For those of us who live in California, there are seventeen decisions to make that are far more important to study than the choice for President of the United States. With the presidential election winner-take-all Electoral College system, it is an absolute certainty that the majority of voters will select Hillary Clinton as their choice. In the statewide Senate election, state Attorney General Kamala Harris has a 21-point lead over House Representative Loretta Sanchez in the latest KABC poll. In this race between two Democrats, Harris has the endorsement of President Obama. That is all she needs to cruise to an easy win.
With outcomes far less certain, there are also 17 statewide Propositions on the ballot in which the voters will determine new state laws or initiatives. I’m going to go through each of them one by one after three general thoughts.
- I’ve always felt that there are far too many measures on these ballots. The vast majority of citizens are Low Information Voters (LIV’s) and some of these propositions are rather complex. Some of them sound good in one sentence but, when you delve into the details, you can see unintended consequences. Many of these are matters that should be determined by our elected representatives. However, the state constitution provides that any citizen (or corporate interest represented by that citizen), can place a proposition on the ballot if they get the requisite number of signatures. So we’re expecting ordinary citizens to make decisions on issues that they can’t possibly fully understand. I’m a Yale graduate who majored in political science. I’m studying these issues and if I’m confused about what to do on some of them, with all lack of modesty that’s a pretty good indicator that the prop should not have been put to the general electorate.
- Because of he unintended consequences of many of these ballot measures, if you’re getting bombarded with TV ads urging “Yes” or “No” on various props and you’re not sure what to do, the default vote should be NO. If a California Prop gets a YES vote, it then becomes the law of the state and the hurdles for the legislature to amend a bad law are exceptionally high. If you’re undecided, vote NO or don’t vote on the measure.
- When determining the merits of a particular prop, take a look at who is sponsoring it. Who is in favor and who is in opposition? Where is the money coming from (and how much) to support or oppose each prop? I will attempt to answer these questions to help you understand what degree of skepticism you should have on each measure.
Anyway, here is a prop by prop analysis with links to sites that advocate for and against each one. At the end of the piece, for reference, I’ll summarize my votes with the recommendations of the L.A. County Republican and Democratic parties.
Proposition 51 (authorizes $9 billion in bonds for education and schools)
This is an example of a prop with complexity that is beyond of the scope of LIV’s. Selling bonds to construct and modernize our K-through-12 public schools sounds good, right? Both the L.A. County Republican and Democratic parties support it. So what’s not to like?
Well, the argument against it is that it was created by the construction industry to benefit the construction industry. If that’s true it doesn’t mitigate the benefit that improves schools but the motives behind the bill are too murky for the voters to properly render a verdict.
This is a prop that is meant to improve our state’s schools and yet, despite the endorsement from the L.A. Democratic party, Governor Jerry Brown and the LA Times editorial board are both against it.
My verdict: vote NO on Prop 51 (based on the issue being best left up to our elected representatives).
LA Times Editorial against Prop 51
The “Yes on 51” website
Proposition 52 (extends existing statute regarding the state Medi-Cal hospital fee program)
It took me a few minutes to try to figure out how to label Prop 52 in 10 words. That’s a problem right there. This has no business being left up to the voters. Still, I’ll quote the “PRO” and “CON” arguments directly from the California voters guide:
PRO — “extends the current state Medi-Cal hospital fee program, which generates over $3 billion in federal matching funds that pay for health care services for children, seniors and low-income families. Prop 52 prohibits the Legislature from diverting this money for other purposes without voter approval.”
CON — “removes all accountability and oversight of over $3 billion of taxpayer dollars. Gives $3 billion to hospital CEO’s with no independent audit and no requirement the money is spent on health care. Public funds can be spent to lobbyists, perks and salaries for hospital bureaucrats instead of children and seniors.”
Well, how do know which side to trust? The measure is supported by the hospitals, which have spent $60 million in support of the prop. You’ve probably gotten an expensive flier from the supporters of Prop 52. The opposition came from the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West but it recently withdrew its opposition and is now neutral. Both the Republican and Democratic parties of L.A. County are in support of it.
