Big thanks to Martin for volunteering to put together this ballot initiatives document for California! Please share your thoughts on the initiatives in the comments!
We still need volunteers for lots of states! ~ WaterGirl
Right up front: I have a general philosophy regarding ballot initiatives.
The US is a representative democracy, meaning we vote for people to make these decisions on our behalf. Mixing a direct democracy activity into that situation can create problems because it can be weaponized. It’s harder than paying off a politician, but voters don’t have policy analysts on staff like lawmakers do.
So, as a general rule, I’m a ‘no’ on all initiatives with two categorical exceptions: 1) Anything that is trying to correct a previous initiative, because the legislature cannot do that directly (another problem with direct democracy is it creates a kind of Kessler Syndrome of bad laws requiring more and more initiatives to correct) or that the legislature cannot do like certain kinds of changes to the constitution and 2) Anything that creates a conflict of interest for lawmakers, things like term limits, campaign finance, etc.
If it’s something the legislature can do and can do without conflict, then the legislature should do it. That will color some of my recommendations below, but won’t dictate matters.
I won’t repeat what’s in the voter guide because you should read the damn voter guide. It’s really useful.
Cliff Notes Version
Prop 1: YES.
No good argument in opposition of this.Prop 26: TOSS UP.
There are valid arguments either way. Minimal potential harm voting the wrong way.Prop 27: NO.
No good argument in favor of this.Prop 28: YES.
Doesn’t address underlying problems, but is beneficial.Prop 29: YES.
There are valid arguments in opposition, but this seems to be a well considered bill. Skeptical of the ferocity of the opposition.Prop 30: YES.
Valid arguments in opposition on this one, though.Prop 31: YES.
No good argument in opposition of this. The legislature wanted this, let them do their job.
⭐️
Prop 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. Vote YES
This is a legislative initiative, meaning that 2/3 of each chamber of the legislature voted to put it on the ballot. The legislature did as much as they can do on this, and the rest is up to the voters. It has to be an initiative.
The initiative simply reinforces existing protections in the state constitution by shoring up some of the implicit language currently in the constitution with explicit language so that bad-faith legal arguments can’t punch holes through it. It establishes that abortion must be legal through viability or to protect life of the mother and protects the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives. The latter might seem an odd addition, but California has a dark history of forced sterilization, which this would seem to protect against recurring.
Every left-leaning voter guide is unambiguous this is a YES vote.
⭐️
Prop 26: Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Vote TOSS UP
This both amends the constitution and creates or modifies business statutes, but the legislature didn’t pass any legislation related to this.
Most voter guides are neutral on this, mainly because the impact is pretty small, and because there’s a deference to mechanisms that allow tribes to generate revenue (there’s a whole other debate worth having). Tribes would be allowed to have in-person sports betting and some new forms of gambling. These are all commonly found across the Nevada border so it’s an effort to capture gambling income that would require a trip to Reno or Vegas to instead stay in state and go to local tribes. It brings a new tax vehicle where 10% of profits from this gambling would be put in a tax fund with a schedule for how it would be spent – 15% enforcement, 15% gambling addiction and mental health, and 70% general fund. The tax rate is pretty low, but its all new revenue, and 70% to the general fund is decent.
Nothing here is bad. Nothing here is great. Go with your feelings on gambling and opportunities for tribal sovereignty and economic opportunity.
⭐️
Prop 27: Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.: Vote NO
Similar to the above, this both amends the constitution and creates or modifies business statutes, but the legislature didn’t pass any legislation related to this.
This is sort of the compliment to the initiative above. But where Prop 26 would capture gambling activity that would go out of state and directs instead to *in person* gambling on tribal land, both benefitting the local economy and being available for taxation, Prop 27 simply makes it legal to do online gambling and moves that activity either out of state or out of the nation. It would likely deny gambling activity to Nevada, but it doesn’t necessarily capture any of it local to the state, and almost certainly wouldn’t. And the ability to collect tax on that activity is almost nonexistent as a result. This simply punches a hole in the state gambling laws to allow some Trump-backing billionaire to run a gambling app out of Macau.
The state gains nothing, and loses a fair bit. Every left-leaning voter guide is unambiguous this is a NO.
⭐️
Prop 28: Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools. Initiative Statute.: Vote YES
This is part of the Kessler Syndrome of initiative problem. It’s designed to patch problems created by previous initiatives. There’s a debate to be had about whether we should repeal the whole mess of education initiatives and turn education funding back to the legislature (we should) but until that day, we gotta evaluate each patch on its own merits.
This patches Prop 98, which in turn patched Prop 13 in terms of guaranteeing education funding. Prop 98 requires a certain percentage of tax revenue be reallocated to K-12 schools with some rebalancing for low income students, etc. Prop 28 earmarks a small percentage of that money be dedicated to music and arts instruction. It allocates no new money. There’s lots of complicated formulas for how much money should be earmarked (similar to Prop 98 and other education laws and statutes) but these look pretty reasonable. The current state of affairs in CA is that many school districts have excellent arts and music programs (such as my local district) but all of that funding comes from private foundations, not from the state. So there’s a massive disparity in access to arts education. This seeks to mitigate some of that problem.
This maintains a fairly dysfunctional education funding system, but it’s a reasonable patch until we as a state decide to take on that larger problem. The text of the initiative seems to do exactly what it describes and doesn’t seem to introduce any new problems.
All left-leaning voter guides suggest voting YES here. I agree.
⭐️
Prop 29: Requires On-Site Licensed Medical Professional at Kidney Dialysis Clinics and Establishes Other State Requirements. Initiative Statute.: Vote YES
This is the 3rd attempt at this initiative, backed by SEIU. Currently 8 states require specific staffing of dialysis clinics like this initiative, and this initiative would add CA to that list. This one is a bit more complex than it might seem. To start, dialysis clinics that serve Medicare patients already need to meet a set of requirements set out by CMS, so you have this federal baseline to operate from since it’s unlikely any clinic can operate without serving seniors. That said, states with required staffing don’t necessarily have better mortality rates than CA, which does reasonably well already. There’s more to the initiative than just staffing, however. The underlying problem trying to be solved is the disparity between mortality rates at for-profit and non-profit dialysis clinics. Most for-profit dialysis clinics are operated by DaVita or Fresenius and they have worse outcomes than the non-profit ones. Additionally, many clinics are affiliated with kidney physicians, so you get the kind of patient capture that tends to lead to poor outcomes. Beyond the staffing requirements, this initiative would also require reporting on rates of infection and other problems that would lead to impact on mortality, plus reporting on who had ownership stake in the clinic so that patients would know if the clinic is being operated independently of their doctor. The requirements for staffing (MD, NP, or PA) would have independent authority for patient care. And there is an exception process built in to the initiative for situations where that staffing level might not be necessary. So from the text this is less of a ‘we think clinics need more staffing’ and more of a ‘clinics need to operate independently for the benefit of patients’ kind of focus, that there is a problem of local monopoly and rent seeking off of individual physician care.
There is somewhat mixed support for this initiative. Democratic socialists take no position. Courage California supports it. I would be inclined to vote ‘no’ based on my general philosophy, but the degree of objection to this (I’m getting 5-10 ads per hour to vote no) and the similarity of the text to legislation that improved other health outcomes in the state like maternal mortality has me inclined to vote ‘yes’. The ads indicate that clinics would have to close, but the hiring requirements aren’t really cost prohibitive since it only requires that one of the existing staff be a MD, NP, or PA. It’s the independent nature of that staffer that seems to be the real problem.
I get VERY suspicious when a group spends more to oppose a bill on economic grounds than it would cost to comply with it. That tells me there’s something more at play here. I think a YES vote here is warranted as a result.
