California Ballot Measures Two thru Six
Day One of My Voter Guide
It’s Voter Guide time! Over the past decade I’ve shared my research on candidates and causes on a variety of platforms for both primary and general elections. I aim to put out a comprehensive encapsulation of this information (with links back to more detailed reports and recommendations) by the time mail-in ballots start arriving in early October.
I’m of a mind to cut way back on my candidate endorsements this time around, limiting them to contests where there is a choice that’s better than “meh” or “sucks.”
***
California Propositions Two through Six aren’t politically controversial. All are on the ballot because a supermajority in the state legislature said they wanted people to weigh in or because the State Constitution requires citizen assent.
That said, there are reasons to vote No on some of these asks. Some of them will cost money; banks/investors will profit over the long term; or one can disagree with the solutions being offered; or maybe you just hate the logical beneficiaries.
Personally, I will be thrilled if all those reading this just engage in the act of voting. Most people can’t be bothered in non-presidential contests, roughly one in three eligible citizens don’t vote in presidential contests.
The privacy of the act of voting is one of the few instances where you can let your freak flag fly. Our ballot choices for the most part exist within a political framework using money as its girders. Change the exterior of the framework, either by proportional representation or ranked choice voting or by doing the decades-long work of building a new political party, and the results won’t change by much.
Money talks. Bullshit walks.
Sadly, those who know they can’t win elections actively seek to stop people from voting, either by using the powers of the State (referring to governments in general) or by fostering discontent with electoral politics as a process.
States and localities (referring to governments a step or two down from the feds) sometimes engage in drawing voting districts to take away the possibility of power from people different from those already holding office. This “picking your voters” process is falling out of favor in places where political roadblocks discourage citizen participation.
In some regions of the country, extremists have targeted the bureaucracy of the voting process, hoping to block those they disagree with from voting. Arizona has served as a nearby laboratory for these anti-democracy incursions, which are always provided with cover by losers claiming fraud. Texas is further along, with government and law enforcement repression aimed at non-white voters. And in some southern states, the process from top to bottom is set up to protect the status quo.
At one time, these sorts of (usually) race or ethnicity based actions were against federal law. In fact, they are so widespread that even the powers of the federal government weren’t enough to root them out. Now, the Supreme Court has decided that we are in a post-racial era and that stopping a city in (for instance) Mississippi from putting just one voting location in a large area populated by “others” is an overreach of the federal government.
I’ll have more to say about the electoral process throughout this voter guide process.
***
Legislature Approved California Ballot Propositions
Proposition 2 - AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACILITIES.
The state would like permission to sell $10 billion in bonds to finance non-university education infrastructure repair, maintenance and construction. These asks are something the state has to do from time to time because it mostly can’t afford infrastructure. The non-progressive aspects of our taxation system barely cover our social safety net along with the cost of doing government business.
Statewide voters last approved a bond measure to fund public education facilities in 2016 with the approval of Proposition 51, leading to issuance of $9 billion in bonds to fund improvement and construction of school facilities for K-12 schools and community colleges. It was approved by a margin of 55.18% to 44.82%. These monies have all been spent/approved for specific projects.
In 2020, an unfortunately-named Proposition 13, aiming to raise these sorts of funding, failed at the box office, with 53.01% voting against the measure.
There is no formal opposition to Prop 2, but there is a racist argument blaming migrants for the financial need in the voter guide. I'm not surprised by a Republican playing the honky card, but I do want to remind readers that privatizing education is something these folks want to do as part of their calling to Make America Great Again.
Official Ballot Arguments: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop2.pdf
The funding procured from this bond sale will be split 85-15 for K-12 / Community Colleges. These monies are usually the State of California’s portion of funding for infrastructure. Payments on these bonds would come from the state’s general fund, and would amount to half a percent of the overall budget. (The state’s total debt payments on all bonds are less than 3% of the general fund)
The “carrots” included in the funding request include removing lead from school drinking water and facilities for the newly expanded state kindergarten enrollments. The Community College portion of the monies will require legislative approval per project, along with the governor’s signature.
