# data[].attributes.body
Local San Diego Ballot Measures

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
June primary voters weighed in on what might ordinarily be considered a daunting number of issues: nine citywide measures, and one state measure.

That was nothing.

San Diego voters will face an astounding 12 citywide measures, two countywide measures and 17 - 17! - statewide measures, for a grand total of 31. And that number could still technically go up. (And there are also, you know, races with candidates running against each other.)

The local measures, which this guide covers, range in sexiness from a new stadium to how the city handles purchasing and contracting.

It's a lot to learn, a lot to process, a lot to decide.

You can do it.

Measure A: The SANDAG Tax

What it is: Measure A is a proposal from the San Diego Association of Governments that would levy a half-cent sales tax to fund transportation and infrastructure projects throughout the county.

The measure would raise about $18.2 billion over the next 40 years. Roughly 42 percent of that would go to public transit projects; 14 percent to highway improvements; 30 percent to individual cities to spend on local infrastructure; 11 percent to open space preservation and 3 percent to walking and biking projects.

The measure would legally bind SANDAG to complete some of the projects within 15 years, including the Purple Trolley line from San Ysidro to Kearney Mesa and a new Coaster station at the Del Mar Fairgrounds.

The backstory: The money earned from the tax would pay for some of the $204 billion worth of projects SANDAG has laid out in its regional transportation plan.

Some of the projects in that plan are being funded by a tax that voters approved years ago, Transnet. This measure is separate and would fund separate projects.

It would also help fund a commitment San Diego made to protect endangered species on preserved lands - an agreement it's never really figured out how to pay for.

Separate measures floated by the agency earlier this year pitted public transit projects against local infrastructure. In July, SANDAG's board finally approved a combination of the two to put on the ballot.

The plan has support from Chula Vista Mayor Mary Salas, Councilman Todd Gloria and the San Diego Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Kevin Faulconer, North County leaders like Poway Mayor Steve Vaus, and a coalition of labor and environmentalists oppose it.

A YES vote would: support raising sales tax by half a cent for the next few decades for transportation and infrastructure.

A NO vote would: not raise taxes for these projects. The transportation projects that would be funded are still part of SANDAG's long-term plan and the agency is still expected to try to move forward with them, but how they're funded would be up in the air.

For more background, check out:
Independent Oversight Promised With Last SANDAG Tax Hike Not So Independent Fact Check: North County Wants Its 'Fair Share' of SANDAG Tax Inside the Fight on the Left Over SANDAG's Big Tax The Line Between Education and Advocacy on SANDAG's Tax Proposal Fact Check: Will a Sales Tax Hike Relieve Traffic Congestion? " Return to top
Measure B: The Lilac Hills Ranch Development

What it is: Measure B is a countywide measure put forth by the developer Accretive Investments. It would approve Lilac Hills Ranch, a 1,700-home development near Valley Center.

The backstory: Lilac Hills Ranch has been trying to work through the traditional county permitting process for nearly a decade. The development required special permission because it would add more than 1,700 homes in a rural area that currently only allows for 110. It's been vehemently opposed by a group of residents, and back in 2009, the county outright denied the project's application.

A new director re-organized the planning department at the county gave the project another chance. It narrowly gained a Planning Commission recommendation, dependent on certain changes to the project being made.

Then, Lilac Hills Ranch hit two roadblocks late last year. The first was that a state watchdog told Supervisor Bill Horn, who was expected to vote in favor of the project, to recuse himself from the vote on the project. Horn owns nearby property whose value would increase if the project were approved. The other was a decision by the California Supreme Court on another large, sprawling development in the Los Angeles area that left all similar projects statewide uncertain as to how they should measure and disclose their potential greenhouse gas emissions.

So the developers decided to go to the ballot to circumvent these obstacles.

But they left some of the conditions the county had imposed out of the plan.

Before the measure was placed on the ballot, county staff wrote a report detailing these differences between the plan.

The county wanted developers to fund a new school to accommodate new residents, improve roads to bring them up to safety standards and fund a new fire station.

The ballot measure doesn't obligate Accretive to do any of those things, though it has separately said it will help the Bonsall school district build a school and would provide some additional money to the county to help fund road improvements - though the county has said it's unclear whether these separate agreements are legally binding or enough to address the issues.

A YES vote would: approve the Lilac Hills Ranch development plan.

A NO vote would: reject the Lilac Hills Ranch development plan. The developer hasn't stopped the traditional county permitting process, so it's unclear what their game plan will be if the voters don't approve the measure.

For more background, check out:
Developer Won't Take No for an Answer on Massive Lilac Hills Ranch Project Developer and County May Seize Private Property for Lilac Hills Project Lilac Hills Ranch Developer to Try Yet Another Way Around 'No' Lilac Hills Initiative Includes Several 'Get Out of Lawsuit Free' Cards for Developer The New School Question Facing Lilac Hills Ranch " Return to top
Measure C: The Chargers' Stadium Plan

What it is: A convadium! It would raise the hotel-room tax in the city of San Diego from effectively 12.5 percent to 16.5 percent to finance construction of a joint stadium and convention center in San Diego's East Village. The measure provides the permit for the facility, outlines only the broad limits of how tall and wide it can be, allows it to put up giant, digital billboards and lays the joint powers authority that would own and manage it and says it would be used by a professional football team, which would have responsibility to maintain the football parts of it. That team, obviously, is the Chargers - but it's illegal to put up a measure that one company specifically will benefit from, so it is left vague. One other point: The city's hotel-room tax is actually 10.5 percent right now. Hotels collect 2 percent on top of that to fund what is called the Tourism Marketing District. This is why we say the city's effective hotel-room tax is 12.5 percent. Measure C replaces the Tourism Marketing District with just 1 percent of the collections and the promise it could get more if there's money left over after other debt and obligations are funded.

The backstory: In January, Chargers President Dean Spanos worked to persuade other NFL team owners to let him move the team to a new stadium in Carson. The other owners, however, chose a different project in Inglewood, where the Rams are now overseeing construction of a large development and stadium. The owners gave the Chargers two things: the right to join the Rams in that facility and the promise of $100 million more to help with construction of a new stadium in San Diego. Determined to put something together in time for the November ballot, the Chargers raced to arrange the team's ideal plan: downtown and fully funded with no chance of the revenue to pay for it not materializing. It was an extraordinarily hurried process and the Chargers did not secure any support for it before the team unveiled it. Then, with the support of some labor unions and local members of Congress, the team launched a signature-gathering effort that successfully put it on the ballot as Measure C.

The Chargers say the measure unquestionably protects the city's general fund from costs associated with the construction and maintenance of the convadium. The hotel tax will be sufficient, the team says, to fund construction and maintenance and unforeseen costs. Opponents dispute that and also say there are related infrastructure, parking and traffic costs that might fall on the city and the measure does not do anything to retire existing city debt on Qualcomm Stadium. The city pays an average of $4.9 million a year on that debt, through 2026.

