2020 Propositions, Initiatives, Amendments, Referendums

Referendum 90 – Repeals Senate Bill 5395 (2020) regarding sexual health education in public schools

Basically, the RWNJ in the state want to repeal the sex education law because it actually starts in kindergarten.

VOTE on 90: changed to  THUMBS UP!    The law as passed has out clauses for the parents. They don’t want their precious wittle snowflakes to hear what the children whose parents don’t opt out hear.

…..

Advisory vote 32 – Advises legislature to either repeal or maintain Senate Bill 5323, which was designed to levy a retail sales tax on certain carryout bags

Sigh. the Washington Legislature has to get agreement from the taxpayers (I believe it’s 60% of voters but not sure and too lazy to look it up right now) to pass any tax bills.

VOTE on 32: thumbs down. There’s three more of these and I’ll give my final verdict after the last one.

…..

Advisory vote 33 – Advises legislature to either repeal or maintain Senate Bill 5628, which was designed to levy a tax on heavy equipment rentals

I’m not sure how this idea wasn’t laughed out of the legislature. The revenue generated for this would be so minimal that what’s the point?

VOTE on 33: thumbs down. These first two are beyond ridiculous.

…..

Advisory vote 34 – Advises legislature to either repeal or maintain Senate Bill 6492, which was designed to increase the business and occupation tax rate and reduce certain surcharges

This is a total facepalm. The last thing the legislature would be doing is raising taxes on small businesses in the middle of a fucking pandemic.

VOTE on 34: thumbs down. I mean seriously? Read the damn room Olympia!

…..

Advisory vote 35 – Advises legislature to either repeal or maintain Senate Bill 6690, which was designed to increase the business and occupation tax on commercial airplane manufacturers

So on top of everything else the legislature wants to chase Boeing even further out of town? This would practically guarantee Boeing would pack everything up and move to South Carolina.

VOTE on 35: thumbs down. Large polemic coming through:

If all of these tax initiatives sound ridiculous, that’s because they are. It’s the cowardice of the damn Democrats in Olympia. They got bit on the income tax initiative in in 2010. They have been afraid that if it gets tried again it will fail again. I’m like: suck it up champs. This is why we pay you to do this shit.

…..

Senate Joint Resolution 8212 – Allows funds in the Family and Medical Leave Insurance Account and the Long-Term Care Services and Supports Trust Account to be invested

Under current law, Washington cannot invest any wealth fund like the Family Medical Leave Insurance Account. This is looking to change that.

VOTE on 8212: this is the one I’m REALLY torn on.

On the one hand, this has the potential to expand the sick leave benefit beyond its current payout.

On the other hand, I have a bunch of questions here.
– Who stands to get rich off of this?
– Will there be an open bidding process for the actual private investment group?
– Will it be managed in-house?
– Either way what kinds of oversight and accountability will this have?

…..

These are jumping off points for discussion, so if you have any thoughts on the initiatives, please share them in the comments!

pacem appellant (aka Vincent Jorgensen)

I’m a California native, born and raised in the Bay Area. For the past several years, in every election in which there are propositions on the ballot, I’ve been researching the propositions and posting my findings and recommendations to my Facebook feed. It spurs a healthy discussion among my friends, and it’s led to my mind changing, too.This November, there are 12 propositions on the ballot, which isn’t record-setting, but still daunting. There were 17 on one ballot in 2016. The record, by the way, is 48, and was set in 1914.

For those unaware, ballot propositions are a staple of California politics, dating back to 1910. They are placed on the ballot either by the legislature or by citizens. With enough signatures, it’s possible to get any pet issue before the voters. I’ve been tasked with voting on whether to ban the sale of horse meat as food (that one passed), as well as modifying the state constitution to ban gay marriage (that one sadly passed, too). Because of the relatively low threshold for the number of qualifying signatures, most ballot proponents simply buy enough signatures to get their issue onto the ballot. A common sight is paid petitioners standing outside the grocery store trying to get shoppers to sign their names to a slew of potential referenda. Once a proposition is passed into law, the legislature can’t overturn it, only another citizen initiative can (like this cycle’s Prop 15).

