November 2022 Endorsements

Prop 1 – Right to abortion, contraceptives – Yes

In the recent Dobbs decision, the US Supreme Court decided the United States Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overturning the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. The decision itself does not restrict abortion, but it does open the door for states to do so.

Abortion is legal by default, and California law already reaffirms its legality in the state. There is no serious threat to the status quo here, so Prop 1 is mainly symbolic, some might say a waste of time and money. Fine, but we’ve gotten to this point, so we’ll just vote yes.

Prop 26 – Expand Indian gaming – Split

Legal gambling in California currently consists of tribal casinos, card rooms, horse racing tracks, oh, and the California Lottery. In each case, the type of gambling allowed at a venue is restricted. For example, Indian casinos can only offer slot machines, lottery games, and certain card games.

Prop 26 would allow tribal casinos to offer roulette and dice games. It would also allow in-person sports betting at Indian casinos and horse racing tracks.

We were split on this one. Some of us argued that gambling is an addictive, anti-social behavior that should not be expanded. Others didn’t see how offering a few more games would make a material difference, or why we should regulate supposedly sovereign Indian tribes in this way. Mostly we don’t care and wish we weren’t asked to make this decision.

Card rooms are opposed to Prop 26, maybe because it would make them less competitive with Indian casinos, but also because a provision in Prop 26 allows gaming laws to be enforced via lawsuits filed by any individual or organization. Race tracks are really in favor of (and spending a lot of money on) Prop 26, hoping to inject life into a faltering business model that has come under increased scrutiny in recent years.

Prop 27 – Online sports betting – No

Online sports betting is currently illegal in California. If you sign in to Draft Kings from here, you will not be able to bet any actual money on the site. Prop 27 would allow Draft Kings and others to serve California residents after paying a $100 million licensing fee and partnering with a gaming tribe. The tax revenue, perhaps $500 million annually, would be earmarked for homelessness programs, gambling addiction programs, and tribal economic development.

Some of us generally oppose any expansion of gambling. We’re against most earmarks as well. But we’re especially against out-of-state companies spending lavishly to manipulate our state laws for their own obvious benefit. If this had come from the people or the legislature maybe we’d feel differently.

Prop 28 - Arts and music education earmarks - No

Let’s get this out of the way: we like arts and music education! But one thing we’ve been consistent about is we don’t like earmarks. We think the elected, professional legislators should figure out the best way to spend California’s budget, not the general population, manipulated by ads and without the time to understand the complexities of running a state the size of California.

Prop 28 is an earmark on top of an earmark: 1988’s Prop 98 mandates that about 40% of California’s budget has to be spent on education. We probably would have voted against it if we hadn’t still been in grade school, even though we really like education and think money should be spent on it. Prop 28 earmarks more education money, specifically for arts and music. We’re voting against it for the same reason.

Prop 29 – Dialysis clinics regulation – No

Does this sound familiar? We’ve already been asked to vote on this twice before: Prop 8 in 2018 and Prop 23 in 2020. On the surface it seems like a reasonable regulation for kidney dialysis clinics: require a physician assistant or higher-qualified medical professional to be on site. But behind the scenes it’s really an attempt by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to hurt, even close non-union dialysis clinics, with patients/customers as collateral damage.

There may be legitimate gripes about dialysis clinics, but patients continue to choose them for the procedure, perhaps because convenience is a big factor when you have to go in three times per week. We think patients should be allowed to make that choice.

Prop 30 – Environment tax on the rich – No

We do like the environment and we do like taxing rich people (in this case people making over $2 million per year), but we don’t like earmarks put in place by initiatives. At least this one creates a new revenue source rather than taking a piece out of the existing budget. But still, we think the legislature should perhaps do this, not the voters directly.

Prop 31 – Flavored tobacco ban – Yes

Here’s one of those initiatives that ratifies a law already passed by the legislature. So our standard call to “let the legislators legislate” would default us to a yes. In this case the law is to ban the sale of flavored tobacco products in the state.

We did have a conversation about the merits of such a ban. There are the standard calls to save the children from the addictive habit, basically coming to the conclusion that if people (even adults) want to use tobacco products, they should have to endure them in an unappealing form. The question was asked: would you also want to ban the sale of sugary alcoholic drinks like Mike’s Hard Lemonade? To the credit of one participant, he was consistent and said yes he would…and sorority girls everywhere cried out.

