News Update!!: ZachNews: Elections 2016: Voting Results: Presidential General Election 2016.

zachnews-presidential-general-election-2016

News Update!!: ZachNews: Elections 2016: Voting Results: Presidential General Election 2016.

ZachNews has the voting results from the Presidential General Election 2016 held on Tuesday, November 8th, 2016.

** Voting Results: Presidential General Election 2016: Final: **

**** As of 1:20pm PT on Wednesday, November 9th, 2016: ****

** ( “>>>>” = Winners): **

 

**** President and Vice President: Nationwide Votes: ****

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Electoral)

– Hillary Clinton – President (Democratic) and Tim Kaine – Vice President:

59,462,301 – 228

>>>> Donald J. Trump – President (Republican, American Independent) and Michael R. Pence – Vice President:

59,272,991 – 279

** Source: NBC News: **

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/president

 

** For President and Vice President: California Votes Only: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

>>>> Hillary Clinton – President (Democratic) and Tim Kaine – Vice President:

5,481,885 – 61.5%

– Donald J. Trump – President (Republican, American Independent) and Michael R. Pence – Vice President:

2,965,704 – 33.2%

– Jill Stein – President (Green) and Ajamu Baraka – Vice President:

152,317 – 1.7%

– Gary Johnson – President (Libertarian) and Bill Weld – Vice President:

281,467 – 3.2%

– Gloria Estela La Riva – President (Peace and Freedom) and Dennis J. Banks – Vice President:

38,144 – 0.4%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: California Secretary of State: **

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/

 

** For United States Senator: Vote for One: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

>>>> Kamala D. Harris – Democratic (Attorney General of California):

4,861,261 – 62.5%

– Loretta L. Sanchez – Democratic (United States Congresswoman):

2,914,651 – 37.5%

 

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: California Secretary of State: **

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-senate/

 

** For United States Representative District 8: Vote for One: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

– Rita Ramirez – Democratic (Retired College Professor):

55,758 – 36.3%

>>>> Paul Cook – Republican (United States Representative):

97,852 – 63.7%

100.0% ( 997 of 997 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: California Secretary of State: **

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/us-rep/district/8/

 

** For Member of the State Assembly District 33: Vote for One: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

– Scott Markovich – Democratic (Contractor/School Trustee):

37,157 – 38.5%

>>>>Jay Obernolte – Republican (Assemblyman/Business Owner):

59,451 – 61.5%

 

100.0% ( 652 of 652 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: California Secretary of State: **

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/state-assembly/district/33/

 

** For Judge of the Superior Court, Office 24: Vote for One: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

– Susan Slater (Trial Attorney):

165,969 – 46.08%

>>>> Denise Trager Dvorak (Supervising District Attorney):

194,212 – 53.92%

1789/1789 100.00% Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters: **

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/Results/20161108/default.html

 

** For County of San Bernardino: Member, Board of Supervisors District 1: Vote for One: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

– Angela Valles (Director of Finance):

36,161 – 47.18%

>>>> Robert A. Lovingood (County Supervisor/Businessman):

40,488 – 52.82%

372/372 100.00% Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters: **

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/Results/20161108/default.html

 

** For Member, Governing Board Area 2, Needles Unified School District: Vote for No More Than Two: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

– Chad Donald Zamora:

225 – 10.94%

>>>> Christina Cameron-Otero (Tribal Education Director):

550 – 26.74%

– Steven Thomas (Business Owner):

448 – 21.78%

>>>> Marilyn H. Mathews (Retired Educator):

834 – 40.54%

21/21 100.00% Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters: **

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/Results/20161108/default.html

 

** For City of Needles: Mayor: Vote for One: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

>>>> Edward T. Paget (Incumbent):

827 – 100.00%

2/2 100.00% Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters: **

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/Results/20161108/default.html

 

** For City of Needles: Member, City Council: Vote for No More Than Three: **

(Candidate(s) – Vote Count – Percent)

– Linda J. Kidd (Retired Businesswoman):

291 – 11.36%

– John H. Wagner (Retired):

77 – 3.01%

– Tom Darcy (Incumbent):

228 – 8.90%

>>>> Clayton B. Hazlewood (Conductor):

354 – 13.82%

>>>> Shawn Gudmundson (Appointed Incumbent):

380 – 14.84%

– Timothy Terral (Cable Maintenance Technician):

192 – 7.50%

– Gerald “Jerry” Telles (Realtor/Engineer):

337 – 13.16%

– Ruth Musser-Lopez (Archaeologist/Businesswoman):

269 – 10.50%

>>>> Tona Belt (Registered Nurse):

433 – 16.91%

2/2 100.00% Precincts Partially Reporting.

