Vote Like Your Country Depends On It

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

John Has An Idea and We Need Your Help To Make It Happen

 

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.

 

Balloon Juice Voter Guide for Ballot Initiatives: CAPost + Comments (121)