 

November 2020 Endorsements

Prop 14 - Stem cell research funding - No

2004's Proposition 71 established a fund to support stem cell research in California using $3 billion in bonds. This year's Prop 14 seeks to extend the program with $5.5 billion in additional bonds.

The original initiative was passed a few years before we started this group, but I have a feeling we would have voted for it. It was starting new research programs which involved new construction and the creation of new infrastructure. And Prop 71 was in response to the Bush administration's refusal to support stem cell research on religious grounds, even though many felt it held great potential. It was an unusual move, as scientific research funding is usually the domain of the federal government, not individual states.

We still like stem cell research and are fine with the program continuing, but see no reason it should be done with bonds. In fact, the money from Prop 71 has still not been fully spent and the organization that controls the fund, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, still has 35 full-time employees. Even more unusual, Prop 14 spreads the bond purchases over 11 years, acquiring $540 million in debt per year. So why is this using bonds again? Just put $540 million directly into the program and skip the bond process.

Aside from the bonds issue, these initiatives tie the hands of legislators, forcing them to spend money a certain way and we are generally against that, especially when a certain virus is wrecking havoc with our economy and tax revenues are way down. A few of us like stem cells enough that we want to force the hands of legislators and secure the funding, but most of us were unwilling.

Prop 15 - Repeal Prop 13 for commercial real estate - Yes

To be frank, our group despises 1978's Proposition 13, the notorious initiative that fixed property taxes to the most recent accessed value, which in many cases was determined decades ago when the property was last sold. It probably sounded good at the time, the idea of not "taxing people out of their homes," but the unintended consequences have been huge. More on that later.

Prop 15 undoes the initiative-that-shall-not-be-named for commercial property, which would hereafter be taxed at its current market value. It makes an exception when someone owns less than $3 million in commercial property, which would probably be a typical storefront.

Sounds good to us. Someday we hope to repeal the rest.

Prop 16 - Allow affirmative action again - Yes

1996's Prop 209 effectively banned affirmative action from state-run entities. It reads, "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."

Prop 209 was controversial in its time, but it has resisted attempts to repeal it until the recent Black Lives Matter protests brought the issue to the forefront again. Prop 16 will simply remove the text Prop 209 added to the California constitution.

The various pros and cons of affirmative action have been discussed widely in America for years, so there's little need to repeat them here. With one exception, our group was all in favor of bringing it back.

Prop 17 - Allow parolees to vote - Yes

California currently restores the right to vote to those sentenced to time state prison after they have completed their full prison terms. Many prisoners are released early on parole, but they are still not eligible to vote until their parole is over.

Prop 17 would allow parolees to vote. We already think prison sentences are a bit too long, so we're in favor of this gesture to speed their path back to full citizenship.

Prop 18 - Primary voting for 17-year-olds - Yes

Prop 18 allows 17-year-olds to vote in the primary election if they will be 18 by the date of the general election.

A few of us were against Prop 18 for a variety of reasons. Primaries are really about the party, so why should an innocent babe have a say in it? Or since there's always going to be those who fall short of any cutoff we set, what's the point of setting the cutoff a few months earlier? Or why are we being asked to vote on something like this?

But the majority were in favor.

Prop 19 - Slight Prop 13 loosening for residential real estate - Yes

And we're back to Prop 13, which significantly deprives school districts of tax revenue, but at least that was an intended consequence. The unintended consequence of Prop 13 is that it has severely distorted the housing market by flipping the incentive structure. As an area (perhaps the Bay Area) draws more people, current residents are incentivized to stay in their current homes and prevent new houses from being built, pushing housing prices for new arrivals into the stratosphere. We wish this were about repealing Prop 13, but it's not.

Under Prop 13, homeowners can move to another property in the same county at the same price and keep their sweet tax deal. Prop 19 loosens the rules a bit, letting people buy more expensive houses in other counties, and they will pay taxes on the price difference. This may encourage some people to move out of the more high-demand areas, making room for new people who will pay a normal amount of taxes. Good.

Under the current law, the children of someone with the sweet tax deal get to inherit the deal along with the house, so the property taxes don't go up even after death of the owner, even if the next generation is renting it out as an investment property (so not being "taxed out of their home"). Under Prop 19, the inheritor has to live in the house to keep the deal, so that's something.

So we're all for Prop 19, but hope to someday do much more to dismantle Prop 13.

Prop 20 - Tough on crime - No

Prop 20 will reduce the number of crimes eligible for parole, re-classify many crimes from misdemeanors to felonies, and require the collection of DNA samples for certain misdemeanors.