This is the type of prop that I would normally reject as outside the purview of the voters. However, since it merely extends an existing statute, I’m inclined to err on the side of the positives of the program rather than the potential negatives. If the existing program already had massive fraud and abuse there would probably be editorials from the state newspapers against prop 52. I can’t find any.
My verdict: vote YES on Prop 52.
The “No on 52” website has no arguments, and no rationale. It is a still page saying “No” without any detail.
Proposition 53 (voter approval required for projects that require more than $2 billion in bonds)
Prop 53 is one of the most dangerous types of propositions that should never, EVER be put to the voters, in particular the LIV’s. Playing on the general voter disgust over the bullet train boondoggle, the measure means that state revenue bonds totaling more than $2 billion would require statewide voter approval. Well, for those of us who are fed up with wasteful government projects, that seems like a reasonable check and balance, right?
Wrong. The potential for collateral unintended consequences includes no exemptions for emergencies or natural disasters. The opponents of prop 53 include the organizations of the state’s firefighters, sheriff’s, water agency, hospital association and the California Chamber of Commerce. The chief supporter is a multi-millionaire farmer named Dean Cortopassi, who objects to the $15.5 billion Delta water project which would build two tunnels to divert water around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the south. I am sympathetic to his cause but this is not the solution.
The irony about this is that the voters of California approved the high-speed bullet train project in the first place. It was Prop 1A, on the ballot in 2008, and asked voters to approve $9.95 billion in general obligation bonds. This was meant to be partial funding of a $40 billion project and today is estimated to need nearly $100 billion if it is ever to be completed. Prop 1A was passed by the voters 53%-to-47%. It should be noted that this was the year of the Obama-McCain election, and then Senator Obama was talking about high speed rail on the stump (Obama beat McCain in California by a much larger margin, 61%-to-37%). My guess is that if the high speed rail plan was on the California ballot in any year other than 2008 it would have failed.
As I stated at the beginning of this voter guide, there are far too many complex issues that the state’s voters are asked to contemplate. To ask the voters to approve every project of $2 billion or more will mean that nothing gets accomplished. I would frankly prefer matters like the bullet train or the Delta water project to be submitted to the electorate in a non-binding advisory capacity. Let the voters express their preferences and the politicians will follow their lead.
My verdict: vote NO on Prop 53.
The “Stop Blank Checks” Yes argument on Prop 53
Proposition 54 (requires legislature to post text of bills online 72 hours before it votes)
This prop would prohibit the state Legislature for passing any bill unless published on the Internet for 72 hours prior to a vote. It also requires the legislature to record its proceedings and post online.
On the surface, this is another one that sounds really good because it requires transparency. Because the Democrats dominate the state legislature, the L.A. County Democratic party opposes the transparency prop. As the forever minority party, the Republicans support it to expose how the sausage is made. The argument against Prop 54 is that it would give special interests greater opportunity to delay the passage of state laws and that any law’s passage would be delayed based on simple re-writes, like a misplaced comma.
In 2006, then-Senator Barack Obama and then-Senator Hillary Clinton co-sponsored the “Curtailing Lobbyist Effectiveness Through Advance Notification, Updates and Posting Act,” or “CLEAN UP Act,” which called for each bill in the Senate to be made available to the general public for at least 72 hours before its consideration. Remember that Obama promised to run the most transparent administration in history. Now it’s the Democrats who are pushing back against a nearly identical law for California.
What makes me suspicious of Prop 54 is that, like with Prop 53, the funding for its passage is driven by one man, billionaire Charles Munger Jr. Still, there is widespread support for this measure. The LA Times, San Francisco Chronicle, San Diego Union-Tribune, Orange County Register and several dozen other papers have endorsed passage of Prop 54. If the state Democratic party is against it, the Republican party is in favor of it, and virtually every newspaper with their left-leaning editorial boards are in favor, that’s a win for me. Let’s pass it and if it turns out to be a complete disaster, put it on the ballot again in 2018.
