It’s almost election time, and as per usual, I feel a need to take a moment to analyze the very lengthy California ballot and provide opinions. There will be a second post for more local matters specific to my area. As a graduate student now, I do not have as much time as I used to, so my analyses may be a little briefer, but I still felt it important to take the time to get this out. I see voting as a civic duty, and making these posts to help as a personal responsibility to help citizens here in California accomplish this.
As last time, I will clarify that this post is not only intended for DailyKos, but also for the friends and family within the small circle I can call such.
There are 9 statewide offices at stake in California, a variety of judicial confirmations, and 11 propositions. (I am counting the Board of Equalization as a statewide position this time because it is treated as such in the SOS guide despite having 4 districts, and all 4 districts have a similar analysis. Similarly, the judicial confirmations will be discussed on this ballot (in part because I will not discuss them individually, but rather, all in one go.) I will start by running through the candidate races, then discussing how to handle the judges, then discuss the most critical part of the ballot from the perspective of direct impact, the propositions.
I’m going to first comment by quickly running through 6 of the 9 races. Simply put, you’re reading this on Daily Kos. The fact that you are here indicates you do not need me to tell you to vote Democrat against the Republican. However, yes, Gavin Newsom will make a great Governor, Alex Padilla does a solid job as our SOS, likewise for Betty Yee and the Controller position, Fiona Ma is an acceptable option for state Treasurer, and Xavier Becerra will continue to make a great Attorney General. Their opponents are Republicans. Ricardo Lara will do acceptably as Insurance Commissioner. His opponent, Steve Poizner, claims no party preference but is a former Republican candidate for governor and still would have disturbing pro-corporate policies.
All 4 Board of Equalization districts are also a straight-up Democratic/Republican race. Vote the Democrat. In my own district, District 4, Mike Schaefer is definitely a DINO and whose policies are awful (as a proud defender of the Howard Jarvis I Don’t Wanna Be a Taxpayers Assocation) and I explicitly said not to vote for him in the primary, however, his opponent is Joel Anderson, who is worse. Please hold your nose and vote Mike Schaefer.
This leaves three races: US Senator, Lieutenant Governor, and Superintendent of Public Instruction. I’ll cover each.
The most high-profile of the three non-D/R races is the race for US Senator. Incumbent Democrat Dianne Feinstein is being challenged by fellow Democrat Kevin de Leon. While I respect Feinstein and her long service to California, it’s time for her to go. Her refusal to recognize when Republicans in Congress break norms, essentially normalizing Trump, is not what California needs. In the primary I used this logic to vote for Kevin de Leon to ensure he made this election, even though there were more progressive candidates on the ballot. I am voting once again for, and most heartily endorse, Kevin de Leon for US Senator.
We next turn our attention to the race for Lieutenant Governor. It’s often confusing what exactly the Lieutenant Governor does, as they have few explicit powers. It’s important to note that California is a state that demands the Governor’s office is occupied at all times; the Lieutenant Governor is acting Governor whenever the Governor leaves the state. As California is a world leader, especially on climate, I think it’s safe to assume Gov. Newsom (hopefully) will be involved in lots of high-level conferences across the nation and the world. So the race between Democrats Eleni Kounalakis and Ed Hernandez is actually relevant. I will note that both of these candidates are qualified, competent individuals who maintain a solidly progressive platform overall. Reading from their websites, I rate Hernandez superior on overall governmental reform and qualifications as well as environmental plans, while Kounalakis is superior on healthcare, housing and technological issues. Being in favor of a single-payer plan means a lot to me right now, and I don’t think either candidate has anything bad to be said about them, thus overall I will be voting Eleni Kounalakis, but I do not believe you can make a bad decision here. Either way, we are getting a solid option in the number two office in Sacramento.