⭐️
Prop 30: Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute. Vote YES (but there may be some disagreement on this one)
This could be handled by the legislature but they would almost certainly kick it to voters due to the nature of the tax provision.
This is a bit of a grab bag, but a pretty good grab bag. It’s funded by adding an additional tax to those making $2M a year or more. 25% of the funding goes to fire suppression, primarily on prevention – cutting fire breaks, prescribed burns, etc. This is a hugely underfunded part of CA fire management because you have to spend to put out fires, and whats left over goes to prevention, which is sometimes next to nothing. 75% goes to expanding access to electric vehicles – and it does this is a less objectionable way than how the feds are currently doing it. This money is split between an equity and air quality account and a general account. The equity and air quality account is targeted to low-income and disadvantaged communities. This funding is to be used to electrify school and transit buses, and some focus on agricultural equipment and raiteros. I assume this is inspired by the quite successful central valley program to provide EV ride share to farm workers. It also funds clean mobility options in places that suffer from high diesel pollution (port areas, etc.) and is focused more on electric bikes, building bike infrastructure and protected lanes, and funding transit passes. Overall this is a much better mechanism than subsidizing traditional EVs for generally high income individuals. The ZEV rebate provisions indicate that CARB needs to prioritize reduction of GHGs, so it allows CARB to tie subsidies to things like the size of vehicles, their use, etc. It would be nice if this didn’t go to people buying large electric SUVs and instead to incentivizing smaller primary commuter vehicles. But it isn’t prescriptive. This funding can also be used for public charging infrastructure if CARB sees that as a better vehicle to EV adoption. The initiative also allows for amendment by the legislature so modification shouldn’t need to return to the ballot initiative process.
Opposition comes from CA Teachers Association because the tax provisions bypass the mandatory 50% distribution to education funds. I mean, I get it, but I don’t particularly like the constraint of that requirement. We don’t have to balance all other needs to be equal to education which is what the 50/50 provision does. There’s also the argument that this is a cash grab by Lyft. There’s nothing in here that directly benefits Lyft though the state does require rideshare companies be 90% electric by 2030, and this would help Lyft get there. CARB appears to have a lot of agency in how to implement the funding.
There’s mixed support for this one. Democratic Socialists oppose it because Lyft and because they want it to be even more transit oriented. That’s fair enough, but there’s also substantial focus on low-income and agricultural worker benefits, and a LOT of DemSoc advocacy is really around upper/middle class transit options. Yeah, I wish this was even less EV oriented than it is, but it’s pulling policy in the correct direction and focuses on those communities where transit options are legitimately hard to implement. Kern County isn’t going to run a bus route to every field that needs workers to harvest crops at 2AM because it’s 114 during the day. Lots of communities are going to need EVs, and this does a better job of steering in that direction than any other legislation I’ve seen. Newsom opposes it because he feels Lyft is using it to hit their EV requirement, but Newsom also put up billions is less targeted funding for EVs that would do exactly the same thing. I don’t understand the argument. I’m guessing opposing the tax hike is good politics for him right now and there’s rarely a downside for Democrats to line up with the Teachers Association. I don’t think it’s because it’s too car focused, because Newsom hasn’t been overly transit focused thus far. Democratic party supports it. I like the fire provisions a lot. I wish the climate provisions were more strongly steered toward transit, but they’re more strongly tilted toward low income and non-car infrastructure than any other climate bill I’ve seen, so I’m not particularly opposed to it.
If you’re pro-EV, this is a YES. If you are anti-car, it’s a bit harder. I’m inclined to allow the fire provisions pull me over the line to YES on this one.
⭐️
Prop 31: Referendum On 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products.: Vote YES
This is an easy one. The legislature passed a law in 2020 that banned the sale of flavored tobacco products because they are marketed toward kids. The tobacco industry successfully floated an initiative to block implementation of the law until the public would vote on it. This is that vote. Vote YES. Allow the law the legislature passed to go into effect.
Everyone agrees that this is a YES.
WaterGirl
Thank you, Martin!
Everyone else: think about volunteering to do your state. :-)
Baud
IMHO, assuming this passes, liberals should beat the drum hard on this provision and compare and contrast to red states.
Jinchi
Mostly agree with you except for this one:
I absolutely hate when questions like this are put on the ballot. This is a medical issue of critical importance to many people, that I have no experience or expertise in. I cannot puzzle out the pros and cons of this question, and neither can most other voters. That’s an automatic “No” vote for me.
We elect people and create agencies specifically to solve problems like this. Let them do their jobs.
Edmund Dantes
Thank you Martin. Really good write up with a little more background (particularly the Lyft one as I couldn’t understand the connection to that one).
the California voter guide from the state is really well done.
My ballot is already in and counted so I’m done on the voting front for this election. Now just keep helping out where I can, and dropping knowledge with any acquaintances at the different get togethers I’m at for my little one.
bbleh
@WaterGirl: just finished looking over WV initiatives, still checking out endorsements, but could comment (although JC may want to do that one)
WaterGirl
@bbleh: Cole is so busy with responsibilities at work that I think he would LOVE it if someone else would do it. Even if he took it on it’s unlikely that he could actually get to it.
Andrya
Thanks. I vote in California, and this is extremely helpful.
WaterGirl
@Jinchi: Looks like pace appellant agrees with you on #29. He put this in Friday’s post.
1 Y (HELL YES)
26 N
27 N
28 Y
29 N
30 Y
31 Y
I hope there can be good conversation about this in the comments!
bbleh
@WaterGirl: uh, ok. How? Just post in comments somewhere?
Gary K
Here’s Kevin Drum’s take:
WaterGirl
@bbleh: You can send me an email with the information. Send to my nym at balloon-juice.com
Jinchi
@WaterGirl:
The hardest choices on the California ballot for me are the judicial races. Unless a candidate was involved in a highly controversial case, It’s nearly impossible to get information about them. In the primaries choosing is almost down to a coin toss (the best guides are ironically right wing web sites, since they advocate election of toxic candidates).
In this general election it’s all (Y,N) to keep the incumbents, and almost all were appointed by Jerry Brown or Gavin Newsom, so I’m leaning (Y) across the ballot.
But if anyone has a better way to figure out these races, it’d be very helpful.
Another Scott
@Jinchi: Virginia’s ballot (at least NoVA’s) is simple this year – just US House (go Beyer!!). But I too dislike having to vote on constitutional amendments.
A few years ago there was an amendment on the ballot to extend a property tax break to certain kinds of survivors of those who served in the military and suffered 100% disability. I see that in 2022 there’s a proposal to extend the break to survivors of military members who died while on duty (not just KIA).
The problem is, the existing state constitution has all kinds of categorical language about the taxing policies of localities, so there’s a huge drawn-out process if the taxing system needs to be changed in even the tiniest way. It’s stupid and inefficient and doesn’t keep up with the times (Virginia’s top income tax bracket of 5.75% kicks in at $17,001), but it allows Richmond to keep the growing cities and counties under their thumb.
Grr…,
Scott.
WaterGirl
Judicial races are tricky here in IL, too, now that they call them non-partisan, which of course is a quaint concept from a former time.
Dorothy Winsor pointed out a trick for IL for deciding which judges should be retained. Find information from when they were first elected, because back then they were still partisan races.
Do you guys vote on whether to retain judges in CA and in other states?
ShadeTail
Since we’re talking my home of California here, note to anyone living in Santa Clara. The 49ers football team owners are quite literally trying to buy the city council by paying for slimy mailers that attack the current mayor and some of the council members. When you get one of these mailers, look at the fine print at the end. If one of the payers listed is the 49ers LLC, vote the opposite of what that mailer says.
