Your Political Friend

November 2026 CA Propositions

2026-10-08T22:24:36.337-07:00

Because of job and family, I have been unable to do the work this year. Instead I reprint below the summaries and opinions of Pete Stahl, of Pete Rates the Propositions (with one exception on Prop 40). I have followed his work for years and admire his integrity and commitment. I also find that I often agree with him on the CA propositions, so I, respectfully, reprint his summaries here.

I promise I'll be back for the next election. You can hold me to that.

PROP 1: YES

$10 billion in bonds to kick-start construction of housing for low-income Californians, plus $1.25 billion to reseed the marvelous CalVet Home Loan program at no net cost to the state. Most of the $10 billion will provide low-interest loans to local governments and developers to build and renovate rental housing, with a requirement to reserve units for low-income renters. These loans will enable more housing projects to pencil out and actually get built, slowly easing our housing crisis.

PROP 2: YES

Revenue from the state income tax fluctuates wildly year-to-year due to unpredictable real estate and stock markets. In down years, this leads to gruesome budget crises. To reduce their impact, in 2014 voters wisely approved a strong “rainy day fund” to hold reserves, which are deposited in high-revenue years for use in lean years. Under current law, the rainy day fund can be as large as 10% of the General Fund. Prop 2 would double that to 20%. Given the enormous volatility of recent income tax revenue (down 18% in 2020, up 73% in 2021, down 34% in 2023, up 28% in 2024), this is eminently sensible.

PROP 3: YES

In 2012, California voters increased taxes on high incomes, making our income tax more progressive. The increase applies only to the top two percent: those with incomes above $743,000 (filing jointly; half that for single). But the increase is temporary, scheduled to expire in 2030. If that happens, the top tax bracket will start at just $145,000, making our income tax more regressive and flat. Prop 3 will prevent the 2012 increase from expiring, ensuring that high earners continue to pay their fair share. The impact on the state budget will be significant: continuation of a revenue stream on the order of $10 billion annually, directed to education, healthcare, and other vital programs.

PROP 4: YES

Currently, public financing of political campaigns is banned in California, except in charter cities such as Los Angeles and Oakland. Prop 4 would allow (but not require) the state and local governments to enact public financing. To receive public funding, candidates would first have to prove their viability, and then abide by spending limits.Six California charter cities, fourteen states and the District of Columbia have public finance, and the results are worth emulating. Prop 4 will make campaigns less about wealth and big-bucks fundraising (with its ever-present danger of corruption), and more about ideas, communities, and serving the people.

PROP 5: YES

If the governor of California is recalled, Prop 5 would promote the lieutenant governor to be the new governor. That’s vastly preferable to our current procedure for choosing a replacement: a free-for-all election on the same ballot as the recall, with potentially hundreds of candidates; majority vote not required. The existing process encourages minority parties (looking at you, GOP) to instigate spurious recall elections, as they did in 2021, in hopes of installing their own Governor with a small fraction of the vote. We don’t need that circus again.

PROP 37: YES

Provides low-interest loans to “middle-class” buyers of new homes, at no cost to the state. Buyers’ family income cannot exceed twice the median income in the area, and the purchase price must accommodate a conforming mortgage (e.g., maximum price of $845,000 in Fresno or $1.27 million in San Francisco). Buyers would put down 3% of the purchase price, the state would lend 17%, and the rest would be a conventional 80% mortgage. Buyers would repay the state at a rate that completely covers the state’s expenses, so Prop 37 won’t cost taxpayers a dime. By facilitating home sales, Prop 37 will help more owner-occupied homes get built, just as Prop 1 does for rental housing. A big win for everyone.

PROP 38: NO

A self-dealing “buy-a-law” subsidizing a single research lab to the tune of $4.2 billion, and other labs another $4.2B, likely providing negligible benefit for the state. Bond funding should always be for long-lived, tangible acquisitions such as buildings and infrastructure. But Prop 38 will squander interest-burdened bond money on salaries, chemicals, and other ephemeral expenses. It’s a serious misuse of bond funding and the initiative process itself.

PROP 39: NO

Part of President Trump’s antidemocratic scheme to disqualify as many voters as possible, based on a pack of lies about purported “voter impersonation” and supposed lack of “public confidence and trust in the electoral process” (both quotes from the text of the proposition). There is absolutely no need for this destructive and dangerous measure.

PROP 40: NO

"Imposes a one-time, 5% tax on the total assets of the roughly 200 Californians whose net worth is over $1 billion. Is it fair to levy this wealth tax, leaving them with only $950,000,000 out of every $1 billion, so that millions of poor Californians can occasionally visit a health clinic? I’m thinking yes." (Pete)

However, this measure is promoted by one specific Labor Union (SEIU). It's being marketed as a healthcare funding measure, yet it is opposed by Planned Parenthood and the CA Medical Association. Governor Newsom, Xavier Becerra, and Steve Hilton are also in opposition. There is a lot on the surface to like about this prop - taxing billionaires to help pay for health care would be wonderful, but the possible downside, as well as the fact that it will certainly be held up in court for years, makes it suspect.

PROP 41 and 42: NO and NO

Regardless of how you vote on Prop 40, you should definitely vote “no” on the countermeasures, Props 41 and 42. They are poison pills designed to kill the Billionaire Tax forever, but they would have detrimental impacts far beyond that. Prop 41 would invalidate any special-purpose tax which is excluded from the Appropriations Limit, while Prop 42 would prohibit wealth taxes and retroactive taxes. These measures would straitjacket the Legislature if some future emergency requires tapping these capabilities, even temporarily. Both measures have mouthwatering candy coatings to induce unwitting voters to swallow them. Stop drooling. If you oppose the Billionaire Tax, then vote against Prop 40. But don’t restrict how the state can tackle future crises.

PROP 43: NO

Prop 218 of 1996 requires that special taxes (i.e., taxes that fund specific programs) must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. But in 2017, the state Supreme Court ruled that special taxes proposed by initiative can be approved by simple majority. That case was California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland. Prop 43 would effectively reverse the court’s decision, requiring a two-thirds vote of the electorate to enact, extend, or increase local special tax initiatives.

PROP 44: NO

Remember those nuisance propositions about dialysis clinics a few years back? Prop 44 is a tired retread of those, this time targeted at community health clinics in medically underserved areas. More extortion than legislation, this measure was intended to be withdrawn before the ballot was finalized in exchange for boosting union membership at certain clinics. But negotiations broke down, and here we are. There is no reason anyone should vote for Prop 44.

PROP 45: NO

Prop 45 would speed up the approval of most housing, transportation, water and health projects by imposing time limits on environmental reviews and lawsuits conducted under CEQA, the state’s environmental review law. It’s incredibly complicated and nuanced, and affects everyone in the state. Because of that, this issue shouldn’t be decided by poorly informed voters in an all-or-nothing ballot measure. Instead, it belongs in the Legislature, which can (and regularly does) fine-tune CEQA to fit current conditions. Prop 45 would place much of CEQA out of reach of the Legislature, leaving us with a rigid process tailored to the needs of the building industry, which wrote the proposition.

History of Propositions

2026-10-07T17:20:00.000-07:00

There are two ways for a proposition to get onto the ballot. The first is by the state legislature submitting an issue directly to the voters. The second is by a group of people gathering enough signatures of registered CA voters (currently 373,816). Sometimes known as “Direct Democracy”, this process was created as a way for the voters to bypass an unresponsive state government and institute a law or constitutional amendment. The high number of required signatures ensured that the proposal had enough popular support to be placed on the ballot.

However, the creators of this process did not foresee the use of paid signature gatherers. These are most of the people you see circulating the petitions for ballot initiatives, and they are usually paid about two dollars per signature. These “ballot mercenaries” have replaced the armies of passionate volunteers that were originally envisioned when the referendum process was started.

As a result, anyone with about $2 million can get an initiative on the ballot, forcing voters to debate a proposition that may have no real merit to begin with. The best solution would be to ban the use of paid signature collectors. This would not only return the system to its original intent, but would drastically reduce the number of propositions that currently overwhelm voters every election.

Unfortunately, the courts have declared that money is a form of speech, and cannot be impinged. This is a position that has been challenged by many people, without success.

So, please, READ the summary before you sign it. Ask the circulator if they are being paid for your signature (they're legally required to tell you), and, if so, who is paying them. The more you know, the better.

ARCHIVE - November 2024 Ballot

2026-10-06T13:22:00.000-07:00

Prop 2 would authorize $10 Billion for repair, upgrade, and construction of K-12 public schools (including charter schools) and community colleges. The debt would be paid from the General Fund.

The way things go in CA, the state is supposed to pay half the cost of new school construction, and 60% of the cost of renovations. The local district pays the remainder. Both local and state governments often borrow money for these purposes using voter-approved bonds. But there are huge inequities in the amount of funding that poor districts can raise in property taxes, so state funds have been inequitably distributed. Prop 2 takes some steps to address this, but they're only minor improvements.

It is important to remember that these funds may only be used for renovation and construction of facilities. The money may not be used to hire or retain staff, provide equipment such as computers, or deal with school budget deficits.

This is the problem with the proposition. While it is beyond dispute that poor facilities can have a negative effect on student outcomes, the reasons for plunging student test scores is probably not the leaky roof. It's the lack of staff to assist kids with greater needs, and the lack of resources for the teachers.

San Francisco Unified School District is on the verge of a state takeover due to budget deficits. Why? One reason might be that school enrollment has dropped dramatically since 2019, but the current school board has refused (until now) to close any schools.

So, at a time when school enrollment across the state is dropping, does it make sense to build new schools?

Not surprisingly, the prop is heavily backed by construction and companies. It's opposed by the dependable cranks at the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Singers.

This prop is expensive and may not do anything to improve student outcomes. However, it has been a long time since we approved a school facilities bond (we rejected a $15B school construction bond in 2020), so it's not a crazy ask either.

Your Political Friend is voting NO, or maybe YES. Both positions have merit, flip a coin.

PROP 3

While same-sex marriage has been legal in the United States for some time, many states, including California, have not recognized that fact in their state constitutions.

Prop 3 amends the state constitution to remove the words, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California", and replace them with "the right to marry is a fundamental right". That's it.

The Evangelical Christian group opposed to the change warns that the wording of the bill would "remove protections against child marriages, incest, and polygamy".

They are wrong, of course, but I thought I'd include their position to answer the obvious question you might have, "why would anyone be against this?"

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 4 would authorize $10 Billion to fund various projects to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Nearly half of the money would go towards water cleaning and storage projects, as well as reducing the risk of floods. The remainder would go towards wildfire prevention, land conservation, coastal protection, and energy infrastructure. At least 40 percent of the funds would be allocated to projects that provide a direct benefit to vulnerable populations or disadvantaged communities. Something for everyone.

The Prop is supported by a host of environmental orgs, and opposed by, say it with me now, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Assoc. Their argument against is actually correct - bonds are the most expensive way to pay for things because they add interest to our debt, which is already too high. They say we should only borrow money for long-term infrastructure projects, and they are, again, correct. There are a lot of projects, such as parks and farmers markets, that probably won't have much benefit to our climate resiliency (you can read the long list of recipients in the text here).

But building groundwater storage and fixing dams is long-term infrastructure. Creating climate smart agriculture and preventing wildfires is long-term infrastructure. The unfortunate fact is that our current budget deficit caused a lot of our planned climate projects to be cancelled or delayed. That is the reason that Prop 4 is on the ballot.

As I write this, hurricanes are destroying Florida. We can see that Mother Nature doesn't care about our budget, so many of these projects can't wait. If we can't pay for them now, we'll need to pay a bit more for them over time. Who know's what we'll pay if we don't prepare for a future we know is coming.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 6 would remove wording in the state constitution that allows jails and prisons to force incarcerated people to work. Better known as "Involuntary Servitude", the requirement to work is illegal in the state except to punish crime.

The opposition rests on the argument that prison shouldn't be a vacation and "idle hands are the Devil's playground" type arguments. This may have been a valid argument years ago, but our current laws establish that a prisoner does not lose his or her right to body autonomy once incarcerated. This includes a right to refuse medical treatment, and it includes a right to refuse work.

Your Political Friend is voting YES

PROP 32 would raise the state's minimum wage from $16 to $18. Businesses with fewer than 26 employees would be raised to $17, and have an additional year before paying $18.

Your Political Friend is voting YES

PROP 33 would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prevented local rent control ordinances to apply to single family houses, condos, and apartments built after 1995. It also allows rent increases after a tenant moves out, when most units are raised to market rate.

In 2020, the state enacted the Tenant Protection Act, which extended rent control to areas not already covered. It also dictated that rent control would not be applied to buildings built within the last 15 years, not 1995, as in the Costa-Hawkins Act.

The reason for delaying rent control on new units is it allows developers to make back their investment. Without that incentive, new housing will simply not be built. Prop 33 would remove that incentive. It will allow cities to impose rent control on all units, regardless of construction date. It will also will allow "vacancy control", preventing landlords from raising the rent between tenants.

Prop 33 will give local anti-development legislators the ability to kill housing projects by making them financially unfeasible. It will drive developers out of state and only increase the housing problem in our state.

The prop is championed by LA City Councilman Kevin de Leon and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. It's opposed, of course, by Realtors and the CA Apartment Association.

I hate siding with realtors, but Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 34

Remember how I wrote that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) was behind Prop 33, and CA Apartment Association was against it?

Well, PROP 34 is an attempt by the CA Apartment Association to punish the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. You see, this is not the first time that the AHF has tried to attack the realtors' and landlords' profits, so Prop 34 is specifically designed to silence the AHF, and only the AHF.

Prop 34 would require health care providers that meet certain criteria (i.e. criteria that only applies to the AHF) to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug programs on direct patient care. This would, I assume, make it impossible for the AHF to do its political advocacy work.

The expression, "a pox on both their houses" comes to mind. The AHF needs to stop pushing dangerous rent control propositions, and the CA Apartment Association needs to stop jerking voters around with disingenuous revenge initiatives.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 35

California imposes a tax on health insurance companies to help pay for Medicaid and Medi-Cal health care costs, called a Managed Care Organization tax. In 2023, the state had dedicated increased funding to Medi-Cal, but changed that plan when the budget deficit exploded in 2024.

Prop 35 is the health care industry's response. It would claw back that promised funding, and require the money be used on specific services, mostly those provided by the sponsors of the initiative. These providers had been looking forward to an increase in revenue because of the MCO tax, but now that tax is being used to replace existing Medi-Cal funding, so they're pissed. The only way they can force the legislature's hands is with a ballot proposition, so here we are.

I sympathize with the health care providers and the plans they made based on the money they were promised, but things change. Prop 35 will cost the state $1-2 Billion annually, and the last thing we should be doing is further restricting the state's discretionary budget. It's already too small, and limits our ability to pivot based on changes in the economy.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 36

In 2014, voters passed Prop 47, aimed at reducing CA's overcrowded prisons in part by changing some felony crimes to misdemeanors. One of those changes was raising the threshold for felony shoplifting to $950. Since then, the state has saved a ton of money by not incarcerating as many people, but the crime rate, particularly retail theft, has increased in many counties.

Prop 36 would rollback parts of Prop 47 by allowing felony charges for possessing certain drugs and thefts under $950, if the person has two or more past convictions for certain crimes (such as shoplifting, burglary, or carjacking). The prop would also allow the value of property stolen in multiple thefts to be added together, if each is under $950.

As a resident of San Francisco, I have seen A LOT of retail theft. It is outrageous and brazen, and rarely prosecuted. But why? Could it be because store employees are instructed not to engage, out of liability concerns? Is it politics between the police unions and the DA? Is it because of police staffing shortages? Is it the pandemic?

Much has been made of Prop 47 as being the cause of increased shoplifting. But, how much of a calculation are criminals making when stealing items from a store? Are they avoiding expensive items to dodge a felony charge, or are they simply taking what they can? In addition, how is the $950 limit to blame, when 40 other states have higher thresholds to felony charges?

We need to be tougher on prosecuting criminals, but is going back to a pre-Prop 47 approach the smart way to do it? Prop 36 has echoes of the Three Strikes and You're Out law passed in 1994, which caused the state's prisons to become so overcrowded that the Supreme Court stepped in, equating the prison conditions with "cruel and unusual punishment".

Last August, Governor Newsom signed ten new crime bills, many of which obviate the need for Prop36. We should give these bills a chance to work.

Your Political Friend is voting NO

ARCHIVE - March 2024 Ballot

2024-02-17T19:25:00.002-08:00

Counties in CA receive roughly $10-13 Billion per year to provide mental health services. Roughly one third of that money comes from the Mental Health Services Act, passed by voters in 2004, which added a 1% tax on incomes over $1 Million.

Prop 1 would borrow $6.38 Billion to expand the act to include substance abuse disorders, as well as put restrictions on the way counties spend the money. Prop 1 would require counties to spend more of their MHSA money on housing and services such as employment assistance and education. It would also allow counties to spend the money on drug and alcohol treatment for people who don't have mental illness.

The text of Prop 1 is complex, but the bulk of the funding ($4.4 Billion) would go to building treatment facilities, including locked psychiatric hospitals. Most of the remaining $2 Billion would go to the state's Homekey Program, which converted hotels to homeless housing during the pandemic. Half of this money would be reserved for people with behavioral health issues and the other half for homeless veterans with mental health or substance abuse problems.

Regardless of political stripe, most people will agree that homelessness is one of the main problems facing the state. The high cost of housing is a major factor, but mental illness and substance abuse are close on its heels. These are the three things targeted by Prop 1, and, even though the legislative analyst says the bond would "reduce statewide homelessness by only a small amount", that small amount is better than nothing. It is the debt we owe for decades of burying our heads in the sand while the problem has grown beyond imagining. $6.4 Billion is a lot, but not dealing with this will cost us more.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Archive - November 2022 Ballot

2024-01-31T15:32:00.000-08:00

PROP 1 - PASSED

Proposition 1 would amend the California Constitution to establish a right to reproductive freedom, which is defined to include a right to an abortion and contraceptives.

The amendment states, "the state shall not deny or interfere with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions, which includes their fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and their fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives."

If you are pro-choice, as I am, this prop is an easy one to support.

However, if you oppose the right to an abortion, and believe that the Supreme Court decision striking down Roe v. Wade was a good thing, please answer this question:

Should the state have the right to force you to donate a kidney, if you are a match with someone in need?

I'm going to assume that you said NO, which means that you support a person's right to bodily autonomy, even when another life is at stake. You support the right to make your own health decisions, regardless of other people's moral or religious opinions about your decision. You support the right to choose.

Your Political Friend is voting YES. You should too.

PROP 26 - FAILED

Right now, Indian casinos in California are allowed to offer slot machines, lottery games, and card games. Prop 26 would expand that to roulette, dice games (such as craps), and sports betting. It would give them this very lucrative monopoly in California, while also creating a provision allowing them to sue any organization that violates state gambling limits.

The Yes on 26 Supporters, mostly tribes and racetracks, have spent more than $110 Million on this initiative. They expect to recoup much, much more if the prop passes. In return, the state will get more revenue in regulatory payments. However, much of that revenue will be eaten up by increased regulatory and enforcement costs, as well as new problem-gambling programs.

The NO on 26 campaign is funded by the "Card Clubs" and Online betting sites that want to grab the sports betting pie for themselves (via Prop 27).

To me, this isn't so much about whether sports betting should be allowed in CA, as it is in most other states. This is about putting in place a financial agreement between the casinos and the state that is written entirely by the casinos. Under this agreement, California would get 10% of the net profits from sports betting. That doesn't seem terrible, until you consider that many states get much more.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 27 - FAILED

Prop 27 is like a remake of Prop 26, but with different villains. This time it's the "licensed gambling companies" who get to offer online sports betting. But they promise that they're totally gonna use the money to end homelessness!

Of course, the Prop would require a whole new level of bureaucracy that would eat up much of the new tax revenue. New funding would also be required for gambling addiction programs that would be needed because of, well, you know.

Even though it would allow tribes in on the action, most tribes are against it because the big winner of Prop 27 is out-of-state online gambling companies. Sports betting would be allowed on any computer or phone in the state, as long as the person is standing outside tribal lands (are they going to check our location)?

