Propositions, Amendments, Ballot Initiatives, Referendums… whatever your state calls them, it’s time to start sharing information.
We have this second set from commenter Pacem Appellant, who tackled Florida, as well. If you live in a state with a number of these and you want to put something together, please let me know.
Big thanks to everyone who has put something together this year!
BIG THANKS TO PACEM APPELLANT FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER!
Discuss!
About me: My name is Vincent. My Balloon Juice nym is pacem appellant. I’m a lifelong Californian, having been born and raised in the Bay Area, where I still live. My wife and I are raising two teenagers in one of the most expensive real-estate markets in the U.S. My district is so blue, our top-two State Assembly candidates are both Democrats. My Democratic representative in Congress, Ro Khanna, will handily win re-election (don’t ask me how I feel about that). My recommendations reflect my liberal leanings, but I want to be up front about personal biases as a homeowner and parent.
YES Prop 2
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
In lieu of using property taxes to fully fund our schools, the state has become heavily reliant on bond measures—previously reserved for state-level infrastructure—to shore up our schools. The one resource that CA has more valuable than gold is our high real-estate values, but Prop 13 infamously killed our government’s ability to raise revenue via property taxes. Instead of overturning Prop 13 on commercial property—it’s been tried on the ballot already, and failed to overcome our generational fear of property tax law—we have to fund our schools somehow. So we do that with bonds paid for out of the general fund. Yes, it will raise our bond obligations, which must be repaid with interest. Government costs money. Schools need to be upgraded, repaired, and built. Whether or not you have children, raising the next generation of Californians in high-quality and safe facilities is a no-brainer.
YES Prop 3
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
This overturns the notorious Prop (H)8 from 2008, when California simultaneously outlawed same-sex marriage, gave its EVs to Barak Obama, and said that hen-houses must be humane. We are a weird animal-loving, centrist bigoted lot sometimes. Anyway, there is no case to be made to vote against this measure. The SCOTUS is fickle and could take away the rights of Californians to marry who they love. The sooner we ensconce marriage freedom in our constitution, the better.
YES Prop 4
AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS. LEGISLATIVE STATUTE.
You may have noticed that climate change is here. And that inhabited parts of California seem to light up like Roman candles at the strike of a match. Combating the on-the-ground effects of climate change aren’t going to be cheap, but if we want to continue to live in the Golden State, we’re going to need to take climate change even more seriously. We need more than rakes (though I am in the market for a new rake. Recs welcome). The NO camp put in the ballot flier that we should fund wildfire prevention via the budget not bonds. This is disingenuous. You don’t have to like the bond system of California, but it’s how we fund infrastructure constitutionally. Take that objection to the next constitutional convention.
YES Prop 5
ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
I really hope this one passes, but we Californians aren’t the most enlightened mob when it comes to good governance and ballot initiatives. It is really hard to fund public infrastructure at the local level because our voting ancestors locked in two-thirds as the voting threshold for local bonds. Because of this, there is a goddamned hustle in my town just to get the library bond passed. It failed a few years ago by three points and the city has been scared to try again until now. There is no reason a local community should have to get a super-majority to approve spending. What is this, the US Senate? A few tax-hating libertarians love the status quo, because it allows them to rule via a tiny minority. 55% is still more than a simple majority—my preference—all but the most red-tide districts in CA should be able to get what they need if this proposition passes.
YES Prop 6
ELIMINATES CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE FOR INCARCERATED PERSONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Did you know that the 14th amendment to the US Constitution actually allows slavery in some circumstances? Slavery, or involuntary servitude as this prop euphemistically puts it, is legal at the federal level if you are incarcerated. A YES on Prop 6 makes that practice illegal in the state of California. There is no valid anti-position, only an immoral one. Slavery is wrong, and it’s a shame we didn’t eliminate entirely in 1868. But better late (very late) than never.
YES Prop 32
RAISES MINIMUM WAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This one I think is a no-brainer, but if you have a case to make against pegging the minimum wage to inflation, have at it in the comments.
