November 2024 Endorsements

Prop 2 - Bonds for public schools and community college facilities - Yes

Prop 2 authorizes $10 billion in bonds to repair, upgrade, and construct public education facilities from kindergarten through community colleges. As we say every time, we have certain feelings about bonds. In general, we support them for construction, not so much for ongoing maintenance which should come out of the regular budget. (Enthusiasm for new construction might be tempered by declining enrollment in California schools.) As is often the case, Prop 2 plans to spend some money on maintenance and some on new construction, about 50% for each. We’ll take it.

Prop 3 - Gay marriage - Yes

Prop 3 from this year repeals Prop 8 from 2008 which banned gay marriage…until it was ruled unconstitutional by a CA judge in 2010…and then blown away by the US Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015. So Prop 3 hardly seems necessary, but since we’re here, we’ll vote for it. (FYI, 2008 was the first year we did this, and unsurprisingly we were against Prop 8.)

Prop 4 - Bonds for safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, extreme heat mitigation - Yes

Here’s another $10 billion bond that does some maintenance and some construction, in this case funding activities related to climate change, which include our water supply. So what’s the construction/maintenance split? In this case about 25% of the money would be used to increase the water supply and build energy infrastructure, while everything else is used for a variety of things that sound very maintenance-y, from repairing dams to clearing brush, planting trees, and restoring wetlands. But that was enough for us.

Prop 5 - Easier to authorize bonds for affordable housing - Yes

Local governments need 66.6% voter approval to authorize a bond if it’s paid for by increasing property taxes (general obligation bonds). Prop 5 would lower it to 55% for public infrastructure and affordable housing. Sounds great, right? But only if that affordable housing is not created by demolishing existing low-density housing, which is the vast majority of housing in California. That last part was a late amendment pushed through by the California Association of Realtors, who do not want California’s miles of single-family houses disrupted. We were torn, but ultimately leaned in favor.

Prop 6 - Eliminate involuntary servitude - Yes

Prop 6 would prevent prisons from forcing inmates to work or punishing them for refusing to. Some people might call forced work slavery.  Prisoners can still work voluntarily in exchange for money or time off their sentences. Apparently all the cool states are doing this. The voter guide had no argument against and neither do we.

Prop 32 - Raise minimum wage - Yes

CA minimum wage would go from the current $16 to $17, then $18, then increased in line with inflation. State law already gives fast food workers $20, this would not affect it. While some of us think minimum wage is not the slam dunk it’s made out to be, if you’re going to have it, seems reasonable to increase it with inflation without involving the voters every time. If this means fewer Propositions, we love it.

Prop 33 - Allow local governments to enact rent control - Yes

Prop 33 would repeal the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act which prevented new rent-control housing in the state. We were previously in favor of the similar Prop 10 in 2018, but it did not pass. Our rationale was that despite good arguments for opposing rent control, localities should be able to choose to have it if they wish. (Incidentally, California already gave a great many people rent control when AB 1482 was passed by the legislature in 2019.)

Prop 34 - How to spend drug money, but actually rent control revenge - No

Non-profit medical organizations take part in the federal government’s drug discount program, but can still charge higher prices to patients not on Medi-Cal. Prop 34 would require 98% of those profits to be used for patient services (i.e. not administration). That sounds like it could be reasonable, but apparently Prop 34 is really aimed at one organization: the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. You see, they endorse the Prop 33 rent control initiative, so various housing interests have crafted this to punish them. Reminds us of the recent string of kidney dialysis propositions which we voted no on. Same here: leave the voters out of it.

Prop 35 - Make health care tax permanent - Yes

California currently has a tax on health insurance plans with the money being used to help fund Medi-Cal. It’s set to expire in 2026, but this would make it permanent. No opposing argument in the voter guide, nor from us.

Prop 36 - Increase charges and sentencing for certain crimes - No

Prop 47 in 2014 lowered crimes like shoplifting under $950 and drug possession to a misdemeanor. We were in favor of it, but these days some people are having second thoughts. Prop 36 makes shoplifting a felony again on the third conviction, or if the crime was committed by a coordinated group of three or more. It also increases punishment for people selling those drugs (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine) and allows people who possess those drugs to be charged with a “treatment-mandated felony” on their third conviction.

It is certainly worth pointing out that California is currently ill-equipped to put more people in prison or provide mandated drug treatment. But it’s also pretty clear that property crime and drug abuse have increased in recent years. It’s not a simple issue, with plenty of arguments for and against. As a group, we’re sticking to our no-mass-incarceration guns (ahem) and voting No.

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.