A YES vote would: approve the plan, but a few caveats: It requires two-thirds support. If more than two-thirds of voters choose yes, then the city and Chargers would begin negotiations to set up the joint powers authority that would oversee construction of the facility. They would design the facility (its design, besides the broad limits, is not determined). If for some reason the facility is not built, the hotel tax would retreat to a 3 percent increase. There's a chance the measure could not get two-thirds of voter support. If it only gets 50 percent, the Chargers have some hope it could be implemented after a recent court ruling indicated that taxes raised by ballot initiative only need support from a simple majority of voters. Some Chargers supporters argue it is important to show the team support so that even if the measure fails to get two-thirds, the team will see the support it did have and keep negotiating.

A NO vote would: reject it. It would force the Chargers to come up with a different stadium plan or follow through on the threat to move to Inglewood. A broad coalition of hotel-industry leaders, politicians, activists in Barrio Logan, construction contractors hostile to labor unions and others argue the tax hike is too much, it's a bad place for a stadium and too many questions are left unanswered or can't be negotiated because the vote will be binding on many points.
For more background, check out:
Op-Ed: The Convadium Is an Opportunity for San Diego to Do a Big Thing. We Should Take It.
Padres Chairman Lays Out Concerns with Chargers' Plans
Op-Ed: The Convadium May Just Be a Con
A Hotel Tax Hike Has Been in the Chargers' Playbook for a Long Time East Village Developers Say an East Village Stadium Would Ruin East Village Assembling the Properties for a Downtown Convadium Not Nearly the Obstacle It Seemed " Return to top
Measure D: The Citizens' Plan

What it is: Called the Citizens' Plan by supporters, this measure would raise the city's official hotel-room tax from 10.5 percent now to 15.5 percent. For smaller lodging businesses, the tax would be 14 percent. It would eliminate the Tourism Marketing District 2 percent levy that is currently collected on top of the 10.5 percent city tax and replace it with an option for hotels to voluntarily contribute to tourism marketing and deduct up to 2 percent from their payments to the city if they do. It would also allow them to deduct up to 2 percent more if they contribute to construction of a convention center. In short, it's a guarantee the city will collect an additional 1 percent from hotel-room visitors - money that will go directly into the city's general fund, which can be used for parks, police, fire and other needs. It prohibits the city from spending money to expand the existing Convention Center. That would have to be overturned by another vote of the people (a vote would likely be needed regardless to authorize a tax hike). The Port could expand the Convention Center with a different financing mechanism. It provides for help expediting the permitting of a stadium downtown and in Mission Valley, and the stadium could be combined with the separate convention center expansion it does allow, though the funding would have to be kept separate somehow. If the Chargers leave the team's current stadium, this measure authorizes the city to sell the land under Qualcomm Stadium to either San Diego State University, UC San Diego, a local community college, the San Diego River Conservancy or any combination of them. If the city sells that much land, it is required to get a vote; this serves as that vote.

The backstory: This measure was put together by attorney Cory Briggs, former City Councilwoman Donna Frye, their allies and JMI Realty, which provided crucial funding, as did former Padres owner John Moores. It was designed as a sort of grand compromise with hotel owners often at odds with Briggs as a way to provide a route to a new convention center off the waterfront, a way to preserve tourism marketing funds that were under legal threat and to set in motion plans for the land under Qualcomm Stadium that many people covet if the Chargers were to leave. Hotel owners other than JMI did not end up supporting the measure. San Diego State's president expressed support for the idea of expanding into the Mission Valley area.

A YES vote would: approve the measure. Briggs and his lawyer, elections attorney Jim Sutton, argue it requires only a simple majority to be implemented. San Diego City Attorney Jan Goldsmith says it would need two-thirds support. If it gets a simple majority, there will likely be a court battle.

A NO vote would: reject the measure.
For more background, check out: The Genius of - and the Problem With - the Briggs Hotel-Tax Overhaul For a Stadium, the Chargers Will Have to Beat Hoteliers, Then Win Them Over " Return to top
Measure E: Removing City Officials

What it is: This measure would make it easier to remove and replace elected city officials who've committed crimes or other wrongdoing.

Measure E would require the mayor, city attorney and City Council members to forfeit their job outright if they are convicted of a felony, found civilly liable for fraud or declared incapacitated by a court.

The measure would also create a new process to remove elected city officials convicted of certain misdemeanors. A court declaration that an elected official is neglecting his or her duties could also merit removal proceedings.

Under those circumstances, three-fourths of the City Council could vote to hold a special removal election, then a majority of voters would need to approve the removal of the public official.

San Diego would become the first city in California to create such a Council-initiated special removal election, according to the city attorney's office. Voter-led recalls would remain intact.

The measure would also require city attorney candidates to be licensed to practice law in California for at least 10 years.

The backstory: San Diego Mayor Bob Filner resigned in late August 2013 amid an onslaught of sexual harassment allegations.

The City Charter only allows for the mayor to be removed through a recall election, which is hard to trigger, so officials had to broker a deal to get him to resign.

A charter review committee, with help from the city attorney's office, drafted this measure in response to the County Grand Jury's recommendation to expand removal options for elected city officials.

A YES vote would: Offer new avenues for removal of elected city officials, and boost the requirements for city attorney candidates.

A NO vote would: Keep the status quo, which requires death, resignation, loss of voter eligibility or a recall to force an official out before the end of his or her term.

For more background, check out:
How SD's Own Laws Protect the Mayor The Most Problematic Pieces of SD's City Charter Fact Check: The Rules of Recall Explainer: The Rocky Road to Recall City Attorney on Filner: 'It Was a De Facto Impeachment' " Return to top
Measure F: Job Security for Deputy City Attorneys

What it is: a measure to increase job security for deputy city attorneys.

"Deputy city attorney" is a fancy name for lawyers in the San Diego city attorney's office. They prosecute misdemeanors, represent the city in lawsuits and give legal advice to other city agencies, as well as to the City Council and the mayor.

Right now, a deputy city attorney can be fired without cause during his or her first two years on the job, which is considered a probationary period for new hires. This measure reduces the probationary period to a single year.

The backstory: There are about 150 deputy city attorneys in San Diego, and they lack job protections typical of other civil servants. A decade ago, there was huge turnover in the city attorney's office. This became a campaign issue in 2008, when current City Attorney Jan Goldsmith won.

With Goldsmith's blessing, voters approved 2010's Proposition B, which gave deputy city attorneys more job protections. They can still be fired without cause in their first two years on the job but can only be fired for "good cause" after two years.

Goldsmith also supports Measure F, which is backed by the Deputy City Attorneys Association, which wants to protect its newest members from being fired for political reasons, particularly with the election right around the corner.

