canyonwalker | Entries tagged with ballot propositions

I'm going through the ballot propositions in this year's general election. I'm onto my 5th blog in this series now. I used the first four two write about the 10 statewide propositions on the ballot this year;

Part 1: Props 2 & 3 and a few links on how props work
Part 2: Props 4, 5, and 6
Part 3: Props 32, 33, and 34
Part 4: Props 35 and 36

Here in Part 5 I'll address three local and school district measures.

Measure E: Update the Sunnyvale Library: YES.

Measure E would authorize the City of Sunnyvale to issue up to $290MM in bonds, backed by an additional property tax of no more than $27.47 per $100,000 of assessed value (that's 0.02747%). Link: City of Sunnyvale Library Bond Measure. We desperately need to renovate our library. When I've visited it I've left disappointed that it looked like a relic from my childhood in the 1980s. It turns out it's even older than that, just as the suburban libraries I visited as a kid rarely were brand-spanking-new. Ours is actually from 1960.

Note, as this is a bond measure not related to schools it requires a whopping two-thirds majority of the vote to pass. I wrote a bit about this challenge in discussing Prop 5 in Part 2 of this series. Well, Prop 5 wouldn't make this bond any easier to pass, as it (Prop 5) only targets affordable housing and infrastructure bonds. At least, I pretty sure libraries don't fall into that bill's definition of "infrastructure". They're talking about transit and utilities. And even if Prop 5 did extend to libraries, it wouldn't apply this year. Thus I figure this library bond is doomed to fail because it's hard to get a two-thirds supermajority on anything.

Measure F: City Charter Amendments: Leaning NO.

Measure F makes a few minor language tweaks to the city charter and also sneaks in a major, politically divisive change. Link: City of Sunnyvale 2024 Charter Amendments.

The minor changes are to replace gendered language with non-gendered language throughout the document— yay, no more presumption that city council, employees, and committee members are he/him— and revising the mandate of 2 council meetings per month to 24 regularly scheduled meetings per year (allowing some flexibility around holidays).

The divisive change is "Eliminate the voter registration and citizenship requirements for all boards and commissions (removes barriers to volunteering)". I'm not sure how I feel about the city appointing non-citizens, people who can't even vote— and, let's be honest, we're probably also talking about including immigrants unlawfully present in the US— to city boards and commissions. I'm not dead-set against it... though I'm sure many people are. For now I'd say I'm Leaning toward NO on Measure F.

Measure Y: Renew $59 Parcel Tax Supporting Elementary & Middle School: YES.

Measure Y seeks to renew an existing tax of $59 per parcel that supports various programs in the local elementary & middle school district. It's not a new tax or a tax increase; it's one we property owners have already been paying for years. And it's chump change. It's less than 0.1% of the median property tax bill in this city.

Why do we need it? Well, our local schools aren't as good as they should be. We're in the middle of Silicon Freakin' Valley, and my local elementary school only has 27% of its students working on grade level in math. Across the whole district it's just 48%. We need to keep investing in math education, which renewing this tax does.

BTW, any homeowner who has a tax-and-spend objection to parcel taxes for schools, an irate "Gov't shouldn't take my money!" sort of attitude, should consider that funding better schools is a net gain for them. A difference of even half a point in school rankings can add— or destroy— thousands of dollars in home value. Funding better schools is an investment in your own portfolio in addition to an investment in the next generation of people.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. In this 4th blog in the series I'll finish with the last two statewide propositions. But then I'll have to write at least a Part 5 to address the local props on the ballot. Whew!

Here are my previous blogs on this year's ballot propositions:

Part 1: Props 2 & 3 and a few links on how props work
Part 2: Props 4, 5, and 6
Part 3: Props 32, 33, and 34

Now onto Props 35 and 36.

Prop 35: Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal: YES.

Medi-Cal is a program that funds health care for millions of poor people and children in California. One of its sources of funding, a tax on health insurance plans, will lapse if nothing changes. And that lapse would be a double whammy as the funding is matched by federal dollars. A YES vote on 35 makes the temporary funding permanent, at least at the state level. The federal matching... well, that depends on who wins the presidency.

Prop 36: Stiffer Criminal Penalties for Minor Crimes: NO.

Ten years ago California voters approved Prop 47, which reduced penalties on certain minor crimes such as small-time theft and drug use, reducing them from felonies to misdemeanors. Curiously the original motivation behind it was to reduce California's prison population— as federal courts had found the terrible conditions in the prisons unconstitutionally harsh and were threatening to release prisoners ad hoc if the state didn't reduce the prison population itself. That notwithstanding, many of us voted in favor of Prop 47 as a matter of rationalizing criminal law and promoting fairer social justice. Now, 10 years later, the lock-'em-up faction of politics is looking to repeal Prop 47.

The lock-'em-up side of politics warns us breathlessly of a crime wave sweeping our cities. Murders, drug use, homelessness (which isn't really a crime), and theft. Our cities, especially our cities where Democrats lead, are cesspools, they cry. But here are the facts: Crime overall is near a 50 year low. Yes, it ticked up a bit from absolute lows during part of the Covid pandemic, but signs are that it's coming back down.

