Everyone else liveblogs something lame, so why not this? I am registered as a permanent absentee, and my ballot just arrived today. Here’s how I’m voting, with updates as I go. Asterisks indicate incumbent. All links are to PDF files.

UPDATE: I’ve never heard of most of the guys running in the local races, and don’t really know anything about any of them, so I haven’t voted in those races yet. If you know anything about these guys, drop me a line:

• South O.C. Comm. College Dist, (Area 3): William (Bill) Jay* vs. Gary V. Miller
• South O.C. Comm. College Dist. (Area 7): John S. Willians* vs. Kevin S. Thompson
• Saddleback Valley Unified School Dist.: Richard A. Martin, Don Sedgwick, Suzie R. Swartz, Ginny Fay Aitkens
• RSM City Council: Hilary Anne Rhonan, Jerry Holloway*, Mike Safranski, Tony Beall
• Municipal Water Dist., Div. 6: Jeffery M. Thomas, Ergun (Eric) Bakall, Bill Vanderwerff

FINAL UPDATE: Voted for Gary V. Miller and Kevin S. Thompson for Community College District, and for Hilary Anne Rhonan and Mike Safranski for RSM City Council, because their opponents, incumbents all, bought phony “endorsements” from slate mailers. Voted for Michard A. Martin for school district because the League of Women Voter’s endorsed the other three candidates (and also because their incumbent opponents bought phony “endorsements”). I did not vote for anybody in the municipal water district. My water’s fine, and will probably remain that way no matter who wins this race.

The rest of the ballot follows.

President and Vice President: *George W. Bush / Richard Cheney (R). Yup, I’ve lost my mind, all right.
United States Senator: Bill Jones (R)
United States Representative, 42nd Dist.: *Gary G. Miller (R)
State Senator, 33rd Dist.: *Dick Ackerman (R)
Member of the State Assembly, 71st Dist.: *Todd Spitzer (R)

Proposition 1A (local gov’t revenues): Yes. Local taxes should fund local services.
Proposition 59 (public records): Yes. Opponent’s only argument is that it doesn’t go far enough.
Proposition 60 (preserving primary): Yes. Even opponents admit it does no harm; the only concern is it does not go far enough. We can fix that later.
Proposition 60A (disposal of surplus state property): Yes. This one’s a no-brainer.
Proposition 61 (children’s hospital bond): No. This is an old trick: put a bond on the ballot for some issue like mom and apple pie. Then, when it passes, offset that funding by diverting the same amount of money from the general fund away from mom and apple pie, and toward whatever pork barrel project you actually wanted to fund. Amusingly, the rebuttal argument asks “We’ve never even heard of this attorney who opposes Proposition 61. Have you?” No, I hadn’t, and to be honest, his disciplinary history leaves something to be desired. However, I also hadn’t heard of Jennifer Hummer, David Liu or Debbie Cervantes, all three of whom claim no title other than “parent” to bolster their credentials. Well, in a matter of days I’ll be both an attorney and a parent, so there.
Proposition 62 (Louisiana-style primaries): No. Last time we had something like that in this state, Prop 198, I ended up voting for Gray Davis. ‘Nuff said, this thing’s bad news.
Proposition 63 (mental health services funding): No. If we really want more funding for mental health services, everyone should pay the cost, not just rich, sane people.
Proposition 64 (unfair business laws): Yes. This initiative would end the crazy laws that kept the Trevor Law Group in business, which allows plaintiffs to act as private attorneys general over trivial violations that did not harm them. No other state has a nutty law like that.
Proposition 65: No. Its own proponents don’t favor it anymore, as they consider 1A a better version of the same thing.
Proposition 66 (gutting three strikes): No. Anyone who supports this measure is either (1) ignorant as to what it does (Patterico can fix that), (2) trying to buy his son’s way out of prison, or (3) on crack. [UPDATE: interesting discussion here.]
Proposition 67 (emergency medical services phone tax): No. We pay enough phone taxes as it is.
Proposition 68 (tribal gaminggambling): Yes. Either the Indian tribes should pay 25% of their casino revenue to the state, or they should lose their monopoly. Personally, I prefer the latter, but that’s just me. In any event, the initiative will only allow allow slot machines in 16 facilities where other forms of legal exist already. It would not turn your local neighborhood into the Las Vegas Strip – not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Proposition 69 (felon DNA database): Yes. Initially, I opposed the bill because it collects DNA samples from those charged with the applicable felonies, not just those convicted of them. Upon reading the text of the initiative itself, however, I am satisfied that the safeguards of Section 299 of the Penal Code, as amended, would adequately ensure that non-convicts may have their DNA samples expunged from the database.
Proposition 70 (tribal gaming – monopoly): No. I’m all for legalized gambling, but not for monopolies.
Proposition 71 (stem cell research funding bond): No. I support stem cell research, but our state can’t afford it. In addition, any bill that privileges embryonic stem cell research over adult or cord blood stem cell research is too fundamentally stupid to be worth considering even if we were flush.
Proposition 72 (health care mandates): No. This law is a serious job killer, which is why it was placed on the ballot. It’s exactly the reason Californians have the power of referendum, which is rarely used. Now is the time to use it.

UPDATE: For a near-mirror image of my ballot, see Hugo’s.