But I figured since I already had this blog set up that I would use this as a place to post my thoughts on the ballot initiatives in California for the November 2016 election.
I will insert a break here so that you can avoid the politics easily if you want to. :)
Prop 51 - School Bonds
What it does
$9 billion authorized, but $3 billion is dedicated to new K-12
construction ONLY. Why? The student population is expected to decline
and there are lots of schools that need renovation that could be used instead
of building new.
Also bars amendment to ability to levy developer fees until new construction bond funds are spent
or 2020, whichever is earlier.
My take
Nearly all funding for the ballot comes from the building industry.
They have spent nearly $11 million and would get a $3 billion
guaranteed benefit from this proposition PLUS a limit on ability of the
government to raise developer fees.
My vote = NO
Prop 52 - Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program
What it does
Extends the Medi-Cal hospital fee that already exists. It freezes the 2013 law that was used to set
up the fee without a 2/3's vote of the legislature.
My take
The Legislature could do this on its own without a proposition, so
why is a proposition being put forward?
Adding the 2/3's vote requirement usually means that the law can't ever
be changed given politics in California.
So why prevent the Legislature from having the ability to do its
job? Why prevent the Legislature from
having the ability to react to changing situations or improve the existing law?
The key benefit gained
from freezing the 2013 law is that the hospital fee can never be raised, which
means that in the future the private hospitals may never have to contribute
more to support the Medi-Cal program they directly benefit from (by treating
Medi-Cal patients and billing Medi-Cal).
And that explains why this measure
is funded almost entirely by the private health care industry. Let the Legislature do their job and decide
how to manage the Medi-Cal program.
My vote = NO
Prop 53 - Revenue Bonds
What it does
Requires the state to get voter approval for any revenue bond
project that exceeds $2 billion in bonds, when right now the state does not
need voter approval. This includes not
just fully state-owned projects but those that are joint-owned by the state and
federal government or state and local government.
My take
Revenue bonds are often used for infrastructure projects (bridges,
dams, water infrastructure). So
requiring state-wide voter approval for those seems like a bad idea, especially
when there is no voter approval needed now and the funds to pay back revenue
bonds come from the users of the thing that was built (e.g. via bridge tolls,
etc.) NOT the state general fund.
This initiative was entirely funded
by one wealthy person who thinks that "debt is immoral" and
who is trying to use the ballot system to impose their ideas on others. It makes zero sense to me.
My vote = NO
Prop 54 - Changes to the Legislative Process
What it does
Requires the legislature to print and make available to members,
and to post to the internet, the full and final text of any proposed bill for
at least 72 hours before it can be voted upon.
There are exceptions in place to allow for shorter passage in
emergencies.
It also requires the legislature to record all of their sessions
(with some specific exceptions) and post them to the internet with 24 hours,
and keep the available for at least 20 years.
Current law prohibits the use of any recordings of legislative sessions
for campaign or commercial purposes, this removes that restriction.
My take
The initiative is funded almost entirely by Charlie Munger, but is
endorsed by a who's who of organizations inlcuding the League of Women Voters,
First Amendment Coalition, California Common Cause, California Chamber of
Commerce, California chapter of the NAACP, and more.
Personally, I think this is long overdue.
My vote = Yes
Prop 55 - Extends Prop 30 Tax Increase for 12 more
years
What it does
Extends the additional tax rates imposed on incomes over ~$263,000
by Prop 30 that are due to expire this year for 12 more years. The funds are guaranteed to go to education
(~55%), Medi-Cal (~20%), other Health & Human Services (~10%), and other
expenses including increasing the budget reserve and paying down debt.
My take
Prop 30 was posed to voters as temporary measure for a specific
purpose. And while I don't like the fact
that the state's top tax rate would be the same for everyone earning $52,000 or
more I don't think that schools really need that much more constitutionally
guaranteed funding given all the bond measures and other funds raised for them
over the years. Schools already get
about 30% of all state revenues, which is ridiculous in my opinion. It should be less from the state and more
from the local level.
I think we should have higher taxes on the highest incomes, but I
would rather than money go to the general fund where the Legislature can
allocate it dynamically based on need.