"But what about rampant retail theft?" social critics ask. It turns out it's been overreported. The head of a drugstore chain admitted that they played up "theft" as a reason for their poor financial results and the need to close stores in some locations. Really the primary causes were a) overexpansion coupled with b) failure to adapt an outdated business model to the changing market. And as for stores locking up more and more products behind plexiglass... well, consider that the stores are doing this because they're cheaping out on staff to run the stores. When I go to my local CVS to fill prescriptions I notice that while the pharmacy often has 3 or even 4 people filling bottles, the whole rest of the store generally has one employee.

But let's not get too lost in the details. The big picture here is that we've been down the lock-'em-up road before. It doesn't work. It fills our prisons with low-level offenders who could be better reformed with treatment than incarceration, stresses available prison space to the point that conditions are inhumane, provokes a spending crisis as we confront the costs of having to build more prisons to house everyone we convict, and ultimately doesn't reduce the crime rate. Vote NO on 36.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. See part 1 of this series for a few links on how props work and my thoughts about Props 2 & 3; and part 2 of this series for Props 4, 5, and 6. Here are my thoughts on the next few.

Prop 32: Raise the Minimum Wage: Weak No.

Prop 32 is the first measure on this ballot that's a citizen initiative— meaning it was written and qualified for the ballot by private citizens, as opposed to bond measures and constitutional amendments which are approved by the legislature first then must be put to voters for final approval. Citizen led initiatives often have problems. I'll address that in a moment.

Prop 32 would raise the minimum wage state-wide in California. Employers with 26+ employees would have to pay a minimum of $17 starting immediately and $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, a minimum of $17 applies starting January 1, 2025, rising to $18 on January 1, 2026.

I've blogged many times about minimum wage and how it's generally too low. From reading my past thoughts you might be surprised that I'm leaning against Prop 32. This has to do with the weaknesses of citizen led initiatives. Often they embody a worthy idea but with a flawed implementation.

This raise to $17-18 is not huge. While you might be thinking about the federal minimum wage, which has been unchanged at $7.25/hr for 15 years, California's minwage is already much higher. Currently the statewide minimum is $16, which took effect January 1, 2024. For fast-food workers a higher rate of $20 took effect April 1. Source: State of California Department of Industrial Relations.

While the statewide minwage is already high compared to the (outdated) federal minimum, cities and counties are free to require higher wages. In my city of Sunnyvale it rose to $18.55 at the start of the year. In neighboring Mountain View it's $18.75 this year, rising to $19.20 on January 1, 2025.

To me the flaw in raising the statewide rate again is that it's not necessarily appropriate everywhere in the state. Sunnyvale and Mountain View are high-cost areas. Many businesses were already having to pay nearly as much due to labor market conditions. But what about areas where costs of living are much less expensive? $17-18 might be too expensive for employers in such areas and unnecessary for employees. I prefer to see statewide laws developed through the legislature's deliberative process, informed by professional input from government agencies such as the Department of Industrial Relations, with cities and counties able to adjust as necessary for local conditions. That's a better way to legislate labor policy that's fair for all stakeholders than asking the broad electorate to make a strict yea-or-nay vote on an overly simple solution to complex policy.

Prop 33: Allow Localities to Expand Rent Control: Yes.

Rent control can be a divisive issue. Some localities in California have rent control. Whether to have rent control, and the specifics of the limits it entails, are decided at the local level. I.e., your city decides if, and how, there's rent control in your city. This measure does not change that fundamental fact. It does not enact rent control anywhere; it only changes the laws that limit what cities are able to do.

A key rent-control law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, was passed in 1995. It placed significant restrictions on which properties local governments can even subject to rent control. One key restriction is that no building built after February, 1995 can be rent-controlled. Nor can any single-family home. And no limit can be placed on the rent increase when a new tenant signs. (Allegedly landlords try to drive out older tenants of rent-controlled properties so they can reprice at market rates.) That 1995 date was not set to be indexed... so today, all condos built within the past 29.75 years are exempt from rent control. That's ridiculous. Prop 33 repeals Costa-Hawkins so local governments have more latitude to enact modern policies that serve their residents.

Prop 34: Slap Punitive Restrictions on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation: HELL NO.

The official title of this proposition is "RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS." It would required these "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" to spend 98% of their revenues from a federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Putting governance on healthcare providers to ensure they spend most of their money on caring for patients seems like a worthy cause, doesn't it? Don't be fooled.

This bill defines "CERTAIN HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS" so that it includes exactly one provider. One. It's the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It's not any insurance company. The ACA required insurance companies only spend 80% of their revenues on patient care. The people who wrote this measure know damn well who they targeted. Prop 34 is a punitive attack from opponents of Prop 33 to punish an organization, AHF, that was a big supporter of Prop 33. Regardless of what you think of Prop 33, this kind of retaliation through the ballot box is an example of the worst kind of use of California's ballot proposition system. Just say NO. Vote NO.