The final statewide race is the race for Superintendent of Public Instruction. Despite being statewide, this office appears on the ballot after the mass of judges, because it is considered a “School” office. The race is officially nonpartisan. Marshall Tuck is running against Tony K. Thurmond. While both of these individuals are competent and qualified, I am unhappy with Tuck’s pandering to the bloodsucking charter school system, though he has no outright horrible points in his platform beyond this. By contrast, Tony K. Thurmond is a strong progressive who has openly declared his intention to stand against the horrible policies of the Trump/DeVos cabal. He is endorsed by the California Democratic Party, and with good reason. I definitely endorse and will vote for Tony K. Thurmond!
Judges present a bit of a problem, because you can’t tell much about them beyond their background. However we’re in luck. An organization calling itself the Judge Voter Guide has done our work for us. They’re obviously after a particular sort of judge, and you can select your county and get what they recommend you should do. You should actually do the OPPOSITE of what the Judge Voter Guide wants. They are a very right-wing “organization” here in California in the grain of the Federalist Society. (I use “organization” loosely, it looks like it’s largely one old white guy.) This looks to be a reliable strategy for all of the judicial confirmations. (This means voting AGAINST Judge Corrigan and FOR Judge Kruger, and then going through in a similar manner to the rest of the judges, which may vary depending on your area.)
Now to the meat, the part you probably actually came here for: The 11 statewide propositions on the California ballot. I will explain the details of each one, analyze them, discuss major party endorsements, and then give my final opinion.
Shorthands: References to “the Democrats” or “the Republicans” refer to the official voting guides released by the respective state party. Abbreviations are listed at the end of each proposition’s official descriptor line. L = Legislative. I = Initiative. S = Statute. CA = Constitutional Amendment.
The first four propositions are all bond authorizations. I will note that existing California bonds show an existing outlay of $83 billion. Dollar amounts on these bills should be understood with this scale in mind.
PROP 1. AUTHORIZES BONDS TO FUND SPECIFIED HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. (L:S). This is a $4 billion bond to expand affordable housing programs for low-income individuals, veterans, farmworkers, and so on, with an emphasis on housing in favorable locations with respect to land use and transit access. The Democrats support this proposition, and the Republicans oppose it. Despite this, the official arguments against are submitted by contrarian Gary Wesley, who uses the space to (correctly) rail against the old Prop. 13 property tax law. I do understand the argument that the tax structure should be fixed. However, the importance of getting rid of that law says nothing about this law. Overall this is an important bond that will help relieve the housing crisis in California. I am voting YES.
PROP 2. AUTHORIZES BONDS TO FUND EXISTING HOUSING PROGRAM FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS. (L:S). This is a $2 billion bond. It makes permanent a law called the No Place Like Home Program, making it easier for people with mental illness to have housing, as consistent with the state’s Mental Health Services Act. Both Democrats and Republicans support this bond. This is a solid measure that, while it does contain a bond, really streamlines funding and provides additional help to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The “against” arguments come from a single organization in Contra Costa that appears to be scaremongering and mumbling about helping developers. Technically all housing development bonds benefit developers. The arguers appear to be whining about the obvious, and claiming that existing law has… what, solved, the problem of mentally ill homeless? It… hasn’t. This will help. I vote YES here.
PROP 3. AUTHORIZES BONDS TO FUND PROJECTS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY, WATERSHED, FISH, WILDLIFE, WATER CONVEYANCE, AND GROUNDWATER SUSTAINABILITY AND STORAGE. (I:S). This is an $8.87 billion bond that funds various water projects. A lot of these projects are worthy and I like them. However, a lot of these projects are really just designed to help Big Agriculture. The arguments for list a compelling set of ideas, and the arguments against tend to whine about the fact that it doesn’t fund dams or dam maintenance. These are important, but have nothing to do with what the bill actually does. As I said, however, I am uncomfortable with how much of a giveaway to the agricultural industry this appears to be when I look in detail. The claims about helping “disadvantaged communities” seem to actually be referring to low-income agricultural communities… but they will be helping the businesses moreso than the people directly. (This bill also requires some cap-and-trade funding to be spent on water projects, but I’m not too concerned about this one way or another. IMO, all dollars are essentially equivalent.) The measure is being funded by a mix of environmental and Big Ag groups. Neither Democrats nor Republicans make an official comment on this proposition. Overall, there is too much worrisome in here. I will vote NO.
