2020 CALIFORNIA BALLOT PROPOSITIONS
I'll give my quick takes but please don't just vote the way I do. Read it. Understand it. Decide for yourself.
QUICK TAKES
Proposition 14: NO
Proposition 15: resounding YES
Proposition 16: YES
Proposition 17: YES
Proposition 18: YES
Proposition 19: I said NO last year and I'm saying NO again this year and I'll say NO again next year. STAKE THIS VAMPIRE IN THE HEART.
Proposition 20: NO.
Proposition 21: NO
Proposition 22: — mind changed — NO
Proposition 23: NO
Proposition 24: NO! HORRIBLY MISLEADING
Proposition 25: YES
Source: Upsplash
PROPOSITION 14: STEM CELL RESEARCH
A YES vote compels the state to borrow $5.5 billion for the stem cell research, in the form of bonds. I assume the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was formed in response to the federal ban on stem cell research. Much of the money would fund research for Alzheimer's and Parkinson's specifically.
Prop 71 in 2004 borrowed $3 billion and established a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research. The list of grant reciptients 2004-2020 seems highly reputable; the researchers hail from a number of institutions both public and private, from UCLA and USC to UC Irvine, UC Davis, and Children's Hospital of Los Angeles.
A wealthy developer who is a huge stem cell research advocate is providing most of the money supporting 14. The UC board of regents also supports it.
I expected abortion opponents to oppose the measure but I guess it isn't on their radar. The Center for Genetics and Society argues that there is no longer federal limits on stem cell funding, as there was in 2004. They also argue that the measure lacks oversight. But, they have raised no money to oppose it.
When you visit the Center for Genetics and Society website, you see progressive causes featured prominently, so it is not a right-wing antiabortion nuthouse on first glance. But, it lacks professional luster and feels suspicious. The "about" page lists one woman as the contact. I will try to ascertain if they have anti-vax or other weird ties.
My take: NO. Is it necessary for the public to fund these things? Will the resulting medicines be free? I doubt it.
The California cash cow should not be all things to all people. After reviewing several newspaper editorials, I agree that this is something the medical industry, awash in cash, can handle on their own. This is not a situation like AIDS in the 1980s, nor even stem cell research in 2004.
PROPOSITION 15: TAX ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR EDUCATION
This epic battle is one of the main reasons you need to vote instead of picking your nose on the sidelines.
A YES vote amends the state constitution and requires SOME commercial and industrial properties (except for commercial agriculture) to be taxed based on market value, not purchase price.
Right now, annual rates of tax increase amount to 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.
The phase-in would begin fiscal 2022-3 but would be delayed for properties comprised of at least 50% small businesses. Owners with $3 million or less in holdings in California would be exempt.
So, this would undo the commercial property portion of the notorious 1978 Proposition 13 for wealthy commercial landowners. The funds raised (up to $12 billion) would be used for implementation and to shore up the general fund, and would support school districts and local governments.
Normally I do not like budgetary matters handled as constitutional amendments but there is no other way to do this because Prop 13 was a constitutional amendment.
“Chevron is getting the same deal as grandma.”
This is shaping up to be a super-nasty battle, with unions, the Democrats, many mayors and local officials, state elected officials, Dolores Huerta and Biden, Sanders, and Warren all endorsing YES.
NO is of course the position of Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Chambers of Commerce, developers, restaurants and retailers, the NAACP (interestingly), and manufacturers. The state Republican party has not weighed in, I'm guessing, because to do so would hurt the effort.
YES has over $21M; NO has $5.5M. Expect to see this litigated on television.
April polls show YES leading 54-47, which is not a big margin.
My take: Although I'm a public school teacher, I do not support increased education funding in a kneejerk way. But this makes sense, particularly as the COVID-19 economic crisis will severely impact education and local government. If small businesses were not exempt, I would oppose it. I'm sick of the big boys getting a free ride, and what's happened to the state economy makes it even more essential than when it was conceived. If some large developers sell property, as a result so much the better: we need more housing. In many municipalities there's too much retail space, and not enough places for people to live.
RESOUNDING YES.
PROPOSITION 16: DIVERSITY IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
A YES vote repeals Proposition 209 from 1996, which continues to prohibit the state from giving preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national original in public employment, public education, and public contracting.
California was the first state to enact such a measure; others followed.
The U.S. Supremes require a compelling state interest for affirmative action when it comes to hiring in higher education, and in awarding government contracts, so the state's ability to implement affirmative action would be limited.
