Nov 2020 State Propositions

Here are my recommendations for the state propositions. Details are below the jump. 

14: No: Health Care & Schools are Better Uses of State Tax $$ than Medical Research

15: YES YES YES for Schools + Communities First

16: YES YES YES to Support Racial and Gender Equality

17: YES YES YES to restore voting rights to people on parole

18: YES to Allow Some 17 year-olds to Vote in Primaries

19: NO NO NO to a Cynical Ploy to Reinforce Racial + Wealth Inequities in Property Taxes

20: NO NO NO - Don’t Reimpose Harsh Sentencing that Creates Overcrowded Prisons

21: YES to allow CA Cities to Use Rent Control

22: NO NO NO - don’t let Uber+Lyft be exempt from labor law and subvert democracy

23: NO, cuz OMFG why are we voting on Dialysis rules again?

24: NO to revising Consumer Privacy Protections

25: YES to Confirm Law Eliminating Cash Bail … and then fix the alternative

And now for the detailed writeups on each measure ...

14: No: Health Care & Schools are Better Uses of State Tax $$ than Medical Research

I’m sure there’s good medical research, but this is not how we should spend our taxpayer money. This is a bond, so we’d spend $2.3 billion on interest. I’d much rather spend that on basic health care and public health. Plus, Californians originally invested in this research back when the federal government didn’t -- now there’s lots of stem cell research. Californian don’t need to fund it. 

See the San Jose Mercury News editorial opposing Prop 14 or read more on Ballotpedia (Prop 14). 

15: YES YES YES for Schools + Communities First

I was in 4th grade when Prop 13 passed in 1978. By 5th grade we had to pay for the school bus -- over $1000/year in today’s dollars. I knew kids whose families couldn’t afford for them to ride the bus. Across California, our schools struggle with crowded classrooms. Our cities struggle to fund basic services. Prop 15 will restore $12 billion/year back into our schools (including community colleges), and communities. 

Prop 15 would do that by fixing one of the biggest problems in Prop 13. When homeowners buy a new house, the property is reassessed and taxes increase. But when wealthy corporations and investors buy property, they exploit loopholes to avoid reassessment. The result has been that the residential share of property taxes has grown from 55% to 72% -- shifting the tax burden from corporations to homeowners. Prop 15 would close the corporate loophole. 

Endorsements include the League of Women Voters, an enormous list of organizations interested in a wide variety of issues, gobs of elected officials, the LA Times, and SF Chronicle, . Vote Yes on 15. And join me to phone bank with Showing Up for Racial Justice.

16: YES YES YES to Support Racial and Gender Equality

I believe in equality of opportunity: everybody should have an equal shot. But that’s not the world we live in. Women and people of color face discrimination in hiring, employment, contracting, and education. Equal opportunity programs are an effective way to fight systemic racism and gender discrimination. But California is one of only nine states that bans affirmative action as a tool to fight discrimination. Prop 16 is our chance to reverse the ban, level the playing field, and expand opportunity for all. If you have concerns (about ‘quotas’, or perceived disadvantages for Asian Americans, or that we can achieve equality with income-only policies), I encourage you to read the rebuttals from the campaign.

Endorsements include League of Women Voters, our next Vice President Kamala Harris, Gov Newsom, and gobs of elected officials and organizations. Vote Yes on 16. 

17: YES YES YES to restore voting rights to people on parole

Prop 17 will restore voting rights by allowing Californians who have completed their prison term to vote. Currently, the state prohibits people with felony convictions from voting while they’re in prison or on parole. Mass incarceration means Black and Brown people are disproportionately disenfranchised. This is only one step of many we should take, but it’s an important step. Californians who have completed their prison sentence shouldn’t continue to be punished -- they should be encouraged to reenter society, have a stake in society, and vote. 

Endorsements include the League of Women Voters, ACLU, Indivisible CA, Gov Newsom, the Democratic Party, gobs of electeds, and many more. Vote YES on 17. 

18: YES to Allow Some 17 year-olds to Vote in Primaries

Prop 18 would allow 17 year-olds to vote in a primary or special election IF they’re going to be 18 by the next general election. That’ll help engage young people at a time when they’re studying the issues in high school and have a strong interest in participation. Plus, CA’s top-two system makes the primaries even more important. 