I'm going through the ballot propositions on the ballot here in the 2024 general election. See part 1 of this series for a few links on how props work and my thoughts about Props 2 & 3. Here are my thoughts on the next few.

Prop 4: Bond for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Land from Climate Risks: Yes.

Like Prop 2 this is a bond issue already passed by the legislature that now needs to go to voters for final approval. Yes, that's the clumsy process for borrowing money in California, forced upon us by anti-tax activists years ago. Those same anti-tax activists also oppose virtually every single bond measure as a matter of course. They say we should fund the projects from the current budget instead of borrowing against the future. Except they also oppose funding major projects as current-year expenses. It's like they don't think we should be able to have nice things— or that we should have them but somehow not pay for them.

Climate change is real and getting worse. This bond is worthwhile because its funding helps California mitigate some of the most dangerous impacts, such as increased wildfire risks. It also directs 40% of its funding to low-income communities, which generally are most vulnerable to climate change as they lack the resources to ward against risks and recover from harm after it occurs. Vote YES on 4.

Prop 5: Allow Bonds for Affordable Housing & Public Infrastructure to Pass with Just 55% Approval: Yes.

Part of the anti-tax crusaders' legacy in California is that not only does borrowing through public bonds require public approval after being passed by the legislature but that it must win a two-thirds supermajority of the public vote. Even in deep blue California it's rare that you can get 2/3 of the electorate to agree on anything. And that's doubly true nowadays when Republican voters live in news echo chambers of conspiracy theories and outright lies.

Anyway, over the years voters have passed constitutional amendments relaxing the vote requirement from 66.67% to just 55% for certain categories of bonds. This new constitutional amendment adds two more categories to the 55% threshold rule: bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure. The virtually unattainable two-thirds threshold is why we're decades behind where we should be in things like building public transit. Vote YES on this one so the state and our localities are about to get more stuff done.

Prop 6: Eliminate Forced Labor in Prisons: Yes.

This proposition is a legislative constitutional amendment— meaning it's been passed by the State Assembly and Senate and must now go to voters for approval. What's at issue here is that prisons in California are allowed to force inmates to work. It's involuntary servitude. That's what the official title of the measure calls it: involuntary servitude. But some would even call it slavery.

In fact, some do call it slavery. The League of Pissed Off Voters, a progressive group in San Francisco, labels this "Abolish Slavery in CA Prisons". As always, they write vigorously and colorfully. For that reason alone I read and consider all of their opinions even though I don't always agree with them. As far as calling this slavery, though, they're... not wrong. Inmates can be forced to work on pain of punishment. It's allowed in our state constitution as a literal exception to the "NO SLAVERY" rule that been in there since California became a state.

I'm choosing to use the term forced labor here because it makes comparison easier. Type a question like, "Which countries have forced labor in prisons" into your favorite search engine and you'll see interesting answers. According to Walk Free, an Australian human rights group, only 17 countries still practice forced labor in prisons. A glance at which countries those are shows the US keeping poor company. Among the others on the list are Russia, China, North Korea, and Myanmar; all countries with terrible civil rights records.

Look, I get it that "prisoners' rights" is not always a compelling political issue. Prisoners committed crimes against individuals and society, and they should pay. But this is a question about what we want our prisons to be. Is incarceration just a matter of locking people up, or can they also be punished further by being required to work for literal pennies an hour? And understand that this work is not just mild stuff like sweeping floors to keep the cell block clean. Convicts labor built the beuatiful Highway 1 on the Pacific coast years ago, and convicts today serve on crews battling wildfires. And they get paid pennies an hour for risking their lives.

BTW, this measure will not change the fact that when convicts do work, they are paid literal pennies an hour. The measure will only make it so that they can't be coerced, on threat of additional punishment, to work for pennies an hour. Yes, it would be ideal to fix the rate of pay issue, as well. But doing that would make this an expensive measure, one that would attract all kinds of opposition (from anti-tax activists and voters) focused on its dollar cost. Removing the coercion to work is a partial victory for inmates' civil rights that we can achieve right now.

I'm starting a short series of blog posts about the ballot propositions on my ballot this year. "Props", as we call them for short, are often thought of as a California thing, though they're part of the process in a number of other states as well. It's worth taking a close look at props each cycle because they can be complex; more complex, say, than choosing whether to vote for Candidate A or Candidate B.

How are propositions complex? I mean, you just vote yes or no, right? For one, there are 3 types of ballot propositions with different rules and different impacts. Two, propositions may be poorly written or purposefully deceptive, among other problems. By the way, you can't let this complexity cause you to throw your hands up in disgust and vow to vote "No" on all of them. Due to the way the different types of props work, some of them will actually block or even reverse an act of the legislature if a majority of the people vote No,

This year there are a whopping 10 statewide ballot props plus several local props in my area. I'll start with the statewide props in numerical order, outlining a few per blog.This will take several days, so it's good I'm starting now! By the way, this isn't just altruistic. This is me doing my own research and me articulating my argument for or against to be confident my reasoning is sound.