Matt McIrvin
Massachusetts questions 2 and 3 are both shots in ongoing “business bloc A vs. business bloc B” bunfights with devils in the details and no really obvious justice angle. I suppose opposing them on the grounds that this kind of thing shouldn’t even be a ballot question would make sense, though that’s not how I voted.
Scout211
Thanks for putting this post up for Californians. In 2024, let’s do this earlier, though. Ballots were mailed out this year by October 10th and most jackals have already voted. I want to personally thank WaterGirl for emailing pace appellant when I asked for help on the propositions when ballots were first mailed. I did do some research of my own but was guided by pace appellant’s recommendations. So thank you, pace appellant. I voted in line with your recommendations.
@Jinchi: Agree with you in this one.
@Jinchi: For the California judicial candidates, I looked all of them up to see who appointed them. That helped. Most were appointed by either Newsom or Brown. One was appointed by Pete Wilson, so a big no on that one.
Alison Rose
@Scout211: Ew, which one was Wilson’s, do you recall?
MagdaInBlack
@WaterGirl: With regard to reproductive rights in Illinois and which judges to choose, I’m paying attention to this:
https://www.personalpac.org/endorsements/
bbleh
@WaterGirl: K done.
J R in WV
Here in WV the only ballot “initiatives” are constitutional amendments, which means you have to add meaningless detailed requirements into the state constitution. I’m constitutionally opposed to that kind of BS. Regarding “non-partiisan” judges and justices, folks might remember that several of our supreme court justices were impeached not too long ago for small time financial crimes mostly, driving state vehicles for private business, spending state money on private office equipment, etc.
It took me nearly a week to run through all the candidates to determine which ones were fascists or corporate pawns, there were so many people running for the multiple vacancies. Google the names of the individuals and the law firms they were associated with got me a long way, plus one of our close friends and next door neighbors is professionally involved with activist groups and the league of women voters, and her advice helped a whole lot. Interestingly two of my closest female friends are elected officers of the League in different states, so they know who is what on ballots…
Here in WV the vast majority of constitutional ballot questions are hard NO because they benefit a specific sector of the economy, like energy, chemical companies, the Coal Bidnesss, etc…
Now I’m going to tell a story from my former career as a software developer with DEP, wherein I got to meet a lot of interesting characters. Was chatting with a small scale oil guy, who bought up nearly played out stripper wells, which no longer produce enough oil for the big guys to bother with. He would visit owners out in the country where the wells were, inspect them closely, and make an offer, or not.
Sometimes in very rural areas he would take his backpacking equipment and just camp out because many rural counties have no motel/hotel/restaurant, nothing like that. He visited one set of wells one afternoon, drove cross country to the area where the next day’s appointment was, and pitched a tent in the woods near by. Around 2 or 3 am he was awakened by lights and engines running at a well site nearby in the woods, and pulled on his boots to see what was going on.
The seller he was to meet the next day, had brought in tankers full of crude, and was pumping that crude oil into the wells he was going to pump out the next day for Mike to see how good these wells were.
Priming the pump at 3 am~!!!
Mike enjoyed the demonstration the next day, already had the license plate numbers for the trucks… He decided to get out of the business after that interesting night with the O&G strippers. That’s the oil bidness in WV, just like in TX, I bet.
Ken
@Jinchi: For judicial and some down-ballot races, I find it’s helpful to look at the grouping of yard signs. Guilt by association, usually; the homeowner who puts up the sign for a known MAGA loon, also thinks I should vote for Judge X? That tells me something…
Wyatt Salamanca
OT
Listen up everybody and brace yourselves for major breaking news from one of the leading investigative journalists in our nation’s history!!
Bob Woodward:
h/t https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bob-woodward-on-donald-trump-he-is-a-threat-to-democracy/
Baud
@Wyatt Salamanca:
Oh lordy, wait till Woodward learns about heliocentrism.
WaterGirl
@MagdaInBlack: Who or what is PersonalPAC?
No judicial vacancies on my ballot, just the retention question on 2 judges. It doesn’t look like that was covered in your list.
CaseyL
@Wyatt Salamanca: Woodward being an old rich white man, one wonders which particular aspect of the resurgent fascist movement finally got his attention.
dmsilev
@Wyatt Salamanca: …but I’ll sit on all of the inside information I gather until it’s time to write another book.
WaterGirl
@Ken: That’s a great point!
I was immediately suspicious of the yellow and brown Sherrif sign that was in the yard with a known republican sign.
Turns out that sheriff candidates have (D) or (R) after the name on the ballot, where I confirmed that that was a good guess.
MagdaInBlack
@WaterGirl: The site tells you who they are. The 2 Supreme vacancies are in Ms Windsors district and mine. Sorry if I posted something irrelevant. Won’t happen again. Feel free to delete that posting.
Scout211
@Alison Rose: Oh, shoot! I didn’t write any of that that down. I will try to see if I can figure it out. I’m not sure if it was a Supreme Court Justice or local court judge, though. Sorry.
But if you have the time to google it, all the judges and justices have their bio listed on their respective court’s website. I just googled the names, found their bios and then learned which Governor appointed them.
Alison Rose
@Scout211: Yeah, I just got my ballot so I’ll take a look. I’m sure none of the names will be familiar to me.
Another Scott
@MagdaInBlack: (I think WG likes stuff here to be informative enough so that people don’t need to get out of the boat and can decide whether to click a link or not. Don’t take it as a criticism, but a gentle request for more information. :-)
My $0.02.)
Cheers,
Scott.
WaterGirl
@MagdaInBlack: No, no, no… obviously what I wrote came out wrong!
I checked for Dem names I knew, so I knew they were recommending Dems, so that’s all good.
I was just looking for a short description of who the PAC is, but you had indicated that it was pro-choice. That’s what I get for quickly posting a comment when I’m hungry and about to eat!
wmd
Good resource is Ballotpedia (California). Other states are available.
e.g Prop 29 (Dialysis Clinic Requirements) gives information on that proposition.
Note funding – Yes is SEIU – healthcare workers ($7.96M). No – multiple, mostly for profit clinic operators. Total $86.3M, of which $52.7M came from one provider – DaVita.
WaterGirl
@bbleh: Thank you!
Almost Retired
Thanks for this. Disagree on the dialysis measure. I don’t understand the medical or economic considerations, and it shouldn’t be up to the voters (again …this thing is perennial).
For Judges in Los Angeles County, I served on the LA County Bar Association’s Judicial Elections Evaluations Committee (JEEC) for a couple cycles in the last decade when I used to give a shit. JEEC was – and is – made up of about 45 working practitioners from all walks of legal life (big firms, solos, public employees, etc.). We did a really thorough investigation of the candidates, including interviews with the candidates themselves, and with judges before whom they’ve appeared, opposing counsel, community contacts, etc. It’s a pretty good shorthand look at the candidates. Here’s link for this cycle:
https://lacba.org/?pg=lacba-news&blAction=showEntry&blogEntry=82559
craigie
30 is a No. It is sponsored by Lyft. Any initiative that a corporation is paying to pass is de facto bad for the rest of us. Plus, while I am all for eating the rich, nickle and diming them to get your pet projects paid for is not good government.
MattF
Maryland has a ballot question on legalizing recreational use of marijuana, which I voted ‘yea’ on, with a sigh. I smoked quite a bit of it in my yooth, my teachers in high school tended to assume I was high all the time (I was not). Gave it up when I went to grad school, except for a couple of celebratory occasions. Noticed that security clearance interviewers stopped asking.
FelonyGovt
I think I voted NO on all the CA props except 1 and 31. I really hate our initiative system and get suspicious of most of them, and lean “no” unless there are compelling reasons to vote yes. We elect legislators for a reason…
WaterGirl
@wmd: Good point that funding is a big clue. So are endorsements!