Now, supporters of Measure F say two years is too long of a probationary period.

They include the deputy city attorneys union, the San Diego Taxpayers Association, the League of Women Voters of San Diego and City Council President Sherri Lightner.

"This measure makes it harder for politics to influence the office and its makeup," they said in a joint statement.

Mara Elliott, a candidate for city attorney who is the current chief deputy city attorney, also supports the measure. She said it's pretty easy to tell if a new hire will be a good employee.

No one has filed an argument against the measure, nor did anyone speak directly against it during recent City Council meetings.

Councilmember Todd Gloria voted against putting the measure on the ballot, though. He is concerned about ballot printing costs and did not think Measure F was urgent.

A YES vote would: extend job protections to deputy city attorneys after their first year on the job.

A NO vote would: continue to give deputy city attorneys job protections only after two years on the job.
For more background, check out: Cleaning Out the City Attorney's Office Could Come at a Cost " Return to top
Measure G: Changes to the Citizens' Review Board

What it is: Measure G would make some minor tweaks to the portion of the city charter that deals with the Citizens' Review Board on Police Practices, the 23-member volunteer panel that reviews the police department's Internal Affairs investigations.

The backstory: For years, civil rights groups have argued that the CRB lacks teeth, since its role is to review - and not independently investigate - the San Diego Police Department's own investigations. Earlier this year, a group led by Women Occupy San Diego called for an overhaul that would make the CRB more like the county's Citizens' Law Enforcement Review Board, which has subpoena power, conducts its own investigations of complaints against the sheriff's deputies and probation officers and publishes summaries of those investigations. The county board also has the ability to hire outside legal counsel while the CRB relies on the city attorney's office for advice, raising questions about conflict of interest. Some of the recommended changes - outside legal counsel and investigative summaries - don't require a public vote and are in the works. Other changes, like how CRB members are selected, are spelled out in the city charter and require a vote.

A YES vote would: change the CRB's name to the Community Review Board on Police Practices, enshrine in the city charter the CRB's authority to investigate deaths at the hands of police and make it easier for the City Council to regulate how the CRB operates. Currently the mayor has sole authority over the CRB and who sits on the board.

A NO vote would: keep things the way they are.

For more background, check out:
Activists Push City to Give Police Oversight More Power Police Watchdog: 'There's a Lack of Transparency' " Return to top
Measure H: Changes to the City's Purchasing and Contracting Process

What it does: This uncontroversial measure resolves a concern of city staff about the City Charter. "The amendments would require contracts for public works, goods, services, and consultants to be awarded through a competitive process, in accordance with rules adopted by the City Council by ordinance." It also, though, removes a requirement that the city advertise certain contracts in a local newspaper 10 days before the deadline for bids. The change would allow the city to simply follow public disclosure rules that already exist.

The backstory: City staff requested the change. Like many uncontroversial changes to the City Charter, it was put on the ballot by the Charter Review Committee and City Council. Nobody is on record opposing it.

A YES vote would: approve the change.

A NO vote would: reject it.
" Return to top
Measure I: San Diego High's Balboa Park Location

What it is: Measure I would allow the City Council to extend San Diego High School's lease on its current location at the edge of Balboa Park.

The backstory: The city charter and state law say schools aren't allowed on city parkland. But San Diego High, the city's oldest high school, was built years before the city charter was drafted and decades before the state law was written.

In 1974, negotiations between the city and school district resulted in a 50-year lease. City Council President Sherri Lightner, the only Council member to oppose sending the measure to ballot, told KPBS the intent of that lease was to give the San Diego Unified School District 50 years to come up with a new location for the school.

Councilman David Alvarez, who graduated from San Diego High and supports the measure, said there isn't sufficient space downtown to build a new high school that could serve the families in his district.

"The honest truth is that if the school district were going to build another school, they needed to get to work on that a long time ago (when there was still land available)," Alvarez told KPBS. Alvarez said he's concerned that a forced relocation would disrupt learning and create instability at San Diego High.

The plan has support from Alvarez, Councilman Todd Gloria, San Diego Unified Superintendent Cindy Marten and school board vice president Richard Barrera. Lightner, the retired chief deputy city attorney who handled the half-century lease issues in 1974 and park conservationists oppose the measure.

A YES vote would: amend the city charter and authorize the City Council to extend San Diego High's lease on the parkland where it currently resides.

A NO vote would: mean San Diego High must relocate after 2024.

For more background, check out:
City Council Moves to Save San Diego High School City Council Moves San Diego High School Issue to the Ballot " Return to top
Measure J: Money for Mission Bay and Other Parks

What it is: Measure J would direct money from Mission Bay Park's commercial leases to regional parks, including Mission Bay Park, Balboa Park and others. The measure, introduced by Mayor Kevin Faulconer, would also give the city flexibility to more quickly pursue certain repair projects in Mission Bay Park and allow the city to seek a $126 million bond for regional parks. Though the measure would require nearly two-thirds of the bond be funneled to Mission Bay, the mayor's office has said repairs for Balboa Park's historic buildings would be prioritized.

The backstory: In 2008, voters approved Proposition C, which requires that 25 percent of Mission Bay lease revenues over $20 million support regional park projects. The majority of the money has gone to Mission Bay Park. But Balboa Park and other regional parks also have many needs, and lack cash to pay for them. This measure would bring more money to those parks while still allocating 65 percent of lease revenues to Mission Bay Park.

A YES vote would: throw more Mission Bay lease revenue - and likely, bond money - at regional parks other than Mission Bay and maintain a revenue stream for all regional parks through 2069.

A NO vote would: keep things the way they are, with Mission Bay Park receiving a steady stream of money, and regional parks receiving less. Mission Bay's arrangement would end in 2039 with a no vote.

For more background, check out:
San Diego Explained: Balboa Park's Problems A Tale of Two Parks The Big Questions on Balboa Park's Big Day " Return to top
Measure K: Forcing a November Runoff

What it is: Measure K would require that the two candidates who get the most votes in a June primary election for City Council, mayor or city attorney face each other during the November general election. Currently, if a candidate in the June primary gets more than 50 percent of the vote, she wins the office outright. This would ensure the top two vote-getters face off in November, no matter what.

The backstory: Liberal leaders last year said the city should change its law that let candidates win during June primary elections if they win more than 50 percent of the vote. In recent years, Republicans had won races in June, depriving Democrats of a chance to take them on in November when increased voter turnout increased their chances of success. Plus, they argued: Doesn't it make more sense to make city decisions the same way we make state decisions, and when more voters show up to have a say? In 2012, 1.2 million San Diego County voters participated in the November election; earlier that year, 548,000 San Diego County voters showed up for the June primary.

This summer two independent groups asked the City Council to put the issue on the November ballot. The Council agreed, with all five Democrats voting to put the issue on ballot and all four Republicans voting against it.

