Progressive View of State Propositions

From: George T. Riley, Monterey CA,

I have been researching and reporting on State Ballot Propositions for 44 years.  Many voters put off questions about the State Propositions until the last minute.    Since many voters will want to vote early, I hope this helps. 

Prop 2   YES    $10 Billion Bond to Upgrade K-12 and Community Colleges

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.  Requires matching funds and annual audits.

This is standard procedure for school capital improvements that are expected to last 20-40+ years.

$$$     Yes:  $5M.   $1M from school coalitions, $1M from building industry.

            Yes:  LWV, CA Chamber of Commerce, teacher coalitions.

$$$     No:  -$0- 

            No:  H Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc

But there are legitimate concerns about how Prop 2 will distribute bond money to rich and poor areas.  This inequity still exists, whereby richer districts can afford higher bond costs, but the reverse is true for lower income districts.  The Legislature could not reach a compromise to reduce this inequity, so it is what it has always been – easier for the higher income, harder for lower income.  I’m still recommending a “YES” vote. The needs have not gone away. 

Prop 3   YES    Reaffirm Same Sex Couples Right to Marry

Repeals Proposition 8 (2008) which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.   It was rendered null and void with US Supreme Court Decision in 2013.  P3 removes 2008 language and declares the “right to marry is a fundamental right” and adds it to   the California Constitution.

$$$  Yes:   $4M         Yes: ACLU, LWV, Planned  Parenthood affiliates, CA Dem Party, CA Chamber of Commerce.

$$$  No:  -0-     No:  Evangelical Council and related.

It seems unnecessary, but one argument is that it preemptively protects against future threats to fundamental rights. 

Prop 4     YES     $10 Billion Bond for Water and Climate Projects

To cite one of my sources—highlights include large-scale water storage so we can weather increasingly severe droughts; dam repair to handle stronger atmospheric rivers; forest management to minimize greenhouse gas-spewing wildfires; restoring wetlands that can buffer us against rising sea levels; improving land, river and ocean habitats to preserve critical ecosystems and protect biodiversity; and the development of offshore wind turbines to help wean us from fossil-fuel power plants. Annual audits are  required.

Relying of bond proceeds removes it from annual legislative gyrations in spending priorities. 

$$$  Yes:  $5.3M, mainly Zuckerberg fortune, via non-profit that wife Chan created. 

Yes:  LWV, ACLU, firefighters, construction trades groups, nature and wildlife coalitions, Habitat for Humanity, Dem Party

$$$   No:  $3.2 M, CA Chamber of Commerce, H Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc, CA Business Roundtable, business property owners and allies, GOP.

Prop 5     YES     Approve Local Bonds with 55% Vote

P5 is a Constitutional Amendment.  It would lower the vote threshold from 66.67% to 55% for local public agency bond measures to fund housing projects and public infrastructure.  Schools already have this authority. 

P5 would apply right away, including any relevant local bond measures also on the ballot on November 5, 2024. P5 would require the local jurisdiction (city, county, or special district) to establish an oversight committee and conduct an annual audit to ensure that the funds are being used according to their intended purposes until all the proceeds have been expended.  P5 would level the playing field and create parity between school districts and cities, counties, and special districts, so that all local governments have a similar financing tool to address community needs.

This option has been in legislative negotiations since 2017.  Recent breakthrough came with a provision to exclude urban homes from conversion to affordable housing, which neutralized the CA Assoc of Realtors. 

P5 would exempt local property taxes above 1% of the real cash value of the property if the revenue is used to pay previously voter approved debt. 

According to one commentator, it’s unfortunate that our state government’s ability to protect us from the worst impacts of climate change is so fragile and volatile. It depends on the health of each state budget each year, which depends on how much income tax the state collects, which in turn depends on how much capital gains are earned by state’s wealthiest taxpayers, which depends on how well the stock market performs. That’s our system. If you can think of a better way, tell your legislators. Until then, bonds like Prop 4 can smooth out the inevitable rough patches where the need is urgent.

$$$ Yes:  $5M.      Yes:  LWV, Dem Party, construction trades

$$$: No:  $30M.       No:  CA Cham of Comm, H Jarvis Assoc

Neutral:  CA  Assoc of Realtors

Prop 6   YES    Stop Forced Labor in Prisons     

P6 removes from the State Constitution involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime.

