Nov 2016 State Propositions

How I'm voting on the November 2016 State propositions

Lots of propositions, lots of decisions. Here are my choices for the state propositions: details are in the many pages below the jump. I’ll write up local measures and candidates in a separate post.

51: YES for K-12 & Community College facilities 52: Leaning YES to Use Hospital Fees to get Federal Funds for Medi-Cal -- Comments welcome! 53: NO NO to Statewide votes on local projects 54: NO to Over-Complicated Prescription of Legislative Operations 55: YES YES to have the 1.5% pay for for Schools & Healthcare 56: YES YES for Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare and Tobacco Use Prevention. 57: YES YES for Criminal Justice Reform 58: YES YES to Allow Bilingual Education 59: YES to Clarify that Corporations are not Human Beings 60: NO to a Badly-written measure about condoms in porn films 61: Leaning YES to Reduce Costs of Drugs - Comments Welcome 62: YES YES, a million times YES to Repeal the Death Penalty 63: YES to prohibit possession of large capacity ammunition magazines 64: YES on Marijuana Legalization 65: Leaning NO on Deceptive Plastic Bags Measure 66: NO NO NO - Don’t make it easier to impose death sentences 67: YES to Confirm Legislature’s Ban on Single-use Bags

51: YES for K-12 & Community College facilities

Prop 51 would authorize $9 billion in bonds for K-12 schools ($6B), community colleges ($2B), and charter schools ($1B). Our public schools and especially our community colleges have massive needs, and this would help. Money to pay off the bonds would come from the General Fund (pro: no new taxes; con: competes with existing programs for funds).

Supporters include the state PTA, community college league, school boards association, and both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

Opponents are an odd combination of Governor Brown plus the anti-tax Libertarians and lefty Peace & Freedom Party. I appreciate their concern about putting the state further in debt and that the program doesn’t include guarantees that money will be distributed equitably. I don’t agree with their argument that we should only fund school facilities via local measures: that’s a recipe for only rich districts getting good facilities.

If someone can tell me ways that the measure will ensure fair distribution of bond funds, I’d be an even more enthusiastic “Yes”. If someone can show me that there’s a compelling reason to believe the funds will be inequitably distributed, I’d become more concerned.

(BTW -- don’t bug me with comments that the campaign is being funded by construction interests -- of course it is! Community college students don’t have beaucoup bucks to fund ballot campaigns, so the campaign asks for money where they can find it).

52: Leaning YES to Use Hospital Fees to get Federal Funds for Medi-Cal -- Comments welcome!

Oy, this is complicated, and I wish it didn’t have to be on the ballot. Current law says hospitals must pay a fee to the state ($4.6B last fiscal year). The state uses most of the money for Medi-Cal payments back to hospitals ($3.7B), which in turn causes the federal government to send matching funds to the state for Medi-Cal ($4.4B). The state uses the remainder of the fee for the General Fund ($0.9B). This system has been in place since 2009, renewed every few years by the Legislature.

But there have been frequent attempts to use the money for other purposes. This measure would make the current setup permanent and require voter approval or a two-thirds vote of the legislature to make further changes.  

So far as I can tell, this fee is a net winner for Medi-Cal recipients, for hospitals, and for the state General Fund. I can see why it has drawn support from the Democratic Party, Republican Party, and hospitals. Notably, SEIU’s United Healthcare Workers union was originally opposed and funded the original opposition campaign; but in September they changed to a neutral position and stopped funding the opposition. The ballot argument is signed by a few individuals, but the only organized group opposed is the Libertarian Party.

All those reasons lead me to a “Yes” vote.

But … I’m only “Leaning Yes” because (a) I’m not normally a fan of requiring two-thirds votes or requiring voter approval to change and (b) I’m generally not a fan of constitutional amendments. If this measure fails, the decision will go back to the Legislature, which could make the same decision if it wanted to. I generally favor legislative decisions (after all, they and their staff spend a lot more time thinking about these issues than we voters do). So I’m open to input -- if you’ve got good arguments one way or another, let me know.