A YES vote would: require that the top two finishers in a June primary election advance to a runoff in the November general election.

A NO vote would: maintain the current system, where a candidate can win an election in June if he or she gets one vote beyond the 50 percent threshold.

For more background, check out:
Labor, Dems Want to Stop Letting Candidates Win Outright in Local Primaries Op-Ed: The Democrats Can't Hang on Election Day Op-Ed: San Diego's Undemocratic Primaries Are Ripe for Reworking Op-Ed: San Diegans Deserve a Thoughtful Collaborative Effort on Election Reform City Councilman Chris Cate on Why He Opposes Measure K Former Assemblyman Jeff Marston on Why He Supports Measure K " Return to top
Measure L: Voting on Initiatives and Referendums in November

What it is: Currently, when citizens collect enough signatures to put an issue to the voters, or to ask voters to overturn a previous City Council decision, that item goes on the ballot for the next election, whether it's in June or November. This would make those initiatives automatically appear on the November ballot, unless the City Council intervenes and votes to put them on the June ballot instead.

The backstory: This is in many ways a companion item to Measure K, and comes with the same basic argument: It's better to make major decisions when more people vote than when fewer people vote. And like that measure, the practical effect of the change would benefit local Democratic causes, if recent history is any guide. For instance, conservatives qualified pension reform for the June ballot in 2012 and won with the help of a right-leaning electorate. Two years later, business groups collected signatures hoping to overturn a decision made by Democrats on the City Council to pass new development restrictions in Barrio Logan. It also won in June, with a right-leaning electorate. This measure would ostensibly put both of those items on the November ballot instead, where they might have fared better with a larger, more liberal turnout.

A YES vote would: send all citizens' initiatives and referendums to November elections, unless the City Council votes to send them to a June election instead.

A NO vote would: leave things as they are, with citizens' initiatives and referendums on the ballot for the next closest election, whether June or November.
" Return to top
Measure M: Raising the Cap on Affordable Housing Units

What it is: State law requires that voters approve any rent-controlled homes that are developed, built or acquired by a public agency. This measure would give the city permission to do so for an additional 38,680 homes reserved for low-income people. It wouldn't spend any money on any low-income homes or approve any specific projects - it would just pre-emptively give the city permission to make way for that many additional rent-controlled homes.

The backstory: In 2002, voters gave the city permission to build, develop or acquire up to 10,500 homes for low-income people. The city is now about 3,000 homes away from reaching that limit, so it is again asking voters to lift the cap on the number of rent-controlled homes it can provide. But instead of lifting the cap by just 5,000 homes, as it did 14 years ago, the city is now asking voters to dramatically increase its capacity to provide low-income housing. The measure would let the city build up to 49,180 total homes reserved for people earning below the area's median income. The city didn't pluck that number from thin air. It comes from a regional assessment of the number of homes for low-income people the city is going to need by 2020. That assessment said the city needs 38,680 such homes, so the city simply added that number to the existing limit to reach the otherwise-odd total of 49,180 units.

A YES vote would: increase the number of rent-controlled homes the city is allowed to build, develop or acquire.

A NO vote would: maintain the current limit on the number of rent-controlled homes the city is allowed to provide.

For more background, check out:
Raise the Roof on Affordable Housing? San Diegans Will Vote " Return to top
Measure N: Taxing Marijuana Businesses

What it is: If California voters approve Proposition 64, which would make it legal for adults to use marijuana, this citywide measure would impose a sales tax on businesses that sell marijuana for recreational use. The tax would begin at 5 percent and increase to 8 percent in 2019 - the City Council would then be able to adjust the tax in future years, but it could never go above 15 percent. The revenue would go into the city's general fund.

The backstory: Councilman Mark Kersey proposed the measure this summer, arguing California's potential legalization of marijuana would require increased city spending on things like code enforcement and public safety. The state measure would levy its own 15 percent sales tax on marijuana, but Kersey said the city needed to make sure a local tax would take care of local expenses related to regulating the drug. Industry advocates, however, warned against setting the rate too high, which could make it harder for legitimate businesses that go through the city's permitting process to compete with black-market sellers. The city's independent budget analyst estimates a 5 percent tax could raise around $22 million a year, based on Denver's experience since it started selling recreational marijuana. But that number is dependent on unknowable variables, like how easy the city makes it to open a recreational marijuana dispensary, the price of recreational marijuana and its availability in neighboring cities. The city's budget analyst also anticipates that the city could spend about $650,000 a year on new administrative positions related to the tax increase.

A YES vote would: impose a new sales tax on recreational cannabis businesses, ranging from 5 percent to 15 percent depending on future City Council actions - but only if voters approve a statewide proposition legalizing marijuana in the first place.

A NO vote would: reject a new sales tax on recreational marijuana businesses.

For more background, check out:
Pot Tax Headed to Voters Kelly Davis contributed to this guide.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Ultimate Guide to the Local Ballot Measures - Voice of San Diego

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
June primary voters weighed in on what might ordinarily be considered a daunting number of issues: nine citywide measures, and one state measure. That was nothing. San Diego voters will face an astounding 12 citywide measures, two countywide measures and 17 - 17! - statewide measures, for a grand total of 31.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sustainable development goals - United Nations

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full list of the 17 proposed sustainable development goals and summaries of their targets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
WIOA is landmark legislation that is designed to strengthen and improve our nation’s public workforce system and help get Americans, including youth and those with significant barriers to employment, into high-quality jobs and careers and help employers hire and retain skilled workers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Full Transcription Below: The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is a bipartisan effort that has one simple goal: Connecting more Americans to good jobs. Because BETTER SKILLS lead to BETTER WAGES, And training for modern jobs is good FOR ALL.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS

Hillary Clinton opposed connecting teacher evaluations and pay to test outcomes, supported universal preschool and higher teacher pay, and called for student loan reform.

Donald Trump supported returning education policy to the states and doing away with Common Core education standards.

Jill Stein supported a "student bailout" to cancel student loan debt, advocated for tuition-free education, and opposed high-stakes testing and the privatization of public schools.

Gary Johnson said that states should control public education and encouraged competition between schools to drive improvement in public education.

The 2016 Democratic Party Platform on education

"

Provide Quality and Affordable Education

Democrats know that every child, no matter who they are, how much their families earn, or where they live, should have access to a high-quality education, from preschool through high school and beyond. But the United States still lags behind other advanced economies in providing high-quality, universal preschool programs to help all of our kids get a strong start to their educations. Our schools are more segregated today than they were when Brown v. Board of Education was decided, and we see wide disparities in educational outcomes across racial and socioeconomic lines. A college degree or another form of post-secondary education is increasingly required for jobs that pay a middle-class wage, but graduation rates have stagnated for low-income students. And the high cost of college has required too many Americans to take out staggering student loans or put a degree out of reach entirely. We are selling our children and our young people short. Democrats are committed to making good public schools available to every child, no matter what zip code they live in, and at last making debt-free college a reality for all Americans.

