Here are the propositions that I recommend voting for or against on this November’s CA statewide ballot (2016). I start with the propositions and a one sentence argument, then go into further depth below. When two propositions conflict, the one that gets more votes wins. This year, the propositions in conflict are 62 and 66 with each other, and 65 and 67 with each other.
- Prop 51: No. It locks in current pro-developer fund allocations, and would direct resources to which ever district filed applications first, not based on need.
- Prop 52: Yes. Because there’s no good reason to divert fees collected from hospitals to get matching federal Medi-Cal funds to another program, and this proposition makes it so that those fees can’t be diverted.
- Prop 53: No. Because there’s no exemptions for emergencies, it would either block emergency repairs until the next regular vote or force a vote to be held while infrastructure was weakened by the emergency.
- Prop 54: Yes. Bills should be made public before they are finalized, and in an emergency there’s an emergency exemption.
- Prop 55: Yes. Until we reform our broken property tax system, schools and health care need funding and a tax on the wealthiest people is a good way to do it.
- Prop 56: Yes. Our cigarette taxes are too low- raising them will make some people stop smoking.
- Prop 57: Yes. Prosecutors have excessive power to make charging decisions- forcing a judge to decide whether juveniles should be tried as adults is a good idea.
- Prop 58: Yes. This allows for more educational options in language immersion (particularly for students who are English fluent already).
- Prop 59: Yes. Corporations are not persons, and should not be allowed to influence elections.
- Prop 60: No. Regardless of whether compelling all adult film performers to wear condoms is necessary, creating a private cause of action will clog up the court system and make it more mercenary.
- Prop 61: Yes. There’s no reason the state of California should pay more for drugs than the VA.
- Prop 62: Yes. The death penalty is racist and gives us all the risk of executing innocent people- it needs to end.
- Prop 63: Yes. Regulating firearms isn’t going to do much if ammunition isn’t regulated- 63 does that.
- Prop 64: Yes. The criminalization of marijuana primarily affects minority populations– it’s long past time to decriminalize it.
- Prop 65: No. If this passes, it will repeal the requirement for reusable plastic bags in 67.
- Prop 66: No. If this proposition gets more votes than 62, the death penalty remains and professional organizations lose the ability to rebuke their members who help kill people for the state.
- Prop 67: Yes. We should require all plastic bags to be reusable.
For citations, the proposition section number is given, and then the sub-levels based on the law that it’s modifying. For example, the segment on locking in bond law for proposition 51 is noted by the proposition section (3), then the Part listed as the header under that section (70), then the chapter within that part (2), then the article within that chapter (1), then the subsection within that article (110122.d). The links to the text of the propositions at the start of each paragraph are to pdfs on the secretary of state’s website.
Proposition 51 locks in bond law for the next four years (Section 3, Part 70, Chapter 2, Article 1, 101122.d), preventing any modification of how funds would be spent from the bonds. As the opponents note, there’s no provision for need in deciding in what order funds would be allocated, so the wealthier districts that could file their applications sooner would be better able to benefit.
Proposition 52 locks in hospital fees used to get federal medi-cal matching funds into the CA constitution. Unlike most initiatives, however, it can be repealed by a 2/3rds vote of the legislature (Section 3, Section 3.5, (c)). It’s a good idea- the fees are paid for a purpose, the benefit is ongoing, and this prevents the fees from being redirected and causing the state to shortchange medi-cal patients. If it turns out for some reason that this causes a problem, the legislature can repeal it, unlike most propositions.
Proposition 53 requires that all revenue bonds sold by the State (not sub-State districts like cities, counties, or districts formed to fulfill local responsibilities) of 2 billion dollars or more be put to a vote of the entire state. This amount is adjustable for inflation. However, it would block Joint Powers Authorities (combinations of cities) from passing revenue bonds without a vote (depending on how narrowly “local governmental functions within limited boundaries” (Sec 4 Sec 1.6(a)). I agree with the opponent’s argument. The fact that there’s no exemptions for emergencies and that non-State actors are defined too narrowly mean that in the case of a disaster, recovery could be delayed until the next election- precisely when the infrastructure for holding an election would be at its weakest.
Proposition 54 is a good proposition- it creates more transparency by mandating that records of proceedings be kept accessible to the public online for a minimum of 20 years (Sec 5.2, 10248(a(6)), and it requires that bills be made available to the public online for three days prior to a vote (Sec 4.2, Sec 8(b(2)). I think this is a good idea- we should be able to know about and petition our representatives on a bill before it becomes law. If it’s an emergency, there’s an exemption for that (Sec 4.2, Sec 8(b(2)) if the governor declares a state of emergency, maintaining separation of powers.
Proposition 55 extends the increased income tax from 2019 to 2031 (Section 4, Section 36, 8,8,f,2- segment referred to as subsection f). It’s a 1% increase between 250,000 and 300,000 (subsection f, 2, A, i), 2% increase between 300,000 and 500,000 (ibid, ii), and 3% increase on all income over 500,000 (ibid, iii). I think this is worthwhile- school funding hasn’t recovered fully from the recession, and until Proposition 13 is repealed property taxes won’t be a reliable source of funding.
As Proposition 56‘s declarations note, California has a tobacco tax far below nearby states- the lowest adjacent state tax is still 44 cents higher, and Arizona has a $2 tax (Section 1, p). It expands the definition of tobacco to include all nicotine containing products made for human consumption, except for smoking cessation aids (Section 3.1, Section 20121, b). It also raises the tax by 2 dollars a pack (Section 4.1, Article 2.5, 30130.52 (b(1(B)))). I think this is worthwhile- increased smoking costs will compel some people to quit, and since nearby taxes are relatively high it’ll remove California as a source of smuggling to other states (while not creating a significant incentive for smuggling from them).