My verdict — vote YES on Prop 54.
The “Yes on 54” website (which includes links to dozens of newspaper endorsements)
Proposition 55 (extends tax increase on incomes over $263,000)
In 2012, voters approved Prop 30, which levied an increase in state income taxes for individuals earning over $263,000 per year, with the funds earmarked to K-through-12 schools.
This is an easy one for me. No, no, no, even though it will very likely pass. When Prop 30 passed in 2012, it was sold as a temporary tax increase due to the state’s budget crisis. And of course it passed in a presidential election year when President Obama was railing on about the rich not paying their “fair share.”
Look at this for a moment for somebody making over $500,000 per year. Yes, that’s a lot of money. But look at how this individual is taxed on their marginal income: 39.6% in federal income tax, 12.3% in state taxes (as opposed to 9.3% if the “temporary” tax expires). This doesn’t include property taxes or sales taxes paid in “after tax” income. There comes a point where “fairness” is patently unfair.
Let’s drop that bar to somebody making $263,000 per year. There’s still 33% for federal and 10.3% for California. If you live in Southern California and you’re making a bit under 300k per year, you’re doing well but you’re not rich.
Funding education is important but, Sacramento, figure out another way to pay for it.
My verdict — an emphatic NO on Prop 55.
A fair and balanced LA Times article on the topic.
Proposition 56 (increase the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack)
The libertarian in me instinctively objects to a fairly punitive tax on a small percentage of the population. However, smoking is an activity which often leads to higher long-term health care costs, which will often be paid for by taxpayers (the most recent study said state taxpayers are on the hook for $3.58 billion for tobacco-related healthcare costs).
More money has been spent ($66 million) opposing Prop 56 than all but one other ballot initiative. Wonder where that $66 million is coming from? Could it be……. the tobacco companies?
This is a personal issue for me. I detest cigarette smoke. Fortunately in California I don’t have to be exposed to it much but it still bugs me. I’ll share a quick story: in 2009 I was in a restaurant with my sales team near the Detroit airport. We wanted to watch the World Series so had to eat in the bar area, which permitted cigarette smoke. In walks a couple with a young child and an infant in a stroller. These people could not stop lighting up. The smoke was annoying to us but it made me stew when I saw the smoke wafting right into the lungs of their young children.
The argument against Prop 56 is that the money from the tax will go to fatten insurance company profits. I don’t know if that’s true or not and I don’t care.
To the extent that an increased cigarette tax incentivizes people to stop smoking, I’m all for it. Incidentally, this Prop is probably going pass. A KABC poll taken two weeks ago showed 57%-to-35% support including, thankfully, 64%-24% of those under the age of 35.
My verdict — YES on Prop 56.
Proposition 57 (authorizes parole considerations or early release for non-violent felons)
None other than California Governor Jerry Brown is behind this bill, intended to reduce overcrowding in our state prison system by releasing non-violent felons.
Well, what’s wrong with that? The problem is that the definition of “non-violent” inexplicably includes those who are guilty of rape by intoxication, rape of the unconscious, drive-by-shootings, hostage taking, attempting to explode a bomb at a hospital or school, arson, and others. Those don’t seem like non-violent acts to me.
There is no question that California prisons are overcrowded. The Supreme Court of the United States said as much in a 2011 case, ordering the state to reduce its prison population because the overcrowding violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual punishments.” Proposition 47 (in 2014) started this process by reclassifying certain felonies as misdemeanors.
There’s no doubt that there is a need for prison reform in the state of California and nationwide. Personally, I’d support a bond measure to build another prison to reduce the overcrowding problem. I agree with Jerry Brown’s goal of giving prisoners incentive and hope to be released into society but, from what I can see, this Prop has too many unintended consequences and Brown should start over. The President of the San Francisco Police Officers Association, the President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs and the President of the California District Attorneys Association are against Prop 57 and so am I.
