This is a slightly revised version of the voter guide I posted in June, combined with comments I made while liveblogging (mostly) my ballot earlier this month.

UPDATE: Drudge reports that the CIA has authenticated the al-Qaeda tape ABC has been refusing to air. It may just be hot air, or it may be a prediction of an attack that is still months away, or it could mean some Spain-style attack is imminent and voting will be disrupted. I haven’t a clue which, but why take any chances? If you have the opportunity to vote early, do. One thing is clear: if you haven’t made up your mind on the major candidates yet, no news that breaks between today and Election Day will – or, more importantly, should change that. Vote today if you can, or first thing Tuesday morning, if you must.

UPDATE: Via Jane Instagalt, it appears the CIA has not authenticated the tape after all, at least not yet. Regardless, I’d err on the side of caution.

President and Vice President: Bush/Cheney
United States Senator: Bill Jones
United States Representative, 42nd Dist.: Gary G. Miller
State Senator, 33rd Dist.: Dick Ackerman
Member of the State Assembly, 71st Dist.: Todd Spitzer

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, as a defensive measure against Prop 62, a constitutional but stupid idea. 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, or a tear-jerker like children’s hospitals. Then, when it passes, offset that funding by diverting the same amount of money from the general fund away from mom, apple pie or the ailing kids, 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. Prop 198 was a mistake, which I admittedly voted for. That law was struck down as unconstitutional. This one is probably constitutional, but it’s just as bad, as it prohibits political parties from choosing their own standard-bearers. Just because both major political parties oppose something, this does not necessarily mean it is a good thing. This one just screws everyone equally, except maybe Arnold.
Proposition 63 (mental health services funding): No. This is another baseless, soak the rich proposal. If we really want more funding for mental health services, everyone should pay the cost. I mean, seriously, does anyone really think sane, rich people cause others to go insane? Of course not. This initiative is insane.
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. Even the Dog Trainer, no friend of business interests, supports this initiative. Vote for it without guilt.
Proposition 65 (local gov’t funds, rough draft): 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. Among the “nonviolent” offenders who can look forward to an early release under Prop 66 are Charles Rothenberg, Joseph Noble, Steven Mathews, Andrew Abernathy, Kenneth Parnell, and too many others to count.
Proposition 67 (emergency medical services phone tax): No. We pay enough phone taxes as it is. Then again, if you voted for Prop 66, you’ve also voted for more violent crime and more need for emergency services, so maybe these two initiatives should be considered in tandem.
Proposition 68 (tribal gaminggambling): I voted yes, but wouldn’t blame you if you voted no. My reason for a yes vote is because I support expanded gaming beyond Indian casinos. However, this initiative is a turd, which imposes unreasonably short deadlines, and would only expand gambling to certain existing race tracks and card tables. The initiative is such an obvious payoff that its own proponents have basically abandoned it. Vote yes if you like gambling, no if you don’t, or leave it blank if you are trying to conserve ink. It really doesn’t matter how you vote on this one.
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. All this does is further strengthen the Indian casinos’ hand, as if that needed any strengthening. People who own these casinos should vote yes on Prop 70. Everyone else, regardless of their feelings on gambling pro or con, should vote no.
Proposition 71 (stem cell research funding bond): No. I support stem cell research, but our state can’t afford it. In addition, this bill privileges embryonic stem cell research over adult or cord blood stem cell research, and forces the state to go on funding it for decades even if its current promise turns out to be a bust.
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.

NOTE: Professor Bainbridge is compiling a roundup of voter guides by other bloggers. I’ll link to it here when it goes up.