Last week Rachel and I had a Zoom ballot-splanation-athon with some friends. A lot of people contributed to that conversation and I took copious notes. Sharing my thoughts on the statewide propositions here.

Before I dig in, some words. I think ballot initiatives are a sometimes useful but mostly destructive tool of excessive democracy. We are all busy people and mostly don’t have time to fully evaluate ballot propositions ourselves. There is a reason we elect representatives to run offices that do this for us. Nonetheless, we find ourselves with a particularly impactful crop of ballot initiatives attached to this presidential ballot. My attitude is that the people who put the initiative on the ballot always want it to pass, so you should presumptively vote “no” if you reject the premise. On top of that, ballot initiatives are typically much harder to reverse than acts of the state legislature, which is another good reason for a presumptive no vote. In some cases, e.g. if the proposition affects an earlier ballot initiative, there is no other way to get the work done. In other cases the need is sufficiently compelling that I think we should vote on the thing we have in front of us. Nonetheless, in general I’m leaning “no” from the outset. Just so you know.

Statewide propositions

Proposition 14: Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for state stem cell research institute No
Proposition 15: Tax commercial and industrial properties based on market value. Yes
Proposition 16: Repeals Proposition 209 (1996), which bars the state from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting. Yes
Proposition 17: Restores the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are on parole. Yes
Proposition 18: 17-year-olds who will be 18 by the next general election can vote in primaries and special elections. Yes
Proposition 19: People over 55 can transfer tax rate to a new home, but their beneficiaries mostly cannot inherit that same tax rate. Unsure
Proposition 20: Expand the list of crimes for which early parole is prohibited. No
Proposition 21: Expands local governments’ power to use rent control. Unsure
Proposition 22: Uber, Lyft, etc. drivers are contractors, but get benefits like healthcare if they drive enough. Unsure
Proposition 22: Requires physician on-site at dialysis clinics. No
Proposition 24: Expands the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). No
Proposition 25: Replaces cash bail with statistical risk assessments. No

Propositon 14

The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) was initially created to fund stem cell research in with Proposition 71 in 2004. This was a response to the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for such research. This policy was subsequently reversed by the Obama administration, while the NIH research budget grew substantially during both Bush and Obama eras. The NIH now funds this area of research well and is increasingly refocused on medical applications of research, so the primary motivation for California to fund translational stem cell research no longer exists. That said, much of the funding has, in the past, funded researchers at Stanford, Berkeley, UCSF, UCLA, etc. which is not a bad thing. I am voting no because the spending doesn’t seem important given the changes to federal funding and because the bill does not have any convincing endorsements that I’ve found.

Proposition 15

Proposition 15 establishes a “split roll” where commercial and residential properties are taxed in fundamentally different ways. In 1978, Californians approved Proposition 13, which stipulated that all properties be taxed based on their purchase price with no reassesment of property value after sale. Prop 13 limited property taxes to no more than 1 percent of the purchase price, with an annual adjustment equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower. Since 1978, market value of most CA properties has grown much faster than 2% per year, especially near LA and San Francisco. As a result, tax revenue on long-held properties has grown more slowly than inflation, which has forced the state and municipalities to generate tax revenue in other ways (e.g. bond measures, sales taxes, payroll taxes, etc.). The problem with this approach is not that the state has no tax revenue, but rather that local tax revenue for schools, roads, community centers, and other local projects must be raised through periodic ballot initiatives that give wealthy property owners an opportunity to organize and veto projects serving other, more needy populaitons. A familiar story.

Though there are many problems with using property taxes to fund local services like education, I consider Prop. 13 to be one of the great sins of modern California politics. There is a lot to say about the history, but I’ll leave that for another day and instead leave some links to an excellent podcast episode about the racist roots of the tax revolt and a more tonally neutral summary of Howard Jarvis’ “movement.” All of this to say that I favor a total repeal of Prop. 13, which is not what Prop. 15 gives us.

