This is the first of three posts for anyone who wants to talk California Propositions.
pacem appellant has graciously agreed to share his views on the California propositions this year. The intention is to provide a jumping off point for discussion, and a place for BJ folks to share their views, not to suggest to anyone how they should vote.
The 12 propositions will be covered in 3 separate posts. This one covers 14, 17-19, 21, 23 and 25. The second one will cover 15. The final one will cover 16, 20, and 24. I expect to run one a day: today, tomorrow and Sunday. As soon as one is posted, it will appear under Election Action! in the sidebar. (In the hamburger menu on mobile.)
pacem appellant (aka Vincent Jorgensen)
I’m a California native, born and raised in the Bay Area. For the past several years, in every election in which there are propositions on the ballot, I’ve been researching the propositions and posting my findings and recommendations to my Facebook feed. It spurs a healthy discussion among my friends, and it’s led to my mind changing, too.This November, there are 12 propositions on the ballot, which isn’t record-setting, but still daunting. There were 17 on one ballot in 2016. The record, by the way, is 48, and was set in 1914.
For those unaware, ballot propositions are a staple of California politics, dating back to 1910. They are placed on the ballot either by the legislature or by citizens. With enough signatures, it’s possible to get any pet issue before the voters. I’ve been tasked with voting on whether to ban the sale of horse meat as food (that one passed), as well as modifying the state constitution to ban gay marriage (that one sadly passed, too). Because of the relatively low threshold for the number of qualifying signatures, most ballot proponents simply buy enough signatures to get their issue onto the ballot. A common sight is paid petitioners standing outside the grocery store trying to get shoppers to sign their names to a slew of potential referenda. Once a proposition is passed into law, the legislature can’t overturn it, only another citizen initiative can (like this cycle’s Prop 15).
This year we have four initiatives that were placed there by the legislature (16, 17, 18, and 19). The rest are citizen initiatives. We are tasked with deciding changes to who can vote, how taxes are assessed, who’s an employee (and who’s not), and criminal justice. I take this responsibility very seriously. I hope my fellow Golden State residents find my research and musings useful. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.
For my sources, I primarily used the following (and reference them at the end of each proposition)
Ballotpedia
CA Secretary of State
League of Women Voters
The L.A. Times
…..
Discuss!
…..
Proposition 14: Stem-Cell Bonds, Electric Boogaloo!
Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute
Legislative Summary: Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions.
Pros: CA leads the way in stem cell research, an important area of science that the feds have discounted since the second Bush Administration. This continues the push for science-based medicine and life-saving therapies that are being ignored by the federal ban on stem-cell research.
Cons: When CA passed its first stem-cell bond measure, there were high hopes that it would lead to meaningful medical discoveries. It has not, and has left the public disillusioned as to the efficacy and speed of medical research. Also, it adds to the debt serving of the state, which comes out of the general fund. As we are in Covid-19 times, state revenue is plummeting, and debt servicing for research (which creates jobs! and prestige!) maybe isn’t where we should be focusing our resources.
My rec on 14: Yes. I’m going to be an old person one day (as is everyone), and we aren’t going to improve the quality of life for our senior citizens (or other citizens with degenerative diseases) if we don’t put the time and money into finding effective therapies. The feds aren’t stepping up, and few other states in the union have the unique status of being a de facto nation-state, we might as well behave like it.
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 14
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 14
…..
Proposition 17: Ex-felons are people, too
Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Legislative Summary: Felons can vote upon completion of their sentence (Enfranchises felons)
Pros: The voting franchise is expanded to citizens who committed felonies in the past, but have completed their sentence are–for all intents and purposes–tax-paying law-abiding citizens again.
Cons: I really don’t see any. If you believe that felony sentencing is too light, then petition for harsher sentencing: we’ve done it before, CA led the way on three-strikes laws (though most of these have since been repealed). If you think that former felons aren’t really humans or citizens, then I have no words with you.
My Rec on 17: Yes. Once the time is served, we need to humanely welcome ex-cons back into society, and it is crucial for the health of our democracy that participants come from all walks of life.
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 17
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 17
…..
Proposition 18: 17 year olds are almost people, too
Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections If They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and Be Otherwise Eligible to Vote. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Legislative Summary: Allows voting in a primary at 17 if will be 18 at time of General Election
Pros: It gives soon-to-be voting-age young adults a stake in the general election.