This year we have four initiatives that were placed there by the legislature (16, 17, 18, and 19). The rest are citizen initiatives. We are tasked with deciding changes to who can vote, how taxes are assessed, who’s an employee (and who’s not), and criminal justice. I take this responsibility very seriously. I hope my fellow Golden State residents find my research and musings useful. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.

For my sources, I primarily used the following (and reference them at the end of each proposition)

Ballotpedia
CA Secretary of State
League of Women Voters
The L.A. Times

…..

Proposition 15: Shh! We’re partially rolling back prop 13, but don’t tell anybody

Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment

Legislative Summary: Increases funding for K-12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring that commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value. Exempts from this change: residential properties; agricultural properties; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less.

Pros: It’s a partial rollback of the CA’s infamous Prop 13. In 1978, Prop 13 passed into law when I was but a wee babe, and has been screwing with CA’s ability to collect revenue and pay for government programs ever since. Schools were the hardest hit. Schools are funded out of local taxes and some state grants, but the bulk of the money comes from property taxes. While Prop 13 did stop grannies from getting priced out of their suddenly crazy expensive beach-front retirement home that they bought in the 1940s, it also allowed ginormous (and not so ginormous) corporations like Safeway to amass huge amounts of property and hold it virtually tax free, since property is only reassessed when it changes hands and large corporations buy and sell property much less frequently than small businesses and homeowners. However, as the price of goods and services continued to rise, the amount of revenue the counties could assess effectively remained flat. Local municipalities try to compensate with parcel taxes and sales taxes, but these are regressive and hurt homeowners the most: a $500 parcel tax e.g. might be nothing for Safeway, but is the difference between Christmas presents or a missed mortgage payment for actual people. 

Cons: If you’re an extremely large, land-holding corporate entity in CA, you’re going to have to pay fair-market value on your property. If you are a homeowner, a farmer, or a small business (classified as whose property holdings value less than $3 million), then this proposition has absolutely no effect on you. 

My rec 15: Hard YES. As a homeowner in CA, I feel especially irked that in this crazy expensive housing market, time tax-dodging corporations have left it to us to shoulder the burden.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 15
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 15

…..

Proposition 16: We’re calling a do-over on affirmative action!

Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Legislative Summary: Repeals Prop 209 (1996). Prop 209 prohibits the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

Pros: When prop 209 passed in 1996, a prominent African-American UC Regent argued that affirmative action hurt minorities more than it helped them. In the intervening 25 years, we’ve learned that he was wrong. The vagaries of fortune are more punishing on women and minorities. Ideally, there would be a level playing field for all people, but the one we have now is tilted heavily to the white cis male.

Cons: The status quo is maintained. Women and minorities will continue to have hindered access to public education and employment. We will continue to delude ourselves that the American dream is colorblind, raceblind, and genderblind. White people can feel smug that they succeed because of merit and that minorities fail because of a lack of moral rectitude.

My Rec 16: Yes. When I was in college in California (UC Berkeley, Go Bears!) Prop 209 was a huge deal and led to lots of protests. It was also the first election in which I was eligible to vote. One prominent campus pro-affirmative action group took the extreme action of confiscating all the copies of the student newspaper which contained a letter-to-the-editor in favor of ending affirmative action. It wasn’t a good look for that group, and a lot of students were annoyed with their antics (I being one of those students), leading to opposition to affirmative action just because its most ardent proponents had the most fascist tactics. Regardless of what was happening in the People’s Republic of Berkeley, the proposition went on to pass statewide. Since then, women and minority businesses have been “decimated” in the state (The CA Senate’s assessment’s word). In the last 25 years, we have learned that systemic racism and misogyny are implanted deep in the American psyche, and we aren’t going to excise them with wishful thinking.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 16
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 16

…..