So why am I voting for it? My friends Sam, Leslie and Rhonda made good arguments for it. First, we need a ballot proposition to overturn Prop. 13 and this is the one we got. We can do more later. Second, Prop. 15 “splits the coalition” that passed Prop. 13 in the first place. Prop. 13 was sold as a benefit to families and their retiring grandparents - a way of providing them “predictable taxation” that allows for long term planning. It does actually do this, but it was also a huge windfall for large corporations (think Chevron), which tend to hold lots of property for for longer periods of time than individual owners. Remember that the longer a business owns a property, the more money Prop. 13 saves them: the valuation is pegged at the purchase price, which might have been set by a sale 50 years ago. One result of Prop. 13 is that residential property tax revenue accounts for more than 2/3 of total property tax revenue in Califonia, as compared to ≈50% before Prop 13. So although Prop 13 was sold as a benefit to families, it was, in monetary terms, mostly a subsidy for companies. Prop. 15 breaks the unnatural alliance between homeowners and corporate interests, meaning we might be able to rethink California’s tax system a little more in future. Also, the full repeal would probably not pass right now because the residential arm of Prop. 13 is very popular.

In short, I will vote “yes” on this one. For those interested, I’m including some notable critiques of Prop. 15 as food for thought:

Prop. 15 requires that the revenue be spent on education, giving little unrestricted money to municipalities e.g. for paving, bike lanes, community centers, parks and other valuable projects.
It will add to the troubles of small businesses during an already troubling time (i.e. the COVID-19 pandemic). There is an exemption for businesses owning property valued under 3 million dollars, but the cost of the tax will likely be passed on to businesses that rent.
Prop. 15 produces an incentive for cities to develop corporate real estate in lieu of housing because they will earn more revenue that way. Because of zoning, however, there are not many properties in “mixed use” areas that could go either way, so this may not be a big effect in the short term. Moreover, the tax change does produce a similar incentive for owners to convert underused buildings into housing. The Urban Institute has done an analysis of four cities in California and argues that the latter incentive is more important than the former. I did not find it fully convincing, but these competing incentives might produce strange outcomes in the future.

Proposition 16

A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which prohibited government and public institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. In other words, a “yes” vote enables California to engage in “affirmative action” in hiring, college admissions and contracting.

California and the US governments have sinned so greatly against specific racial and ethnic minorities that barring the state and federal government from redressing these wrongs through hiring is absurd. The counter-narrative that “hiring and admissions should be an even playing field” is facetious because we know that the road that brings you to college or job applications is not even - for some people it’s filled with potholes and for others its real smooth. Since the original ban was passed by proposition, we need a new proposition to overturn it, and I’ll be voting “yes.”

That said, it is obviously the case that schools engaging in pro-Black, pro-Native American or pro-Latinx admissions policy will admit fewer Asian and Jewish students than they currently do, as these groups are massively overrepresented in the UC system relative to the CA population. This is why groups like the Chinese American Civic Action Alliance are opposed. This is a problem I hope we can address by growing the UC and CalState systems, something that is enabled by a “yes” vote on Prop. 15.

Proposition 17

A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment allowing people on parole for felony convictions to vote. In other words, once you leave prison you can vote again. Since states have near-complete authority over voting, Prop. 17 will allow parolees to vote in both state and federal elections. 19 other states have the same policy. In some states, like NH and Maine, you never lose the right to vote even while in prison. Parolees in CA currently pay taxes and serve on juries. People on probation can already vote in CA. A felony conviction doesn’t strip you of humanity, why should it strip you of one of the most basic rights of citizenship? I’m planning to vote “yes.”

Proposition 18

This is a relatively small proposition in my opinion, but we need to vote on it because it amends the state constitution. A “yes” vote supports a constitutional amendment allowing 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. The voting age is arbitrary. But if, by that arbitrary cutoff, you are allowed to vote in the next general election, I see no reason why you shouldn’t also vote in the primary. I can’t honestly think of a compelling argument against a “yes” vote.

