I’ve been an American citizen and diligent voter since 2008. Mulling over the propositions on the ballot in every election is a task I usually look forward to, but this year both the number of initiatives on the ballot and the sneaky provisions in many of them left me tired and not a little confused at the end of the process.
Here are my recommendations and if some leave you scratching your head, take a moment to check out my reasoning further down.
|Proposition 51||Allow Public School Bonds||Vote NO|
|Proposition 52||No Diverting of Hospital Fee||Vote YES|
|Proposition 53||Voter Approval for Revenue Bonds||Vote NO|
|Proposition 54||Public Display of Legislative Bills||Vote YES|
|Proposition 55||Income Tax Increase extension||Vote YES|
|Proposition 56||Tobacco Tax Increase||Vote YES|
|Proposition 57||Parole for Non-Violent Criminals||Vote YES|
|Proposition 58||Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education||Vote YES|
|Proposition 59||Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory||Vote YES|
|Proposition 60||Condoms in Pornographic Films||Vote NO|
|Proposition 61||Drug Price Standards Initiative||Vote NO|
|Proposition 62||Repeal of the Death Penalty||Vote YES|
|Proposition 63||Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban||Vote YES|
|Proposition 64||Marijuana Legalization Initiative||Vote YES|
|Proposition 65||Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation||Vote NO|
|Proposition 66||Death Penalty Procedures Initiative||Vote NO|
|Proposition 67||Ratify Ban on Plastic Bags||Vote YES|
Proposition 51 – California Public School Facility Bonds Initiative: Voting Yes gives the state the authority to issue $9 billion in bonds that would mainly fund school infrastructure. The cost per annum to the state is estimated to be $500 million.
While there is no denying that California schools have infrastructure needs, a big problem with this bond is that it does not allocate funds on a need basis but on a first-come, first-served basis. This means that savvier school districts could easily divert bond money towards their own use instead of the money going to needy districts. The push for this proposition has come from realtors and while it has the support of both school boards and California PTA, it is opposed by Governor Jerry Brown, who thinks it is a give-away to developers, who had a big hand in writing this proposition.
Proposition 52 – Voter Approval to Divert Hospital Fee Revenue Dedicated to Medi-Cal: In 2009, a new program was created such that California hospitals were required to pay a fee to help the state obtain matching federal Medicaid funds. This program has resulted in California hospitals receiving roughly $2 billion a year in additional federal money to Medi-Cal. However, the state government has diverted some of the funds from the hospital fee program to the general fund. This proposition makes it much more difficult to divert Medical funds to general funds and also extends the hospital fee indefinitely so the state can continue receiving matching funds from the federal government. It has the support of every major newspaper editorial. Though I am generally not in favor of pushing more decisions to the voters, this proposition keeps funds where they belong.
Proposition 53 – Voter Approval Requirement for Revenue Bonds above $2 Billion Initiative: This proposition requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued by the state if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion.
This proposition is a perfect example of pushing a decision best taken by a democratically elected legislature onto the voters. As it is we have way too many propositions on the ballot every Presidential year. Do we really want to get into the nitty-gritties of each and every big spending proposal that the government wishes to make? Voting yes on this proposition will seriously hamper the ability of the government to do its job. In fact, some language in this bill requires even local projects to be approved by a state-wide vote. Ridiculous!
Proposition 54 – Public Display of Legislative Bills Prior to Vote: Requires that every bill is published in print and online at least 72 hours before each house of the legislature can vote on it. Also allows any individual to record open legislative sessions.
Even though this proposition is funded by a single billionaire Republican, it seems to bring more transparency to government, always a better direction for democracy. It also prevents a tactic known as “Gut and Amend” which allows legislators to remove complete sections of a bill that has been approved and replace it with completely different language at the last minute.
Proposition 55 – Extension of the Proposition 30 Income Tax Increase Initiative: Proposition 55 would continue the tax rates instituted by Proposition 30 through 2030, instead of Prop 30 expiring in 2018. The tax increase impacts the 1.5 percent of Californians with a single income filing of at least $263,000 or a joint income filing of at least $526,000.
What can I say – I am a tax and spend liberal! And the deciding factor for me is that 89% of the funds go to K-12 schools and 1% to community colleges. And if you are making half a million dollars a year on a joint income, you can afford to give an extra 1-3%!
Proposition 56 – Tobacco Tax Increase: This proposition increases taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products by the equivalent of $2 per pack. It does not address the allocation of that money, which presumably will be the same as before, going to anti-smoking initiatives etc.
I don’t smoke and I believe smoking is bad, so I would have been in favor anyway, but the kicker is that this proposition puts a tax on e-cigarettes as well, and considering how vaping is getting more and more popular among new and young smokers, I am happy to support anything that discourages that practice.
Proposition 57 – Parole for Non-Violent Criminals and Juvenile Court Trial Requirements Initiative: A “yes” vote supports increasing parole and good behavior opportunities for felons convicted of nonviolent crimes and allowing judges, not prosecutors, to decide whether to try certain juveniles as adults in court. About 25,000 nonviolent state felons that could seek early release and parole under Proposition 57. Also, instead of prosecutors, judges would decide whether to try juveniles as young as 14 years old in adult court.
Given our knowledge about the development of the adolescent brain, I am completely in favor of leeway in sentencing guidelines for juveniles. Also, it makes sense to try other methods of rehabilitation for non-violent offenders than throw them in our already over-crowded prisons. However, the Mercury News opposes the proposition for being poorly written. My guess is that the proposition is deliberately worded loosely to give law-enforcement some discretion in who to release.
