By Anjuli Niyogi, Editor-in-Chief
With the up and coming 2020 election and citizens around the country getting ready to submit their mail-in ballots, the importance of informing yourself on your state’s propositions is more evident than ever. The following sections describe this year’s California propositions, the arguments for them, arguments against, and more.
Proposition 14: Authorizes Bonds Continuing STEM Cell Research
$5.5 billion state bonds will be allocated for stem cell research, and other medical research, including training, research facility construction, administrative costs. $1.5 billion will be dedicated specifically to brain-related diseases. Prop. 14 will increase state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years. Those in favor of Prop. 14 believe that further development will be made in treatments and cures chronic, life-threatening diseases like Cancer, Alzheimer’s, Heart Disease, Diabetes, Parkinson’s, Kidney Disease. Doctor, Novel Prize Scientists and many Patient Advocate Organizations support Prop. 14. Those against Prop. 14 believe the billions of dollars spent should not be during this economic and budget crisis. The increasing debt created by Prop. 14 could possibly increase pressure for higher taxes or layoffs of nurses, first responders, and other public employees.
Proposition 15: Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property
Instead of certain commercial and industrial properties being taxed for their purchase price, they will be taxed on their current market value in order to increase funding for schools, colleges, and local services. Commercial properties worth more than $3 million will provide anywhere from $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion of new funds for local governments and public schools. Those in favor of Prop. 15 believe it is a fair and balanced reform that will ensure the closure of tax loopholes benefiting wealthy corporations, reduction of taxes on small businesses, and protection of homeowners and renters. Nurses, teachers, small business owners, affordable housing advocates, and community organizations support Prop. 15. Those against Prop. 15 believe that this billion-dollar property tax increase will raise the cost of living with regards to many of the basic items purchased (food, gas, utilities, daycare and health care) and claim that it repeals the taxpayer protections earned in Prop 13.
Proposition 16: Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment
Prop. 16 will allow the government to make policies with regards to race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in an effort to address diversity and repeal constitutional provision prohibiting. The effects of this measure will be clearer in the future decisions of state and local governments. Proponents of Prop 16 believe it will expand equal opportunity to California residents, increase access to fair wages, provide better jobs, and heighten the quality of public schools. Those in favor of Prop. 16 claim it will fight wage discrimination and systemic racism, and increase job opportunities for women and people of color. The League of Women Voters of California, California Federation of Teachers, Minority Business Consortium, and state higher education leaders support Prop. 16. Those who vote No on Prop. 16 will sustain the current ban on consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting. They believe that politicians are trying to “play favorites” and take away Constitutional prohibition to discriminatory or preferential treatment.
Proposition 17: Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term
Prop 17 will restore voting rights to previously disenfranchised prisoners after they have completed their sentences. Annual county costs will average around hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide, with one-time state costs around the same amount for voter registration cards and systems. Implementation of Prop 17 will align with other states’ laws. Proponents of this proposition claim that a recent parole commission report found that citizens who complete their prison terms and experience voting right restoration are less likely to commit future crimes. Those against Prop 17 believe that it will amend California’s Constitution to grant violent criminals the right to vote before completing their sentence including parole, allow those convicted of murder, rape, and child molestation to vote before paying their debt to society, and deny justice to crime victims.
Proposition 18: Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections If They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and Be Otherwise Eligible to Vote
Prop 18 will increase state-county costs by up to $1 million every two years. One-time costs will increase to hundreds of thousands of dollars for new voters. Prop 18 will allow first-time voters to participate in an election cycle if they are 18 by the next general election. Proponents of this proposition claim it is needed to boost youth civic engagement in elections and increase lifelong participants in our democratic process. Those against Prop. 18 suggest that science and legal consistency prohibit younger teens from smoking, drinking, and even tanning because the logic and reasoning area of their brains is not fully developed. Therefore, youth below the age of 18 do not have the vital abilities to responsibly vote and should not be allowed according to Prop 18 opponents.
Proposition 19: Changes Certain Property Tax Rules
Proposition 19 will allow homeowners over the age of 55, disabled, or wildfire/disaster victims to transfer primary residence’s tax base to replacement residence. Local governments could gain tens of millions of dollars of property tax revenue per year, with this number likely to grow over time. Proponents of Prop. 19 include Disability Rights and Senior/Housing Advocates, Firefighters, and Emergency Medical Responders. They believe limiting taxes on Seniors and other groups will simultaneously close unfair tax loopholes used by wealthy out-of-state investors. Opponents of Prop. 19 claim that it is a billion-dollar tax increase on families that will take away the tools parents have to help their children (ensured by California Constitution) to pass their property on without any increase in property taxes.