Prop 20 feels like something straight out of the 1990s "Tough on Crime" era. It rolls back earlier initiatives we supported that lowered sentences (2014's Prop 47) and allowed parole for non-violent offenders (2016's Prop 57). Did a Texas ballot initiative get printed on the California ballot by mistake?

So no.

Prop 21 - Rent control expansion - Yes

The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995 is a statewide law prohibiting rent control on any property completed after February 1, 1995. Prop 10 from 2018 would have allowed cities to put rent control back if they chose to, but it failed. But then the legislature passed AB 1482, which caps rent raises to 5% plus inflation for apartment buildings over 15 years old, so now some form of rent control is widespread throughout California.

Prop 21 would expand on that a bit, allowing a city to limit rent increases even more. Cities could also prevent a landlord from raising the price of a unit when it changes hands, limiting them to 15% per year for three years after the new tenant moves in.

While one member of our group pointed out that economists universally loathe rent control, saying it actually hurts the people it claims to help, the rest of us think there are legitimate reasons for a city to have rent control. Unlike AB 1482, Prop 21 only gives a city permission to implement rent control, it does not force it upon them.

Prop 22 - Keep Uber and Lyft drivers independent contractors - No

The 2018 Dynamex decision by the California Supreme Court set up the "ABC Test" to determine if a worker could be classified as an independent contractor instead of an employee. It was codified into law with AB 5, and then amended to exempt a number of different professions in AB 2257. One of the professions specifically not exempted were drivers for app-based services like Uber and Lyft, who then crafted Prop 22.

An Uber driver reclassified as an employee would enjoy the benefits of guaranteed minimum wage, worker's comp, health care, and standard work schedule, etc. Payroll taxes would also be collected for each employee. On one hand, some drivers say they enjoy the flexibility being an occasional independent contractor provides. On the other hand, 70% of them work 30 hours or more per week.

Some members of our group thought such a change would drastically affect the Uber and Lyft service and/or price. (The companies were threatening to abandon the California market until a temporary reprieve from AB 5 was granted.) Other group members thought the changes would be minor, but the worker benefits would be huge. Still others thought rather than speculate about what the consequences would be, AB 5 should be tried and later altered by the legislature if need be—voting this in as an initiative means only another initiative can undo it.

Prop 23 - Dialysis clinic regulations - Split

Approximately 80,000 patients in California with kidney disease get treated three times per week at a chronic dialysis clinic, as opposed to a hospital. The clinics are generally for-profit companies who charge more than the hospital, but the majority of patients make a plan with their doctor to use a clinic, perhaps because they are more convenient.

Dialysis clinics are already regulated by the California Department of Public Health, but Prop 23 would add some additional regulations, such as requiring them to have a doctor present at all times. The regulations would make running the clinics more expensive.

Prop 23 is in some ways similar to 2018's Prop 8, and is backed by the same organization, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). In both cases, their motivation appears to be to punishing or eliminating dialysis clinics, whose workers are not unionized. They want patients go to union-run hospitals.

In 2018 our members rejected Prop 8, not wanting to get involved with a union dispute, even if there may be good reasons to dislike the clinics. This time we were evenly split, so we have no endorsement.

Prop 24 - Consumer privacy laws - No

California already has various rules around the treatment of your personal information, but Prop 24 would alter them. According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the new regulations are neither stronger nor weaker than what currently exists, just…different.

So maybe it would be a toss-up to support Prop 24, except by setting the law in place with an initiative, only another initiative could repeal it. Digital privacy is a relatively new legal area, constantly changing. We don't think it would be wise to set anything in stone instead of having the legislature continue to mold the laws as needed.

Prop 25 - Ending cash bail - Yes

The California State Senate passed a bill to end cash bail, SB 10, in August 2018. But the California constitution allows the public to subject any law to a public referendum, so here we are. Apparently the bail bonds industry led the charge, seeing as their industry was on the verge of becoming obsolete.

We don't like the idea of one's bank balance determining whether or not they will remain free until trial, so we are fans of SB 10. Also not really fans of the bail bonds industry.

Some say the algorithm used to determine if someone can go free is racially biased, but we think that particular injustice can be fixed as we end the bigger injustice of cash bail.

Results

Prop 14 - Yes
Prop 15 - No
Prop 16 - No
Prop 17 - Yes
Prop 18 - No
Prop 19 - Yes
Prop 20 - No
Prop 21 - No
Prop 22 - Yes
Prop 23 - No
Prop 24 - Yes
Prop 25 - No