Cons: Young people don’t vote in significant numbers, so why bother? (That is sarcasm)
My Rec on 18: Yes. Expanding the voting franchise is a great idea! The sooner we get our citizens used to the idea of actively participating in our democracy, the more engaged they’ll be as they leave young adulthood and enter boring adulthood.
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 18
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 18
…..
Proposition 19: Wonky property tax reform for the landed gentry
Changes Certain Property Tax Rules. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Legislative Summary: Authorizes an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster to transfer the taxable value of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in the state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence. Eliminates tax loopholes used by the wealthy to avoid paying property taxes on vacation homes and rental properties. Uses some of the proceeds of the increased revenue to fund Cal Fire.
Pros: Somebody in the State Assembly has a bee in their bonnet. This passage from the text of the proposition struck me: “Eliminates tax loopholes used by East Coast investors, celebrities, wealthy non-California residents, and trust fund heirs to avoid paying a fair share of property taxes on vacation homes, income properties, and beachfront rentals they own in California.” This measure accomplishes that by eliminating the parent-to-child and grandparent-to-grandchild exemption in cases where the child or grandchild does not use the inherited property as their principal residence. Moving tax liability between properties already exists in California, but it’s on a county-by-county basis. This makes the whole state fair game for a qualified transfer. If you’re in a qualified group, you can move to a home of equal or lesser value and not be reassessed at the new property’s tax value (greater value is still a good deal, with a prorated upward adjustment). It also increases the number of times you can perform this transfer in your lifetime from one to three.
Cons: I think the biggest downside to this is its still an upward transfer of wealth from the wealthy back to themselves. Most Californians aren’t homeowners, and don’t fall into the protected categories defined herein (over 55, disabled, or wildfire victims, though with the way things are going, the last category is going to swell in numbers very soon). The Assembly must have known this would be a hard sell to CA’s renters, so they sweetened it with sticking it to the idle rich and transferring some of that largesse to a disaster relief fund.
My Rec on 19: Yes. But mostly because I will be able to benefit from this as a CA homeowner who will reach age 55 in the next two decades. It’s like they wrote these propositions just for me!
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 19
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 19
…..
Proposition 21: The rent’s too high!
Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute
Legislative Summary: Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies.
Pros: In 1995, an absolute upper bound was placed on rent control throughout the state: No rent control could be imposed on property built after 1995. As new homes are built, these are all rent-control free, meaning that fixed-income folks are forced to stay living in older buildings lest they lose their rent control, or if they do move, lose rent control all together based solely on the est. date of the building. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation tried to amend the 1995 law (known as Costa Hawkins) in 2018, but it failed at the ballot box by a punishing 18 points. This time around, the proposed changes to Costa Hawkins are more modest. More properties can be rolled into rent control jurisdictions (if that’s what the municipalities want), small-time landlords are exempted, and rent-control rate hikes are fixed, i.e. no more vacany decontrol.
Cons: Opponents note that in communities that enact rent control, rental property values will decline. People will move less often, and property developers will be scared off from building more much-needed housing in California.
My Rec on 21: Yes. The opposition’s arguments are laughable. Real-estate developers might make slightly less money. (I’ll try to remember to shed a tear for them.) And if there’s one truism of the most expensive real-estate markets in the state, it’s that the price of property in the long run only goes up. If a city wants to try rental control that isn’t so transparently designed to make the developers truckloads of cash, we should let them try it.
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 21
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 21
League of Women Voters Prop 21
…..
Proposition 22: Did you know that gig workers aren’t really people?
Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute
Legislative Summary: Establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent-contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies.
Pros: This proposition makes me irrationally angry and I cannot for the life of me even pretend to impartially find a silver lining. This a naked ploy by Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to exploit their workforces and circumvent the legislature.
Cons: I wish I had saved the email, but I received one from Lyft, telling me how to vote on this prop. Not a suggestion, but an order to vote in accordance with their glibertarian dystopia. I don’t like being told what to do from a company whose only contribution to the world is a goddamned app. Irrational anger aside, the real reason to oppose this measure is that it subverts the ability of the state to determine its own labor laws, specifically, AB 5 (2019). If the state sets labor practices, and a rich enough coalition of robber barons can come along and overturn it, then the corporatists have already won.
