California Statewide Propositions 2020

Politics & Elections
1

It’s time again for Californians to participate in their most direct power and assent or refuse numerous propositions. I’ve collected information from the official voter guide from the Secretary of State and the endorsements of the Democratic party, Republican party, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle. For more information, follow the links at the bottom of the post.

I’ll keep this post informational and then post mine opinions next. Please feel free to state your own, especially if you’re a fellow Californian. Others can weigh in as well.

14 Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute.
Authorizes $5.5 billion state bonds for: stem cell and other medical research, including training; research facility construction; administrative costs. Dedicates $1.5 billion to brain-related diseases. Appropriates General Fund moneys for repayment. Expands related programs. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: NO
SFC: NO

15 Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Taxes such properties based on current market value, instead of purchase price. Fiscal Impact: Increased property taxes on commercial properties worth more than $3 million providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding to local governments and schools.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: YES

16 Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in order to address diversity by repealing constitutional provision prohibiting such policies. Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities. The effects of the measure depend on the future choices of state and local government entities and are highly uncertain.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: YES

17 Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Restores voting rights upon completion of prison term to persons who have been disqualified from voting while serving a prison term. Fiscal Impact: Annual county costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide, for voter registration and ballot materials. One-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for voter registration cards and systems.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: YES

18 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.
Fiscal Impact: Increased statewide county costs likely between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years. Increased one-time costs to the state of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: YES

19 Changes Certain Property Tax Rules. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Allows homeowners who are over 55, disabled, or wildfire/disaster victims to transfer primary residence’s tax base to replacement residence. Changes taxation of family-property transfers. Establishes fire protection services fund. Fiscal Impact: Local governments could gain tens of millions of dollars of property tax revenue per year, probably growing over time to a few hundred million dollars per year. Schools could receive similar property tax gains.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: NO
SFC: NO

20 Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to Be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute.
Limits access to parole program established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses. Fiscal Impact: Increase in state and local correctional, court, and law enforcement costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation.
D: NO
R: YES
LAT: NO
SFC: NO

21 Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.
Allows local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Local limits on rate increases may differ from statewide limit. Fiscal Impact: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.Allows local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Local limits on rate increases may differ from statewide limit. Fiscal Impact: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: NO

22 Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute.
Classifies app-based drivers as “independent contractors,” instead of “employees,” and provides independent-contractor drivers other compensation, unless certain criteria are met. Fiscal Impact: Minor increase in state income taxes paid by rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors.
D: NO
R: YES
LAT: NO
SFC: YES

23 Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute.
Requires physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site during dialysis treatment. Prohibits clinics from reducing services without state approval. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: NO
SFC: NO

24 Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute.
Permits consumers to: prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, and limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information,” including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency. Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs of at least $10 million, but unlikely exceeding low tens of millions of dollars, to enforce expanded consumer privacy laws. Some costs would be offset by penalties for violating these laws.
D: abstain
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: NO

25 Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk.
A “Yes” vote approves, and a “No” vote rejects, law replacing money bail with system based on public safety and flight risk. Fiscal Impact: Increased costs possibly in mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for release from jail prior to trial. Decreased county jail costs, possibly in high tens of millions of dollars annually.
D: YES
R: NO
LAT: YES
SFC: YES

Cites:
California Secretary of State Voter Guide
California Democratic Party Endorsements
California Republican Party Endorsements
Los Angeles Times Endorsements
San Francisco Chronicle Endorsements

2

Here’s how I’ll likely vote.

14: weak yes. More science is good.
15: strong YES. This closes the loop hole that let’s commercial and industrial properties reduce taxes. The property tax system is so screwed up now; we needed this years ago. This is as important as the presidential vote.
16: weak yes. I hate entrenching discrimination, but past and continuing bigotry make it necessary.
17: definite YES. The right to vote is fundamental in a democracy.
18: definite YES. Again, more voting.
19: weak yes. The con arguments bother me.
20: definite NO. We do not need more people in jail.
21: definite NO. Further restrictions on the housing market are not going to help. Instead we need to make it easier to build more housing.
22: definite NO. I’m not going to support an end run around the legislature.
23: weak no. This a problem for the legislature to solve.
24: weak no. Again, this a problem for the legislature to solve.
25: strong YES. Cash bail does not help public safety and it cripples the poor. Also, not supporting an industry trying to avoid legislature doing its job. This is an extremely important issue; if you care at all about justice, you will vote yes.

3

Here is where I am landing on these - my default position is to vote NO on everything unless I can be compelled to vote Yes:

14 - No to more bonds that need to be paid off later with interest. Find the money for this somewhere else in the existing budget.
15 - I am leaning yes on this but worry about some of the effects on small businesses down the road.
16 - No on this one. Leave prop 209 in place.
17 - Yes on this to allow people to start joining society again. Other states already allow this. Not allowing them to vote is a form of voter suppression (see Florida).
18 - No because I see no reason for this one - not sure who is benefitting.
19 - I am scratching my head on this one - no decision yet.
20 - No on mandating sentences - let the judges do their job.
21 - No on rent control.
22 - Yes to leave app-based workers as independent contractors - a No vote may lead to making them employees.
23 - No because this was decided in the 2018 election and the SEIU union is still smarting from that and looking for petty payback. No one benefits from this one.
24 - No since there is already a law in place for this.
25 - Yes as this was also decided in a recent election - Yes keeps/re-affirms the decision for a cashless bail system, which I think is more fair.

Ballotpedia - another helpful link.

4

I love these yearly (electionly?) threads. Thank you so much for doing this.