I should admit my personal bias here. I enjoy playing poker with friends, but I hate casinos. I find them depressing, desperate places. This prop will push casino culture into our phones and our computers. Are you ready for the explosion in advertising for online betting? Does anyone really believe that kids won't be playing?

In addition, if we are going to allow more gambling in our state, we should at least get a better deal- one that gets a bigger piece of the revenue and actually favors businesses in our state.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 28 - PASSED

Prop 28 would require the state to provide additional funding to public schools for arts and music education. The funding amount would equal about $1 Billion, or 1% of the total school budget. Most of the money would be distributed to schools based on the number of students, with the remaining money going to schools based on their share of low-income students. The Prop would require most of the funding to be used to hire arts staff.

That's it, really. There are no hidden legislative tricks behind this initiative, and the goal is certainly desirable - give kids more access to art. The supporters behind the prop are the expected Democratic Party members and a few businesses that would directly profit, such as Fender Musical Instruments Corp. There is no argument submitted against the Prop, and no organization fighting it.

That is why it pains me to be against this Prop on the simple principle that we should not dictate the budget through the ballot. Prop 28 does not create any new funding source, so the money will come from the General Fund, meaning that something else will lose funding, and legislators will be further constrained in their ability to make economic plans for our future. Our discretionary budget is already too small. This will only make it worse.

People who vote Yes on Prop 28 will likely be doing so with the best intentions.

Nevertheless, Your Political Friend will be voting NO.

PROP 29 - FAILED

In the last three elections, we've seen as many propositions meant to punish Chronic Dialysis Clinics (CDCs). In 2018, Prop 8 tried and failed to cap the CDCs' revenues while forcing them to pay their employees more. In 2020 we rejected Prop 23, which would have required CDCs to have a physician on-site full time, along with other provisions.

This year's Prop 29 seeks much of the same, along with requirements that clinics disclose if any physicians have an ownership stake. It would also prohibit clinics from closing without state approval and prevent them from refusing treatment to patients based on source of payment.

Why do we keep seeing these initiatives? Are kidney dialysis patients being horribly abused by the dialysis centers that serve them? No. Prop 29 and the others are part of the Service Employees International Union's (SEIU) fight with the clinics in a labor battle that has nothing to do with patient health or safety.

Has there been an explosion of incidents of negligence at the clinics? No. Will reporting infection information to the state improve patient care? Maybe, but they're already required to do so. Requiring a full time physician or nurse practitioner on-site, playing lifeguard instead of providing care, will only increase costs and exacerbate our shortage of medical staff. If anything is certain, this Prop threatens to close down clinics and reduce patient access to life-saving treatment.

The only good part of this bill is the one requiring the big CDCs to treat patients regardless of their source of coverage. It's so good that the legislature actually passed a law in 2019 doing just that.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 30 - FAILED

Prop 30 would require taxpayers to pay an additional 1.75% income tax on the share of their income over $2 million. That money would go towards two programs:

1) Electric Vehicle Programs - 80% of the revenue would be used to subsidize Zero Emission vehicles (ZEVs) for individuals and businesses, as well as funds to build new charging stations. About half of the money would be required to benefit heavily polluted and low-income communities.

2) Wildfire Response and Prevention - 20% of the revenue would be spent to hire, train, and retain state firefighters.

In August, CA approved a rule to ban the sale of new gas-fueled vehicles by 2035. That target is made up of gradual increases in the percentage of total vehicles that ZEVs must comprise - 35% by 2026 and 68% by 2030. This Prop would help us reach that goal, and the programs funding would not take money away from the General Fund. The additional income tax would sunset in 2043, or sooner if CA is able to drop its statewide greenhouse gas emissions before then.

Now, to address the arguments against it:

1) California is already pouring billions into EV programs.

Yes, as is the Federal Government, but IT IS NOT ENOUGH. Climate Change is an existential crisis and we need to stop acting like there is time to get used to the idea of doing something about it.

2) This will trigger an exodus of millionaires from the state.

Yes, that is a real danger. The top 1% pay nearly half the state's income tax revenue. Every one of them that leaves has a significant effect on our budget, and many have already fled, citing high taxation. Will 1.75% more on income over $2M break the wealthy camel's back? Maybe for some, but CA is still a beautiful place to live and Florida and Texas suck.

3) Lyft is promoting this initiative to get taxpayers to pay for their EV upgrades.

When CA announced the ZEV mandate, they also required that Ride Sharing Companies, like Uber and Lyft, become 90% EV by 2030. Of course, Lyft and Uber don't own any vehicles, so they're going to have to lean on their independent contractors (not employees, thanks to Prop 22) to get their own EVs. Will Prop 30 help Lyft? Yes, they'll benefit in an indirect way, but one in which we still get closer to meeting our state's mandate. Everyone wins.

Finally, let's not forget that CA is a massive emitter of greenhouse gasses, and more than 40% of our emissions are from Transportation. Also, the wildfires raging across our state every year release tons of greenhouse gasses. Prop 30 will address both those problems.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 31 - PASSED

In 2020 CA legislators passed SB 793, which banned the sale of Flavored Tobacco Products and Tobacco Product Flavor Enhancers. These are any products that have a non-tobacco flavor such as fruit, mint, menthol, and others. The law does not ban hookah tobacco, cigars, or loose leaf tobacco.

Soon after SB 793 passed, a referendum on the new law qualified for the ballot, so here we are. A "Yes" vote means the law should go into effect, and a "No" vote means it shouldn't.

The No on 31 campaign is almost entirely funded by RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris, who also paid to get the referendum on the ballot, so let's just save ourselves some time and stop there.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Archive - November 2020 Ballot

2020-09-25T17:21:00.019-07:00

PROP 14 - In 2004 voters approved a state constitutional amendment that affirmed the right of researchers in California to conduct Stem Cell research. The vote also created a state agency to distribute $3 Billion in grants for medical research. That money is nearly gone.

This year's Prop 14 would authorize an additional $5.5 Billion to the fund. A portion ($1.5 Billion) would be dedicated to diseases affecting the brain, such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Some funding would be dedicated to training students at CA State Universities and Community Colleges, since most of the funding went to the UC system last time.

This is all worthwhile and important, but a lot has changed since we approved the earlier prop in 2004. In that year, when voters approved the first bond, there was a federal ban on funding for stem cell research. Barack Obama lifted that ban in 2009, so more funding sources are available now. Also, back then, it made sense for California to throw down money to be a major player in a new medical field. Today, our industry doesn't need the public step up that it did back them. And, thanks to the investment we made in 2004, the science has also improved, lessening the need for stem cells alone.

We did the right thing when we passed the first initiative to prop up a nascent industry with loads of promise. But now might not be the time to take on another large debt that doesn't address our more pressing needs.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 15 - It used to be that property taxes in California were assessed the way they are in other states - they were determined by the property's current market value. But in the late 70s, as the price of homes was rising steeply, property owners were being hit with huge increases in their property taxes. An anti-tax revolt followed, and Prop 13 was passed.

It is hard to overstate the damage that 1978's Prop 13 has done since then. The legislation, which froze annual increases of taxable value to 2%, rolled back property assessments to where they had been in 1975. The result is local governments and schools, which rely on property tax revenues, have been starved for funds.

Moreover, Prop 13 made no distinction between commercial and residential properties. While many homes change owners over years, large commercial buildings do so less frequently. As long as the same corporation holds title, their property taxes have stayed roughly where they were during the Ford administration.

Prop 15 would require commercial properties be taxed based on their market value. Owners with less than $3 million worth of commercial land and buildings would be exempt. Business equipment, such as farm equipment, would see a reduction in taxable value by $500,000.

There may be unintended consequences, of course. Some landlords will pass along the tax increases to tenants, driving up costs for businesses that are already struggling. But this is not certain. What is certain is that large corporations are saving billions, while our local governments and schools suffer.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 16 - For a "progressive" state, California voters have passed some badly discriminatory propositions. Prop 8 immediately comes to mind. That one banned same-sex marriage. Yes, we actually banned gay marriage in 2008.

In 1996 voters passed Prop 209 which ended affirmative action in public employment, contracting, and education. It did so with the wording, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." So, maybe some people who voted for it thought they were voting against discrimination in general, instead of ending a program meant to reverse years of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, etc.

Many people have debated pros and cons of affirmative action, and I don't mean to do so here, but suffice to say that the historical justifications for it are sound. Statistics bear out the case that race is class for most people.

Prop 16 would eliminate the ban put in place by Prop 209. That's it.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 17 - I have never understood why people in prison or parole are not allowed to vote. These people, regardless of their past, still have an interest in who represents them in government. Stripping a convicted criminal of their physical freedom is just, but taking away their democratic franchise seems, at best, unAmerican.

Prop 17 would restore the right to vote to people on parole. This makes sense, as the purpose of parole is to reintegrate a person into society, and voting is part of what connects people to their community. Remember, these people have already served their sentence, so you can stop punishing them. Denying parolees this fundamental right is part of a long history of racist policies meant to suppress the black vote. For real.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 18 - Prop 18 would allow 17 year olds to vote in a primary election in March if they will be 18 and eligible to vote in the general election in November of the same year.

The opponents' argument against the prop is basically this: many tax increases and bond measures are on the ballot, and 17 year olds don't have the real-world experience to make informed judgements.

Of course, these 17 year olds, just a few months shy of being legally declared reasonable, are the ones who will be paying the debts that their elders are so faithfully considering. Unless you fear this is a slippery slope to toddlers voting, what is the harm in giving them a voice? Don't forget that many of these teens pay taxes, and what do we say about taxation without representation?

As we saw with the student activists in Parkland, Florida, and the armed anti-mask protestors in Lansing, Michigan, wisdom and maturity do not correspond to age. As the Fool told his King Lear, "Thou shouldst not have been old, 'till thou hadst been wise."

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 19 - In 2018 the California Association of Realtors (CAR) put the self-serving Prop 5 on the ballot. In a nutshell, it aimed to help wealthy seniors sell their homes while lowing property tax revenues throughout the state. Your Political Friend recommended a hard NO and, fortunately, the prop failed to pass.

As a reminder, property taxes in CA are based on the price at which you purchased your home. With the inflation in home prices over the past 25 years, many people who move within the state experience a shocking increase in property taxes on their next home. The state gives exceptions to people over 55 and disabled people, allowing them to retain the taxable value of their former home, so long as they buy a home of equal or lesser value. They can use this exception only once in their lifetime.

Prop 19 would add people who's homes were destroyed by wildfire to the list of exceptions. It would also allow eligible homeowners to use the exemption three times instead of one, as well as allow for the purchase of a more expensive home. These would all lower property tax revenues.

In exchange, the measure would raise property taxes on inherited properties. Currently, homes and farms can pass from a deceased parent to their children without triggering a reassessment. Under Prop 19, property taxes on homes and farms will go up if the market value exceeds the assessed value by more than $1 Million. However, the taxes will not go up if one of the children claims the home as a primary residence.

A 2018 Times article detailed how nearly two-thirds of homes inherited in L.A. were being used as second homes or rental properties. The inheritance tax break allowed hundreds of thousands of Californians to avoid paying the higher taxes owed by newer homeowners, even as they raked in rental income. California is the only state in the country to provide such a tax break.

It's easy to see why the CA and National Associations of Realtors have spent more than $40 Million to pass this prop. They make money when homes are sold. They don't when homes are inherited. That's what makes this prop so problematic. Raising the property taxes on inherited homes makes sense, but fixing this problem by advantaging wealthy seniors is also wrong. This measure would give older buyers who were lucky enough to buy their homes decades ago an even greater economic advantage over struggling first time home buyers.

As the Mercury News wrote, "Proposition 19 on the Nov. 3 ballot would close one inequity in California’s byzantine property tax laws and create another." They took a good idea and poured it over something terrible, hoping you won't taste it before you've swallowed.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 20 - In 2014 voters approved Prop 47 which resulted some theft-related crimes, such as shoplifting involving less than $950, being punished as misdemeanors instead of felonies. In 2016 voters passed Prop 57, which sought to decrease prison overcrowding by emphasizing parole and rehabilitation for non-violent offenses.

Prop 20 would roll back many of the changes approved by voters in those years. It would classify dozens more crimes as violent, making the convicts ineligible for nonviolent offender parole programs. It would give prosecutors more leeway to charge certain theft-related crimes as felonies, while giving parole boards more avenues to deny parole. It would also restrict parole and probation by requiring county agencies supervising probationers to go before a judge before altering or easing the terms of probation. The measure would also add two new crimes to the penal code: serial theft and organized retail theft. The theft crimes are designed to target repeat offenders and people involved in shoplifting rings. Lastly, it would require certain misdemeanor offenders to submit to DNA collection by law enforcement.

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world- over 2.1 Million in prison (and that doesn't include incarcerated juveniles). The U.S. Supreme Court ruled California's jails as unconstitutional, finding that preventable deaths were happening once every five to six days due to overcrowding. Thanks to certain reforms, that prison population has been in decline.

And whose pocketbook gets hit when we have fewer prisoners? Welcome back the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, who mostly funded this initiative (with some help from Devin Nunez, et al!). The Yes on 20 campaign has largely relied on scare tactics without any evidence that passing the prop will fix the problems.

There's no evidence of a rise in crime after the passage of Props 47 and 57. This is mostly a job security bill for prison guards, one that will increase prison populations and cost us tens of millions when we could really use that money elsewhere.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 21 - Right now only a few cities in CA impose rent control on residential rental properties. Those rent control laws are regulated by a state law which creates three main limitations: 1) Rent control cannot apply to single-family homes, 2) rent control cannot apply to homes built after 1995, 3) rent control laws cannot dictate what landlords can charge new tenants when first moving in, and, 4) landlords of rent controlled properties may only increase rent annually on existing tenants by 5 percent plus inflation, or 10 percent, whichever is lower.

Prop 21 would change the rules thusly:

1) Cities can apply rent control to housing that is more than 15 years old. This will not include single-family homes owned by people with only one or two properties.

2) Cities will be able to limit how much a landlord can increase rents when a new renter moves in. Those cities that choose to do so must allow a landlord to increase rents by up to 15 percent during the first 3 years after a tenant moves in.

The state law that regulates rent control, written in 1995, exempted all new developments because most developers won't build new housing unless they can get a good return on their investment. And California really needs new housing. But 25 years has been a good long run for those properties built after the law was passed. Fifteen years is still plenty of time to make a decent return, and is unlikely to discourage any new developments.

The bigger threat to landlords is the second provision, limiting the increase between tenants, but there is good reason for this too. The current system allowing unlimited increases between tenants has created an incentive to landlords to harass or neglect tenants paying a lower than market rent.

If you're alarmed by any of this, a couple facts might calm your nerves. Prop 21 would not require any city that doesn't have rent control to adopt rent control. Only 15 cities currently have rent control, and that number probably won't change as a result of this measure. Also, courts have required that rent control laws must allow landlords a fair rate of return. If an owner can show that the law is causing an unfair hardship, the law is supposed to be relaxed (whether a landlord can actually convince a tenant-friendly state like CA to do that is another matter).

Finally, I live in San Francisco and I've seen the tricks that landlords do to force out tenants (taking properties "off-market", owner move-in, building "improvements", etc.). Prop 21 won't close those loopholes. In the symbiotic/parasitic relationship that is landlord/tenant, many laws are aspirational after all.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 22 - Congratulations! You've made it to the Most Expensive Proposition in History! Uber, Lyft, and Doordash have spent more than $185 Million to ask you to help them help their workers. Here's why.

Independent contractors, unlike employees, are not covered by various state employment laws - including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment compensation, and workers compensation. The tech companies had been able to classify their drivers as independent contractors until, following a CA Supreme Court ruling in 2018, the state required rideshare and delivery companies to hire their drivers as employees. The tech companies have been fighting the requirements in court, and Prop 22 is a part of that effort.

Prop 22 would reverse the state law and reclassify drivers as independent contractors. In exchange, the app-based rideshare and delivery companies would pay drivers 120% of the local minimum wage for each hour drivers spend driving, but not waiting. For drivers who spend more than 15 hours working (again, not waiting), the companies would pay a health insurance stipend, as well as pay medical costs when a driver is hurt on the job.

The measure would also limit the ability of local governments to place additional rules on rideshare and delivery companies.

I hate these kinds of props. They twist the idea of direct democracy away from the popular movements they were meant to empower and co-opt the system to serve a narrow financial interest, using paid signature gatherers and misleading ad campaigns. These rideshare and delivery companies have always been based on a business model that shifts the costs of doing business to the workers, and the crumbs they offer in return for the ability to keep doing so are insulting. Last year Uber raked in over $18 Billion. They can well afford to take care of their workers like any other business.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 23 - Kidney dialysis clinics, or Chronic Dialysis Clinics (CDCs), are not required to have a physician on-site full time. Prop 23 would require that they do.

CDCs must report any dialysis related infections to the federal government. Prop 23 would require that they report infections to the CA Dept of Public Health. It would also impose fines for reporting incomplete or inaccurate information.

CDCs receive payments payments from Medicare, Medi-Cal, as well private insurance companies. Those private insurance companies, on average, pay multiple times what Medicare and Medi-Cal pay for dialysis treatment. Prop 23 would prohibit a CDC from denying care to a patient based on who pays for their treatment.

You may wonder why voters are being asked to decide regulatory issues that should be the purview of legislators with access to public health studies showing the need for safety improvements. But this isn't about public health.

Prop 23 is about the United Healthcare Workers Union and SEIU trying to unionize private CDCs. Two years ago the unions failed to pass Prop 8, an initiative that sought to cap the CDCs' revenues while forcing them to pay their employees more. In reality, it would have also had the effect of restricting patient access to care.

Prop 23 would have a similar effect. Requiring a full time physician on-site, playing lifeguard instead of providing care, will only increase costs and exacerbate our shortage of doctors. Will reporting infection information to the state improve patient care? Maybe?

The only good part of this bill is the one requiring the big CDCs to treat patients regardless of their source of coverage. It's so good that the legislature actually passed a law last year doing just that.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 24 - In 2018 California passed the first major data privacy law in the country. It gives residents the right to know if and how their information is being collected, whether it is being sold to third parties, and, if so, to whom. It also allows us to opt-out of the sale of our personal information, as well as request that our data be deleted. Companies that fail to protect our data face penalties and are open to civil action. The law went into effect this year.

So this prop is probably an industry attempt to roll back those rules, right? Not really, but it's hard to know what's up based on the support and opposition. The CA NAACP and Common Sense support it. The Consumer Federation of California and ACLU oppose it.

A bit of history:

After Allistair Mactaggart, a wealthy real estate developer and privacy activist, qualified a data privacy proposition for the ballot in 2018, the legislature negotiated similar legislation in exchange for his withdrawing the measure. The California Consumer Privacy Act is a good law for all the reasons mentioned above. However, it has some problems.

One of those problems is that the law only prohibits companies from selling your data. It doesn't stop them from sharing your data, which is really the same thing. Prop 24 would allow you to limit data sharing, as well as limit the use of sensitive data such as race and sexual orientation. It would also triple the fines for violating children's privacy.

The main concern about the current law is that, because it is written by the legislature, it can be amended by the legislature. In the 18 months since the law was passed corporate lobbyists have been busy chipping away at its protections. By passing Prop 24, voters would make those protections immune from amendments meant to weaken it. In fact, the only changes allowed would be those that "further protect consumer rights, including the constitutional right of privacy".

I don't want to sell short the loyal opposition to this measure. The Electronic Frontier Foundation raises legitimate concerns about creating a "pay for privacy" system in which companies withhold discounts from consumers who don't give up their privacy, creating a world of wealthy privacy "haves" and poor privacy "have nots". For this reason and others, the prop is clearly not perfect (I encourage you to read those links).

Nevertheless, I've been come to the tentative belief that the prop is a better choice than risking the current law gets weakened over time. As with most elections, we're not asking ourselves, "which do I like best", but "which one will do the least damage".

Your Political Friend is voting a very ambivalent YES.

PROP 25 - Except for some felony crimes, people who get arrested have the right to release before standing trial. The court can release them on their "own recognizance", or they can be required to post bail. Courts consider various factors when deciding whether to release on bail and, if so, how much to require.