Proposition 20: Criminal justice reform for dummies

Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to Be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute

Legislative Summary: Imposes restrictions on parole program for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term for their primary offense. Expands list of offenses that disqualify an inmate from this parole program. Changes standards and requirements governing parole decisions under this program. Authorizes felony charges for specified theft crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. Requires persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples for state database.

Pros: Props 47 and 57, and AB 109, passed between 2011 and 2016, were intended to reduce the state’s prison inmate population by shifting prisoners down to local jails and changing several non-violent crimes from being classified as felonies to misdemeanors. Prop 20 is a slight rollback of some of these reforms, upgrading misdemeanors such as firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card to potential felonies, and adds two new felonies into the state code–serial crime and organized retail crime. Also, if a person is convicted of some crimes like shoplifting, grand theft, drug possession, or prostitution with a minor, requires that they submit DNA to a database.

Cons:  Asking the general population of CA to vote on criminal justice reform has usually not played out well in the long term. Humans are a vindictive lot, and we like to punch down whenever possible. We passed three-strikes reform via the ballot in the 90s, and we’ve had to roll it back pretty much all the way. In the ballot proposition itself, I find this wording extremely disingenuous: “Protecting every person in our state, including our most vulnerable children, from violent crime is of the utmost importance. Murderers, rapists, child molesters and other violent criminals should not be released early from prison.” Current law does not do this, and this scary wording hints at other motivations for the proponents of this reform.

My Rec 20: No.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 20
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 20

…..

Proposition 24: Now for some real user power

Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute

Legislative Summary: Permits consumers to: (1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; (2) correct inaccurate personal information; and (3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information”—such as precise geolocation; race; ethnicity; religion; genetic data; union membership; private communications; and certain sexual orientation, health, and biometric information. Changes criteria for which businesses must comply with these laws. Prohibits businesses’ retention of personal information for longer than reasonably necessary.

Pros: As the Electronic Frontier Foundation put it in neither endorsing or condemning, Prop 24 is “a mixed bag of partial steps backwards and forwards.” One of the partial steps forward is preventing the collection of PI for “consumers” (the word used in the legislation, not mine) under the age of 16, and tripling the penalty for non-compliance. As someone with preteen children, I’m very concerned about how my children are subjected to online marketing. 

Cons: The legislature passed the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) to specifically address new online privacy concerns. A SF-based real-estate mogul felt that the protections didn’t go far enough, and hence this ballot (he had withdrawn his original proposition 2018 after the Assembly took up the CCPA). As such, the CCPA has barely been effective for two years and whether it’s sufficient has yet to be determined. 

My Rec 24: No. Even though the arguments against it contain some weak sauce (“unelected regulatory agency”, “invention turned into stagnation”, blah-blah-blah), I give credence to the EFF’s unenthusiastic non-dorsement. The ACLU has many concerns as well. Lastly, if this passes by initiative statute, the legislature will have a HARDER time amending privacy laws in the future, as each change would have to go before all the voters. Proponents think that not being able to be “watered-down” by lobbyists is a bug, but deliberative action is a feature of democracy. With the speed at which tech innovation happens, it would actually slow down the state’s ability to adapt in the future.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 24

…..

THE END

 

 

pacem appellant (aka Vincent Jorgensen)

I’m a California native, born and raised in the Bay Area. For the past several years, in every election in which there are propositions on the ballot, I’ve been researching the propositions and posting my findings and recommendations to my Facebook feed. It spurs a healthy discussion among my friends, and it’s led to my mind changing, too.This November, there are 12 propositions on the ballot, which isn’t record-setting, but still daunting. There were 17 on one ballot in 2016. The record, by the way, is 48, and was set in 1914.