Looks like we’ll want to add funding, endorsements, and sponsors as categories in our state recommendations.
MagdaInBlack
@WaterGirl: And I’m nursing a migraine. I apologize for my snippishness.🌻
NoraLenderbee
@Gary K: I agree with Kevin Drum’s take and almost all his recommendations, which are YES on Prop 1 and 31, and NO on all the rest. I differ on Prop 28 because i cannot bring myself to vote against funding arts education.
26 and 27 –NO because we have more than enough gambling. We especially don’t need online sports betting.
29–NO because, as Jinchi said, it’s a medical issue. Also because this measure has been rejected twice already; how many freakin times do we have to vote on it?
30–NO. This is Lyft getting taxpayers to subsidize its business expenses. The wildfire provisions, etc., are decorations to disguise the money grab. Fire management should be funded properly, not to cover up a piece of crap.
WaterGirl
@Gary K: Can you define earlier so I can have a date in mind for next time?
WaterGirl
@Almost Retired: Does the fact that SEIU supports it and private clinics don’t support it have any impact on your decision?
WaterGirl
@MagdaInBlack: You have a migraine and I was ravenously hungry. What could possibly go wrong in that interaction? :-)
ian
I don’t agree that this should be a yes. In the past, when cigarette companies were marketing to children, they were subjected to lawsuits. If they are marketing flavored tobacco to children, the Attorney General should get on that.
Banning flavored tobacco is just picking winners and losers among the tobacco industry. I think we should let people choose what flavor and variety of a product they want. If you think tobacco is bad and should be banned, then ban all of it.
This is just morality policing other people’s habits.
Almost Retired
@WaterGirl: Nope. While the identity of who is underwriting these ballot measures is obviously relevant, I still don’t see this as something that should be decided by voters. It’s such a niche issue, and I can’t figure out why this hasn’t been resolved within the medical and labor community and is instead showing up every two years on our ballot. I’m voting no on the Lyft measure as well. Newsom has been doing ads against it recently.
Alison Rose
@wmd: Yeah, seeing DaVita go absolutely HAM against it honestly makes me want to vote Yes.
Scout211
@Alison Rose: I found it! It was an appellate judge in my district, the 3rd, so he wouldn’t be on your ballot.
Here is a handy listing of appellate judges by district who are currently on the ballot.
ballotpedia
ETA: And the Supreme Court justices on the ballot:
ballotpedia ca supreme court
WaterGirl
@Almost Retired: Push back… but if you vote NO on something because you don’t think the voters should be deciding, isn’t that sometimes shooting good causes in the foot? Because your automatic NO gets counted as a NO along with the people who will vote against anything progressive.
Doesn’t that mean that a vote like that is actually helping the opposition?
Not trying to start a fight :-) just trying to understand how/why your stratgegy could be a good thing big-picture-wise.
Fair Economist
“That said, states with required staffing don’t necessarily have better mortality rates than CA, which does reasonably well already.”
This is a hell of a reason not to effectively add a requirement to the state Constitution. I haven’t seen one study that indicates this requirement meaningfully improves results, and we know it increases costs.
A good rule of thumb is that if the CA legislature *can* do it, it shouldn’t be done by referendum, no matter how good an idea it seems to be. It’s virtually impossible to amend or repeal a referendum, so it’s always a trap. If it really *is* a good idea, go pester the legislature instead; they’ve got their heads screwed on straight these days.
Just on this good government ground you should vote no on 28 and 29.
WaterGirl
Where there is disagreement on some of these, is anyone willing to collate the disagreements by initiative number and include the arguments in both directions?
Almost Retired
@WaterGirl: Fair Economist at 51 said it better than I could!
Alison Rose
@Scout211: Awesome, thanks! I’m in the first district, so I’ll check them out.
WaterGirl
@Almost Retired: Sorry, I am not being clear. I am trying (!) to ask whether voting NO on any of them just because you think it is something the legislature should be doing…. isn’t shooting the good guys in the foot when it is something worthwhile.
You would rather not have something good because you wanted the legislature to do it, even if the legislature never would?
laura
@Jinchi: Balletopia is a good source for judicial candidates. I’m in the 3rd District for appellate courts. All candidates are getting my yes vote except Harry Hull who was appointed by Pete Wilson- Hard No for that guy.
Almost Retired
@WaterGirl: no, I have voted yes on meritorious ballot props before, even if the issue could arguably be better handled by legislation. But I am profoundly uncomfortable with putting medical staffing decisions up for popular vote. And I have yet to be convinced that it is meritorious, even if groups I generally support are behind it. Of course, some times we vote for very important stuff, like mandatory condoms for porn actors!!
FastEdD
Hi Martin, thanks for this. After I retired as a public school teacher I worked for CFT, the CA Federation of Teachers, as a political director and field organizer. A couple years it was literally my job to go to teachers’ lounges and give them free food and exchange information about the propositions. I found it much easier to discuss propositions than candidates. When names are attached, people go ballistic (like they do about sports.) When it is just about an abstract idea or a current law, people (at least teachers) can think more logically. I’d ask them what their problems were, how we could make their lives better, and if there was a tie-in with the Prop I’d show them how it would help. There was one lady I remember who said, “I warn you, I’m a Republican,” and I replied, “Well I’m not, but let’s talk.” She wound up giving me a hug before I left and it was a thing of beauty. I am so proud of Prop 25-we worked on that one furiously, and it passed and has made all our lives better. 25 was to require a simple majority (50% +1) to pass a state budget instead of a 67% super majority. California has had on time budgets ever since, and budget surpluses. Teachers and schools can count on what their budget will be and the whole state has benefited from it. It is true that “when in doubt vote no if you don’t understand it” but sometimes a Prop can do good things that the legislature can’t. I have been amazed at the quality of CA voters as a whole. They can wade through a complicated mess of Propositions and make the right decisions, almost every time.
This year I looked at all the propositions and- came to precisely the same conclusions you did. Prop 1 is a slam dunk, absolutely no reason to vote No unless you are a forced birther. It doesn’t cost any money and further supports women’s reproductive rights. I figure it will pass by about 60-70% Yes. The cynical side of me says it was put on the ballot also to draw Dem voters to the polls. More states should do that if they can, and it works the same way with initiatives to legalize pot.
The gambling initiatives are embroiled in deliberately confusing ads. “Tribes are for it! Tribes are against it!” These are the best example of looking at who paid for the ads. When online gaming companies pay for the ad, it isn’t tribes who benefit.
29, yes it would require qualified medical personnel to be on site, but it wouldn’t require a full on MD. Of course the dialysis companies will complain, but tough shit. They already make huge profits.
31, yes that’s easy. Phillip Morris wants you to vote no because it hurts their profits, but screw ’em.
Like you, the one that was hardest to decide was 30. It most likely does contain goodies for Lyft (the Lyft Grift) and Gov Gav and my own organization CFT say to vote no. OTOH, guess who also says vote No? The CA Repub Party. It contains goodies we desperately need as well. Yes means more public EV chargers, and I need that because I take delivery of a new EV this week. More funds for fighting wildfires, and there are never enough resources for that. It is paid for by taxing the super-rich (over $2 million income per year), so screw ’em. I don’t necessarily agree with Gov Gav all the time, and Prop 30 will take the money from the right place and spend it on goodies I want, even if some of it goes to the wrong place. Such is sausage making. I believe the CA Democratic Party is a yes on this one.
Thanks again Martin, good job. Those were my conclusions too.