Proposition 20: Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to Be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors
Prop. 20 will increase state and local correctional, court, and law enforcement costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Non-violent offenders will have limited access to parole programs who have completed the full term of their primary offense. Prop 20 supporters claim that it will close a loophole in the law that allows convicted child molesters, sexual predators, and others convicted of violent crimes to be released from prison early. It will also expand DNA collection to help solve rapes, murders, and other serious crimes, and strengthens sanctions against habitual thieves who steal repeatedly. Opponents of this proposition claim that it is a “prison spending scam” and that California already has severe and lengthy sentences for serious and violent crimes; prisons will be spending funds taken away from rehabilitation and mental health services, schools, and homelessness.
Proposition 21: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Local governments can establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Local limits on rate increases will differ from the statewide limits. A reduction in state and local revenues can be seen as high as tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Proponents of Prop. 21, including senior, veteran, and homeless advocates, believe it is a necessary change to tackle homelessness and keep families in their homes. Prop 21 opponents believe it will make California’s housing crisis worse, undermining the statewide rent control law costing jobs, reducing home values, preventing the building of new housing, and eliminating homeowner protections for renters, seniors, veterans, or the disabled.
Proposition 22: Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers
Prop 22 will classify app-based drivers as “independent contractors” rather than “employees” and prove independent-contractor drivers other compensation. There will be a minor increase in state income taxes paid by rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors. Proponents of Prop. 22 claim that it will still protect a driver’s choice to be independent contractors, save rideshare services & jobs, provide drivers with new benefits, and strengthen public safety. Opponents of Prop 22 believe that it will prevent companies like Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash from writing their own exemption to California law and profiting from it. It will deny driver rights and safety protections such as sick leave, healthcare, and unemployment.
Proposition 23: Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.
Prop 23 Will require a physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant to be present during dialysis treatment. It will prohibit the reduction of services and clinics from refusing to treat parents based on payment sources. Overall, it will increase state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Proponents believe it will combat poor hygiene, improve staffing, and stop discrimination based on patients’ insurance. Patients, healthcare professionals, veterans, faith leaders are in favor of Prop. 23; American Nurses Association, California Medical Association, and patient advocates are against Prop. 23. They claim it would lead to community dialysis clinic shutdowns, endangering lives of California patients, and increased health care costs by hundreds of millions annually.
Proposition 24: Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
Prop 24 will allow consumers to prevent businesses from sharing personal information, changing inaccurate information, and limiting businesses’ use of its customers’ geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. This will establish the California Privacy Protection Agency and increase annual state costs of at least $10 million, though some costs would be offset by violations of this law. Proponents include parents, Common Sense Media, and the California NAACP, believing it will protect children and hold companies accountable for violations of fundamental privacy rights. Opponents of Prop 24 believe it will allow for “pay for privacy” schemes, force workers to wait years to learn what confidential information employers collect on them, and make it harder to stop tech giants from selling your information. They claim that it was written with the help of large social media corporations.
Proposition 25: Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk.
Prop 25 will replace money bail with a system based on public safety and flight risk, increasing costs for a new process of release prior to trial. It will likely decrease county jail costs in tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters of Prop 25 believe replacing money bail will introduce a fairer, safer, less costly process. Critics of this proposition claim it was written to take away Californian’s option to post bail and replace this right with a new discriminatory system of computer-generated profiling administered by government bureaucrats.
Measure RR: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (“Caltrain”)
Only applies to certain California residents
Will levy a 30-year one-eighth cent sales tax with oversight and audits, providing about $100 million annually for Caltrain services
Those in favor of this measure claim that Measure RR will save the Bay Areas’ Caltrain system, reduce traffic congestion on Highways 101, 280, 92, and El Camino, create local jobs, and preserve this service for essential workers using it as their main means of transportation to their respective workplaces. Many environmental advocates and local labor unions are in support of this measure. Those against this measure claim that Caltrain is no longer an essential part of our transportation network as many workers are continually working from home nowadays due to COVID-19 and even post-pandemic, usage of Caltrain services will not return to the same levels as before. Caltrain is classified by anti. Measure RR supporters as an “obsolete and dying system,” primarily used by “the highest wage owners in the peninsula, making 6 figure salaries” (County of San Mateo’s Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder Elections). Two-thirds of voter approval is required to pass this measure.