My Rec on 22: Hard No!
Further Reading:
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 22
…..
Proposition 23: Look Ma! I’m a doctor, now!
Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute
Legislative Summary: Requires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from this requirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner or physician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibits clinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care.
Pros: The SEIU-UHW (a prominent healthcare-workers union) may be using this prop (and a failed one from 2018) as part of their efforts to unionize CA’s two largest dialysis businesses. However, those businesses have been allegedly retaliating against pro-union employees. How this helps their cause, I’m unsure, but they’ve put up $5 million dollars for the Yes campaign. Disclosing infection rates seems like a good idea for a safety regulation. If it’s the case that dialysis clinics are being closed in more remote or harder-to-serve areas of the state, then the government has a compelling interest in keeping them open.
Cons: I’m being asked to vote on what is best for patients. I (and the vast majority of the CA electorate) do not work in healthcare or have any relevant expertise in determining what is in the best interest of dialysis patients. I know nothing about dialysis and maybe a physician on-site is great idea. If dialysis clinics get more physicians, they’d have to come from somewhere, and it’s not like there is a glut of MDs running around out there.
My Rec on 23: No. I like unions, I like people getting safe dialysis care. Still, it just puts us in an unenviable position of deciding what quality of care should be. If the purpose is to improve quality of care for patients, putting a strain on the physician network isn’t the way to go about that, nor is the likely closure of smaller clinics and the increase out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare patients.
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 23
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 23
League of Women Voters Prop 23
L.A. Times Editorial in Opposition to Prop 23
…..
Proposition 25: You’re guilty if you’re poor
Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk
Legislative Summary: Requires a majority of voters to approve a 2018 state law before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors.
Pros: Ending cash bail would mean that defendants who cannot afford bail will not have to lose income and their livelihood while awaiting trial.
Cons: Defendants lose their get-of-jail benefits if they’re deemed flight risks regardless of how much money they pay. People who make money loaning money to defendants for bail will lose their job.
My Rec on 25: Hard Yes! Again, it’s another attempt to circumvent the legislature, like prop 22.
Further Reading:
Ballotpedia for Prop 25
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 25
…..
Cliff Notes for comparing and easy to copy for commenting. Just change the decision where you disagree.
Proposition 14: Stem-Cell Bonds, Electric Boogaloo!
Yes
Proposition 17: Ex-felons are people, too
Yes
Proposition 18: 17 year olds are almost people, too
Ye
Proposition 19: Wonky property tax reform for the landed gentry
Yes
Proposition 21: The rent’s too high!
Yes
Proposition 22: Did you know that gig workers aren’t really people?
Hard No
Proposition 23: Look Ma! I’m a doctor, now!
No
Proposition 25: You’re guilty if you’re poor
Hard Yes
THE END.
dmsilev
Prop 22 should be a short discussion. “Uber is supporting it. Any questions?”
Ruckus
As a resident and person born in LA county, a freaking long time ago, the proposition system both bugs me and engages me. But one has to be very careful, just like legislators about any of them because the language often does things to or for the state/citizens that have unwanted long term results and as stated can not be overturned other than another proposition. Prop 13 is probably the most obvious one that in so many ways effects the state both negatively and somewhat positive. I of course can’t really think of any real positive long term benefits for anyone other than a property owner and even then it really can be difficult to find those long term benefits for most of us.
Every year I spend far more time on propositions than any other part of the ballot.
Origuy
Thanks, pacem appellant. I’ve lived in California since 1978 and these have always been a problem. I believe bond issues must go before the voters, and I almost always vote for the schools and against the prisons. Stem-cells sounds like a no-brainer, but there can always be disqualifying defects.
I was able to vote for the first time in 1978, in Indiana’s primary election, although I wouldn’t turn 18 until October. Seems strange that Indiana had this law so long ago and California still doesn’t.
Sometimes I just look at who’s in opposition and vote the other way. If it’s the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association or the Libertarian Party, I usually vote for it.
Shana
Here in Virginia we allow 17 year olds who will be 18 by the general election to vote in the primary.