Endorsements include the League of Women Voters, LA Times, CA Secretary of State Alex Padilla, and more. See more at Ballotpedia (Prop 18).

19: NO NO NO to a Cynical Ploy to Reinforce Racial + Wealth Inequities in Property Taxes

The title of an analysis from the nonpartisan highly-respected California Budget & Policy Center kinda says it all: “Proposition 19: Creates a Complicated Property Tax Scheme and Reinforces Racial Inequities in California.” Prop 19’s big change is a tax break that benefits homeowners who have higher incomes, are more economically secure, and are more likely to be white than the average California household. That’s exactly the opposite of what good property tax reform should do. There is one good provision: to narrow a different tax break on inherited properties. Let the legislature do that on its own. 

Don’t be taken in by the provision that directs net state revenues (which are likely to be relatively small) to a special fund for fire response. That looks like a cynical attempt to exploit totally justified concerns about fires to hide tilting the tax system to favor of wealthy homeowners.

Oh, and two more things: (1) California already has several special tax breaks for older (55+) or disabled homeowners, or for victims of fire or other natural disasters. So many of the benefits the Prop 19 ads proclaim are already part of state law. And (2) this is mostly a retread of 2018’s Prop 5, that California voters defeated. 

You can see good opposition editorials from the LA Times and the San Jose Mercury News.

20: NO NO NO - Don’t Reimpose Harsh Sentencing that Creates Overcrowded Prisons

“Criminal Justice Reform is Working in California” is another report by my favorite state policy wonks, the California Budget & Policy Center. But Prop 20 would roll back California’s successful criminal justice reforms. It would make minor offenses into felonies and require collecting DNA for misdemeanors like shoplifting. It would promote mass incarceration, take us back to days when California had severely overcrowded prisons, and hurt Black + Brown people the most. Instead, we should keep making progress on the criminal justice reforms that have helped reduce the prison population and create a more effective and equitable system. 

Others who say No on 20 include the League of Women Voters, Indivisible CA, CA Democratic Party, ACLU, Gov Newsom and former Gov Jerry Brown, and many more. Vote NO on 20. 

21: YES to allow CA Cities to Use Rent Control

I was torn over 2018’s Prop 10, which was a wholesale repeal of Costa-Hawkins, California’s 1995 law that severely restricts how California cities can implement rent control. I’m more supportive of Prop 21, a more limited rewrite of Costa-Hawkins. But I’m leaning Yes. 

High rents and housing in California, especially in the Bay Area, are harming and driving out our  low- and middle-income neighbors. I join many progressives in feeling we need 3 P’s -- Protect tenants, Preserve communities, and Produce housing. Rent control seems like an obvious strategy to ‘Protect tenants.’

And yet … it’s a mixed bag. I read in detail a generally supportive analysis from the Urban Institute and a longer analysis from an analyst I respect deeply (Manuel Pastor at USC). It appears to me that rent control and stabilization programs:

Reduce rents for the (relatively few) tenants who live in controlled homes -- some of whom desperately need the help and some of whom don’t; 

Increase residential stability and protect those tenants from eviction; 

Don’t constrain housing supply when they don’t apply to new construction and are paired with other good local policies; 

But also probably don’t contribute to “broader socioeconomic goals, such as limiting gentrification, creating mixed-income neighborhoods, or decreasing racial disparities”

Significant benefits for a few, little evidence of broad-based benefits, but also little evidence of negative impacts. 

So let’s trust our democracy. Let’s make it possible for more California cities to adopt rent control. Maybe some will figure out how to make it offer broader-based benefits, or target the benefits to the most needy. 

Endorsements include the CA Democratic Party, ACLU, Sanders + Barbara Lee, Kevin de Leon, Housing California, my colleagues at TransForm, and many other community groups and elected officials. Plus the LA Times. See the Yes on 21 website or learn more on Ballotpedia (Prop 21).

22: NO NO NO - don’t let Uber+Lyft be exempt from labor law and subvert democracy

I hate it when big business spends zillions to run an initiative to boost their own profits at the expense of the low-income people-of-color who work for them. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, and Instacart have paid a combined $180 million to pass Prop 22, which would exempt themselves from a 2019 law (AB 5) that requires them to treat their drivers as employees. 