Prop 2: Bond for Public School & Community College Facilities: Yes.

For this prop as with all the others the first source of information I'm checking is the California Secretary of State's Voter Information Guide | Propositions. This measure "Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K-12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades."

Years ago, when I was younger and less sophisticated in my understand of political economics, I looked at measures like this and scoffed, "Why does the state just pay for needed work? It seems like every year there's more bonds, extending payments out 30+ years. Why not just pay today for the stuff we need, today?"

Alas, that's not the reality of how the state's budget works. It would be nice if it were, but it's not. The only choice we have is pay this way, or let our schools continue to fall apart, worse.

I like to invest in our schools. Schools are an investment in our shared future. Schools educate the next generation, who'll help support us and help govern us in the future. Schools are also an investment in our economy. Good schools equal good local economies because people and companies want to locate here.

Another thing younger-me would've scoffed at is the fact that this measure is Put on the Ballot by the Legislature, as the voter information guide notes in bold and italic. "Why didn't the legislature just... y'know... legislate... this instead of sending it to us?" younger-me sneered. And that's why it's important to understand How California Ballot Propositions Work. This bond measure had to be approved by a super-majority of the legislature first, then it also has to be approved by the voters.

You can thank the anti-tax zealots for that process, BTW. And incidentally, those same anti-tax zealots also construct the deliberately false arguments yammering about, "Why didn't the legislature just... y'know... legislate... this instead of sending it to us?" that younger-me fell for years ago.

Prop 3: Constitutional Right to Marriage: Yes.

This proposition reverses 2008's Proposition 8, which defined marriage as only being between a man and a woman. It replaces that state constitutional amendment with a new amendment permitting marriage between any two adults, regardless of race or gender.

"How is this necessary?" critics of the measure ask. "Federal courts ruled Prop 8 unconstitutional in 2013." Yes, but consider what happened in 2022 with the US Supreme Court's Dobbs decision overturning nearly 50 years of jurisprudence under Roe v. Wade. We're just one case away from the far-right supermajority overturning the previous court's ruling and restoring California's ridiculous Prop 8. Our constitutional rights cannot be trusted to the interpretation of reactionary ideologues. We need to protect our liberties by putting them in plain text.

Note that this initiative is also tagged Put on the Ballot by the Legislature. Again, that is not an indication that the legislature is passing the buck. This is a Legislative Constitutional Amendment. It's already gone through the full process of being written and approved by both the Assembly and the state senate, and now it must be approved by a majority of the voters, too.

Edited to add: The list starts at 2 because that's the first prop this year.

Edit 2: Read about Props 4, 5, and 6 in my next blog.

Tomorrow, March 5, is the 2024 primary election in California. That means today I filled out my ballot and sealed it up to drop off at the ballot box tomorrow. Yes, California is one of those voting rights states where everyone can get a mail-in ballot, no questions asked. Mail-in ballots are much easier for people whose job and or family situations make it prohibitive to carve out time on election day to go to a polling station, wait in line, and fill out a ballot provided only then and there.

Here's a run down of the main things on the ballot this time.

President: I'll assume if you can read this and are eligible to vote in the US, you know what the choices are here.

US Senator: It's a race to replace Diane Feinstein, who died several months ago. Actually it's two races, making it more confusing. One race is to fill her seat for the remainder of her current term, which ends 3 January 2025. The other race is to be US Senator from California for a full, 6 year term.

Both of these senate races follow California's "top two" primary rule, which is also affectionately known as a "jungle primary". Numerous candidates run in the primary, and the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. This narrowing of the field is done without regard to political party, so it's possible the general election could feature two Democrats running against each other and no Republican.

There are three credible Democrats in this race. All three are sitting members of Congress: Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee, and Katie Porter. The leading Republican is past baseball star Steve Garvey. Schiff leads among all the candidates and has spent a lot of his considerable campaign money telling people Garvey is a conservative. Poll watchers agree this seems to be a play by Schiff to shape the results of the "top two" primary by boosting Garvey to be the #2 finisher. If that happens Schiff would presumably coast to a win in the general election, given the overwhelming registration advantage Democrats have in California, versus having to fight it out against a fellow Democrat.

US Congress: Again, a "top two" primary race, though with only a handful of candidates rather than the dozens in the senate race. Here our incumbent, Rep. Ro Khanna, has been doing a pretty good job, so I gave him my vote again.

