Женя — How are you voting on the November 2020 propositions? I need a guide!
I don’t know why anyone listens to me! Isn’t it too late anyway? But Hooooookaaay!
First things first. Any talk about elections in California needs to be prefaced with the most scathing takedown of our ballot proposition system. I always link to Michael Levinson’s excellent piece: Why I vote “no” on (almost) all California propositions, even if I agree with them, about what a horrible idea it is to have the citizenry legislate from the ballot box. It should be required reading before scrolling down.
Our ballot proposition system removes any responsibility from politicians to actually govern, gives them plausible deniability for everything that has gone wrong (like the billions of dollars wasted on California High-Speed Rail via 2008 Proposition 1A), and makes it virtually impossible to undo a bad proposition once it goes into effect.
In addition to reading Michael’s piece, I suggest you follow the following simple rules:
- When in doubt, vote NO.
- When you disagree with me, vote NO.
- When it’s a day that ends with Y, vote NO.
- When you fall asleep while reading a proposition, upon waking up, immediately vote NO.
TL;DR; NO on 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25, MAYBE on 15, YES on 20, 22
Proposition 14: Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative
NO
Authorize a $5.5 billion in bonds ($7.8 billion with interest) to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) to educational, non-profit, and private entities for stem cell research.
In 2004 California passed Proposition 71 authorizing $3 billion in bonds to create and fund CIRM. The funding from Proposition 71 has been exhausted, and I am still waiting for the stem cell cure to male pattern baldness.
California is 151 billions dollars in debt. In this time of fiscal crisis it is especially insane to issue further bonds for something that should be developed by private companies or at funded at the federal level (where do you think universities and private companies normally get grants?)
Proposition 15: Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding
MAYBE
Remove the limit on yearly property tax assessment increases for commercial properties worth more than $3 million.
If you live in California and haven’t heard of Proposition 13 passed in 1978, you are lucky. But your luck just ran out. Trust me when I tell you, Proposition 13 is the root of all evil. Proposition 13 is one of the most unfair and unethical ballot propositions to ever appear on the ballot. For a full analysis read Landlords and Heirs: Why Prop 13 isn’t just unfair, it’s un-American. (I certainly reference Michael Levinson a lot).
Proposition 13 requires that properties be taxed at 1% of their market value at the time they are bought, and limits increases to the assessed property tax. It is essentially rent-control for landlords. And given California’s complete inability to build housing, it stifles mobility and removes any incentive for homeowners to sell their properties and move since they would lose their below market rate property tax assessment.
Furthermore, it applies equally to all real estate including commercial properties. Which means Apple was paying property taxes circa 1993 for it’s former Apple Campus headquarters in Cupertino.
Property taxes fund schools and local infrastructure projects. Which means with Proposition 13 in effect, the burden of paying for schools and community infrastructure is passed on to young families trying to buy their first house, or open their first business. Proposition 13 artificially contributes to inequality. This is why we can’t have nice things.
It is practically impossible to repeal Proposition 13 now. But Proposition 15 aims to chip away at the commercial properties provisions. Once fully phased in (in 2025–2026 year), it would require commercial properties to be taxed based on market value. Which would generate billions of dollars in tax revenue 40% of which would be allocated to schools (instead of the current roughly 20%).
So why am I so uneasy about it? First of all California is able to waste money in a way that only makes sense if cash was actually being used as toilet paper. I loath to give this state more money. And I am deathly afraid it will impact small businesses in horrible and unforeseen ways. And right now, given the pandemic, this seems like the worst possible timing.
And, it’s too specific. I don’t like the fact that 40% of the revenue is directed towards schools. Knowing me, you may be surprised at this position. But our school system is in shambles for every reason other than lack of funding. In San Francisco they are more concerned with renaming schools and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to paint over a historic mural than teaching students and creating a plan to safely open during this pandemic. California doesn’t even require Algebra 2 to graduate high school and we no longer mandate that English be the primary language in which students are taught in schools.
Furthermore, most businesses have a net lease. Which means the cost of taxes get passed down to the business. Which means it gets passed down to the consumers. I would feel easier if instead of being phased-in over the next 5–6 years, Prop. 15 was only triggered on any future sales of properties, lease renewals, or new leases. My fears are only a little alleviated because the average commercial lease is about 3–5 years anyway.
Prop. 15 allows for an exception to business owners who have $3 million or less in holding in California. I am yo-yoing between whether this is just bad or horrible. On the one hand, $3 million isn’t much in California. If we wanted to exempt small businesses, we would need that number to be much higher. On the other hand, it can invite the kind of creative gamingship that allows companies to avoid paying taxes.