5

Unless it’s about a bond issue, I usually vote NO on ballot initiatives, on the principle that we have a legislative body for a reason; to enact legislation. That is, if we need it, we have professionals to write it and pass it. Sure, it’s simplistic, but it’s usually served me well.

This year, I might just cut to the chase and vote the opposite of what the Republican Party prefers. The likelihood of their preference being in the long-term interest of the citizens of California is so low as to be negligible.

6

By coincidence, Kevin Drum just post his CA 2020 ballot initiative guide this hour.

7

Every two years in California, although there are two in each even-numbered year. I am trying to remember the last odd-numbered year that had a statewide election of any sort in California; I think it was in 2005.

Here is how I stand at the moment:
14 - Yes; this should have been funded years ago
15 - No; the whole point of Proposition 13 is that it affects everyone equally
16 - still thinking about this one; I have a feeling somebody is going to find a way to use it in favor of whites/men
17 - leaning Yes
18 - leaning No, although I would support one that would allow them to vote in primary races (but not ballot propositions or anything else that did not require a final vote in November)
19 - No; this is asking for abuse (“why, yes, I did move to a really expensive home, and my Prop 13 tax base is 1/10 of what the home is worth”)
20 - No; shouldn’t we be keeping people out of prison whenever possible?
21 - leaning No
22 - still thinking about this one; I have heard valid reasons that they should/shouldn’t be independent contractors
23 - leaning No, as I have heard that all this pretty much does is to require that every dialysis clinic hire someone for a position that may or may not be necessary
24 - leaning Yes
25 - Yes

8

That is… an interesting take. I am hard-pressed to think of a tax law that has more unequal effects than Prop 13. Prop 13 highly privileges old people, old corporations, rentiers, and rich people (who have owned property for a long time) over young people, new businesses, and the upwardly mobile.

People buy and sell property on very different time scales than corporations, so the longer that Prop 13 exists, the better a deal companies get on their taxes compared to individuals.

9

I’d agree in general, but some of the propositions are constitutional amendments and cannot be changed solely by the legislative process (15, 16, 17, 18, 19). These should be fairly considered.

Other propositions were passed by the legislature, but interested groups want another chance to stop the law (22, 25). These should default against the special interests.

Unfortunately there’s a loophole. Companies spun off their real estate to shell corporations, which hold only a single property. When the company wants to get rid of the property, they sell the shell. The property is thus never sold and keeps the tax base it had when it was put in the shell.

This is why the old Prop 13 has been so devastating to local governments. Residential homes turn over, sometimes slowly, sometimes faster. Commercial property turns over once, and then never again. The current Prop 15 closes that loophole.

10

I had a case awhile back. Cab driver killed my client. Cab driver was completely at fault, no dispute about that. He had only $100,000 in insurance and no assets. The cab company had $2,000,000 in insurance. But they argued he was an independent contractor, and they had no responsibility for his negligence.

So, it matters.

11

That actually doesn’t work. A total (or majority) sale of a company that owns property results in updated tax assessment. However, there are more complicated cases that you could term actual loopholes or just really complicated cases that aren’t well-handled. Member-owned golf clubs are one. Each time you add a member, maybe only 0.2% of the property is transferred. Yet, over decades, the entire ownership changes. When do you reassess? Not obvious.

12

This. Companies (well run ones) are effectively immortal. I don’t see why (say) PG&E should be paying 1970’s taxes on billion dollar properties.

13

This is a good point. I believe Uber and Lyft have business models not to employ the drivers, but merely to run the app that connects drivers and riders and to facilitate payment. I think the companies require some level of liability insurance, but unsure of the amounts or details.

I am not sure if Prop 22 addresses this, tho.

14

If their drivers are no longer contractors but rather employees the company becomes liable (or at least potentially more liable). That’s assuming Uber and Lyft don’t flee California, which they might. But CA is a huge market and somebody will fill that gap and I never had a problem getting a cab back in the day.

15

The problem I raised would go away if they had to have sufficient insurance for their “independent contractors.” (maybe California already requires that, I don’t know)

Another problem that is that independent contractors don’t get most of the protections employees get (overtime, sick leave, etc). I suppose that’s more a question of what these drivers prefer. The liability question, though, effects all of us.

16

Here is what Uber says about liability insurance under What’s my coverage if I’m at fault for an accident while driving with Uber?:

How much you’re insured for depends on when your accident occurred. Here’s a breakdown:

You’re insured for liability to a third party if you’re in a covered accident where you’re at fault and you’re online but haven’t received a trip request yet. Coverage is at least $50,000 in injury liability per person, $100,000 in total liability per accident, and $25,000 in property damage liability per accident.

If you’re in a crash where you’re at fault and you have already accepted a ride request, you’re insured for the following in case of a covered accident:

  1. Your liability to a third party (at least $1 million).
  2. Collision and comprehensive coverage. If your personal insurance already includes this coverage, the insurance that Uber maintains will take its place for damage to your vehicle (subject to a $1,000 deductible).
17

No workers comp coverage for the drivers and no unemployment if you lose the gig for some reason. Those matter to me.

18

I assume they’re not contributing to Social Security or Medicare either.

19

If they file a tax return, they are subject to self-employment taxes, which cover Soc Sec and Medicare

20

Yeah I do not think the Uber or Lyft platforms are intended for people who want to make it a “job” with benefits - ISTM they are intended for people who want to supplement income or earn money during otherwise idle time.

I do not think either company is promoting itself to prospective drivers in such a way to suggest they will receive job-related benefits. If people are going into becoming a driver knowing all that is included, or not included, with their eyes open, I am not sure that forcing these companies to change their business model is right.

Note: I have no real dog in the race - I am not a driver for any of these gig companies, and have only had 1 Lyft ride (where someone else paid).