State Assembly: My district's incumbent Assembly member, Evan Low, is termed out this year and is seeking higher office. He's running for US Congress (though not in my district). I usually don't pay much attention to State Assembly, but this year I went to a meet-and-greet with one of the candidates, Patrick Ahrens. I went into that backyard rally skeptical and left shaking his hand and telling him he'd earned my vote. This is a race where I politely disagree with my friend

mithriltabby who posted his usual well-researched recommendations a few weeks ago. Edit: I don't think the opponent of Ahrens's he chose is poor but I do consider Ahrens a stronger candidate than he gave him credit for. I found Ahrens to be intelligent, thoughtful, and skilled at bringing together political leaders across different levels of government to solve challenging problems, like housing for the homeless, that are often dismissed with finger-pointing about who else needs to be involved. Ahrens has a record of not just identifying who else needs to participate in the solution but actually getting them to help.

Proposition 1: There's just one statewide proposition this election. That's a good thing, because such significant measures as statewide initiatives shouldn't be passed or rejected in elections with such low turnout as primaries. In fact, the state passed a law (via ballot proposition 😂) to force most props to the general election. Anyway, this prop is clumsily named "AUTHORIZES $6.38 BILLION IN BONDS TO BUILD MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES; PROVIDES HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS." Per the information in the state voter guide it changes up how money under an existing law is allocated, shifting more of it to mental health care, housing, and drug addiction treatment. It also includes a new bond to help fund these. The measure isn't perfect, as my friend mithriltabby points out, but unlike him I support it anyway. I side with The League of Pissed Off Voters in San Francisco who also explain that Prop. 1 is imperfect but voting "Yes" is far better than voting "No" for anyone who cares about the dual crisis of drug addiction and homelessness. I drive past growing tent encampments 1/2 mile from my house several days a week. I'd very much like to see them gone— and not by police rousting the homeless and simply forcing them to move elsewhere, but by us providing a compassionate, superior alternative.

Measure C: This one's a local school district bond proposal. It authorizes up to $214 million in bonds to improve local schools, paid for by a surcharge on property taxes. That may sound like a lot of money, but it's only at most $15 per $100,000 of assessed property value. For roughly a hundred bucks a year I'll invest more in local schools. I don't use the schools myself, nor do I have any schoolkids, but if our schools go up even a point on statewide scores it'll add thousands to the value of my house. So even if I didn't think educating the next generation is the right thing to do (it is the right thing to do) there's still a selfish argument to be made for it.

Voters in Ohio went to the polls yesterday in a special election for "Issue 1", a state constitutional amendment to change the process for amending the state constitution. The measure would increase the threshold required to enact constitutional amendments from a simple majority of the popular vote to a 60% supermajority. Preliminary results have the measure losing 57-43.

Why does this matter? The most immediate reason is that it's a proxy fight for abortion rights. Pro-choice supporters have qualified a state constitutional amendment for the November election. Republicans in state government are terrified that it will win in a simple-majority vote. The Republican supermajority wants to ban abortion even though polling shows a clear majority favors keeping it legal. Now they're trying to change the political rules to stop it.

Why am I fingering Republicans on this? Because they're monkeying with the rules of politics. They can't win under the current rules so they're changing the rules. They already used their supermajority control in the state legislature to eliminate special elections— arguing, with some merit IMO, that they're too expensive and generate such low turnout that the results are not fair representations of the voters' will— then created a special special election to try forcing this issue through.

BTW, last year's special election got just 8% turnout. It's clear Ohio Republicans were hoping to sneak through a major change to voting rights with a tiny number of voters. Surprise for them with rules-monkeying on the ballot: this year the special election drew at least 5x the turnout.

Interesting note for policy wonks: Ohio's process for constitutional amendment via ballot proposition is similar in part to California's system of ballot propositions (link to my blog on the topic a year ago). Both date to the same era and for the same reason. In the early 1910s people looked to reform politics to curb the excesses of the Gilded Age, when big-money interests and politicians themselves made state legislation unrepresentative of the will of the majority of the voters. Ballot propositions were a way for voters to work around unresponsive legislatures to push through laws and additional reforms that had broad popular support.

On that topic let me reiterate something I've noted before. Voters voting in favor of protecting abortion rights is not just a thing in left-leaning "blue" states like California where voters are protecting abortion; it's red states, too. Last year 6 red states put abortion restrictions on the ballot and they lost in all 6. Ohio Republicans are similarly out of step with what voters in their own state, including voters in their own party, want. They tried jamming the process to avoid another loss. They lost.

Yesterday was Election Day in the US. Preliminary results are coming in. While many races are too close to call, the results in California's seven ballot propositions are becoming fairly clear. Here's what I see so far on California's Secretary of State page (retrieved 9am Nov. 9, 2022):

Proposition Title		My Vote	Preliminary Result
1	Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom	YES	YES (65% vs. 35%)
26	Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands	NO	NO (70% vs. 30%)
27	Online Sports Wagering Outside of Tribal Lands	NO	NO (83% vs. 17%)
28	Public School Arts and Music Education Funding	NO	YES (61% vs. 39%)
29	Regulates Kidney Dialysis Clinics	NO	NO (70% vs. 30%)
30	Tax to Fund EVs and Wildfire Programs	NO	NO (59% vs. 41%)
31	Prohibition on Sale of Certain Tobacco Products	YES	YES (62% vs. 38%)

So, California took my recommendations on 6/7 of the props. 🤣

But seriously, I'm glad the majority of the people came to conclusions similar to mine on most of the propositions. The one that didn't go my way I'm not too surprised about. As I noted in my recommendations earlier this week, school funding is a sympathetic issue— even if the prop doesn't create new funding but merely creates another lock-in tying the hands of legislators when recessions and necessary budget cuts roll around.