Almost Retired
@Jinchi: not sure where you are, but in the Second District (Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, I think) all the Judges are keepers (I’ve practiced in LA for 35 years and have appeared before most of them). There’s some leftover Deukmejian crazies out there but they’re not up this cycle.
alwaysaloon
The info on prop 30 out here is very confusing. Newsom, Republican Party and millionaires/billionaires oppose while Cal Dems, fire fighters and environmentalists support. The Lyft part is either a corporate money grab or Lyft is simply funding GOTV since it’s drivers have to buy their own cars and this will be a pot of money available to them. Seems to me that the tax hike (on over $2mil) is the real driver of opposition.
sab
@Wyatt Salamanca: Bob Woodward apparently is not as smart as he thinks he is, or at least he is a slow learner.
FastEdD
@Almost Retired: Generally, yes. All the state Supremes were appointed by Dems, so they are all a yes. In the Fourth District I think Manuel Ramirez, Carol Coddington, and William Bedsworth are Appeals Court judges who were appointed by Deukmejian or Arnold, so I voted no on them. YMMV!
StringOnAStick
We got our Oregon ballots yesterday, and the state provided voter guide booklet had been delivered maybe 2 weeks ago. Colorado has a good state voter guide that arrives every election season, but the Oregon is more comprehensive, with any group who has a comment about a proposal can add their two cents to the guide along with the names of those that wrote it. It sure makes it easy to see what to vote for when you see which groups are lining up on each side. If labor groups, Planned Parenthood and the ACLU is for or against something, not much additional research is needed on my part.
My main worry this year is the head of Nike first funded the conservative D (Betsy Johnson) who is running as an independent for Governor when she lost the D primary, and now he’s dumping huge money into getting the crazy R candidate elected and thanks to Johnson running as a spoiler, it is likely to work. I see too many lean D types who find the D candidate (Tina Kotek) too liberal (and gay) doing the protest vote by voting for Johnson, who is under 20% and isn’t going to win, which lets the crazy R win. Shit!
pacem appellant
Thank you Martin for jumping in this year. I can’t thank you enough. Other than 29, I think we see eye-to-eye. And your assessment of 29 is excellent. Thanks for the thoughtful analysis.
pacem appellant
@Scout211: I wasn’t able to do a write-up this year due to family circumstances. Thanks for reading my gut take. And thank you Martin for your excellent analysis!
pacem appellant
@FastEdD: I am a YES on 30 mostly because I received a text saying that Reed Hasting (the CEO of Netflix) is a no. He’s not Musk-level evil (but not for wanting), and I instinctually vote the opposite of whatever he wants.
Birdie
As someone with chronic kidney disease, I sometimes wish there were more of us so that our life-threatening concerns couldn’t be dismissed as “niche”.
Dialysis is a procedure that patients with end stage renal disease depend on to live. The risk of life threatening infection is high. The US in general and California in particular has evolved to be a for-profit duopoly on dialysis provision. The goals of Fresenius and DaVita are to maximize patient throughput and therefore insurance billings, while minimizing costs. This leads to clinics where under-trained technicians are incentivized to process as many patients as possible, at the expense of sterile procedure, increasing rates of life threatening complications.
The dominance of Fresenius and DaVita means they dominate lobbying money on the issue, leading to regulatory capture. I get that “this is complicated” and “the legislature should do something”, but ultimately legislators do what donors want and what gets them votes, and there aren’t enough informed dialysis patients (ie “informed that better is possible”, there’s a John Oliver special available via Google about the efforts DV and F go to misinform patients about their treatment options) to matter.
FWIW I don’t believe the US will ever fix this, largely because of the attitudes represented in comments here, and so I’m in process of moving to a country (Australia) where life-saving medical care in general, and dialysis in particular, are provided by the state, and the state better balances the considerations of cost and quality of care.
All I’ll say is, imagine if your expected value of health and well being depended on your fellow citizens, and the universal “educated liberal” response was “I don’t know enough about the issue and it’s not my job to learn or care”. It’s not surprising or even wrong, but it is a bit depressing to hear it so often.
Ruckus
@MagdaInBlack:
I don’t nurse my migraines.
I kill them.
With Zolmitriptan and naproxen.
I’ve had migraines for decades and until Zolmitriptan came out in the 90s I just suffered.
Geminid
@StringOnAStick: Sounds like Oregon could use a “sore loser” law that would have barred a primary loser like Johnson from running as an Independent. Other states have them. Phil Knight’s motivation for bankrolling Johnson with $3.5 million is made clear by the $1 million he’s dropped on Drazan’s campaign.
I wonder how very liberal Tina Kotek really is. Her experience as Majority Leader in the state legislature indicates to me that she has a pragmatic and not an ideological approach to politics.
Perhaps her detractors hope that they can implicate her sexual orientation in the charge of “too liberal.” This canard might be employed by opponents of 5th CD candidate Jaime McLeod-Skinner as well. The notion that lesbians are by nature political radicals is slander, of course, but it could gain traction among the more ignorant.
KithKanan
@Geminid: a sore loser law or even, much as I hate to say it, a top-two jungle primary law like California seem like they would eliminate this issue, though as a Californian I’d really prefer a top-4 jungle primary with a ranked choice general like Alaska has to reduce the possibility of inadvertently splitting the majority party primary vote among so many candidates none of them make it to the general.
Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride
@laura: This thread is probably dead by now, but I just wanted to put in a word on the judgeship question. I worked for 30 years as a staff attorney at the Third District and saw many judges come and go. I’ve voted no on retaining some of them, but strictly based on how they did the job, not on who appointed them. For what it’s worth, I always found Harry Hull to be a thoughtful, conscientious, and honest judge, even when I disagreed with his conclusions. Anyway, since the court is now dominated by Democratic appointees, he couldn’t cause partisan trouble even if he wanted to.
Ruckus
@WaterGirl:
In CA we have a lot of props on the ballot and a lot of times they are not what they seem. I like the looking who supports the prop and by how much money, especially when the money is wildly differing from side to side. We have a lot of props because it is a system supposedly for the people, although I’d say it’s been my experience that 90% or so are props that support someone or something that most people do not care about other than how much it’s going to cost. Often it’s the cost and who is willing to pay for it that sinks – or not, a particular prop. Most of these are wildly one sided and I’d say about 2/3 not in the people’s favor. Just one voter’s opinion.
Almost Retired
@Birdie: This is a really thoughtful response and you’re making me reconsider my views on this. My MIL was on dialysis for years, so I have some limited experience with the process. My concern is that the requirements of the proposition go beyond what is necessary to ensure quality medical care. It seems a bit more like a labor issue – and requiring that level of medical staffing could reduce the number of dialysis centers (my MIL had to travel over an hour). I guess my point is that I’d rather focus on administrative regulation of safety standards than assuming the problem is fixed with a staffing requirement. But my position is not at all based on indifference to the challenges faced by dialysis patients. Holy shit this is a great thread! BJ at its best.
Geminid
@KithKanan: I’m intrigued by Alaska’s new jungle primary, 4-way ranked choice runoff system. I would not be surprised if it becomes widespread over time.
On the other hand, I am wary of an outfit called “Fight for Five” that has gotten a five-way ranked choice proposal on Nevada’s ballot this year, and is pushing it in other states (I think Nevada has to pass the proposal twice for it to become law). My gut feeling is that five is too many.
Almost Retired
@Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride: yup. Bedsworth in Orange County was appointed by Wilson but is a wonderful Judge and human being.
Birdie
@Almost Retired: thank you for reading and hearing my point of view. I agree that the proposition is a blunt instrument, and it requires a yes/no decision on one permutation of a set of nuanced considerations. That said, my reason for voting yes (though l will be in a different jurisdiction by the end of the year, because I think the prop will fail) is that I don’t think the more rational regulatory paths to improving care are viable, because the providers effectively own the regulators. So to me the alternatives are ‘this or do nothing’, not ‘this or fix it properly’, leading me to choose ‘this, then’.