AFAIK it’s been the law for many years and nobody’s had a problem with it. The high schools, at least the public ones here in Fairfax County, make a big deal about this in the Government class that almost all seniors take.
pacem appellant
@dmsilev: Prop 22 really gets under my skin. It’s one of a slimy transparent effort to circumvent the legislature because Uber/Lyft/Doordash don’t like treating workers like human beings.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Origuy:
That’s what I look for.
I’ve been voting in California since March 1978, when Prop 13 was on the ballot(I voted against it), the next election had the Briggs amendment which would have basically criminalize being gay or advocating for gay folk(I voted against it and it didn’t pass).
Damien
I’m having a hard time understanding Prop 25, and perhaps it is intentional. The wording makes it sound like the law won’t take effect unless this Prop is passed, is that the case?
I’m pretty supportive of ending cash bail, so I’d love to hear arguments for retaining cash bail if this Prop is meant to eliminate it.
Again, confusing wording, and I’d like to think I’ve got a brain cell or two.
Yutsano
@Damien: I see a huge potential for racial bias by letting the judges determine the risks. It also looks like there will be no rules relating to how judges make their risk determinations. It’s tough but the way it’s written if I could vote in California I would have to go with no here as well. There’s a better way to end cash bail than this.
WaterGirl
FYI, for anyone who didn’t read the fine print: (there was a lot of it!)
the posts on 15, 16, 20,
22and 24 are written and will be go up, part on Saturday and part on Sunday.Unless you want all 5 in the same post?
edited: I took 24 out of Saturday and moved it here.
pacem appellant
@Damien: Oh shit! I got the polarity on the rec wrong! Sorry! Citizens can place an initiative on the ballot like Prop 25 to stall the implementation of legislation until electorate votes on it. So if Prop 25 passes, it affirms the legislature. If it fails, then it rebukes cashless bail. I’ll ask @Watergirl to update.
WG: It has been corrected up top.
WaterGirl
@Damien:
I live in Illinois, and I can guarantee that the confusion is always intentional.
Here, if it’s confusing, a lot of people don’t vote, and a non-vote counts for one side rather than the other.
FelonyGovt
Thanks for this. At my Democratic Club meeting Wednesday night, there was a lot of back and forth on 19. It sounds good to me but some people were concerned that it would harm the effort to house the homeless (not sure how, to be honest) and also objected to it on the basis that Realtors are for it.
I think I’m voting Yes on 19.
Will be interested in the discussion on 24, the Privacy one. Apparently that one is a can of worms.
Emerald
My sis is an Uber driver and loves it (go figure). She’s seriously depressed at the thought of 22 passing, and thinks it probably will pass because of all the deceptive advertising. Her Uber buddies are all making more money now. Prop 22 will throw them back into the shit.
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
Seems to me that 3 days would be better. There is often a lot to these that need to be reviewed a lot and discussed to determine what they are all about. Often they are written that way on purpose, often enough that one could be suspicious of the intent of the authors. And yes I can type with my tongue so firmly in my cheek.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
FelonyGovt
@pacem appellant: @Damien: 25 is very confusing. I knew the bail bond industry was seeking to have the law (eliminating cash bail) overturned, so I thought the proper vote on 25 would be “no”, but turns out it’s “yes”.
pacem appellant
@WaterGirl: @Damien: Thank you for the careful eyes and for the update.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Emerald: I got a flyer in the mail saying how much Uber drivers wanted Prop 22 to pass…checks who paid for it…oh, Uber.
FelonyGovt
@?BillinGlendaleCA: I got that flyer as well and noted that Uber had paid for it and mentally thanked them for the information. If they’re for it, I’m against it.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
On the face of it, eliminating cash bail seems like a good thing. But I would like to see more discussion about possible effects. I strongly believe in the Iron Law of Unintended Consequences, so I try to be careful.
Darkrose
@Yutsano: The problem is that the Lege passed a law removing cash bail. Prop 25 states that the law can’t take effect unless the voters also approve it, even though the entire point of representative democracy is that we elect legislators to pass laws. I hate this so much. If I have to read up on legislation and vote on it, then I should get paid, since that’s supposed to be the legislature’s job.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@?BillinGlendaleCA: yeah, prop 22 looks like a hard No.