While the California Constitution explicitly bans slavery, it also says that involuntary servitude—forcing people to work against their will—is permitted as punishment for a crime. A ‘yes’ vote on P6 would end the inhumane practice of forcing California inmates to work against their will.

Then again–”idle hands are the devil’s workshop’…  What to think??

As of 2024, 34 states, including Deep South states Alabama and Tennessee, have outlawed forced labor in prisons. So, here we are.

YES:  $$$   $1.4M       Yes:  ACLU No & So, LWV, CA Labor Federation

No:  No $$, no opposition.

Prop 32     YES   Increase Minimum Wage to $18/hour

P32 would raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour starting in January 2025 — a bump from the current $16. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would be required to start paying at least $17 next year, and $18 in 2026.  Starting in 2027, the wage would be adjusted based on inflation, as the state already allows. 

Joe Sanberg, a successful corporate investor,  filed this ballot initiative. Joe Sanberg is a progressive business leader and anti-poverty advocate.  He founded CalEITC4Me, one of the state’s largest anti-poverty programs, which has put more than $10 billion back in the pockets of working families. He successfully led the charge to expand eligibility for the program to low-wage, undocumented workers, who had previously been excluded from the tax credit.  Sanberg also leads Working Hero PAC, a people-powered political organization focused on electing progressive candidates who will fight for affordable housing, good-paying jobs, a sustainable future, and accessible healthcare for all. 

YES:  $$$  $11.4M mainly Sanberg.  YES:  CA Teachers, ACLU, LWV, Dem Party.

No:  $$$  $70K, not much.    No:  CA CofC, Restaurant/retailers/grocers interests, H Jarvis Assoc.  Independent Business Federation said:  “Market, not politicians and bureaucrats, ought to be dictating the financial growth and success of working men and women in California. Let the market dictate this.”

Well, market forces will never do this!!!   We can.  Vote YES.

Prop 33    YES    Allow Local Rent Control (Repeal Costa-Hawkins)  

Residential populations are about 62% home ownership, and about 38% rental. Both are huge numbers of residents, in every jurisdiction.  The high cost of housing has caused increased attention to the plight of renters, and to the entry cost of ownership.  More and more cities are looking for options around supply and affordability.   It cannot all rely on ‘build baby build’.  

Many cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, already have some form of rent control.  Limits by Costa-Hawkins law from 1995  forbids rent control on single-family homes or apartments built after 1995. And landlords are free to set their own rental rates when new tenants move in. 

The Tenant  Protection Act (TPA)  in 2020 simplified the regulation of rent increases.  Both this and the Costa-Hawkins law have not allowed flexibility and creativity around local priorities.  Costa-Hawkins is woefully out-dated, and TPA is inadequate. 

The high cost of housing has caused new thinking and concern about the viability of neighborhoods if affordability and flexibility are not addressed.  Thus P33. 

If P33 passes, cities would be allowed to regulate rents on any type of housing – including single-family homes and new apartments, and for new tenants.  And, I expect, any contentious local issue will undergo extensive public review and transparency. 

$$$  Yes:  $42M, essentially all from Michael Weinstein – AIDS Healthcare Fd. 

YES:  Dem Party, labor, nurses, more

$$$    No:  $67M.  $58M from apartment and realtor interests. 

NO:  Chambers of Commerce, business and realtors, H Jarvis Assoc.

The short answer is that many politicians and realtor interest groups don’t like rent control and really don’t like Michael Weinstein. (See P33 and P34)  But local jurisdictions need flexibility to deal with new emerging affordable housing dilemmas.  Give them the tools.  Vote YES.

Prop 34   NO     Hamstring the AIDS Healthcare Foundation 

(In reality, muzzle Michael Weinstein, founder of AHF.)

P34 requires health care providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care.  This is a complicated accounting demand specifically targeting Michael Weinstein’s AIDS Healthcare Foundation.  It is a vendetta against AHF and his advocacy for rent control options.

Weinstein is the longtime president of the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which operates HIV/AIDS clinics in 15 states. Under his leadership, the foundation has become a major player in state and local housing politics. It has poured tens of millions of dollars into two unsuccessful statewide propositions advocating for rent control options.  (P33 here is round three).

In 2017, the foundation backed a partial moratorium on development in Los Angeles and sued to halt construction on residential high rises for inadequate affordable units.  .Along the way, the foundation has amassed a sizable portfolio of rental properties in LA’s Skid Row that have been saddled with habitability and health complaints.