Also, I don’t think any of the requirements are actively bad. It won’t guarantee better standards, but it will force someone who is subject to a medical licensing board to sign off on process and standards. And if there is a better out there, it might incentivized Fresenius and DaVita to engage in determining what that is.
Martin
Sorry, had a thing this morning. Just getting in here. I’ll catch up to comments.
Martin
@Jinchi: That’s a perfectly valid take. That’s my normal take as well as I state at the outset.
Martin
@Scout211: Agreed. Next time we should set Oct 1 as a deadline to have these done.
A woman from anywhere (formerly Mohagan)
I’m very late getting to this thread, but want to say THANK YOU to WG and Martin for putting this up, and to all the thoughtful comments Y and N on various props. The discussion has been very useful. I’m off now to look at the voter’s guide. I agree that looking at who supports or is against a prop is a strong indication of which way to vote without doing any other investigation!
Martin
@wmd: The cost to hire an RN at every clinic would be no more than $15M. That’s why I tried to focus on the other provisions because the cost of hiring clearly isn’t the real objection given the level of opposition funding. I suspect the requirement that that individual have autonomy breaks their quasi-monopoly state.
PHinSD
@Jinchi: I agree with you on the judges. Only one of them, William W. Bedsworth (Associate Justice, Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three), was appointed by Pete Wilson. It seems he writes “humorous” pieces and the one I looked at had an “old man shouting at clouds” air to it.
way2blue
This great. Thank you, Martin. (I always struggle finding useful ballot analysis for California.)
Martin
@craigie: It’s really not sponsored by Lyft. You can tell just by reading the actual initiative that it’s not their work. It was written out of CCAIR – the same nonprofit that advanced Smog Check. They’re pretty good on air quality and environmental justice, so I take some offense that this is not a good faith initiative – it clearly is.
What complicates it are the sides that are drawn up, you have a number of unions on each side, you have Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee in support and Gavin Newsom opposed, you have the DNC in support and RNC in opposition.
So I think you have to reject the support/opposition as clear proxies of where you should be on this. And I reject the concept of ‘we need to oppose this because of Lyft’ because it falls straight in the same category as ‘we should reject Covid vaccines because Brandon supports them’. I’m not pro Lyft by any means, especially after Prop 22, but you can’t reject good legislation just because someone you personally dislike lines up in favor of it. I mean, by opposing it you’re on board with the RNC and that can’t feel good either.
I can respect the ‘vote No because the legislature could do this’ argument, but the ‘vote No because of Lyft’ is the kind of lazy approach to politics that we really can’t afford. I mean, how many of us have a reflexive opposition to anything Liz Cheney ever supported, and yet, we have to square that with her role on Jan 6.
Part of being a good citizen is looking past that kind of tribalism. Lacking any better information, ok, sure. You go with what you have. But the point of me providing this writeup is to take that default away and let people make more informed decisions. If ‘Lyft bad’ is all the argument we want, then we should never repeat this exercise. Adam should just post a nightly ‘Putin bad’ headline and save himself all the research.
laura
@Dr. Jakyll and Miss Deride: I appreciate your thoughtful reply- and am glad that you have personal experience regarding his judicial temperment and demeanor. I, too, presumed that his lengthy service on the bench was due, in part, to doing a good job. Ultimately, I landed on the no side because I am not willing to support a Republican for any office at this particular perilous time we find ourselves in. My fear of facism outweighs all other considerations.
Martin
@ian: This was already a law passed by the legislature. The only reason it’s here is that the tobacco companies forced it onto the ballot.
And ‘picking winners and losers in the tobacco industry’ is an interesting take when California has a very clearly stated legislative position that tobacco should be fully outlawed given the health consequences. This is just a part of that 30 year old arc.
Aren’t gun laws also morality policing other peoples habits? Same with banning gas cars. When other people’s habits have society-wide impacts, they aren’t ‘other people’s habits’ any longer.
PHinSD
@Martin: My daughter has been on dialysis for almost 10 years now and she’s opposed to the proposition. As I understand it, the problem is that there are dialysis clinics in areas far from the big cities where it can be difficult enough to get regular staffing. Is there such an overabundance of RNs that we can guarantee that every clinic will be able to hire one? If not and the clinic has to close, remember that every patient has to have dialysis at least 3 times every week.
Martin
@WaterGirl: There are two arguments:
I don’t fully understand Newsom’s arguments against 30 since it really doesn’t make any sense given other legislation he’s promoted, but I suspect that given how easy the recall process is in CA and the power of the CA teachers union and their opposition because it cuts them out, this is simply political defense – it pisses off the folks that fund that shit because of the nature of the tax. I mean, he’s literally the only democrat opposing it.
sab
@PHinSD: Yes! That’s why you don’t legislate by proposition. Various viewpoints need to be heard. Sounds like a good idea but maybe it isn’t.
No comment on your comment, but that is also why legislatures need to have hearings instead of just voting on stuff party line, like all the abortion restrictions.
TEL
I don’t agree with the analysis on Prop 29. A fair number of the dialysis centers in question serve low-income communities (including the area where my mother lives), with an unknown number of them having the potential to shut down because of this legislation. Transportation to/from dialysis centers is already quite challenging for low-income people, and this will make the problem worse. Until the problem of access to dialysis centers is part of the solution, this is a hard NO for me. (my mom doesn’t require any dialysis, but a fair number of her neighbors in her senior apartment building do, and they’re worried)
Martin
@alwaysaloon: I think the Lyft variable is that Newsom is pissed over Prop 22 and wants to punish Lyft by forcing Lyft to put their dollars to meet the 90% EV mandate. Yeah, ok, fair enough. Or that because the teachers union came out against it, he doesn’t want to fight them or risk another recall fight. Again, fair enough.
But I struggle to see how targeting EV funding toward low income communities helps Lyft. That’s not where Lyft gets drivers. Sure, it helps them a little, but I don’t see why taking Lyft political funding to improve fire prevention is a bad thing. There’s almost no chance that Lyft spends *any* money actually getting EVs for their drivers no matter what – they’ll just cut off access to being a driver to anyone who didn’t put their own money into an EV. That’s been a consistent component of Lyft/Uber business model since day one. In fact, the state labor laws pretty much mandate that happen because it risks shoving drivers subsidized by Lyft out of the contractor category, which was the whole point of the Prop 22 fight.
No, I think it’s more the case that Lyft’s interests just happen to fully align with the state’s interests here. That’s true for a lot of companies on this one – PG&E, Tesla (along with every other automaker), and so on.
I think the strongest argument opposing 30, which I would normally be the strongest advocate for here, is that cars in general are the problem and shouldn’t be subsidized ever. But a consistent take on that would also be to oppose most of the IRA, most of CA’s EV subsidies, etc. and given how much pushback I get on those ideas, I don’t think *anyone* here shares them. This is generally a pro-EV community, this is pro-EV legislation with two caveats – one that ¼ of it goes to fire prevention, and half of the EV support goes to low income. I cannot fathom why anyone who supports the IRA EV subsidies could oppose this unless they dislike that low-income people are favored?
Birdie
@PHinSD: I have heard this same thing. The clinics these companies run today are all money-making, or they would not run them. Being “forced to close” seems to me to be a scare tactic. The people working at the clinics will have the best intentions, but the companies they work for absolutely do not.