The system of cash bail has been controversial. Many see it as a way to criminalize poverty, as those who cannot pay even the smallest bail amounts are kept in jail for days or weeks, during which they can lose their jobs, their homes, and custody of their kids. And, remember, these people are presumed innocent.

New Jersey ended cash bail in 2017 and found that "the rate at which defendants appeared in court remained high...with an average appearance rate of 92.7 percent in 2014 and 89.4 percent in 2017. Concerns about a possible spike in crime and failures to appear did not materialize." Similar results have been seen in Texas and Washington D.C.

Based on these studies, California passed a law requiring bail reforms in 2018, but that law has not been enacted because of Prop 25. Under the State Constitution, when a referendum on a new law qualifies for the ballot, the law goes on hold until voters determine whether to put it in effect.

Prop 25 was put on the ballot by the bail bonds industry, which obviously stands to lose millions. However, even the supporters of bail reform are split over this one because of the law's reliance on pretrial Risk Assessment Tools. These tools use algorithms to predict which suspects are more likely to flee or commit other crimes based on historical factors about the suspect including criminal history. Judges will still have discretion, but many fear that over-reliance on the tools, which may still exhibit biases against the poor and people of color, will not only perpetuate the current problems, but make them seem scientifically objective.

I understand the fear that many have about the prospect of releasing people who would have otherwise stayed in jail. I live in a city where car break-ins, petty theft, and vandalism are rampant. And the people who commit these crimes are rarely arrested, let alone jailed. Clearly something is not working. But will ending cash bail make things worse? We don't know for sure. What we do know is that the only difference between people who get out on bail now and those that can't is money, and that's not fair.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Archive - March 2020 Ballot

2020-02-20T18:00:00.000-08:00

There's only one statewide proposition on the ballot this time, but it's a big one. Proposition 13 would allow $15 Billion in General Obligation Bonds to go towards construction and modernization of public education facilities.

In 1978, voters passed another Prop 13, which put severe limits on the amount of property taxes cities could charge homeowners. The predictable result has been devastating for the state schools and colleges. Important maintenance has been delayed. Improvements have been delayed. Counties have had to turn to the state for assistance when they can't raise the necessary funds at home.

This Prop 13 would only change a few things about its predecessor. It would allow districts to issue more local general obligation bonds. It would also temporarily reduce developer fees, which makes little sense, except as a way to garner developers' support for the measure. One smart change, however, would be in the distribution of the funds on a basis that favors public safety priorities, as well as poorer districts. That is a big change from 2016's Prop 51, which doled out $9 Billion in a manner that advantaged wealthy districts.

Prop 13 is expensive and will increase our state's debt. That's unavoidable. But the investments will go towards real things like buildings and equipment that will last for decades. Education pays dividends by creating a more informed and capable society. Whether you have kids or not, you have a stake in what happens to our schools.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Archive - November 2018 Ballot

2018-10-07T23:36:00.003-07:00

PROP 1 - Proposition 1 would authorize the state to sell $4 Billion in general obligation bonds to fund existing housing programs, including $1.5 Billion in multifamily housing for low-income residents, $1 Billion for loans to veterans, and the remainder for farmworker housing, mobile homes, and transit-oriented housing.

Housing in California is expensive, and this is a pretty straightforward attempt to create more affordable homes throughout the state. The effort is largely funded by the CA Assoc. of Realtors, construction and housing organization, and even Mark Zuckerberg's charitable group.

Refreshingly, this one doesn't have any sinister agenda hiding in its clauses. It intends to spend money to support and expand housing programs that already exist. Will it alleviate homelessness in our state? Probably to some degree.

Yes, this prop is a General Obligation Fund bond measure, which sucks because they always cost more in the long run ($3 Billion of this will cost $6 Billion over 35 years). However, some of the funds would be repaid by those receiving the housing loans, as well as some federal funding that would be unavailable without the measure.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 2 - California can trace its homeless problem back to the 1970's, when Ronald Reagan, as Governor, dismantled the state's mental health system. Interestingly, one of the provisions he eliminated, conservatorship, was recently reinstated in CA. This is the policy allowing the state to detain people with serious, chronic mental health problems.

In 2004, voters passed Prop 63, an initiative that added a 1% tax to incomes over $1 Million, to establish the Mental Health Services Act. This program has since raised an enormous amount of money, much of which is unspent, partly because funds are not allowed to be used for construction of mental health housing, only services.

In 2016, the legislature passed the No Place Like Home Program to build housing for those with mental illness who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. However, the state is required to seek court approval before it can sell bonds to pay the $2 Billion price tag. Prop 2 would, instead, ratify the program and allow up to $140 Million annually to be transferred from the Mental Health Services Act to pay for the bonds.

In other words, these funds, which are sitting unspent, will be put to use building housing for those who are homeless due to chronic mental illness. And it will not add to our taxes or deficit.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 3 - Prop 3 authorizes nearly $9 Billion in General Obligation Bonds to fund water and environmental projects. The largest share of it would go towards improving watersheds (the areas where rivers begin). The remainder would fund water conservation, storage, and habitat preservation. Possibly the most important aspect of this proposal is $1.1 Billion to restore and clean up sources of groundwater that were nearly depleted during the last drought.

All of this sounds good. Expensive, but good.

Unfortunately, there's evidence to suggest this is a self-serving proposal by big agriculture. Nearly all the backing for the prop comes from central valley farms and organizations that have caused many of the water problems we've got now, including the near collapse of groundwater systems in parts of the state. Repair costs are normally paid by those who did the damage, but this prop would shift the burden to taxpayers. The Mercury News writes, "Opponents are especially bothered by a $750-million expenditure to repair the federally owned Friant-Kern and Madera canals between Fresno and Bakersfield. Two problems, critics say: First, the canals aren't working right because the've sunk. and the land has sunk because farmers have over-pumped groundwater, causing major subsidence. Growers caused their own problem. Now they want the state to pony up to solve it."

In addition, the state still has nearly $10 Billion in unspent funds dedicated to water and environmental projects. $4 Billion of that was just passed in June of this year. Why not use that before borrowing even more? Here's why: the legislature did not put this initiative on the ballot. The people who would receive much of the money did.

Water security is among our most dire problems in California, and we should spare nothing to ensure safe and reliable sources well into our future. But we should also make sure that those funds are spent wisely. Prop 3 sounds good, but smells kind of funky.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

In the meantime, there's one step that every Californian can take to reduce their water consumption - Eat Less Meat. Yes, that pound of beef on your plate required nearly 2000 gallons of water to produce.

PROP 4 - Prop 4 would authorize $1.5 Billion in General Obligation Bonds, most of which would fund capital improvement projects at 13 Children's hospitals in the state.

This campaign is extremely well-funded by the very Children's Hospitals that stand to gain from it (each giving the same $681,500 to the campaign - is that at all suspicious?). As a result, there are good reasons to oppose this measure. It will spend public money to add equity to private businesses. As the former president of the League of Women Voters wrote: "This measure is intended to primarily benefit the same hospitals that are funding the “yes” campaign. It bypasses the legislative process, which is a better way of determining how taxpayer dollars should be spent. Proposition 4 is the third bond measure sponsored by the California Children’s Hospital Association, which represents the eight private hospitals that will receive 72 percent of the money. If the association could have persuaded the Legislature to put this measure on the ballot, it would undoubtedly have done so."

Nevertheless, some make the argument that the hospitals to receive the public money provide a public service beyond that of most private hospitals. These Children's Hospitals see more than one million kids a year, the majority of which are on Medi-Cal. As the LA Times opines, "It's lamentable that children's hospitals have to keep coming back to voters for help with their capital expenses, but it's a direct consequence of the state's low Medi-Cal reimbursement rates." The op-ed continues, "At the same time, the state has imposed more stringent seismic retrofitting standards that the hospitals must meet by 2030, and to do that, almost 30% of their inpatient capacity needs to be upgraded."

Our population in CA is growing, and our ability to serve that population is critically important. If this measure will add capacity in a way that is, at least, transparent, it's probably worth supporting. And, yes, there were two other Children's Hospitals propositions passed in 2004 and 2008, but all of those funds have been committed as of this year. It appears that the money went where it was supposed to go, so we have reason to hope that this measure will do the same.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 5 - Your property taxes are based on the price at which you purchased your home, and that tax rate can only be raised by up to 2% per year. With the massive home price inflation we've seen over the past twenty years, many people who sell their home experience a sharp increase in their property taxes when they purchase their next home. The state gives exceptions to people over 55 and disabled people, allowing them to retain the taxable value of their former home, so long as they buy another home of equal or lesser value. The homeowner may use this exception only once in their lifetime.

Prop 5 would expand the program to allow the exception when homeowners buy a more expensive home, and it would reduce the property taxes when they buy a less expensive home. It would also remove the limit on the number of times a homeowner can transfer their taxable value.

One cannot discuss property taxes in California without going back to 1978's Prop 13, an initiative that severely limited the state's property tax revenues. Among the many consequences of the measure is a strong disincentive homeowners have to sell their property due to this increase in taxes upon moving.

So who has a strong interest in getting people to sell their homes? Maybe the CA Association of Realtors, who dumped more than $10 Million into this initiative?

Besides them, who is this bill really helping? Most seniors who sell their homes are downsizing, not trading up. After taking advantage of their appreciated home value, if they want to get an even more expensive home, they're probably doing so because they can afford it. Should taxpayers be subsidizing their lifestyle? And how many times does a senior need to move while retaining the exemption? Twice might be more fair, but this law would make it unlimited.

Our property tax system in California has some serious problems, but this "fix" will favor the wealthy while driving county revenues, and public services, further downward.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 6 - In 2017 the state senate increased funding for transportation projects through various fuel and vehicle taxes. Specifically, the base gasoline tax was raised from 18 cents per gallon to 30 cents. In addition a new "Transportation Improvement Fee" of $25 to $175 was imposed. Altogether, the legislation will raise between $4 and 5 Billion per year, all of which must be spent on transportation projects.

This set hair on fire at Harold Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc., who wrote Prop 6 to immediately cancel the new transportation funding. But Prop 6 goes further. If passed, it will amend the State Constitution to require the Legislature to get voter approval for any new gas and vehicle taxes.

Should cars be a protected class in our constitution? Prop 6 supporters apparently think so. Who, then, should pay for our aging roads?

Try to think of the Gasoline and Vehicle taxes as User Fees. They are paid by the people who use our highways and roads, so that we may improve our highways and roads. Yes, some of the money goes towards transit, but that's something every driver should support. As the Onion headline once read, "98 Percent of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others".

Your Political Friend is voting NO, NO, NO.

PROP 8 - There are nearly 600 Chronic Dialysis Clinics (CDCs) in California. These facilities make roughly $3 Billion annually from patients on Medicare, Medi-Cal, and private insurance. The rates charged to private insurers is typically multiple times what government programs pay for dialysis.

Prop 8 would set a revenue cap for CDCs, above which the clinics would be required to give the money, with interest, back to private payers. That cap would be set at 115% of "direct patient care services costs". CDC owners would have to submit annual reports to the state, outlining their costs and whether their revenue exceeds those costs.

And this is where the measure kind of breaks down. The Legislative Analyst, in the summary, admits, "CDC owner/operators would likely respond to the measure by adjusting their operations in ways that limit... the effect of the rebate requirement". The easiest way they could do this is by increasing wages for non-managerial staff. You see, the more money they spend on employees providing direct care, the more revenue the clinic makes under that 115% cap.

Maybe this is why Prop 8 was put on the ballot by Healthcare Workers Unions? It's opposed, not surprisingly by CDCs.

This prop starts out reading like a blow against greedy, Big Medicine. But scratch the surface and it's clear there's nothing in it intended to help patients. In fact, it could end up limiting access, as some clinics might scale back or close if they can't get the profits they want.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 10 - Of the nearly 500 cities and towns in California, only 15 have rent control ordinances. In those counties, state law prohibits rent control from applying to single family houses or any housing built after 1995. It also prohibits restrictions on how much a landlord can increase the rent when a new tenant moves in.

Prop 10 would repeal these restrictions. However, it reaffirms the court ruling that rent control must allow landlords to receive a "fair rate of return", meaning they must be allowed to increase rents to receive some profit each year.

In 2018, it seems fair to take another look at that 1995 cutoff. The date was originally imposed so as to not discourage new construction. It allowed developers safety from rent control so that they could count on high rents to cover their investment. If Prop 10 passes, we might see some cities reassess that date, but probably not by much.

Furthermore, it has always seemed arbitrary to exclude single family houses from rent control protection, especially in areas where that is the majority of rental stock.

There are valid arguments to be made on both sides of the rent control debate. But it's important to note that this measure does not impose rent control anywhere. Those local governments that still don't want it won't have it. And those cities that do have rent control - cities that haven't failed to prosper in spite of it (I'm looking at you, San Francisco, Santa Monica, and Beverly Hills) - will be able to expand the law as judiciously as they see fit.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 11 - State labor law requires employers to provide workers an unpaid 30-minute meal break during each work shift and a paid 10-minute rest break every four hours. However, this has not been the case for EMTs and Paramedics, whose breaks may be interrupted by 911 calls. These workers are, essentially, "on call" throughout their entire shift.

In 2016, the CA Supreme Court ruled that on-call breaks violate state labor law, and employers must provide breaks that are not interruptible, even if an emergency occurs.

This change will significantly raise the costs for private ambulance companies, who provide 75 percent of all ambulance rides. This will, in turn, raise insurance costs.

Prop 11 would exempt EMTs and paramedics from the labor law by requiring that they remain on-call during breaks. In exchange, the ambulance companies would ensure that meal breaks (1) not be during the first or last hour of a shift, and (2) be spaced at least two hours apart. In addition, the companies would be required to provide long-term mental health counseling and services for their employees.

This all sounds reasonable, no? However, the measure contains a provision that would absolve the ambulance companies of any liability they might have incurred since the 2016 ruling, when they knew they were breaking the law and kept doing it anyway. Attempts to settle the dispute in the legislature were nearly successful, but they hung up on this issue of full immunity.

This measure was almost entirely funded by the ambulance company American Medical Response (AMR). They should be back in the legislature, negotiating in good faith, not scaring the voters with public safety claims.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 12 - Prop 12 would create new minimum space requirements for the confinement of veal calves, breeding pigs, and egg-laying hens. It would also ban the sale of products that do not meet the measure's requirements. The ban would apply to products from animals raised in California and out-of-state.

In 2008 California voters passed Prop 2, which also expanded the minimum space allowed for confinement of veal, pigs, and hens. But it didn't seem to work, and chickens remain in crowded and caged conditions. Prop 12 is an attempt to fix that by mandating, for example, a minimum square foot of floor space for each chicken, and cage-free housing by 2022.

It may be confusing to see groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) side with the National Pork Producers Council in opposing this measure. However, they're doing so because they believe the prop does not go far enough to help animals. As a spokesman for PETA said, "There's no such thing as humane meat. It's all a marketing strategy to offset the growing guilt."

I agree with him. But I also believe that any step in the right direction is worth supporting.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Archive - November 2012 Ballot

2014-09-30T12:34:00.000-07:00

Prop 28

Currently, members of the CA State Senate are allowed to serve for a maximum of 8 years. Prop 28 would increase that to 12 years.

If a State Assembly member finishes his term and then serves a full term in the State Senate, he will have served a total of 14 years. Prop 28 would reduce the total number of years a politician can serve in the state legislature to 12 years. In short, the bill decreases the number of years a politician can serve, while, at the same time, increasing it. Or vice versa.

That's the bill. How you will vote on it depends on your feelings about term limits. The proponents of Prop 28 say that, with the current system, "the only way legislators can complete their lifetime limit is to move from office to office" forcing legislators to start fundraising for the next office as soon as they are elected. This bill, they claim, would allow them to focus on their job serving their current constituents.

The bill is sponsored by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce (strange bedfellows?). The backers includes a bunch of real estate magnates, several of whom have large development projects up for review by the legislature.

Prop 28 is opposed by the California Republican Party, who point out that the initiative will actually extend term limits for members of the Assembly, because they will be able to serve 12 instead of 6 years in that office. For this reason they have sued to change the official summary which, in their opinion, leads voters to believe the bill will do the opposite.

Your Political Friend has never been a fan of term limits. While entrenched career politicians can be a serious problem, voters should be able to elect, and keep, whomever they like. Term limits just force out the good along with the bad.

Your Political Friend is voting Yes.

Prop 29

The Legislative Analyst's Office projects that Prop 29 would generate about $735 million a year in new tax revenues. About 60% of the money would go to research, with the remainder funding prevention programs and loans for facilities and equipment. No more than 2% could go to administration.

Prop 29 was put on the ballot by a variety of Cancer related organizations, including Lance Armstrong's LiveStrong and the American Cancer Society. Together, the two have spent nearly $7 million on the campaign. It is opposed by (wait for it...) Philip Morris, the California Republican Party, and Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform.

Your Political Friend is generally against "Ballot Box Budgeting" measures like this one, in which voters are asked to dedicate tax dollars for a particular cause, usually to the detriment of all others. If only the funds went into the General Fund, Prop 29 would be an easy choice. Another concern is that the bill provides little oversight of the distribution of these funds, so some of the money would undoubtedly go to politically connected organizations regardless of merit. What is more, there is no stipulation that the money be spent in California, so the benefit to our economy is not guaranteed.

On the other hand Prop 29 creates it's own revenue stream. The money it provides would not come at the expense of the general budget. Also, it is a tax that need not be paid by everyone. Smoking is, ultimately, optional- people quit all the time. By raising the price of cigarettes, Prop 29 would have the immediate effect of discouraging smokers to continue destroying their own bodies and the health of those around them. More importantly, it would discourage teenagers from becoming smokers in the first place.

As noted above, it would be nice if the committee created to distribute the funds had some government oversight. There is no doubt that much of the money raised by the initiative will be squandered due to fraud and abuse. But, unless you're a smoker, why should you care?

The tobacco industry is spending $40 million to convince us that this is a dangerous proposition. That alone should be enough reason to support the measure.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 30

Prop 30 would temporarily increase the state sales tax rate by 1/4 cent, as well as raise the personal income tax on incomes over $250K. The sales tax increase would last four years, while the personal income tax increase would last seven. The additional revenues raised by the initiative would be dedicated to public education, with 89% of the funds allocated to K-12 schools, and the remainder going to community colleges.

Last June the state legislature passed a budget that assumes Prop 30 will pass. If Prop 30 fails, the $6 Billion it would have provided will instead be cut from the budget. This means, voters must pass the initiative or the schools will see drastic cuts to existing programs.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 31

Prop 31 has three main points. First, it restricts the Legislature’s ability to pass certain bills that increase state costs or decrease revenues unless new funding sources and/or spending reductions are identified. Second, it expands local government’s control over the disposition of property taxes, provided they participate in state programs to coordinate their public services. Third, it grants the Governor expanded budget control while requiring additional public oversight and audit of state budgets. I’ll try to explain these three below:

1) The measure would require any bills and amendments be available to the public for three days before the Legislature may vote on them. This could cut down on some of the back-room, Friday night deals that often appear in legislation. That is a good thing.

2) Instead of being written every year, the state budget would shift to a two-year cycle, which would help avoid the wild fluctuations we see in the budget when revenues go from good to bad. That is also a good thing.

3) Under current law, the Governor may declare a fiscal emergency and call the Legislature into a special session to propose changes to the budget. However, if the Legislature fails to act, there is little the Governor can do. Prop 31 would grant the Governor the ability to reduce General Fund spending, but not by more than is required to balance the budget. That is a maybe good thing.

4) The measure requires the legislature to offset spending increases of more than $25 million with spending reductions and/or revenue increases. The requirement applies to bills that create or expand new state departments or programs, or create state-mandated local programs. Prop 31 would also require the Legislature to show how bills that decrease state taxes or other revenues by more than $25 million in any fiscal year would be paid for with spending reductions, revenue increases, or both. Paying as we go is a great thing, but this part of the measure is troublesome because it exempts spending that is required by the Constitution or federal law—such as education, debt service, pension contributions, and some health and social services programs. These make up the vast majority of state spending. That is bad thing.