Related blogs:

Earlier today I began sharing my opinions about the statewide propositions on the ballot in California. See Ballot Propositions - Nov 2022 - part 1. Here in part 2 I address the latter four props on this November's ballot.

Prop 28: Lock in Funding for K-12 Arts and Music: Gentle No.

A few days ago I wrote blog entry The Problems with Propositions. Prop 28 is exactly the sort of measure I had in mind when I explained the trouble with props that lock in spending requirements. The bill would ensure a certain baseline amount of funding for K-12 arts and music education. To be sure, supporting such education programs is a worthy goal. And because of that it may well pass. I mean, who could be against teaching art and music to kids? But here's the thing: a vote against this initiative is not a vote against art. It's a vote against tying the hands of state legislators in the budgeting process.

This year California's budget spends nearly $100,000,000 on K-12 education, an average of $17,000 per student. For context: yes, that's a lot. And it's a lot partly because the state has enjoyed strong tax revenues for several years. But strong revenues are not a given. During an economic slowdown— of the sort that most economists, business leaders, and even ordinary citizens are predicting will happen next year if not sooner— California's tax revenues fall. Legislators then face tough choices in where to allocate funds. Each voter-passed initiative that locks in funding for one item or another makes the decisions about where to spend the remaining money more dire. Lock-ins for art and music may mean that school programs for language suffer... or perhaps that programs for supporting the elderly or combating climate change get short shrift.

Again, I recognize that supporting art and music education is a sympathetic choice. The only problem I have with this bill is that it's a funding lock-in. That's why I'm calling my position a Gentle No on 28.

Prop 29: Dialysis Clinic Regulation: No.

Patients who need kidney dialysis face dire straits. Shouldn't the industry that keeps them alive be better regulated? Don't be fooled; that's not what this is about.

This initiative matches at least 2 of the 5 proposition problems I described the other day. First, regulation in an industry that is a matter of life-or-death for certain individuals is a deeply detailed bit of policy that shouldn't be left to ordinary citizens to enact on strict up-or-down votes.

Second— and more importantly— this is a special-interest, self-dealing initiative in disguise. Follow the money to see who is bankrolling this and understand why. Funding comes almost entirely from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West union, which has been fighting with the two major providers of kidney dialysis over workers' contracts for years. This is now the second time in recent years the SEIU has gone to the ballot box in an attempt to gain extra leverage in negotiations. I support unions fighting for fair pay, benefits, and working conditions. I do not support them misleading voters at the ballot box to win what they cannot win in equal party negotiations. Vote No on 29.

Prop 30: Tax the Rich to Fight Wildfires and Climate Change: No.

Ah, Prop 30, another measure with a worthy-seeming set of goals. Wildfires are already a very destructive phenomenon in California, costing billions annually, destroying homes and habitat, and often causing deaths. Who could be opposed to reducing the risk of wildfires? Especially since as bad as they are now they're expected to get worse as a result of climate change.... Which this measure nominally also fights. Who but climate deniers doesn't want to fight climate change? And who better to soak with the bill for all of this than California's highest income citizens, those making over $2 million per year?

Alas, Prop 30 is another case of a moneyed special interest looking to do itself a favor at taxpayer expense while using a noble goal as a disguise. Follow the money and you'll see: a) the measure's main sponsor is ride-share company Lyft, and b) the measure's main expenditure is subsidizing purchase of electric cars and the construction and operation of recharging stations. How does (b) relate to (a)? California recently passed a law requiring all new cars sold be electric by 2035. Lyft depends on a huge fleet of vehicles... which it wants taxpayers to subsidize its contractor-employees buying & refueling.

Look, I'm all in favor of vehicle electrification. And I don't like wildfires or climate change. But this tax-the-rich-to-subsidize-a-huge-company measure is the wrong way to further either of those goals. It's a flawed and self-dealing initiative. Vote No on 30.

Prop 31: Uphold Law Banning Flavored Tobacco: Yes.

Prop 31 is a referendum... Instead of being an initiative proposing to create a new law, it is an initiative allowing citizens to veto an existing law. Many voters feel confused and irritated by so many props each year that they take a stance of "I'm just going to vote No on everything!" This is one of the cases where that mindset is misplaced. With a referendum a Yes vote upholds an existing law and a No vote removes it.

What's the law at stake here? 2020 the California legislature approved, and the governor signed into law, a bill banning the sale of certain flavored tobacco products. Cigarette smoking is a major public health hazard generally speaking, and flavored tobacco products have repeatedly been shown to appeal to underage smokers, hooking kids on a destructive, lifetime habit. It's important to attempt funded by the tobacco industry (again, follow the money) to veto our laws— and to do that voters must vote YES on 31.