My verdict — vote NO on Prop 57.
The LA Times editorial in favor of Prop 57
The San Jose Mercury News editorial against Prop 57
Proposition 58 (authorizes school districts to to establish bi-lingual education programs)
I freely admit that, as a non-parent, education is a critically important issue that I do not pay much attention to. As I see it, the broad strokes of this Prop would eliminate the requirement that children be educated in English only. I saw a news report insisting that students would learn both Spanish and English but my instincts reject this completely. I also see a slippery slope here. If we’re going to offer bi-lingual Spanish and English learning for Latino students, will we start doing bi-lingual education in Mandarin and English, Indian and English, Arabic and English?
There is no doubt in my mind that all children in our nation must learn English as their primary language, even if their parents speak another language at home. In order to achieve success as an adult, one must be able to speak the primary language of the nation.
I am not saying that there aren’t legitimate arguments in favor of Prop 58 but when you put something important to the voters, you’re going to get Low Information Voters. On this topic I consider myself a somewhat LIV. English is the language of our Republic and if any law even hints at anything else, I’m against it.
My verdict — vote NO on Prop 58
The “Yes on 58” website
The “No on 58” website
Proposition 59 (asks the legislature to propose a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United)
First, let me say that I really dislike the Citizens United decision, rendered by the Supreme Court in 2010. The decision essentially allows corporations or the super-rich to spend tens of millions of dollars to influence our elections. Citizens United essentially is responsible for creating the odious Super-PAC’s that run negative ads that their designated candidate doesn’t have to “approve.” I’m against Citizens United but this is a national issue and it’s a waste of the Golden State voters’ time to weigh in. Even the liberal-leaning LA Times (which decries Citizen United) is urging its readers to vote “NO” on 59.
If we’re going to have an “advise and consent” proposition, it should relate to a California-specific issue, such as the aforementioned bullet train from L.A. to San Francisco.
Let’s send a message to our legislature to not waste our time on votes like this.
My verdict — vote NO on Prop 59.
LA Times editorial against Prop 59
Proposition 60 (requires the use of condoms in pornographic films)
Really? The voters of California are being asked to decide this? I’m not wasting my time. Please enjoy the “pro” and “con” links below if you want to waste yours.
My verdict — vote NO on Prop 60.
LA Times editorial against Prop 60
Proposition 61 (imposes prescription drug price regulations)
This is one of the most difficult props on our California ballot to decipher. The concept sounds wonderful when you boil it down to its simplicity: a YES vote would mean that state agencies would be prohibited from paying more for any prescription drug than the lowest price paid by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs for the same drug.
This measure would theoretically dramatically lower prescription drug costs purchased by the state for its employees and retirees, university students, prison inmates, uninsured people with HIV and Californians covered by the public insurance company Medi-Cal.
We all know that prescription drug prices are out of control and a ballot measure that promises to rein in those costs is going to have a great deal of appeal. The main celebrity face behind the “Yes on 61” movement is none other than Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Remember, of course, that Sanders is a self-described socialist who wants a nationwide single-payer health care system.
Prop 61 was sponsored by the non-profit AIDS Healthcare Foundation out of concern for rising costs of HIV drugs. This organization is the only one that has spent any money whatsoever (about $14.5 million) in support of the initiative. (Incidentally, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation also sponsored Prop 60 about condoms and porn). On the other side, the pharmaceutical industry has spent about $100 million to defeat Prop 61 so it’s clear where its motives lie.
The L.A. County Republican party is against Prop 61. The L.A. County Democratic party does not have a consensus view.
The argument is favor is obvious: it’s a start to rein in the excesses of pricing in the pharmaceutical industry.
The argument against this is that, first of all, it only benefits a small percentage of Californians (about 12% of the state population). Second, who knows what the unintended consequences are? Does big pharma raise prices on the VA to compensate for their losses in California? Many veterans’ organizations are opposed to Prop 61 for this reason. Do those companies simply refuse to offer these specific drugs to the state at the prices that the prop mandates?