5) Finally, under this measure, local governments will be able to create their own plans how they provide state funded services to the public. These services may include economic development, education, social services, public safety, and public health, so long as they are “functionally equivalent” to the objectives of the existing state law. As an added incentive, the measure offers participating counties additional control over the disposition of property taxes, as well as a bigger portion of sales tax revenues. That sounds okay, but it is a mystery why it is here at all. What services are we talking about? Is this the real reason California Forward put the prop on the ballot? It's one of those clauses that makes you hesitate signing the contract.

Despite all the great stuff, the last two parts should give one pause. Your Political Friend is voting NO, but hoping for a cleaner prop to come along soon.

Prop 32

Prop 32 would prohibit unions, corporations, government contractors, and state and local government employers from spending money deducted from an employee’s paycheck for “political purposes.” Of course, corporations and contractors do not use payroll deductions for their political contributions. Unions do. This initiative is only meant to hurt them.

Your Political Friend is all in favor of efforts to remove money from politics, but Prop 32 isn't really about doing that. The measure will not add any transparency to the political process, nor will it prevent "special interests" from corrupting our democracy. It will, however, further increase the disparity between the voice of workers, as represented by unions, and the powerful influence of corporations on our government.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 33

As it is, insurance companies can base their premiums on three main factors: (1) the insured's driving safety record, (2) the number of miles they drive each year, and (3) the number of years they have been driving. In addition insurance companies may provide discounts to individuals for being long-term customers. They are prohibited, however, from offering this discount to new customers who switch to them from other insurers.

According to the official summary, Prop 33 will "allow an insurance company to offer a 'continuous coverage' discount on automobile insurance policies to new customers who switch their coverage from another insurer."

So, did Mercury Insurance write Prop 33 so they could lure the more desirable customers away from other companies? Probably.

Well, that, and raise fees on drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage. This means that any driver who has had a break in coverage for more than 90 days in the last 5 years will pay a higher premium. It does not matter why you had a break in coverage - you sold your car, you worked abroad, you were in the hospital - you will pay more to restart your policy.

Voters rejected this same measure in June 2010. So Mercury Insurance, the majority source of funding for this measure, has reintroduced it with one tweak: it grants an exemption to people who’s lapse in coverage was due to military service. USA! USA!

Opponents call it a surcharge. Mercury Insurance calls it a discount. One thing is certain, it will result in more uninsured drivers on the road. This will cause premiums for all drivers to go up. And so, the cycle of profit continues.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 34

Prop 34 would repeal the death penalty in California and replace it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. The measure would also require that those inmates work while imprisoned and have their wages garnished for victim restitution fines or orders against them.

The Legislative Analyst estimates that repealing the death penalty will save the state about $130 million per year. This is because the proceedings that follow a death sentence can take 20 years to complete, during which the state incurs millions in court costs.

The theory that the death penalty deters future crimes is a controversial one, as is the belief that it serves as a morally just punishment. However, there is a much better questions that any supporter of capital punishment should ask themselves: "Do I believe that our justice system is infallible?" In other words, do you believe that only guilty people are convicted? A simple review of death row exonerations, many due to previously unavailable DNA evidence, proves that some convictions have been in error. That means that we are executing innocent people. Now ask yourself, "Can I support a system that kills even one innocent person?"

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 35

Prop 35 would do several things. First, it would expand the definition of human trafficking to include the production or distribution of child pornography. It would also increase the penalties for all types of human trafficking. The maximum prison sentence for labor trafficking would increase from the current 5 or 8 years (depending on whether a minor is involved) to 12 years. For sex trafficking, it would increase from 5 or 8 years to a maximum of 20 years for adults or life in prison if a minor is involved. If the victim suffered bodily injury, an additional 10 years could be added to the sentence (currently it's only five). For each prior conviction, a defendant could also have an additional 5 years tacked on to the sentence. And anyone convicted of human trafficking would now be required to register as a sex offender.

Prop 35 would protect victims as well. First, a person could not be prosecuted for criminal sexual conduct, such as prostitution, if he or she committed the crime while a victim of human trafficking. Nor could a person's sexual conduct be used to discredit them in court proceedings.
Everything about Prop 35 seems right and reasonable, but for one exception- it has no business being on the ballot. Human trafficking is already illegal. We, the voters, don't know how great the problem is, nor do we know whether harsher punishments are necessary. That is the bailiwick of criminal experts and prosecutors, judges and law enforcement. Not voters.

The legislature could pass this bill without the slightest controversy. Instead, California Against Slavery and the Safer California Foundation have placed this on the ballot, bypassing the legislature with what is no doubt a vanity project for Facebook millionaire, Chris Kelly, who likely has political ambitions.

There is no doubt that Prop 35 will pass, as it allows voters to feel that they are striking a blow against people who commit the terrible crime of human trafficking. Unfortunately, this is a vote that should be happening in an open legislature, not a closed voting booth.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 37

Prop 37 would require foods containing genetically modified (GMO) ingredients to be labeled. It exempts foods that are certified organic (organic standards already exclude GMOs), sold for immediate consumption such as in a restaurant, made from animals fed GMOs but not genetically modified themselves, and alcoholic beverages.

It would also prohibit the labeling of advertising of such foods as "natural". This is a big deal. In the United States, the word "natural" has had no legal meaning. Twinkies can be called "all-natural".

The opposition to this measure is huge- paid for by corporations like Monsanto, Cargill, and processed junk food companies like PepsiCo and Nestle. They would have you believe that Prop 37 bans GMOs, or would increase food costs. In reality, these companies know that GMOs have a bad connotation in the average consumer's mind, and any label admitting to such contents would be marketing suicide. If that is the case, then they should set about educating the public on the safety of GMOs, not hiding their presence in the food they sell.

There are several studies which show that GMOs are perfectly safe for consumption. My personal objection to them is more environmental (they increase the use of pesticides) and economic (they increase the patenting of life forms, driving small farmers worldwide to bankruptcy).

Unfortunately, Prop 37 has one flaw, and it's a major flaw. The measure makes retailers, not manufacturers, responsible for making sure that foods are properly labeled. This means that your local market, not Kellogg's or General Foods, must prepare stacks of documents verifying the ingredients of the foods they sell. If they don't, they will be open to lawsuits by any individual citizen or group. It will be a boon for lawyers, but a nightmare for everyone else.

I should disclose that I have donated money to the Yes on 37 campaign. I volunteered to gather signatures early on in the effort. That is why it pains me so much to vote against this prop. We, as consumers, have the right to know what is in our food. However, the retailers shouldn't bear the burden of verifying everything on the labels of the foods they sell.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Archive - Nov 2010 Ballot

2010-12-29T12:56:00.000-08:00

Prop 19 - Failed
Here's what will happen if Prop 19 passes: People over 21 will be able to possess up to one ounce of marijuana, as well as grow it in an area of up to 25 square feet. The plant must be solely for their personal use and not for sale to others. Consumption of marijuana would only be allowed in "non-public" places, and never in the presence of a minor. Driving under the influence would still be illegal, and a person who knowingly gives marijuana to a minor would be fined and/or jailed.

Local governments would have the option to license and regulate the commercial production of marijuana, as well as of hemp. These establishments would be subject to all federal, state, and local taxes imposed on similar businesses. Additional fees could be charged to offset the cost of marijuana regulation.

It is uncertain how much money will be raised by this measure, as we cannot know how many local governments will decide to allow commercial marijuana production. However, we do know there would be a savings for our courts and prisons, as the number of marijuana offenders is reduced.

Of course, all of this could be made moot if the US government decides to enforce federal laws against marijuana possession. In 2009, the Obama administration announced that they would not prosecute users of medical marijuana, made legal in CA by Prop 215 in 1996. It is uncertain to what extent they would fight this expanded legalization.

It is this disparity between state and federal laws which opponents say could cost CA billions in federal grants and contracts, as companies would not be able to comply with the federal government's drug-free workplace requirements. The measure would also prohibit employers from discriminating against an employee unless the marijuana consumption directly impairs his or her job performance. In addition, opponents point out that Prop 19 provides no indication for what is the "legal limit" in regards to marijuana intoxication while driving. Of course, that is a matter to be determined by law enforcement and medical researchers, the same way we determined the legal limit for alcohol. We wouldn't want the lawyers who wrote this measure deciding for us what constitutes "too stoned to drive".

The opponents' dire claims against Prop 19 are not unfounded, in a legal sense, but it is unlikely that the federal government would revoke contracts with companies like Lockheed because of this measure. Plus, they paint a picture in which the legalization of pot means that every driver, every coworker, and every teacher will be stoned. Really? Is pot that hard to get now?

Personally, I don't like pot. I'm more excited by the panacea that is hemp. But the War on Drugs is a failure. Everyone knows it, and CA is the logical place to take the first step towards a new drug policy. The US government will never deal with this problem on its own.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 20 - Passed
Every ten years, after the national census, voting districts in California are redrawn (aka redistricted) according to changes in population. In November 2008, Prop 11 changed the authority for establishing these districts from elected representatives to a 14 member Citizens Redistricting Commission drawn from a pool of CA voters.
Currently, the Commission has the authority to determine the district boundaries for the State Assembly, State Senate, and the Board of Equalization. Prop 20 would extend that authority to cover redistricting for the US House of Representatives.

Your Political Friend was opposed to Prop 11 because there was no way to know who would end up on this "Commission". Their simply being "voters" does not mean that they will conduct their negotiations with any more impartiality than politicians. At least the legislators are elected. Furthermore, it would be far easier for some nefarious outside interest to influence a commission of 14 people than it is to influence the entire state assembly. I'm not saying that will happen, but it is a valid concern.

Should we really be giving these unelected people even more power? Why don't we see how well they do with redistricting the state offices before we let them go all federal on our asses?

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 21 - Failed
Prop 21 would establish an $18 surcharge on vehicle license fees. This money would be deposited into a trust fund that could only be used for state park and wildlife conservation purposes. In exchange all CA vehicles subject to the surcharge would receive year-round free admission to the state parks (the current fee is $5-15 per day).
The measure would raise about $500 million annually. However, as much as $200 million of this could be used to take the place of existing monies currently coming from the General Fund. Another $50 million would cover the estimated loss in day use fees, as CA vehicles would be admitted for free. This means the net increase in funding for state parks would be about $250 million.

The state parks system, like many public programs, is desperately underfunded. There is a long list of backlogged maintenance projects. And Prop 21 actually derives its funding from an appropriate source of environmental degradation - cars. Call it a "sin tax", if you will.

This measure would be a great idea if not for one thing: the money raised by the measure would be locked in permanently for the state parks. It is an unfortunate example of "ballot box budgeting", and would further limit the flexibility of our legislature.

I love our state parks and am extremely concerned about their condition. I really want to vote Yes on this one. If only the measure had some time limit, it would make more sense. Short of that, I cannot support it.

Your Political Friend is reluctantly voting NO, with regrets.

Prop 22 - Passed
In 2004 and 2006 two budget propositions were approved by voters. These props restricted the state's ability to borrow fuel sales tax revenues and redistribute local property taxes to schools. If Prop 22 passes, these practices would be eliminated, as would the state's ability to redirect local redevelopment revenues.

Every year, the state collects about $5.9 billion in fuel tax revenue. According to the Attorney General, Prop 22 would prohibit the state from delaying the distribution of these revenues "even during a period of severe fiscal hardship." It would also prohibit the state from using those revenues to pay down voter approved transportation bonds (really, is there a more appropriate source of funding for those bonds?).

Prop 22 would, by Constitutional Amendment, set aside billions of dollars for a few sacred cows (in this case, highways and local developers). If it passes, about $1 billion additional more would have to be paid from the General Fund, reducing what can be spent on non-transportation purposes. This is yet another example of "ballot box budgeting", further calcifying our already inflexible budget.

Your Political Friend is voting a big, fat NO.

Prop 23 - Failed
California is the second largest emitter of Greenhouse Gas in the nation, and one of the largest emitters in the world. In 2006, the legislature enacted AB 32 to reduce the state's Greenhouse Gas emissions to its 1990 level by 2020. This would be accomplished through a combination of regulation and market incentives.

Prop 23 would immediately suspend AB32 by prohibiting the enforcement or adoption of any regulation until the state's unemployment rate is 5.5 percent or less for a full year. This has happened only three times since 1970, and shows no signs of happening again for many years.

Over 91% of Prop 23's funding comes from oil companies, most of whom are out of state. By linking greenhouse gas legislation to unemployment, these businesses can appear to care about jobs while protecting their current practices for possibly decades. Of course, their claims about jobs lost as a result of AB32 ignore the increase in jobs due to clean energy investment.
California has over 500,000 people employed in clean energy occupations. With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California's clean energy firms have received 60% of the venture capital in North America. The rate of growth in clean energy is 10 times more than the state's average job growth rate (source). The Legislative Analyst has stated that suspending AB 32 would "dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called 'green jobs' by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case."
This does not even address the economic losses that come from poor air quality such as increased health care costs and lower worker productivity. Such losses would likely dampen any potential benefits from the lower energy costs touted by the measure's supporters.
With Prop 23, oil refiners are trying to avoid costly reductions to how much they pollute, while also shutting down the clean energy competition. And they're spending millions to trick us into helping them do it.
Your Political Friend is voting NO, NO, NO.

Prop 24 - Failed
Under state tax laws, a business that has more deductible expenses than income has what's known as a Net Operating Loss. Generally, a business can "carryforward" these losses to deduct from its taxes in later years. In 2008 the state legislature enacted a law to allow a business to "carry back" it's losses as much as two years. This means that a business can file for a tax refund from the last two years, based on its losses from the current year. In addition, the amount of time that a business can "carryforward" its losses was extended from 10 to 20 years.

Prop 24 would rescind these changes, bringing tax laws back to their pre-2008 levels. In addition, the measure would repeal 2009 legislation allowing multi-state businesses to choose the formula by which their income is taxed. Currently, the state considers a company's property value, payroll, and sales compared to its value in other states. The 2009 law, set to take effect in 2011, would allow multi-state business to be taxed only on the portion of their national sales that are in California. Finally, Prop 24 would rescind 2008 legislation that allows businesses with available tax credit to transfer those credits to a parent or affiliated company.

The measure is mainly supported by the CA Teachers Association, as well as a mysterious "Super-PAC" called America's Families First. It is opposed, of course, by a broad coalition of large corporations (including Walt Disney!).

Prop 24 is aimed at large, out-of-state corporations. It rolls back as much as $1.3 billion in tax breaks that were negotiated in 2008 without hearings or public debate. Back then, when the deals were made, California's budget was months late and deep in the hole (like every year!). In exchange for some quick cash, legislators offered big businesses these tax breaks. The trouble is that, while the cash infusion was one time only, the tax breaks are permanent.

Only the top 2% of businesses in CA would see any impact from Pro 24. These are the companies that do not need more tax breaks, and are far less likely to keep their money within the state. If Prop 24 fails, we'll see yet more of the tax burden carried by us individual tax payers.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 25 - Passed
The state constitution requires the legislature to pass a budget each year by June 15th. In the last thirty years, the legislature has met that deadline only five times. This is because California's constitution requires a two-thirds majority in both houses in order to pass a budget. California is one of only three states in the nation to have this requirement.

When the budget is not passed on time, the state is forced to send out IOUs, which costs us millions a day in interest and lowers the state's credit rating. In addition schools and local agencies must operate without knowing how much money they have, setting them up for possibly painful corrections when the budget is finally approved.

Prop 25 would lower the requirement for passing a budget to a simple majority. However, a two-thirds majority would still be required to override any veto by the Governor. In addition, for any days that legislators are late in sending the budget to the Governor, they will not be allowed a salary or reimbursements for expenses.

Despite what the opposition warns, this is not about Democrats wanting a free hand to raise taxes. The measure clearly states that the legislature would still need a two-thirds majority in order to increase state tax revenues. Prop 25 is about removing Republicans' ability to block the budget and hold the state hostage for political mischief.

And if you're a loyal Republican, don't be so quick to vote no. The upcoming redistricting could soon change the balance of power in one or both houses.

Your Political Friend is voting YES.

Prop 26 - Passed
In addition to regular taxes, state and local governments may assess fees and charges that pay for particular programs that benefit individuals or businesses. These fees can include:

User Fees - such as a state park entrance fee, or a fee for garbage service
Regulatory Fees - such as fees on restaurants to pay for health inspections
Property Charges - imposed on developers to pay for public infrastructure that benefits the property owner

The state constitution requires a two-thirds majority in the legislature to increase or create any new state taxes. However, it only requires a simple majority to increase or create any new fees.

You can already see where this is going.

Prop 26 would expand the definition of a tax so that many fees would require a two-thirds majority to be passed. Specifically, the fees that would be effected are those that the government imposes to address health, environmental, and other societal concerns. These include the oil recycling fee, the hazardous materials fee, and the fees on alcohol retailers that are used for law enforcement. Certain other fees could be considered taxes under the measure, such as business assessments used to improve shopping districts (to providing parking, street lighting, increased security and marketing) because they do not provide a direct and distinct service to the business owner.

Prop 26 is supported by the cigarette, alcohol, and oil companies- the very businesses that have been the targets of fees used to offset the damage they cause. If passed it will cost the state billions in lost revenue every year.

Your Political Friend is Just Saying NO.

Prop 27 - Failed
Every ten years, after the national census, voting districts in California are redrawn (aka redistricted) according to changes in population. Until recently, redistricting plans were passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Any disputes between the Governor and Legislature were decided by the state Supreme Court. To see a map of our current voting districts click HERE.

In November 2008 voters approved Prop 11, which changed the authority for establishing these districts from elected representatives to a 14 member Commission drawn from a pool of CA voters (five Democrats, five Republicans, and four others). Once appointed, the Commission would be required to hold public hearings, and would be bound by all federal laws regarding redistricting, including some additional guidelines meant to prevent political tinkering.

For those not familiar with the politics behind redistricting, be aware that political parties can gain or lose power depending upon how the voting districts are drawn. For example, a large urban population of Democrats can lose representation if their voting district is cut up and incorporated into the surrounding, mostly Republican, suburbs. This process of manipulation is known as gerrymandering.

Prop 27 would eliminate the Commission, created by Prop 11, and give the power of redistricting back to the State Legislature. In addition it would delete any requirements that districts be geographically compact, or that they not favor or discriminate against incumbents. The measure would also require that districts for each office have a difference in population of no greater than one person, and grants the public greater access to redistricting data.

I was ambivalent about Prop 11. Leaving legislators in charge of redistricting is a clear conflict of interest. Our system had a kind of "honor among thieves" feeling to it, as voting blocks were carved up to suit incumbents. But the system under Prop 11 will not be free from manipulation either. Who knows what kind of people will be put in charge of drawing our districts? Applicants to the Commission will be screened and appointed by three state auditors, but who screens the auditors for conflicts of interest? At least the legislators are elected representatives.

Still, as I said in Prop 20, I'm willing to give the Commission a chance. If we don't see any improvement after the 2010 redistricting, we can hand the power back to the legislators before the next census. And, if Prop 27 fails, we can be pretty sure that the legislators will reintroduce this measure again come 2020.

The supporters make a big deal of the fact that this measure will save money. In fact it will save less than $3 million. A drop in the bucket. This measure is not about saving money, but about controlling the redistricting process.

Your Political Friend's pen is hovering over this one for a while, but finally voting NO.

Archive - June 2010 Ballot

2010-04-20T16:10:00.001-07:00

Prop 13 - Passed
Current law holds that, when a property owner seismically retrofits his building, that improvement triggers a reassessment of the building's property taxes after 15 years. This prop would change the state constitution so that earthquake safety improvements made to any building would not result in a reassessment of its property taxes until the building is sold.

Prop 13 is an amendment to the original Prop 13 of 1978. It is meant to fix a loophole caused by a previous amendment. However, it is the original Prop 13 that is the real problem- an undeniably regressive measure that has crippled our state's budget while disproportionally favoring the wealthy. Minor tweaks to our property tax system, such as this, are like putting a fresh coat of paint on a house with no foundation.

Nevertheless, earthquakes are a major concern, and I'd rather not lodge a protest vote against something with life and death consequences. Your Political Friend is voting YES.

PROP 14 - Passed
Prop 14 would create an open primary system for all congressional, statewide, and legislative races. This means that voters would be able to vote on any candidate in a primary election, regardless of the voter's party affiliation. The two candidates receiving the most votes would then go on to the general election.