WaterGirl
If you guys refresh, you’ll see that I have added the Prop # next to the recommendation, and both are in RED.
Thought it would be easier to track where you are that way.
WaterGirl
@A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan): You guys are talking about Prop 22, so I moved that into this thread, also.
?BillinGlendaleCA
I think it was back in the 1970’s, but California had the longest Constitution in the world due to all the propositions that amended it.
WaterGirl
@Ruckus: Yeah, I thought 12 propositions in one post would be too much. We tried to group the more obvious ones in one post, and the possibly less obvious ones to posts with a small number of Propositions in them.x
But since 3 or more people talked about 22 in this thread, I moved it from tomorrow into here.
WaterGirl
Did you guys catch that as each of those CA Prop posts go up, they are listed under Election Action! in the sidebar, for easy access later?
Nora Lenderbee
14 Soft yes.
17 Hard yes
18 Why not
19 Details of taxes are the kind of issue the legislature should decide. Therefore, I think No.
21 Isn’t one argument against rent control that it will cause rental stock to be taken off the market?
I benefited from RC for a few years when I lived in Berkeley. The rent was affordable. OTOH, the landlord never wanted to spend a penny on fixing anything because she wasn’t making money from the house. So we had a non-working oven (plus a working one), non-working dishwasher, non-working heat, etc. There’s also the problem of tenants who sublet their RC apartment to someone who sublets it to someone else, on and on.
22 Fuck No, and fuck the horse it rode in on.
23 I don’t know what problem this prop is intended to solve, so No.
25 No one should rot in jail because they are poor. But how will “risk of flight” be determined? How will it work?
ETA: Yeah, I also look at who supports a prop as a rough guide.
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
Sent you an email, I think in accordance with the instructions on the site and it came back undeliverable.
Whenever I open BJ the comment box is always text rather than visual. macOS 10.15.6 Safari 14.0 It used to work properly then started being wonky and then got consistent text.
germy
VeniceRiley
18 I am voting no. Why? You can guess why. And you would be right.
germy
Nora Lenderbee
And now that I’ve read the summary on Ballotopedia–Yes.
Baud
@germy:
Written is GOP spin.
WaterGirl
Cheat sheet from up top, so I can compare to comment #28. And for easy copying for anyone who wants to share their answers.
Proposition 14: Stem-Cell Bonds, Electric Boogaloo!
Yes
Proposition 17: Ex-felons are people, too
Yes
Proposition 18: 17 year olds are almost people, too
Yes
Proposition 19: Wonky property tax reform for the landed gentry
Yes
Proposition 21: The rent’s too high!
Yes
Proposition 22: Did you know that gig workers aren’t really people?
Hard No
Proposition 23: Look Ma! I’m a doctor, now!
No
Proposition 25: You’re guilty if you’re poor
Hard Yes
Brachiator
My hot take on the California propositions
These are initial impressions. I have not made a final decision on all of these yet
Proposition 14: Stem-Cell Bonds, Electric Boogaloo!
NO. There was a bond issue on this years ago which said that it would jump start necessary research and lead to fabulous cures. I believe in the value of basic research, but this is not a priority now. There is no ongoing research which would be jeopardized if we used the money for something more critical.
Proposition 17: Ex-felons are people, too
YES. No brainer
Proposition 18: 17 year olds are almost people, too
NO. Young people don’t vote and rarely know anything about the issues. I am fine if a 17 year old can register if they will be 18 by the time of a November election.
Proposition 19: Wonky property tax reform for the landed gentry
NO. I hate propositions like this. They are supposed to address a single issue, but there are at least three things tucked in here. I might be inclined to help victims of a wild fire, but I am not willing to hand out extra tax benefits to homeowners over age 55. You already get to exclude the gain on the sale of your home. Don’t be greedy
Proposition 21: The rent’s too high!
Tending to NO. Rent control doesn’t work. There’s even an old Krugman column out there laying this out. Even if I thought that rent control was a useful temporary measure, I would want the legislature to debate all the options. As it is, this does nothing to address the deeper problem of lack of affordable housing.
Proposition 23: Look Ma! I’m a doctor, now!
NO. I think a version of this proposition came up previously. This is a matter that should be decided by the legislature, not by the average citizen.
