[guest post by JVW]

I’ve been kind of procrastinating on this, but since I’ve had positive feedback in the past when I post about the wacky referenda and initiatives that are proposed here in the Golden State — I assume so many of you take a certain level of sadistic delight in beholding our lunacy — I reckoned that I would let you know what we are mulling over this year. Here’s what’s going on, and here is how I plan to vote.

(Note that all titles and summaries are written by the California Attorney General’s office, that is to say by partisan elected officials. The woman running for President on the Democrat ticket blatantly put her finger on the scale to write title and summaries which would be favorable to her party’s interests back when she served as AG. The state has since added a few safeguards (most notably a process where the title and summary are negotiated with rather than dictated by the AG’s office, though the AG does in the end determine the final result), you can bet that most of them still lean leftwards.)

PROPOSITION 2
Title: Authorizes Bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities. Legislative Statute.

Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repair, upgrade, and construction of facilities at K–12 public schools (including charter schools), community colleges, and career technical education programs, including for improvement of health and safety conditions and classroom upgrades. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $500 million annually for 35 years to repay the bond. Supporters: California Teachers Association; California School Nurses Organization; Community College League of California Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

My jaundiced analysis: When you see the education establishment unite around a measure to pile on to our already more than $100 billion in bond debt, you know it’s likely a bad idea. Add in the fact that upgrading and building school facilities is really a local responsibility (and the state can already directly appropriate funds to lower-income districts when necessary) and this initiative is clearly a horrible idea to everyone except for the education establishment and the construction industry.

PROPOSITION 3
Title: Constitutional Right to Marriage. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Amends California Constitution to recognize fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race. Removes language in California Constitution stating that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Fiscal Impact: No change in revenues or costs for state and local governments. Supporters: Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America; Dolores Huerta Foundation; Equality California Opponents: Jonathan Keller, California Family Council; Rev. Tanner DiBella

My jaundiced analysis: This one seems pretty straightforward. Proposition 8, passed by California voters in 2008, limited marriage in the state to one man with one woman. Proponents of same-sex marriage took the initiative to court and in 2013 all of the appeals were exhausted and same-sex marriage was legalized, which was then followed up by the very questionable Obergefell decision in the U.S. Supreme Court two years later, which green-lit same-sex marriage nationwide.

So given all that, it just makes sense to strike Proposition 8 from the California lawbooks, right? Well, hang on a moment. What is notable about Proposition 3 is what was left out of the text. Much of this constitutional amendment was modeled upon a Nevada ballot initiative passed by state voters four years ago. But there is one very important distinction between the Nevada initiative of 2020 and the California initiative of 2024: the former explicitly exempted clergy from being required to perform same-sex weddings, and the California initiative contains no such language.

I’m sorry but there is no way you are going to convince me that this is an accidental oversight. Not in a state like California, so dominated by radical ideologues. This initiative will pass overwhelmingly, and I’ll bet just about anything that LGBTQ advocacy groups along with anti-religion bigots will begin a campaign to harass Catholics, Orthodox Christians, conservative Protestants, Mormons, Orthodox Jews, and perhaps even Muslims and Hindus into compliance. Advocates for Prop 3 claim that existing statues protect clergy, but baking this language into the state’s constitution absolutely opens the door to lawsuits against churches who refuse to marry same-sex couples. I have no problem with gay marriage as recognized by the state or by whatever religious group believes they are acceptable, but I am not going to enable deep-pocketed advocacy groups to perform lawfare on traditionalist believers. For this reason alone, I am voting against it.

PROPOSITION 4
Title: Authorizes Bonds for Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks. Legislative Statute.

Summary: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for water, wildfire prevention, and protection of communities and lands. Requires annual audits. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $400 million annually for 40 years to repay the bond. Supporters: Clean Water Action; CALFIRE Firefighters; National Wildlife Federation; The Nature Conservancy Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

My jaundiced analysis: See my analysis of Proposition 2 above. This is exactly the sort of ongoing concern that needs to be addressed through the general fund of the state budget, not through borrowing money via bonds. Another deeply irresponsible initiative in a deeply dysfunctional state.