Making Debt-Free College a Reality
Democrats believe that in America, if you want a higher education, you should always be able to get one: money should never stand in the way. Cost should not be a barrier to getting a degree or credential, and debt should not hold you back after you graduate. Bold new investments by the federal government, coupled with states reinvesting in higher education and colleges holding the line on costs, will ensure that Americans of all backgrounds will be prepared for the jobs and economy of the future. Democrats are unified in their strong belief that every student should be able to go to college debt-free, and working families should not have to pay any tuition to go to public colleges and universities.

We will also make community college free, while ensuring the strength of our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions. The federal government will push more colleges and universities to take quantifiable, affirmative steps in increasing the percentages of racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and first-generation students they enroll and graduate. Achieving these goals depends on state and federal investment in both students and their teachers. Whether full-time or adjunct, faculty must be supported to make transformative educational experiences possible.

Providing Relief from Crushing Student Debt
As we make college affordable for future students, we will not forget about the millions of borrowers with unsustainable levels of student debt, who need help right now. Democrats will allow those who currently have student debt to refinance their loans at the lowest rates possible. We will simplify and expand access to income-based repayment so that no student loan borrowers ever have to pay more than they can afford. And we will significantly cut interest rates for future undergraduates because we believe that making college more affordable is more important than the federal government making billions of dollars in profit off those loans. Democrats will also fight for a student borrower bill of rights to ensure borrowers get adequate information about options to avoid or get out of delinquency or default. We will hold lenders and loan servicers to high standards to help borrowers in default rehabilitate and repay their debts. We will continue the important Public Service Loan Forgiveness and loan discharge programs begun by the Obama Administration. Finally, Democrats will restore the prior standard in bankruptcy law to allow borrowers with student loans to be able to discharge their debts in bankruptcy as a measure of last resort. To make progress toward these goals, the government should offer a moratorium on student loan payments to all federal loan borrowers so they have the time and get the resources they need to consolidate their loans, enroll in income-based repayment programs, and take advantage of opportunities to reduce monthly payments and fees.

Supporting Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority-Serving Institutions
We will strengthen our nation's public and private Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Predominantly Black Institutions, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions, Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions, and minority-serving institutions. Many of these schools educate disproportionate percentages of growing populations of Americans: students who are racial and ethnic minorities, low-income students, and first-generation students. As the nation is grappling with how to expand educational access and increase success, especially for communities of color and low-income students and families, there is evidence that the nation's HBCUs and Minority Serving Institutions have honed promising models for educating these students to prepare them for high-and critical-need positions while containing costs. We will create a robust and historic dedicated fund to keep costs down, provide quality education, and ensure dedicated support to improve student outcomes and completion rates. We will provide further assistance to students at these schools, as well as other students across the country, by restoring year-round Pell funding so that low- and middle-income students from all backgrounds can get the support they need to make progress toward a college degree throughout the year.

Cracking Down on Predatory For-Profit Schools
We will continue to crack down on for-profit schools that take millions in federal financial aid- often as their principal source of revenue-and then exploit students and burden them with debt rather than educating them. That is why we will strengthen the gainful employment rule to ensure that for-profit schools enable students to complete their degrees and prepare them for work. We will go after for-profits that engage in deceptive marketing, fraud, and other illegal practices. We will also exercise our responsibility in oversight over the Department of Education to carry out their obligation to close down those for-profit schools that consistently engage in fraudulent and illegal conduct. It is unacceptable that for-profit schools with low graduation rates keep encouraging their students to take out federal loans they will have trouble paying back. Therefore, to the maximum extent possible, we will also encourage widespread relief and the forgiveness of debt to those students harmed by the practices of fraudulent institutions.

Guaranteeing Universal Preschool and Good Schools for Every Child
Democrats believe we must have the best-educated population and workforce in the world. That means making early childhood education and universal preschool a priority, especially in light of new research showing how much early learning can impact life-long success. Democrats will invest in early childhood programs like Early Head Start and provide every family in America with access to high-quality childcare and high-quality preschool programs. We support efforts to raise wages for childcare workers, and to ensure that early childhood educators are experienced and high-quality.

We will ensure there are great schools for every child no matter where they live. Democrats know the federal government must play a critical role in making sure every child has access to a world-class education. We believe that a strong public education system is an anchor of our democracy, a propeller of the economy, and the vehicle through which we help all children achieve their dreams. Public education must engage students to be critical thinkers and civic participants while addressing the wellbeing of the whole child.

We also support increased investments in afterschool and summer learning programs, which help working families, keep kids safe, and inspire learning at a time when many students are left unsupervised. We must find ways to encourage mentoring programs that support students in reaching their full potential. Mentoring is a strategy to ensure that children living in poverty have the encouragement and support to aim high and enter the middle class. We will focus on group mentoring, which is a low-cost, high-yield investment that offers the benefit of building a supportive network of peers who push one another towards success.

Democrats believe all students should be taught to high academic standards. Schools should have adequate resources to provide programs and support to help meet the needs of every child. We will hold schools, districts, communities, and states accountable for raising achievement levels for all students-particularly low-income students, students of color, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities.

We must fulfill our national commitment to provide a meaningful education to students with disabilities, and work towards full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act so that students with disabilities can receive the extra resources and services they need. With an appropriate educational foundation, children with disabilities can thrive and become adults with greater opportunities and more meaningful life experiences.

We are also deeply committed to ensuring that we strike a better balance on testing so that it informs, but does not drive, instruction. To that end, we encourage states to develop a multiple measures approach to assessment, and we believe that standardized tests must be reliable and valid. We oppose high-stakes standardized tests that falsely and unfairly label students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners as failing; the use of standardized test scores as basis for refusing to fund schools or to close schools; and the use of student test scores in teacher and principal evaluations, a practice which has been repeatedly rejected by researchers. We support enabling parents to opt their children out of standardized tests without penalty for either the student or their school.

Democrats recognize and honor all the professionals who work in public schools to support students' education-teachers, education support professionals, and specialized staff. We know that good teachers are essential to improving student learning and helping all students to meet high academic standards. Democrats will launch a national campaign to recruit and retain high-quality teachers. We will ensure that teachers receive the tools and ongoing professional development they need to succeed in the classroom and provide our children with a world-class education. We also must lift up and trust our educators, continually build their capacity, and ensure that our schools are safe, welcoming, collaborative, and well-resourced places for our students, educators, and communities.