** Source: San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters: **

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/Results/20161108/default.html

 

****** Congratulations To All The Candidates That Won!! ******

 

**** State Measures: California: ****

These State Measures for California will affect the Needles, California area of San Bernardino County, California.

(Yes/No – Vote Count – Percent)

** For Proposition 51: **

School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute.

Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds for new construction and modernization of K-12 public school facilities; charter schools and vocational education facilities; and California Community Colleges facilities. Fiscal Impact: State costs of about $17.6 billion to pay off both the principal ($9 billion) and interest ($8.6 billion) on the bonds. Payments of about $500 million per year for 35 years.

>>>> Yes: 4,663,319 – 54.0%

– No: 3,976,364 – 46.0%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/51/

 

** For Proposition 52: **

Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Extends indefinitely an existing statute that imposes fees on hospitals to fund Medi-Cal health care services, care for uninsured patients, and children’s health coverage. Fiscal Impact: Uncertain fiscal effect, ranging from relatively little impact to annual state General Fund savings of around $1 billion and increased funding for public hospitals in the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.

>>>> Yes: 5,950,642 – 69.6%

– No: 2,599,764 – 30.4%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/52/

 

** For Proposition 53: **

Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for certain projects if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Fiscal Impact: State and local fiscal effects are unknown and would depend on which projects are affected by the measure and what actions government agencies and voters take in response to the measure’s voting requirement.

– Yes: 4,067,013 – 48.6%

>>>> No: 4,309,664 – 51.4%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/53/

 

** For Proposition 54: **

Legislature. Legislation And Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless published on Internet for 72 hours before vote. Requires Legislature to record its proceedings and post on Internet. Authorizes use of recordings. Fiscal Impact: One-time costs of $1 million to $2 million and ongoing costs of about $1 million annually to record legislative meetings and make videos of those meetings available on the Internet.

>>>> Yes: 5,379,610 – 64.3%

– No: 2,987,230 – 35.7%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/54/

 

** For Proposition 55: **

Tax Extension To Fund Education And Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K-12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues—$4 billion to $9 billion annually from 2019-2030—depending on economy and stock market. Increased funding for schools, community colleges, health care for low-income people, budget reserves, and debt payments.

>>>> Yes: 5,350,614 – 62.1%

– No: 3,264,342 – 37.9%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/55/

 

** For Proposition 56: **

Cigarette Tax To Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, And Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Fiscal Impact: Additional net state revenue of $1 billion to $1.4 billion in 2017-18, with potentially lower revenues in future years. Revenues would be used primarily to augment spending on health care for low-income Californians.

>>>> Yes: 5,551,236 – 62.9%

– No: 3,271,626 – 37.1%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/56/

 

** For Proposition 57: **

Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings And Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment And Statute.

Allows parole consideration for nonviolent felons. Authorizes sentence credits for rehabilitation, good behavior, and education. Provides juvenile court judge decides whether juvenile will be prosecuted as adult. Fiscal Impact: Net state savings likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation. Net county costs of likely a few million dollars annually.

>>>> Yes: 5,501,627 – 63.6%

– No: 3,150,477 – 36.4%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/57/

 

** For Proposition 58: **

English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute.

Preserves requirement that public schools ensure students obtain English language proficiency. Requires school districts to solicit parent/ community input in developing language acquisition programs. Requires instruction to ensure English acquisition as rapidly and effectively as possible. Authorizes school districts to establish dual-language immersion programs for both native and non-native English speakers. Fiscal Impact: No notable fiscal effect on school districts or state government.

>>>> Yes: 6,245,618 – 72.4%

– No: 2,376,075 – 27.6%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/58/

 

** For Proposition 59: **

Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.

Asks whether California’s elected officials should use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the federal Constitution overturning the United States Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Citizens United ruled that laws placing certain limits on political spending by corporations and unions are unconstitutional. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state or local governments.

