Pete recommends:
Download and print this handy printable version! [coming soon]
Proposition 2: $10 B School & College Bonds – YES
Summary: This is a close call. Prop 2 will provide $10 billion in state bond funding for the construction and renovation of local public school and community college facilities. Measures like this appear every few years; they’ve been necessary since Prop 13 (1978) limited local districts’ revenue streams. Before 2016, I treated these propositions as an automatic “yes.” But serious equity issues have surfaced: the distribution process rewards areas with high property values more than lower-wealth areas. Still, the stronger case is in favor of Prop 2.
See My Semi-biennial Lecture on Bonds, below, for my opinion of bonds in general.
Details: Coming soon
Proposition 3: Same-Sex Marriage – YES
Summary: Repeals Prop 8 (2008), which prohibited same-sex marriage. Prop 8 was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 2015, but it’s still in our state Constitution and ought to be removed. Prop 3 would substitute this language: “The right to marry is a fundamental right.”
Details: Do not imagine that Prop 3 is inconsequential.
In 2008, voters approved Prop 8, which inserted this language into California Constitution: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Seven years later, the US Supreme court invalidated this clause in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, holding that all states must allow and recognize same-sex marriages. But the language remains in our state Constitution.
Today, the liberal/moderate Supreme Court majority that decided Obergefell has been supplanted by the far-right majority that overturned Roe v. Wade. There is every indication that, given the opportunity, this majority would eagerly overturn Obergefell too. If that were to happen, it would reactivate Prop 8, ending same-sex marriage in California.
Prop 3 will prevent this scenario. Prop 3 will remove the Prop 8 language from our Constitution, and replace it with an assertion that marriage is a fundamental right for everybody.
If you have doubts about how damaging a restoration of Prop 8 would be, please read what I wrote in 2008 in opposition to the measure. Here’s an excerpt:
“Those of us opposing Prop 8 are not asking you to sanctify, bless or even approve of same-sex marriages. Instead, we are asking you to allow these couples to live in privacy and peace, with the same legal, financial, health care, and other rights to support each other as heterosexual couples have. Gay marriage harms no one. Why outlaw it?”
Proposition 4: $10 B Water & Climate Bonds – YES
Summary: A large bond to fund almost any capital project associated with water in almost any form except maybe icebergs. Prop 4 will increase water availability during droughts, remove pollutants from drinking water, reduce risk of flooding, prevent wildfires, address sea-level rise, protect fish, restore habitats, subsidize offshore wind turbines, improve parks, protect communities from extreme heat. All of these are wise long-term investments, especially as our drought-flood cycles become increasingly intense due to climate change.
See My Semi-biennial Lecture on Bonds, below, for my opinion of bonds in general.
Details: Coming soon
Proposition 5: 55% Vote to Approve Local Bonds – YES
Summary: Prop 5 would allow cities, counties, and regional agencies to pass local bonds with a 55% vote instead of the current two-thirds vote. (School districts can do this today.) Bonds passed by 55% could fund a limited set of capital expenses, including affordable housing construction, hospitals, police stations, parks, fire safety, and internet access. These are all fine uses of bond proceeds, and 55% is a fine threshold for voter approval.
Details: Local bonds are how local governments borrow money. Typically, local bonds are paid off by a surcharge levied on property taxes. The famous Prop 13 (1978) requires local bonds to be approved by two-thirds of voters.
In 2000, voters passed Prop 39, which allows school districts to pass local bonds with just 55% of voters instead of two-thirds. To be eligible for 55%, a bond must be used only to fund long-term capital expenses: construction, rehabilitation, and equipping of school facilities, or the acquisition or lease of real property for school facilities.
Prop 5 would make this same 55% bond threshold available to cities, counties, and special districts like the new Bay Area Housing Finance Authority. The 55% threshold seems to work splendidly for school districts, and I cannot think of why it shouldn’t apply to other local entities as well.
Under Prop 5, bonds passed by 55% could fund a prescribed set of public infrastructure expenses, some of which I list in the Summary above. These are all long-term capital expenses, so borrowing to fund them makes sense.
Also eligible for bond funding under Prop 5 are down payment assistance and first-time homebuyer programs, some of which are not appropriate for bond funding. For instance, the Pathway to Homeownership Closing Cost Assistance program is a straight grant for first-time buyers. It may be an admirable program, but it does not provide the public with a usable asset, so it would be inappropriate to fund it with long-term bonds. Fortunately, it is currently funded by other means.
