Baha's Ballot Bulletin - November 2024
Making Sense of California's Ballot Initiatives
Editor's Note: This effort was born out of family members and friends looking for advice about the oftentimes confusing ballot measures in California. It was once just a personal email list and now it has moved to SubStack where folks can opt in to receive a ballot guide before California elections, as well as have a site to visit to reference the measures. Feel free to share with friends and family if you find this helpful, and please unsubscribe without hesitation (no feelings will be hurt!) if you don't.
I do this to help people engage and take part in the process while offering my own viewpoints on the issues, but politics is very personal so if this helps you reach your vote by disagreeing with me, that's great too! Also note that this is not intended to be a complete analysis, so if you feel passionately about one of the measures I encourage you to dig in. Above all, participate in the process, a lot of people lived and died to give you that right and it's your most powerful tool for change.
Proposition 2: Public Education Facilities Bond Measure
This is a $10B state general obligation bond to repair and upgrade K-12 public schools and community colleges statewide with the majority going towards K-12 ($8.5B) versus community colleges ($1.5B). While this state bond won’t directly increase property taxes, it will effectively result in higher property taxes as new local bonds gets issued because in order for local school districts to get access to the state bond, they must provide a local match of funds which most districts couldn’t do without a new local bond—which would increase property taxes.
Though I am concerned with mismanagement in the school system, and I do not like to see property taxes rise, I am a strong supporter of schools and I see investing in better facilities for kids to learn and grow within as one of the better things property owners and governments can allocate funds towards. Yes on 2.
Proposition 3: Right to Marry and Repeal Proposition 8 Amendment
Currently, the language in California’s Constitution still reads that a valid marriage is only between a man and a woman thanks to Prop 8 passed by voters in 2008; though Prop 8 was subsequently invalidated, the language still remains. Prop 3 would replace that language to instead recognize the right to marriage as a fundamental right.
This one is pretty simple based on your values: yes if you support gay marriage, no if you don’t. I personally support gay marriage and don’t feel like government should dictate who people marry, so I support eradicating the invalidated Prop 8 language from our Constitution. Special shoutout to my good friend Assemblyman Evan Low who proposed this amendment and who is on this November’s ballot running for Congress (District 16) to represent the Westside of the Bay Area, incorporating much of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties so he’s likely on many of your ballots. I don’t normally do candidate endorsements, but I’ll make an exception for him because politics aside, he’s simply a good person and that’s unfortunately a rare thing in politics these days. Yes on Prop 3, and Yes on Evan Low for Congress.
Proposition 4: Parks, Environment, Energy, and Water Bond Measure
This is another $10B general obligation bond to pay for capital projects aimed at sustainability and reducing climate impact. The funds would be allocated to the following:
New water management facilities ($3.8 billion)
Forest management ($1.5 billion)
Management of coastal areas ($1.2 billion)
Land conservation ($1.2 billion)
Industrial wind turbines, transmission lines, and battery development ($850 million)
Public parks ($700 million)
Heat protection, disaster shelters, and local environmental projects ($450 million)
Farmland and farmworker support, community gardens, soil health, and water conservation ($300 million)
I support these causes but don’t like that there is ambiguity in the bond language that leaves a lot to be interpreted by the California Natural Resources Agency which will be tasked with doling out the money. That makes me nervous, but I am more nervous about climate change and the condition of the world we are leaving to our children so given the relatively small size of the bond, I’m a Yes on Prop 4.
Proposition 5: Lower Supermajority Requirement to 55% for Local Bond Measures to Fund Housing and Public Infrastructure Amendment
California law currently requires local bond measures to borrow money to earn a two-thirds majority vote (66.67%) in order to pass. Prop 5 would lower that requirement to 55% for affordable housing and infrastructure projects.
Proponents of this measure argue that it is too difficult to reach that two-thirds majority and it requires too broad a coalition to get bonds approved. I am a hard no on Prop 5 for this very reason: it should be difficult for governments to borrow billions of dollars that will burden taxpayers. It should be noted that as of 2023, California counties have about $140 billion in liabilities ($3,860 per resident) and cities have a whopping $193 billion in liabilities ($6,337 per resident) so bonds are certainly passing and residents are carrying a heavy load for them. I should also add that just in the first half of 2024, California cities and counties have taken on an additional $29.8B in debt, not including the other bonds on this November’s ballot. I am not anti-bond, per my support of the bonds on this ballot, but I want the threshold to be kept high so that they only pass when a solid majority of voters support them. If we have this much bond indebtedness now with a 66.67% threshold, imagine what it would be if the threshold dropped to 55% for virtually any bond as “infrastructure projects” is a broad blanket that could justify pretty much anything. No on Prop 5.
Proposition 6: Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment
Simply put, this measure would remove California’s ability to force incarcerated persons to work. Proponents of this measure liken involuntary servitude (forced work) to slavery in calling for this change, and argue that inmates should be able to choose what work they perform.