YES Prop 33
EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This proposition would overturn the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Rental Act, which basically says (among other weird things) that residential construction built after 1979 isn’t subject to rent control. If 33 passes, a city could—if it wanted—enact rent control without Costa-Hawkins getting in the way. The NO campaign has been aggressive in their opposition to this measure, generating lots of scary scenarios in their commercials and mailers that don’t happen in real life. That said, it’ll probably work. Our initiative system isn’t designed to handle complicated issues. Just to stick it to the supporters, the NO camp is sponsoring prop 34, which is designed to hamstring the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a big sponsor of 33. I would like to see Costa-Hawkins go away, but I’m not holding my breath that the 33 campaign is going to pull it off in 2024 with so much money opposing it.
NO Prop 34
RESTRICTS SPENDING OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This is a revenge proposition designed to punish the AHS for supporting Prop 33 (see above). In the title “CERTAIN HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS” should really be “ONE PROVIDER, AHS”. I don’t love revenge props, obviously. If this passes, AHS (and not really anyone else) will be constitutionally bound to not advocate for renters’ rights since they couldn’t legally spend money on anything but health care. Whether you agree or disagree with AHS is irrelevant. It’s a legal cudgel to silence one organization. That’s bullshit. Please vote NO.
NEUTRAL Prop 35
PROVIDES PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
I was a YES, and still might vote yes on this measure, but at least for now I can see why a person of good conscience would honestly vote NO. Due to the vagaries of how California exploits the federal Medi-Cal matching program, we are able to get more money from the feds by taxing insurance companies more. That seems like an excellent hack. But the exploit means that the matching funds could be used by the legislature to plug gaps in the general fund budget. A YES vote would statutorily prevent that. For good governance advocates who dislike tying the legislatures’ hands, a NO vote makes sense. If you’re upset because young children on Medi-Cal were left off the negotiations on this proposition—and thus would be disenrolled from Medi-Cal if their parents fail to re-enroll—I can see a NO vote sending a powerful message of distrust of the behind-the-scenes dirty negotiation process. But if you feel that expanding behavioral health services, primary care, especially in our poor rural communities, and making sure that the money from the Medi-Cal tax goes only to Medi-Cal patients, then a YES vote is morally laudable as well.
NO Prop 36
ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
This one is going to pass, probably by a wide margin, but it won’t do so without my objection. The media have been lying to us about the increase in crime in CA, with sensationalism over smash and grabs at the drugstore being evergreen front-page stories. In reality crime is flat to down in California. The damage has been done though, and in the voters’ minds, the increase in homelessness, flash mobs at the 7-Eleven, and violent crime (any) are now locked in as being interconnected. This prop is going to undo the marginal good that we accomplished by reducing some felonies to misdemeanors and not rehabilitating drug addicts in the carceral system. The anti-tax enthusiasts are going to hypocritically vote for this one, even though every additional person we throw in jail we are statutorily obligated to spend money on to keep behind bars. That’s less money for roads, schools, and wildfire prevention.
trollhattan
34 and 35 are weird, inside-baseball propositions. Leaning no and yes, respectively ATM.
Likely no on 36 but want input from a public defender friend first, since she’ll be able to cut through the clutter. Pairing property crime with drugs crime is fraught–we’re in dessert topping-floor wax territory.
SatanicPanic
Not a fan of 33- rent control is dumb. It only works for a lucky few, and even then I don’t think it’s a great thing. There are better ways to bring rent down.
EDIT- my rule of thumb for the complicated ones is- if I can’t immediately understand it, it’s something politicians should handle and I’m voting no.
JaneE
Prop 36 is the initiative to reverse some of the effects of a previous initiative. I can easily see this bringing a return to the horror stories (decades in prison for stealing a piece of pizza, e.g) that caused the previous initiative to be passed, and at some point in the future yet another initiative to undo the effects of this one.
I agree it will almost certainly pass. I fully expect something to undo this at least partially in the next 5 years or less.
catclub
I think it was in an economics course that made clear to me the greatest beneficiary of rent control is the stable upper middle class, that can stay in one place. The people we knew in NYC with a rent stabilized place fit exactly.
Scout211
Thank you, pacem appellant, this is very helpful.
I have been studying the CalMatters page for the propositions. I find it very helpful in its detail and all the information for and against all of the propositions. They don’t make recommendations but list a good deal of information that helps guide you to make a decision.
I was disappointed in the state party recommendations. All I could find was their recommendations, not any information why they made them. At least I couldn’t find any.
My ballot was mailed to me but it hasn’t arrived yet so this is very helpful.