We will invest in high-quality STEAM classes, community schools, computer science education, arts education, and expand link learning models and career pathways. We will end the school-to-prison pipeline by opposing discipline policies which disproportionately affect African Americans and Latinos, Native Americans and Alaska Natives, students with disabilities, and youth who identify as LGBT. We will support the use of restorative justice practices that help students and staff resolve conflicts peacefully and respectfully while helping to improve the teaching and learning environment. And we will work to improve school culture and combat bullying of all kinds.

The Democratic Party is committed to eliminating opportunity gaps-particularly those that lead to students from low-income communities arriving on day one of kindergarten several years behind their peers. This means advocating for labor and public assistance laws that ensure poor parents can spend time with their children. This means raising household incomes in poor communities. It means ensuring children have health care, stable housing free of contaminants, and a community free of violence in order to minimize the likelihood of cognitive delays. It means enriching early childhood programming to prepare children in areas such as literacy, numeracy, civic engagement, and emotional intelligence. It means supporting equitable and adequate state funding for public education, and expanding Title I funding for schools that serve a large number or high concentration of children in poverty. It means ending curriculum gaps that maintain and exacerbate achievement gaps.

We support policies that motivate rather than demoralize our educators. We are committed to ensuring that schools that educate children in poverty are not treated unfairly, which is why we will end the test-and-punish version of accountability that does no more than reveal the many opportunity gaps facing students from low-income communities.

Democrats are committed to providing parents with high-quality public school options and expanding these options for low-income youth. We support democratically governed, great neighborhood public schools and high-quality public charter schools, and we will help them disseminate best practices to other school leaders and educators. Democrats oppose for-profit charter schools focused on making a profit off of public resources. We believe that high-quality public charter schools should provide options for parents, but should not replace or destabilize traditional public schools. Charter schools must reflect their communities, and thus must accept and retain proportionate numbers of students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners in relation to their neighborhood public schools. We support increased transparency and accountability for all charter schools.

"

The 2016 Republican Party Platform on education

"

Education: A Chance for Every Child

Education is much more than schooling. It is the whole range of activities by which families and communities transmit to a younger generation, not just knowledge and skills, but ethical and behavioral norms and traditions. It is the handing over of a cultural identity. That is why American education has, for the last several decades, been the focus of constant controversy, as centralizing forces from outside the family and community have sought to remake education in order to remake America. They have done immense damage. The federal government should not be a partner in that effort, as the Constitution gives it no role in education. At the heart of the American Experiment lies the greatest political expression of human dignity: The self-evident truth that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." That truth rejects the dark view of the individual as human capital - a possession for the creation of another's wealth.

Parents are a child's first and foremost educators, and have primary responsibility for the education of their children. Parents have a right to direct their children's education, care, and upbringing. We support a constitutional amendment to protect that right from interference by states, the federal government, or international bodies such as the United Nations. We reject a one-size-fits-all approach to education and support a broad range of choices for parents and children at the state and local level. We likewise repeat our longstanding opposition to the imposition of national standards and assessments, encourage the parents and educators who are implementing alternatives to Common Core, and congratulate the states which have successfully repealed it. Their education reform movement calls for choice-based, parent-driven accountability at every stage of schooling. It affirms higher expectations for all students and rejects the crippling bigotry of low expectations. It recognizes the wisdom of local control of our schools and it wisely sees consumer rights in education - choice - as the most important driving force for renewing education. It rejects excessive testing and "teaching to the test" and supports the need for strong assessments to serve as a tool so teachers can tailor teaching to meet student needs.

We applaud America's great teachers, who should be protected against frivolous lawsuits and should be able to take reasonable actions to maintain discipline and order in the classroom. Administrators need flexibility to innovate and to hold accountable all those responsible for student performance. A good understanding of the Bible being indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry, we encourage state legislatures to offer the Bible in a literature curriculum as an elective in America's high schools. We urge school districts to make use of teaching talent in the business community, STEM fields, and the military, especially among our returning veterans. Rigid tenure systems should be replaced with a merit-based approach in order to attract the best talent to the classroom. All personnel who interact with school children should pass background checks and be held to the highest standards of personal conduct.

Academic Excellence for All Maintaining American preeminence requires a world-class system of education in which all students can reach their potential. Republicans are leading the effort to create it. Since 1965, the federal government, through more than 100 programs in the Department of Education, has spent $2 trillion on elementary and secondary education with little substantial improvement in academic achievement or high school graduation rates. The United States spends an average of more than $12,000 per pupil per year in public schools, for a total of more than $620 billion. That represents more than 4 percent of GDP devoted to K-12 education in 2011-2012. Of that amount, federal spending amounted to more than $57 billion. Clearly, if money were the solution, our schools would be problem-free.

More money alone does not necessarily equal better performance. After years of trial and error, we know the policies and methods that have actually made a difference in student advancement: Choice in education; building on the basics; STEM subjects and phonics; career and technical education; ending social promotions; merit pay for good teachers; classroom discipline; parental involvement; and strong leadership by principals, superintendents, and locally elected school boards. Because technology has become an essential tool of learning, it must be a key element in our efforts to provide every child equal access and opportunity. We strongly encourage instruction in American history and civics by using the original documents of our founding fathers.

Choice in Education We support options for learning, including home-schooling, career and technical education, private or parochial schools, magnet schools, charter schools, online learning, and early-college high schools. We especially support the innovative financing mechanisms that make options available to all children: education savings accounts (ESAs), vouchers, and tuition tax credits. Empowering families to access the learning environments that will best help their children to realize their full potential is one of the greatest civil rights challenges of our time. A young person's ability to succeed in school must be based on his or her God-given talent and motivation, not an address, ZIP code, or economic status. We propose that the bulk of federal money through Title I for low-income children and through IDEA for children with special needs should follow the child to whatever school the family thinks will work best for them.

In sum, on the one hand enormous amounts of money are being spent for K-12 public education with overall results that do not justify that spending level. On the other hand, the common experience of families, teachers, and administrators forms the basis of what does work in education. In Congress and in the states, Republicans are bridging the gap between those two realities. Congressional Republicans are leading the way forward with major reform legislation advancing the concept of block grants and repealing numerous federal regulations which have interfered with state and local control of public schools. Their Workplace Innovation and Opportunity Act - modernizing workforce programs, repealing mandates, and advancing employment for persons with disabilities - is now law. Their legislation to require transparency in unfunded mandates imposed upon our schools is advancing. Their D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program should be expanded as a model for the rest of the country. We deplore the efforts of Congressional Democrats and the current President to eliminate this successful program for disadvantaged students in order to placate the leaders of the teachers' unions.

