PROP 1

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.

History of Propositions

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 2022 Ballot

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

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

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

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

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

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.