Proposition 19

This one is a doozy. I don’t know how to vote on it, so I’ll just explain the facts and then give some pros and cons.

In America, homes are often also investments and retirement plans. Prop. 13 creates an awkward situation for some “house rich” homeowners. Think of someone who bought a house in the Bay Area 35-40 years ago. They have a valuable house, but due to Prop. 13 the house hasn’t been reassessed since purchase and they pay low property taxes. Now they want to sell the house to get some cash for retirement. Maybe they want to downsize, move somewhere more walkable, or move closer to their friends or children, etc. Under Prop. 13 their new taxes will be much higher because the new house will be valued at the new purchase price. Of course they could rent, but no one ever discusses this option for some reason.

We already have a partial solution to this problem - under Prop. 60 (passed in 1986) homeowners over 55 are allowed to transfer their current tax rate to another property in the same county if the new home’s value is less or equal to the old home’s. Prop. 90 was passed 2 years later and enables some tax rate transfers between different counties, but many counties do not participate in the program. If you google Prop 60/90 you’ll find endless guides to planning retirement under this regime.

Two years ago, we were asked to vote on another approach to the problem of Prop. 13 + retirement/downsizing/relocation – Proposition 5. Prop. 5 extended the Prop. 60/90 regime to allow people over 55 to transfer their tax rate anywhere in CA. Prop. 5 failed 60% to 40% but has come back to us reworked as 2020’s Propositon 19. In order to make Prop. 5 more palatable to renters and transplants from other states (who are far less invested in Prop. 13), it balances the rate transfer with restrictions on inheritance of property tax rates. Under Prop. 13, you can inherit your parents low low tax rate even if you don’t live in the house you inherited, even if the house is exceedingly valuable. Under Prop. 19, beneficiaries only inherit the previous tax rate if they use the house as a primary residence and the home value is under $1 million. When the house is not used as a primary residence, it’s reassessed at market value. If it is a primary residence valued above $1 million, the tax rate is adjusted upwards over time following a formula specified in the proposition.

Anyway. Prop. 19 is a bit of a push-pull where one arm deepens the influence of Prop 13 while the the other arm weakens Prop. 13. Prop. 19 stands to increase the number of real estate transactions sizably, so it’s no big surprise that the Realtors are in favor and the California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC is the major funder. Still, it addresses a real problem for retirees and will definitely increase property tax revenues in areas with older populations. Unfortunately, as usual, the tax revenue is pre-allocated to fire prevention. Not that I am opposed to wildfire prevention, but the money shouldn’t be restricted.

Proposition 20

Prop. 20 adds several crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted and recategorizes certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies). Also requires DNA collection for certain misdemeanors. There is something disturbingly punitive about this one. We live in the state with the largest prison population in the country with the most incarcerated people in history. Why do we need to deny parole to even more of them? Unsurprisingly, it’s funded by a PAC formed by “Correctional Peace Officers” i.e. prison guards. Really seems like a scheme to incarcerate more people to enrich prison operators. Vote “no.”

Proposition 21

Proposition 21 allows local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with exceptions for landlords owning two or fewer homes. This is essentially a repeal of Costa Hawkins, a state bill that prevents cities from enacting rent control on buildings built after 1995. Importantly, passing Prop. 21 doesn’t mean that cities will enact rent control, only that they can enact rent control.