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided that the open primary system, as approved by voters in 1996, violated a political party's First Amendment right of association. As Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, the open primary "forces political parties to associate with—to have their nominees, and hence their positions, determined by—those who, at best, have refused to affiliate with the party, and, at worst, have expressly affiliated with a rival."

Prop 14, however, would likely be deemed constitutional because it allows the top two vote-getters to advance to the general election, regardless of party affiliation. This means that voters in the general election could feasibly be asked to decide between two candidates from the same party or, in a far less likely scenario, two third party candidates.

The measure is backed by Governor Schwarzenegger and big business interests. They say it will increase voter turnout as independent voters will be allowed to vote for party candidates. This is not necessarily so, as both the Democratic and Republican parties already allow "Decline to state", or unaffiliated, voters to participate in their primaries.

A telling part of this measure is that it would not require candidates to state their party affiliation on the ballot, allowing candidates to run as unknowns while secretly remaining loyal to their party. Furthermore, the measure states that "selection of a party preference by a candidate...shall not constitute or imply endorsement of the candidate by the party designated." Does this mean that a Libertarian can run as a Democratic candidate and the Democratic party can't do anything about it? Evidently so, if the candidate switches parties on the day he files to run. This would effectively do what Prop 198 could not- remove a party's ability to elect its own representatives.

The measure would also prohibit write-in candidates for the general election. So, if anything happens to one of the top two candidates after the primaries, the remaining candidate will run unopposed.

Would this measure create a post-partisan environment in which candidates will be judged on the issues instead of their party's platform? Will it allow independent voices a greater voice? I'm skeptical. But an essential part of good governance is transparency, and Prop 14 offers less, not more. Your Political Friend is voting NO.

PROP 15 - Failed
Under the Political Reform Act of 1974 a public officer is prohibited from expending or accepting any public money for the purpose of seeking elective office. Prop 15 would repeal this ban on public financing of campaigns. In addition it would create a trial program to publicly finance candidates for Secretary of State in the 2014 and 2018 elections.

In order to qualify for public financing, candidates would have to demonstrate a high level of public support by gathering signatures and $5 contributions from at least 7,500 individuals. Once a candidate accepts public financing, he or she would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant of $1 million for their primary campaign, and an additional $1.3 million for the general election (third party candidates would receive less). In addition they could not use their personal funds to pay for campaign costs.

The program would be funded by voluntary taxpayer contributions and by an annual fee of $350 on lobbyists, lobbying firms and lobbyist employers (they currently pay $12). This would raise over $6 Million, which gives you an idea of how many lobbyists there are in Sacramento. However, if there are insufficient funds to provide for the program, candidates would be allowed to raise private capital up to what they would have received otherwise.

Additionally, if a non-participating candidate outspends a participating candidate, the state will kick in additional money (up to $4 million for the primary and $5.2 for the General) to allow the participating candidate to remain competitive.

Opponents of Prop 15 point out that the measure would allow candidates to maintain "other accounts" into which they may receive private funds. These accounts pertain to inaugural expenses, legal defense costs, and costs of holding office. Each account would be strictly limited in how it may be used, as would the amount any individual may contribute.

Often referred to as "Clean Money", this program is identical to those already in place in 7 states including Arizona, North Carolina, and Maine, where it has enjoyed overwhelming success. Elections in those states have seen their slates become more diverse, and less "corporate". In addition legislators spend less time fundraising and more time actually doing the work for which they were elected. You can watch a piece Bill Moyers made on Clean Elections here.

Our state is not suffering from of a lack of money, but from a misappropriation of its funds towards special interests. Prop 15 is an experiment to see if we can lessen the influence of lobbyists and wealthy donors. It's a negligible risk that could pay huge dividends.

Your Political Friend is voting YES. Full disclosure: I am a supporter, though not active member, of CA Clean Money Coalition, a sponsor of this initiative.

PROP 16 - Failed
Most Californians get their electricity from either of two kinds of providers- private companies (aka Investor Owned Utilities) and publicly owned companies.

City governments currently have the ability to switch from private to public power. Prop 16 would prohibit that, unless the voters of that city agree to do so by a two-thirds majority.

In San Francisco, the private company PG&E holds a monopoly on power distribution- in direct violation of the Raker Act (but that is another matter). As a result SF residents pay much higher rates than residents of Los Angeles and Sacramento, who have public utilities.

Over the past few decades San Francisco has seen several attempts by officials and activists to switch to a municipal utility, but PG&E has been able to thwart each of these so far. Now they want to make it practically impossible by requiring a super majority of voters to approve the change. Such a majority will never happen, given the campaign PG&E would mount to stop it.

Prop 16 was written by PG&E for PG&E. They are the campaign's sole source of funding. It is a perfect example of what is wrong with voter referendums- a large corporation is able to co-opt the system for private aims, then spend millions to mislead us into voting against our own interests. Your Political Friend is voting NO NO NO.

PROP 17 - FailedProp 17 is a lot like Prop 16, except it's about car insurance and, instead of PG&E, its sole source of funding is Mercury Insurance.

As it is, insurance companies can base their premiums on three main factors: (1) the insured's driving safety record, (2) the number of miles they drive each year, and (3) the number of years they have been driving. In addition insurance companies may provide discounts to individuals for being long-term customers of theirs. They are prohibited, however, from offering this discount to new customers who switch to them from other insurers.

According to the official summary, Prop 17 will "permit insurance companies to offer a discount to drivers who have continuously maintained their auto insurance coverage, even if they change their insurance company".

So, did Mercury Insurance write Prop 17 so they could lure the more desirable customers away from other companies? Probably.

Well, that, and raise fees on "drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage". This means that any driver who has had a break in coverage for more than 90 days in the last 5 years will pay a higher premium. It does not matter why you had a break in coverage - you sold your car, you got sent to Iraq, you were in the hospital - you will pay more to restart your policy.

Opponents call it a surcharge. Mercury Insurance calls it a discount. One thing is certain, it will result in more uninsured drivers on the road. This will cause premiums for all drivers to go up. And so, the cycle of profit continues.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Archive - May 2009 Special Election

2009-06-02T15:59:00.000-07:00

In January 2009, it was projected that our state’s budget would face a $40 billion deficit. In response, the CA legislature agreed on a new budget that would combine less spending and more borrowing, as well as some tax increases. As part of the agreement, six propositions were placed on the ballot. Three of these (1C, 1D, and 1E) had to pass if the budget was to balance.

Nevertheless, recent estimates by the Legislative Analyst’s Office show that tax revenues are well below projections used earlier in the year. So these props, even if passed, could not forestall more painful cuts in the near future.

With this Special Election, the state legislature handed us a slate of props so complicated and vague that even the Legislative Analyst was at a loss. His summaries in the Voter Information Guide often conceded that the effect and interpretation of each measure was simply unknown. As a result, voters' confusion and outrage was high, and all but Prop 1F failed.

Prop 1A - Failed
In 2004 voters mandated a "rainy day fund" into which 3% of the state's budget would be deposited every year. For several reasons, the current balance of that fund is ZERO. Prop 1A would increase the size of the state's reserve target to 12.5% of revenues (approximately $12 Billion). Some of this money could be spent on Infrastructure and State Bond Debt, or, if Prop 1B passes, on education. The state's ability to draw from the fund for other purposes would be extremely limited. Also, deposits into the fund would only occur once education spending levels mandated by Proposition 98 (1988) have been attained.

In addition, the February 2009 budget contained several tax increases. These included a Sales and Use Tax increase from 8 to 9 percent, a near doubling of the Vehicle License Fee, and a Personal Income Tax increase of .25 percent. If passed, Prop 1A would extend those tax levels for one to two years.

Finally, Prop 1A would grant the Governor new authority to reduce certain types of spending during the year without getting legislative approval.

There are several things wrong with this proposition. First, it further erodes the legislature's discretionary control of the budget. As I've often written, more than two thirds of our state budget is already spoken for, giving our elected representatives little control over its finances. Second, Prop 1A mandates priorities on our spending when state revenues are higher than anticipated. These priorities, such as funding obligations for Prop 98 and debt repayment, may not be our priorities ten years from now, and shouldn't be in our state's Constitution. Finally, as a Constitutional Amendment, Prop 1A will be extremely difficult to change.

Still, after years of borrowing money through bonds, the idea of our state having to save money for the future is a tempting one. And we desperately need a budget. Prop 1A would move us out of this deadlock, but will it move us in the right direction?

Supporters for this measure are not the ones you would normally associate with anything that includes a tax increase- CA Taxpayers Assoc., CA Chamber of Commerce, and Schwarzenegger's California Dream Team (who? They gave $700K). Opponents include teachers' unions, health workers' unions, and property rights groups.

We're in a bad predicament, and Prop 1A is not pretty. But voting "no" will not necessarily lead to something better. There are reasons why CA is unable to pass a budget, but this Prop does not address them.

Nevertheless, Your Political Friend is holding his nose and voting YES. A crap deal is sometimes better than no deal at all.

PROP 1B - Failed
1B is designed to settle the legal dispute over how much the state owes public schools under Prop 98. That Prop, passed in 1989, requires the state to dedicate a minimum percentage of its budget to education.

Prop 1B, which is contingent upon the passing of 1A, would obligate the state to pay $9.3 Billion over 5-6 years (beginning in 2011-2012) to K-12 schools and community colleges.

One might ask, “If Prop 98 already obligates the state to pay this money, why are the proponents introducing a new proposition?” Their answer is they want to avoid a lengthy legal battle that might require the state to pay the money all at once. This, in their view, offers a "measured approach".

However, opponents argue that Prop 98 requires the state to pay only $1.4 Billion, not $9.3 Billion. The $7.9 Billion discrepancy, they argue, is a result of supporters' misinterpreting the state Constitution.

So should we, the voters, decide who's interpretation of the law is correct?

Your Political Friend thinks this is a matter for the courts. If the supporters are in the right, they'll get the money they deserve. If they are wrong, Prop 1B will be a gift we can't afford.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 1C - Failed
Known as the Lottery Modernization Act, Prop 1C would raise $5 billion in the short term by borrowing against future lottery revenues. This money would be used to pay off part of the current budget deficit.

Current law requires 34 percent of lottery profits go to schools. This measure would eliminate that requirement entirely. To compensate for this loss to schools, Prop 1C would dedicate more General Fund money to Prop 98 funding. However, this would end up costing the state more in the long run, as Prop 98 funding increases at a faster rate than do lottery profits.

As a one time fix, this idea might still be a good one. Of all the Props on the ballot, Prop 1C is the only one that would make a difference to our budget this year.

However, Prop 1C would allow the legislature to continue to borrow against the lottery fund as often as they want, without voter approval and without limit. In this political climate, where raising taxes and passing bonds is unpopular, the lottery fund will become an extremely attractive cash cow. We shouldn't let that happen- borrowing by any name will still leave us in debt.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 1D - Failed
The California Children and Families Act (also known as the First 5 program) was passed by voters in 1998 with the mission to expand early development programs for children up to age five. It is funded with dedicated revenues from the cigarette tax. The program's current annual revenues are $500 million. In addition it's reserve of unspent funds is about $2.5 billion.

Prop 1D would withdraw $340 million from the program's reserve fund, as well as temporarily divert $268 million per year from First 5 funding for the next five years.

The money made available by Prop 1D would be subject to appropriation by the Legislature. Supporters say that the money would be used to fund MediCal and other health programs, but there is nothing in the legislation that would require it.

The supporters include RJ Reynolds, the tobacco company that fought the creation of the First 5 program in 1998.

The opponents are correct to point out that the wording of the proposition is extremely misleading. It claims to "protect children's services funding" while it actually cuts funding. They are also correct to point out that this prop is only a small, temporary fix that will not address the major structural changes that need to be made to the budget. Finally, they indicate that money spent on these programs now will likely save us much more in future costs.

In truth, the numbers here are hardly draconian. $340 million is less than 14% of the program's reserves. And, with its remaining reserves, the program can easily compensate itself for the missing $268 million in annual revenue. Why is the First 5 program carrying such a large reserve in the first place?

Still, I cannot understand going after this program, which has been a success, while more wasteful programs go untouched. There will be little benefit to the General Fund, but a larger detriment to children's programs.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 1F - Passed
In 1990 voters created a Citizens Commission to establish the annual salary for most elected state offices. Prop 1F would amend the state Constitution to prevent the Commission from approving salary increases for state officials when the General Fund is expected to end the year with a deficit.

This sounds a bit mean spirited, but not unreasonable. In a year when our state runs a deficit, should anyone get a raise? The public outrage at corporate CEOs is justifiable, as these people pull in massive bonuses while their companies fail. Why shouldn't we be angry when legislators get raises while our state falters?

Let's look at the history: Since 2000 the commission has raised the pay of elected officials four times. Over this period, the total pay increases for each official have been equal to or less than the rate of inflation.

You see, we're not talking about a lot of money here- at most, a few hundred thousand. It's not enough to help our budget, and it's certainly not enough to influence the lawmakers whom this measure is meant to punish. Does anyone think this will get Democrats and Republicans to finally agree?

In addition it will punish those officials who have little or no part in passing the budget- the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Insurance Commissioner, among others.

Prop 1F is kind of like Glenn Beck. You can understand why people like it, but, really, it's just angry and dumb.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Archive - November 2008 Ballot

2008-11-05T16:09:00.000-08:00

Prop 1A - Passed

Prop 1A would provide $9 billion for building a high speed railroad between San Francisco and Los Angeles, as well as $950 million for building and improving connections from existing rail service. The money would come from the sale of general obligation bonds, meaning the state costs over thirty years would be about $19.4 billion. However, bond proceeds may be used to provide only up to one-half of the cost of construction. The measure would require private and public funds to cover the remaining costs. Once running, the rail system will probably cost about $1 billion a year to operate and maintain. This would be partially offset by revenue from fares paid by passengers.

The planning for this rail system has already been done. Since 1996, the California High Speed Rail Authority has spent $60 million on pre-construction activities, as well as a business plan to link all the state's major metropolitan areas.

Europe and Asia have had high speed rail for decades। These generally travel over 200 mph. Our current option, Amtrak, can only reach 90 mph. Plus, there is no direct route between LA and SF, so a trip today would take you 9-10 hours, and much of that would require travel by bus. Driving alone takes about 6 hours. High speed rail is estimated to make that trip in under 3 hours.

Prop 1A would limit the percentage of bond proceeds that can be used for administrative expenses and for environmental studies and planning. It would also require completion of specified funding plans and financial analyses before bond funds are requested and committed. Finally, it establishes an independent peer-review group to review the Authority’s plans, and requires the State Auditor to conduct periodic audits of the Authority use of bond funds.

There is clearly a demand for high speed rail, and that demand would only grow as our population grows. Furthermore, a viable rail system would encourage smart growth of our cities around these train stations, as well as the public transportation systems that connect to it.

There is no doubt that the project will cost far more than projected, as nearly every infrastructure improvement in the state has. But is that enough reason to reject the bill? I have grave misgivings about putting the state in further debt, but I believe that efficient, long distance public transportation is critical to our state's future viability.

Your Political friend is voting YES.

To hear an interesting discussion of this prop, listen to this recent program on KQED radio.

Prop 02 - Passed
If passed, Prop 2 would change certain regulations regarding the confinement of egg-laying hens, pregnant pigs, and calves raised for veal. The measure would require that these animals be kept in a manner that allows them to turn around freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs.

Prop 2 would make exceptions for transportation, rodeos, fairs, 4-H programs, lawful slaughter, and research and veterinary purposes. Its requirements would not take effect until 2015. However, since there is only a small amount of pig and veal production in CA, it's greatest effect would be felt by the egg industry, where some of the worst abuses exist. A typical cage is only about two feet square, and holds 8 chickens, each one of which spends its two year life on a space no bigger than a letter sized sheet of paper. The miserable conditions in these "factory farms" have been well documented.

It would seem a small mercy to allow an animal to turn around, but the opposition would have you believe that such a change would bring about the collapse of the industry, as well as expose Californians to Avian Influenza and Salmonella. Oh, and it will cause global warming.

Sadly, they are correct in their claim that the industry may suffer. If Prop 2 passes, there is a chance that out of state producers, who don't follow our humane laws, will be able to sell their product for less than the CA companies. If this happens, some CA producers may go out of business.

It simply points out the need for consumers to look at more than just the price when buying our food, and why we must demand that it be raised in an ethical fashion. Fortunately, that is happening- one need only look at the rise in organics, free range, and fair trade products. As consumers become more aware, the industry will change. Prop 2 is simply a way to speed up that process.

Your Political Friend suggests you vote YES, and demand that the rest of the country follow our lead.

Prop 03 - Passed
Prop 3 authorizes $980 million in bonds to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing, and equipping of children's hospitals. It specifies that 80 percent of the funds would be available, through grants of not more than $98 million each, to nonprofit children’s hospitals that meet specified requirements, including providing at least 160 licensed beds for infants and children, as well as focusing on children with illnesses such as leukemia, cancer, heart defects, diabetes, sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis. Those hospitals would be required to serve a high volume of children eligible for government programs, or who are indigent, underserved, or uninsured. The other 20 percent of the money would go to University of CA general acute care hospitals.

In November 2004, voters approved Prop 61, which authorized $750 million for children's hospitals. To date only about $400 million has spent. The eligibility criteria for hospitals to receive funds under Prop 61 is exactly the same as Prop 3. So why are we approving more money when we have yet to spend the money from the last one?

Another problem is that 80 percent of this money would go to private, not public, institutions, who may use this money for a variety of purposes. These private institutions would be able to make significant capital improvements (improvements that won't necessarily result in more children being served), but the state will get nothing from our investment. Should we really be borrowing money to pay for this?

The proponents, who stand to make a lot of money, are counting on the fact that voters will be swayed by the word "children" in the title. And we probably will be yet again. Don't get me wrong, we need children's hospitals and should fund them, but not with bonds, and not without a return on our investment.

Your Political Friend will be voting NO.

Prop 04 - FailedThis prop amends the state constitution to bar abortions for minors until 48 hours after parental notification. It makes exemptions for medical emergency, or judicial waiver.

Unlike the US Constitution, California’s charter explicitly guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. As a result abortion opponents have been unable to pass a parental notification law that passes constitutional muster. In 1996 a law of this sort was struck down by the state Supreme Court. In its decision the Chief Justice acknowledged that parents have the right to make most medical decisions for their children. However, he said, “because the decision whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy has such a substantial effect on a pregnant minor’s control over her personal bodily integrity, has such serious long-term consequences in determining her life choices, is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life..., we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution...”

So the people behind Prop 85 decided to change the constitution. Led by a Catholic newspaper publisher in San Diego, they crafted an amendment that would remove this right to privacy for minors. The prop would not require parental consent, only notification.

I’ll admit that the prop may sound reasonable, especially when I ask myself how I would feel if my own daughter were seeking an abortion. I would want to know. However, I believe that we cannot legislate family harmony, and we cannot assume to know the conditions under which a young woman must make her choices.

This is the third time that this prop has been put on the ballot. The only difference this time is they've added a provision that the doctor may notify a family member other than a parent if the minor submits a written statement that she fears abuse from her parents, and that her fear is based on a pattern of abuse by her parents. The doctor would then be required to report the abuse to the police. So, if a girl doesn't want to tell her parents, she must have them arrested, in which case they'll definitely find out.

Prop 4 is an obvious attempt to eliminate a woman's access to safe and legal abortions. Vote NO.

Prop 05 - Failed
Currently, the state has several programs that may permit someone who has committed a drug-related offense, or someone who has a substance abuse problem, to be diverted from prison to a drug treatment program. Prop 5 would allocate $460 million per year to expand and largely replace these drug treatment diversion programs. If passed, the measure would instruct the state to create a "three track" system that would determine an offender's eligibility for certain programs in lieu of prison. Each track has its own requirements, in terms of eligibility and punishment. Generally, the more serious the offense, the more serious the sanctions. Those convicted of violent offenses of any kind would not be eligible for the program (to see a list of eligibility requirements, scroll to figure 1 here).