Shall California’s elected officials use all of their constitutional authority, including, but not limited to, proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, to allow the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending, to ensure that all citizens, regardless of wealth, may express their views to one another, and to make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings?

>>>> Yes: 4,292,992 – 52.3%

– No: 3,911,588 – 47.7%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/59/

 

** For Proposition 60: **

Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.

Requires adult film performers to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations. Requires producers to post condom requirement at film sites. Fiscal Impact: Likely reduction of state and local tax revenues of several million dollars annually. Increased state spending that could exceed $1 million annually on regulation, partially offset by new fees.

– Yes: 3,888,895 – 46.1%

>>>> No: 4,553,833 – 53.9%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/60/

 

** For Proposition 61: **

State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute.

Prohibits state from buying any prescription drug from a drug manufacturer at price over lowest price paid for the drug by United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Exempts managed care programs funded through MediCal. Fiscal Impact: Potential for state savings of an unknown amount depending on (1) how the measure’s implementation challenges are addressed and (2) the responses of drug manufacturers regarding the provision and pricing of their drugs.

– Yes: 3,933,084 – 46.3%

>>>> No: 4,570,245 – 53.7%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/61/

 

** For Proposition 62: **

Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.

Repeals death penalty and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to existing death sentences. Increases the portion of life inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution. Fiscal Impact: Net ongoing reduction in state and county criminal justice costs of around $150 million annually within a few years, although the impact could vary by tens of millions of dollars depending on various factors.

– Yes: 3,971,872 – 46.1%

>>>> No: 4,650,097 – 53.9%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/62/

 

** For Proposition 63: **

Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.

Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.

>>>> Yes: 5,451,811 – 62.6%

– No: 3,252,821 – 37.4%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/63/

 

** For Proposition 64: **

Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.

Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older. Imposes state taxes on sales and cultivation. Provides for industry licensing and establishes standards for marijuana products. Allows local regulation and taxation. Fiscal Impact: Additional tax revenues ranging from high hundreds of millions of dollars to over $1 billion annually, mostly dedicated to specific purposes. Reduced criminal justice costs of tens of millions of dollars annually.

>>>> Yes 4,957,215 56.0%

– No 3,889,080 44.0%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/64/

 

** For Proposition 65: **

Carryout Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute.

Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through mandated sale of carryout bags. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund to support specified environmental projects. Fiscal Impact: Potential state revenue of several tens of millions of dollars annually under certain circumstances, with the monies used to support certain environmental programs.

– Yes: 3,825,163 – 44.7%

>>>> No: 4,739,312 – 55.3%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/65/

 

** For Proposition 66: **

Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.

Changes procedures governing state court challenges to death sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Fiscal Impact: Unknown ongoing impact on state court costs for processing legal challenges to death sentences. Potential prison savings in the tens of millions of dollars annually.

>>>> Yes: 4,210,163 – 50.9%

– No: 4,058,667 – 49.1%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/66/

 

** For Proposition 67: **

Ban On Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum.

A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, a statute that prohibits grocery and other stores from providing customers single-use plastic or paper carryout bags but permits sale of recycled paper bags and reusable bags. Fiscal Impact: Relatively small fiscal effects on state and local governments, including a minor increase in state administrative costs and possible minor local government savings from reduced litter and waste management costs.

>>>> Yes: 4,474,493 – 52.0%

– No: 4,136,044 – 48.0%

100.0% ( 24,847 of 24,847 ) Precincts Partially Reporting.

**** Source: California Secretary of State: ****

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/maps/ballot-measures/prop/67/

 

** More Voting and Election Information: **

– For more information on ballot information and other voting results affecting San Bernardino County, California, please go to the following San Bernardino County Elections Office of the Registrar of Voters website addresses:

https://www.sbcountyelections.com/

http://www.sbcounty.gov/rov/elections/Results/20161108/default.html

– For more information on ballot information and other voting results affecting California, please go to the following California Secretary of State website address:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/

 

13580498_1261130480571588_118921768816303128_o

**** Please remember everybody, no matter who wins or loses in Elections 2016, be respectful and do not cause trouble for no matter what, we all love the United States of America and we stand united together always in defense of those who fought for our freedoms; may we never lose that spirit, pride, and respect for what we stand united together for. We Are All Proud To Be An American. Thank you, party responsibly, and good luck everybody. ****

 

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s