So we may need to be vigilant about exactly which programs local bonds fund. Fortunately, Prop 5 puts us in a position to do so by requiring annual audits and citizens’ oversight committees to supervise spending. Seems sensible enough.
Proposition 6: End Forced Labor in Prisons – YES
Summary: California is one of 16 states that still allow forced labor in prisons. Yes, it’s permitted by the Thirteenth Amendment, but it’s still wrong. Prop 6 will end it here.
Details: You might think that abolitionists are all long-dead figures from two centuries ago, like Charles Sumner or Harriet Beecher Stowe. But there are abolitionists in 2024, right here in California. Why?
Look in our state Constitution. It says, “Involuntary servitude is prohibited except to punish crime.” Forced labor is legal in California prisons, and is regularly practiced today.
A superb report by Victoria Valenzuela for NPR affiliate LAist details how prison inmates are assigned non-paying work such as food preparation, facility maintenance, or teaching. If they refuse, they may lawfully face retaliation, including restricted recreational privileges, loss of family visits, solitary confinement for ten days, and write-ups that can postpone or even preclude parole.
Valenzuela writes of one inmate who, in 2020, was ordered to disinfect the hospital cells of those who had tested positive for Covid, undoubtedly without adequate PPE. In effect, he was forced to choose between risking his life and receiving parole. No one should have to make that choice.
Maybe you’re wondering, “WTF? Didn’t the federal government outlaw that at the end of the Civil War?” No, it did not. The Thirteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, ratified in 1865, specifically permits involuntary servitude “as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.” Maybe this sounded sensible 160 years ago, but our ideas about humane treatment of the incarcerated have evolved.
In a bit of good news, there is a nascent movement to eliminate that clause from the Thirteenth Amendment. Of course, it’s opposed by the usual collection of clowns claiming that “idle hands are the devil’s workshop” and similar claptrap.
Regardless of the national effort’s outcome, though, we can do something about it here. Prop 6 will change California’s Constitution to read, “Slavery and involuntary servitude are prohibited.” No exceptions, no loopholes.
Thirty-four states, including Deep South states Alabama and Tennessee, have already outlawed forced labor in prisons. Frankly, it’s embarrassing to have to look to those states for model human rights laws, but here we are. As New Jersey Senator Cory Booker recently said, “Our prisons should reflect the best of who we are; they should reflect our values. And they should, in my strong opinion, be places that are not just for punishment, but for rehabilitation and for creating roads of redemption.” Passing Prop 6 will bring us closer to that ideal.
Proposition 32: Raise Minimum Wage to $18 – YES
Summary: The minimum wage in California is currently $16 except in 40 localities, mostly in the Bay Area and LA, where it’s as high as $19.36. Prop 32 would raise the floor rate to $18 starting in 2025, and increase it thereafter based on inflation. Studies show that even in the cheapest parts of the state, it would take over $20/hour to afford the basics. This is a small step in the right direction.
Details: Coming soon
Proposition 33: Lift Restrictions on Local Rent Control – YES
Summary: Sixteen cities and counties currently have local rent control. A state law known as Costa-Hawkins prevents those controls from applying to single-family houses or condos, or any units built after 1995 (or earlier in some places), or when a new renter moves in. But, since 2020, everyplace else in California is now covered by the Tenant Protection Act, which does not adhere to the Costa-Hawkins restrictions. So, ironically, rent control is now weaker in places with local rent control ordinances than in those without. Prop 33 would repeal Costa-Hawkins, leveling the playing field. Rent control is a very complex issue. But what’s clear is that the restrictions in Costa-Hawkins are utterly arbitrary and should be eliminated.
Details: Coming soon
Proposition 34: Smash the AIDS Healthcare Foundation – NO
Summary: Initiative abuse, pure and simple. This preposterous proposition asks us to silence the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a Southern California nonprofit with a large advocacy mission. Why? Because they support Prop 33 (rent control). The California Apartment Association, sponsors of Prop 34, wrote it so its provisions apply only to AHF. Like the three failed kidney dialysis initiatives we’ve seen recently, this intramural battle has spilled onto the ballot. I have no patience for measures like this.