I am a tough on crime voter, so I do think convicted inmates should be forced to do chores like cleaning, cooking and laundry as a means of paying their public debt while incarcerated. If this provision is eliminated, prisons and jails would need to either pay inmates for this work which would drastically increase prison costs, or offer to take time off sentences for the work which would let criminals out sooner than theoir sentence required. No on Prop 6.
Proposition 32: $18 Minimum Wage Initiative
This measure would increase California’s current minimum wage of $16/hr to $18/hr by 2026. Small businesses (25 or fewer employees) would have a more gradual increase to $17 in 2025 then go to $18/hr in 2026, whereas all other businesses would see the increase to $18/hr immediately in 2025. Thereafter, the minimum wage would increase by inflation every year.
Minimum wage mandates are a tough issue that have very smart economists on both sides with very good points and counterpoints. I analyze this through the lens of economic data and overall benefit to the economy, which for me usually doesn’t involve government dictating business decisions. However, many have looked at the effects of minimum wage laws, and they generally agree that more people are lifted out of poverty (with gradual increases) even though some end up losing their jobs or become underemployed with hours being cut. This is not the case for large or quick implementation of increases where the damage to businesses and consumers is heavy and more jobs are cut. Another concern is inflationary impact as businesses raise prices to pass on the increased costs.
California already has the third highest minimum wage in the country and this would give us the highest minimum wage in the country (we are also the most expensive place to live). Despite this, Prop 32 is a very modest increase from what many unions and other minimum wage advocates would rather see which explains the tepid support the measure is receiving from organized labor. I should also add that many big California cities already have local minimum wage laws that surpass this increase so this would largely affect lower-wage areas like the Central Valley though there are some Bay Area cities this would affect.
While swayed in both directions, I ultimately feel that gradual, small increases to minimum wage levels like this (ultimately only $1/hr more than what would be the case without Prop 32) are a net positive for our economy as the effect of the increase strengthens spending power without doing drastic harm to consumers/businesses; per the Legislative Analyst, the loss of jobs related to Prop 32 is estimated to be less than one-quarter of a percent and the inflationary impact on prices is estimated to be less than one-half of a percent. I also think passing this small but meaningful adjustment will stave off more zealous minimum wage advocates who are pushing for much higher minimum wage increases ($25/hr) which I see as a real threat to our state economy. Yes on Prop 32.
Proposition 33: Prohibit State Limitations on Local Rent Control Initiative
California passed a law in 1995 called the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act that imposes limits on how cities and counties can implement rent control mandates, most notably not being able to place rent limits on single family homes, apartments built after February 1st, 1995 or limiting landlord rental rates when a tenant first moves in.
Prop 33 would repeal Costa-Hawkins in its entirety, allowing local governments free reign to impose their own rent control limits, however severe, on all housing and developments. Full disclosure that I am in the real estate industry so I am directly impacted here, but I don’t think I’m being alarmist by saying that if passed this measure would turn our existing housing crisis into a statewide catastrophe.
You may recall similar measures from 2018 and 2020 that voters resoundingly rejected by 60% each time, so this would be the third time AIDS Healthcare Foundation CEO Michael Weinstein is bankrolling this measure to further his anti-housing agenda—in fact, his organization has put up most all of the $36M being spent in support of Prop 33. Opposed are naturally the real estate groups bolstered by the vast majority of major editorial boards and a broad coalition of businesses and community groups.
Rent control is oftentimes a hot button issue, with one side arguing that we need to limit rent increases to keep housing affordable and the other side saying that the solution is to build more housing rather than impose rent control as rent control actually ends up raising the price of housing. I agree with the latter, and the hard data is pretty clear on it. There are many studies from respected institutions like Stanford and the Brookings Institution concluding that rent control has led to higher average rents, and that a robust housing supply is the most critical factor in reducing housing prices.
But even if one supports reasonable rent control, the repeal of Costa-Hawkins is an extreme move and will lead to chaos in our housing industry, effecting not just existing housing units but also new developments because Prop 33 would also allow governments the ability to impose unlimited affordability requirements on new housing. Some cities like Huntington Beach have already announced they will use Prop 33 to impose such strict affordability requirements on new housing that no new housing could ever be built there. This is one of the most impactful measures on the ballot, it would result in a deep pullback of new housing getting built in California and a jump in housing prices, exacerbating an existing housing crisis to levels that would be tough to imagine. Strong No on Prop 33.
Proposition 34: Require Certain Participants in Medi-Cal Rx Program to Spend 98% of Revenues on Patient Care Initiative
This is a tricky one. It is both an attempt to curb a major issue in our federal prescription drug discount program (known as 340B) and a “revenge” measure put forward by real estate groups against the aforementioned sponsor of Prop 33, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) and its CEO Michael Weinstein.
First, the policy: the current federal 340B program allows nonprofit healthcare providers who serve low-income patients to purchase prescription drugs from drug manufacturers at steeply discounted prices, yet allows them to bill insurance companies for the full price of the drug and take that difference as a profit machine. The goal is to increase access to much needed prescription drugs for low income communities, but the problem is that neither the state nor the federal government have any strong regulations on what nonprofit providers can do with that money. As such, you have abusers of the system like AHF which gets the majority of its $2.2B in annual revenue by profiting off the 340B program and turns around and spends hundreds millions of dollars of that money pushing political causes like repeated rent control ballot measures as opposed to focusing on their mission. There are other abusers like Bon Secours Mercy Health, which a NYT investigation revealed built luxury housing and bought naming rights to a sports complex with 340B profits. Prop 34 would make such healthcare providers spend 98% of the revenue they make from the 340B program on actual patient care.