53: NO NO to Statewide votes on local projects

This one is complicated, but it turns out wrong. It starts with what sounds like a decent idea: require voter approval of for really big bonds (over $2 billion). But there are major complications that have me voting NO.

Most importantly, the fine print of this measure appears to allow statewide voters to vote on large local projects. To understand, first read this explanation from my friend Nathan Landau:

“Governments issue two types of bonds. There are “general obligation” (GO) bonds like those in Prop. 51, those are repaid with general tax income. Then there are revenue bonds which are repaid from the revenue the project earns (e.g. tolls from a bridge). GO bonds affect the budget of the issuing agency and are subject to vote, revenue bonds stand on their own and aren’t (if revenue is short, bond buyers take the loss). This measure would require statewide votes on revenue bond issues of over $2 billion.”

The measure’s language says it is supposed to apply to “state” projects, but then it goes on define “state” as including “any joint powers agency or similar body created by the State or in which the State is a member.” That applies to, for example, the agency responsible for the Transbay Terminal (since Caltrans is a member). It would also undoubtedly apply to any future effort to create a second BART tube under the bay. That’s crazy -- that means the whole state would vote on whether to approve a local Bay Area project.

The people I know who support Prop 53 are doing so because they’re trying to stop a new Delta water tunnel. The same is true of the billionaire sponsor, Dino Cortopassi. But this measure would torpedo too many other local efforts -- Delta tunnel opponents need to find a different way.  

Prop 53 supporters include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the Republican Party, a virulently anti-tax Contra Costa County Supervisor (Karen Mitchoff), and a bunch of county-level taxpayers’ associations.

Prop 53 opponents include the Governor Brown, the Democratic Party, and a host of groups I agree with (including TransForm, the organization I used to work for). To learn more, see www.noprop53.com.

54: NO to Over-Complicated Prescription of Legislative Operations

This is a bit of a tough one. I plan to vote no, but I’m open to input. The measure has lots of provisions: you’ve probably most heard about the requirement that prohibits the Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote. That sounds good, unless you’ve actually seen how bills get modified and passed. Negotiations often over small changes in language often get tossed back and forth as deadlines loom. Passage of 54 might just move that deadline back 72 hours earlier, but it might also make it easier for special interests to jump in after a compromise has been brokered to bust it up. Hard to know exactly how it would come out. There are also lots of other provisions, and it just looks to me like there’s too many provisions. Plus this is a constitutional amendment, so if there are flaws (and there are pretty much certain to be flaws), we could only fix it with another statewide vote.

55: YES YES to have the 1.5% pay for for Schools & Healthcare

This extends a tax voters previously approved with Prop 30 in 2012 -- which I supported -- and continue to dedicate most of the funds to K-12 schools and community colleges plus a bit to children’s healthcare. The tax is paid by individuals with personal incomes over $250k (over $500k for joint filers), who together make up 1.5% of California taxpayers. They would continue to pay an extra 1-3% of their income for this tax. Another positive note: this measure does NOT extend a temporary sales tax that was part of Prop 30. So overall, Prop 55 extends an economically progressive tax and ends a regressive one, and uses the money for the common good.

Main opposition is from taxpayer groups (Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association et al) who are unhappy about the renewal of a temporary tax. Last I noticed, our schools and kids’ healthcare still have major needs, so we need to renew this measure. Vote Yes.

56: YES YES for Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare and Tobacco Use Prevention.

This is a slam dunk yes. Honestly, I was ready to vote yes after seeing the first two words, “Cigarette tax.” Friends who are health care researchers tell me the most effective way to cut down on smoking is to tax tobacco. Plus the money will be used for good things: health care for low-income Californians, preventing more people from starting smoking, law enforcement related to tobacco, and other good things. PS -- another bonus is that Prop 56 starts taxing e-cigarettes. Supporters include American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Children’s Defense Fund, American Academy of Pediatrics. Tax something we don’t want and use the money for good. Vote Yes.