In researching this piece, I could not find one newspaper editorial endorsing Prop 61. That’s a bad sign if it’s a good law. I’ve spent a lot of time looking at this and, although the motives behind the initiative are (I think) honorable, the potential consequences are far too murky for the voters to authorize it.
My verdict — vote NO on Prop 61.
Bernie Sanders writes an editorial in the LA Times in favor of Prop 61
Proposition 62 (repeals the death penalty)
This is exactly the kind of proposition that should be placed in front of the voters, not the complicated ones involving bonds and money. I’ve for a long time been in favor of the ultimate punishment for any citizen who perpetrates the ultimate crime. Still, the pragmatist in me looks at the wasteful spending in the endless process so I’ve wavered on the issue. The argument in favor of eliminating capital punishment in California is that the state’s taxpayers have spent $5 billion since 1978 to carry out 13 executions, a cost of $384 million per execution. That’s no good. Then of course there’s the possibility of executing an innocent man or woman.
For the record, the repeal of the death penalty is not likely to happen. A recent KABC poll showed the “No” voters leading the “Yes” voters 53%-to-35%. Republicans overwhelmingly oppose repeal, as to Independents. Even the Democratic party is fairly split, with 45% supporting repeal and 39% not.
For me the solution is reform, not repeal, so let’s look at Prop 66.
Proposition 66 (reforms the appeals process for death penalty convictions)
Prop 66 aims to reform the death penalty system. The key reform in this measure places a five year time limit on the appeals process for a capital punishment conviction. Critics say that Prop 66 will be too costly and some critics (like the San Diego Union Tribune, see below) argue that there will be no will to implement the provisions of it. My view is that we should try it and if seems to be failing miserably, re-visit in a future election.
If a person commits a crime so heinous that their sentence requires a life sentence without the possibility of parole, why do we want to spend taxpayer dollars to keep them behind bars and provide for their healthcare expenses for decades? As for the fear of executing an innocent person, advances in DNA evidence makes this outcome virtually nonexistent.
Pardon my bluntness but a grave costs less than a cell.
My verdict — vote NO on Prop 62 and YES on Prop 66
The “No on 62” repeal and “Yes on 66” reform websitet
The San Diego Union Tribune editorial arguing for repeal, not reform
Proposition 63 (background checks for ammunition purchases and other gun control measures)
Prop 63 would implement the following gun control regulations (among others) onto the citizens of California:
- Requires individuals to pass a background check and obtain DOJ authorization to purchase ammunition.
- Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines (over 10 bullets) and requires their disposal.
- Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammo to be reported to law enforcement.
This is another highly appropriate proposition to offer to the voters because it’s pretty simple. Also, the voters can’t be bought or intimidated by the National Rifle Association as politicians can.
Personally, I’m very much in favor of banning large-capacity magazines, which can be used to kill multiple people in seconds. Current state law already bans these magazines; Prop 63 eliminates certain exemptions.
The Prop is not without flaws. The biggest one is that it would divert scarce law enforcement resources and overwhelm the already burdened court system by scrutinizing purchases from normally law-abiding citizens and could essentially turn a gun-owner into a misdemeanor offender if he/she doesn’t report a lost or stolen gun. Still, when the website arguing against Prop 63 is entitled “Where’s My Ammo” that not going to put me on their side.
This Prop is likely to pass. The aforementioned KABC poll showed overwhelming support (63% to 27%) in favor of passage. Even among Republicans and gun owners, the results were mixed. Republican were against Prop 63 by just one percentage point (47%-to-46%) and gun owners were opposed just by 2 points (47%-to-45%).
My verdict — vote YES on Prop 63.