In the end, Prop. 15 reverses a decent chunk of the disaster that is Prop. 13, The structural unfairness of Prop. 13, really makes me want to vote YES. But this will be a game-night decision for me (I am turning in my ballot in person, so I guess I have till 8pm on Nov 3).
Proposition 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action
NO
Repeal 1996’s Proposition 209, which prohibited the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting.
There is no winning here. This is obviously a hot button issue. Discrimination and racism exist. But this is not the way to solve it.
First of all, current law doesn’t actually ban all affirmative action: affirmative action based on economic factors is legal, as are certain other qualifications necessary for receipt of federal funds. Second, a peer-reviewed study by a UC economist found that CalTrans saved 5.6% after Proposition 209 ended preferential contracting (relative to federally funded projects, for which race or gender preferences applied). Extrapolating to other government contracts, repealing Proposition 209 would cost taxpayers billions of dollars.
Third, I am uncomfortable with granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, or ethnicity to some groups, while discriminating against other groups, as a modality to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed.
Proposition 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole
NO
According to the California Constitution people convicted of felonies may not vote until their imprisonment and parole are completed. Proposition 17 would amend the Constitution to allow people convicted of felonies to vote once they have been released from prison, even if they are still on parole.
Obviously this is another contentious topic. I am going to get a lot of $H*T from my friends for wanting to vote no. But let me explain —
First, let’s get something out of the way. If you are currently thinking about Florida, which I bet many of you are, you have to understand that prior to 2008, Florida simply did not allow anyone convicted of a felony to vote. Period. Parole or no parole.
Second, I see the arguments of both sides: Parolees are working, paying taxes, raising families, and should also be given the right to choose their representatives. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that some prisoners should be able to vote.
On the other hand, while I am not a fan of mincing words, parole is part of the sentence. While a person is on parole, they are not finished serving their sentence. We are not only talking about low level crime. We are also talking about murderers and rapists and child molesters. We already impose a multitude of restrictions on parolees. Where they can live. Who they can see. Whether or not their residence or car can be searched without a warrant.
When in doubt vote NO.
Proposition 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds
NO
Allow 17-year-olds who would be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections.
This one is simple. According to the 26th Amendment states are prevented from setting a voting age higher than 18. So the argument is: if you are going to be voting at 18, you might as well be allowed to participate in the primaries and special elections and select the candidates you are going to be voting for.
There really isn’t a strong argument against this. But, I don’t think this is a dire enough emergency to be put on the ballot. Only a fraction of 18 year olds vote in the Presidential elections.
A cautious NO unless I change my mind next week.
Proposition 19: Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties
NO
Prop. 19 would make changes to rules that allow Californians who are disabled or older than age 55 to transfer their below market rate property taxes when moving to a new home. But, in many cases these lower assessments could no longer be transferred to heirs once the property owner dies. Specifically:
Currently eligible homeowners (55 or older or with severe disabilities) have a one time opportunity to sell their home and transfer their property tax assessments to a new home of equal or lesser value in the same county.
Prop. 19 would make changes which would allow eligible homeowners to move anywhere in the state and transfer their property tax assessments (with an upward adjustment) to a more expensive home, up to 3 times.
Currently parents (thanks to 1996’s Prop. 58) and grandparents (thanks to 1996’s Prop. 153) can transfer primary residential properties to their children or grandchildren without the tax assessments resetting to market value. Other properties such as vacation homes and business properties, can also be transferred with the first million exempt from re-assessment.
Prop. 19 would eliminate any parent/grandparent to child/grandchild transfer in cases where the child/grandchild would not use the property as their primary residence. Furthermore, if the inherited property is sold for over a million dollars of its taxable value, an upward adjustment in property taxes would occur.
Finally, Prop. 19 requires the California State Controller to use 75% of the projected tens of millions of dollars of increase in tax revenue to the Fire Response Fund (which will be used to fund fire suppression staffing and full-time station-based personnel) and 15% to the County Revenue Protection Fund (which will be used to reimburse counties for revenue losses related to the measure’s property tax changes).
Ugh… Hating everything that came out of 1978’s Proposition 13, and subsequent inheritance provisions of Propositions 58 and 193, I was excited for any opportunity to undo this disaster. But this proposition is just too bizarre and impossible to understand.
I am suspicious of allowing transfer of property tax assessments to properties of higher value. While the mobility part is good, this seems to further entrench the unfairness of Prop. 13. The final nail in the coffin is the mandate to use most of the funds specifically for disaster wildfire relief. Fires have wreaked havoc on California. But this is exactly what makes ballot propositions a bad idea. I have no idea how much money is needed, how it will be used to prevent fires, and how the funding should change in the future.
