By Cris Alarcon | Editorial<\/p>\n
I recently published a comparison of Ted Gaines and Gina Posey, the candidates seeking to represent District 4 on the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors. Apparently, I struck a nerve.<\/p>\n
Some of Gina Posey’s supporters took exception to my inclusion of morality and political ideology in a race officially designated as nonpartisan.<\/p>\n
Fair enough. Let me explain.<\/p>\n
First, nonpartisan does not mean apolitical. It means candidates do not run under a political party designation on the ballot. It does not mean they lack political philosophies, ideological beliefs or personal values that influence how they approach public policy.<\/p>\n
County supervisors make decisions involving taxation, land use, property rights, public safety, government spending, infrastructure and the allocation of public resources. Those decisions do not happen in an ideological vacuum.<\/p>\n
I believe voters have every right to understand the philosophies that inform those decisions.<\/p>\n
My comparison was intended to raise questions, identify documented differences and point out areas where I believe additional answers would help voters. It was not intended to suggest that every category carries equal importance for every voter.<\/p>\n
Let’s look at the reasoning behind several of those categories.<\/p>\n
I placed Religiosity and Marriage at the top of my original candidate matrix deliberately.<\/p>\n
I recognize that this choice generated criticism, particularly from people who believe religious beliefs and marital status have no place in a local government election.<\/p>\n
My original intent was to include categories that appeal to voters who place particular importance on religious conviction, traditional family structure and socially conservative values. In other words, I was acknowledging the priorities of a segment of the electorate often described as the Religious Right.<\/p>\n
Religion has long been an important consideration for religious voters, while others, including atheists and people who do not practice a faith, may give it little or no weight.<\/p>\n
In this election religion has taken on a special significance with the increase of muslim politicians in American politics!\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n However, there is an important distinction between examining a candidate’s publicly expressed religious beliefs and assuming that a person’s religion determines their qualifications or political conduct. A candidate’s faith, whatever it may be, should not automatically be treated as evidence of their position on public policy.<\/p>\n The same distinction applies to marriage.<\/p>\n Some socially conservative voters consider marriage and traditional family structure important indicators of personal values. Others consider marital status entirely irrelevant to public service.<\/p>\n Neither perspective should be confused with evidence of a candidate’s qualifications.<\/p>\n I also referenced a national controversy involving allegations that a prominent elected official married a sibling to facilitate immigration benefits. That controversy concerns U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota.<\/p>\n However, an allegation is not an established fact. The sibling-marriage accusation has not been proven in court, and publicly available reporting has not established that the alleged marriage occurred. Omar has not denied the accusation only saying “it would be a surprise to me.”<\/p>\n I want to make that distinction clear: national political controversies may explain why some voters raise questions about marriage and public accountability, but they do not establish anything about either District 4 candidate.<\/p>\n The larger question is whether a candidate’s publicly stated values are relevant to the people they seek to represent. Voters can decide how much weight to give those values, but questions about private life should not substitute for evidence about public conduct.<\/p>\n Experience was another important category in my comparison.<\/p>\n Serving on the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors is not simply a matter of having individual intentions and turning them into policy.<\/p>\n It requires working with four other elected supervisors, listening to constituents, evaluating competing interests, understanding county departments and building the support necessary to move proposals forward.<\/p>\n El Dorado County has a five-member Board of Supervisors. Under the county charter, three members constitute a quorum, and at least three members must be present and concur for an action to be valid, except where state law requires a higher vote.<\/p>\n That means governing requires more than individual conviction.<\/p>\n A supervisor must understand how to develop proposals, negotiate differences, build coalitions and persuade colleagues. Sometimes that involves compromise. Sometimes it means explaining why a proposal deserves support even when it is not initially popular.<\/p>\n In political circles, this is sometimes described as the art of getting things done.<\/p>\n I consider that a learned skill.<\/p>\n Ted Gaines brings a documented history of public office. According to his official California Board of Equalization biography, he served on the Roseville Planning Commission from 1997 to 1999, the Placer County Board of Supervisors beginning in 2000, 12 years in the California Legislature and, since 2018, the Board of Equalization.<\/p>\n Gina Posey brings a different professional background but no elected political experience.<\/p>\n Those are different forms of experience, and voters can reasonably consider how each relates to the responsibilities of a county supervisor.<\/p>\n Experience does not guarantee good decisions. Nor does a lack of prior elected office automatically disqualify someone.<\/p>\n But the responsibilities of governing deserve serious consideration before voters decide what qualifications matter most.<\/p>\n The Second Amendment was included because political ideology has a direct influence on how elected officials interpret constitutional rights and approach firearms legislation.<\/p>\n Modern conservative political philosophy generally emphasizes the Second Amendment as an individual constitutional right associated with self-defense, personal liberty and the ability of citizens to protect themselves.