Details: Coming soon
Proposition 35: Earmark Health Plan Tax for Medi-Cal – NO
Summary: In 2023, when it looked like the state deficit was only $30 billion, Gov. Newsom promised to use revenue from the multi-billion-dollar tax on managed care organizations (MCOs) to increase reimbursements for Medi-Cal providers. But when the state deficit ballooned to $56 billion earlier this year, the governor reneged, claiming he needed the MCO tax money to bridge the budget gap. Prop 35 is the healthcare industry’s response. It would permanently dedicate the MCO tax to increase payments to certain types of healthcare providers, prohibiting any other uses. While I sympathize with the healthcare providers, the governor and legislature need maximum flexibility when addressing budget shortfalls. Furthermore, the increased payments in Prop 35 exclude some non-hospital services, such as private duty nursing and continuous coverage for children under age five, in favor of hospitals and outpatient facilities like those operated by the sponsors of the initiative. I wouldn’t say Prop 35 is a self-benefitting buy-a-law, but it’s not a good look.
Details: Coming soon
Proposition 36: Increase Penalties for Theft and Drug Crimes- NO
Summary: In 2014, voters passed Prop 47, which reduced the punishment for property and drug crimes like shoplifting and receiving stolen property. Under Prop 47, if the value of property involved is $950 or less and the defendant has no prior serious/violent convictions, the crimes are misdemeanors. Prop 36 would flip these back to felonies for defendants with two prior convictions for related crimes. Prop 36 would also lengthen sentences by three years if a crime was committed by a group. These changes may sound helpful, but they would reignite prison overcrowding and intensify budget crises by adding large new costs for housing nonviolent offenders. And there’s late-breaking news: In August, Gov. Newsom signed ten new anti-crime laws cracking down on retail theft, including organized retail theft, multi-county crime sprees, multiple thefts totaling $950, and online sale of stolen goods. These new tools for law enforcement make Prop 36 unnecessary.
Details: n the 1990s, California fell under the spell of a nationwide get-tough-on-crime mania. It reached a peak in 1994, when Gov. Pete Wilson signed the “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law, imposing a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes. More get-tough laws followed. Voters enthusiastically affirmed Three Strikes that November (Prop 184).
The impact of this frenzy was predictable and tragic. Extended sentences caused prison populations to soar higher and higher until, in 2006, they topped 173,000, more than double the designed capacity. Inmates were forced to sleep in gyms and hallways, often triple-bunked. Medical care was inadequate. There were riots and attacks on guards, and the suicide rate was 80% higher than in other states’ prisons.
Eventually, the US Supreme Court stepped in, ruling that conditions violated the “cruel and unusual punishment” clause of the Eighth Amendment. California was ordered to reduce overcrowding from more than 200% of capacity to 137.5%. The state responded by sending many nonviolent inmates from state prisons to county jails (“realignment”), and with legislation such as Prop 36 of 2012 (no life sentence for a nonviolent third strike), Prop 47 of 2014 (described below), and Prop 57 of 2016 (increased credits for good behavior). The state hit the population target in 2015. It now stands at 94,000, or 119% of capacity, its lowest point since before Three Strikes was signed.
One of the key pieces of legislation enabling this dramatic decline was Prop 47, which voters passed in November 2014 by a convincing 60-40 margin. Please see my 2014 rating for a detailed analysis (I was for it). In a nutshell, Prop 47 changed how prosecutors treat six nonviolent property and drug crimes: petty theft, shoplifting, receiving stolen property, writing bad checks, forgery, and non-marijuana drug possession. Prior to Prop 47, these could be either felonies or misdemeanors, depending on severity and the defendant’s criminal history. Under Prop 47, they must be prosecuted as misdemeanors if the defendant has no prior convictions for violent and/or serious crimes and the value of the property is $950 or less. Conviction for a misdemeanor results in a shorter sentence in a county jail, not a state prison.
Prop 36 on this ballot would partially reverse Prop 47. Under Prop 36, the value of property stolen in multiple thefts can be added together to trigger felony prosecution if the total exceeds $950. If three or more people commit a crime of theft or property damage together, their sentences could be extended by three years. And, in an echo of Three Strikes, defendants with two past theft convictions could be charged with a felony for a third offense, regardless of whether the value tops $950.
The proponents of Prop 36 are counting on us to buy into their Trumpian, American Carnage-style nightmare vision of California today. The text of Prop 36 lays it out.
“Since the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014, homelessness has increased … massive increases in drug addiction, mental illness, and property crimes, including retail theft, committed by addicts to support their addiction. … an explosion in retail and cargo theft causing stores throughout California to close to protect employees and customers from criminal activity … billions of dollars in economic losses to our local communities and state. … rising inflation, as businesses have been forced to raise prices to account for their economic losses. … collided with the fentanyl epidemic, as hard drug users have engaged in brazen theft to support their drug habits, knowing that there will be no consequences for either their theft or their hard drug use.” (Proposition Fun Book, pp. 127-128)
I don’t want to say this apocalyptic image is complete b.s., but the statistics do not bear it out. A new study by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, released in mid-September, indicates that the total rate of nonviolent property crimes in aggregate is about the same as it was in 2014 (see Figure 7 in the study). Yes, shoplifting is up, but commercial burglary is down. And, yes, retail theft is up significantly in Alameda, Los Angeles, and Sacramento counties, but it has actually decreased in San Diego, Fresno, and most smaller counties. So while it may feel like there’s been “an explosion” in retail theft, that may be due to uneven distribution and sensationalistic media coverage.