Since I mentioned it in an earlier comment, here is a link to the John Oliver discussion:
https://youtu.be/yw_nqzVfxFQ
Read some of the comments too if interested. Dialysis does not have to be the way it is in America, and in many other countries, they do things differently (including who needs to be on site)
StringOnAStick
@Geminid: I agree on all your points. I hope if we retain the legislature that a sore loser law gets enacted. Kotek is fine, and McLeod Skinner is excellent. Stupid blue dog Schrader, who she beat in the primary, said back then that he didn’t think she’d win and I have no doubt he’s doing his best to help that along.
Kelly will have a better idea if the state legislature is likely to stay in D hands; he’s a lifelong native. I’m one of those out of state newbies that some locals like to bash constantly because their corner of the west has been discovered, just like how my home state of Colorado was just a few decades earlier.
sab
@sab:
ian
@Martin:
Then they should do that. Banning flavored tobacco is in fact picking winners and losers, if you think they should all be outlawed but only pick 1 to outlaw.
Gun laws and gas cars are separate categories, but if you banned pink pistols while letting black pistols remain on the market, I would call that morality policing, or at least fashion policing. Gun laws and gas cars also effect everyone, someone’s choice to smoke impacts their own health. Even if you think that smoking extends beyond the individual, this doesn’t address that because people can still smoke regular tobacco.
I don’t buy the legislature passed it so it must be good theory, because we have a crap ton of legislation in this country that is terrible. It all got passed by a legislature.
sab
@Birdie: John Oliver does good work but that isn’t the same as legislative hearings where everyone can contribute.
You think closing clinics is a scare tactic. What if you are wrong? Is no dialysis better than possibly bad dialysis?
TEL
@sab: That’s the crux of the problem. The truth is, no-one knows if or how many of these clinics will close. That’s why ensuring access to dialysis would have to be part of the legislation for me to consider voting yes on it. It seems to me that if the large number of for-profit clinics is where the problem is, then having tax advantages (or some other mechanism) to encourage more non-profit clinics would be a good idea, for example.
Chacal Charles Calthrop
Incidentally Kevin Drum also always posts his opinion about California’s ballot initiatives, and this year was no exception: https://jabberwocking.com/heres-my-take-on-californias-ballot-initiatives/
he only likes the first & the last, and thinks everyone should vote no on all the others, but I get the sense that his standard is that an initiative should pass only if there’s no good argument against it.
Chacal Charles Calthrop
@NoraLenderbee: and I see you & Gary already flagged Kevin Drum’s post!
Geminid
@StringOnAStick: When Cook’s Political Report’s Dave Wasserman had “seen enough” of the OR 5th primary results and pronounced McLeod-Skinner the winner, he also said he was changing the district rating from “Lean D” to “Tossup.” I thought he was playing pundit without data to back this up. It would be one thing if McLeod-Skinner was a “Squad” type, but she’s just a solid liberal.
Schrader’s just an asshole, and a sore loser. He proved this by endorsing Johnson for Governor, and I expect he’ll sandbag McLeod-Skinner if he can.
I would add, though that not all Blue Dogs are bad. But Schrader is. “Bad Blue Dog! Bad Blue Dog!”
On the other hand, many I think are good, including Abigail Spanberger who I hope will be my new Representative. “Good Blue Dog!”
Martin
@TEL: I fail to understand the economic argument when the two dialysis corporations are spending more money to fight this than it would cost to comply with it.
I think it’s interesting that opposing 30 due to Lyft, who derives a very indirect benefit from Prop 30 is a valid argument, but 29 must be opposed because of the corporations that derive very direct benefits from it failing.
I don’t think these arguments are in bad faith, but I think they are reflexive and don’t hold up to scrutiny. I’ll add, one of the biggest problems I think we have in the US is the overwhelming effort to not just reject a given solution to a problem, but the problem itself in the process. Prop 29 recognizes a real problem in the dialysis space, and provides a reasonable remedy to that. I can see (and agree with) the argument that the legislature should just implement this, but these dialysis corporations in the nature of their opposition to this are also signaling that they deny the problem. After the first two efforts, they could have gone to the legislature to work out a remedy that worked for them, but that never happened, so ultimately this is a debate over capitalism in health care – which is really what everyone above is afraid of, that the corporations will just fuck over harder the patients that they are already fucking over, but who can *at their discretion* do any of the things people are worried about anyway. Whatever clinics you are afraid they’ll close, they may wind up closing simply because they blew all their cash on this ad campaign.
That’s not an argument to vote for it, just to come up with a more comprehensive position on the issue than what I’m seeing – as Birdie up at #67 directs us to do.
Martin
@Chacal Charles Calthrop: He and I are in pretty good agreement on the role that initiatives should hold, so he’s just a harder version of my opening philosophy. I take a somewhat stronger position on 28 because until we are willing to unwind the *entirety* of the educational funding ballot initiative web, we have to play the hand we’re dealt. Drum and I agree the whole thing needs to be unwound, but I think we both agree it won’t get unwound until it fails pretty catastrophically, and that comes down to your level of pain tolerance. Additionally, the education funding is also bounded by some Supreme Court decisions, so it’s a VERY complicated problem to solve.
My broader view on Prop 29 is fairly simple – just single payer the whole enterprise of dialysis treatment. It’s unsuitable to the very nature of insurance, it has all manner of constraints that make it completely unusable to the free market. There are fewer purer expressions of ‘safety net’ than care for an incurable, perpetual maintenance medical procedure that is fatal if untreated. If you believe in public education, then public dialysis is a *much* easier thing to argue in favor of. And given how much state funding already goes into paying for it though MediCal, it’s not even a thing that would be expensive to do.
Birdie
@TEL: I see two fallacies in this argument:
1) as Martin said, the economics don’t add up. These companies can absolutely afford to pay for nurses to staff clinics, including in rural areas. Saying they shouldn’t be made to pay qualified people for the service that they provide is equivalent to an argument that we shouldn’t raise the minimum wage because then restaurants would have to pay it, and worse because the marginal dialysis clinic makes far more money than the marginal restaurant. Remember, the patients aren’t paying for care, insurers are, and in California, insurance for everyone is backstopped by the state exchange and in many dialysis cases provided by the state directly. That’s why I think the “closing clinics” argument is a scare tactic. They can absolutely pay more but they don’t want to and they will frighten everyone into not forcing them to.
2) “the legislature should solve it” is a perfect-is-the-enemy of the good argument. The legislature isn’t solving it, because of systemic failures in how regulation of monopolistic industries works in practice. Repeating this statement is the equivalent of saying you won’t vote because there isn’t a candidate you are perfectly aligned with, and you are waiting for that candidate to materialize before doing anything.
PHinSD
@sab: No dialysis = dead within 10 days!
sab
@PHinSD: That is what I thought. No dialysis isn’t an option unless you are suicidal.
sab
Duplicate (or triplicate)
Almost Retired
@Birdie: I totally agree that DaVita and the rest of these monopolistic assholes can afford to hire the medical professionals mandated by the proposition if it passes. But are those professionals available? There does seem to be a real nursing shortage, especially in rural/low-income areas, and is the “we’ll be forced to close clinics” completely a head fake if they can’t find the staff? I honestly don’t know, but you’ve got me thinking about what we can do to improve dialysis safety if this measure fails (again).
VFX Lurker
Thank you so much for posting this, Martin. I will consider this voter guide (and discussion) in addition to Voter’s Edge, the LA Times, and the local and state Democratic Party voter guides.
For those interested, here are the Los Angeles Times endorsements for the statewide ballot measures:
Birdie
@sab: yes. And they could close that dialysis clinic any time anyway. The fact that this threat (“if you don’t do what I say, your loved ones might die”) is even part of the conversation is a sign of how dysfunctional the system and these operators are.