Remember, the only way this can be undone, is via a subsequent ballot proposition. Reluctantly I am forced to vote no.
Proposition 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection
YES
Prop. 20 would make changes to criminal justice reform laws passed by the legislature (AB109), 2014’s Proposition 47, and 2016’s Proposition 57. It would allow discretion to charge certain crimes such as theft and fraud, including firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card, as misdemeanors or felonies (currently these crimes can only be charged as misdemeanors). It would also create two new crimes: serial crime and organized retail theft.
I don’t even know where to begin. I guess we can start with some history. In 2014, California passed Proposition 47. It classified certain crimes that were previously felonies as misdemeanors, including use of most illegal drugs, shop-lifting, grand theft, and receiving stolen property — as long as the value of the crimes did not exceed $950.
I voted YES on Proposition 47. Most of all because I wanted to change Proposition 184 (the infamous Three Strikes Law) which required life sentencing after committing three felonies. I firmly believe that any mandatory sentencing legislation is the bane of our criminal justice system. We have judges for a reason. I don’t want people to receive a life sentence because on their third strike they stole a car or a bicycle.
But the aftermath of Proposition 47 has been profound. I live in San Francisco. And if you live even half an hour away in Mountain View, Palo Alto, or Atherton, what I am about to describe may not be obvious to you, because the worst thing that happens in Atherton is a cat gets stuck in a tree.
San Francisco, on the other hand, has reached epidemic levels of crime and misery. Tenderloin and parts of SOMA have become an open air drug market. People are dying on the streets with needles sticking out of their arms. Brazen, unabashed, daylight theft is rampant. Another Walgreens is closing down because of shoplifting. That makes 6 this year. Burglaries are spiking. Home invasions are on the rise.
And what is the city’s response? SF Attorney Dennis Herrera is planning to sue 28 alleged drug dealers in Tenderloin in a bid to impose civil fines. DA Chesa Boudin wants to reimburse city residents for the cost of their shattered car windows.
Unfortunately this has become a dire emergency. There is nothing compassionate about letting people whither away on the street and telling tax paying citizens that there is nothing that can be done to protect them from theft and burglaries.
Because this proposition allows discretion rather than codify crimes as misdemeanors or felonies, voting a reluctant YES.
Proposition 21: Local Rent Control
NO
Give local governments the authority to impose rent control on housing units first occupied more than 15 years ago. Individual owners who rent no more than two units would be exempt.
This proposition is nearly identical to Proposition 10 which was rejected by nearly 60% of the votes in 2018. The fiscal impact of this proposition is a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Furthermore, unlike Costa-Hawkins, it would not even allow increasing rent to market rates when a tenant moves out.
Independent research from Stanford and UC Berkeley has shown that rent control discourages new construction and reduces the availability of affordable and middle-class housing, driving up rents.
When rent control is not merit based — it is not just a bad policy — it’s unethical. There is no reason why Google employees should be paying $1500 dollars for a 2 bedroom apartment in San Francisco, just because they happened to move in 15 years ago. Meanwhile a school teacher cannot rent a 400 sq. ft. studio for under $2500.
Proposition 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies
YES
Overturn AB5 passed in 2018, and allow classification of rideshare drivers as contractors instead of employees. Provide alternative benefits, including minimum compensation and health care subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies.
AB5 was an egregiously horrible bill passed in 2018 by the California legislature, following the California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court. You may know it as the bill which required rideshare drivers to be classified as employees, thus being entitled to minimum wage, health benefits, and other benefits. But it negatively affected most freelancers in California across the board from journalists to photographers to translators.
The Recording Academy expressed concerns that AB5 would negatively impact gigging musicians. Any venue could be required to designate not only musicians, but even temporary security as employees of the venue itself, even for a single show. After 40 years The Lake Tahoe Music Festival announced it was shutting down due to AB5.
Vox Media, which carried stories advocating AB5 and called it a “victory for workers everywhere”, ended contracts with about 200 freelance writers and editors, replacing them with 20 part-time and full-time employees.
When confronted with the totally predictable unintended consequences, the architect of the bill, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzales who describes herself as a “Mama, Labor Leader turned California Assemblywoman and Progressive Latina Democrat” (yes, this is my blog, and I am allowed one ad hominem per post), called Vox Media a “vulture”, and tweeted “these were never good jobs” [in the first place].