Depending on your concerns, you might see expanded rent control as a addressing or exacerbating California’s housing crisis. On the one hand, rent control is a great boon to long-term residents of CA cities - it makes it much more feasible to stick around even as rents rise. My own family benefited from rent stabilization in NYC and it was great for us. Homeowners get big subsidies from the federal government in the form of the mortgage interest deduction, shouldn’t renters get a subsidy from the state goverment in the form of rent control? On the other hand, a large majority of new housing built in California is market rate development. It’s clear that rent control decreases the profitability of new rental buildings in the long run, which will likely decrease construction of rental units. Since we rely so heavily on the market to make rental housing, it might be unwise to make market rate housing less profitable right now. Another argument against Prop. 21 is that Costa Hawkins repeal can and should be done by the legislature. Costa Hawkins is an act of the state legislature and should be repealed by them rather than by ballot proposition. Doing it by proposition only makes future changes harder as they will require a supermajority of the state legislature or another ballot proposition.

So, while I see the immense social value of rent control expansion, I’m really not sure about this one. I guess I’ll think on it some more.

Proposition 22

Before I start, I want to thank Sam Z. for this one. He did a truly amazing job researching and ‘splaining this prop to us.

Prop. 21 defines rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors and adopts labors and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies. This prop is a reaction to a recent development in the CA legal landscape: in 2018 the CA supreme court adopted the ABC test, which delineates the difference between employees and contractors. This is a crucial difference because employees get benefits (e.g. healthcare), you need to pay their expenses, and you are legally liable for what they do on work time. All of this makes employees much more expensive than independent contractors which is why “rideshare” companies have been speciously calling their drivers contractors since the Uber got started.

Under the ABC test you are not an employee only if the following three factors all apply to you: (1) you are free of control from hiring entity, (2) you perform work outside of the usual course of the business, (3) you have your own established business doing this thing you were hired for. Consider a plumber called to an office building to fix a sink. She’s left alone while she fixes the sink, plumbing isn’t really part of day-to-day office work, and the plumber has a business of her own. She’s an independent contractor. Under the ABC test, however, most rideshare drivers are employees.

At the moment we are in a period of legal limbo. In August the Superior Court of SF ruled that these drivers are employees under the ABC test. Uber and Lyft then threatened to cease operations in California, after which they were granted a stay on this ruling. They want this measure to pass to keep drivers as contractors because its much cheaper than making them employees. Might I add that all these companies are eagerly awaiting the day when functional self-driving cars enable them fire all their human drivers… Back here in meatspace, about half of Uber/Lyft drivers work < 10 hours a week, but most of the driving gets done by people who look like fulltime employees. These people are working 35+ hours and surely deserve the benefits we typically attach to fulltime work. If the measure fails it’s clear that the “rideshare driver” job will be substantially reorganized, with many part-timers losing their jobs. Since a lot of drivers are people of color, it’s makes sense that the California NAACP and Black Chamber of Commerce support this proposition.

So what does the measure actually do? First it classifies all rideshare drivers as independent contractors. Second it counts driving time the way Uber/Lyft count it now: “engaged time.” This is another big savings for the companies: they don’t pay drivers for all the hours they work, rather only the time between accepting a ride request and dropping the passenger off. Third, it sets a pay floor for drivers at 120% of minimum wage for the engaged time. Since engaged time is maybe 2/3 of total drive time, this works out to wage that is about 80% of the local minimum wage. Fourth, Prop. 22 establishes a rubric for determining which drivers get specific levels of benefits. For example, drivers working 25+ hours/week get healthcare subsidies equal to 82% the average California Covered premium. Finally, the companies would have to “provide or make available” (?) accident insurance and some disability payments for accidents suffered while “online” and not engaged in personal errands.

On the one hand, we have a real problem. The ABC test doesn’t seem like a very good test and has had a lot of unforseen consequences, e.g. for freelance writers. If the propostion fails we will lose a large number of flexible but otherwise very insecure jobs. These drivers need the income. Moreover, Prop. 22 is a win for drivers, who get a guaranteed (but sub-minimum wage) pay bump and some healthcare if they drive 15+ hours/week. On the other hand, the proposition is clearly written so that Uber/Lyft/etc. can continue operating in the manner to which they’ve become accustomed. On top of that, amending Proposition 22 would require a 7/8 majority vote in each chamber of the California legislature and the governor’s signature. Seems like we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Would definitely prefer this was resolved by the legislature. I’m not sure how to vote, but open to convincing arguments.