Proposition 57 bars transfers of minors under 14 to adult court (section 4.2, Section 07 (b)), and requires minors 16 or older and 14 and 15 year olds who committed particular crimes to get a court order from a juvenile court in order to be tried in an adult criminal court (Section 4.2, Section 707(a(2))). This puts a check on prosecutorial discretion, which is a good thing. It also makes nonviolent felony offenders eligible for parole after serving the full term for their primary offense (not counting enhancements or other sentences) (Section 3, Section 32(1)). This limits the power of prosecutors to advocate for consecutive sentences as another threat in plea bargaining, and should lead to less crowded prisons. The act can be amended by majority vote of the legislature (section 5) to further its purposes, which is easier than amendment typically is.
Proposition 58 encourages the creation of dual-language immersion programs for the benefit of native English speakers and English learners (Section 4, Section 306 (c)), and removes the existing prohibition on bilingual programs (strikeouts in Section 3, Section 305 and throughout the proposition). It does not prohibit continuing existing English immersion programs (I.e, the standard method used since the prior proposition on this topic in 1998 banned bilingual programs) (ibid, (c(3)). I think this is a good idea- it provides more opportunities for native English speakers, maintains English immersion programs for parents who think that that method is the best for their children, and allows the creation of bilingual programs for communities that can support it.
Proposition 59 states that it is the will of the people of California that Citizens United should be overturned by a constitutional amendment, that corporations are not persons, and that our legislators should do everything in their constitutional power to make this happen. Unlike most of the other propositions, it doesn’t actually compel any action- but it’s still a worthwhile expression of sentiment.
Proposition 60 has a private cause of action if the state doesn’t sue someone (Section 4.7, Section 6720.6(a), and rewards a quarter of the winnings to the private individual (ibid, (d)). This is not a good idea. Our court system is already overloaded with cases- we don’t need to create an incentive for private individuals to sue (and they only have to pay the defendant’s fees if the litigation was “frivolous or in bad faith”, which seems like a high bar (ibid).
Proposition 61 has some problems (making the proponent an officer of the state if the Attorney General doesn’t defend the act (Section 10) seems like a bad idea). I’m not sure why the Medi-Cal managed care program is explicitly excluded either (section 4, Section 14105.32, b). But the core idea that the maximum price the state of California will pay for any drug is the same as what the VA pays (ibid, a)is a good idea- the manufacturers clearly can make the drugs at that price, and California has a big enough population to have bargaining power. Hopefully, it’ll reduce some of the skyrocketing prescription drug costs for everyone.
Proposition 62 strikes the death penalty from the constitution. It’s well past time that we did so. The death penalty is applied in a racially biased manner, and has killed and undoubtedly will in the future kill innocent men and women.
Proposition 63 regulates all ammunition sales, requiring their tracking starting in 2019 (Section 8.13, Section 30352 (a and b)). It creates a centralized list of all individuals who are authorized to purchase ammunition in 2019, accessible only to law enforcement agencies (Sec 8.15, Article 4, Section 30370, c). It also requires a licensed vendor to at least be involved in the ammunition purchase process (Section 8.6, Section 30312, a). I think these are good ideas. Ammunition is what ultimately kills people- a gun without bullets is a paperweight. Controls on ammunition should reduce gun violence.
Proposition 64 is 22 pages long. It changes criminal law (making the possession and growth of small amounts of marijuana for non-commercial purposes legal (Section 4.4 and Section 4.5), outlawing smoking marijuana anywhere where smoking tobacco is prohibited (Section 4.6, Section 11362.3, a(1)), having an open container of marijuana in any vehicle used for transportation while it’s in use (ibid, a 4), possessing or using marijuana on school grounds while youth are present (ibid, a 5), smoking or ingesting marijuana while driving or flying or boating (ibid, a 7), smoking or ingesting marijuana while in a vehicle except as permitted by local agencies (at least, that’s what I think the reference to section 26200 implies) and making most of those infractions (Section 4.7)). It sets up an entire regulatory infrastructure for all aspects of marijuana production, from growing to processing to testing to distribution to retail (Division 10). In general, Marijuana is barred to individuals under 21 years of age, except with a medical exemption (Division 10, Chapter 14). Possession of more than 28.5 grams of cannabis or 4 grams of concentrated cannabis is punished by community service for under 18s, an infraction with a 100 dollar fine for individuals between 18-21, and imprisonment for not more than 6 months and/or a 500 dollar fine for anyone over 21 (Section 8.1, Section 11357). So it reduces several current misdemeanors to infractions, but maintains a fair amount of the current criminal apparatus. I still think it’s worth passing- many people that would have previously been convicted would not be under this law, and given the disproportionate racial bias of drug arrests reducing them is worthwhile.
Proposition 65 is in conflict with Proposition 67, and I think 67 is the superior proposition because it requires the use of reusable plastic bags.
Proposition 66 is in conflict with Proposition 62, and would maintain the death penalty if passed. Therefore, I urge you to vote against it. Furthermore, it would bar professional associations (like the AMA) from punishing doctors who help the state kill people, by administering executions or devising methods of execution (Section 12, Section 3604.3, c).
Proposition 67 bans non-compostable single-use plastic bags (Article 3). This is a good thing- non-compostable single use plastic bags clutter up the environment and degrade exceptionally slowly.
Rafael's thoughts 