Click a recommendation below to link to the rationale (or just scroll down).
Prop 14 – More borrowing for stem cell research☒
Prop 15 – Higher commercial property taxes☑
Prop 16 – A return to affirmative action☑
Prop 17 – Allow parolees to vote☑
Prop 18 – Allow some 17-year-olds to vote☑
Prop 19 – Adding & subtracting property tax breaks☒
Prop 20 – Reversing Criminal Justice Reforms☒
Prop 21 – Rent control enabled☑
Prop 22 – Exempting app-based companies from labor laws☒
Prop 23 – On-site physician at dialysis clinic☒
Prop 24 – New consumer privacy rules☒
Measure A – Who Needs a Strong Mayor?☒
Measure B – Fix Redistricting Timing?☑
California State Measures
Prop 14 – More borrowing for stem cell research ☒
In 2004 California voters approved borrowing $3 billion to finance a state government stem cell research program. With that $3 billion almost completely spent, the backers of the original effort want voters to authorize another round of borrowing by issuing $5.5 billion in government bonds to continue stem cell research. The total cost will be about $7.8 billion once interest payments are figured in.
Though stem cell research is a worthy endeavor, it should be funded by the federal government and the private sector; the taxpayers of California have already kicked in more than our fair share, without getting much in return, as the major breakthroughs promised 16 years ago have largely not materialized. The state has far more pressing medical needs that need funding, like rebuilding the public health infrastructure necessary to respond to pandemics. Also, much of the stem cell funding has gone to institutions represented on the board that allocates the money.
Prop 15 – Higher commercial property taxes ☑
This measure would plug a loophole created by the passage of the legendary Proposition 13 in 1978 and raise much needed funds for schools and local governments.
The ballot measure seeks to create a set of new rules for commercial property taxes while leaving the existing rules for residential property taxes in place. Commercial property owners would see their taxes go up and the resulting tax revenue would go to local government services and schools. Prop 13 left cities and counties with few ways to raise revenues equitably, and in most areas key public services like schools, parks and public health are underfunded.
Proposition 15 would allow market-rate values for commercial and industrial properties to be used as the basis for assessing property taxes owed and would phase in that change over three years. The smallest businesses would be exempt from the change.
Prop 16 – A return to affirmative action ☑
Back in 1996 conservatives, with Proposition 209, successfully outlawed consideration of race, ethnicity and gender in awarding government contracts and admission to the state’s colleges and universities. Prop 16, put on the ballot by the Legislature, is only nine words long. It would simply repeal Proposition 209, allowing affirmative action to again be used in state.
The argument against affirmative action relies on the idea that we should be a color-blind society. But if you understand that we actually continue to suffer the impacts of systemic racism — and sexism — then it makes sense for governments to take steps to counter that bias.
Prop 17 – Allow parolees to vote ☑
This measure, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, would allow those on parole (an estimated 40,000 Californians) to vote. Currently, the California Constitution allows someone on probation to vote, while removing the voting rights of a parolee until the time of parole has been completed.
Parolees have finished their prison sentences and are trying to integrate themselves back into society. I think it makes sense for part of that re-integration include participating in elections. Also, we know that California’s over-incarceration tendencies have disproportionately imprisoned people of color, so the ban on parolee voting is one more way of making it harder for them to vote. 19 other states allow parolees to vote.
Prop 18 – Allow some 17-year-olds to vote ☑
This constitutional amendment, placed on the ballot by the Legislature, would allow 17-year-olds to register and vote in primary elections if they turn 18 by the time of the general election in November.
At least 18 states have similar laws on the books. The hope is that more of these new voters will get engaged with issues, and maybe even develop a life-long habit of voting, if they can participate in a full election cycle. As it stands now, an 18-year-old Californian whose birthday was after the March 3 presidential primary missed out on the chance to pick some candidates and now gets to vote only for one of the smaller group of hopefuls who made it to the Nov. 3 ballot.
Prop 19 – Adding & subtracting property tax breaks ☒
This was put on the ballot by the Legislature, but its sponsor was the California Assn. of Realtors, and its goal is to benefit realtors by spurring sales of high-end houses. It would tweak the already inequitable system of property taxation — created by 1978’s Prop 13 — by adding another perk for long-time property owners, without doing anything to address the housing affordability crisis for everybody else.
If approved by voters, California homeowners who are 55 or older can purchase a new home and keep their property tax payment at the same level or a reduced rate — depending on the value of the new house. This expands a long-standing program that is available only in a few counties. The impact is clear: Older Californians who might otherwise be reluctant to change homes and pay higher property taxes would receive a new break.
After failing to pass a similar measure 2 years ago, the realtors have dressed up this year’s measure to make it more appealing. Prop 19 cracks down on the transfer of a home from a parent to an adult child in which the property tax payment doesn’t change. Closing this loophole would generate revenues which would go toward local firefighting efforts. But the fundamental problem remains that this measure would favor older property owners — who are likely to already be more well off than the average Californian — without making housing more affordable for anyone else.
Prop 20 – Reversing Criminal Justice Reforms ☒
This measure would undo some of the reforms passed by California voters in recent years to reduce the punishment for crimes less serious than violent felonies. In 2014, Proposition 47 was passed to reduce the penalties for some theft and drug crimes. In 2016, Proposition 57 offered a chance of parole to some serving prison sentences for crimes that don’t fall on the state’s list of violent crimes. The result has been to reduce the prison population, which saves money, and promote rehabilitation.
