Sometimes ballots are short. Sometimes they are long. This is one of the longer ones.
This ballot analysis will be in two parts. This part discusses the 12 propositions on the California ballot. Hopefully anyone living in California will find this useful.
The second part to this ballot analysis will be more locally focused and will discuss candidate races specific to my area/ballot as well as local propositions. Those that are near me will appreciate both this part and the second part.
(The only ballot position covered in neither part is the Presidential race. Vote Joe Biden. I shouldn’t have to explain that one. I may or may not write a piece or pieces on this similar to 4 years ago at a later time.)
I will give a brief summary of each proposition and attempt to articulate the arguments for and against it, then my own assessment of it. I will also mention support or opposition from the two major parties (as per the state voter guides/endorsements), though as always California propositions don’t necessarily follow partisan lines in terms of what makes sense. I invite all discussion on the matters, as per usual, and will do my best to indicate stronger versus weaker positions. For any proposition in which I decide to indicate YES, I have made some attempt to read the text of the law and confirm a lack of poison pill that would cause me to change my mind, but I am not a lawyer and cannot express absolute confidence that I did not miss something. (If I was already inclined to vote NO, I did not necessarily need to read the measure. I may or may not have done so.)
This post really is meant both for the DailyKos community as well as for my own friends and family, who often struggle with political matters and making decisions on these long ballots; by doing some of the legwork, I encourage informed voting.
Proposition 14 Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute. This is a $5.5 billion bond authorization for the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to engage in stem cell research for curing various medical conditions. This is specifically a continuation of a program launched in 2004. Paying this bond will be out of the general fund, about $260 million over 30 years – this is less than $10/person now, and in 30 years, may well drop to under $5/person. This measure is supposed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. I support medical research, and find this a worthy pursuit. The arguments against seem to center around two primary complaints: first, that the original program hasn’t produced much in the way of results, and second, that the federal government is now funding research and so California shouldn’t have to put money into it. To address the first point, I am wondering when anyone ever indicated research guaranteed results. It’s hard work. You press on and do the best you can. Is it still promising? The science seems to indicate that it is. To address the second point, I’m just going to pose the question of who the current President is, and why you trust ANYTHING the feds are doing right now. Even though this is likely to change, this is not likely to be a high priority fix for Joe Biden (if there are issues here, which is hard to say – but that is the point). So I find this argument against unhelpful as well. We are California, and sometimes we need to just go for it. I’m a YES on 14.
Proposition 15 Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Despite California being a blue state, it is under one of the most regressive and archaic property tax laws in the nation. Property naturally increases in value over time under most circumstances, but the current tax law effectively caps the increases in value at 2 percent per year from their purchase price rather than the actual value of the property. This proposition removes that cap on business and industrial properties, keeping it intact for residential and agricultural property. It also exempts owners with less than $3 million in commercial property (from the removal of the cap). Finally getting a chance to normalize at least some of our tax revenue is a great opportunity for California. This will pump massive amounts of money into our schools and local governments in the long run, providing some much needed support. This even does a lot more than school bond bills do, because it actually addresses some of the real reasons our schools are so dramatically underfunded, rather than simply providing a stopgap. Democrats support this measure, and Republicans oppose it, as does, to absolutely no one’s surprise, the Howard Jarvis “I Don’t Wanna Be A” Taxpayers’ Association. The argument against amounts to whining that tax increases are bad, and that taxes will be passed onto consumers in the form of higher prices (largely nonsense: price is set by supply and demand; while a tax increase might marginally decrease the supply, people will stop buying if prices are too high). I wish this proposition went farther and normalized more properties, but I suppose baby steps are needed. I’m a very enthusiastic YES on 15.
Proposition 16 Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. This repeals Proposition 209 from 1996, which effectively banned state affirmative action programs in education, employment, and contracting. Traditional anti-discrimination laws remain as they are, as much of that is set federally as well as in other state laws. This is another attempt to normalize California back into line with many other blue states. As might be expected here, Democrats support and Republicans oppose. Fundamentally, I’m not personally interested in the details of financial impact. What it matters is this: Our society has a deep history of racial injustice and inequality. We need to act in a way that is cognizant of our history and does what it can to atone for misdeeds. While I wouldn’t call affirmative action programs to themselves be reparations, it is a middle step that helps to repair at least a fraction of the persisting inequality in society. With that goal in mind, I am a YES on 16.
Proposition 17 Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Currently California law requires individuals who have a prison term and sentence of parole to complete their parole as well as prison term before restoring their voting franchise. This proposition would allow individuals currently serving a sentence of parole to vote. As expected, Democrats support and Republicans oppose (when we have any measure that would increase vote counts). Yes, getting more people back voting is a good thing. If someone is on a parole, the state is declaring that they are ready to begin a re-entry into society, even if it is monitored. Voting is a key part of participating fully in society. The notion of asking individuals to abide by rules of society they no longer have a part in forming, and then calling ourselves a democracy, has always been suspect to me, and it remains so. Opponents of the measure seem to have an argument that amounts to “we should not change the law”, which…. Okay? They’re not really saying anything meaningful. I’ve said this before in this post, but: I wish this went further. As it is, it is still progress, and I am a YES on 17.
