarantees public safety realignment funding. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues through 2018–19, averaging about $6 billion annually over the next few years. Revenues available for funding state budget. In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: The state would increase personal income taxes on high-income taxpayers for seven years and sales taxes for four years. The new tax revenues would be available to fund programs in the state budget.

A “No” vote on this measure means: The state would not increase personal income taxes or sales taxes. State spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would take effect in 2012–13.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30/

** Proposition 31: **

State Budget. State and Local Government. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Establishes two-year state budget. Sets rules for offsetting new expenditures, and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can alter application of laws governing state-funded programs. Fiscal Impact: Decreased state sales tax revenues of $200 million annually, with corresponding increases of funding to local governments. Other, potentially more significant changes in state and local budgets, depending on future decisions by public officials.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Certain fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would change. Local governments that create plans to coordinate services would receive funding from the state and could develop their own procedures for administering state programs.

A “No” vote on this measure means: The fiscal responsibilities of the Legislature and Governor, including state and local budgeting and oversight procedures, would not change. Local governments would not be given (1) funding to implement new plans that coordinate services or (2) authority to develop their own procedures for administering state programs.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/31/

** Proposition 32: **

Political Contributions by Payroll Deduction. Contributions to Candidates. Initiative Statute.

Prohibits unions from using payroll-deducted funds for political purposes. Applies same use prohibition to payroll deductions, if any, by corporations or government contractors. Prohibits union and corporate contributions to candidates and their committees. Prohibits government contractor contributions to elected officers or their committees. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs to state and local government, potentially exceeding $1 million annually, to implement and enforce the measure’s requirements.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Unions and corporations could not use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would be subject to additional campaign finance restrictions.

A “No” vote on this measure means: There would be no change to existing laws regulating the ability of unions and corporations to use money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes. Unions, corporations, and government contractors would continue to be subject to existing campaign finance laws.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/32/

** Proposition 33: **

Auto Insurance Companies. Prices Based on Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.

Changes current law to allow insurance companies to set prices based on whether the driver previously carried auto insurance with any insurance company. Allows proportional discount for drivers with some prior coverage. Allows increased cost for drivers without history of continuous coverage. Fiscal Impact: Probably no significant fiscal effect on state insurance premium tax revenues.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Insurance companies could offer new customers a discount on automobile insurance premiums based on the number of years in the previous five years that the customer was insured.

A “No” vote on this measure means: Insurers could continue to provide discounts to their long-term automobile insurance customers, but would continue to be prohibited from providing a discount to new customers switching from other insurers.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/33/

** Proposition 34: **

Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Directs $100 million to law enforcement agencies for investigations of homicide and rape cases. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state and county criminal justice savings of about $130 million annually within a few years, which could vary by tens of millions of dollars. One-time state costs of $100 million for local law enforcement grants.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: No offenders could be sentenced to death under state law. Offenders who are currently under a sentence of death would be resentenced to life without the possibility of parole. The state would provide a total of $100 million in grants to local law enforcement agencies over the next four years.

A “No” vote on this measure means: Certain offenders convicted for murder could continue to be sentenced to death. The status of offenders currently under a sentence of death would not change. The state would not be required to provide local law enforcement agencies with additional grant funding.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/34/

** Proposition 35: **

Human Trafficking. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Longer prison sentences and larger fines for committing human trafficking crimes.

A “No” vote on this measure means: Existing criminal penalties for human trafficking would stay in effect.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/35/

** Proposition 36: **

Three Strikes Law. Repeat Felony Offenders. Penalties. Initiative Statute.

Revises law to impose life sentence only when new felony conviction is serious or violent. May authorize re-sentencing if third strike conviction was not serious or violent. Fiscal Impact: Ongoing state correctional savings of around $70 million annually, with even greater savings (up to $90 million) over the next couple of decades. These savings could vary significantly depending on future state actions.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Some criminal offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit certain nonserious, non-violent felonies would be sentenced to shorter terms in state prison. In addition, some offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who are currently serving life sentences for many nonserious, non-violent felony convictions could be resentenced to shorter prison terms.