PROP 4. AUTHORIZES BONDS FUNDING CONSTRUCTION AT HOSPITALS PROVIDING CHILDREN’S HEALTH CARE. (I:S). This is a $1.5 billion bond for funding children’s hospitals throughout the state. Funding children’s hospitals is a great and noble objective. The Democratic Party supports this measure and the Republican Party is against this measure. I assume these endorsements are simply based on “Funding for children good” and “government bonds usually bad” without much in the way of nuance. This is a great idea in theory. But here’s the problem: Most children’s hospitals in California are privately run. Specifically, at least 72 percent of the funding from this bond will go to these private hospitals. Which means this bond is a direct giveaway to private healthcare. They have other ways to generate their own funding. The official argument against is once again, sadly, simply Gary Wesley complaining about the unfair property tax system, rather than something more substantial. The substantial argument is the one I have made. I do not wish to use taxpayer dollars to effectively directly fund private industry. No surprise, the measure is also being funded by these private hospitals. Perhaps they should have taken their millions to help children rather than spend it demanding the taxpayers give them free money. This is one of the very few times I am going to have to disagree with the Democrats here. I am a NO vote.
PROP 5. CHANGES REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY OWNERS TO TRANSFER THEIR PROPERTY TAX BASE TO REPLACEMENT PROPERTY. (I:CA/S). Under current law, anyone that moves has to pay property taxes at the modern rate. This law would allow people to keep some of their tax base as it is when moving, if they are old enough, but existing law already does this to an extent. People that can afford expensive housing generally are not the people I am concerned about with regard to them getting tax breaks. Because of the nature of the tax system, tax cuts like this benefit the people that need it least. This will also encourage moving, thus driving up the price of housing even further. This is yet another attack on our property tax system, trying to make it even worse than it already is. Republicans of course support this measure while the Democrats oppose it. I am a definite NO vote here.
PROP 6. ELIMINATES CERTAIN ROAD REPAIR AND TRANSPORTATION FUNDING. REQUIRES CERTAIN FUEL TAXES AND VEHICLE FEES BE APPROVED BY THE ELECTORATE. (I:CA). The second sentence should raise an immediate red flag here. It will effectively require any transportation tax increases to go on the ballot before they can be submitted. Proponents of the measure claim it will lower gas prices, but there’s no reason to assume that: Gas prices are controlled by a whole host of factors, a not insignificant one being the oligopoly formed by the major gas companies. All this does is eliminate a tax that was going to fund road repair and other transportation improvements – and then block the legislature from doing from fixing the problems this will cause for at least another election cycle. If people have a problem with how their legislature conducts business they should consider replacing the legislators. I will be doing my best to replace the legislators in my own district. Republicans support the measure and Democrats are opposed. I am a clear NO vote here.
PROP 7. CONFORMS CALIFORNIA DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME TO FEDERAL LAW. ALLOWS LEGISLATURE TO CHANGE DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME PERIOD. (L:S). This would allow the California legislature to adopt year-round daylight savings time should they choose to do so at some later date, provided it is allowed under federal law. Current federal law does not allow for year-round DST regardless. Any changes to the law would likely be worded in such a way as to require Nevada to perform this action before California did, to prevent people from losing an hour by going east. Right now, this measure is pointless on its face, but it’s a necessary step towards eventually achieving a year-round DST. I do understand the benefits to only being 2 hours away from the East Coast during the winter. Both Democrats and Republicans favor the measure. I will vote YES on this, but I don’t have a particularly strong opinion on this and don’t really care what you do.