For those unaware, ballot propositions are a staple of California politics, dating back to 1910. They are placed on the ballot either by the legislature or by citizens. With enough signatures, it’s possible to get any pet issue before the voters. I’ve been tasked with voting on whether to ban the sale of horse meat as food (that one passed), as well as modifying the state constitution to ban gay marriage (that one sadly passed, too). Because of the relatively low threshold for the number of qualifying signatures, most ballot proponents simply buy enough signatures to get their issue onto the ballot. A common sight is paid petitioners standing outside the grocery store trying to get shoppers to sign their names to a slew of potential referenda. Once a proposition is passed into law, the legislature can’t overturn it, only another citizen initiative can (like this cycle’s Prop 15).

This year we have four initiatives that were placed there by the legislature (16, 17, 18, and 19). The rest are citizen initiatives. We are tasked with deciding changes to who can vote, how taxes are assessed, who’s an employee (and who’s not), and criminal justice. I take this responsibility very seriously. I hope my fellow Golden State residents find my research and musings useful. I look forward to hearing your thoughts as well.

For my sources, I primarily used the following (and reference them at the end of each proposition)

Ballotpedia
CA Secretary of State
League of Women Voters
The L.A. Times

…..

Discuss!

…..

Proposition 14: Stem-Cell Bonds, Electric Boogaloo!

Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute

Legislative Summary: Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, non-profit, and private entities for: (1) stem cell and other medical research, therapy development, and therapy delivery; (2) medical training; and (3) construction of research facilities. Dedicates $1.5 billion to fund research and therapy for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other brain and central nervous system diseases and conditions.

Pros: CA leads the way in stem cell research, an important area of science that the feds have discounted since the second Bush Administration. This continues the push for science-based medicine and life-saving therapies that are being ignored by the federal ban on stem-cell research.

Cons: When CA passed its first stem-cell bond measure, there were high hopes that it would lead to meaningful medical discoveries. It has not, and has left the public disillusioned as to the efficacy and speed of medical research. Also, it adds to the debt serving of the state, which comes out of the general fund. As we are in Covid-19 times, state revenue is plummeting, and debt servicing for research (which creates jobs! and prestige!) maybe isn’t where we should be focusing our resources.

My rec on 14: Yes. I’m going to be an old person one day (as is everyone), and we aren’t going to improve the quality of life for our senior citizens (or other citizens with degenerative diseases) if we don’t put the time and money into finding effective therapies. The feds aren’t stepping up, and few other states in the union have the unique status of being a de facto nation-state, we might as well behave like it.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 14
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 14

…..

Proposition 17: Ex-felons are people, too

Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Legislative Summary: Felons can vote upon completion of their sentence (Enfranchises felons)

Pros: The voting franchise is expanded to citizens who committed felonies in the past, but have completed their sentence are–for all intents and purposes–tax-paying law-abiding citizens again.

Cons: I really don’t see any. If you believe that felony sentencing is too light, then petition for harsher sentencing: we’ve done it before, CA led the way on three-strikes laws (though most of these have since been repealed). If you think that former felons aren’t really humans or citizens, then I have no words with you.

My Rec on 17: Yes. Once the time is served, we need to humanely welcome ex-cons back into society, and it is crucial for the health of our democracy that participants come from all walks of life.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 17
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 17

…..

Proposition 18: 17 year olds are almost people, too

Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections If They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and Be Otherwise Eligible to Vote. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Legislative Summary: Allows voting in a primary at 17 if will be 18 at time of General Election

Pros: It gives soon-to-be voting-age young adults a stake in the general election.

Cons: Young people don’t vote in significant numbers, so why bother? (That is sarcasm)

My Rec on 18: Yes. Expanding the voting franchise is a great idea! The sooner we get our citizens used to the idea of actively participating in our democracy, the more engaged they’ll be as they leave young adulthood and enter boring adulthood.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 18
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 18

…..