I've written a few blogs recently about ballot propositions in California: what ballot props are, and problems that can make them thorny to decide on. I started this series as a slow roll leading up to election day, meaning to spend time examining each of the props. Alas I rolled a bit too slow. Election day is just two days away, and I haven't written anything about specific races or measures yet. Thus I'll group together the 7 statewide measures in two blogs.

Prop 1: Protect Abortion Rights: HELL YES!

Proposition 1 is a state constitutional amendment to explicitly recognize an individual's right to reproductive freedom. There's so much I could write about why I'm voting HELL YES on this (technically I'm just voting "Yes"; there isn't a super-like option on the ballot) but I'm not going to bother. It's just the right thing to do.

As a legal matter, Prop 1 is a Legislative Constitutional Amendment. That means it has been approved by the state legislature with a 2/3 supermajority vote and now needs approval by a simple majority of the voters to become part of the state constitution.

Prop 26: Legalize Sports Betting in Tribal Casinos: No.

Proposition 26 is one of two measures on the ballot this election cycle to expand gambling in the state. I'm not opposed to gambling in general but I'm also not opposed to the status quo of how gambling is limited in California. Prop 26 would increase the scope of casino-style gaming allowed at tribal casinos to include roulette and dice games such as craps. It would also allow betting on horse racing at horse racetracks. If this was all the measure did, if it was a simple and clean expansion of gambling, I'd probably support it. But it's not clean. The measure includes opaque language about allowing private lawsuits over gaming regulations. That seems designed as self-dealing by the wealthiest casinos, generally those backed by out-of-state gambling mega-corporations, sue smaller competitors out of business. This stench of industry self-dealing is what turns me against this one. Follow the money. Unsurprisingly it's backed by record amounts of money from casino interests— though not all of them; just the ones that expect they'd get to wear the boot. Vote No on Prop 26.

Prop 27: Legalize Online & Mobile Sports Betting: Heck No.

Proposition 27 is even more of a self-dealing stinker than prop 26. Prop 27 would explicitly allow out-of-state organizations to offer gambling online and through mobile apps to Californians. Gambling has a dark side to it. In California, under the status quo, that dark side is somewhat addressed by gaming creating local jobs and a portion of profits being required to be put into fighting the ills of problem gambling. This expansion of gambling would cause a commensurately large increase in the ills of gambling— but with operations being shifted to out-of-state businesses (including cronyistic accounting secrecy provisions in the measure) we'd lose the ability to mitigate the downsides.Follow the money: out-of-state mega casinos are bankrolling this, along with the few tribes who already have business partnerships with themt. Who's opposing it? Like, everyone else! It's notable that both major political parties and all the big newspapers in California oppose prop 27. Vote Heck No on Prop 27..

Continued in next blog: My recommendations for Props 28-31

Election Day is this coming Tuesday, November 8. I know how I'm voting for most of the statewide offices, Congress, and state legislature. As I noted a few weeks ago, those choices are pretty easy; nearly every race pits a credible Democrat against an anti-government, election denying Republican. But one part of the ballot I need to do more research on is ballot propositions.

Ballot propositions take more effort to research before voting on because they can be tricky. It's already tricky because there are different types of propositions, as I outlined recently. But even more than that, propositions can be problematic in a number of ways. Here are 5 common problems:

1) They're written by amateurs, and contain illegal, impractical, or contradictory language. It's both a strength and a weakness of the initiative process that anyone can write one and, if they pay for signature-gatherers to get enough people to sign the petition, get it on the ballot sent to California's 22 million registered voters. The good is that it's a mechanism for citizens to bypass a legislature that is unresponsive to the majority of the electorate. The bad is that the props go through minimal review, and there's no deliberative process to improve them. Whatever is submitted is what's on the ballot, and we voters can only make an up-or-down choice.

2) A laudable goal with a deeply flawed implementation. The implementation of an otherwise worthy goal doesn't have to be illegal or infeasible to be a problem. Sometimes it's just plain bad. For example, years ago I supported the goal of funding stem cell research in California. But the initiatives to encourage it funded 10 years of research grants with 30 year bonds. Things like research grants should be funded out of current-year accounts. Leave long-term bonds for genuinely long-term things like building schools, roads, and bridges. Part of the problem with initiatives like this is that an up-or-down vote doesn't send a clear message. If I want to support stem cell research, do I vote Yes despite the problems? Or do I vote No knowing that if the measure fails many politicians will take it as, "Californians have spoken, and they've don't like stem cell research"?

3) Spending requirements tie the hands of the legislature. Many of the initiatives over the years have been of the form, "At least X% or $Y of the budget must go to this worthy goal." In addition to the problem of how up-or-down votes could be interpreted (see previous point) this also has the problem that, when successful, these measures put more and more constraints on managing the state budget. In years when tax revenues are tight the state government finds that 90% of its spending is locked in by law. This means that other popular programs must be cut because there just isn't enough fungible budget to go around.

