California Statewide Propositions 2020

Now this is where I’m thinking. This is why they should be employees. Not to mention getting unemployment benefits and insurance. I don’t care if prices go up for Uber, Lyft etc. I would feel safer all around if the employees were properly vetted and insured. None of the drivers are helped with their own auto or health insurance. I understand that those who wish to work only a few hours may get the boot, but maybe those who work just a few hours aren’t as well prepared as full-timers.

I’m a hard NO on 22.

I’m pretty sure Uber/Lyft don’t pay the employer part of SS, so the driver’s SS taxes are double if they’re contractors.

Yes, as self-employed they are responsible for both the employer and employee portions. But they can deduct 1/2 of it (The employer portion) as an expense.

I can only good-naturedly quibble with the implied inclusion of PG&E in the category of "well-run companies. :stuck_out_tongue:

Poorly run monopolies are also effectively immortal.

Thanks. So the platform doesn’t cover it, but drivers can cover it themselves.

Thanks for starting this thread, @Pleonast!

Here’s my $0.02:

Prop 14: No. This was originally enacted as Prop 71 back when the Feds were declaring stem cell research off-limits because of the association with abortion. Trouble is, most of the money is going to private companies and the “non-profit” arms of institutions like Stanford, USC and the major hospitals. Big Pharma (who will reap the profits) should be funding stem cell research, not CA taxpayers, or the grants should be limited to public institutions.

CA is in deep fiscal trouble right now what with COVID and the wildfires. Stem cell research isn’t going to dry up if CA doesn’t authorize more bonds.

Prop 15: Yes

Prop 16: leaning No, for reasons expressed by @That_Don_Guy

Prop 17: leaning No. I think there should be some limits on restoration of voting rights, such as repeat felony offenders are ineligible, violent felony offenders are ineligible.

Prop 18: Yes

Prop 19: No. This is another giveaway to the old and the wealthy at the expense of the young and the poor. And what is “fire protection” doing in here (it should be a stand-alone proposition)? I suspect it’s the frosting so you don’t taste the sh*t sandwich.

Prop 20: No. I’d like to see more effort put into petty crime prevention, but stuffing more people in jail is not the way to do it.

Prop 21: leaning No. I believe in local control, but rent control does nothing about the root cause of the housing crisis (low supply).

Prop 22: No

Prop 23: No

Prop 24: No; too confusing about what it really does and who will benefit.

Prop 25: Yes.

[I’ve lived in CA for 45 years, consider myself to be middle-to-leftie Dem, and worked in biotech before I retired (if I come across as anti-research, it’s not that at all!)]

The problem with Prop 22 is that it’s too narrowly focused. It only changes the rules for ride share drivers. In fact, Assembly Bill 5, which created the new rules, has major problems in many areas. For example, it makes freelance journalism very difficult.

The entire bill should be rewritten, not just the parts that pertain to Uber and Lyft.

I just finished my deep dive into my mail-in ballot. I usually have the most difficulty with the elective offices, but this year I realized that if I was faced with choosing between individuals I didn’t know much about, I could just go to the local republican party website and eliminate anyone they endorsed.

The measures have some tough ones. As a Californian I am both proud and appalled with our experiments in direct democracy. Right now, my leanings are:

14 - weak No; now is not the time for this type of funding.

15 - Yes

16 - Yes

17 - Yes

18 - weak Yes; Why not? It will have minimal impact, if any, on election results.

19 - No; too many (well disguised) negative impacts

20 - Not just No, but hell No! It is no coincidence that this is one of only two measures the Republicans support.

21 - Yes/No? It appears that this just extends a law that covers all properties built after 2005 to those built before 2005 (and the Republicans are against it, which is a mark in its favor). But I worry about hidden pitfalls in this one. Maybe this is something for the legislature to take up.

22 - No. There are problems with the recent law, but let’s get the legislature to fix it. Plus the Party of Evil supports it, so there must be something wrong with it.

23 - No. Too many hidden agendas in this one. Toss it to the legislature.

24 - Reluctant No. Too many balls in the air in this measure. Another one for the legislature.

25 - Not just Yes, but hell Yes! When communities were small and homogeneous, bail affected everyone in similar fashion, Nowadays, it’s just another example of “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”

Over the weekend, I filled out my ballot and put into an official dropbox. By the way, you can track your ballot at Where’s My Ballot.

My wife is a freelance writer, and she is no longer affected by the bill, which got amended. It would have been nice if they got it right the first time, though.

And this morning I received confirmation that it was received and will be counted.

Perhaps this is so. It might be instructive if any of the “NO on 23” advertising touched on this point. All I’ve heard from them so far, though, is “They’re gonna shut down my dialysis clinic!” I haven’t got any reason to accept that THIS is so.

Just another set of data points (my ballot):

14 - N
15 - Y
16 - Y
17 - Y
18 - Y
19 - N
20 - N
21 - Y
22 - N
23 - N
24 - Y
25 - Y

I generally went with whatever the Dems said yes to and against anything the Repubs favored. When there was a split, I favored the LA Times over the SF Chronicle for recs.

If they said that, a lot of people not really getting the finances would no doubt think “sure a doctor should be on premises all the time. What could it hurt?”
I haven’t seen any numbers about how many clinics would not be going concerns with the added expense, but I also haven’t seen any on how many times a doctor would be needed.
For any proposition only the information in the book and elsewhere is worth anything. Good prop or bad, the TV ads are worthless.

[California Prop. 23 question (state regulation of dialysis clinics)]

As I said in the above thread, I was all ready to vote NO on 23 until I saw the John Oliver video. Now I may not vote on this one at all.

I just scraped this off of AP via google. Results are with 72% reporting:

California Proposition 14. Medical Research Bonds
51.1% Yes

California Proposition 15. Change Commercial Property Tax
51.7% No

California Proposition 16. End Diversity Ban
56% No

California Proposition 17. Restore Former Felon Vote
59.1% Yes

California Proposition 18. Allow Age 17 Primary Voters
55.1% No

California Proposition 19. Change Property Tax Rules
51.5% Yes

California Proposition 20. Stricter Parole, Sentencing
62.3% No

California Proposition 21. Local Government Rent Control
59.7% No

California Proposition 22. App-Based Drivers as Contractors, Not Employees
58.4% Yes

California Proposition 23. Dialysis Clinic Standards
64% No

California Proposition 24. Expand Consumer Privacy
56.1% Yes

California Proposition 25. Approve Replacing Cash Bail
55.4% No

Thanks for the update. I’ll post the final results once the state posts them, if no one else does. Mail-in ballots have something like two weeks to arrive.

Yeah. We’ll know in two months. :smiley:

I’m especially disappointed with Props 15 and 22. Facebook, Google, Oracle etc continue to pay lower property tax rates than a young couple buying their first home, and we’ve stripped employee benefits from anyone who works for Uber as a full time job; there’s people that do this, work full time all day every day for ride sharing services and I’ve met them. No benefits for you, losers!