California Proposition 14 (Recommend No)
Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative.
| A “yes” vote supports issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state’s stem cell research institute and making changes to the institute’s governance structure and programs. |
| A “no” vote opposes issuing $5.5 billion general obligation bonds for the state’s stem cell research institute, which ran out funds derived from Proposition 71 (2004) for new projects in 2019. |
Liabilities: Passage of Prop. 14 will indebt the State of California to paying $260 million more every year over the next 30 years. So far, this state funded stem cell research has only enriched the research companies, without any pricing benefits to consumers. Prop. 16 further lines their pockets.
Background:
In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which created the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), issued $3.00 billion in bonds to finance CIRM, and established a state constitutional right to conduct stem cell research.
As of October 2019, CIRM had $132 million in funds remaining. On July 1, 2019, CIRM suspended applications for new projects due to depleted funds.
# # #
Proposition 15 (Recommend No)
Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative (2020)
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to change Prop. 13 property protections, by requiring commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment to change Prop. 13 property protections, and would allow the ability to continue taxing commercial and industrial properties based on a property’s purchase price. Annual tax increases equal to the rate of inflation or 2 percent, whichever is lower, would continue. |
Liabilities: California State Assembly Speaker’s Office polled Californians to ask what type of tax would likely be supported, the “education” received the highest support. From there, supporters of Prop. 15 have argued the proposition is about “education” even though it is not. Passage of Prop. 15 could create a slush fund for lawmakers, without any protections over how the money would be used. Similarly, Prop. 30 (2012) was alleged to be the “education” initiative, and only 3% of the revenues were ever used for education.
The increased taxation upon solar and other electricity providers, grocery stores, gas stations, and every other type of business, would be passed down to consumers in the form of higher prices.
# # #
Proposition 16 (Recommend NO)
Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. |
Liabilities: Would allow race, gender, and other biological factors to be considered when awarding government contracts, hiring people for government jobs, and allowing access to higher education.
Background: In 1996 Proposition 209 (also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative or CCRI) was passed by California voters (54.55%), to amend the state constitution to prohibit state governmental institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity, specifically in the areas of public employment, awarding government contracts, and providing access to public education.
# # #
Proposition 17 (Recommend NO)
Voting Rights Restored for Persons on Parole
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit people who are on parole for felony convictions from voting. |
Liabilities: Felons can successfully complete parole if they refrain from using drugs, obey other laws, don’t possess weapons, and comply with court orders. Upon the successful completion of parole, the parolee may apply for a Certificate of Rehabilitation that is automatically granted. Upon being granted the Certificate of Rehabilitation, voting rights are restored. Prop. 17 would not require compliance with any terms of parole, or completion of parole, as a condition to restoring voter rights.
# # #
Proposition 18 (Recommend NO)
Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thereby continuing to prohibit 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. |
Liabilities: This idea was put forth by lawmakers whose goal is to ultimately allow 16 year olds to vote. This proposition seeks to allow minors who overwhelmingly don’t have any skin in the game (jobs, housing, paying their own bills, budgeting for their household and understanding the consequences of public policies), to vote without consequence. Latest opinion trends of minors are trending in support of socialism.
# # #
Proposition 19 (Recommend YES)
Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions & Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to: * allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments anywhere within the state and allow tax assessments to be transferred to a more expensive home with an upward adjustment; * increase the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments from one to three; * require that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences, such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market value when transferred; and * allocate additional revenue or net savings resulting from the ballot measure to wildfire agencies and counties. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, therefore continuing to: * Current law will still allow eligible homeowners to transfer their tax assessments within counties and to homes of equal or lesser market value; * Current law will still allow people to keep the number of times that persons over 55 years old or with severe disabilities can transfer their tax assessments at one; * Current law will still allow the tax assessments on inherited homes, including those not used as principal residences, to be transferred from parent to child or grandparent to grandchild. |
Liabilities: Slight reduction in State’s tax revenues base. Slight reduction in funding for schools based upon property taxes. .