Proposition 18 Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections If They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and Be Otherwise Eligible to Vote. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Exactly what it says on the tin. I will be fair here and note one key piece here, and that is that propositions do appear on primary ballots, and some local races in which a candidate gets more than 50% of the vote can win the election outright in a primary. Opponents of the measure essentially talk about the above and make the tired ageist remarks about brains not being developed like that somehow justifies depriving people of their rights. It’s frankly disgusting and I have zero patience for it; how our society engages in these magical fields of age providing of rights is one of the most underrated issues plaguing our society. There isn’t a neat solution for it, though the US signing the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child would be a decent start. Measures like this are also a benefit in the sense of at least providing more rights (even if it just moves the problem of magical age fields). As with any such vote-total-increasing measure, Democrats support and Republicans oppose. I’m a YES on 18.
Proposition 19 Changes Certain Property Tax Rules. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. This proposition is complicated and long; I will do the best I can with it. The current property tax law caps increases at 2 percent per year except when a home is sold. There are currently exceptions: homeowners that are over 55, have a severe disability, or have been impacted by wildfire or other natural disaster can obtain a new home within certain counties in California and pay their previous level of property tax as long as the new home is not more expensive. Also, transfers of ownership of homes to children or grandchildren (with no living parents/children) are also not considered a sale that resets property taxes.
This measure would allow the above set of homeowners to transfer their homes anywhere within California, and even to a more expensive home (paying additional property tax equal to the difference in costs). It would also allow individuals to make this transfer three times (the current limit is once in a lifetime). On the flip side, it would restrict transfers of ownership to children and grandchildren to be for those that actually move into the home and to farms; one would no longer be able to transfer commercial property or other homes used for purposes other than residency, without paying property taxes at the new value. It will also place a slight tax increase on such transfers even in such cases if the property has gone up $1 million or more in value (though not as much as a full transfer).
Democrats support the measure (Republicans take no position). The Howard Jarvis “I Don’t Wanna Be A” Taxpayers’ Association is one of the main opposition forces. This is a complicated one, but I think overall this will benefit people that need it, and make it harder largely on people that can afford it, and will also increase the overall movement of home ownership in a way that should drive prices down. I’m a YES on 19.
Proposition 20 Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to Be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute. This is a comprehensive measure that lists has four distinct provisions related to the criminal justice system. Laws must be taken in their entirety; when we have something with multiple distinct provisions, one should only agree to it if they are at least amenable to all of the provisions. I will examine each one and come to an overall conclusion at the end.
1) Currently, theft under $950 is always a misdemeanor in California law. This measure adds the crimes of “serial theft” and “organized retail theft”, where either having a past conviction for theft, and then committing theft over $250, or multiple thefts within six months that add up to a value between $250 and $950 , now as ‘wobbler’ offenses that prosecutors would have the discretion to charge as a felony. Here’s the problem: stealing is a crime often born of desperation. Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the notion that repeated low-level theft, which may be a sign of a desperate need, now gets punished more than a single larger theft. So even before we get to the other provisions I’m already disliking this.
2) The law will now require probation officers to ask judges to change the terms of probation for individuals that violate the terms three times, and requires state parole and county probation officers to provide more information to each other. This provision isn’t particularly significant and while I don’t have any objections to it, it certainly doesn’t contribute any reason to like this proposition in the face of everything else.
3) The current law allows for inmates who have finished the portion of their term related to their primary crime (that is, what they were actually convicted of: the rest of the sentence would be for aggravating circumstances, history, etc.) to be considered for a granting of parole by the Board of Parole Hearings. This does not apply to those convinced of serious and violent crimes. The provision would add some crimes, such as assault and domestic violence, to the list of those that will prevent BPH from granting a release, as well as a handful of other tasks all designed to make it harder to grant parole in various circumstances. (The details can be found in the voter information guide; this is supposed to be a summary, after all.) I think on balance I understand what this is trying to do, and if this was a proposition on its own I might support it. I will comment that supporter groups are exaggerating certain aspects: they continually harp on human trafficking as one such crime here, which in 99% of cases is a federal crime and not subject to California provisions regardless. I really get annoyed by this being used as an emotional football when it’s just not that relevant.
4) The last provision requires DNA collection from adults convicted of some misdemeanors (it is already collected from any adult even charged with a felony, and some others). I’m not in favor of expanding DNA databases like this… I feel like it is likely to exacerbate racial and socio-economic inequalities in our criminal justice system.
Democrats oppose the measure and Republicans support it. I don’t normally comment on specific contributions here, but I feel obliged to call attention to the $305,000 contribution the Devin Nunes campaign has given to the “Yes” committee. With two provisions I find horrible, and two I’m neutral to marginally supportive of, and in general this being a giant money pit… the clear choice for me is a NO on 20.