A “No” vote on this measure means: Offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who commit any new felony could continue to receive life sentences. In addition, offenders with two prior serious or violent felony convictions who are currently serving life sentences for nonserious, non-violent felonies would continue to serve the remainder of their life sentences.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/36/

** Proposition 37: **

Genetically Engineered Foods. Labeling. Initiative Statute.

Requires labeling of food sold to consumers made from plants or animals with genetic material changed in specified ways. Prohibits marketing such food, or other processed food, as “natural.” Provides exemptions. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs from a few hundred thousand dollars to over $1 million to regulate the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Additional, but likely not significant, governmental costs to address violations under the measure.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would have to be specifically labeled as being genetically engineered.

A “No” vote on this measure means: Genetically engineered foods sold in California would continue not to have specific labeling requirements.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/37/

** Proposition 38: **

Tax to Fund Education and Early Childhood Programs. Initiative Statute.

Increases taxes on earnings using sliding scale, for twelve years. Revenues go to K–12 schools and early childhood programs, and for four years to repaying state debt. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenues for 12 years—roughly $10 billion annually in initial years, tending to grow over time. Funds used for schools, child care, and preschool, as well as providing savings on state debt payments.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would increase for 12 years. The additional revenues would be used for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.

A “No” vote on this measure means: State personal income tax rates would remain at their current levels. No additional funding would be available for schools, child care, preschool, and state debt payments.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/38/

** Proposition 39: **

Tax Treatment for Multistate Businesses. Clean Energy and Energy Efficiency Funding. Initiative Statute.

Requires multistate businesses to pay income taxes based on percentage of their sales in California. Dedicates revenues for five years to clean/efficient energy projects. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues of $1 billion annually, with half of the revenues over the next five years spent on energy efficiency projects. Of the remaining revenues, a significant portion likely would be spent on schools.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: Multistate businesses would no longer be able to choose the method for determining their state taxable income that is most advantageous for them. Some multistate businesses would have to pay more corporate income taxes due to this change. About half of this increased tax revenue over the next five years would be used to support energy efficiency and alternative energy projects.

A “No” vote on this measure means: Most multistate businesses would continue to be able to choose one of two methods to determine their California taxable income.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/39/

** Proposition 40: **

Redistricting. State Senate Districts. Referendum.

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, new State Senate districts drawn by the Citizens Redistricting Commission. If rejected, districts will be adjusted by officials supervised by the California Supreme Court. Fiscal Impact: Approving the referendum would have no fiscal impact on the state and local governments. Rejecting the referendum would result in a one-time cost of about $1 million to the state and counties.

A “Yes” vote on this measure means: The state Senate district boundaries certified by the Citizens Redistricting Commission would continue to be used.

A “No” vote on this measure means: The California Supreme Court would appoint special masters to determine new state Senate district boundaries.

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/40/

——————————————————————————————————————————————–

You can find more information and websites regarding propositions in California at the following California Secretary of State website:

http://www.sos.ca.gov/

http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/

If you are planning to vote on Election Day and need to find a polling Place, please head to the following County of San Bernardino Registrar of Voters websites and contacts:

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/rov/home.aspx

http://cms.sbcounty.gov/rov/Elections.aspx

1 (800) 881-VOTE (8683)

1 (909) 387-8300

San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters

777 East Rialto Avenue

San Bernardino, California,  92415

** Polling Places and Mail Ballot Drop Offs are Open from 7:00am to 8:00pm PT. **
——————————————————————————————————————————————–

ZachNews is an independence news outlet and will remain independence so that all sides are heard.

ZachNews dose not endorse, campaign, or recommend any of the voting measures, propositions, or candidates in the elections and candidates interviewed on ZachNews to remain independent and fair without bias.

ZachNews reports the news and information independent and fair without bias.

The people have the choice, the right, and the power to choose who they want to elected, vote for, not against, or not vote at all.

Please don’t forget to register to vote and don’t forget to vote during the Presidential Elections being held on Tuesday, November 6th, 2012.
——————————————————————————————————————————————–