Election Day is tomorrow, so here's a repeat posting of my traditional recommendations about how to vote on California's ballot initiatives. As usual, keep in mind a couple of things:
- I don't like ballot initiatives because they lock things into the state constitution that shouldn't usually be locked in. So my standards are high for a Yes vote.
- I especially hate ballot-box budgeting. It's a cancer.
- I believe the point of ballot initiatives is to give grass roots activists a chance to pass legislation opposed by moneyed interests. However, modern initiatives are largely the handiwork of corporations and the ultra-wealthy. I will almost never vote for an initiative sponsored primarily by businesses or billionaires.
That noted, here are my recommendations:
Proposition 2: NO. This is a school bond initiative. There's not much harm if you want to vote Yes, but I'm opposed to all bond measures, especially small-bore stuff like this that ought to funded out of the normal budget.
Proposition 3: YES. This protects same-sex marriage in the state constitution. It's not really necessary, but it's best to be sure, I guess.
Proposition 4: NO. Water bonds.
Proposition 5: YES. Allows local communities to approve housing and infrastructure bonds with a 55% majority instead of the current two-thirds. This change can only be made via initiative, so this is the way to do it.
Proposition 6: YES. This is an odd duck. It bans prisons from requiring inmates to work—aka ENDING SLAVERY, as its backers put it. I'm not sure this is quite the moral issue of our time, but there's no opposition even from conservatives. So sure.
Proposition 32: NO. This would raise the minimum wage slightly, from about $16.50 to $18, and index it to inflation. But the minimum wage is already indexed to inflation in California and the $1.50 increase itself doesn't strike me as anywhere near important enough for a ballot initiative. Let the legislature handle it.
Proposition 33: NO. This is yet another initiative from Michael Weinstein that would widely allow rent control in California. But California doesn't need rent control. It needs more housing, something that rent control would hurt, not help.
Proposition 34: NO. This is ostensibly a measure about prescription drug discounts. In fact, it's a punitive measure aimed solely at Michael Weinstein from folks who are tired of his rent control initiatives. Whether you love Michael Weinstein or hate him, this is preposterous.
Proposition 35: NO. This would extend a tax on health insurers that provides extra money for Medi-Cal payments to health workers. That's fine, although the tax will get extended regardless. But it would also designate which health workers get more money—and those groups are different from the ones who are set to get money in the state budget. In other words, this is basically a fight between different big health care providers and I'm not excited about this kind of ballot box budgeting. If the legislature was clearly acting in bad faith to divert funding, that would be one thing. But it's not.
Proposition 36: NO. This would repeal a reduction in penalties for certain drug and theft crimes that was passed a decade ago. It's a dumb, panicky, "tough-on-crime" measure based on a nonexistent crime wave supposedly sweeping California. There isn't one. The old reforms were good ones and we should keep them.
Turns out we are of the same mind not just on hating ballot initiatives, but on these specific issues. My votes match your recommendations exactly.
I'm gonna have to disagree with you about the anti-bond measure stance in general—and especially for schools. We need way more funding for schools and infrastructure to keep California even reasonably close to competitive.
The problem is, we're not writing on a clean slate. The most obvious tool for raising money for schools in the U.S. -- local property taxes -- has been kneecapped by Prop 13 since 1978. Ballot box budgeting is bad, but ballot box tax limitations are worse.
At this point, approving school bonds is about the only way, practically, to get the money schools need. And unfortunately it's similar for other forms of necessary infrastructure. The payback periods are too long, there's all kinds of reasons why this borrowing stinks, but the alternative is worse because California simply is not capable of building what needs to be built out of general funds.
Bonds result in less funding over time.
Cool, then it should be no problem to raise taxes slightly? Right?
The 30’s propositions were really confusing and Kevin’s recommendations helped me a lot.
Kevin, my understanding is that bonds like 2 and 4 require voter approval - the legislature is constitutionally forbidden from issuing more than $300,000 in debt without a 2/3 majority in both houses + voter approval (Article 16, CA constitution). https://ballotpedia.org/Article_XVI,_California_Constitution. I don't think they can do it alone - does that change your stance on 2 and 4?
Yeah, they have to put it on the ballot.
But... this actually puts less money into the system over time because of the lock in of rates.
I only pay attention to the props put forward by the legislature. All others are an automatic No. Every now and then I'll look at them if warranted (like the same-sex marriage one a few cycles ago).
Based on what Crissa said above I'm going to have to look closer at the Bond measures in the future. I understand bonds have to go in front of votes, however I would like our elected officials do a little more work in funding things in budgets.
Prop 3 was added because 2008's Prop 8 banned gay marriage. Prop 8 was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court but if they decide, like Roe v. Wade, to reverse the decision then Prop 8 would become active again. This one is needed to preempt that possibility.
I'm generally against bond measures because:
- legislators find it easier to pass the buck to property owners rather than raise taxes on the general public
- about half the public doesn't feel the full brunt of the consequences of these bond measures
- the cost is hidden in rents, making it difficult for renters to discern the cost of their choices
That doesn't mean I don't support the causes of these bond measures. It's just that I'm not thrilled about how they raise funds for them.
Although the picture is very far from clear, I support Prop 36.
If you read the PPIC article (which you probably did but here it is: https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-after-proposition-47-and-the-pandemic/), it says that in some areas California crime rates have gone above the national. (See Figure 6.)
They don't give a firm explanation for it, or for much of anything else - though in general, they seem to think covid was a bigger factor than prop 47 - but I think we might try nudging more people into drug treatment. And I think it is fine to discourage fentanyl dealing.
As I read it, there is still room for discretion and diversion. I think what we are doing now is not working well.
Also, prop 33 would not "widely allow" rent control.
It *would* allow voters in California cities to make their own decisions. I do not think it is that easy to pass new rent control. And if people in some other city want to try it out, who are we to tell them no?
Btw, did you know that to achieve even a 10% reduction in rent, LA would have to build like a million - an actual million - new units?
Per this guy -
https://www.anderson.ucla.edu/documents/areas/ctr/forecast/reports/uclaforecast_Sept2017_Nickelsburg.pdf - and scroll down to page 4.
Shorter version: the yimbies are all wet. "Affordability," whatever it means, will *not* happen from the market. Not any time soon, and most likely, never.
Why don't we instead look for common ground. Would you be willing to try to disallow Wall Street ownership of housing? Because I think that might be worthwhile.
This is Mr. Drum's inner Orange County Republican speaking out.