Proposition 21 Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute. This law would allow local governments to place their own rent control laws on residential properties. The current law does not allow for rest control to be applied to any housing built in 1995 or later; the new provision changes the grace period to a roving 15 years from the time of completion. The exemption for single family homes continues; provided the owner does not own more than two homes. Democrats support the measure and Republicans oppose it. The primary opposition claim appears to be that it undermines state rent control laws. I have read the text of the actual proposition several times now and I do not see anywhere state rent control provisions are actually affected. A basic understanding of supremacy would indicate that local ordinances can never be valid if they violate state law, and I see nothing being crossed out that explicitly removes any such things. Allowing communities to set stricter rent control laws is a great idea that should help alleviate housing costs in some areas while avoiding causing problems in parts of the state where there is nothing to fix. I am a YES on 21.
Proposition 22 Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute. The state has sued to require Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, and other companies to classify their workers as employees. Currently they are classified as independent contractors, which allows the companies to avoid paying benefits and provide other critical worker protections. This bill would be an end-run around the case and would explicitly allow transportation companies to classify their workers as independent contractors. It does nothing to alleviate any potential problems that employee classification would provide in other industries. This is a bill very clearly written by and for the big transportation companies. If it was legitimately attempting to solve issues in labor law, it would not restrict itself to the transportation/rideshare industry. We must stand with our workers and require companies to pay up. Republicans support the measure and, Democrats oppose, which makes sense. I will vote NO on 22.
Proposition 23 Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute. This law would require dialysis clinics to have a doctor on-site whenever patients are receiving care, unless there are not enough doctors in the area (in which case a nurse or physician’s assistant can fill the role). It also requires more information to be provided to California’s Department of Public Health, and to obtain consent from the department before closing. It also prevents dialysis clinics from discriminating against patients on Medi-Cal and Medicare (which are less profitable to dialysis clinics). Democrats support the measure and Republicans oppose it. Take a quick peek behind the curtain and see that the support funding is almost entirely from SEIU, and the opposition funding is almost entirely from DaVita and Fresenius, the two largest companies that run dialysis clinics in California.
This was by far the hardest one for me to think about. I am concerned that smaller clinics and clinics in more rural areas might be very challenged by this, making things harder for many patients. I think the protections provided here are important, however. This was a tough balancing act for me. Nonetheless, at the end of the day, I think I have to trust the funding source reading, and support labor and individual patient care over corporate profits. I am (a bit hesitantly) a YES on 23. I understand people that don’t like this pick of mine, though.
Proposition 24 Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute. This proposition establishes an opt-out data privacy system that allows consumers to demand that companies not collect certain types of sensitive information and limit the use of some data to specific purposes important to the business (defined by said business). It establishes an agency that will be able to impose fines for violations, and establishes the fine structure. The fines are quite minimal; despite claims that they will “triple” when regarding children, three times $2500 is only $7500, chump change to a multimillion dollar corporation. There are also a few other changes in the details of how privacy law applies. This is essentially a modification of the 2018 California data privacy laws. Republicans oppose the measure (Democrats take no position). We haven’t had much time to see how the old laws work. Allister McTaggart is himself providing the vast majority of funding to support the measure, and neither the support nor opposition arguments seem to be particularly well organized. I think the key point in the end is that the measure changes a law that has not had much time to work, and it fails to allow for regular citizens to sue companies that misuse their data, instead requiring us to work through a government agency with limited resources. This is close for me, but I am a NO on 24.
Proposition 25 Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk. In 2018, the California legislature passed a law eliminating cash bail for pretrial release from jail in favor of a risk assessment that would lead to more releases on own recognizance. It was sent to referendum in 2019, so it is on the voters of California to confirm the law. Republicans oppose the measure and Democrats support the measure. Cash bail is consistently one of the most classist, and thus also racist, features of the criminal justice system. A rich person and a poor person are charged with the same crime, and only one of them is walking out that day, if the court decides bail is required (or if it is required by a county bail schedule). It’s actually worse than this, in that the rich person could be charged with a much more serious crime, and still be able to walk and afford a high bail – even if the raw dollar amount is lower for the poor person, they still can’t afford that. Now, let’s be clear here. This is NOT a comprehensive reform. The replacement systems aren’t likely to be substantially less biased, as computer programs are often biased (being programmed by individuals in a place of privilege) and judges still have a lot of discretion when reviewing computer decisions, which is another opportunity to introduce bias. So we should not look at this from the perspective of being a great reform. But opponents seem to think that once this replacement system is brought in, it will be impossible to replace with something better down the line, and I’m not convinced that is the case… certainly no more so than has been the case with the cash bail system itself. The text of the law makes some odd cutouts for the County of Santa Clara that I don’t completely understand but don’t appear to be problematic. I will vote YES on 25.
In quick summary/for quick reference, that was: YES on 14, YES on 15, YES on 16, YES on 17, YES on 18, YES on 19, NO on 20, YES on 21, NO on 22, YES on 23, NO on 24, YES on 25.
I look forward to discussion as always. I will release the second part (for local matters) when I have time to write it (including determining exactly what’s on the ballot).