<\/p>\n Liberal and progressive approaches generally place greater emphasis on government regulation intended to reduce firearm-related injuries and deaths.<\/p>\n Policies commonly associated with those approaches include universal background checks, restrictions on certain firearms and magazines, red-flag laws, licensing requirements and firearm storage regulations.<\/p>\n There are differences within both political camps, and these descriptions are broad ideological tendencies rather than absolute rules.<\/p>\n Why include this category in a county supervisor comparison?<\/p>\n Because elected officials bring their constitutional interpretations and policy philosophies into public office. Those philosophies can influence how they approach local public safety, cooperation with law enforcement and their positions on state and federal government authority.<\/p>\n Voters may disagree about how much influence a county supervisor has over particular firearms policies. That is precisely why a candidate’s actual authority, stated positions and record should be distinguished from general political beliefs.<\/p>\n Taxes were another major category in my comparison, and perhaps one of the most consequential for residents of El Dorado County.<\/p>\n There is an important distinction between the candidates’ connections to the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA).<\/p>\n Ted Gaines: His campaign lists the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Political Action Committee as an official endorser. The association’s 2026 endorsement materials also identify Gaines in the District 4 supervisor race.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n Gina Posey: Her name appears on the HJTA website’s list of candidates who signed its Pledge to Stand Up for Taxpayers.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n These are two different forms of support and should not be confused. An organizational PAC endorsement is not the same as signing an organization’s pledge.<\/p>\n The HJTA pledge specifically addresses Proposition 13, taxpayer approval of tax increases, Proposition 218 and voter approval of certain local bonds.<\/p>\n Both candidates therefore have documented connections to the taxpayer advocacy organization, although through different mechanisms.<\/p>\n At its core, the philosophical debate over taxation involves a fundamental question:<\/p>\n Who is best equipped to decide how a dollar should be spent \u2014 the individual who earned it or the government entrusted with collecting it?<\/p>\n Conservative and liberal economic philosophies approach that question differently. These are broad descriptions, not necessarily the complete positions of either candidate.<\/p>\n These philosophies are not mutually exclusive in every circumstance. Conservative officials can support public investment, and liberal officials can advocate fiscal restraint.<\/p>\n The important consideration is how candidates apply their philosophies when faced with actual budget decisions.<\/p>\n Ted Gaines describes himself as a conservative and emphasizes lower taxes, Proposition 13 protections, reduced bureaucracy and controlling government spending.<\/p>\n His campaign platform states:<\/p>\n “I will be a budget watchdog! Fiscal responsibility is my pledge as your county supervisor.”<\/p>\n Ted Gaines for Superviser 2026<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Gina Posey’s campaign also emphasizes controlling spending, opposing fee increases, improving county services and protecting taxpayers.<\/p>\n Her campaign website states:<\/p>\n “Growth should serve residents, not special interests.”<\/p>\n Posey4Supervisor.com<\/p><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n Posey also identifies transparent budgeting and what she calls smarter revenue strategies as priorities for addressing county budget challenges.<\/p>\n These positions illustrate why I included taxation in the comparison. Both candidates discuss protecting taxpayers, but voters should examine how each proposes to accomplish that objective.<\/p>\n A supervisor’s responsibility is not simply to oppose every tax or fee. Nor is it to approve every proposal that promises additional public services.<\/p>\n The responsibility is to understand the county’s financial obligations, evaluate competing priorities, scrutinize spending and explain the consequences of budget decisions to taxpayers.<\/p>\n For residents of El Dorado County, those decisions affect everything from roads and fire protection to law enforcement, planning services and the long-term financial health of the county.<\/p>\n I want to return to the original criticism that political ideology and morality have no place in a nonpartisan election.<\/p>\n I respectfully disagree with the broader premise.<\/p>\n A nonpartisan ballot designation does not erase a candidate’s political philosophy. It does not eliminate differences in how candidates understand constitutional rights, taxation, property ownership, government authority or the responsibilities of public institutions.<\/p>\n Consider two supervisors faced with the same budget proposal.<\/p>\n One might begin by asking how much the proposal will cost individual taxpayers and whether the government can accomplish the objective with fewer resources.<\/p>\n Another might begin by asking what services the community needs and whether additional public investment would produce a worthwhile return.<\/p>\n Neither approach, by itself, tells us whether the eventual decision will be right or wrong. But the underlying philosophy matters because it helps explain how elected officials approach the same problem.<\/p>\n That is why I believe voters should look beyond campaign slogans and endorsements.<\/p>\n They should examine records, ask questions, compare proposals and determine whether a candidate’s philosophy reflects their own expectations of county government.<\/p>\n District 4 encompasses a geographically diverse part of El Dorado County, including Shingle Springs, Cameron Park, Rescue, Cool, Pilot Hill, Garden Valley, Georgetown and surrounding rural communities. The decisions made by the Board of Supervisors affect residents throughout those communities.<\/p>\n The candidates have different professional histories and different experiences in public service.<\/p>\n Gaines has held elected offices at the county and state levels. Posey brings decades of business experience, service on the Civil Grand Jury and involvement in local organizations and wildfire-prevention efforts.