Because many of these colleges include under-utilized land, the concept of erecting student housing as a means of combating homelessness has taken hold. This is a worthwhile endeavor aimed at what voters agree is a top of the list problem.
Advocacy groups in support of Prop 2 are:
Yes on Proposition 2 - Coalition for Adequate School Housing Issues Committee
Yes on Proposition 2 - Community College Facility Coalition Issues Committee.
They have raised more than $1.2 million in donations and in kind services from (mostly) construction companies.
The official Yes on Prop 2 group is:
Yes on Prop 2 Quality Public Schools
Facebook - X (formerly Twitter)
Prop 2 gets a BIG YES from me.
***
Proposition 3 - CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MARRIAGE.
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away, voters approved language for the State Constitution stating that marriage was only between a man and a woman. Here we are, 16 years later. The Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015, and nowadays in California, it’s completely unremarkable.
So Prop 3 would remove this hateful language and recognize a fundamental right to marry, regardless of sex or race.
You’d think this would be a no-brainer, but you’d be wrong.
The Supreme Court is angling for a way to revisit marriage equality. My bet would be this would come before the court in June after midterm elections during a Trump administration. Elect bad people, expect bad things to happen. It’s that simple.
Official Ballot Arguments: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop3.pdf
So there are advocates for Prop 3:
Yes on 3 - Freedom to Marry
Facebook - X (formerly Twitter
And there are opponents to Prop 3:
California Family Council
Facebook - X (Formerly Twitter)
I say PLEASE VOTE YES on Prop 3.
I never cease to be amazed at how many of these “pro-family” advocates get busted for sexual assault or child porn. Just saying.
***
Proposition 4 - AUTHORIZES BONDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER, WILDFIRE PREVENTION, AND PROTECTING COMMUNITIES AND NATURAL LANDS FROM CLIMATE RISKS.
Once against, the State wants to sell voters on a $10 billion bond. This money would go to protecting natural resources and mitigating climate change. Much of the spending here would go through local governments, Native American tribes, non-profits, and even some businesses. Forty percent of the money is earmarked for communities with lower incomes or that are affected by environmental changes or disasters.
If you’ve seen a home insurance bill lately, been threatened by wildfires, or worried about the water quality in your home, you’ll probably think this is a good idea.
There are no campaigns for or against Prop 4.
Official Ballot page: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop4.pdf
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers association has come out against this measure, and I’ll bet Carl DeMaio will get around to try to raise money by opposing this, claiming that he’s leading a citizen movement.
If you think Climate Change is a hoax, you’ll want to say no to this investment in California’s future.
In the meantime, I will say YES to Prop 4
***
Proposition 5 - ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL. Constitutional Amendment
This is about lowering the threshold for voter approval of local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure projects. Right now that threshold is 66.67%. Prop 5 would lower it to an even 55%.
There is a list of projects that Prop 5 would affect.
The amendment defines affordable housing as "housing developments, or portions of housing developments, that are affordable to individuals, families, seniors, people with disabilities, veterans, or first-time homebuyers, who are lower income households or middle-income households earning up to 150 percent of countywide median income, as those terms are defined in state law."
Affordable housing would also include downpayment assistance programs, first-time homebuyer programs, permanent supportive housing, and facilities used to serve residents of affordable housing.
Public infrastructure projects would include water quality, sanitation, treatment of wastewater, protection of property from sea level rise, parks and recreation facilities, flood control, streets, highways, broadband internet access, local hospital construction, public safety buildings, and public libraries.
Official Ballot info: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop5.pdf
You wanna build more housing in California that’s NOT luxury apartments? This could be your ticket to ride.
If approved it would apply to any relevant local bond measures also on the ballot on November 5, 2024. (Yes, here’s a San Diego angle) The amendment would also require local jurisdictions to conduct an annual audit to ensure that the funds are being used according to their intended purposes until all the proceeds have been expended
The tightwads of Prop 13 worshippers are banding together to oppose this measure: Real estate interests, Chambers of Commerce, and the Koch front group known as the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
These interests have raised more than $29,000,000 to kill this measure. I’ll bet good money that a Zenn diagram would show a substantial overlap with the obstructionists otherwise known as NIMBYs.