To ensure that all students have access to the mainstream of American life, we support the English First approach and oppose divisive programs that limit students' ability to advance in American society. We renew our call for replacing "family planning" programs for teens with sexual risk avoidance education that sets abstinence until marriage as the responsible and respected standard of behavior. That approach - the only one always effective against premarital pregnancy and sexually-transmitted disease - empowers teens to achieve optimal health outcomes. We oppose school-based clinics that provide referral or counseling for abortion and contraception and believe that federal funds should not be used in mandatory or universal mental health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening programs. The federal government has pushed states to collect and share vast amounts of personal student and family data, including the collection of social and emotional data. Much of this data is collected without parental consent or notice. This is wholly incompatible with the American Experiment and our inalienable rights.

Title IX We emphatically support the original, authentic meaning of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. It affirmed that "no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." That language opened up for girls and women a world of opportunities that had too often been denied to them. That same provision of law is now being used by bureaucrats - and by the current President of the United States - to impose a social and cultural revolution upon the American people by wrongly redefining sex discrimination to include sexual orientation or other categories. Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power. They are determined to reshape our schools - and our entire society - to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America's history and traditions. Their edict to the states concerning restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities is at once illegal, dangerous, and ignores privacy issues. We salute the several states which have filed suit against it.

Sexual assault is a terrible crime. We commend the good-faith efforts by law enforcement, educational institutions, and their partners to address that crime responsibly. Whenever reported, it must be promptly investigated by civil authorities and prosecuted in a courtroom, not a faculty lounge. Questions of guilt or innocence must be decided by a judge and jury, with guilt determined beyond a reasonable doubt. Those convicted of sexual assault should be punished to the full extent of the law. The Administration's distortion of Title IX to micromanage the way colleges and universities deal with allegations of abuse contravenes our country's legal traditions and must be halted before it further muddles this complex issue and prevents the proper authorities from investigating and prosecuting sexual assault effectively with due process.

Improving Higher Education Our colleges, universities, and trade schools, large and small, public and private, form the world's greatest assemblage of learning. They drive much of the research that keeps America competitive and, by admitting large numbers of foreign students, convey our values and culture to the world. Their excellence is undermined by an ideological bias deeply entrenched within the current university system. Whatever the solution may be in private institutions, in state schools the trustees have a responsibility to the taxpayers to ensure that their enormous investment is not abused for political indoctrination. We call on state officials to preserve our public colleges, universities, and trade schools as places of learning and the exchange of ideas, not zones of intellectual intolerance or "safe zones," as if college students need protection from the free exchange of ideas. A student's First Amendment rights do not end at the schoolhouse gates. Colleges, universities, and trade schools must not infringe on their freedom of speech and association in the name of political correctness. We condemn the campus-based BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) campaign against Israel. It is anti-Semitism and should be denounced by advocates of academic freedom.

College Costs The cost of a college education has long been on an unsustainable trajectory, rising year by year far ahead of inflation. Nationwide, student debt now exceeds credit card debt with average debt levels per student totaling roughly $27,000. Delinquency rates on student loans are now as high as they were on subprime mortgages during the housing crisis. Over half of recent college grads are unemployed or underemployed, working at jobs for which their expensive educations gave them no preparation. We need new systems of learning to compete with traditional four-year schools: Technical institutions, online universities, life-long learning, and work-based learning in the private sector. Public policy should advance their affordability, innovation, and transparency and should recognize that a four-year degree from a brick-and-mortar institution is not the only path toward a prosperous and fulfilling career. The federal government should not be in the business of originating student loans. In order to bring down college costs and give students access to a multitude of financing options, private sector participation in student financing should be restored. Any regulation that increases college costs must be challenged to balance its worth against its negative economic impact on students and their families.

In order to encourage new modes of higher education delivery to enter the market, accreditation should be decoupled from federal financing, and states should be empowered to allow a wide array of accrediting and credentialing bodies to operate. This model would foster innovation, bring private industry into the credentialing market, and give students the ability to customize their college experience.

"

Jill Stein

The 2016 Green Party Platform on education

"

E. Education and the Arts

1. Education

The Green Party supports equal access to high-quality education, and sharp increases in financial aid for college students.

A great challenge facing the people of the United States is to educate ourselves to build a just, sustainable, humane and democratic future, and to become responsible and effective citizens of the local and global communities we share. Greens believe every child deserves a public education that fosters critical and holistic thought, and provides the breadth and depth of learning necessary to become an active citizen and a constructive member of our society. We do not believe our public school system, as it presently operates, helps us reach that goal.

The Green Party is strongly opposed to the dissolution of public schools and the privatization of education. We believe that the best educational experience is guaranteed by the democratic empowerment of organized students, their parents and communities along with organized teachers.

We must stop disinvestment in education and instead put it at the top of our social and economic agenda. Effective schools have sufficient resources. Too many of our teachers are overworked, underpaid, and starved of key materials. We also must be more generous to our schools so that our children will learn what generosity is, and know enough to be able to be generous to us in return.

Greens believe in education, not indoctrination. We do not think that schools should turn our children into servile students, employees, consumers or citizens. We believe it is very important to teach our children how to ask good questions.

Unfortunately, we often expect too little from our students, teachers and schools. We must teach our children and teenagers to be leaders, and challenge them with great works of literature, economics, philosophy, history, music, and the arts.

We also call attention to the results of a quarter century of corporate funding from the likes of the Bradley and Wal-Mart Family Foundations and a decade of No Child Left Behind - a vast, well-endowed and lucrative sector which seeks to dismantle, privatize, or militarize public education and destroy teachers unions. Regimes of high-stakes standardized testing and the wholesale diversion of resources away from public schools are provoking crises for which the bipartisan corporate consensus recommends school closings, dissolution of entire school districts and replacement by unaccountable, profit-based charter schools. The Green Party is unalterably opposed to the dissolution of public schools and the privatization of education.

The Green Party views learning as a lifelong and life-affirming process to which all people should have access. We cannot state more forcefully our belief that in learning, and openness to learning, we find the foundation of our Platform.

We recommend the following actions:

a. Eliminate gross inequalities in school funding. Federal policy on education should act principally to provide equal access to a quality education.

b. Provide free college tuition to all qualified students at public universities and vocational schools. It's time to forgive all student and parent loans taken out to finance post-secondary and vocational education.

c. Oppose the administration of public schools by private, for-profit entities.

d. Increase funding for after-school and daycare programs.

e. Promote a diverse set of educational opportunities, including bi-lingual education, continuing education, job retraining, distance learning, mentoring and apprenticeship programs.

f. Give K-12 classroom teachers professional status and salaries commensurate with advanced education, training and responsibility.

g. Teach non-violent conflict resolution and humane education at all levels of education.

h. Prohibit advertising to children in schools. Corporations should not be allowed to use the schools as vehicles for commercial advertising or corporate propaganda.

i. Provide healthy school meals that are rich in vitamins, minerals, protein and fiber, and offer plant-based vegetarian options. Support Farm-to-School programs that provide food from local family farms and educational opportunities.