Birdie
@Almost Retired: To be fair, I don’t know about the supply / demand dynamic of dialysis RN’s and it could be an issue. It’s absolutely a function of the pay rate and the number of jobs available though.
I would also note this language:
“A clinic may ask CDPH to grant an exception from this requirement if there are not enough physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants in the clinic’s area. If CDPH approves the exception, the clinic can meet the requirement through telehealth. The exception lasts for one year.”
Source: https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=29&year=2022
WaterGirl
@VFX Lurker: I am not from CA, is there any reason to think the LA Times would have the same priorities as we would?
Ruckus
@Chacal Charles Calthrop:
“I get the sense that his standard is that an initiative should pass only if there’s no good argument against it”
We could do a lot worse than this as a standard for initiatives.
And we often do a lot worse because of the wording or the concept of the initiative or far worse, the advertising of the initiative, which is far too often, lying crap because they all too often really, really are slanted towards worse for anyone not collecting money from the outcome, IOW we all end up paying for well – crap. Most of us do not speak legalize so we either vote no or do actual research, like read this post and compare with what we find out.
Ruckus
@laura:
I’ve known/know CA republicans (actual old farts!) who haven’t voted republican in, well decades but haven’t bothered to change their registration, sometimes because it used to be a lot more difficult. CA WANTS us to vote, to have an opinion, and they make it as easy as I think it can be to register and to vote. We all get mail ballots, we can mail, dropbox, drop off at a vote center, vote at any vote center in LA county because you vote on a computer which puts your vote in the correct area by address. (I’m not sure you that you can vote in any vote center in the state, even in another county but it may even be possible to do that.) I do a drop box because there is one that is only a block out of my way on my daily walk.
Dca
I’m still a registered Republican so they will waste money mailing me stuff.
alwaysaloon
@Martin: thank you for the detailed response. And for the write up itself! Hadn’t gotten to the voter’s guide yet but agree they are great sources of information. Prop 22 was definitely a disaster and Newsom can be as pissed as he wants (as you say, fair!), but until someone in Sacramento can figure out how to build a decent expansive public transportation system, cars are going to be the main means of transportation for most of us. It takes a full day to get from the small town where I live to Santa Barbara (a grand total of 25 miles!) by a combination of trolley, bus and train right now. So yeah, we need cars and EVs are the only way to go if that’s the case. And btw it’s impossible to miss the fact that many, many people are driving older cars just based on how many have sun damage to their paint jobs. I’m sure every one of these people would like to buy a brand new car but can’t afford to. And of course you’re right, Lyft will not be subsidizing their drivers’ new car purchases so there will be need there as well. I personally have no problem with adding a little tax on people who have over $2 mil/year in income in hopes that some of this money finds its way to those who need it to switch to an EV. And anything that goes to fire prevention is obviously a positive.
Martin
@Birdie: My understanding in researching this is that many/most clinics already have a dialysis RN on staff. Maybe not every shift, though. There are some structural impediments to nursing staffing, but none of these companies are doing anything to help with those impediments.
The current state of nursing availability is so utterly fucked up due to Covid burnout that it’s hard to tell what narrow focus availability is.
Martin
@alwaysaloon: Agreed on the transportation morass, but the underlying problems aren’t financial/technological. They have to do with the state (like every US state) giving local interest groups veto power over broad social policy. It’s untenable to have 11 rando citizens that have nothing better to do than attend the zoning meetings in a city of 80,000 like Santa Barbara have veto power over a proper rail system.
But what is clear is that the statewide housing problems are attributable not just to that, but also to the need to allocate more land area to parking than to housing, by forcing low income people away from transit opportunities due to costs, and so on.
Look at it this way – San Francisco has about the same GDP as Switzerland. And the whole San Francisco – San Jose axis has about double the GDP. Switzerland runs a train every 30 minutes to every community of about 1500 people or more, and those connect to a larger network of transit that cover the entire country. And that’s in a place where you need to tunnel through mountains to a substantial degree. The long term economic benefits of mass transit are so great that it’s still cheaper to tunnel than to pave roads because the ongoing infrastructure maintenance costs are trivial compared to road infrastructure. US cities now normally spend more money on road maintenance than on K-12 education – that’s where are priorities have moved. Africa has more high speed rail than the US. Clearly it’s not an economic or technological problem.
I agree that cars aren’t going anywhere, especially in places like the Central Valley. That said, the majority of farm workers take a bus to work.
But CA is still dominated by cities. Santa Barbara is considered a small city, but it’s larger than ⅓ of the state capitals in the US. CA needs to embrace a statewide mass transit plan – between cities, and within key cities. Save the EV subsidies for people who don’t live in those places, and make them targeted not just to where people live, but what vehicles are covered. You don’t get your EV pickup subsidy without a business license showing you need a pickup. We’re not going to subsidize your boat hauler.
We can do this, but we have to break the problem we’ve known about for decades. It’s foundational to our future.
It’s also been noted that the burning of fossil fuels wasn’t the inflection point on climate change. It was the rise of building around cars in the 50s. Not only did it accelerate those fossil fuels, but it forced everything to be built in the least efficient possible way, so *everything* got worse – HVAC emissions because urban density dropped, infrastructure emissions, etc. All of these lawns that needed to be maintained. It wasn’t just one variable that spun out of control, but all of them, that all were tied to the car. Switching to EVs will wind one of those variables back, but leave all the others. I agree it’s hard to envision the US shoving that genie back in the bottle, but one way or another we have to.
alwaysaloon
@Martin: Agree 100%. Didn’t mean to suggest anything otherwise.
Ruckus
@Martin:
I live in LA County and take the MetroLink train system every so often and more often the Metro electric trains. It costs a fair bit less in $ to take the Metro electric train than gas does now and I use the VA hospital for my healthcare which is just about 50 miles from me. The cost including parking at my end during rush hour is less than $5 round trip. I also use UCLA dental and the round trip cost is the same. I have on occasion done both appointments in one day so the cost is minimal. I have driven the same trip many times but now the cost of gas makes the train worth the longer time it takes. And the best thing is that the subway, which I now take for 3 stops each way will soon end at the VA hospital front yard. That will take out 2 stops I now have to make the trip and $.50 for the bus for the last 3 miles.
Part of this is that I don’t live far from the Metro train system but still it is rather a decent system. It doesn’t cover enough areas but during rush hour all the trains are usually standing room, IOW almost full so they already do put at least a reasonable dent in traffic.
VFX Lurker
Good question. Like Martin, the LA Times does show their homework on why they recommend yes/no for each choice.
On Props 1, 28 and 31, LA Times says “vote yes.” This is the same recommendation that Martin made upthread.
On Prop 27, they also agree with Martin. “Vote no.”
That leaves Props 26, 29, and 30, which the LA Times opposes (“Vote no”). Prop 26 is a “toss-up” for Martin, so this really boils down to Props 29 and 30.
With Prop 29, Martin’s focused on what could go right, while the LA Times is focused on what could go wrong.
With Prop 30, the LA Times acknowledged the problem that Martin outlined upthread, but it criticized Prop 30’s specific solution.
So, the LA Times agrees with most of Martin’s recommendations, except for Props 29 and 30.
The Los Angeles Democratic Party and the California State Democratic Party, however, both align with Martin’s recommendations at the top of this post. No on Prop 27, neutral on Prop 26, Yes on Props 1, 28, 29, 30 and 31.
TMinSJ
If any Santa Clara county (CA) residents are still checking this thread, vote for Jensen (not Jonsen) for county sheriff. Here is a very helpful endorsement for Jensen/caution against Jonsen from the Palo Alto Daily Post:
https://padailypost.com/2022/10/14/opinion-kevin-jensen-should-be-santa-clara-countys-next-sheriff/