If you are shaking your head, you are not the only one. The bill spawned a litany of lawsuits from groups such as the nonprofit Pacific Legal Foundation and California Freelance Writers United. The irony, which was completely lost on Lorena Gonzales, is that the people hurt the most were the very people Gonzales claimed the bill would help — women, stay at home mothers, care-givers of aging parents or sick family members, students gigging as musicians, and many other professionals, who lost the flexibility to contract with multiple employers and create their own work schedule.
Instead of repealing the horrible bill outright, in September the California legislature passed AB2257, to try to scale back some of the original restrictions of AB5. As a result of AB2257 there are now more than a hundred exceptions to the original AB5 bill, spanning from: Wedding planning to Landscape architects to A competition judge with a specialized skill set or expertise.
If a law requires that many exceptions to avoid destroying peoples’ livelihood, maybe it shouldn’t have been passed.
Conspicuously missing from AB2257 were any mention of rideshare drivers. Which brings us back to Proposition 22. Surveys show that the overwhelming majority Lyft & Uber Drivers want to remain independent contractors. Yes, the bias of the surveys has been called into question, but it’s not rocket science. As employees drivers couldn’t make their own schedules nor could they work for both Uber and Lyft, as many do now. When was the last time you heard of a company letting their employees work for their competitor?
Considering that Proposition 22 now includes various protections such as healthcare subsidies for drivers, I am voting YES.
If that doesn’t convince you, Mothers Against Drunk Driving are proudly supporting a YES vote.
Edit: There has been a lot of talk about the 7/8 provision of the proposition: After the effective date of this chapter, the Legislature may amend this chapter by a statute passed in each house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered into the journal, seven-eighths of the membership concurring, provided that the statute is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, this chapter.
This may seem extremely restrictive, but remember that by default ballot propositions cannot be amended at all by the legislature. Ballot propositions can only be amended or repealed by subsequent propositions. In a sense this actually allows the legislature more control than usual.
Edit: Michael correctly pointed out that this proposition breaks all the ballot voting rules that I subscribe to. Specifically, the proposition is egregiously specific and almost certainly will need amending in the future, which will be extremely hard to do. Even more importantly, it is not required since both AB5 and AB2257 were bills passed by the legislature, and the legislature should be held accountable for fixing them.
Another game-night decision for me.
Proposition 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements
NO
New regulations for outpatient kidney dialysis clinics.
Somewhat similar to 2018’s Proposition 8 which was rejected by the majority of voters.
There is some feud between the Service Employee International Union and the dialysis providers in California. Impossible to understand. When in doubt vote NO.
Proposition 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency
NO
Expand the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) passed in 2018, and create the California Privacy Protection Agency.
To be honest, for me, the only thing that came out of CCPA is the never ending search for a browser plugin which will automatically click the accept button on those annoying popups informing me that a website uses cookies. That, and several new jobs for a few good friends of mine who work in the technology and security domain.
It’s simple. If you don’t want Google or Facebook to use and share your data, then Get a VPN, use DuckDuckGo, and delete every single application on your phone. And then throw your phone away. If you don’t want the CIA or Mossad to read your email, well, we haven’t invented a counter measure for that.
Proposition 25: Replace Cash Bail with A Risk Assessment System
NO
Proposition 25 would allow voters to approve or overturn the state’s decision to replace cash bail with a risk assessment system.
In 2018, California passed SB10 (has not yet been implemented), which replaced cash bail with a risk assessment system. This proposition will either approve or overturn SB10. Be careful. A YES vote upholds SB10. A NO vote reverts to a cash bail system.
Supporters of SB10 say that cash bail essentially makes it a crime to be poor. Those who cannot afford to post bail are forced to be locked up in jail while awaiting trial, or pay a big percentage to a bail bondsman, which they will never get back.
But, SB10 has severe drawbacks. Its risk assessment system would allow judges to classify suspects as low risk, medium risk, or high risk and decide whether or not to release them accordingly. This would be accomplished by requiring courts to establish pretrial assessment divisions, which would make recommendations to judges, in part using tools and computer algorithms.
The state Judicial Council would decide which tools are valid for use. Other than stating that the “tools shall be demonstrated by scientific research to be accurate and reliable” SB10 does not provide any specific criteria to consider when determining whether a tool or methodology is acceptable for use.
There is no evidence that SB10’s implementation would be less biased than the current cash bail system. Under SB10 there would be no recourse if a judge decided that a suspect should be kept in jail pending trial.
Because of that, some of the loudest supporters of bail reform are against SB10, including The ACLU of Southern California, the California Black Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California NAACP State Conference, and the Crime Victims United of California.
We can accomplish bail reform, and get rid of the bail bondsman in better ways.