VFX Lurker
Thank you for this, pacem appellant.
kindness
I went over the booklet and my sample ballot Tuesday night. I almost exactly agree with this. I know there are some (Kevin Drum) who may be of good character (Republican Lite), that don’t like bond issues and say all those things should be done under regular taxes. That would be nice but getting some of these spending plans done under regular budgeting means it gets no budget (or not enough) even here in the Peoples Republic of California. Some bond issues I don’t vote for. I am for all these this year.
pacem appellant
@catclub: @SatanicPanic: I can’t speak to how rent control works everywhere, but all this prop would say is that Costa-Hawkins doesn’t apply anymore. So if a city (like San Francisco, where rents are crazy high) wanted to try rent control to reign in the egregious landlords, I am in favor of letting them try.
pacem appellant
@kindness: If someone is against funding infrastructure via bond measures, like I snarkily say above, take it up at a constitutional convention. Until then, that’s how it has to be done in California.
pacem appellant
@Scout211: @VFX Lurker: You’re welcome!
Chet Murthy
@SatanicPanic: Yea, NO. It’s clear that when vacancy rates are low, rents go sky-fuckin’-high. And incumbent owners use (and abuse) zoning rules to keep new housing from being built. So those vacancy rates -stay- low. And then (guess what! shocker!) incumbent owners make bank, and renters suffer.
Yes, it’d be great to imagine a world where we remove rent control and suddenly enough housing got built to bring rents down. I’d also like a pony. Can I get a pony too? Please please?
Chet Murthy
@Chet Murthy: An article about how rent control and policies to disadvantage buy-to-let produced housing security in the UK (and Thatcher’s reversal of those policies undid it all): https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/mar/19/end-of-landlords-surprisingly-simple-solution-to-uk-housing-crisis
Trollhattan
@pacem appellant:
Agree all it does is reopen the possibility of instituting rent control in local jurisdictions by striking out the language.
We already had rent control in several places, which the legislation did not invalidate.
FastEdD
For a couple of years I was a political director for CFT, the California Federation of Teachers, and it was literally my job to go around to schools and explain propositions. I found it much easier to discuss them than to discuss candidates, because even if people disagree they don’t get angry about it and seem to appreciate getting the information. We had a detailed ballot info night at our local Democratic Club. A good rule of thumb is that Props 2 through 6 were put on the ballot by the state legislature, which in CA is all Dem, so they are all a yes. The rest are from signature gatherers, so they are a mixed bag. 32 CADEM endorses CAGOP opposes (Minimum wage), so it’s a yes. 33 is a maybe depending on your views on rent control. I’ve been a renter and a landlord, so I’m a maybe too. Cadem endorsed. 34, no position by Cadem, endorsed by CAGOP, so no. 35 is weird because it is endorsed by both CADEM and CAGOP so yes (?) 36 is a no, because retail theft is down and longer sentences won’t matter, the GOP is for it and the Dems are against. The suggestion that if you see a position by the Howard Jarvis Tax Association, vote the other way, is a good one.
pacem appellant
@FastEdD: THIS!
SatanicPanic
@catclub: putting a giant incentive on not moving isn’t great, right? We should encourage people to move closer to work, if only for emissions reduction.
@pacem appellant: I don’t want to get too much on my soapbox but local control is sort of the source of all issues with California housing.
SatanicPanic
@Trollhattan: rent control was allowed for units built before 1995, I believe.
pacem appellant
@SatanicPanic: 1979 is the cut-off. It’s a weird marker, especially for legislation that was passed in 1995.
Bill Hicks
Kevin Drum does a California initiatives opinion post before CA elections that I find informative. God, I wish I still lived in Oregon instead of WV, so I could vote on things like this (and all by mail with an informative and useful voting guide provided) instead of “would you rather be kicked in the nuts/pussy or your throat?” which is what we get in WbygodV.
https://jabberwocking.com/how-to-vote-on-californias-initiatives/
WaterGirl
@FastEdD: That’s great input, too, thank you!
🐾BillinGlendaleCA
@SatanicPanic:
I guess I could move to the next block over and be across the street from work…
If anything, if rents continue to rise here, I’ll be moving further away from work.
Chet Murthy
@SatanicPanic: You wanna improve housing mobility? Steeply progressive confiscatory taxation is how you do it. Rents get bid up when richer people can come in and pay more. Take away their money and they can’t do that. And heck, you can use that money to do good things. But first, take away their money.