The “Yes on 63” website (“Safety for All”)
The “No on 63” website (“Where’s My Ammo”)
The San Diego Union Tribune editorial urging “Yes” on prop 63
Proposition 64 (legalizes recreational marijuana use)
I would normally say that this is another voter-appropriate proposition because it seems simple enough upon which to form an opinion. The KABC poll shows a 51%-to-40% edge for those who support legalization. Proposition ballot polls are notoriously unpredictable so it’s fair to say that it will be a mystery on Election Day as to whether the measure will pass or not.
The only third party presidential candidate (Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party) is in favor of legalization and I’m voting for him so that means that I should be in favor, right? Well, not so fast, it’s complicated. My biggest fear is California version of the collateral impact of Colorado’s legalization of pot. There have been some reports that the legalization of marijuana has allowed Mexican or Columbian drug cartels to set up shop in the state as “legitimate businesses” and made it easier for them to sell cocaine, heroin or meth in the state. The other consequence is that the cartels can grow marijuana legally in the Boulder state which it makes it easier to sell in neighboring states (New Mexico, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona) where legalization has yet to occur.
Because the southern part of California is right on the Mexican border this concern is of considerable significance.
The other missing element to Prop 64 is that it makes no DUI provision for marijuana use. The Foundation for Highway Safety reports that deaths in marijuana-related car crashes have doubled in the state of Washington since it approved legalization.
I believe that legalization of marijuana is inevitable but this is not the right time. Let the positives and negatives of the other’ states’ experiences sink in for another two years and then put it to the voters again. I think Prop 64 is likely to pass but I won’t be voting for it.
My verdict — wait two more years and vote NO on Prop 64 (and keep faking headaches for “medicinal” in the meantime).
The LA Times editorial in favor of legalization
The Sacramento Bee editorial against legalization
Proposition 65 (regulates grocery and retail carry-out bags)
I’m not going to spend a lot of time on this. Prop 65 states that, if state law prohibits giving customers certain carry-out bags for free and requires a charge for other types of bags, the resulting revenue would be deposited in a new state fund to support certain environmental programs.
Proposition 67 (would prohibit the use of plastic single-use carryout bags)
This Prop is a little simpler than Prop 65. It simply asks the question: should we be allowed to bring home our groceries in single-use plastic bags or should grocery stores be forced to give us paper bags and charge us 10 cents per bag?
My feeling about this: don’t charge me for my grocery bags!!! This is regulation nation run amok!!!
My verdict — vote NO on both Prop 65 and Prop 67
Explaining the competing initiatives of Props 65 and 67
If this is leaving you all bleary-eyed, I’m with you! So here is a summary of my opinions of the 17 California props and also the recommendations of the L.A. County Republican and Democratic parties.
| Prop | Subject | GOP | Dems | Bodig |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prop. 51 | $9 million school bond | YES | YES | NO |
| Prop. 52 | Medi-Cal hospital fees | YES | YES | YES |
| Prop. 53 | Voter approval on $2 revenue bonds | YES | NO | NO |
| Prop. 54 | Legislative transparency | YES | NO | YES |
| Prop. 55 | Tax Hike on "wealthy" extended | NO | YES | NO |
| Prop. 56 | $2.00 extra cigarette tax | NO | YES | YES |
| Prop. 57 | Release "non-violent" felons early | NO | YES | NO |
| Prop. 58 | Authorize bi-lingual education | NO | YES | NO |
| Prop. 59 | About "Citizens United" | NO | YES | NO |
| Prop. 60 | Condoms for adult film stars | NO | NO | NO |
| Prop. 61 | Prescription drug pricing | NO | NA | NO |
| Prop. 62 | Death penalty REPEAL | NO | YES | NO |
| Prop. 63 | Increased control on guns & ammo | NO | YES | YES |
| Prop. 64 | Legalize marijuana | NO | YES | NO |
| Prop. 65 | Where carry out bag fees go | YES | NA | NO |
| Prop. 66 | Death penalty REFORM | YES | NO | YES |
| Prop. 67 | Ban on plastic bags | NO | YES | NO |
Phew. I’m exhausted. Thanks for reading and go out and vote!
Chris Bodig