4) Special interests disguise the initiative's impact. Given that anyone can write an initiative and there's no deliberative review, when moneyed special interests write them they generally try to conceal the true intent or impact of the measure. A prop could talk about "consumer choice" when really it's about removing important health regulations, or levy a "sin tax" on something like smoking or gambling people broadly want to see more regulated— but the tax proceeds go to help some other big business (i.e., the one that wrote the measure). At least once in the past 20+ years I've been fooled by a sneakily written ballot prop that I didn't spend more than a few minutes researching, and I voted wrong.

5) Complex, granular issues that are beyond the ability of 99% of voters to properly evaluate. Props can be big or small, simple or complex. Some of them are very complex, or have very wide-reaching consequences, which the vast majority of voters are unable to sort through properly. Many props I look at and I'm like, "I really wish this could go through the legislature." The legislature has not only a deliberative process to improve bills but numerous professional policy experts and lawyers involved in said process to understand its impact and feasibility.

After reading this list of problems with propositions it's tempting to take the stance, "Vote No on all!" Or at least, "If in doubt, vote No." But this is a problem, too!

The problem is not all ballot props are the same. While some are voter-written measures subject to any or all of the problems I've described so far, there are other types of props. In particular, referendum props— which are voter veto measures on legislation passed by the state assembly— really should be a case of "If you're not sure, vote yes." And bond measures proposed by the assembly go on the ballot because they have to. The legislature's not trying to hoodwink you by putting funding for schools, roads, and bridges there— though political opponents routinely claim they are, BTW. They're doing it because the state constitution requires it.

Bottom line, California's initiative process brings the good with the bad. Conscientious voters must read all ballot measure carefully to understand what they're voting for— or failing to vote for.

I mentioned in my blog post last week, Mailbox Full of Politics, that most of the political advertising I've gotten this election cycle concerns California ballot propositions. Ah, California's notorious system of ballot propositions, our often maligned experiment in direct democracy.

"Isn't there anything else on the ballot to talk about?" some might ask.

Indeed there is! One of our US Senate seats and all of our statewide elected offices (governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, etc.) are up for election this year. All of them, though, are lopsided races. There's not much spending there as the results are considered foregone conclusions at this point. That leaves a variety of local races, many of which like those statewide races are uncompetitive... and the ballot propositions.

Three Types of Ballot Props

Ballot propositions, or "props", have been part of California's political process since its founding as a state in 1865. At first they were very limited, though. Their scope was expanded in 1911, as part of the Progressive Era movement to reform the excesses of the Gilded Age in the US. Props would give the people a more direct form of democracy, to vote directly on laws instead of having to rely on their elected representatives to do the right thing— or to do anything at all.

There are three basic types of propositions that can be placed on the California statewide ballot:

❖ Initiative: This broad category encompasses additions and changes to California law or the California constitution. Within this type are subtypes depending on whether the change affects statute (law) or the constitution, and whether a constitutional amendment has already passed a vote in the legislature. Constitutional amendments must go through a popular vote.

❖ Referendum: A referendum is a vote on a law already passed by the California legislature and signed by the governor. "Yes" is a vote to uphold the already-enacted law; a "No" is a vote to repeal it.

❖ Bond: It's a requirement in the California constitution that all new borrowing via bonds must be approved by a majority of the popular vote— after being approved by a super-majority in the legislature.

It's worth understanding these differences whether you're a California voter or just an armchair observer of politics. Ballot props are not created equal. For example, a common criticism of the process is that "anybody can propose anything"— meaning that props should be regard with skepticism. That is somewhat true for Initiatives but factually false (and misleading) for the other types.

More and more of our mail is turning to politics. It makes sense because it's that time of year. Election Day is now just under 4 weeks away.

Mailbox full of politics

The political mailers we're getting aren't what you'd think, though. In other parts of the country, races for governor, senate, and Congress are high visibility. Here those offices are up for election, too, but those candidates are not the ones campaigning hard or spending lots of money on advertisements.

Why not? Frankly it's because most of those races are not competitive. In our Congressional district, for example, we have a well-liked Democrat incumbent who's progressive on social issues and fiscally moderate, opposed by a bigoted, conspiracy theory-spouting crackpot Republican. The Democrat will likely win with 70% of the vote. (Decide for yourself which is scarier— that Democrat incumbents coast to victory here or that bigoted, conspiracy theory-spouting crackpots actually win 30% of the vote against reasonable competitors.) There's a similar pattern in most of the statewide offices.

So which races are competitive and spending money on advertising? Aside from one state assembly race where one of the candidates (or her surrogates) has started a name-calling fight against the other, it's ballot propositions. And it's not even all ballot propositions, but two in particular, Prop 26 and Prop 27, both concerning legalizing sports betting. Expanding legalized gambling is a politically contentious issue, yet there's billions of dollars to be made on it, so that's why there's a flood of advertising around it.