Election Day is next Tuesday so everyone should go out and vote or if you're like me and too lazy to go out to the polls should've gotten an absentee ballot. It's a really simple ballot this go-around. One question, one pick from many choices, and two propositions.

Should you vote to recall Gray Davis? Depends on what you believe is more important. If you believe in education and the environment among other things, then you should vote against it. Davis has a strong track record in these issues including increasing school accountability and funding, protecting park lands and wetlands, and extending the moratorium on coastal oil drilling. If you believe the budget is most important, then you should vote for the recall. Davis is simply powerless in forcing the Legislature to do anything substantive in crunch time and that usually means delays in the budget. His slow response to the energy crisis while eventually balancing the enormous power deficits facing the state has pinned us to expensive contracts still years from expiring. A $38 billion deficit this fiscal year is still at least $8 billion next year, even with tripling the vehicle license fees and a hike in UC and CSU tuition as well as countless other cuts to state funded programs. Yes, the whole budget process needs to be overhauled, but under this system where two-thirds approval is needed to pass a budget, it seems Davis needs two-thirds of the Legislature to be Democrats in order for a budget to be passed. Since that won't happen, he's pushing for the threshold to be lowered, instead of working with the Legislature to pass a reasonable budget. In my opinion, the budget is priority one since it would affect eduation and the environment directly. It's obvious Davis can't handle this aspect of the job, especially with special interest money clouding his judgment and his need to fully fund his projects. As a result, I'll be voting yes on the recall.

Then again, that vote may be premature after looking at the candidates to replace Davis. In the 2002 gubernatorial election, voters were apathetic to the choice of candidates they had then (Davis and Simon) and had to choose among the lesser of evils. (Davis, only because Simon was a terrible campaigner.) In this election, a similar dilemma faces voters as all the candidates are flawed. The front-runner is Arnold Schwarzenegger. It's obvious no one's gonna push him around and he's got a host of advisors, mostly from the Wilson administration, to help him. But he's got no experience, broadbased ideas for California's future, and now some trouble with sexual harrassment from his past. Cruz Bustamante has the legislative experience as Speaker of the House in the Assembly and now Lieutenant Governor. But his time as Lieutenant Governor has been eerily quiet and now his integrity is in question from millions of dollars in donations from Indian tribes, fueling his tumble in the polls. Tom McClintock is an accomplished State Senator. But as a truly conservative Republican in a left-leaning state, his ideas may be too radical for a state looking for stability to swallow. Same problem for Peter Camejo, the Green Party candidate, who would have the same trouble moving to the right of his own extreme leftist stances.

Americans have voted for idiots before only to surprise later on with their leadership. Most prominently would be George W. Bush. Here, if you had to choose among these people plus the other 132 candidates for Governor, Schwarzenegger would be your best bet. Yes, voting for either McClintock or Bustamante would be a vote for experience (geez, their names are long), but unhappy voters are craving for someone outside the state system to institute true reform in California and Schwarzenegger, at least on the outside, has that image. Schwarzenegger may have trouble with his wild past and Democrats have denounced these actions, but troubles with their personal life does not mean it can worsen their effectiveness as a leader as hypocritical Democrats rallied to defend President Clinton after his own sex scandal.

Two propositions are also at the end of the ballot and both should be voted against. Proposition 53 mandates that 3% of state funds be set aside for infrastructure improvements. In the 70's, infrastructure accounted for 20% of the budget but today it's only about 1%. Mandating 3% be set aside handcuffs the state into trying to pay for programs from a smaller share of the pie. Sure, infrastructure is important but not as much as the quality of education in the state or other important projects that may be facing California. So vote against it. Proposition 54 would stop the collection of race data in state studies. Proponents believe this will be another step to a colorblind society where merit is paramount. Opponents believe it will leave minorities further in the dust. When even with these studies and special programs, the racial gap can't be closed, it's obvious minorities need more help instead of taking away what little help they have left. I'll vote no.