Virtually all elected Democrats support this measure, including the governor and both U.S. senators. Pete Buttigieg has also thrown his support behind it. The teachers, the NAACP, and the ACLU also support it.
A surprisingly small handful of Republicans oppose it, including two Asians serving in Sacramento. Asian-Americans, it seems, are overrepresented in hiring compared to the general population.
YES has vastly outraised NO.
The San Francisco Chronicle has already come out in support; the Wall Street Journal has already opposed.
My take: Whether or not you support this measure depends on whether you think the status quo is fair to Black and Latinx Californians. We've been waiting almost 6 decades for circumstances to change on their own. They haven't. Whites still control almost every aspect of society. NO voters will argue disingenuously that things are fair now, and that this will make things unfair for Whites and Asians.
No available metric supports that position.
I'm voting YES.
PROPOSITION 17: SUFFRAGE FOR THOSE ON PAROLE
YES would amend the state constitution to allow felons on parole to vote. It would not grant suffrage to felons serving time in prison.
Sen. Harris, a number of elected Democrats, the ACLU, and the League of Women Voters support YES.
One elected Republican has endorsed NO.
Oddly, this issue varies widely in the various states. KY VA IA prohibit felons from ever voting again. VT and ME allow felons to vote from prison.
For my own part, I'm interested in imprisoned felons getting any incentive we can offer, within reason, to earn parole. Also, let's be real: losing the right to vote has provided a disincentive for committing crimes, let's see (( checks notes ))... never.
Incarceration without rehabilitation has proven a dismal failure in this country. 17 doesn't change that much. But it's a start.
I'm voting YES.
PROPOSITION 18: PRIMARY VOTING FOR 17-YEAR OLDS
A YES vote allows those who will be 18 on the date of the general election to vote in the preceding primary election at age 17.
Predictably, the NO camp says that these kids would just vote the way their parents direct them to vote.
Have you met any 17 year olds?
The ones who are going to vote the way their parents want them to vote will continue to do so at age 18, age 38, and age 108, with very few exceptions. I'm interested in getting kids excited about voting. And, many of them are smarter than most of the clods already voting.
I say this is long overdue. YES.
PROPOSITION 19: PROPERTY TAX CHANGE
Not the sexiest measure on the ballot, but it's important and we've seen it before.
A YES vote amends the state constitution. It affects some homeowners.
Right now, eligible homeowners who suffer severe disabilities, who are age 55+, or who are natural disaster victims can transfer their tax assessment within counties to homes of equal or lesser market value one time. Assessments on inherited homes, including those not used as primary residences, can be transferred from parent to child or grandchild.
19 would increase the number of times to 3, and would allow transfer to anywhere within the state. Those 55+ and those with disabilities would be eligible. Disaster victims would not.
19 would limit the transfers to children/grandchildren if the residence is not going to be a primary residence.
Why do folks transfer their tax assessments? To avoid higher property taxes.
This has been tried before. Many elected Democrats and Republicans support it. YES raised $19M and NO raised nothing.
My take: We keep getting asked, every cycle, to let wealthy old people skip property tax. Enough is enough. I don't care if the proposition helps family farms or closes the loophole for inherited mansions. I don't care if you pretend like the state might make money and throw it at wildfire crews.
Those provisions amount to spreading frosting on a pile of poo. Why are we trying to help Ann Romney buy a successively more gigantic mansion, THREE TIMES, and keep paying the same property tax?! Wasn't Proposition 13 bad enough?
How is this supposed to make money? Tell the truth. It's a giveaway to diamond-encrusted grandma.
STAKE THIS THROUGH THE HEART. NO.
PROPOSITION 20: CRIMINAL SENTENCING, PAROLE, AND DNA COLLECTION
In 2009, the U.S. Supremes ordered California to reduce prison overcrowding in Brown v. Plata. In 2014 we passed Proposition 47, which reclassified many nonviolent crimes as misdemeanors. In 2016, we passed Proposition 57, which increased parole chances for many nonviolent convicts. As a result, the rate of imprisonment has fallen from 431 inmates per 100,000 (2011) to 317 per 100,000 (2019).
This is an effort to reverse 47 and 57.
A YES vote would make the following crimes chargeable as felonies (currently they are only misdemeanors):
firearm theft
vehicle theft
unlawful use of a credit card
organized retail crime
It would also require DNA collection from anyone convincted before 2014 of the following:
drug possession
grand theft
shoplifting
domestic violence
prostitution with a minor
It would ALSO make 51 crimes "violent crimes" in order to exclude them from parole board consideration for nonviolent crimes.