57: YES YES for Criminal Justice Reform

California locks up way too many people, creating overcrowded and unconstitutional conditions that led the US Supreme Court to order the state to reduce its prison population. According to my friend Nathan Landau, “the number of people in state prison multiplied seven times from 1980 to 2006.” By 2015 we had 128,000 people in state custody, mostly men, with 70% of them black or Latino. And when we try kids as adults, we take young people who’ve made a mistake and we sentence them to a downward spiral from which few recover. Our current approach is making our communities less safe and wasting the human potential of far too many people -- mostly young men of color. We need to fix it.

This measure would do two good things to reverse the madness. First, it would allow parole boards to consider granting parole to non-violent offenders. That is good because we have way too many people locked up for years for non-violent offenses. Second, it would require a hearing in Juvenile Court before a juvenile could be tried as an adult. That is tremendously good because right now, prosecutors can make unilateral decisions to try children as adults.

Supporters include the governor, probation officers association, the League of Women Voters, several newspapers (LA Times, SF Chronicle, Sacramento Bee, even the Bakersfield Californian), plus several groups I trust that work on justice issues. Vote yes for criminal justice reform.

58: YES YES to Allow Bilingual Education

I’m embarrassed to be a monolingual English speaker in an increasingly multilingual world and I believe my children will benefit by gaining more language skills than I have. I also know that many monolingual immigrants -- whether they arrive speaking Spanish or Chinese or Vietnamese or any other language -- would benefit from learning English as well as becoming literate in their native language.

Prop 58 would help both of us -- native English speakers and immigrants who speak other languages. It would reverse the negative impact of Prop 227, the xenophobic 1998 measure that dramatically restricted bilingual education in California. Prop 58 would allow school districts to provide bilingual education and use a child’s native language as a path to teaching English -- something education researchers tells us works better than monolingual English education. I’ve see this in my own kids’ classrooms, where one of my kids got into the very popular dual immersion program (one that Berkeley had to apply for a special waiver to get). The law allows parents to choose bilingual education, a choice currently denied to all but a few Californians in public schools.

There’s a WIDE range of supporters: http://supportprop58.com/endorsements. Opponents are Ron Unz and the Republican Party. They claim the measure will force parents into bilingual classrooms, despite the fact that the measure actually contains very specific language that increases parents’ influence over teaching methods.

Please Vote Yes on 58.  

59: YES to Clarify that Corporations are not Human Beings

This measure would advise state officials to use their authority to overturn the Citizens United decision that held that political contributions and spending were protected as "free speech" under the First Amendment. It would call on elected officials to try to change that decision by constitutional amendment or other means, and also to allow for the “the full regulation or limitation of campaign contributions and spending” and “make clear that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as human beings.” As an advisory question, Proposition 59 would not legally require officials to act.

As an advisory measure, Prop 59 doesn’t guarantee any results. But passing Prop 59 would add to the nationwide momentum to clarify that money from corporations should not have the same constitutional protection as speech by humans.

60: NO to a Badly-written measure about condoms in porn films

I’m doing this ballot writeup with my 15 year-old son, and we have to discuss the inner workings of the porn industry? Thanks, California initiative process.

More seriously: this measure would require use of condoms in adult films, but it includes a host of requirements that seem like bad public policy. As my friend Nathan Landau writes,

“Prop. 60 doesn’t read like a charter for adult film performers’ health. It reads more like “We don’t like porn, but it’s legal, so we’ll try to hit it through health.” This measure plays footsy with unconstitutional content restrictions—it says that adult films don’t have to show condoms, but if they don’t they will presumed to be in violation. After filming, porn producers have to notify authorities of locations they’ve used. I can’t see any rationale for that other than harassment of property owners who allow adult filming. And anybody---anybody—can sue an adult film production, regardless if they have any connection to it. Everybody deserves a safe workplace—including adult film performers—but Prop. 60 isn’t the way to achieve that.”