(The PPIC report emphasizes that the property crime rate has been declining in most other states. So while California’s steady rate may debunk the “carnage” story, it’s nothing to celebrate. Also, sadly, violent crime is on the rise in California, contrary to the national trend. But Prop 36 would do nothing to address that.)
And now there’s late breaking news. (Cue the red chyron!) On August 16th, long after your Ballot Pamphlet went to press, Gov. Newsom signed into law ten new bills that address some of the same issues as Prop 36. These include:
- AB 2943, allowing prosecutors to combine thefts by one suspect to meet the $950 felony threshold
- AB 1779, allowing prosecutors to collect crimes across multiple counties into a single felony case
- AB 1802/SB 982, making permanent the crime of organized retail theft
- SB 1144, making it easier to prosecute organized theft rings that fence stolen goods online
- AB 3209, letting stores obtain restraining orders against people who steal from or vandalize a business, or harass employees
As you can see, these new laws replicate much of Prop 36, while adding more protections for businesses. What the new laws don’t do is repeat the Three Strikes mistake of allowing a third theft of any value to be prosecuted as a felony—in effect, a multi-year sentence for stealing a candy bar.
That provision of Prop 36—lock ’em up and throw away the key—is its Achilles’ heel. If it’s implemented as proponents envision, it will increase prison populations and their associated costs (hundreds of millions annually). And it could potentially place the state once again in danger of violating the court order to maintain humane conditions in prisons.
The newly signed laws should be sufficient to deter many crimes and effectively prosecute others. Prop 36, on the other hand, is designed for a nightmare California that doesn’t really exist. And anyway, tough-on-crime ballot propositions are so 1990s—we should be over that by now.
My Semi-Biennial Lecture on Bonds
When California wants to finance a large project, it asks the voters for permission to take out a loan. Props 2 and 4 on this ballot are just such requests. If voters approve, the state may take out loans for the projects by selling general obligation bonds, which are paid back with interest over 30 years. The bond payments come out of the state’s main budget, the General Fund. So when we vote on bond measures, we are really voting on whether the projects in question ought to be added to the state’s budget.
“Wait a minute!” I hear you cry. “What about those interest payments? Won’t we end up paying more for interest than for the bonds themselves?” This may once have been so, but at today’s falling rates, each dollar of bond money will cost only fifteen cents in interest, accounting for inflation. (See details on p. 64 of your ballot pamphlet.)
“Okay,” you admit, “but loans are still more expensive than pay-as-you-go.” This is true. Still, loans are the only way to buy a house, or a car, or anything else that you need immediately but can’t pay for yet. It’s worth paying the premium of interest to get the funding now.
“Well and good,” you continue. “But there are $20 billion in bonds on this ballot. Isn’t that too much to borrow?” For you, yes, but the State of California can handle it. Bond payments today amount to about 3% of the General Fund, down from a high of nearly 6% fourteen years ago and below the historical average of 4%. Props 2 and 4 would increase it to about 3.5%, still within reasonable limits.
The bonds on this ballot fund long-lived, tangible infrastructure, such as buildings, water purification systems and electricity transmission lines. It’s sensible to make extended payments for things that will be used far into the future. (Note: Some of Prop 4 could pay for non-capital expenses; see my rating for details.)
Remember, too, that California’s population continues to grow by millions every decade. (Yes, we’ve hit a lull since the pandemic, but there’s no reason to believe that’s permanent. This is still the best state to live in, and everyone knows it.) Borrowing makes particular sense if you know your income will go up in the future. As the state grows, over time the General Fund will grow too.
There is one last reason to vote for a bond measure. In addition to being formal requests for permission to take out loans, bond measures are also looked upon as referenda on the merits of the proposed projects. If a bond measure fails, legislators are likely to believe that the public feels the project is not worthy of receiving state funding. By voting no, you may have meant, “Yes on the project but no on the bonds,” but your message to Sacramento will read, “No on the project.” So if you vote down a bond measure just because you don’t like bonds, you may well have killed forever the project the bonds were to have funded.