I just received via email my sample ballot for the June 3rd primary in California. As a public service for those of you who may not have the time or inclination to review this document, I offer some of the highlights:

1) The following people are running for Governor of California:

an Assemblyman
a Small Business Owner
a Doctoral Student
a Real Estate Investor
a Psychologist/Farmer
an Author/Non-Profit Director
a Golf Course Operator
an Author/Community Organizer
a Project Funding CEO
a Governor
a Minister/Business Owner
a Small Business Owner
a Business Owner/Engineer
a Businessman

Now, this is a tough one. I always immediately eliminate anyone who is in politics or has “Business” in their title. That takes us down to:

the Doctoral Student
the Real Estate Investor
the Psychologist/Farmer
the Author/Non-Profit Director
the Golf Course Operator
the Author/Community Organizer
the Project Funding CEO

Since I am an author and can imagine no one less qualified to be Governor than I am, I can cross the two Authors off the list. And I think that the Student ought to spend more time on campus because those years are so special and so s/he is out. I don’t know what a “Project Funding CEO” is, so that person’s gone. And Real Estate Investor is too boring for me to leave on any list. So we’re down to:

the Psychologist/Farmer
the Golf Course Operator

I’ve thought long and hard about this. At first I was smitten with the idea of a Golf Course Operator taking the reins of Our Great State. I’ve spent a lot of time on golf courses over the years and made the acquaintance of some fine Operators in the process. Ultimately, however, I decided that I will cast my vote for the Psychologist/Farmer, for the sole reason that I cannot imagine two otherwise respectable occupations which when combined in one person are more ridiculous.

2) I will be voting for a Security Guard for Lieutenant Governor, over a Father/Software Developer, and a Scientist/Businessman/Parent.

3) There is a Dad/Designer running for Secretary of State. Suffice to say, he will receive at least one vote on June 3rd: mine.

4) There’s someone running for Attorney General who lists no occupation at all. That sounds good to me!

5) There are 15 different Judicial slots on the sample ballot. Typically, most of the people running for these Offices are Prosecutors. This year, I’ve noticed something different: the Prosecutors are not just Prosecutors. They are Gang Homicide Prosecutors, Violent Crimes Prosecutors, Criminal Homicide Prosecutors, Major Narcotics Prosecutors, Gang Murder Prosecutors (as distinct from the aforementioned Gang Homicide Prosecutors, one would presume), Criminal Gang Prosecutors, Sexual Predator Prosecutors, Child Molestation Prosecutors, and Government Corruption Prosecutors. I’m sure that all these Prosecutors are sufficiently morally outraged at the heinous criminals they must come into contact with every day … but how to choose among them? In one contest a Gang/Homicide Attorney is running against a Criminal Gang Prosecutor, and a Gang Homicide Prosecutor. I have resolved this year to skip all the Judicial races.

6) There are no candidates whatsoever with colorful occupations in the elections for Insurance Commissioner, Treasurer, Controller, School Superintendent, Assessor, or Sheriff. Needless to say, I will be skipping all these as well.

7) The biggest disappointments in this year’s sample ballot are the Candidate Statements. These Statements usually contain paranoid ravings, childish rantings, theological diatribes, and apocalyptic warnings about what will befall us if we don’t stem the tide of illegal drugs, illegal immigrants, and other things which aren’t illegal currently but by God ought to be. This year, however, the Statements are uniformly and unremittingly competent.

(However, in the interests of accuracy, I must add that Statements were not submitted by either the Psychologist/Farmer or the Golf Course Operator. They would have no doubt livened things up at least a bit.)