Proposition 25: You’re guilty if you’re poor
YES. Ending cash bail is a good thing. Using an algorithm to decide whether to keep a person in jail is a bad thing. And the ACLU has noted that biased judges could keep people in jail who might have been able to make bail. Fortunately, the proposition says that this can be reviewed in 2023. A very good thing.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Ruckus: Yeah, I get that too, all the time. It’s really annoying when you’re replying to a comment and it comes up in text mode.
germy
judyinsd
Thanks you for this timely post. Got notification today that I could access Voting Pamphlet and sample ballot online. The various candidates and offices I had filled out but was holding off on the propositions til I could find more information, however 14,17, and 18, I had decided yes but the others undecided. So many of these in the past have been wolves in sheep clothing (i.e. privatize electric utilities – sold as a way to lower cost but has not been beneficial overall) that I am skeptical of any which are not put forth by the legislature.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Nora Lenderbee: The problem with the Legislature and taxes is alot are set by propositions, eg Prop 13.
Alison Rose
I’m a little confused still on Prop 25, especially because the OP says “My Rec on 25: Hard Yes! Again, it’s another attempt to circumvent the legislature, like prop 22.” But on Prop 22, it being an attempt to circumvent the legislature is noted as a bad thing. “This a naked ploy by Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to exploit their workforces and circumvent the legislature.”
I get that the aims and outcomes of these two props are different and thus your stances can be different, but I guess I’m just wondering if it was meant to be a No on 25? Is circumventing the legislature good or bad, or is it just relative in these cases?
WaterGirl
@Ruckus: It is my nym at balloon-juice.com
a lot of people forget the hyphen or do too many Ls or Os.
Try again?
I had not realized it had changed from occasional to always. thanks.
WaterGirl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Literally always, or happens enough to feel like always?
Not being a smart-ass, it will matter for troubleshooting.
Leto
@germy: Who will President* Trumpov give the brown rose to? Tune in Saturday to find out! (fucking, gag; as always, treating it like shit TV)
?BillinGlendaleCA
@WaterGirl: When I first get to a post and hit reply, always.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@FelonyGovt: I need to learn a lot more about prop 19 before deciding. It sounds good, but I have a particular concern. My mother died in 2014, after passing on the house to me in a parent child transfer, thus keeping the prop 13 property tax benefits. The house was basically my inheritance, and because it was in a favored part of the Peninsula, I was able to sell it for enough to retire at 65 (my IRA wasn’t going to go it!). Because of the step up in value, I didn’t really have to pay taxes on it, even though it didn’t become my home (I have lived in Mendocino county since 1976). I don’t want to screw other people in my situation.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Leto: That’s what happens when you hire an unqualified game show host.
JaneE
@Damien: that is exactly what it means. The legislature passed a law that will not go into effect unless this proposition passes. If this proposition is voted down, the bill passed by the legislature just goes away.
dmsilev
@Alison Rose: The effects of the two propositions are different: A “yes” on 25 affirms a decision of the legislature, whereas a “yes” on 22 overturns a decision.
WaterGirl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: That’s annoying! (not that i need to tell you that.) I assume you click the magic link, but would strongly prefer not to have to do that each time.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@WaterGirl: Sure, I can click the link and it refreshes the page and I lose my place
ETA: It’s sometimes accompanied with rude comments about the developer’s questionable parentage.
Brachiator
I almost forgot this one.
Proposition 22: Did you know that gig workers aren’t really people?
Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute
Tending to NO. I understand that the state legislature wanted to go after Uber and Lyft for all kinds of good reasons. But one of their solutions was the abysmal AB5, which ultimately said that where ever possible everyone should be an employee with an employer, and if you’re good you will get a union boss.
The law was so stupid, powerful groups managed to get exceptions. Those without power were screwed.
I’m not sure of the best way to vote to get the legislature to rethink this, but NO might do it.
ETA: The stupidity of AB5. In most hair salons, the person doing your nails was an independent contractor. They paid rent to the shop owner to use the premises. You would call and say I’d like to get my hair and nails done and life was good. Now, the nail person will be presumed to be an employee unless you call separately and make an appointment for nails, separate records are kept to record your visit, and the hair salon owner issues a Form 1099-NEC to the nail person. A lot of extra paperwork burden for no damn good reason.
