In less than two weeks voters will take to the polls to elect San Diego’s new mayor. But it is not only the mayoral race that makes this election one of the most critical in San Diego’s history. Since former Councilmembers Michael Zucchet and Ralph Inzunza’s convictions on federal corruption charges, City Council seats 2 and 8 have remained vacant. Zucchet and Inzunza, both Democrats, were virtually 100 percent on GLBT issues and held the Democratic majority on the council. This November we will vote to fill both seats with GLBT-friendly candidates.

Also on the ticket are Gov. Schwarzenegger’s ballot initiatives as well as Prop. 73, which seeks to write restrictions on women’s reproductive rights into the California Constitution.

Reading between the lines, spotting special interests and interpreting the impact of deliberate language used in these initiatives can make the ballot process intimidating, to say the least. Your informed participation is crucial for the future of San Diego and the GLBT community. Vote!

One hundred percent on GLBT issues, including full support of marriage equality and in opposition to the Boy Scouts of America’s preferential land lease in Balboa Park, Lorena Gonzalez has demonstrated throughout the primary that she is the strongest, most qualified candidate dedicated to raising the funds needed to oppose Republican candidate-to-beat Kevin Faulconer. Faulconer has been labeled unfriendly to issues affecting the GLBT community for his positions against clean-needle exchange and in support of the Boy Scouts’ lease.

Also 100 percent on GLBT issues and with over 21 years of community economic development experience, Remy Bermúdez has the leadership and vision for District 8. Her Democratic opponent, Ben Hueso, failed to appear before the San Diego Democratic Club, and did not complete the club’s questionnaire, which ranks candidates based on their positions on a series of issues, including many specific to the GLBT community. Hueso cited the importance of walking the precinct over appearing before our community, which cemented our endorsement for Bermúdez.

This proposed California Constitutional amendment would prohibit minors from having an abortion until 48 hours after a physician notifies their parent or legal guardian, except during a medical emergency or with a parental waiver. Parental notification laws do not make exceptions for minors who may be unable or afraid to obtain parental consent or discuss their situations in front of a judge. Rather than “protect” minors, these laws increase the chances they will seek out dangerous alternatives.

Prop. 73 would also define abortion as causing the “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.” If Prop. 73 passes, this new definition of abortion could be used to further restrict women’s reproductive rights.

Prop. 74 would extend the requirement for teachers’ permanent status from two consecutive to five consecutive years, and modifies the process by which school boards can dismiss a permanent teaching employee who receives two consecutive unsatisfactory performance evaluations. This initiative inhibits teachers’ academic freedom within the classroom, lowers job security and acts as a disincentive, making it more difficult to recruit new teachers.

Prop. 75 would prohibit labor unions from using public employee fees for political contributions except with annual prior written consent. Prop. 75 is a corporate-sponsored initiative that will weaken public employees and strengthen the political influence of big corporations by taking away unions’ rights to make their own decisions, and substitutes a government-imposed bureaucratic process.

Prop. 76 would limit state spending to the prior year’s level plus three previous years’ average revenue growth. This power grab by Gov. Schwarzenegger would also cut public school spending by $600 per student. Prop. 76 overturns the minimum school funding protections approved by California voters when they passed Prop. 98. It also eliminates the repayment requirement when minimum education funding was suspended, totaling roughly $3 billion.

Prop. 77 would amend the process for redistricting California’s Senate, Assembly, congressional and Board of Equalization districts. Three retired judges, elected by legislative leaders, would then have the power to decide California’s new redistricting policy. Sounds like a blow to the democratic process to us. And why now? Is this measure seeking to redistrict California to benefit the Republican Party?

Prop. 78 is a smokescreen designed to block Prop. 79, a prescription drug discount proposal put forward by consumer, health and senior groups.

Prop. 79 would create a new state drug discount program to reduce the costs that certain residents of the state (persons in families with an income at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level) would pay for prescription drugs purchased at pharmacies.

Prop. 80 would subject electric service providers to control and regulation by the California Public Utilities Commission. By reversing electricity deregulation, Prop. 80 intends to stop blackouts and guarantee a stable and reliable electric system with ample supplies of clean, affordable power.