Direct Democracy
Ballot initiatives are "a very powerful tool that citizens have, particularly when there is broad support for change to an existing policy or law"
– Jenna Spinelle, “When The People Decide"
This November ten propositions will be placed before the voters dealing with important subjects like school facility funding, the housing crisis, and how the state handles petty criminals. This is a summary of the initiatives and my reasoning for how I am voting:
Proposition 2
Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute.
Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond.
Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Approaching this issue from a Los Angeles viewpoint it is very tempting to vote against this bond measure. The LAUSD has been a poor steward of past bond funding, most notably under John Deasy where the district wasted funds for the $1 billion iPad program that “was beset by inadequate planning, a lack of transparency and a flawed bidding process”. Despite projections by its staff of an impending demographic shift that would result in fewer students, it engaged in a building boom. Schools are still plagued with drinking water laced with lead.
I am also concerned that a portion of this money is being reserved for charter schools. These publicly financed private schools are already able to access funding sources that are not available to public schools, including the Payroll Protection Program and reimbursement for rent. In Los Angeles, Charter Schools have continued to waste money building new facilities, even when they do not have the enrollment to fill these classrooms.
Still, it cannot be denied that our children are learning in sometimes appalling conditions. For those living with physical disabilities, some of these aging facilities do not provide the basic access they need. If we want our children to believe their education is important we cannot continue disregarding their classrooms' physical condition. I will be voting “yes,” and hoping that our politicians step up to oversee how this money is spent.
Proposition 3
Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments.
Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California
Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella
On the same ballot where California voters were helping to elect the country’s first black president, they also passed PROP-8, enshrining the concept that “marriage is only between a man and a woman” into our state Constitution.
This proved to be a low water mark as only seven years later the Supreme Court required all states to recognize same-sex marriage in the Obergefell V. Hodges decision. While this negated PROP-8, its wording still remains in the Constitution. If Clarence Thomas fullfills his threat to repeal Obergell, California would no longer recognize the fundamental right to marry. PROP-3 would change that.
Those opposing PROP-3 would have you believe that consenting adults making fundamental decisions about whom to marry “paves the way for the legalization of…child marriage and incestuous relationships”. I am rejecting their bigotry and voting “Yes.”
Proposition 4
Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond.
Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy
Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Sticking our heads in the sand will not protect us from the effects of climate change. Increasingly intense wildfires have destroyed entire communities and droughts seem to be the new normal, threatening access to water. PROP-4 would fund projects to help protect Californians from this devastation.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes the measure saying that “It’s reckless to use borrowed money.” What they do not offer is an alternative funding solution. Would they prefer that taxes be raised so that these life-saving measures can be financed immediately? I am voting “Yes.”
Proposition 5
Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes.
Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California
Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance
When PROP-13 passed in 1978, it devastated education funding in California. Since then attempts at funding infrastructure projects by requiring a ⅔ supermajority for bond funds placed before the voters. PROP 5 moves the state closer to “one person, one vote” by reducing the threshold required to 55%. In a time when democracy needs to be supported, I am voting “yes.”
Proposition 6
Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually.
Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson
Opponents: None submitted
When the 13th Amendment finally outlawed slavery in the United States, it carved out an exception when used “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” While the California Constitution currently follows this example, PROP-6 would exclude this exception. Unfortunately, it does not change the lower minimum wage paid to prisoners for their work. While imperfect, I am still voting “Yes.”
Proposition 32
Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute.
Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually.
Supporters: None submitted
Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association
It is disappointing that no formal statement of support was submitted to the Secretary of State. Still, decades of “Trickle Down Economics” have resulted in a drastic rise in income inequality and a shrinking Middle Class. With this redistribution of wealth resulting in an economy where full time workers are unable to afford basic necessities (nearly half of the people who make up the homeless population in the Los Angeles area were recently employed), the tide must be raised. I am voting “Yes.”
Proposition 33
Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities.
Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether
Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce
The housing crisis is one of the most important issues facing Californians. Constantly increasing rents are helping to exacerbate homelessness and families are being driven from the state as they seek homes that they can afford.
California is a huge state with regions that have differing needs. For some, rent control laws are desperately needed but state law limits implementations, exempting units constructed after 1995, single-family homes, and condos from any type of control.
The passage of PROP 33 would not enact any type of rent control. It simply gives local officials authority to enact rules that would work best for their constituents. I am voting “Yes.”
Proposition 34
Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs.
Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles
Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta
The initiative process in California is badly broken. What was supposed to be a way for private citizens to have a say in the legislative process, the epitome of direct democracy, has been corrupted by big money politics. In 2022, sponsors spent $16.18 per required signature just to get initiatives on the ballot. Currently the number of valid signatures needed is 546,651 or almost $9 million. That is before a single cent is spent on marketing.
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is the sponsor of PROP 33 which would repeal the state law limiting the types of rent control that localities can enact. In retaliation, the California Apartment Assotiation place PROP 34 on the ballot. According to the Los Angeles Times, “It applies only to healthcare providers that have spent more than $100 million in the last decade on anything not considered direct patient care and that operate multifamily housing with more than 500 high-severity health and safety violations. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation meets all of those criteria.”
The AIDS Healthcare Foundation is able to get discounts from pharmaceutical companies but is reimbursed for the full price under federal programs. The non-profit then uses some of the resulting “revenue” to support tenant protection measures like PROP 33. Under this proposition, it would lose its tax exempt status if it continued these activities.
This weaponization of the initiative process needs to be opposed. I am voting “No.”
Proposition 35
Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute.
Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects.
Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA
Opponents: None submitted
Under existing law, managed care insurance plans are taxed, with the proceeds used to increase the reimbursement rate for primary and specialty care providers serving Medi-Cal patients. This proposition would prevent this law from sunsetting and ensures that the state does not redirect these revenues to non-health care purposes.
No opinion in opposition was provided to the Secretary of State. Without a reason not to I am voting “Yes.”
Proposition 36
Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.
Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if the defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually
Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California
Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice
The passage of PROP 47 was groundbreaking in its approach to ending the revolving door of imprisonment that affected too many Californians, especially those from poor communities. Like all cutting-edge legislation, experience has shown that it is imperfect and needs adjustment. Instead of using a scalpel, PROP-36 takes a sledgehammer and destroys it.
Most concerning is the return to the failed War On Drugs and its treatment of addiction as a crime instead of a health crisis. As tempting as it is to believe that addicts can be forced into treatment and be magically cured, they will not be successful until they realize that they need help.
PROP 47 reduced the amount the state spent on the prison system and allowed it to focus more on rehabilitation and reentry programs that reduce recidivism. We cannot go back. I am voting “No.”
_____
Carl Petersen is a parent advocate for public education, particularly for students with special education needs, who serves as the Education Chair for the Northridge East Neighborhood Council. As a Green Party candidate in LAUSD’s District 2 School Board race, he was endorsed by Network for Public Education (NPE) Action. Dr. Diane Ravitch has called him “a valiant fighter for public schools in Los Angeles.” For links to his blogs, please visit www.ChangeTheLAUSD.com. Opinions are his own.