WaterGirl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Even if you anchor by clicking the time and date?
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
That’s what I thought I sent. Oh well you got the message. It’s every time I go to reply, just like Bill. And if I recall he’s different software and pc rather than mac.
pacem appellant
@Alison Rose: This one confused me earlier too, so much so that I had to ask WG to update the post. The prop is asking us to affirm the lege’s decision to end cash bail. So Yes ends cash bail, No repeals the legislation. The law is on hold until the outcome of this ballot is decided.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@WaterGirl: If I’m replying to a comment, it’s a bit late for that. I’ve not found that to be a foolproof solution either, if I remember it.
?BillinGlendaleCA
@Ruckus: This is true, I’m on Windoze and Edge(chromium).
Fair Economist
I agree with everything except Prop 21. The legislature is friendly to rent control, and even passed a mild statewide rent control measure this year, AB 1482. The last thing this state needs is *another* restriction on legislative action packed into our massively bloated constitution, especially one that could affect the housing supply.
My rule is basically: if the legislature wants it, yes, otherwise, no. My two exceptions this year are Prop 14 for stem cell research (because the state has to step in where the fundie have gotten the feds to step out) and Prop 25 (to uphold non-cash bail), because, as you say, the wording reverses the normal course of things.
Brachiator
@A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan):
The step up in basis for inherited property is not affected by this proposition. However, this is based on various explanations of the proposition. I will have to read the damn thing to make sure. But I trust my sources. For now.
pacem appellant
@A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan): Even if Prop 19 was law, you still would have received the same benefit. The prop is clear about sticking it to out-of-state investors and really, really rich people. It doesn’t touch situations such as yours.
pacem appellant
@Brachiator: I read the damn text of the legislation, and IANAL. That was painful. But your assessment is correct.
Ruckus
@Damien:
There are different types of propositions. The League of Woman Voters has a great rundown, and Ballotpedia has a good overview of how props work. Anyway there are a number of types of props and Ballotpedia has a great rundown of what that means and what they are in all the states that have props.
David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch
Act Blue
has raised btwn $280 and $285 million dollars in 7 full days since RBG passed away – raising $72 million dollars alone on Saturday.
pacem appellant
@Fair Economist: Costa Hawkins is a weird law, passed in 1995 when the lege was much more conservative. If 21 fails, I hope next session they can update Costa Hawkins.
pacem appellant
@Yutsano: I think we have to let the legislature’s law take effect, which is a Yes vote (An earlier version of the post had the polarity switched, mea culpa). The current arbiter of whether you are eligible for bail is how much money you have. While a judge may not be a perfect arbiter, it’s more fair than the current system by a long shot, IMO.
WaterGirl
@?BillinGlendaleCA: I wonder if Ruckus is on Edge, also.
pacem appellant
@Brachiator: 22 is a Hard no. I hate 22 and Uber with the fire of a thousand burning suns.
pacem appellant
@VeniceRiley: Because you don’t like teenagers?
Alison Rose
@pacem appellant: Thanks!
surfk9
AB5 is a codification of a CA Supreme Ct ruling that went after the expansive use of independent contractors to avoid taxes and fees. Uber, Lyft and Doordash are the most well known, but the practice of miss-classifying employees as independent contractors is rampant especially in the entertainment industry and I am not talking about the performers. AB5 addresses the abuses. Were there problems with the legislation? Yes especially in the journalism field, and for some performers but the legislature has been willing to listen and fix where there are real problems. I think that as a whole, the legislature has been acting in good faith on this issue. NO on 22
?BillinGlendaleCA
@WaterGirl: Ruckus is on Mac and probably uses Safari. Oh and in composing this reply it did it again.
Click Reply
See Text Mode
Click on “click here to refresh”
Goes to bottom of page
Go back up to your comment, click reply again.
Type this reply.
glc
Looking forward to discussion of 24. It’s a mess (whichever way you vote).
The Moar You Know
I don’t vote yes for propositions in my state. I may make an exception for 15 this year but everything else gets a automatic “no” and always has.
Same with bond measures Legislators can raise taxes and spend the money. The bond system is a way for legislators to not take risky votes, and that’s bullshit I elect them to take risky votes.