The idea that somehow ending rent control will magically remove zoning boards and co-opted local politicians who work to prevent new constructions …. boy howdy.
mary s
My Democratic representative in Congress, Ro Khanna, will handily win re-election (don’t ask me how I feel about that).
I really want to know how you feel about that — he’s not my representative (I live in SF), but he might well run for higher office some day.
Researchers at the organization I work for (PPIC) have done a lot of work on California’s recent criminal justice reforms, starting with “realignment” in 2011 (which was prompted by a lawsuit over prison overcrowding). Proposition 47, which would (will) be partially rolled back by Prop 36, was in part an effort to address overcrowding in California jails that resulted from realignment. A new report by my colleagues argues that policies enacted during the pandemic have had at least as much of an effect on crime rates as Prop 47, which passed way back in 2014 — especially when it comes to retail theft. But very few people are interested in “evidence-based approaches” — so yeah, the proposition will pass.
Birdie
@Chet Murthy: As someone who lived in California with rent control once, I think this isn’t so cut and dried. I had an excellent income and benefited from my rent being less than 60% of market because of pure luck (I moved in early 2010 when the property market had bottomed out). I didn’t need that benefit.
Sure, removing rent control won’t magically increase supply, because you need more than one weird trick to incentivize construction. But it’s certainly a factor in reducing the availability and quality of existing property in the rental market, and it clearly benefits one class of renters (people who got in when the getting was good) at the expense of others (everyone else, arriving later – who may well be younger and poorer than the people who are already in place). I don’t think rent control is a wealth / income transfer that a progressive should necessarily support.
pacem appellant
@mary s: I think Ro Khanna is fine but if a decent candidate comes along to challenge him from the left, I’m getting on board that train.
I miss Mike Honda, who used to represent this district, til Khanna primaried him. But Honda had lost touch with the vibe of this district, and the shifting demographics (and district boundaries!) meant it was time for new blood. I just wish it wasn’t just a supplement-loving tech-bro who dislodged Honda.
If Khanna aspires to higher offices in CA, he’s going to have to expand his appeal beyond douchy tech types. Outside of folks in our district, nobody has ever heard of him.
Maxim
@pacem appellant: I’ve heard of him, but not necessarily in a positive light.
trollhattan
@SatanicPanic:
You’re right, I’d missed that bit:
Ruckus
@SatanicPanic:
I am lucky that I live in a federal program seniors rent controlled complex so my rent has stayed the same for the last 8 yrs. There is a maximum amount one can earn per month and a minimum age of 55 to rent. When I worked I only worked 3 days a week and 1/2 mile away so I could live here and walk there. I’ve retired and the rent hasn’t/doesn’t go up so it’s rather reasonable. So reasonable that they rarely get a vacancy. Not long ago the manager told me that there were 14 people on the waiting list. I’d say that better than 3/4 of the people get carried out when they go.
ceece
@pacem appellant: howdy, neighbor! thanks for the write up, just got my ballot today.
I agree with you about Ro Khanna, he is a strange combination of tech bro and Bernie bro. I just don’t trust him (but I loved Mike Honda).
Vote early in CA if you want to know the results before December!
ron
Don’t live in CA, but this is the argument against prop 33:
As written it allows a backdoor for NIMBY jurisdictions to exempt themselves from complying with state law around housing supply by passing rent control on new units so strict that no developer will build there.
more here – https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2024-11/ca-prop-33-rent-control-rules
SectionH
Vincent (pacem appellant) Thanks for this. I’ve only lived in SD full time since 2008, but I started being here a lot around 1989. When I was first able to vote here, I asked my son (he was here in 2000) about Props. (If in doubt, vote NO). Which I get, but lately, I will vote YES on some things. And thanks again.
We also got our CA Democrats recs for a few props. Even they are No Rec on that 35 one. And they skipped some, but wvs. Mostly fine.
We have our ballots, we’ll send them back tomorrow. But damn, Terra L-R really needs support against that Kevin Faulconer asshole. Hola! Satanic Panic.
pacem appellant
@ron:
I think those concerns are a scare tactic. While theoretically possible, nobody has ever done it, nor do I believe they would.
Expletive Deleted
Thank you, sending my ballot today and this was very helpful!