This ballot measure would place new limits on some of the sentence reductions included in Proposition 47 and Proposition 57. It would allow some theft-related crimes to be charged as felonies and it would create two new crimes: serial theft and organized retail theft. Both crimes could result in jail time. This would just repeat the mistakes made in the past when the state relied too heavily on incarceration.
Prop 21 – Rent control enabled ☑
It’s very clear that California has a critical deficit of affordable housing. This measure would help by shrinking one major obstacle – a bad state law that blocks cities and counties from controlling rents. Prop 10 alone would not enact new rent controls, but it would allow local communities to respond to the housing crisis in ways that are appropriate for each of them. The skyrocketing rents in many California cities have thrown people out of their homes and threatened the welfare of our communities, and the pandemic makes the situation even more dire. Opponents claim that rent controls will deter housing development, but that hasn’t actually happened in cities with rent control.
If 21 passes, cities and counties could apply rent control to housing that is more than 15 years old, with the exception of some single-family homes. The ballot measure would allow local governments to impose limits on rent increases when a new renter moved in.
Prop 22 – Exempting app-based companies from labor laws ☒
The app-based ride and delivery companies have been pretending that their drivers are independent contractors, rather than employees, and denying them the standard job protections guaranteed to employees. California’s courts, legislature and governor have all agreed that the drivers are in fact employees, so the companies are spending enormous sums on this measure to give themselves a loophole.
Proposition 22 would designate those drivers to be independent contractors and grant them some benefits that would be smaller than they would have if they were actual company employees. The companies should not be allowed to exploit their workers by denying them basic rights and protections like paid sick leave, workers compensation and unemployment benefits.
Prop 23 – On-site physician at dialysis clinic ☒
This is the second straight November election in which a labor union has asked California voters to approve a new law governing kidney dialysis clinics in the state. I sided with the union on the 2018 measure, which lost, but I think they now should be addressing their concerns through the legislative and/or regulatory processes, both of which they have plenty of access to.
The ballot measure would require every clinic to have at least one physician present during all operating hours, among other provisions. The clinics and some of their employees and patients say this could force some clinics to cut services and close, putting lives at risk. I don’t know if they’re right, but I don’t think this is the kind of decision that should be on the ballot.
Prop 24 – New consumer privacy rules ☒
California’s sweeping new consumer privacy law just went into effect this year, and now one of its major proponents, a wealthy developer, is trying to change it with a complicated 52-page initiative. The ACLU and Consumer Federation of CA are opposed because they say Prop 24’s fine print includes giveaways to social media and tech companies.
Prop 24 would give tech companies new ways to collect private information, let them charge more to safeguard private info, and restrict us from enforcing our privacy rights in court. Instead of doing that, let’s give the new law a chance to work.
Prop 25 – End cash bail ☑
This measure is a referendum, a special kind of ballot measure asking voters whether to approve or reject a law passed by the Legislature. In this case, it’s the fate of a 2018 law abolishing cash bail in California.
Companies representing the bail industry, facing a threat to their existence, quickly gathered signatures on a referendum after the law was signed. As a result, it’s been on hold and is awaiting a final decision by voters this fall. A yes vote is needed to allow the bail reform law to go into effect.
Money bail too often has led to decisions based less on public safety and more on the ability to pay, with damaging impacts on low-income people. The new law would give judges wide discretion to decide who can be released prior to trial. Defendants deemed to be a danger to the community could be held under a policy known as “preventive detention.”
Some civil rights advocates who support ending cash bail withdrew their support for the bill after the final amendments added computer-generated predictive modeling that they fear will perpetuate bias. But many reform advocates like the Western Center on Law & Poverty are backing a yes vote. If the no side prevails, the bail industry will have won and the status quo will continue. If yes wins, the reform will go into effect, and any flaws that emerge can be fixed through legislation.
City of Sacramento Measures
Measure A – Who Needs a Strong Mayor? ☒
This is what I said in 2014, when a different strong mayor proposal was on the ballot, and I think it still applies:
The proponents of the strong-mayor system have not made a persuasive case for changing our current council-manager system. Reducing the power of the City Council would hurt neighborhoods and give even more influence to the wealthy developers who are spending obscene amounts on this campaign. Having the City Manager supervise most of the city’s employees makes them more professional and less susceptible to the political pressure and potential corruption that often appear in strong-mayor cities. Join the League of Women Voters in voting no.
This year’s proposal includes some other attractive features, like participatory budgeting, but they should be passed on their own rather than being shoe-horned into this measure that was rushed through the Council. I am definitely not saying that status quo governance in Sacramento is ideal; clearly, there are problems in the police department, and I have often had trouble even getting garbage picked up on time. But when I look at strong-mayor cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, they do not seem better governed. So I don’t see any evidence that changing the structure is the solution.
Measure B – Fix Redistricting Timing? ☑
In 2016 we amended the city charter to create an independent redistricting commission, an important reform that will prevent the politicians from picking their own districts as they have in the past. Since then, the state has changed the date of the primary election from June to March, and the pandemic has delayed the national Census. Consequently, the charter needs to be amended so that the new Council district maps are in place for the 2022 primary election. League of Women Voters supports, and no one opposes, this common-sense measure.
Measure C – Rent Control ☑
This is a close call for me, because I’m wary of replacing a law recently passed by the City Council with a long and complex initiative that creates a new elected board. But this measure has tighter and more lasting caps on rents and stronger protections against unjust evictions than the Council’s compromise law does. The many Sacramentans who are in danger of being displaced by skyrocketing rents need these protections.