Prop 13 cuts hit my school district right as I entered high school. It destroyed my district and we were one of the wealthy ones. I vowed back then to not take part in the proposition system as it has effects that might not seem obvious at first glance, as did 13. I’d get rid of CAs ability to have propositions in a heartbeat if I could.
katdip
Vote NOOOO on 19 – yet another giveaway to land-wealthy oldsters funded by the Realtors to create more high value churn of real estate. I’m 55 and still don’t support this giveaway. As several opponents note, it just the adds more inequitable wrinkles in CA’s wonky property tax system.
petesh
I wrote this, about Prop. 14. I say No. Plenty of links as well as facts and opinions:
https://www.geneticsandsociety.org/biopolitical-times/another-55-billion-california-stem-cell-institute-0
The Moar You Know
I think it was back in the 1970’s, but California had the longest Constitution in the world due to all the propositions that amended it.
@?BillinGlendaleCA: Nope. Interestingly enough, the longest constitution in the world is and has been Alabama’s.
pacem appellant
@The Moar You Know: One prop this year partially rolls back prop 13. That is prop 15 and it gets its own day.
Per our state constitution, bonds are the only way to fund capital improvements in CA. There is no other mechanism in Sacramento to fund highways, schools, etc. And the lege can (and does!) put bond measures on the ballot, too. Changing that system will require a constitutional convention.
pacem appellant
@petesh: My mind is open to be changed. In 2004, I was at lunch table with my coworkers where a very fervent and earnest discussion between a proponent and opponent to the stem-cell bond measure broke out. The proponent had a family member whose career would benefit. The opponent was concerned about bond debt. I think adding more bond this year might actually persuade me, but in most years, it’s a moot argument, as the only way to fund capital projects in CA is through bonds.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
@Brachiator:
@pacem appellant:
Thank you to both of you.
Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride
@The Moar You Know: I know a lot of people feel this way, and I sympathize. You could take almost any proposition and say “Why doesn’t the Legislature just do its job and figure this out?” But in the end, I think this position backfires on us. If a liberal proposition barely fails, there’s no way to determine whether it fell short because it was unpopular or because just enough people vote no on everything on principle — but the media will always conclude “the voters rejected it,” which in turn will dampen any legislative enthusiasm for tackling the issue.
Brachiator
@pacem appellant:
Thread may be dead, but… I want to hate Uber, but they have been useful. And they put Supershuttle out of business, which I formerly used to get to the airport.
We have a crappy transportation system in California. We need some innovation and a way of encouraging it.
Fair Economist
@glc
Which is why we should vote no, because a Yes puts that whole mess in our state Constitution, almost impossible to fix. It could be the next Prop 13. Among other things, it makes it impossible for the state to regulate privacy practices for business with fewer than 100,000 customers and that’s just *nuts*. There’s nothing else in there that could possibly justify that.
Voting “No” isn’t voting to refuse the privacy practices of 24. It’s voting to let the legislature handle it; and that’s the only sane way to handle such a complicated issue that’s likely to change significantly in the near future.
Fair Economist
@Brachiator: There have already been multiple startups doing ride-hailing in CA which have no problem following AB5. We don’t need to let Uber abuse its “independent contractors” to get dial-a-ride. It’s here anyway, Uber or no Uber.
Brachiator
@Fair Economist:
Who? Where? In Southern California? They must be hiding somewhere.
I agree that Uber needs end its abusive practices. But the narrow category of either employee or independent contractor is stupid. Almost as stupid as AB5. Any bill which has carved out as many exceptions as this one has needs serious review.
PaulWartenberg
Do Florida peeps want to talk about the Florida Amendments?
I blogged about them over here.
craigie
If you don’t believe in rent control, then you can’t support Prop 13 or any of its various “old people get special tax status” manifestations. Prop 13 was and is rent control for homeowners, and I say that as a CA landed gentry homeowner. I hate that thing, always have, always will.
pacem appellant
@Brachiator: With Uber, it’s personal. They hurt people close to me. When I need a taxi, I use Lyft. Or, if I’m at the airport (can’t remember the last time that was!), I take yellow cab.
pacem appellant
@Fair Economist: I agree with this phrasing. I am going to borrow it. Thank you.