# # #
Proposition 20 (Recommend YES)
Criminal Sentencing, Parole & DNA Collection Initiative
| A “yes” vote supports this initiative to * add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; * re-categorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies for specific types of theft and fraud crimes, including firearm theft, vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card); and * require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors which were previously chargeable as felonies, such as grand theft, prostitution with a minor, domestic violence, and certain drug possession offenses. |
| A “no” vote opposes this initiative to add crimes to the list of violent felonies for which early parole is restricted; re-categorize certain types of theft and fraud crimes as wobblers (chargeable as misdemeanors or felonies); and require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors. |
Liabilities: with new immunity from felony prosecution, “misdemeanor anarchy” has resulted in victimizing property owners, business owners, and families by offenders who know they can now get away with it.
Background: in 2014, Proposition 47 was passed by voters to reclassify numerous felonies into misdemeanor or felonies depending upon specified factors.
# # #
Proposition 21 (Recommend NO)
Local Rent Control Initiative
| A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to allow local governments to enact rent control on housing that was first occupied over 15 years ago, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles or subdivided interests. |
| A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, thereby continuing to prohibit rent control on housing that was first occupied after February 1, 1995, and housing units with distinct titles, such as single-family homes. |
Liabilities: Reverses voters’ rejection of Prop. 10 (2018) on rent control which was rejected by 59% of voters. The issue is most landlords only charge enough rent to cover mortgage, property taxes, and city or county utilities. Large expenses, such as roof repairs or replacement, are already a huge cost which is difficult to recoup through rent increases and often take years to recover costs. As a personal note, prior to lawmakers passing AB 1482 (2019) to enact that Prop. 10 sought to do, I rarely raised rent. However, now that my hands are tied, I raise rent as often as I can and for as much as I am allowed because the state has impeded my ability to budget for costly repairs or replacements. Lawmakers foolishly rushed through AB 1482 because they don’t own rental properties and have never been faced with the challenges of a landlord.
# # #
Proposition 22 (Recommend YES)
App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative
| A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to define app-based transportation (rideshare like Uber and Lyft) and delivery drivers (FedEx) as independent contractors and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies. |
| A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative, meaning California Assembly Bill 5 (2019) could be used to decide whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors. |
Liabilities: Labor unions have for years had FedEx, Uber, and Lyft in the crosshairs. Labor unions have been driving the AB 5 legislation which chooses the winners and losers among businesses who are allowed to classify some workers as independent contractors, versus those businesses who cannot. The entire discussion has been devoid of any objective criteria based upon job duties, control of the business, liberties available to the worker, and other key factors. Basically, lawmakers who have never had to meet a payroll, answer to investors, or run a successful business, have blindly handed over the reigns to labor union who want to organize employees, and under State law cannot organize independent contractors. So this has been a turf war over union membership and resources.
# # #
Proposition 23 (Recommend NO)
Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
| A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; 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. |
| A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative to require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; 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. |
Liability: Prop. 23 is put forth by the SEIU labor union (State Employees International Union), which has tried to unionize dialysis clinics since 2016 without much success. Prop. 23 is designed as a punishment of DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care by SEIU. The need for an on-site physician may at first blush seem reasonable, but has not been demonstrated as empirically necessary. Prop. 23 is a parting shot by SEIU.
# # #
Proposition 24 (Recommend NO)
Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
| A “yes” vote supports this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers to direct businesses to not share their personal information; remove the time period in which businesses can fix violations before being penalized; and create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws. |
| A “no” vote opposes this ballot initiative to expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws or create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws. |
Liabilities: Prop. 24 waters down the threshold for requiring businesses to comply with the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, from 50,000 people, to instead 100,000. Prop. 24 would grant government agencies the right to access information is a “high ranking” officer within the agency deems it necessary because the person is (in the estimation of the agency), at risk of “ danger of death or serious physical injury” as determined by the agency and without any oversight, checks, or balances and is merely done on “good faith”. Grants the government agencies the authority to obtain confidential information while a court order is being sought, with the promise that the government agencies will destroy the information within 3 days if the court order is denied.