Democrats, County Governments, YIMBYs, and labor unions are supporting Prop 5, mostly because the political consultants of the far right have learned how to tweak the electorate to make 66.67% an impossible threshold. The pro-Prop 5 people have raised more than $5,000,000.
Please VOTE YES on Prop 5.
***
Proposition 6 - Remove Involuntary Servitude as Punishment for Crime Amendment
Prop 6 does two things: It removes a constitutional provision allowing jails and prisons to force incarcerated persons to work. And it bars the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from punishing incarcerated persons for refusing a work assignment. (Voluntary work still allowed)
Voters in seven states in recent years have passed similar measures. Given that it’s not uncommon for people who are incarcerated to be put to work earning less than $1 an hour, and that private companies in some states are using this exploited labor, it’s no wonder this is needed.
Official ballot info page: https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop6.pdf
There is no opposition to this measure.
Please vote YES
***
Monday News You Should Read
***
Evangelical broadcasters sue IRS for right to endorse candidates without penalty via The Friendly Atheist
The irony in all this is that the churches pushing to repeal the Johnson Amendment say they’re doing it because they don’t want to be beholden to the government. They say they want the freedom to preach whatever they want, including political endorsements, and they don’t want the government telling them what they can’t say. And yet, by opposing the Johnson Amendment and by demanding a right to promote candidates, they’re effectively becoming tools of the Republican Party.
So that’s where we’re at today. The Johnson Amendment is still on the books, but it’s almost never enforced. And yet there’s now a lawsuit pretending that the Johnson Amendment is hindering the supposed free speech rights of Christians.
The complaint argues that churches are forced into 501(c)(3) status and are therefore “automatically silenced” by the government. For example, they say the plaintiffs want to speak out about the candidates’ positions—which they’re already legally allowed to do!—but they are too scared to do so because they fear the Johnson Amendment, as if their ignorance is a reason to strike down the rule. (They “have engaged in self-censorship,” they write while the tiniest violin plays in the background.)
***
Corporate media ignoring Trump’s “J6 Awards” gala scheduled for next week is appalling! Via The Dean's Report by Dean Obeidallah
And the organizer of this awards event Trump is welcoming to his exclusive country club is Sarah McAbee, the wife of Ronald Colton McAbee who is serving six years in prison for assaulting more than one police officer on Jan 6. As DOJ detailed, McAbee despicably held down one officer who had been “knocked to the ground, kicked, and stripped of his baton by other rioters” enabling the crowd to viciously beat him. As a result, “the officer sustained physical injuries, including a head laceration, concussion, elbow injury, bruising, and bodily abrasions.”
To be clear, Trump is by design a very visible part of this event. Not only is at his club that bears his name, his photo is on the website for the J6 Awards gala as an invited speaker. And Trump allies Rudy Guiliani and former advisor Peter Navarro are confirmed as speaking. But that’s no surprise given Trump has repeatedly celebrated and defended the Jan. 6 terrorists calling them “patriots” and vowing to pardon those convicted of crimes— including those “who assaulted officers.”
***
The little-known story of how slavery infiltrated California and the American west via Kevin Waite at The Conversation
More often than not, California slaveholders had the agents of the law on their side. Five of the seven justices who sat on the California Supreme Court between 1852 and 1857 hailed from the slave states. The chief justice during this period, Hugh C Murray, was a native of Missouri, known for his fierce pro-slavery views and hair-trigger temper. In San Francisco and Sacramento, he publicly assaulted anti-slavery opponents with canes and Bowie knives.
In dozens of cases, California courts ruled in favour of slaveholders and against the freedom claims of African Americans, as historian Stacey Smith has illustrated. Even previously emancipated black people were returned to those who claimed them as property.
A lack of antislavery policing allowed a slaveholding colony in San Bernardino to flourish in plain sight in the early 1850s. Mormon migrants, with at least two dozen enslaved African American in tow, built a settlement that rivalled neighbouring Los Angeles in size and, by most metrics, surpassed it in agricultural output. Only in 1856 did the settlement’s largest slaveholder come to trial, and only because he attempted to leave the state with his 14 enslaved labourers.