<\/p>\n Those distinctions deserve consideration, as do their respective positions on taxation, public safety, land use, government spending and property rights.<\/p>\n I also want to clarify the purpose of my original comparison.<\/p>\n I have personally contacted Posey on two occasions seeking clarification on questions I believed were relevant to the comparison. I did not receive responses to those inquiries. I included that experience in my original commentary because unanswered questions are part of the information available to me as a writer. It should not, however, be interpreted as proof of a candidate’s position or motivation.<\/p>\n Candidates have every right to decide which inquiries they answer. Voters likewise have every right to consider the information that is publicly available and decide whether they have received sufficient answers.<\/p>\n I did not construct my candidate matrix to satisfy everyone. Nor did I expect every reader to agree with the categories I selected.<\/p>\n The placement of Religiosity and Marriage was intentional. The inclusion of Experience, Second Amendment rights and Taxation was equally intentional. Each represented a different consideration in the framework I used to examine the candidates.<\/p>\n I recognize that some readers would construct an entirely different matrix. That is their prerogative.<\/p>\n But I would rather have a spirited discussion about the issues than pretend those issues do not exist simply because the ballot says nonpartisan.<\/p>\n My interest in local government has always centered on several fundamental questions:<\/p>\n What is the proper balance between government authority and individual rights?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n How much of a citizen’s hard-earned money should government be entitled to collect and spend?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n What qualifications and experience should we expect from someone entrusted with public authority?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n How should elected officials protect constitutional rights?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n How much should personal values and political philosophy influence public policy?<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n These are not exclusively Republican or Democratic questions. They are questions about the nature of representative government.<\/p>\n An informed electorate requires more than knowing a candidate’s name. It requires understanding what that candidate believes, what that candidate has done, and how those beliefs and experiences might influence decisions affecting our community.<\/p>\n Tomorrow, Nov. 3, District 4 voters will make their choice.<\/p>\n They do not have to agree with my matrix, my priorities or my conclusions. They do, however, deserve the opportunity to examine the issues, ask difficult questions and make an informed decision.<\/p>\n That, ultimately, is why I published the comparison.<\/p>\n And that is why I am explaining it now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A comparison of Ted Gaines and Gina Posey generated some strong reactions. Before El Dorado County voters head to the polls, I want to explain what was behind the questions, why political ideology matters in a nonpartisan race, and how I approached the candidate comparison.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14876,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":{"format":"standard","override":[{"template":"7","parallax":"1","layout":"no-sidebar-narrow","sidebar":"default-sidebar","second_sidebar":"default-sidebar","sticky_sidebar":"1","share_position":"float","share_float_style":"share-normal","show_share_counter":"1","show_view_counter":"1","show_featured":"1","show_post_meta":"1","show_post_author":"1","show_post_author_image":"1","show_post_date":"1","post_date_format":"default","post_date_format_custom":"Y\/m\/d","show_post_category":"1","post_reading_time_wpm":"300","post_calculate_word_method":"str_word_count","show_zoom_button":"0","zoom_button_out_step":"2","zoom_button_in_step":"3","show_post_tag":"1","show_popup_post":"1","show_comment_section":"1","number_popup_post":"1","show_author_box":"1","show_post_related":"1","show_inline_post_related":"1"}],"image_override":[{"single_post_thumbnail_size":"crop-500","single_post_gallery_size":"crop-500"}],"trending_post_position":"meta","trending_post_label":"Trending","sponsored_post_label":"Sponsored by","disable_ad":"0","subtitle":"With Election Day here, questions about ideology, experience, taxes and personal values deserve a closer explanation"},"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_social_meta":[],"jnews_override_counter":{"view_counter_number":"0","share_counter_number":"0","like_counter_number":"0","dislike_counter_number":"0"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14929","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-government"],"yoast_head":"\nExperience: Governing Is More Than Having Good Ideas<\/h2>\n
Second Amendment Rights: Political Philosophy Has Consequences<\/h2>\n
Tax, Tax and More Taxes: Who Should Control the Dollar?<\/h2>\n
\n
The ideological divide over taxation<\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n Conservative \/ limited-government philosophy<\/th>\n Liberal \/ public-investment philosophy<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n \n Emphasizes individual ownership and personal control over earned income.<\/td>\n Emphasizes the social responsibilities associated with shared public resources.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Favors lower taxes and limited government spending.<\/td>\n Supports taxation to fund public infrastructure and government services.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Views excessive taxation as a potential burden on businesses, property owners and economic growth.<\/td>\n Views public revenue as necessary to provide services and address community needs.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Emphasizes spending discipline, reduced bureaucracy and accountability.<\/td>\n Emphasizes public investment, social services and infrastructure development.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n What the candidates say<\/h3>\n
Why Political Ideology Belongs in the Discussion<\/h2>\n
An Election Is About More Than Personalities<\/h2>\n
My Final Explanation<\/h2>\n
\n