Proposition 19: Wonky property tax reform for the landed gentry

Changes Certain Property Tax Rules. Legislative Constitutional Amendment

Legislative Summary: Authorizes an owner of a primary residence who is over 55 years of age, severely disabled, or a victim of a wildfire or natural disaster to transfer the taxable value of their primary residence to a replacement primary residence located anywhere in the state, regardless of the location or value of the replacement primary residence. Eliminates tax loopholes used by the wealthy to avoid paying property taxes on vacation homes and rental properties. Uses some of the proceeds of the increased revenue to fund Cal Fire.

Pros: Somebody in the State Assembly has a bee in their bonnet. This passage from the text of the proposition struck me: “Eliminates tax loopholes used by East Coast investors, celebrities, wealthy non-California residents, and trust fund heirs to avoid paying a fair share of property taxes on vacation homes, income properties, and beachfront rentals they own in California.” This measure accomplishes that by eliminating the parent-to-child and grandparent-to-grandchild exemption in cases where the child or grandchild does not use the inherited property as their principal residence. Moving tax liability between properties already exists in California, but it’s on a county-by-county basis. This makes the whole state fair game for a qualified transfer. If you’re in a qualified group, you can move to a home of equal or lesser value and not be reassessed at the new property’s tax value (greater value is still a good deal, with a prorated upward adjustment). It also increases the number of times you can perform this transfer in your lifetime from one to three.

Cons: I think the biggest downside to this is its still an upward transfer of wealth from the wealthy back to themselves. Most Californians aren’t homeowners, and don’t fall into the protected categories defined herein (over 55, disabled, or wildfire victims, though with the way things are going, the last category is going to swell in numbers very soon). The Assembly must have known this would be a hard sell to CA’s renters, so they sweetened it with sticking it to the idle rich and transferring some of that largesse to a disaster relief fund.

My Rec on 19: Yes. But mostly because I will be able to benefit from this as a CA homeowner who will reach age 55 in the next two decades.  It’s like they wrote these propositions just for me!

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 19
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 19

…..

Proposition 21: The rent’s too high!

Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute

Legislative Summary:  Amends state law to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Allows rent increases on rent-controlled properties of up to 15 percent over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance. Exempts individuals who own no more than two homes from new rent-control policies.

Pros: In 1995, an absolute upper bound was placed on rent control throughout the state: No rent control could be imposed on property built after 1995. As new homes are built, these are all rent-control free, meaning that fixed-income folks are forced to stay living in older buildings lest they lose their rent control, or if they do move, lose rent control all together based solely on the est. date of the building. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation tried to amend the 1995 law (known as Costa Hawkins) in 2018, but it failed at the ballot box by a punishing 18 points. This time around, the proposed changes to Costa Hawkins are more modest. More properties can be rolled into rent control jurisdictions (if that’s what the municipalities want), small-time landlords are exempted, and rent-control rate hikes are fixed, i.e. no more vacany decontrol. 

Cons: Opponents note that in communities that enact rent control, rental property values will decline. People will move less often, and property developers will be scared off from building more much-needed housing in California.

My Rec on 21: Yes. The opposition’s arguments are laughable. Real-estate developers might make slightly less money. (I’ll try to remember to shed a tear for them.) And if there’s one truism of the most expensive real-estate markets in the state, it’s that the price of property in the long run only goes up. If a city wants to try rental control that isn’t so transparently designed to make the developers truckloads of cash, we should let them try it.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 21
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 21
League of Women Voters Prop 21

…..

Proposition 22: Did you know that gig workers aren’t really people?

Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute

Legislative Summary: Establishes different criteria for determining whether app-based transportation (rideshare) and delivery drivers are “employees” or “independent contractors.” Independent contractors are not entitled to certain state-law protections afforded employees—including minimum wage, overtime, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. Instead, companies with independent-contractor drivers will be required to provide specified alternative benefits, including: minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training, and sexual harassment policies.