The measure would reduce parole terms for non-violent drug offenders who do not have a serious, gang related, or sex crime on their record. These people could not be sent back to prison for technical parole violations or misdemeanors, unless they are repeat violators, or are classified high risk. Instead, they would face such punishments as increased drug testing or community work assignments.

In addition, the state would be required to provide inmates with a rehabilitation program at least 90 days before their release. The measure would direct the Dept of Corrections and Rehabilitation to assess the inmate and determine which program would most likely result in his or her successful return to the community.

A new 21-member Parole Reform Oversight and Accountability Board would be created to direct the rehabilitation program and set parole policies. The existing Board of Parole Hearings, which is heavily backlogged, would increase from 17 to 29 members.

Finally, this measure would also make the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana an infraction, instead of a misdemeanor. Persons under 18 would no longer be subject to a fine for a first offense, but would be required to take a drug education program. As of yet, no such programs exist for persons under 18.

It currently costs about $46,000 to incarcerate an inmate for a year. In fact, we spend more money on prisons than we do on public universities, yet our prisons are severely overcrowded.
The Legislative Analyst estimates that Prop 5 will cost the state about $1 billion annually. However, there is a potential savings to the state of about $1 billion, due to reduced prison and parole costs. In addition, the state would save an additional $2.5 billion by not building new prisons.

Prop 5 is sponsored by the Drug Policy Alliance Network. It is opposed by a coalition of police organizations, Attorneys General, and MADD. But, for reasons I have yet to figure out, a majority of its funding comes from Indian Tribes.

This prop is an attempt to bring our criminal justice system back to the idea of rehabilitation. The Prison/Military approach to the drug war was a failure. Prop 5 acknowledges that by addressing the causes of non-violent drug crimes. As my high school history teacher once told me, “Want to reduce drug abuse in America? Try improving reality.”

Vote YES.

Prop 06 - FailedProp 6 would require a minimum of $965 million for a variety of criminal justice programs beginning in 2009-10. This reflects an increase in funding of $365 million compared to 2008-09. Most of the money would be for local law enforcement, including police, sheriffs, district attorneys, jails, and probation offices. The remainder would go towards local juvenile programs, rehabilitation, victim assistance, and other criminal justice programs.

The measure would also increase penalties for certain crimes such as gang participation, witness intimidation, and methamphetamine possession. Other changes include:

- Public housing residents would be required to undergo annual criminal background checks and lose housing if convicted of a crime
- Court evidence rules would be changed to allow use of some hearsay statements as evidence
- Requires the state to develop two databases related to gang information for the use of law enforcement agencies
- Any youth 14 or older convicted of a gang related crime would be tried in court as an adult
- Persons convicted of a violent or gang related felony cannot be released on bail if he or she is an undocumented alien.

In addition to the $365 million increase in funding to criminal justice programs, the state would incur additional costs to operate the prison and parole systems, as more offenders are kept in jail longer. The state would also likely incur more than $500 million in new prison construction costs.

Here are the problems I have with this proposal. First, it lowers the bar prohibiting hearsay evidence in court. While this may result in more convictions of actual offenders, it can just as easily be abused. Second, the measure would lock us into this spending, regardless of the level of crime in the communities. Our state budget is already so burdened by spending obligations that our legislators have discretionary power over less than one third of it. That makes them, our elected representatives, little more than glorified bureaucrats. This situation gives us very little flexibility and weakens our ability to confront any changes in our state's condition.

Prop 6 will only make that worse. It obligates more of our budget without paying for itself. That means that everything else will suffer to support it.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.
Prop 07 - Failed
Prop 7 would greatly accelerate the amount of renewable energy production in CA. If passed, it would require all utilities, including government-owned utilities, to generage half of their power from renewable energy sources by 2025. Existing law requires private utilities such as Southern California Edison to increase their renewable electricity by at least 1% a year until they reach 20% in 2010. All are falling behind.

Proposition 7 would change the law to require an annual increase of 2% a year. It would set targets of 40% by 2020 and 50% by 2025. The measure would extend the requirements to publicly owned utilities, such as the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. Currently, publicly owned utilities are not required to meet the same renewable energy standards as other electricity providers. Instead, public utilities are allowed to enforce their own standards, even define for themselves what qualifies as "renewable".

The measure would "fast track" the approval process for new renewable energy plants, and raise electricity rates by no more than 3%, although there is no language to enforce this price cap.

This all sounds pretty good, but the measure loses its luster upon reading of the actual text. For one thing, only power plants that produce at least 30 megawatts will count towards the required amount of renewable energy. This will not only shut out the small producers, it will create a disincentive against placing solar panels on our rooftops. Our energy security, and our national security, will be enhanced by a non-centralized grid of small renewable energy producers, but this measure would keep the focus on large, centralized power plants. That is unacceptable.

It also gives new regulatory powers over the placement of energy transmission lines to the California Energy Commission, without taking those same powers away from the Public Utilities Commission. One can only imagine the bureaucratic nightmare that will result from this oversight.

Finally, none of these provisions can be changed without a two-thirds vote of the legislature, or another ballot, making this measure inflexible should problems arise.

Prop 7 is an example of why voters are so frustrated by the propositions. It sounds great, but it is full of hidden flaws. What makes it so impressive, however, is the diversity of its opponents. Everyone from environmental and consumer groups, to energy producers and the Chamber of Commerce is against it. The main supporter, Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling, probably has the best intentions, but he did not adequately think this one through.

Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 08 - Passed

In March 2000, California voters passed Prop 22 to specify in law that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized in the state. In May, 2008, the CA Supreme Court ruled that the statute violated the equal protection clause of the CA Constitution.

So the backers of Prop 8 are seeking to amend the Constitution. If prop 8 passes, the Supreme Court ruling would be nullified, and individuals of the same sex would not have the right to marry in CA.

I believe that Prop 8 represents the worst of what makes us human. It is a small-minded, fearful attempt to punish others for our own insecurities. There is no justification for it.

Vote NO.

Prop 09 - Passed
In 1982 CA voters approved Prop 8, known as the "Victims' Bill of Rights". It amended the Constitution and various laws to allow greater recognition of crime victims in the justice system. These amendments included the right of the victim to obtain restitution from the person who committed the crime, as well as the right of victims to testify at sentencing and parole hearings.

Prop 9 would greatly expand those rights, removing all exceptions to an offender's obligation to pay restitution, and requiring courts to allow the victim to play a larger role in trials. In addition victims would have a right to withold information requested by the defense. Victims could also refuse to be interviewed or provide pre-trial testimony.

The measure would also restrict the ability of the state to grant early release to inmates, something the state has proposed as a way to relieve overcrowded prisons. Inmates on life terms would also see fewer parole hearings, and parolees would not be granted free legal counsel at parole revocation hearings unless they were indigent.

The costs of this proposal are difficult to estimate. It could cost hundreds of millions in the future, if the state wanted to release prisoners early and wasn't able to do so. There is a potential savings of tens of millions in reduced parole hearing costs, although this provision of the measure is likely to conflict with federal law and be overturned.

The 1982 "Victims Bill of Rights" is a successful piece of legislation. There are some very good parts of Prop 9 as well. But why must they be part of our Constitution? Why can't these proposals simply be laws? Changing our Constitution is not something that should be done with the shifting of political winds, and this Prop has that feeling.

Furthermore, there is a strong odor of revenge in the language of the bill. Emotions, however justified, should not be the driving force behind any legislation. Our laws are meant to protect the innocent as well as the guilty from the people who may wish them harm.

Prop 9 and Prop 6 were paid for by Orange County billionaire Henry Nicholas, who's sister was murdered in 1983. It is opposed by the CA Teachers Assoc., et al.

You Political Friend suggests you vote NO.

Prop 10 - Failed

Prop 10 would allow the sale of $5 billion in General Obligation bonds, most of which would go towards providing incentives to consumers and businesses to purchase certain fuel efficient and alternative fuel vehicles. 20% of the money would go towards research, development and production of renewable energy technologies. The rest would provide grants to cities for renewable energy projects and to colleges for training in renewable and energy efficient technologies.

All these things are good and necessary, but there are several problems with this measure. The first, and most obvious, is the cost. Five Billion Dollars. And it's a bond. With certain exceptions, bonds should be only used for infrastructure improvements that will provide long term benefit to the state. This is not one of those exceptions. It is a handout to private companies, via consumers, that will cost the state $10 billion by the time it's paid.

The renewable energy market is huge, partly thanks to the recent oil crisis, and demand for energy efficient technology is extremely high. Venture capital is pouring into the alternative energy market. Hybrid cars are selling at a premium today because everybody wants them. Incentives would be great, but many would clearly be going to people who were going to buy hybrids anyway.

Furthermore, the Union of Concerned Scientists recently wrote: "Prop 10’s definition of “clean alternative fuel” is overly broad, and allows any fuel that reduces carbon intensity by 10 percent to qualify. Since a 10 percent reduction in carbon intensity will soon be mandated state policy under the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, it is not clear whether the bond will provide any emissions reductions in excess of state requirements."

Finally, there is no requirement that vehicles bought with the rebates should stay in CA. Residents and businesses could easily purchase the vehicles, then sell them out of state and pocket the rebate. The state would see no clean air benefit.

The measure was put on the ballot by the Clean Energy Fuels Corp., which, as a major provider of natural gas, stands to make a fortune if the prop passes. It is opposed by the CA Chamber of Commerce, Sierra Club, and The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Full disclosure: I am a supporter, but not active member, of TURN.

This is the wrong way to do a good thing. Your Political Friend is voting NO.

Prop 11 - Passed
Every ten years, after the national census, voting districts in California are redrawn (aka redistricted) according to changes in population. Currently, redistricting plans are passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Any disputes between the Governor and Legislature are decided by the state Supreme Court.

Prop 11 would change the authority for establishing these districts from elected representatives to a 14 member Commission drawn from a pool of CA voters. Applicants to the Commission would be screened for conflicts of interest and appointed by a panel of three state auditors. The Commission would have five members registered with each of the two largest political parties and four members registered with other parties or as independent. Once appointed, the Commission would be required to hold public hearings, and would be bound by all federal laws regarding redistricting, including some additional guidelines meant to prevent political tinkering.

For those not familiar with the politics behind redistricting, be aware that political parties can gain or lose power depending upon how the voting districts are drawn. For example, a large urban population of Democrats can lose representation if their voting district is cut up and incorporated into the surrounding, mostly Republican, suburbs. This process of manipulation is known as gerrymandering.

The prop is supported by a coalition including the Governor, CA Common Cause, and the CA Chamber of Commerce. It is opposed by the CA Democratic Party, which claims that the measure is actually a conspiracy by the Governor and oil companies to grab yet more power. They even provide a flow chart!

I must admit that I'm ambivalent about this one. Leaving legislators in charge of redistricting is a clear conflict of interest. Our current system has a kind of "honor among thieves" feeling to it, as voting blocks are carved up to suit incumbents. But I'm not entirely convinced that the system proposed in Prop 11 will be free from manipulation either. At least the current system is manipulated by elected representatives. If Prop 11 passes, who knows what kind of people will be put in charge of drawing our representative districts?

Your Political Friend was voting yes, but I've decided to change my vote to NO. I'm just not convinced that it's the right solution.

Prop 12 - Passed
This measure would provide for a bond issue of $900 million to Cal-Vet, a program that provides low-interest home and farm loans to CA veterans. The loans are paid back by the veterans at an interest rate that covers all program costs, including costs resulting from the sale of the bonds.
Despite the efficiency of the program, the state has occasionally needed to sell more bonds to fund it.

The program, which was started in 1921, is, by any measure, a success for our veterans and our state. Vote YES.

Archive - June 2008 Ballot

2008-06-18T16:02:00.000-07:00

Prop 98 - Failed!
Prop 98 rides on the wave of outrage after the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the government can use eminent domain to take land from one private citizen and give it to another. In that case, a city took property from one private owner and turned it over to a corporation as part of a larger redevelopment plan. Their justification was that the economic benefits to the city that would result from the redevelopment qualified it as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment. Eminent Domain had previously been invoked only to condemn blighted areas, or to make way for public roads or schools. Now, the Courts have declared, cities can transfer private property to another private owner if it “will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including, but not limited to, new jobs and tax revenue.” In other words, they can take your land if another owner will get them more money.

The threats imposed by the Kelo case are real, and proponents of Prop 98 are quick to play up the dangers inherent in its precedent. However, their initiative goes far beyond preventing a Kelo event in California. If approved, Prop 98 would drastically broaden the definition of eminent domain.

To start, it would allow a property owner to sue the state for any regulation that imposes costs on the owner, regardless of whether the regulated activity is a nuisance, a threat to public health or safety, or harmful to the environment. That means that any new consumer or environmental protection, however justified, would have to pass a test as to whether or not we can pay for all the lawsuits that would result in it's institution. In the case of endangered species, the question would not be, "how can we save this animal from extinction?", but would instead become, "can we afford the legal fees?" In the case of air quality, the state would have to pay polluters if it required them to pollute less.

Second, the initiative prohibits regulations that are enacted “in order to transfer an economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner.” In legal terms, one can argue that all regulation provides an economic benefit to some private person. Clean Air laws benefit businesses that make clean burning machines, and most zoning laws benefit certain property owners inside or outside the area. Depending on how the courts interpret the language, Prop 98 could prohibit regulations that protect our air, climate, coastal areas, and farms. It could also stymie efforts by city planners to create communities that encourage walking and public transit.

If this wasn’t enough, the proponents put in another provision that has become a lightning rod for its opponents. It would end rent control in California, and lower protections for existing renters in most counties. That means, if Prop 98 passes, we can expect to see a wave of evictions and increased rents throughout the state.

However you may feel about rent control, the fact is it has become vital to creating stable, diverse communities, and unrestrained increases in rent would cause serious hardship to our poor, elderly, and middle class. Some will argue that a tenant is free to simply move when the rent gets too high, but this attitude ignores the hardship of moving far from one's community and work, not to mention the expense of the move itself.

This measure was drafted by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and is supported by large property and agricultural interests. It is opposed by environmental organizations and unions.

It has become a tired metaphor, but this initiative is a Trojan Horse, rolling in on the promise of protecting us from greedy bureaucrats. Prop 98 conflates the issues, then offers a solution so intentionally vague that it will invite far worse problems than it solves. Your Political Friend strongly suggests that you vote NO.

Prop 99 - Passed
Prop 99 is a proposed Constitutional amendment that will do what Prop 98 does, but without all the hidden agendas. Here is how the amendment reads:

"The State and local governments are prohibited from acquiring by eminent domain an owner-occupied residence for the purpose of conveying it to a private person."

Still, the amendment allows the state to take property for the purposes of:
- protecting public health and safety
- preventing serious, repeated criminal activity
- responding to an emergency
- remedying environmental contamination that poses a threat to public health and safety.
- acquiring private property for a Public work or improvement.

As with Prop 98, the full import of this amendment will be determined by the courts when, and if, the issue is challenged. Opponents argue that the initiative is meaningless, since it still allows for the exceptions listed above. Furthermore, it will only apply to "an owner occupied residence" and won't protect commercial properties, rented residences, or farms.

The fact is that this initiative is on the ballot to address one problem- that posed by the Kelo v. City of New London case. It does nothing more than that, which makes it one of the most honest, transparent initiatives in years. As the Legislative Analyst points out, "this measure would not change significantly current government land acquisition practices."

In fact, the Prop might result in a savings,"because government could not acquire a home that the owner did not wish to sell", and isn't that what the opponents say they want?

It is supported by the same people that oppose Prop 98. Likewise, it's opposed by the Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc., et al.

If both Props 98 and 99 pass, only the one with more votes will succeed. Your Political Friend feels pretty good about voting YES on this one.

Archive - February 2008 Ballot

2008-02-20T00:00:00.000-08:00

Prop 91 - Failed

Here is how the argument in favor of Prop 91 reads: "As the official proponents of this measure, we are encouraging you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91...IT'S NO LONGER NEEDED."

In short, Prop 1A from last year's ballot (regarding the allocation of gasoline tax revenue) already settled this issue, so Prop 91 should not be on the ballot. Some bureaucratic snafu must have prevented its removal.

Vote NO, or YES. Flip a coin. It doesn't matter. Enjoy.

Prop 92 - Failed

Existing state law guarantees minimum funding for elementary, secondary schools, and community colleges (together known as K-14 education). The funding for community colleges is currently based on K-12 attendance. Prop 92, however, would change the funding formula to be based on the state's population of residents between 17 and 25. It would also increase funding any year that the state unemployment rate exceeds 5 percent (which has happened in 13 of the past 15 years).

The effect would be to remove the relationship between community college funding levels and actual enrollment, costing the state an estimated $300 million more per year, for the next two years. After that, the analysis predicts, Prop 92 would have no effect for the near future.

The measure would also reduce student fees, which are already the lowest in the country, and set up requirements that would almost guarantee that they are not raised for decades. Student fees, however, cover less than ten percent of the revenue to the community colleges (about $70 Million at current levels).

Finally, the measure would make changes to the way that the community colleges are managed.
Currently, the community colleges are operated by districts that are governed by locally elected Board of Trustees. They, in turn, are overseen by the state Board of Governors, which sets minimum standards, coordinates statewide programs, and appoints a chancellor. Prop 92 would increase the number of members of the Board of Governors from 17 to 19, and limit the pool of candidates from which the Governor can appoint people to the Board. In addition, the Board would acquire greater control over its budget.

The proposition is mostly supported by teachers' and school employees' unions, as well as a few construction companies, who probably expect the money to be spent on new buildings. And this is the problem that the opponents pounce on. There is no requirement that the money be spent on any particular need.

Here's the weird thing: the bill is supported by the CA Federation of Teachers, and opposed by the CA Teachers Association. I don't know enough about these groups to understand their different agendas.

Community Colleges serve some our neediest residents. Whatever money this measure will add to the college budget will be small, especially given the analyst's prediction that Prop 92 may not apply after two years. Still, I am unconvinced as to the efficacy of this particular measure.

The biggest problem with our state budget is the fact that state legislators have so little discretion. This initiative will only make that problem worse. If we are serious about education, we should take the politically unpopular step of reforming Prop 13, although I know that is unlikely.

I have changed my vote on this one twice already. For now, Your Political Friend is voting NO, although I won't be upset if it passes.

Prop 93 - Failed

Current term limits allow a person to serve a maximum of 14 years in the state Legislature (6 years in the Assembly, 8 years in the Senate). Prop 93 would reduce this maximum to 12 years, regardless of where that time is spent. Current members caught in the transition could serve the 12 years in addition to whatever years they have already spent in the Legislature.

Such a change would have no fiscal impact. Still, it is bitterly opposed by term limit advocates who seem to believe that every politician in office is there only for his own power hungry interests.

Personally, I have always been against term limits. Constituents should have the ability to elect whichever representative they damn well want, and for as long as they want. Furthermore, this bill would allow a representative to serve the full 12 years in the Assembly, for example, instead of forcing them to run for State Senate after only 6 years. Again, this is not a problem if that person's constituents want to keep their representative.

I agree with the opposition that the bill is an attempt by incumbent politicians to keep their jobs. However, unlike the opposition, I don't have a problem with it.

Your Political Friend recommends voting YES.

Prop 94-97 - Passed

Prop 94 is the first of four similar propositions dealing with the expansion of certain Indian casinos in San Diego and Riverside counties.

In 1999, most Indian tribes in the state signed an agreement, called a compact, that set the rules regarding Indian casinos, including labor relations, audits, and payments to the state. In 2006, the four of the tribes and Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated an amendment that allowed them to significantly expand their gambling operations, in return for paying more money to the state. They also signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that addressed casino operations, including a clause that would allow the state to garnish wages of casino employees for child support or back taxes (this was not previously allowed, as Indian reservations are sovereign nations).

Under the 1999 compact, the four tribes collectively pay about $76 Million per year into two funds that support other tribes without casinos, as well as gambling addition programs and grants to local cities affected by tribal casinos. Under Props 94-97 that amount would be raised to a minimum of $123 Million, with additional fees that would probably raise the amount to $675 Million, nearly all of which would be paid into the state's General Fund, making it available for all of California.