Oh, and the measure is opposed by both the Democratic and Republican parties. Proponents should go back to the drawing board and write a measure that doesn’t have so many flaws. Or better yet, pursue this via Cal-OSHA or the legislature, where the kinks can be worked out (pun intended).

On the bright side, this measure did give me an opportunity to talk about the importance of condom use with my son … come up with a bunch more double-entendres we decided not to include :-)

61: Leaning YES to Reduce Costs of Drugs - Comments Welcome

Here’s another complicated one whose true outcome is very uncertain. Prop 61 prohibits the state from buying any prescription drug from a manufacturer at a price higher than the lowest price paid by the US Dept of Veterans’ Affairs. If it works, this would be great. This would use the combined buying power of the state and the VA to reduce drug prices from pharma companies. But it might not work -- the legislative analyst says they can’t estimate the fiscal impact because there are too many uncertainties about how the drug companies will react.

My take is that it is worth a try. It is an initiative statue, so if it doesn’t work well, the Legislature can try to fix it. I know there are decent people on both sides, but the Yes side has more supporters I like (Sanders, Reich, nurses, several health NGOs). The most cogent “No” arguments come from the many newspaper editorials against it (LA Times). Plus the No campaign has gobs more money, because the drug companies are afraid of this idea spreading to other states.

62: YES YES, a million times YES to Repeal the Death Penalty

Prop 62 would repeal the death penalty and replace it with life sentence without possibility of parole. There are many reasons to repeal the death penalty:

1) It doesn’t work: there is zero evidence that the death penalty deters crime, and some evidence to show that it promotes crime.

2) It costs too much: a death row sentence costs 18 times as much as a life sentence. The Legislative Analyst says passing Prop 62 would likely save ~$150 million/year, money we we could better spend on MANY other purposes.

3) It isn’t implemented: because of the process and the continuing debates over the right method to kill people, California hasn’t executed anyone in the past 10 years, but we still spend millions prosecuting it.

4) It is racially unjust: while the majority of murder victims are African Americans and Latinos, juries impose the death penalty more often when the victim is white and the accused is not, and “there have been 297 African American defendants sentenced to death when the victim was white, and just 31 white defendants sentenced to death when the victim was African American.”

5) It inevitably kills innocent people: in California alone, we’ve had 66 murder convictions later overturned because new evidence proved they were innocent. Nationwide, we have killed people who were later proved to be innocent.

The reasons go on and on. Oh, and I didn’t even get to morality, or “Why do we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

Please Vote Yes on 62 and Vote No on 66 (see below).

If you’d like to learn more, or support the campaign, go to http://yeson62.com/.

63: YES to prohibit possession of large capacity ammunition magazines

I’m just going to quote my friend Nathan Landau, who writes:

“When the federal government is paralyzed, as it is on guns and the consequent gun violence, states need to take action. If guns are somehow the lethal product that can barely be regulated, regulate bullets! This measure would do half a dozen important supporting steps. They include requiring a background check to buy ammunition, prohibiting large capacity ammunition magazines—the things mass shooters use; requiring most ammunition sales to go through licensed dealers, and prohibiting firearms possession for people convicted of stealing a gun (scary to learn that isn’t the case now). There are lots of interesting supporters—emergency physicians, Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom. The opponents have chosen to direct their rhetorical fire against Newsom—arguing that the measure won’t stop terrorism (which it doesn’t claim to do) and will cost a lot in a vain effort at enforcement. These opponents include the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Republican Party, Jews Can Shoot and Pink Pistols (I couldn’t make this up!), see www.wheresmyammo.com (why’d they leave out the “dude” part of that name?).”

64: YES on Marijuana Legalization

I’m not a big fan of marijuana. I don’t use it myself and its smell is only a bit less offensive (to me) than tobacco smoke. But I think the world would be better off if we regulated marijuana, as we do with tobacco and alcohol. The current situation is silly: in 1996 we backed off full prohibition and introduced “medical” marijuana, which anybody can get from a friendly dealer doctor. But we still make thousands of felony arrests for growing or selling marijuana. And the enforcement is racially biased: nationwide, blacks are 3.7 times more likely than whites to be arrested for marijuana possession, even though marijuana use rates are roughly equal.

