Here you go! Aubrey decided to do some good napping today, so I had time to write up a short prop guide. As long as people still like this, I will still do them, even though I don't vote in California elections anymore.
Introduction and Background: A proposition is the name for a law or amendment to the California Constitution that is directly voted on by the citizens of California. This means that when you vote, you have the chance of directly choosing some laws for the state! In general, propositions get on the ballot through a petitioning process, so people collect signatures in order to put a law on the ballot. There are some other rules as well, and the California government can put propositions on the ballot, but most of the time they get there by signing petitions. This year there are 10 propositions on the ballot, numbered 2-6, and then 32 through 36. Propositions are numbed in cycles, so in 2022 we had propositions 26-31 and now we are picking back up with 32. Props 2-6 are constitutional amendments, so they aren’t really a prop, it’s a state measure. That’s why they go first. California’s Constitution works in a similar way to the US Constitution, with a few major differences. Like the US Constitution, the state constitution is the highest law of the land and provides rules that a legislature or judicial body cannot override or ignore. If you want to amend, or add something to the US Constitution, there is a process to follow, first you need to get either 2/3 of both legislatures (House and Senate) or a constitutional convention called by 2/3 of the state legislatures (this has never happened.) Then you need to get 2/3 of the state legislatures to approve, or 2/3 of state conventions to ratify or approve. This process is difficult, and that is why there have only been 17 amendments (outside of the 10 Bill of Rights). In California, you can amend the constitution by either a 2/3 vote in both houses of the California legislature, or by collecting enough signatures to put the amendment on the ballot. Either way, we, the citizens of California, have to vote on the amendments. This popular vote is a simple plurality vote, meaning the yes votes just need one more vote than no’s to be successful. This makes the California constitution particularly easy to change. There are over 513 amendments to the California constitution! Here are the props on the November ballot: Prop 2: AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. A quick note about bonds. A number of these props are to authorize the selling of bonds. Bonds are the primary way for a government to raise money without raising or changing taxes. Instead, the government sells bonds on the stock market. These are basically investment promises, so if you buy $100 in bonds, the government promises to pay you back $150 in 10 years. The government is basically betting that the thing that they are raising money for will improve the economy enough that they will make back more money than they owe in bonds. However, it is creating a future expense, and if the economic growth doesn’t materialize, the government is still on the hook for paying off the bond, which could cause issues in the future. Bonds are generally seen as very safe investments, and so are popular in retirement funds and such. Prop 2 authorizes the state to sell bonds to raise money to build new schools, modernize old schools and do health and safety repairs. It will provide money to build new schools (~3 billion), modernize old schools (~4 billion), remove lead pipes in schools (115 million), give money to charter schools (600 million), create technical education programs (600 million). It will also provide 1.5 billion for community colleges to use. Recommendation: Yes. Public schools need money, and bonds are a low-risk way of paying for it without new taxes. Prop 3: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. This prop is quite simple. Currently a section of the California Constitution reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” At the moment, this provision isn’t in effect, because of the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court Case, as national rulings override state-level rules. You also might remember the contentious “Prop 8” fight that inserted this language into the CA constitution. It was later overturned by state courts, but it was a messy fight. This basically undoes all of this, removes the text from the constitution and replaces it with the text “The right to marry is a fundamental right.” Recommendation: Yes. This is a no-brainer. Even though its not in effect now, this protects CA from any future changes in judicial decisions. Prop 4: AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE. Similar to Prop 2, this provides bonds for water, wildfire protection and land protection. The idea is to provide clean drinking water, mitigate the effects of wildfires, and increase the health of natural lands. It will provide money for drinking water (3.8 billion), Wildfire protection (1.5 billion), costal resilience programs (1.2 billion), heat mitigation (450 million), Biodiversity protection (1.2 billion), Sustainable farms (300 million), park creation (700 million), clean air programs (850 million. It also provides for the administration of these as grants, and an auditing program to ensure the money is spent appropriately. Recommendation, Yes. This is another low-risk investment with high upside. Prop 5: ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. This one is a bit trickier. While props 2 and 4 let the state directly sell bonds and therefore has budget numbers attached, this one just allows local governments to create their own bonds. Basically, it allows local governments the ability to sell their own bonds to fund affordable housing, with a 55% vote. So, you would have to pass a local measure on a ballot to allow your city or county to fund affordable housing. So this doesn’t actually funda any housing, but it allows local governments to fund housing in the future. Recommendation: Yes. While this doesn’t fund any housing, it does allow local governments the flexibility to do it themselves. Prop 6: ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. So currently the CA constitution reads “Slavery is prohibited. Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.:” So what this means is you could be forced to do work when you are incarcerated. This prop would change the constitution to read “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited” as well as adding “The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall not discipline any incarcerated person for refusing a work assignment.” This means that you couldn’t be punished if you are incarcerated and don’t want to work while in prison. However, you could be offered credits, or other incentives in order to work. Recommendation: Yes. This closes a notorious loophole in both the CA constitution and the US constriction where slavery, or involuntary servitude is acceptable if you are incarcerated. You shouldn’t be forced to work, even if you are in prison. Prop 32: RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE. In 2016 California passed a minimum wage increase law, that increased the minimum wage form $10.50 to $15 and hour, by increasing it by about $1 a year from 2017 to 2022. This bill continues this, and retroactively increases the minimum wage from $15 an hour, to $18 an hour, by January 2025. This only applies to companies who employ 26 or more employees. If you have 25 or less employees, you have until 2026 to raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour. Recommendation: Yes. Despite public perception, increasing the minimum wage has a minimal impact on the cost of goods, and prices generally. Prop 33: EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Currently there is a law on the books called the “Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act” which provides a lot of guidance about rent control from the state level. On the whole, it prevents local governments from enacting their own rent control. There is a lot of confusion and misleading information about this prop circulating. It doesn’t change any existing tenant protections, which are covered by different laws, and it doesn’t change any existing rent controls, which are also different laws. What it does is it allows local governments to enact rent control if they like. Recommendation: Yes. While rent control won’t solve the housing crisis on its own, it, and other tenant protections are increasingly valuable as corporate owned real-estate becomes the norm. Prop 34: RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. This is a really tricky proposition, and demonstrates, I think, One of the limitations of the CA proposition system. Because it is relatively easy to get a prop on the ballot, they can be used and manipulated for a number of different reasons. So on the surface, this prop seems to be limiting profiteering off of discounted drugs. So as it stands, some groups can use Medi-Cal negotiated prices to buy drugs at a discount and then sell those drugs at retail prices, and keep the profits. That seems to be bad. However, it gets more complicated because the bill is written in such a way to basically exclusively target one organization, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a major supporter of rent control and Prop 33 (see above). This is why the main founder of this prop, is the California Apartment Association, who are the main opponents of Prop 33. My read on this, is that this prop was pushed as a way for the CAA to try to get back at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and prevent them from pushing rent control policies. Recommendation: No. Even though cracking down on this profiteering seems good in the abstract, this back-and-forth sniping between major interest groups through propositions is always a bad idea. Prop 35: PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. California currently has a tax that it levies on managed healthcare insurance plans. So, if you have something like Kaiser Permanente, you pay a tax to the state. This tax allows the state to collect more federal funds (sometimes federal funds require matching state funds or other requirements, I’m not sure what it is for this tax specifically). It also allows the state to pay for Medi-Cal services and some other health programs. This tax already exists but is set to expire in 2026. This prop would make this tax permanent, although it would require some management in the future as it involves cooperation with the federal government. Recommendation: Yes. This is another one of those props with no real downside, and nobody even is attempting to propose an argument against it. Prop 36: ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE. This prop changes several criminal laws in California. It changes drug possession and theft crimes from misdemeanors to felonies, if you have two prior drug or theft convictions. It also increases sentencing for other drug and theft crimes. In 2014, we passed a prop that changes some crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Mostly theft when the value was under $950, and drug possession. It also included some sentencing reductions and a focus on rehabilitation. This current prop basically repeals all of this, and increases incarceration time and the severity of crimes, upgrading them from misdemeanors to felonies. If you are charged with a misdemeanor you usually get a fine, and up to 1 year in jail, which can be served in a county jail, or under community supervision. If you are charged with a felony, under this prop, you are sentenced to state prison for a number of years, up to about 5 years, but this prop also allows that to be increased by an additional 3 years. Recommendation: No. California has made some big strides in reducing the incarcerated population, and by repealing some of the more draconian criminal laws, like the three-strikes law, (which mandated life in prison for the third felony conviction), and reducing drug sentences and increasing funding for rehabilitation. This prop works to undo that and put more people in prison. Sentencing laws generally don’t work to dissuade crime, and serving time in prison, rather than under supervision or in county jail, increases the probability of recidivism. So overall, this prop is cruel and doesn’t actually work to reduce crime.
1 Comment
Ian Kinzel
11/1/2024 10:40:12 pm
re: "As long as people still like this, I will still do them, even though I don't vote in California elections anymore."
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
October 2022
Categories |