It would ALSO make parole for nonviolent crimes more difficult.
This is legislation, not a constitutional amendment. The boys and girls in Sacramento won't touch it because there isn’t much appetite for keeping thousands, if not tens of thousands, of nonviolent offenders in our overcrowded prisons.
In the YES camp are police organizations, Albertsons-Safeway (!), Orange County, and two Sacramento legislators, one from each party.
In the NO camp is former Governor Brown and the ACLU.
Both sides have raised around $3M.
The YES side will be running ads focusing on 3-4 scary crimes that need changes to sentencing guidelines.
My take: If you're worried about a few crimes for which sentencing guidelines ought to be toughened, why are you writing a law that impacts dozens and dozens of nonviolent crimes along with it?
There are better ways to stop credit card fraud. This is ridiculous and expensive.
NO!
PROPOSITION 21: RENT CONTROL
Also on our Greatest Hits from the Past album is rent control. Let's see if they're offering something that stinks less this time.
A YES vote allows local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied before 2005, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes.
Right now rent control is prohibited for anything first occupied after February of 1995.
Proposition 10 was rejected overwhelmingly in 2018, but that was a wholesale repeal of the 1995 legislation.
YES is supported, again, by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, as well as Maxine Waters and Bernie Sanders, Dolores Huerta, and the Democratic Socialists.
NO is supported by landowners.
This is the big money proposition with both sides raising around $15M. They raised $100M total in 2018.
My take: I've no love for slum lords and millionaires who sit around and just own things all day. But I'm wary of rent control. In San Francisco, it isn't helping low income people much if at all, because it does nothing to encourage the construction of new housing, and because wealthy people take advantage and keep these low rents in shi-shi neighborhoods as possessions for decades. As I understand it, these low rents can be passed down as inheritances. Ridiculous.
Worse, rent control is a disincentive to invest in the construction and renovation of rental properties. We need a dramatic increase in affordable housing. This won't do that.
Want to help renters? Ban or severely limit AirBnBs. Jack local property taxes into the ionosphere on anything that's not a primary residence BUT LOWER property tax for rental properties, contingent on the landlords remaining in good standing, so their properties will remain nice, AND offer tax-subsidized vouchers to tenants amounting to the difference between what they can afford and what the rent ought to be worth, contingent on the tenant remaining in good standing, so they don't trash the place. Phase out flat rent controls. Finally, and perhaps most critically, give NIMBYs a big stop sign, tell them to take a million seats, and stop allowing them to stand in the way of these reforms.
Rent control isn't real reform. I'm voting NO.
PROPOSITION 22: UBER/LIFT LABOR REFORM
What a sh*tshow this is.
A YES vote defines app-based rideshares and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopts reforms to help them.
I have changed my mind many times on this. Bear with me.
This is a legislative measure written in response to California Assembly Bill 5 (2019). AB 5 changed California's labor laws dramatically, greatly restricting who can be considered an independent contractor. Basically, dozens of professions might now be considered employees rather than independent contractors depending on what they do. For more about AB 5, see https://calmatters.org/economy/2019/09/whos-in-whos-out-of-ab-5/
It's a piece of seismic legislation that will affect millions of Californians. You owe it to yourself to understand why it was passed and whom it affects.
22 does not override all of AB 5—it only overrides what AB 5 does for rideshare and delivery drivers. Prop 22 would keep drivers operating as they have, but would require their wages to be 120 percent of the minimum wage plus 30 cents per mile, and would limit the number of hours they can work, and would require they be offered health care subsidies and insurance.
Not surprisingly, the rideshare corporate giants have dumped $110M into the YES campaign—rather than paying their drivers. They’re vile.
Major lawsuits are in the works; Prop 22 hopes to solve them preemptively.
YES supporters include the rideshare corporations, the police associations, the chambers of commerce, and the NAACP.
NO supporters include Biden, Sen. Harris, Sen. Warren, and an array of unions but they have been outraised about 200 to 1.
I'm in the teachers union, as you know. Although I have concerns about AB 5, I'm restricting myself to the scope of Proposition 22.
Based on this op-ed in the New York Times, written by a worker, I would vote NO. But I am concerned about the fact that Sacramento’s legislation regarding contract laborers is a steaming pile.