Prop 64 appears to be well written: it introduces a tax on marijuana, says it can only be sold through outlets licensed by the state, specifies that some of the tax revenues go to sensible purposes, and generally introduces a sensible regulatory structure somewhat similar to what we have for alcohol. And it is a statute, so the Legislature can fix it if there are problems.

Support comes from public health & hospital officials, (some) law enforcement, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, the Democratic Party, and many groups I respect in other contexts: the ACLU, California NAACP, Ella Baker Center, Friends Committee on Legislation in CA, and more.

Opposition comes from the Republican Party, Dianne Feinstein, many sheriffs (mostly in rural counties, but some urban). They make some claims that would be worrisome if they were true (e.g., increases in DUI’s, marijuana ads on TV), but they don’t appear to be true (there’s conflicting evidence on DUI results in Colorado & Washington, and federal law prohibits TV ads).

And … I’m not too stressed either way. If Prop 64 passes, I’m sure the legislature will end up changing some of its provisions as we see how it works. If Prop 64 fails, another attempt at legalization will pass sooner or later. Prohibition didn’t work for alcohol in the 20’s, it hasn’t worked for marijuana now. Let’s put a sensible regulatory structure in place. Vote Yes on 64.

65: Leaning NO on Deceptive Plastic Bags Measure

This is a sneaky measure whose main purpose is to confuse voters. It was placed on the ballot by plastic bag manufacturers to provide a smokescreen on their attempts to stop the plastic bag ban, Prop 67. For that reason alone, I’m inclined to vote No. I want to send a message to plastic bag manufacturers and other industries that they can’t buy results via the initiative process.

I’m a little conflicted because I don’t see a big harm in Prop 65’s main provision: it states that IF the state passes a law to prohibit giving away certain bags for free and requires a minimum charge for other types of bags, the revenue from those charges must go into a new fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB). I don’t believe the proponents’ claim about how much money this would bring in, but I recognize it would be some money. That might be a best-of-both-worlds result: fewer single-use bags, some revenue to environmental programs, incentives to all involved to use sturdy reusable bags.

BUT -- Prop 65 also includes a provision that the Legislative Analyst says “could be interpreted by the courts as preventing Proposition 67 (the referendum on SB 270) from going into effect.” That would be bad. Plus, several environmental groups that would normally support funds to the WCB are saying NO on 65: Clean Water Action, Surfrider Foundation, and Californians Against Waste.

After a bit of waffling, I’m strongly leaning towards NO on 65.

66: NO NO NO - Don’t make it easier to impose death sentences

Of the reasons I mentioned for why the death penalty should be repealed, this proposition would try to address the third (“It isn’t implemented”) by making it easier to kill people. That would be bad. By eliminating checks in the system, we would undoubtedly sentence -- and possibly execute -- more innocent people. We’d probably also exacerbate the racial disparities. Vote No on 66.

If you’d like to learn more, go to https://nooncaprop66.org/.

67: YES to Confirm Legislature’s Ban on Single-use Bags

We thought we had won this one in 2014 when the state legislature passed and the governor signed SB 270, a ban on single-use plastic bags. But plastic bag manufacturers got this referendum placed on the ballot. Plastic bags harm wildlife, who get caught in them or mistake them for food. Plastic bags are some of the most visible and harmful litter in our parks, neighborhoods, and waterways. The law would also allow stores to sell reusable bags, setting a minimum price of ten cents for them. Many cities and counties have passed similar bans on plastic bags -- this would extend the ban statewide. It just makes sense.

The opposition is funded by plastic bag manufacturers. Don’t be fooled by their false claims of a “hidden tax” (not a tax, not hidden) or their false claims about big profits for grocery stores. That’s not what’s happened in the local cities and counties where similar bag bans are in place. Voting yes will also send a message to industries that they can’t use the referendum process to stop legislation they don’t like.