While I think what AHF is doing is egregious and shouldn’t be allowed, the problem is bigger than them and a full reform of the 340B program at the federal level is in order to regulate how providers benefiting from the program can spend the profits, forcing them to focus on patient care and expanding access to affordable prescription drugs to more low income communities as opposed to politics and sports complexes. So as much as I would love to see AHF’s abuse of the system get shut down with this measure, the way this is worded would really only apply to AHF and I can’t with good conscious advocate for a state ballot measure targeting one group—that’s not how our ballot initiative system should be used. So it’s a difficult decision given my outrage over what AHF is doing, but I have to stick to my good government core and begrudgingly be a No on Prop 34.
Proposition 35: Managed Care Organization Tax Authorization Initiative
This one seems simple at first glance but is a bit more complicated. California has had a Managed Care Organization (MCO) tax since 2009 and this coming year it is estimated to generate $7-$8 billion in revenue for the state. The state currently needs to re-authorize the tax every few years, but Prop 35 would make the tax permanent. The tax itself is not controversial as MCO’s themselves, patients and most of the medical community agree it is a much needed tax to help fund Medi-Cal, the state’s public insurance program for low-income Californians.
At issue is that Prop 35 requires the state to spend the revenue on specific Medi-Cal services permanently, locking in winners/losers and reducing the ability of the Governor and Legislature to adjust spending as situations and budgets change—it is classic “ballot-box budgeting.”
It is helpful to understand how Prop 35 got to the ballot: it is the result of Governor Newsom backing out of a deal he made with the health care unions to raise their wages because the state was facing a massive budget deficit, so the unions reacted by putting Prop 35 on the ballot to solidify the deal and force the spending.
In short, the MCO tax is a good thing but I don’t support ballot box budgeting that locks in spending and leaves little flexibility for lawmakers to balance budgets or reallocate funds as needs arise. I also don’t think special interest groups should be running to the ballot when they don’t get the money they want. I’m a No on Prop 35.
Proposition 36: Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative
Prop 36 would roll back some provisions of a measure passed in 2014 (Prop 47) that downgraded many drug possession and thefts from felonies to misdemeanors. Specifically, Prop 36 would eliminate the $950 threshold for a third theft so that a thief who is convicted three times could be charged with a felony as opposed to a misdemeanor, regardless of the value of stolen goods. As it stands now, as long as the value of the theft is under $950, thieves can get away with no jail time and essentially a slap on the wrist continually which is why we are seeing petty thefts and smash and grabs skyrocket with repeat offenders.
Prop 36 also increases sentences for drug crimes, i.e. currently someone charged with possession of certain drugs (cocaine, heroin, meth) and a firearm faces up to 1 year in jail whereas Prop 36 would increase that to up to four years in prison and also add fentanyl to the list of drugs. In addition, Prop 36 would scale prison sentences based on the quantity of drugs sold so larger dealers would receive longer sentences. Finally, Prop 36 increases jail time for those guilty of organized retail theft and would compel those convicted of multiple drug offenses into drug treatment.
As mentioned, I am a tough on crime voter and so I strongly support Prop 36. I believe the pendulum has swung way too far towards leniency in our criminal justice system to the detriment of law abiding residents and businesses who are suffering as a result of the lack of consequences for those committing these crimes. I don’t want to see overcrowded jails and prisons, nor do I want to pay for a big influx in inmates, but if the alternative is constant crime then I chose the former. Enough is enough. Yes on Prop 36.
Thanks for reading, love to hear your thoughts on any of the measures, or you're welcome to just yell at me here!
Hi Baha Jon thanks so much for your input with ballot it is very valuable .
But I disagree on the prop 35 I would say YES and my reason is
Proposition 35 “the next important step” to ensuring more communities have access to the dental providers and services they need, noting that in California, fewer than half of the children enrolled in Medi-Cal and just one quarter of adults on Medi-Cal visited the dental office in 2023. Meanwhile, reimbursements remain too low for many dental services.
“[Prop 35] will secure new funding to increase dental reimbursement rates, dental student loan repayments and workforce development programs,” she said. “It does this without raising taxes — and it will prevent the state from redirecting these funds for other purposes.”
Specifically, the passage of Prop 35 would increase the Medi-Cal Dental budget by at least 10% (approximately $300 million annually) to improve reimbursement rates, increase funding for health care workforce development and secure up to $10 million annually for dental student loan repayments through the CalHealthCares program, which has awarded over $48 million in loan repayments to 187 dentists or dental students since the program launched in 2018-19. Prop 35 will also reduce emergency response times by funding first responders and paramedics.
Even though I don’t accept Medi-cal in my office I support this measure
With respect
Sepi