Proposition 23

Prop. 23 requires dialysis clinics to have an on-site physician, report data on dialysis-related infections, obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care. According to Rhonda (a family medicine doc) the dialysis nurses are very good in general. Physicians and PAs are in high demand so they would probably struggle to get someone good and, regardless, the nurses can do the job. Like Prop. 8 this initiative is spearheaded by SEIU-UHW West, a labor union for healthcare workers. The union claims that dialysis workers have been trying to unionize since 2016 but have been stymied by the two major dialysis companies (DaVita and Fresenius). I am in favor of unionization, but I don’t see how this ballot proposition takes us there. It appears to be (deserved?) retribution directed at DaVita and Fresenius by SEIU-UHW West. I’m voting no because I don’t think the proposition makes sense, and because it seems like a bad use of a proposition.

Proposition 24

Thanks to Sam Z. once again for doing the work here.

Prop. 24 makes a large number of changes to Californias consumer privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers to direct businesses to not share their personal information. It also creates the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.

This whole thing spearheaded by Allistair McTaggert, a rich real estate guy obsessed with privacy law. In 2018 McTaggert wrote a privacy law and put it on the ballot, but it was withdrawn after negotiations with the state, which passed a revised version of the initiative called the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA). Since the CCPA was written in a rush, it is terrible (Sam’s words, he’s a lawyer). CCPA was passed without any hearings. Compliance costs are astronomical, none of us know what our rights are, etc. Prop 24 is McTaggerts second salvo. 52 pages long, complicated and badly written. The EFF won’t even endorse, which is notable. On top of all this, it would require a another proposition to amend Prop. 23. This is absolutely the worst of the proposition system. Overcomplicated, prevents future change, legislation by rich guy. Please vote “no.”

Proposition 25

This one’s tough and confusing so bear with me. A vote for Proposition 25 upholds contested legislation - Senate Bill 10 - which would replace cash bail with risk assessments for detained suspects awaiting trials.

Cash bail is very bad and especially bad in California, where average bail is 5x higher than other states. Cash bail makes pre-trial freedom of motion contingent on your net worth and family resources, which is so deeply un-American I don’t know how we live with the cognitive dissonance. So why do the ACLUs of California oppose this prop, which does away with cash bail? Why do progressive prosecutors like Chesa Boudin (SF) oppose it? Because the prop doesn’t just do away with cash bail - it replaces it with an statistical risk assessment that leaves little room for judicial discretion. The fear (which seems reasonable to me) is that this will leave many more people in jail than bail would.

You can read a detailed analysis of SB 10 and it’s legal ramifications here. The short version goes like this: the assessment puts people into three risk categories, “low,” “medium,” and “high.” Low risk detainees are automatically freed pre-trial and high risk detainees are automatically detained until trial (i.e. they stay in jail). Judges only have discretion over “medium risk” cases but local jurisdictions are explicitly permitted to come up with their own rules about how to treat “medium risk” cases which pre-empt judicial discretion by requiring detention for specific charges. It’s the usual “federalism all the way down” BS that we like to employ in CA. In addition, the prop contains a rebuttable presupposition that “no condition of pretrial supervision will reasonably assure safety” for “medium risk” designations, so you’d have to prove that you’re not dangerous or a flight risk over the presumption that you are. The prop seems like its built to keep nearly everyone but the “lowest risk” people in jail pre-trial, where lowest risk is determined by an unspecified algorithm. The biggest funders of Prop. 24 are Steve Ballmer (former microsoft CEO, owner of the Clippers) and his wife Corrine Ballmer, which might explain the technofetishim but doesn’t excuse it. Vote “no” and let’s all work for a better way of eliminating cash bail.