PROPOSITION 5
Title: Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Allows approval of local infrastructure and housing bonds for low- and middle-income Californians with 55% vote. Accountability requirements. Fiscal Impact: Increased local borrowing to fund affordable housing, supportive housing, and public infrastructure. The amount would depend on decisions by local governments and voters. Borrowing would be repaid with higher property taxes. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; League of Women Voters of California; Habitat for Humanity California Opponents: California Taxpayers Association; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Women Veterans Alliance

My jaundiced analysis: This is part of the ongoing attempt to convince Californians to make it easier to con the voters into borrowing money. The promised “accountability requirements” are a colossal lie; if you don’t believe me, read all of my bellyaching against the High-Speed Rail Authority. I really hope this abomination goes down in flames.

PROPOSITION 6
Title: Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Summary: Amends the California Constitution to remove current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work). Fiscal Impact: Potential increase or decrease in state and local costs, depending on how work for people in state prison and county jail changes. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Assemblymember Lori Wilson Opponents: None submitted

My jaundiced analysis: Notice how nobody wanted to submit an argument against this. I take that to mean that everyone knows this will pass in super-progressive California, and thus there is no sense in trying to fight against it. On the face of things I don’t have a particular problem with the initiative, but somehow I can’t help but feel that the promise by advocates that prisoners who refuse to work can be denied time credits and various privileges will all go up in smoke. Also, the main sponsor of this initiative is Esteban Nuñez, whose history of privilege we have discussed here. For these reasons, I’m going to vote No.

PROPOSITION 32 (yeah, there’s a stupid reason why the numbering bypasses 7-31)
Title: Raises Minimum Wage. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Raises minimum wage as follows: For employers with 26 or more employees, to $17 immediately, $18 on January 1, 2025. For employers with 25 or fewer employees, to $17 on January 1, 2025, $18 on January 1, 2026. Fiscal Impact: State and local government costs could increase or decrease by up to hundreds of millions of dollars annually. State and local revenues likely would decrease by no more than a few hundred million dollars annually. Supporters: None submitted Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce; California Restaurant Association; California Grocers Association

My jaundiced analysis: I hope that everyone here understands the arguments against the government arbitrarily setting minimum wages. California Democrats are the sort of people who say, “Hey, let’s make employers pay their workers more money!” and then when the prices of the goods created by these employees rises commensurately turn around and accuse the employers of price-gouging. This leads Democrats to demand an even higher wage for employees, and the cycle continues to repeat itself, at least until the job is given to a robot or touchscreen. The economic ignorance is utterly fascinating.

PROPOSITION 33
Title: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Repeals Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, which currently prohibits local ordinances limiting initial residential rental rates for new tenants or rent increases for existing tenants in certain residential properties. Fiscal Impact: Reduction in local property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually due to likely expansion of rent control in some communities. Supporters: CA Nurses Assoc.; CA Alliance for Retired Americans; Mental Health Advocacy; Coalition for Economic Survival; TenantsTogether Opponents: California Council for Affordable Housing; Women Veterans Alliance; California Chamber of Commerce

My jaundiced analysis: The initiative that just won’t die. Every two years it seems that I write about the latest ballot initiative to allow localities to impose rent control, not just on older apartments but now even on brand-new buildings and single-family homes. It continually loses by a reasonably comfortable margin, but two years later it is back again (more on this later).

As usual, the ads both for an against this rent control proposition are the typical mix of half-truths, deceptions, and outright lies. Opponents believe that a repeal of Costa-Hawkins would also invalidate the rent increase caps that the California Legislature passed in 2019 and Governor Newsom signed into law. This assertion is questionable. Proponents throw around their usual balderdash about rich MAGA supporters cornering the housing market, and fail to acknowledge the unalterable fact that rent control never increases the supply of affordable housing, and quite often reduces it. As with every other year, this is an emphatic No vote for me.