From a current driver:
“While a yes on PROP 22 would guarantee benefits and provide somewhat of a safety net for drivers including gas expenses covered and minimum wage, it would create a platform where Uber/Lyft could strong-arm drivers even further. It would result in less drivers, and higher costs. There is no win-win situation here. A NO would prevent drivers [from obtaining employee benefits], but would keep the ease of access and flexibility for drivers, which [is what] makes it so desirable for thousands of people. Further, the nature of the job is knowing where to be and when, to make the most money. Driving for Uber/Lyft in a sprawling suburb is not sustainable, for example, as expenses would outweigh the pay. Driving in downtown LA or NYC is [sustainable]. Sure, a YES would eliminate that discrepancy but would ruin the inherent nature of convenience the companies were built on and made them so successful. Instead, pressure [the corporations to provide] better pay as drivers, they can afford it.”
But:
I have changed my mind. The New York Times editorial of 10/12 came out against Prop 22 and explained it beautifully. I recommend reading it.
PROPOSITION 23: DIALYSIS CLINIC REQUIREMENTS
A YES vote here will require clinics to have an on-site physician present during treatment, and will require them to report data and obtain consent before closing, and will prohibit discrimination based on payment source.
We have had dialysis ballot initiatives before. What I remember thinking before is that if the clinics all close because they can't make money (what a sick system this is), it hurts the patients more. Proposition 8 (2018) was resoundingly rejected.
Let's see what's going on here.
This is a legislative initiative.
Rather than capping profits, as Prop 8 sought to do, this seems more directly patient-friendly. But it will cost the taxpayers due to oversight requirements.
YES is spearheaded by the SEIU; NO is funded by the friendly dialysis corporations. YES leads in funding $6M to $2M. Expect money to pour in like a tsunami; Prop 8 was the third most expensive initiative EVER.
My take: Considering the clinics managed to find over $111M to fight Prop 8, I'm not too concerned about their profits.
I was right to wait until the newspapers weighed in. Choose one. They hate it. Their reasoning is that this is not the action of dialysis patients, but of workers who have failed to unionized, who are using the ballot process to attack these corporations. There’s no good guys. Costs will likely go up, with no improvement in care. I’m a union man, but I don’t like this.
NO.
PROPOSITION 24: CONSUMER PERSONAL INFORMATION
A YES vote here will expand data privacy laws, allowing consumers to direct businesses to keep their personal information private. Violators will no longer enjoy a grace period to fix oopsies before they're fined. An oversight agency would be created.
Wouldn't it be nice if corporate America behaved better? This is why we have to have regulation. But let's make sure this one makes sense.
It's a legislative initiative.
I like that it would prohibit corporations from collecting data without permission from those under 16.
YES is a led by a real estate developer and investor.
NO is led by Dolores Huerta and the ACLU.
WHAT???
The Consumer Federation of California argues, "[Prop 24's] 52 pages are full of privacy reductions and giveaways to Facebook, social media platforms, and big tech companies that misuse our personal information."
YES leads in money $4M to $0.
What a lovely Trojan Horse you have there. No wonder the legislators in Sacramento didn't do this themselves.
NO THANKS.
PROPOSITION 25: REPLACES CASH BAIL
That's a bunch of stinky propositions in a row, in my humble opinion. What about the last one?
California uses a cash bail system to released detained criminal suspects before their trials. One of the concerns here of course is overcrowding in jails. Another is the ability of the wealthy to pay, always. The cash is always repaid regardless of the trial's outcome.
No other state has ended cash bail, but Sacramento passed SB 10 in attempt to do just that. Governor Brown signed it. As a result, there is now a risk assessment. Folks with low risk of flight are released; folks with high risk of flight are not, unless they can convince the judge to override.
A YES vote here affirms SB 10. It is a veto referendum organized by the American Bail Coalition, a collection of bail bond businesses.
The ACLU joins the bail boys in opposing 25 not to help them, but because 25 does not address racial equity in risk assessment.
The fiscal impact is disturbingly high: hundreds of millions of dollars annually, although it would be offset by some degree since local funds would no longer be needed for this type of work.
YES is supported by a wide array of Democratic lawmakers, the party itself, and the League of Women Voters, as well as the unions.
NO is supported by Orange County and the chambers of commerce, who disingenuously argue that racial equity is important.
NO leads in the money race $4M to $1M.
Polling shows great confusion on the part of voters, with a gigantic number of undecided.
The newspapers are nearly unanimous in saying YES. I am with them.