Proposition 58 – Non-English Languages Allowed in Public Education Act: 20 years ago, Prop 227 mandated that English learners be taught in English-only immersion classes. Supposedly this was because bilingual education was not preparing immigrants, especially Hispanics, for the workforce as they were able to get by in their native language in school.
Fast forward to today and educational methods and practices have changed to using bilingual methods to impart instruction, even language. Proposition 58, therefore, wants to repeal Prop 227 to allow teachers and educators more flexibility in imparting instruction.
On the face of it, this makes sense to me and the proposition has the support of teachers state-wide.
Proposition 59 – Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question: As far as I can tell, this proposition doesn’t actually do anything but ask California’s elected officials to use their authority to propose and ratify an amendment to the Constitution overturning Citizens United. Despite being a rather toothless measure, voting yes signals your support for overturning Citizens United, the law that prevents any checks on corporate money in American politics.
Proposition 60 – Condoms in Pornographic Films Initiative: A “yes” vote would be a vote in favor of requiring the use of condoms and other protective measures during the filming of pornographic films, as well as requiring pornography producers to pay for certain health requirements and checkups.
At first this seems like a no-brainer, till you discover that not only do most major newspapers oppose it, it is a rare bill that is opposed by both the California Democratic AND California Republican parties! This is because this proposition opens the door to millions of frivolous lawsuits. A statement for the opposition says “Under Prop 60, California will become the first state in the nation to allow and incentivize ANY RESIDENT to sue a worker for how they do their job, creating the potential for a lawsuit bonanza that will fill up the courts and sidestep a government agency, costing California millions.” Check this link for more on the opposition. http://www.advocate.com/commentary/2016/8/17/suing-porn-stars-will-not-lead-less-hiv
The Proposition is also opposed by the only association of adult movie workers, the people who have the most to gain from such a health initiative, if it were legit.
Proposition 61 – Drug Price Standards Initiative: A “yes” vote would mean that state agencies would pay the same amount for prescription drugs as the VA. It does not regulate the price paid by individuals.
Again, at first glance this seems to be a clear choice. We all hate Big Pharma, especially in the light of the recent Epi-Pen price hikes. And this proposition is fervently opposed by pharma companies. However, the problem seems to be in implementation. By linking Medical drug prices with VA prices, the state runs the risk of having pharma companies raise prices on VA drugs to meet the letter of the law. Or some drugs would become unavailable. Or pharma companies could raise the prices on the drugs that are not supplied to the VA. The cartel nature of the pharmaceutical industry in this country leaves a bad taste in the mouth but a law that cannot be implemented and only hampers the negotiating ability of the state cannot be a good one.
Proposition 62 – Repeal of the Death Penalty Initiative: A “yes” vote supports repealing the death penalty and making life without the possibility of parole the maximum punishment for murder.
This one is a personal choice but I don’t believe in the philosophy of “a life for a life.”
Proposition 63 – Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Initiative: A “yes” vote supports prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.
The opposition to this common-sense bill is the usual “civil liberties violation” one, but most sane people approve of background checks and don’t feel the need to own large-capacity guns or ammo for personal safety.
Proposition 64 – California Marijuana Legalization Initiative: Legalizes recreational marijuana and hemp under state law and establishes certain sales and cultivation taxes.
Marijuana would now be legal (for adults), taxed, and licensed. Funds would be used to study marijuana, develop protocols for safe use, and disbursed to health centers and non-profits working in this space.
To decide how to vote on this proposition, it’s worth looking at the effects of legalizing marijuana in Colorado. The state’s top health official, Dr. Larry Wolk, says, “… since legalization no … troubling public health trends have cropped up yet.” Legalization has brought millions into state coffers. The police, who were worried about the increase in drug-related offences have mainly struggled with DUI issues.
Lawmakers in Colorado who held their breath after the law was passed in 2014 concede that the new law has not had any real negative impact in the state.
As for the DUI problem, Stanford students are already working on a “pot-alyzer!” The more this compound is legal and out in the open, the better we can study it, understand it and of course, use it!
Proposition 65 – Dedication of Revenue from Disposable Bag Sales to Wildlife Conservation: This is the first of 2 initiatives related to the ban of plastic grocery bags. A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of redirecting money collected from the sale of carry-out bags by grocery or other retail stores to a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board. Currently these funds go to the store themselves.
This is one sneaky bill, sponsored by a few out-of-state plastic bag companies. There are two very suspicious aspects to the bill. First is Section 6(a) of the bill, which says that if this measure win more votes than Proposition 67, which seeks to uphold the plastic bag ban law SB 270, then all the provisions of Prop 67 would become void, which could be interpreted as rescinding the bag ban by the courts. Potentially, the law SB 270 banning plastic bags could be reversed if Prop 65 wins.
Secondly, this measure would make grocery stores oppose banning plastic bags, if it meant a loss of the revenue from the sale of plastic bag alternatives. It would also make a 10-cent fine into a government tax, which people instinctively dislike. Also, it would not, in any way, reduce the actual use of plastic bags.
Proposition 66 – Death Penalty Procedures Initiative: In the guise of changing procedures relating to death penalty convictions, what this proposition essentially does is nullify the repeal of the death penalty under Prop 62 if it gets more votes.
Proposition 67 – Plastic Bag Ban Veto Referendum: A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of upholding or ratifying the contested legislation banning plastic bags that was enacted by the California State Legislature under the name Senate Bill 270.
This proposition essentially ratifies SB 270 that bans the use of plastic bags statewide. But the reason this proposition, also brought by plastic bag manufacturers, is on the ballot is to confuse voters into picking Prop 65 over Prop 67, because of the end use of the carry-out bag revenues. Then the provisions of Prop 65 would be used to overturn SB 270. Don’t get fooled. Vote Yes on 67 and No on 65.