PROPOSITION 34
Title: Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Requires certain providers to spend 98% of revenues from federal discount prescription drug program on direct patient care. Authorizes statewide negotiation of Medi-Cal drug prices. Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs, likely in the millions of dollars annually, to enforce new rules on certain health care entities. Affected entities would pay fees to cover these costs. Supporters: The ALS Association; California Chronic Care Coalition; Latino Heritage Los Angeles Opponents: National Org. for Women; Consumer Watchdog; Coalition for Economic Survival; AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Dolores Huerta

My jaundiced analysis: The aforementioned sponsor of the biennial attempts to undo Costa-Hawkins’s restrictions on rent control is the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. This group is empowered by the state to negotiate bulk pricing on HIV and AIDS drugs and then to sell them directly to patients, making a profit on the transaction. They then use the profits to fund left-wing ballot advocacy, most notably the pro-rent control measures. Having become fed up with this, the apartment owners and other anti-rent control groups are now trying to clip the foundation’s wings by pushing this initiative.

On the one hand, some principled conservatives are against Prop 34 because even though they recognize the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s machinations, they believe that this is an issue better left to the state or the federal government for regulation. There is also a bit of a whiff of a bill of attainder here, since AHF seems to be the only nonprofit group which is partaking in these shenanigans. On the other hand, it is indeed an obnoxious practice for a nonprofit to use money for nakedly political reasons, even if they want to argue that those political reasons help their clients. And the idea that the California Legislature would ever put a stop to this is fanciful at best. Frankly I am still mulling over this one, though I may end up landing on “No” just because my temperament is to be distrustful of all ballot propositions.

PROPOSITION 35
Title: Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Makes permanent the existing tax on managed health care insurance plans, which, if approved by the federal government, provides revenues to pay for Medi-Cal health care services. Fiscal Impact: Short-term state costs between roughly $1 billion and $2 billion annually to increase funding for certain health programs. Total funding increase between roughly $2 billion to $5 billion annually. Unknown long-term fiscal effects. Supporters: Planned Parenthood Affiliates of CA; American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists; American Academy of Pediatrics, CA Opponents: None submitted

My jaundiced analysis: This is another proposition which has no formal opposition and is thus likely to pass. I do not like ballot-box budgeting, where the voters determine what programs get more or less funding, especially where matters of health care coverage are concerned. I’m going to vote No.

PROPOSTION 36
Title: Allows Felony Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes. Initiative Statute.

Summary: Allows felony charges for possessing certain drugs and for thefts under $950, if defendant has two prior drug or theft convictions. Fiscal Impact: State criminal justice costs likely ranging from several tens of millions of dollars to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Local criminal justice costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually. Supporters: Crime Victims United of California; California District Attorneys Association; Family Business Association of California Opponents: Diana Becton, District Attorney Contra Costa County; Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice

My jaundiced analysis: This is almost certainly the most closely-watched proposition on the ballot. Will the voters of the state undo much of the damage they have done in loosening penalties for criminal behavior, especially through the notorious Proposition 47 passed ten years ago? Kamala Harris, who supported Prop 47 as the state’s attorney general, refuses to tell voters whether or not she is voting this year to undo much of her ideological malfeasance. A real profile in courage for a woman who wants to be our nation’s Chief Executive. And Gavin Newsom did his best to undermine the proposition by cajoling Democrats into passing some moderate tightening of retail theft laws, but could not convince lefty true-believers to go any father. He’s officially against Prop 36, but won’t actively campaign against it and promises to “implement the will of the voters” should it pass. Another profile in courage from another unprincipled California Democrat. I am going to break my “No” streak on these propositions and vote in favor of this one, just to aggravate all of the right people. (And having said that, I will probably vote “Yes” on Prop 34 too, but I still have pangs of conscience about that one.)

And that’s it. Another year of truly crappy participatory democracy in the Golden State.

– JVW