Pros: This proposition makes me irrationally angry and I cannot for the life of me even pretend to impartially find a silver lining. This a naked ploy by Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash to exploit their workforces and circumvent the legislature. 

Cons: I wish I had saved the email, but I received one from Lyft, telling me how to vote on this prop. Not a suggestion, but an order to vote in accordance with their glibertarian dystopia. I don’t like being told what to do from a company whose only contribution to the world is a goddamned app. Irrational anger aside, the real reason to oppose this measure is that it subverts the ability of the state to determine its own labor laws, specifically, AB 5 (2019). If the state sets labor practices, and a rich enough coalition of robber barons can come along and overturn it, then the corporatists have already won.

My Rec on 22: Hard No!

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 22

Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 22

…..

Proposition 23: Look Ma! I’m a doctor, now!

Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute

Legislative Summary: Requires at least one licensed physician on site during treatment at outpatient kidney dialysis clinics; authorizes Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from this requirement due to shortages of qualified licensed physicians if at least one nurse practitioner or physician assistant is on site. Requires clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal governments. Requires state approval for clinics to close or reduce services. Prohibits clinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care.

Pros: The SEIU-UHW (a prominent healthcare-workers union) may be using this prop (and a failed one from 2018) as part of their efforts to unionize CA’s two largest dialysis businesses. However, those businesses have been allegedly retaliating against pro-union employees. How this helps their cause, I’m unsure, but they’ve put up $5 million dollars for the Yes campaign. Disclosing infection rates seems like a good idea for a safety regulation. If it’s the case that dialysis clinics are being closed in more remote or harder-to-serve areas of the state, then the government has a compelling interest in keeping them open.

Cons: I’m being asked to vote on what is best for patients. I (and the vast majority of the CA electorate) do not work in healthcare or have any relevant expertise in determining what is in the best interest of dialysis patients. I know nothing about dialysis and maybe a physician on-site is great idea. If dialysis clinics get more physicians, they’d have to come from somewhere, and it’s not like there is a glut of MDs running around out there.

My Rec on 23: No. I like unions, I like people getting safe dialysis care. Still, it just puts us in an unenviable position of deciding what quality of care should be. If the purpose is to improve quality of care for patients, putting a strain on the physician network isn’t the way to go about that, nor is the likely closure of smaller clinics and the increase out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare patients.

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 23
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 23
League of Women Voters Prop 23
L.A. Times Editorial in Opposition to Prop 23

…..

Proposition 25: You’re guilty if you’re poor

Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk

Legislative Summary: Requires a majority of voters to approve a 2018 state law before it can take effect. The 2018 law replaces the money bail system with a system for pretrial release from jail based on a determination of public safety or flight risk, and limits pretrial detention for most misdemeanors.

Pros: Ending cash bail would mean that defendants who cannot afford bail will not have to lose income and their livelihood while awaiting trial. 

Cons:  Defendants lose their get-of-jail benefits if they’re deemed flight risks regardless of how much money they pay. People who make money loaning money to defendants for bail will lose their job.

My Rec on 25: Hard Yes!  Again, it’s another attempt to circumvent the legislature, like prop 22. 

Further Reading:

Ballotpedia for Prop 25
Secretary of State Ballot Proposition for Prop 25

…..

Cliff Notes for comparing and easy to copy for commenting.  Just change the decision where you disagree.

Proposition 14: Stem-Cell Bonds, Electric Boogaloo!
Yes

Proposition 17: Ex-felons are people, too
Yes

Proposition 18: 17 year olds are almost people, too
Ye

Proposition 19: Wonky property tax reform for the landed gentry
Yes

Proposition 21: The rent’s too high!
Yes

Proposition 22: Did you know that gig workers aren’t really people?
Hard No

Proposition 23: Look Ma! I’m a doctor, now!
No

Proposition 25: You’re guilty if you’re poor
Hard Yes

THE END.