In 2007, however, several tribes and gambling interests decided to stop the deal by qualifying these four measures for the ballot. Their arguments come down to five points:

1) This is an unfair expansion of the wealthiest tribes interests, creating the largest casinos in the world. This is true- the current pact allows them a maximum of 2000 slot machines. Prop 94, for example, would let the Pechanga Tribe expand that to 7400 (consider that the MGM Hotel in Las Vegas has only half that number). Smaller tribes that are not allowed to expand, as well as non-tribal gambling interests would possibly see their revenues reduced.

2) The measure would erase accountability by allowing the tribes to audit themselves. This is possibly false. The props would have the audits performed by an independent accountant instead of state auditors. A copy of the audit would be provided to state regulators on a confidential basis. Since the propositions are not the actual 2006 agreements, I do not know who is responsible for choosing the auditor.

3) Casinos will no longer be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Any expansion must be backed up by an environmental report that the Indian tribes can conduct themselves. This is false. Currently, the tribes are not subject to CEQA requirements when building casinos. Instead, they must prepare a report on the significant negative environmental impacts of the project and make a "good faith effort" to reduce or avoid those impacts outside their reservation. Prop 94 would go further, requiring the Pechanga Tribe to negotiate an agreement with Riverside County in order to reduce or avoid those environmental impacts. The local government outside the reservation would also have to receive "reasonable compensation" for increased public service costs due to the casino such as public safety, traffic, and gambling addiction programs.

4) Casinos will receive a "fail safe" guarantee that punishes the State for permitting non-tribal gambling operations. This is true. If the state allows a non-tribal entity to operate slot machines or certain card games in a nearby area, the tribe's required payments would be reduced or eliminated. This is, essentially, the tribes' paying the state "protection" money.

5) By voting No on these props, we will force the state to negotiate a better deal. This may be true. One thing is certain, Governor Schwarzenegger negotiated the 2006 deal because the four tribes gave huge campaign contributions to him and many others in Sacramento. Although the deal may sound like a lot of money is going to the state, it is chump change compared to what the tribes will be keeping in profits.

I believe that we owe the Native Americans a good life, given our government's shameful history. However, these four tribes in question are not exactly suffering. What is more, any money they pay is offset by the fact that tribes do not pay any income or corporate taxes to the state.

In my opinion, the arguments against the measure outweigh the arguments for it. This issue isn't an emergency, so we should be sure that we're getting the best possible deal.

Your Political Friend recommends you vote No.

Archive - November 2006 Ballot

2006-11-29T16:07:00.000-08:00

Ok, not all the propositions on the ballot went the way I'd hoped. But, somehow, I just don't care. Richard Pombo LOST!!! Prop 90 LOST! Things are looking up.

Here is a summary of the props from November:

Prop 1A - PASSED
There are two kinds of taxes charged on gasoline. One is a “gas tax” (about 18 cents per gallon) that can only be spent on transportation projects. The other is a state sales tax (6 percent), which, until 2002, could be spent for purposes other than transportation.

In 2002, voters passed Prop 42, which required that the sales tax from gasoline must also be dedicated to transportation projects. However, it allowed the money to be used for general purposes when the state is in financial crisis. This has happened twice since 2003.

Prop 1a would essentially make it more difficult for the state to divert these sales tax revenues in the future. It limits the number of future diversions to twice in ten years, and prohibits any diversion of funds until all previous diversions have been paid off. It also requires that all diversions be paid back within three years (current law is five years).

I was against Prop 42, so my support for Prop 1a is a moot point. While I support the “gas tax” being used for transportation, I believe that the sales tax should stay in the General Fund. This is the case with the sales tax for everything else. So gasoline should be no different.
Plus, this prop is a Constitutional Amendment and, as such, deserves particular scrutiny. Should we really change our state’s charter for something like this? If passed, it will only limit our financial flexibility and that can’t be good. Vote NO.

Read the prop HERE.

PROP 1B - PASSED

This measure would allow the state to sell $20 Billion of general obligation bonds to fund transportation projects in these areas:

- Congestion reduction and Highway Improvements ($11.3 billion)
- Public Transportation ($4 billion)
- Goods Movement and Air Quality ($3.2 billion)
- Safety and Security ($1.5 billion)

Historically bonds were used to pay for major projects that last for at least a generation, under the theory that if it takes 30 years to pay off, the people here in 30 years should still be benefiting from it. That argument is crucial to rationalizing passing bonds, since, with interest costs, they end up costing $2 for every $1 spent.

The supporters of this measure claim that they are preparing this state for the future needs of our growing population, but most of the funding goes towards old solutions that are no longer feasible. The biggest chunk of money will be used to reduce congestion and increase capacity on state highways. But anyone living in Los Angeles, where the highways can't get any wider, can tell you that increasing capacity is a very short term solution. And where will we put all the new roads and highways?

We need drastic changes to our transportation system that include rethinking our city planning. This prop will not do that. Furthermore, it only gives $4 of the $20 billion to public transportation. That may seem like a lot, but statewide, it won't be much.

Prop 1B is possibly the most expensive bond measure in CA history. A cursory look at the funding behind the initiative brings up a long list of industries that are poised to make millions should it pass. This is "pay to play" budgeting, as usual. Vote NO.

Read it here.

PROP 1C - PASSED
This would allow the state to sell $2.85 billion in General Obligation bonds for the purpose of building low-income housing and emergency shelters for battered women.

Over half of the money is dedicated to developmental programs in urban areas and near public transportation. The programs would provide loans and grants for a variety of projects such as parks, water, sewage, transportation, and housing.

$625 million would be used to provide low-interest loans and grants to low and moderate income homebuyers. $590 million would provide similar loans and grants to local governments, nonprofits, and private developers to help fund construction of apartment buildings with units for low-income families. It will give priority to projects in already developed areas near existing public services and transportation. The remainder would go towards loans to develop homeless shelters and housing for farmworkers. The legislature would have the ability to reallocate much of these funds over time to ensure their effectiveness.

Since much of this money will be used for low-income loans, the price tag of this bond should be considerably less, as the loans are paid back. That makes this bond a better investment than most. Read it here. I'm voting YES.

p.s. My father has recently contacted me to urge that I vote No on this one. As a building contractor, he claims to have seen horrible abuses of the low-income housing system. I've included his comments in the comments section of this posting.

PROP 1D - PASSED
This would allow the state to sell $10.4 billion in General Obligation bonds to relieve public school overcrowding, repair older schools, and upgrade public college and university buildings. Some of the money will also be used to build new classrooms for state universities and community colleges.

Every year there is another bond measure to rebuild schools or libraries, and nearly every one passes. The state legislators put these on the ballot because everyone supports schools (and libraries). Over the past decade, we have approved $28.1 billion in state bonds for K-12 school facilities. About $3 billion remains to be spent (although we'll still be paying the debt for a long time).

In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98, which set a funding priority requiring that approximately 40 percent of all new tax revenue first be set aside for public education. If only they would pass a new tax, instead of throwing bonds at us every election. Vote NO.

PROP 1E - PASSED
This would authorize the state to sell $4.09 billion in General Obligation bonds to rebuild flood control structures and delta levees. $3 billion would go towards fixing levees and flood control systems in the Central Valley. The rest would fund local governments' flood control and stormwater management systems.

Earlier this year the state passed legislation to provide $500 million from the General Fund for emergency levee repairs and other flood control-related expenditures. That's how we should be paying for this.

Like the other props so far, most of the projects outlined in the funding are good and worthwhile. And I'll admit I was very tempted to vote yes on this one. However, there are redundancies between this one and Prop 84, and I like Prop 84 just a little bit more than this one. So I'll vote for that instead.

As a side note, I don't recall the state government bringing up our levees before Katrina made the things infamous. I may be cynical, but I wonder if this is a critical need, or an attempt to cash in on a tragedy. Either way, vote NO.

PROP 83 - PASSED
This proposition would introduce new restrictions and tougher punishment for sex offenders and child molesters. However, it is completely unnecessary. Nearly all of its provisions were signed into law a few weeks ago.

As the election draws near, legislators have been falling over each other to appear "tough on crime", and protecting children is the most politically appealing way to do it. The governor recently signed SB1128 which will increase the penalty for child rape to 25 years in prison. It will also allow possession of child pornography to be charged as a felony, extend prison sentences for Internet predators and lengthen parole terms for violent ex-felons to 10 years. Likewise, SB 1178 will require high risk sex offenders to wear electronic monitoring devices during their parole.

Republican legislators, frustrated that their version of this legislation didn't pass, put Prop 83 on the ballot, calling it "Jessica's Law" (after Jessica Lunsford, a nine-year-old who was killed by a sex offender who failed to register with the local police). This version differs from the legislation already passed in a few regards:

1) Under Proposition 83, all registered sex offenders would be required to undergo electronic monitoring for life, regardless of their offense or the likelihood that they will offend again. This would be true for non-violent offenders as well. It is a ridiculous waste of money.

2) The new legislation prohibits those convicted of a sex offence against a child from living within a quarter mile of a school (a half mile if the offender is high-risk). Prop 83 would expand the off limits area for low-risk offenders to 2000 feet around any school or park, and remove the requirement that the victim be a child.

3) Prop 83 would designate an offender as a Sexually Violent Predator after one victim, instead of two.

I am strongly opposed to legislation and initiatives that impose criminal sentences, as they take the independence and discretion away from the judges and prosecutors. That is why 1995 "Three Strikes Law" (Prop 184) has been such a disaster for the state.

The fact is that sex crimes against children are on the decline. More importantly, most child molestation is not done by a creepy new neighbor, but by a relative or family friend. This measure will do nothing to stop that from happening. Let us give the new legislation a chance, or perhaps we should try this. Either way, Vote NO.

PROP 84 - PASSED
Authorizes the state to issue $5.4 Billion in bonds for a variety of projects related to water resources - rivers, beaches, levees, watersheds, and parks and forests.

Here's how the funding breaks down:

$1,535 million - Safe drinking water, water quality and other water projects
$ 928 million - Protection of rivers, lakes, and streams
$ 800 million - Flood control
$ 580 million - Sustainable communities and climate change reduction
$ 540 million - Beaches, bays, and coastal water
$ 500 million - State parks and nature education & research
$ 450 million - Forests and wildlife conservation
$ 65 million - Statewide water management and planning

$1 billion would be divided among the twelve hydrologic regions in the state, which are identified in the California Water Plan, to address multi-regional needs and issues of statewide significance. Local projects that are already approved would be given priority in the
competitive process.

As I mentioned before, Prop 1E contained several similar water resource projects. But, overall, I think that Prop 84 is a better bill. Its priorities are forward thinking and will have long term benefits worth the debt. The measure contains additional safeguards:

These funds must result in a public benefit with preference for multi-benefit programs and projects, and services to underserved communities
Every proposed activity or project to be financed must be in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
Acquisitions of real property for any project will be from willing sellers
Not more than 5% of the funds can be used for administration

Read it here. Vote Yes.

PROP 85 - FAILED
This prop amends the state constitution to bar abortions for minors until 48 hours after parental notification. It makes exemptions for medical emergency, or judicial waiver.

Unlike the US Constitution, California’s charter explicitly guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. As a result abortion opponents have been unable to pass a parental notification law that passes constitutional muster. In 1996 a law of this sort was struck down by the state Supreme Court. In its decision the Chief Justice acknowledged that parents have the right to make most medical decisions for their children. However, he said, “because the decision whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy has such a substantial effect on a pregnant minor’s control over her personal bodily integrity, has such serious long-term consequences in determining her life choices, is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life..., we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution...”

So the people behind Prop 85 decided to change the constitution. Led by a Catholic newspaper publisher in San Diego, they have crafted an amendment that would remove this right to privacy for minors. The prop would not require parental consent, only notification.

I’ll admit that the prop may sound reasonable, especially when I ask myself how I would feel if my own daughter were seeking an abortion. I would want to know. However, I also believe that we cannot legislate family harmony, and we cannot assume to know the conditions under which a young woman must make her choices.

This prop is nearly identical to last year's failed Prop 73. The main difference is the removal of a definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." It is an obvious attempt to eliminate women's access to safe and legal abortions. Vote NO.

Want to see for yourself? Here's the text.

PROP 86 - FAILED
This initiative would impose an excise tax of $2.60 on each pack of cigarettes sold in the state. The money would be used to fund a variety of health programs including emergency services, cancer research, and health care for the poor and uninsured.

The official analysis estimates that this tax would initially raise about $2.1 Billion, and decline as more people stop smoking. Some of the money would be used to backfill child development programs started by 1998's Prop 10, which would lose money as fewer cigarettes are sold. Almost half of the remaining funds would go towards paying hospitals for uncompensated costs for services to the poor and uninsured. The rest would go towards expanding the state's Healthy Families Program, anti-smoking outreach programs, and disease research. An additional provision would exempt approved hospitals from antitrust laws by allowing them to coordinate certain services with other hospitals.

My main concern about this measure is that it will hurt the poor far worse than anyone else. When you consider that a pack of cigarettes costs about $4 (87 cents of which is tax), $6.60 is an exorbitant increase. Those with the money will either absorb the cost or buy their cigarettes online. Others will turn to smugglers, whose business will surely grow if this passes. Furthermore, the expected drop in consumption of tobacco will hurt many small businesses.

On the other hand California taxpayers are paying about $8.6 billion annually in health care costs related to smoking. According to the California Department of Health Services, California is losing at least $1.5 billion each year in productivity due to smoking-related illnesses. Smoking remains the number one cause of preventable death and disease, as it kills 42,000 people in this state every year.

I don't smoke, but I know many people who do and I am loath to tell them what they can and can't do to their own bodies. But, if this proposition can accomplish its stated goal of reducing and preventing smoking among teens, perhaps the insult will be justified.

The main sponsor of this measure is a group called the CA Hospitals Committee on Issues, which is run by the CA Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. The main opponent is, of course, Philip Morris. Both sides completely overstate their arguments. Ignore anything they tell you and stick to the facts. Your Political Friend will be voting Yes.

PROP 87 - FAILED
California is the third largest oil producing state in the country, with a current output of 230 million barrels per year. Oil producers pay a fee of 6.2 cents per barrel in addition to local property taxes.

This proposition would establish a severance tax on oil production, although the exact amount of the tax is unclear. Depending on the final interpretation, it will vary between 1.5 and 6.0 percent of the gross value, which would generate between $225 and $485 million annually. This would be used to fund a $4 billion program with the goal of reducing petroleum consumption in the state by 25%. The money would go towards research and production incentives for alternative energy, alternative energy vehicles, energy efficient technologies, and education and training. No more than 2.5% of revenue can be used for administrative costs, and the severance tax would expire once the state has spent the $4 billion.

Of all the props on the ballot, this one has gotten the most attention, mostly because the oil industry is spending millions to defeat it. They are especially vexed by a portion of the measure that would prohibit them from passing the tax along to consumers.

The oil companies are pulling out any argument against this bill, but they all ring hollow. The fact is we must set ourselves on a path away from oil dependency. And, after a summer in which California based Chevron Corp. posted record quarterly profits of $4.4 BILLION, the oil companies can afford to share the cost. Vote YES.

PROP 88 - FAILED
This prop would institute a $50 per-parcel property tax, the proceeds of which would go to K-12 schools. The money (about $450 million) would fund class reduction, textbooks, school safety programs, facility grants, and data systems. $30 million would be transferred annually to the General Fund to offset a projected decline in income tax revenue (due to increased property tax deductions). No more than $1 million can be used for county administration of the parcel tax.

The way it is now, all property taxes are imposed by local governments. This would be the first property tax imposed by the state. The measure exempts senior and disabled homeowners from the tax. However, one problem with Prop 88 is that it locks in spending for programs that may or may not be needed by a school district (some may need textbooks, but would be required to spend the money on after school programs). Also $85 million would go to an "Academic Success" grant that would benefit charter schools that serve no more than 3.2% of the state's students.

Thanks to 1978's Prop 13, which reduced property taxes by 57%, California ranks 35th in per-pupil spending. This measure would bump us all the way up to 34th.

The strangest part about this prop is that its backers have stopped supporting it. Many teachers say that it does not raise anything close to what is needed. It's main sponsor Edvoice Inc., a Mill Valley-based independent expenditure committee, has decided to shift it's money into promoting Prop 1D.

I agree that this proposal is a pittance compared to what is needed. But, unlike the many bond measures, it does not involve deficit spending. And it will likely do more good than harm. That's a lot more than I can say for most propositions. I'll vote yes. But I won't be sad when it fails. Here's a good summary.

PROP 89 - FAILED
This proposition would institute a system in which candidates for state office may receive public campaign funding, paid for by a 0.2 percent increase in the corporate tax rate. Candidates applying for the funding must demonstrate popular support by collecting a certain number of $5 contributions (750 for assembly races, up to 25,000 for Governor). Once a candidate has accepted public financing, he can not receive any private donations, other than money from his party, which would also be limited by this measure. Those choosing to forgo public financing can collect private money, as they do today, although the limits on donations from individuals, lobbyists, and corporations will be much lower.

This proposition comes in response to the overwhelming corruption in evidence in our government. Campaign financing today is, essentially, legalized bribery. Candidates receive campaign donations for which they are expected to deliver favors once they get into office.

But imagine if those donations came from the taxpayers? Imagine if the elected official was obligated to deliver favors to us instead of special interests?

The courts have already ruled that private money is a form of speech, and as such, cannot be eliminated from the process. This measure is a brilliant solution. By making the public financing voluntary, wealthy candidates can still run their own campaigns, while those typically left out of the process will be able to run a credible race. The system is already in place in Arizona and Maine, with scaled down versions in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Massachusetts. It has brought diversity to to the process and allowed candidates more time to meet with their actual constituents instead of constantly seeking donors.

This measure is tested, it is reasonable, and it is overdue. Think of it as an investment in democracy. It was put on the ballot by the California Nurses Association. It is opposed by a coalition of business interests. Read more about it HERE.

Full disclosure: I have given money (about $100) to the CA Clean Money Coalition, one of the proponents of this initiative.

PROP 90 - FAILED
This constitutional amendment would require the state to pay property owners if it passes any laws that result in economic losses to the property. It would also limit the government's ability to take land through eminent domain (aka "condemnation").

The initiative rides on the wave of outrage after the 2005 US Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. City of New London, in which the court ruled that the government can use eminent domain to take land from one private citizen and give it to another. In that case, a city took property from one private owner and turned it over to a corporation as part of a larger redevelopment plan. Their justification was that the economic benefits to the city that would result from the redevelopment qualified it as a "public use" under the Fifth Amendment.

This ruling was rightfully seen as an attack on private property rights. In response, Prop 90 would prohibit any land taken by eminent domain from being transfered to private use. It would also make it more difficult for a city to condemn an entire neighborhood, and would increase the compensation that the government must pay owners when it takes a property.

So far, the measure seems somewhat reasonable. But it is, in fact, a deadly Trojan Horse.

If passed, this proposition would require the state to compensate any property owner that is negatively effected by any new law or regulation. According to the analysis, "these laws and rules could include requirements relating, for example, to employment conditions, apartment prices, endangered species, historical preservation, and consumer financial protection." That means that any new consumer or environmental protection we consider, however justified, would have to pass a test as to whether or not we can pay for all the lawsuits that would result in it's institution. In the case of endagered species, the question would not be, "how can we save this animal from extinction?", but would instead become, "can we afford the legal fees?" In the case of air quality, the state would have to pay polluters if it required them to pollute less.

The predictable result is that most new protections will simply be abandoned, and that is exactly what the backers of this prop are counting on. This tactic has been a hallmark of the "wise use" movement, as well as "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA. It is a preemptive strike on our ability to protect ourselves in a changing world.

To downplay this concern, the proponents included some basic exemptions for situations involving public safety or a declared state of emergency. But they are vaguely written, and would likely be challenged in court.

Montanans In Action put up $600,000 to get this on the ballot. But the organization is actually a front group for a libertarian think tank called Americans for Limited Government (which gave an additional $1 million). It's chairman is the New York real estate magnate Howard Rich, who has funded dozens of astroturf organizations intent on promoting private property rights to the detriment of all other concerns.

Our government must have the flexibility to respond to changing conditions in the environment and the workplace. We cannot allow businesses to tell us when we can and cannot protect ourselves. And we certainly do not owe compensation to those who would damage our health and our environment.