Weinstein has plenty of political foes, specifically California Apartment Association, the state’s premier landlord lobby and a major opponent of rent control.

If passed, it will surely be challenged at the state Supreme Court since no law can be written so narrowly that it will apply only to an isolated but defined party. 

$$$  Yes:  $22M.      90%  from Ca Apartment Assoc

$$$  No:  $1.2M.      Essentially all from AHK. 

This is vendetta 101.  Vote NO.

Prop 35   NO     Earmark Existing Tax on Managed Health Care to Fund Medi-Cal 

Requires the existing tax on managed care organizations to go to Medi-Cal programs.

In the recent past, this tax revenue has been partly used to fund deficits in other state programs.  P35 earmarks this revenue for its original intent, to assure stable funding for Medi-Cal services. 

Today, more than 14 million Californians — roughly a third of the state population — use Medi-Cal.

P35 would require the existing state tax on health care plans (like Kaiser Permanente and Anthem Blue Shield) to be spent on Medi-Cal (the public insurance program for low-income Californians and people with disabilities). The revenue would go to primary and specialty care, emergency services, family planning, mental health and prescription drugs, thus assuring their cost increases can be covered.  Over the next four years, it is projected to generate upwards of $35 billion.  Primary supporters of P35 are those likely to benefit the most — ambulance interests, hospital-medical-dental allies. 

Opponents criticize this as ‘ballot box budgeting’, which handicaps legislative options to annually balance the budget.  Also certain interests seek to benefit far more than it costs to approve a ballot proposition (a form of pay to play).

There are 2 big picture issues here—a) do not restrict legislature flexibility it needs for annually balancing the budget; AND b) fund a program that already has a tax revenue stream. 

$$$   Yes:  $50M.   Mainly medical allies, Dem and GOP parties

$$$   No:  -0-    LWV, Gov Newsom

This is kind of a toss-up, but I come down on NO. 

Prop 36    NO    Increase Penalties for Low Level Theft and Drug Crimes

P36 would increase criminal drug and theft penalties and allow a new class of crime to be called treatment-mandated felony.  This allows prosecutors to combine multiple charges under $950 into higher level felony offenses, and thus increase leverage over offenders, and increase state prison populations.  The offender choice is to cooperate with treatment, or serve more time. 

The ‘support’ argument rests on retailers complaining about increased shoplifting (during Covid and recent high inflation), and claiming this P36 will reduce homelessness. 

Reads like therapy, seems like force.  And to reduce homelessness?  That’s a stretch. 

Ten years ago, CA sought to reduce California’s prison overcrowding following a US Supreme Court ruling that CA prisons were too overcrowded and must be reduced for health and safety reasons. Voters approved P47 in 2014 that made some theft and drug crimes into misdemeanors, and sent thousands to local jails, called realignment. . Since then, prosecutors, police and big box retailers have blamed the law for an increase in property crimes and homelessness.

Opponents say there are no studies -none- on criminal justice or homelessness that support the idea that harsher punishment — or the threat of harsher punishment — prevents crime or gets people off the street. They say P36 will expend hundreds of millions of dollars in court and prison costs without measurably reducing crime or poverty.

Furthermore in August Gov. Newsom signed into law several new bills that address some of the same issues as P36—allowing prosecutors to combine thefts by one suspect to meet the $950 felony threshold; allowing prosecutors to combine crimes across multiple counties into a single felony case; clarifying the crime of organized retail theft; and more. 

$$$   Yes   $14M    Mainly from retailers (Walmart, Target, Home Depot).  Other supporters are retailers, District Attorneys, CA Chamber of Commerce, H Jarvis Assoc, etc.

$$$  No    $2M   

P36 chases sentiments, not solutions.  Vote NO. 

Compilation of other sources making recommendations:

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

Props that were proposed and did not get on the ballot were negotiated for a legislative compromise.   A recent law requires the Legislature to try to find a resolution or compromise on the issue before putting it up to the voters.  Saves time, money and avoids litigation and campaign efforts. 

In this cycle these proposed propositions were avoided:  details on a pandemic response; regulations on unions and private attorneys; requiring a high school course on personal finance; oil and gas regulations; fast food minimum wage council. 

My Sources:  CA Secretary of  State, CalMatters, CA Choices, Ballotpedia, Pete Rates, Wikipedia, compilation shown above, plus others.