PROP 8. REGULATES AMOUNTS OUTPATIENTS KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS CHARGE FOR DIALYSIS TREATMENT. (I:S). This law essentially caps profits by dialysis clinics at 15%, bringing dialysis into line with other medical services per the rules of the Affordable Care Act. Specifically, it notes that if profits are too high, dialysis clinics will be required to refund certain groups of patients (those not under a government program (ie: Medicare or Medi-Cal), as these patients are paid through that program.) The rest of the law describes the reporting rules for costs and patients to ensure this core purpose is met, and outlaws discrimination against private insurance holders, again, to prevent evasion. This is a solid common-sense rule that brings medical profiteering under control, just as it is for most of the rest of the medical field on a federal level. Democrats support the measure and Republicans are against the measure. The dialysis industry, attempting to protect their profits, is funding heavily against the measure. I am voting YES.
(There is no Prop 9. This was the “split California into 3 states” initiative, and it was removed by the state Supreme Court.)
PROP 10. EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. (I:S). Currently, there is a law in California that makes it incredibly difficult for local governments to enact rent control. This would repeal that law and allow rent control to be engaged throughout the state. Don’t fall for developer’s lies that they will somehow stop developing. They already don’t exactly develop a whole lot. Democrats support the measure and the Republicans oppose it. This does not require local governments to do anything, it frees them up to make the right decisions for their specific situation. Nonetheless, across California, the rent is too damn high! Vote YES on Prop 10! In my view, this is the most important proposition on the ballot!
PROP 11. REQUIRES PRIVATE SECTOR EMERGENCY AMBULANCE EMPLOYEES TO REMAIN ON-CALL DURING WORK BREAKS. ELIMINATES CERTAIN EMPLOYER LIABILITY. (I:S). This is a measure designed by AMR, for AMR, to allow AMR to not follow labor laws. There is an active dispute between ambulance employees and one of the major ambulance companies in California, American Medical Response. Essentially, employees resent that they aren’t being given the breaks afforded them by federal and state labor law. AMR’s response, rather than follow the law, and raise their staffing levels so they can do this, is this initiative. While it is true that patients need care during people’s breaks too, the correct solution is to have sufficient staffing so breaks can be staggered and there not to be a negative impact on patient care without violating these breaks except in rare cases, at which time employees can be properly compensated for their effective emergency coverage. But AMR doesn’t want to hire more employees because that would mean less profit. Republicans support the erosion of Labor Law because of course they do, and the Democrats are of course opposed to this blatant attack on our paramedics and ambulance employees. The measure is being entirely funded by AMR. This is incredibly transparent. Vote NO on Prop 11.
PROP 12. ESTABLISHES NEW STANDARDS FOR CONFINEMENT OF SPECIFIED FARM ANIMALS. BANS SALE OF NONCOMPLYING PRODUCTS. (I:S). This establishes some new stricter requirements, phased in through 2022, on three types of farm animals: egg-laying hens, breeding pigs, and veal calves. Both sides of this bill claim to be the side supporting animals. It should be noted, however, that opponents claim that a bill that codifies law in a certain way implies it makes horrible things legal. The existing law is worse. Laws can always be changed with new bills. Incremental progress is important. The support organizations are making expansive claims that are probably unsubstantiated with regards to how much this will actually help. The opposition organization claims that things will be worse, which is dubious. Democrats support the measure and Republicans are opposed. Also, the opposition group is funded by an organization called the “Humane Farming Action Fund” which means… nothing. It’s a Dark Money group. I find the opposition’s claims wanting. I am a YES vote on Prop 12.
Short form of my (statewide) ballot, in ballot order: Newsom. Kounalakis. Padilla. Yee. Ma. Becerra. Lara. Schaefer. De Leon. Oppose “Judge Voter Guide” on all judicial confirmations. Thurmond. YES on 1. YES on 2. NO on 3. NO on 4. NO on 5. NO on 6. YES on 7. YES on 8. YES on 10. NO on 11. YES on 12.
I hope this write-up has been of some assistance to those of you that for any one of a host of reasons struggle to grasp the massive California ballot, both for California voters and for out-of-state individuals who are interested in what we are doing here in California. You may or may not agree with my analysis, but please be respectful of each other as you post in the comments.
Help us STOP DONALD TRUMP. VOTE NOVEMBER 6.