Read the prop HERE.
Then throw up.
Then vote NO, NO, NO.

Archive - Pombo the Jackass

2006-11-15T16:06:00.000-08:00

After DeLay, the biggest cancer in the US Congress is Richard Pombo, Republican from California's 11th District. The Center for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington recently named him "one of the 13 most corrupt members of congress". And that's not only because of his connection to Jack Abramoff and Charles Hurwitz (the Texas S&L baron who is using his Maxxam Corp. to liquidate the old growth Headwaters Forest). This guy has an almost psychotic zeal for attacking anything that might protect the environment. And he's known for pushing legislation that would directly enrich himself and his family.

Thanks to tremendous grassroots work, he lost! But he is using the lame duck session to attempt to rush through the worst environmental legislation, including "reforming" the Endangered Species Act. He must feel that this is his destiny somehow, like Martin Sheen in The Dead Zone. We can't allow him to do this.

I am happy to link to a site that is dedicated to stopping him- SayNoToPombo. Please take a look at just how bad this guy is.

Archive - June 2006 ballot

2006-07-26T12:16:00.000-07:00

PROP 81 - PASSED

This proposition would allow the state to issue bonds for $600 Million to provide funds for the construction and renovation of public library facilities. Local agencies that apply for funding would be required to pay 35% of the project cost. Funds may not be used for administrative or operational costs.

In 2000 voters approved a similar measure which gave $350 million to fund library projects. However, of the 105 eligible applications that were submitted, only 45 were funded. Prop 81 would grant priority to these outstanding applications.

The problems with this bond are not in the substance (everyone supports libraries), but in the process (bonds). The state simply cannot afford more debt, and general obligation bonds are the worst way to incur it. By the time it is paid off, a $600 million bond will have cost another $570 million in interest. Additionally, bonds drain money from the state's General Fund, which is already saddled with so many obligations that legislators' discretionary control of state spending is ridiculously low. We are becoming a government by referendum in which our state representatives are little more than glorified bureaucrats.

Nearly every year there is another bond measure to rebuild schools or libraries, and nearly every one passes. The state legislators do this because, as I said, everyone supports libraries (and schools). And with each bond we sink deeper in debt, and more of the General Fund is diverted. We cannot continue to borrow for what should be today's priorities. Vote NO.

Read it here.

As a side note, I want to distance myself from the main opponents to this porposition, notably the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the National Tax Limitation Committee. These people are knee-jerk opponents to any kind of public spending. But what is worse is their particular argument in this case. They repeatedly claim that the state won't spend money on libraries because it has redirected that money to "illegal alien welfare"and "reduced college tuition for illegal aliens". This argument is race-baiting and it's despicable.

PROP 82 - FAILED

Prop 82 would make public preschool available on a voluntary basis to all four year old children in CA, beginning in 2010. It would also create new curriculum standards (to be set by the state), as well as staff ratios of one credentialed teacher and one aide for every twenty students.

Teacher qualification requirements would be greatly increased under the proposal. Currently, state pre-school teachers must have at least 40 units of college (about 1.25 years) and 24 units of Early Childhood Education (ECE). If Prop 82 passes, teachers will need a college degree and full ECE certification. However, salaries and benefits for pre-school teachers would be raised to the level of teachers in the K-12 system (currently around $76,000). Collective bargaining rights would also be extended to all employees working under the new preschool program, including those working for private preschools.

The measure would be paid for by an additional tax on individual incomes above $400K (or $800K for couples). This would give California the highest state Personal Income Tax rate in the country.

The state estimates that 62% of the state's 4-year olds already attend some kind of preschool. Of those, about half are served by current state and federal programs such as CA preschool, CA General Child Care, and Federal Head Start.

This means that we would be raising about $2.5 billion per year for a program that is at least 62% redundant. And, since the program would be voluntary, the state estimates participation rates of no more than 70 percent (it estimates another 10% would stay in private preschool).

There is more than enough research to prove that preschool helps prepare children for K-12 education. It lowers drop-outs, and even reduces crime. All kids should have access to it. I really wanted to support this proposition because so many people I respect have endorsed it. In general, I support more funding for education, and I strongly believe the rich should pay more taxes than they do. But the particulars of this proposal are just wrong. Sadly, I'm voting NO.

Read the proposition for yourself.

Archive - November 2005 Ballot

2005-11-24T14:28:00.000-08:00

The best thing that could have happened actually did. Voters rejected the entire slate of Propositions. The Governor, who insisted on holding this special election, costing the state over $55 million, has had to apologize. Personally, I think he should reimburse us for what was entirely his fault. Although I had voted yes on the last two Props, they were not enthusiastic endorsements. All state Propositions these days are flawed, and these were not exceptions. Here are my summaries of the Propositions of November 2005:

Prop 73 - FAILED Amends the state constitution to bar abortions for minors until 48 hours after parental notification. Makes exemptions for medical emergency, or judicial waiver. Unlike the US Constitution, California’s charter explicitly guarantees an individual’s right to privacy. As a result abortion opponents have been unable to pass a parental notification law that passes constitutional muster. In 1996 a law of this sort was struck down by the state Supreme Court. In its decision the Chief Justice acknowledged that parents have the right to make most medical decisions for their children. However, he said, “because the decision whether to continue or terminate her pregnancy has such a substantial effect on a pregnant minor’s control over her personal bodily integrity, has such serious long-term consequences in determining her life choices, is so central to the preservation of her ability to define and adhere to her ultimate values regarding the meaning of human existence and life..., we conclude that a minor who is pregnant has a protected privacy interest under the California Constitution...” So the people behind Prop 73 decided to change the constitution. Led by a pair of registered nurses (and funded by a Catholic newspaper publisher in San Diego), they have crafted an amendment that would remove this right to privacy for minors. Note: the prop would not require parental consent, only notification. I’ll admit that the prop sounds reasonable, especially when I ask myself how I would feel if my own daughter were seeking an abortion. I would want to know. However, I also believe that we cannot legislate family harmony, and we cannot assume to know the conditions under which a young woman must make her choices. The decision to have a child must be made with the same maturity as the decision to end a pregnancy. In this I agree with the Chief Justice. There are some matters in which we must treat people as adults regardless of our own beliefs. As Your Political Friend, I suggest you vote NO. Want to see for yourself? Here's the text.

Prop 74 - FAILED This is the first of five initiatives backed by the Governor. Prop 74 seeks to increase the initial probationary period for teachers from two to five years. It would also modify the process by which the school board can fire a tenured teacher. This measure is primarily opposed by The Alliance for a Better California, a coalition of teachers, nurses, cops, and service employees. In case you haven’t been paying attention, Schwarzenegger has spent much of his short time in office publicly attacking these people. Several of his proposed initiatives (one aimed at privatizing public employee pensions, another at raising patient to nurse ratios) raised such protest and media scrutiny that he was forced to shelve them. It seems that he took the whole thing personally. As a result, this entire special election is a testament to his disdain for unions and the political trouble they’ve caused him. The proposition itself is a head scratcher. Why is it on the ballot at all? The proposed changes seem too small and incremental to justify a state referendum. The savings, if any, appear negligible. What is more, the Legislative Analyst says that it will likely increase evaluation costs. So why do we need it? The answer comes when we look at it from the other side. Teachers who are on probation have much less bargaining power than tenured teachers. This measure will keep new teachers fearful and obedient for an additional three years. Everyone knows our schools are inefficient. But are the teachers to blame? The supporters of this prop tell us a horror story about a school district that "spent more than $100,000 in legal fees and $25,000 to resign". They don't mention specifics, but do they really expect us to get upset over a $25K payoff when UC Regents make more than $350,000 and thousands of school bureaucrats and consultants make six-figures? And how many jobs do you know of that require a five year probationary period? And why can't supporters provide data demonstrating that this would improve student performance (assuming this Prop is intended to help the students)? Something just smells wrong with this one. Read the text for yourself and vote NO.

Prop 75 - FAILED Prohibits public employee unions from using membership dues for political purposes except with the prior written consent of individual employees each year. This proposition is vile. Presented to voters as “Paycheck Protection” it declares that public employees are being mistreated by their unions which spend membership dues on political candidates whom the employee might not want to support. The argument in favor says that they just want to protect workers’ rights. And it’s signed by Milton Friedman. Milton Friedman, the Godfather of the Neo-Conservative movement, does not give a rat’s ass about workers. He has spent his career chipping away at protections for the environment, worker safety, and public health. He has hailed “free trade” agreements such as NAFTA and GATT, knowing that they give workers less self-determination and security. No, the point of this initiative is to make it more expensive and difficult for unions to engage in political speech. And you don’t help workers by silencing their unions. This proposition would be fair if Schwarzenegger were proposing the same for corporations, which routinely spend shareholders’ money on political purposes without their consent. Even the auto club, AAA, lobbies for legislation that would deeply offend many of their members, if they were ever informed of these activities. The fact is that unions are, by their nature, political organizations, as are corporations. To limit the abilities of one is to give the other an unfair advantage. And corporations already have a dramatic head start over unions. In the 2004 election, business interests outspent unions in political contributions at an approximate rate of 15-to-1. The initiative is also supported by the National Taxpayer Limitation Committee. It’s opposed by the Alliance for a Better California. Read it for yourself. Then vote NO.

Prop 76 - FAILED In 1979 the state established an overall spending limit that grows according to the state's population and economy. Because of the economic recession in 2001, our current spending is actually less than what the established formula allows. This prop would establish a second spending limit based on prior year expenditures and revenues. It would also set side a "rainy day" reserve when revenues exceed average growth. That all sounds good. But the proposition gets complicated from there. The way things are now, every year the state budgets a certain amount of money for schools. This is called a "minimum funding guarantee". When the state pays less than this minimum, the shortfall is called a "maintenance factor", and must be paid back to the schools over time (our current "maintenance factor" is $3.8 billion). When the state allocates more than the minimum, however, that extra amount is added onto the budget for the next year, and it remains as an additional obligation. This is also true for when the Maintenance Factor is paid back. It's like this – you send your credit card company more than the minimum payment due. But, instead of lowering your balance, they add that overpayment to next year's debt. Prop 76 would change this. Under the measure, future spending over the minimum guarantee would be counted as "one-time" funding and would no longer raise the minimum guarantee amounts. Likewise, the outstanding $3.8 billion "maintenance factor" would also become a one-time payment, and would not raise the minimum. In many ways, this is a reasonable change. The state should not be punished next year for being generous this year. Nor should it be punished for paying back its debts. The teachers, however, warn that this is a budget cut. In some ways it is. By converting the $3.8 billion to a one-time payment, schools will be losing the raise in the "base" funding caused by the debt's repayment. Additionally, the effect of this proposition over time would be to lower the minimum guarantee relative to current law. But the main ingredient that has people worried is a provision that would grant the Governor new powers to unilaterally reduce state spending. According to the plan, the Governor can "declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration's fiscal estimates". So, conceivably, Schwarzenegger would be able to make up vastly inflated "fiscal estimates", then declare an "emergency" when the state's economy doesn't match up. Upon this declaration, the legislature must meet in a special session to decide how to address the shortfall (imaginary or not). If an agreement is not made within 45 days, the Governor can reduce spending at his discretion. Except for a few obligations required by Federal law, the Governor can select any state expenditure, including "any General Fund spending related to contracts, collective bargaining agreements, or entitlements…" So the unions and the poor are well justified in their distrust of Schwarzenegger's motives. As a result, I cannot shake the suspicion that this prop is a well-crafted Trojan Horse. It is deeply frustrating to see so many proposals, which seem to have merit, being used to hide what appears to be a sinister intent. If only the voters had the line item veto. As your political friend, I must suggest that you deny its many charms and vote NO. Read, if you dare.

Prop 77 - FAILED Every ten years, after the national census, voting districts in California are redrawn (aka redistricted) according to changes in population. Currently, redistricting plans are included in legislation that is passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Any disputes between the Governor and Legislature are decided by the state Supreme Court. This proposition would change the process so that a panel of three retired judges would be appointed to develop the state redistricting plan. This plan would then be presented to the voters for approval. If approved, the plan would be used until the next redistricting is required. If rejected, another panel would be appointed to prepare a new plan to be presented to voters at the next general election. But, according to this proposal, the state would be redistricted BEFORE the very election in which we vote on whether or not to approve the redistricting plan. Furthermore, if we reject the plan, the people who were just elected through the now-irrelevant redistricting plan would actually stay in office until the next election. For those not familiar with the politics behind redistricting, be aware that political parties can gain or lose power depending upon how the voting districts are drawn. For example, a large urban population of Democrats can lose representation if their voting district is cut up and incorporated into the surrounding, mostly Republican, suburbs. This process of manipulation is known as gerrymandering. Supporters tell us that the redistricting process needs to be taken out of the hands of politicians. That's fine, but this plan would put the process into the hands of voters who, let's face it, don't always understand the issue they're being asked to decide (unlike you, most voters don't have a Political Friend). Any future redistricting plans would likely be decided, not upon their merit, but upon their advertising budget. This proposition would also require that a new redistricting plan be completed immediately, instead of waiting until the next census. There is no explanation for this apparent urgency. Of course, it does not take much imagination to see this as an attempt by the Governor to draw more Republican-friendly districts going into the 2006 election. Should we change the Constitution to allow him this power? Read for yourself and vote NO.

Prop 78 - FAILED The state and federal governments run several programs to provide prescription drug coverage to low and moderate income families. Prop 78, known as Cal Rx, is an attempt to assist the millions of Californians who do not qualify for these programs, yet still cannot afford health coverage. The initiative would create a discount prescription drug program for all individuals earning less than $28,000 (or $56,000 for a family of four) who do not already have private or state health benefits. However, in order to evaluate Prop 78, one must compare it with its competing initiative, Prop 79. The Voters Guide even provides a side-by-side comparison chart. They're similar in many ways, so take care not to confuse the two. Prop 79, known as Cal Rx Plus, would expand the program to individuals earning less than $38,000 ($77,000 for a family of four). It would also extend the discount program to people with medical expenses at or above 5 percent of their family’s income. Both Props assign the Department of Health Services to administer the program. The costs for these activities (estimated in the low tens of millions annually) would be borne mostly by the state's General Fund. The main difference between the two props is in the way that the state may negotiate the drug discounts. Prop 78 negotiates voluntary rebates from the drug manufacturers. This means that there is no guarantee of actual savings, because there is no penalty to the drug companies if they don't come through with the discounts. In 2001 California attempted a similar program, Golden Bear State Pharmacy, which only sought voluntary rebates from the manufacturers. The drug companies refused to participate and the program was never implemented. Prop 79, on the other hand, will use Medi-Cal as a carrot to convince the drug companies to participate. If they don't, the state is directed to end any Medi-Cal contracts it might have with that company. Exceptions would exist for drugs with no equivalent drug available. Proponents of Prop 78 often point to Ohio's Best Rx program as the successful model on which their prop is based. However, 90% of the discounts in that program come from pharmacies, not from manufacturer rebates. Only 8% of the discount can be attributed to manufacturer rebates. Prop 78 is sponsored by The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a trade group representing 48 of the leading US Pharmaceutical companies. They have dumped more than $80 Million into convincing us to support their initiative, and reject 79. If both pass, only the one with the most votes will prevail. Prop 78 will cost the state millions, but provide only small changes, many of which will probably never go into effect, due to their voluntary basis. If Prop 79 were not on the ballot, I would recommend you vote "yes", since it probably will not do any harm. But, given the likelihood that both Props will pass, I think Prop 79 deserves a chance over 78. I'm voting NO.

Prop 79 - FAILED Currently, the state's drug assistance programs require that pharmacies, not drug manufacturers, give the discounted price as a condition of the pharmacy's participation in the Medicaid program. In 2001 an additional program was created to add discounts from drug manufacturers. This program, however, only sought voluntary rebates from the manufacturers. The drug companies did not participate and the program was never implemented. Prop 79 would use Medi-Cal as a way to force the drug companies to offer these discounts. Medi-Cal currently has a list of preferred drugs that doctors may prescribe to Medi-Cal patients without prior approval. Though the drug companies sell their drugs to Medi-Cal at a reduced cost, preferred status can be very lucrative (inclusion in the Medi-Cal program currently earns drug companies more than $4 billion annually). Prop 79 says that any drug company which does not participate in the new program will be prevented from contracting with Medi-Cal. This provision would not apply to a drug if there were not an equivalent drug available. But Prop 79 is not a perfect solution either. Two of its provisions aren't so great. The first is that it would create a new nine-member Prescription Drug Advisory Board "to review the access that state residents have to prescription drugs", and "to provide advice and regular reports on drug pricing issues..." The creation of any new bureaucracy plays squarely into the hands of the opposition, who warn of waste and redundancy. There is no estimate given for what this panel will cost. Second, the Prop would change state law to make it a civil violation for drug companies to engage in profiteering from the sale of prescription. Profiteering, by definition, includes demanding "an unconscionable price" for a drug. This sounds great, however, the description of what would qualify as profiteering is vague. Furthermore, any citizen, not just the Attorney General, would be able to file a lawsuit against a drug company for breach of this provision. The opposition warns of a flood of frivolous lawsuits. My guess is that it was put in to protect against the drug companies' possible retaliation by raising prices across the market (I haven't read that anywhere, it's just a suspicion). Still, in my opinion, neither of these additions qualifies as a "poison pill". If we are to have any discount drug program, Prop 79 has a much better chance of being effective than Prop 78. Despite its flaws I offer Prop 79 my tempered support. Vote YES and hope for the best. Prop 79 is backed by the Alliance for a Better California and Health Access. It is also endorsed by AARP. But there's really no way that I can express the full complexity of these initiatives. If you want to know more, I strongly recommend you read the most thorough comparison I've found HERE.

Prop 80 - FAILED Most Californians receive their electricity from Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) such as PG&E, and Southern California Edison. These companies are regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). In 1996 the CPUC began the process of deregulating electric companies so that rates, in theory, would be determined by a competitive market. The process was halted in 2001 due to the energy crisis and scandal brought about by Enron, among others. Prop 80 is an attempt to reinstate regulatory controls on electricity providers. First, it would require that IOUs procure new electricity primarily from "cost-effective" energy efficiency and conservation programs before turning to traditional sources such as fossil fuel burning power plants. Second, it would require all electricity providers to "show that they are able to meet peak demand with adequate reserves to ensure system reliability". Third, it would require that power plants draw 20 percent of their total supply from renewable sources by 2010. Incidentally, all three of these requirements are already CPUC policy, though they are not required by law. The Prop would, however, require that companies continue to expand the proportion of renewable energy sources by one percent per year. Current law allows companies to stop at twenty percent. There is another type of energy provider in California called an Electric Service Provider (ESP), which is not regulated by the CPUC. They serve power directly to customers who choose not to buy from the utility in their area. These customers tend to be large businesses or community aggregates. After the energy crisis, the state placed a hold on individual customers entering into direct access service. Prop 80 would continue this ban, as well as place ESPs under the regulatory control of the CPUC. The costs of this initiative are small and would depend upon the amount of additional enforcement carried out by the CPUC. These costs would be paid by electricity customers, as they are now. The initiative's main proponent is a consumer protection organization called The Utility Reform Network (TURN). Ironically, it is opposed by another progressive organization called The Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies (CEERT). The rift exists over the provision that would prohibit individual consumers from switching to an ESP. They warn it will diminish the chances for independent power generators, many of whom use renewable sources, from breaking into the market. Personally, I believe that energy is an essential service too important to be left to the changes of a competitive market. Deregulation, to the extent it was implemented in California, has been a disaster. One of its more damaging aspects was to shift regulatory authority from the state to the federal level, where legislators don't always have California's interests in mind. Of course, one must look at the funding. Prop 80 is supported by the Alliance for a Better California. It is opposed by Californians for Reliable Electricity, a coalition of energy producers including Mirant Services Llc., one of the leading conspirators in the California energy crisis. The coalition also includes Calpine and Constellation Energy Group, both of whom have paid millions of dollars to settle allegations of price gouging in California. These companies have shown nothing but disdain for California's consumers, environment, and security. How, then, can we take their claims against Prop 80 seriously? As Your Political Friend, I suggest you read it and decide for yourself. I'm voting YES.