j. Ban the sale of soda pop and junk food in schools. Junk food is defined as food or beverages that are relatively high in saturated or trans fat, added sugars or salt, and relatively low in vitamins, minerals, protein and fiber.

k. Oppose military and corporate control over the priorities and topics of university academic research.

l. Expand opportunities for universal higher education and life-long learning.

m. Make student loans available to all college students, with forgiveness for graduates who choose public service occupations.

n. Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act.

o. Include a vigorous and engrossing civics curriculum in later elementary and secondary schools, to teach students to be active citizens.

p. Encourage parental responsibility by supporting parenting, and increasing opportunities for parents to be as involved as possible in their children's education. Values start with parents. Teaching human sexuality is a parental and school responsibility.

q. Expand arts education and physical education opportunities at school.

r. Recognize the viable alternative of home-based education.

s. Oppose efforts to restrict the teaching of scientific in-formation and the portrayal of religious belief as fact.

t. Provide adequate academic and vocational education and training to prisoners.

u. We urge that our nation amend its "binding declaration" with respect to the "Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict" to join the rest of the world in setting 18 as the absolute minimum age for military recruitment.

v. No person should be permitted to sign away eight years of their life to the armed forces, without full written disclosure of what is expected of them and what they can expect in return from the government. We demand that the practice of deceiving prospective service recruits about the truth of their service contract be recognized as a fraudulent practice and sufficient grounds for re-voking an enlistment contract. Current practices holding individuals legally to all the terms of their military service contract should also apply to the government.

w. We demand an end to the militarization of our schools. JROTC programs are an expensive drain on our limited educational resources and a diversion from their important mission to prepare our young to assume their role in a peaceful tomorrow. ASVAB testing is being used to mine public school student bodies for data to support military recruiting. Forbid military access to student records. The Pentagon's Recruitment Command is misdirecting public tax dollars on manipulative campaigns that prey on our young. We insist that local education authorities stand up to these destructive practices.

Freedom of artistic expression is a fundamental right and a key element in empowering communities, and in moving us toward sustainability and respect for diversity. Artists can create in ways that foster healthy, non-alienating relationships between people and their daily environments, communities, and the Earth. This can include both artists whose themes advocate compassion, nurturance, or cooperation; and artists whose creations unmask the often-obscure connections between various forms of violence, domination, and oppression, or effectively criticize aspects of the very community that supports their artistic activity. The arts can only perform their social function if they are completely free from outside control.

The Green Party supports:

a. Alternative, community-based systems treating neither the artwork nor the artist as a commodity.

b. Eliminating all laws that seek to restrict or censor artistic expression, including the withholding of government funds for political or moral content.

c. Increased funding for the arts appropriate to their essential social role at local, state and federal levels of government.

d. Community-funded programs employing local artists to enrich their communities through public art programs, including public performances, exhibitions, murals on public buildings, design or re-design of parks and public areas, storytelling and poetry reading, and publication.

e. The establishment of non-profit public forums for local artists to display their talents and creations. Research, public dialogue, and trial experiments to develop alternative systems for the valuation and exchange of artworks and for the financial support of artists. Some examples include community subscriber support groups, artwork rental busts, cooperative support systems among artists, legal or financial incentives to donate to the arts or to donate artworks to public museums.

f. Responsible choices of non-toxic, renewable, or recyclable materials. Funding sources not connected with social injustice or environmental destruction.

g. Education programs in the community that will energize the creativity of every community member from the youngest to the oldest, including neglected groups such as teenagers, senior citizens, prisoners, immigrants, and drug addicts. These programs would provide materials and access to interested, qualified arts educators for every member of the community who demonstrates an interest.

h. Funding and staffing to incorporate arts education into every school curriculum. We encourage local artists and the community to contribute time, experience, and resources to these efforts.

i. Diversity in arts education in the schools including age-specific hands-on activities and appreciative theoretical approaches, exposure to the arts of various cultures and stylistic traditions, and experiences with a variety of media, techniques and contents.

j. The integration of the arts and artistic teaching methods into other areas of the curriculum to promote a holistic perspective.

"

Ajamu Baraka

The 2016 Libertarian Party Platform on education

"

2.9 Education

Education is best provided by the free market, achieving greater quality, accountability and efficiency with more diversity of choice. Recognizing that the education of children is a parental responsibility, we would restore authority to parents to determine the education of their children, without interference from government. Parents should have control of and responsibility for all funds expended for their children's education.

"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
2016 presidential candidates on education - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
OVERVIEW OF CANDIDATE POSITIONS Hillary Clinton opposed connecting teacher evaluations and pay to test outcomes, supported universal preschool and higher teacher pay, and called for student loan reform. Donald Trump supported returning education policy to the states and doing away with Common Core education standards.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Hillary Clinton

Over the past three decades, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has worked to expand access to early-childhood education, boost academic standards, and improve child health-but her track record of success is mixed.

Bernie Sanders

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has touched on both K-12 and higher education issues in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

5. Sanders has made educational equity a K-12 campaign theme.

He doesn't have the long-standing relationship with minority voters that his chief rival, Hillary Clinton, is said to have. But he's trying to take on issues that are important to those communities. For instance, on his campaign website, he addresses opportunity gaps in K-12 education, noting that black students are far more likely to be suspended or taught by a first-year teacher than their white peers are. And he's pitched moving away from property taxes to a more equal system of funding education. Plus, Sanders has talked about the power of education to combat crime. "It makes eminently more sense to invest in jobs and education than jails and incarceration," he said at a campaign rally in Springfield, Mass., last year. He's also said that government jobs could help dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline.

Donald Trump

He's never been a policymaker, but that hasn't stopped real estate developer and Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump from holding a few clear views about education.

Reporting: Alyson Klein & Andrew Ujifusa | Photos: AP Photos in order: Robert F. Bukaty; Matt Rourke (2); Chris Carlson; Jacquelyn Martin; Jim Cole; Charlie Neibergall; Chris O'Meara

Coverage of policy, government and politics, and systems leadership is supported in part a grant from by the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, at www.broadfoundation.org. Education Week retains sole editorial control over the content of this coverage.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Presidential Candidates on Education: Election Guide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Hillary Clinton Over the past three decades, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has worked to expand access to early-childhood education, boost academic standards, and improve child health-but her track record of success is mixed. Bernie Sanders Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has touched on both K-12 and higher education issues in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On 16th December 2018 SDG Advocate Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser, Founder and Chairperson of Education Above All Foundation met with the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UNICEF Executive Director, Henrietta Fore and [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Obtaining a quality education is the foundation to creating sustainable development.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Tired of media reports of fundraising and poll results instead of policy issues? At OnTheIssues.org, you can see the view of every candidates on every issue.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Issues Archive - The Office of Hillary Rodham Clinton

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During her 2016 campaign for president, Hillary and her team laid out a comprehensive progressive vision for America's future.