You’ll see lots of glossy ads claiming drivers want to be ‘independent’, and some do. But a recent survey of Uber+Lyft drivers in San Francisco found 70% work 30+ hours/week and 53% said driving was their only source of income. Driving is their job, they should be treated fairly. They should get a living wage and benefits like sick time. We should defeat Prop 22 so the 2019 law can go into effect and drivers can be treated fairly. 

Endorsements include Warren, Harris, & Biden, and gobs of community + labor organizations -- including my colleagues at TransForm. Vote NO on 22. 

23: NO, cuz OMFG why are we voting on Dialysis rules again?

This drives me crazy. Prop 23 shouldn’t be on the ballot, just like Prop 8 in 2018, which voters defeated (and I opposed) in 2018. Like Prop 8, Prop 23 would put a complex set of rules about dialysis clinics on the ballot. As in 2018, Prop 23 is really on the ballot because the relevant health care union (SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West) is trying to use it as leverage in their struggle to organize clinic workers and force more hiring. I hope SEIU-UHW is successful in organizing, but I *still* don’t want us to enshrine complicated health care rules in the law. 

For more info, see editorials by the LA Times, SF Chronicle, and San Jose Mercury News. Or read more on Ballotpedia (Prop 23).

24: NO to revising Consumer Privacy Protections

This is another thing I don’t think should be on the ballot. I’m just going to quote the LWV position: 

“The League of Women Voters supports the protection of consumers’ private data. Prop 24 includes some beneficial elements, but we oppose due to the complexity of a 52-page initiative with impacts and nuances that are difficult for voters to discern and rollbacks to existing protections. Among the troubling aspects of Prop 24 is its expansion of “pay for privacy” through the addition of loyalty and rewards programs, allowing businesses to charge consumers more or provide worse service if they choose to exercise their privacy rights. The initiative also allows businesses to require consumers to direct each individual website and app not to sell information - weakening the current legal requirement that companies respect a global opt-out for all services. These burdens are fundamentally inequitable, placing the onus on the average consumer to protect their own privacy. Working people don't have the time to do the paperwork and they can't afford to pay companies to respect their wishes. Finally, the initiative comes less than a year after the 2018 California Consumer Privacy Rights Act went into effect, before we have had an opportunity to see how the new law works or the legislature has had a chance to address any defects.” 

Besides LWV, other opponents of Prop 24 include the ACLU, Media Alliance, Public Citizen, and the Consumer Federation of California, plus the San Jose Mercury News & SF Chronicle. Or go really deep and see the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s article on why they don’t support Prop 24. 

25: YES to Confirm Law Eliminating Cash Bail … and then fix the alternative

In 2018, California passed SB10 to eliminate cash bail and replace it with risk assessments. So bail bond companies, who make millions of dollars off their mostly low-income, mostly Black + Brown defendants, paid millions to get this referendum on the ballot. A YES vote confirms SB 10. A NO vote overturns it. 

Cash bail is definitely bad. People with no money stay locked up until trial. People with some money pay a nonrefundable fee (often thousands of dollars) to a bail bond company. And people with plenty of money post the full bail, then get their money back after the trial. Cash bail criminalizes poverty and reinforces systemic racism in our criminal justice system. 

But what about the pretrial risk assessment tools, focused on safety and flight risk, that would replace cash bail? People I trust say SB 10’s rules should be better. The ACLU of Northern California called on SB 10’s author to sponsor followup legislation to address racial bias in these tools. And some grassroots groups are opposing 25 because they’re concerned that once it goes into effect, the legislature won’t change it. On balance, I say YES on 25 -- we definitely eliminate cash bail, and we can still amend its replacement in the legislature. Voting no would keep the status quo and strengthen the hand of the bail bond companies. 

Endorsements include Gov Newson, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, and gobs of elected officials, plus the League of Women Voters, CA Democratic Party, and many editorial boards (LA Times, SF Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News). 

Vote YES on 25 to end cash bail and put California on the path to fairer pretrial decisions about who stays in jail and why. And then support groups like the ACLU in asking the legislature to improve the new system.