My vote = No
Prop 56 - Tobacco Tax
What it does
Increases the cigarette tax by $2 a pack (on top of the current
$0.10 per pack rate) with equivalent increases on other tobacco products and
e-cigarettes containing nicotine.
The resulting funds would first be used to reimburse existing
initiatives that are funded by tobacco taxes if smoking decreases; allocates
some fixed amounts to state agencies for purposes of enforcement, physician
training, and auditing (of the program funds which is required by the
proposition); with the majority of the remaining funds going to Medi-Cal and
the minority to tobacco control programs and tobacco-related disease research
in the UC system.
My take
Opposition funding is almost entirely from big tobacco companies
of course.
If smoking only ever impacted the smoker, I wouldn't care. But the long-term costs of smoking are
largely born by other individuals in the form of higher health-insurance rates
and higher taxes (to cover smoking-related health issues of those who don't
have health care).
My vote = Yes
Prop 57 - Parole, Sentencing, and Court Procedures
What it does
Has two main effects:
Increases the opportunities for parole "non-violent felons"
and requires that juveniles cannot be tried as an adult unless referred to
adult court by a juvenile court judge (taking this decision away from
prosecutors or from being automatically applied).
My take
The main criticism of this proposition is that it fails to
identify specific felonies as "non-violent", but that fails to take
into account that as noted by the legislative analyst that felonies are
designated "violent" by statute.
So if there are crimes that might fall under this that people are
unhappy about they can be removed from consideration by statute making them
"violent". In other words,
it's up the legislature to decide what is "violent", not some list
written into the state constitution.
I'm not a big fan of "mandatory sentencing" type laws,
so that's my bias against. In my opinion
that is why we elect judges, district attorneys and legislators; to make
decisions and to be held accountable.
My vote = Yes
Prop 58 - English Language Education
What it does
Proposition 227, passed in 1998, imposed certain restricted the
way California public schools teach English learners: 1) Classroom instruction
must be in English only; 2) special materials may be used to improve language
skills and make instruction more understandable; 3) pupils receive special,
intensive English instruction for just one year before moving into English-only
classes; and 4) enrollment in a bilingual program requires a waiver signed by a
parent.
Prop. 58 would repeal key provisions of Proposition 227 and add a
few new provisions regarding English language instruction. Prop. 58 would remove the requirement that
English learners must be taught only in English. It would allow a variety of
programs including bilingual instruction, none of which would require a
parental waiver. Community participation
would be increased: the annual planning process would include soliciting input
from parents and community members as to how English learners should be
taught. If parental requests for certain
programs reached specified levels, the school would have to provide those
programs to the extent possible. Removing the restrictions of Proposition 227
would mean that native English speakers would also be able to learn a language
other than their home language.
This measure could be amended by a statute approved by a vote of
the electorate, or by a majority vote of each house of the legislature and
signed by the governor.
My take
Not surprisingly, this proposition is funded mostly by various
teachers and school groups. But it is
also does not have any organized opposition.
I'm in favor of more flexibility in language learning and in theory this
change could allow public schools to offer immersion education in languages
other than English which would benefit English-language households. I know friends of mine who want this for the
kids have to turn to private schools because it's not available in public
schools.
My vote = Yes
Prop 59 - Political Spending Advisory Question
What it does
Before 2010, unions and corporations had limits on the amount of
money they could spend on political campaigns. In 2010, the United States
Supreme Court ruled that corporations are the same as individuals when it comes
to political spending (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission). This
court decision allows unions and corporations to spend unlimited money on
political advertisements before an election. Supreme Court decisions can be
changed by amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If the U.S. Congress starts the
process of making an amendment, at least 38 state Legislatures need to agree
with it.
A “yes” vote on Prop 59 asks California’s state lawmakers to do
everything in their power to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United
decision. Because Prop 59 is an advisory question, it only provides lawmakers
with public feedback. Voting “yes” or “no” does not guarantee that the U.S.
Congress or state lawmakers will move to amend the U.S. Constitution.
My take
Personally, I think Citizens United was a horrible decision. This proposition is "Advisory" and
so has no immediate effect, but it serves as a notice of the public sentiment
in hopes of changing things.
My vote = Yes
Prop 60 - Condoms in Adult Films
What it does
If passed, Adult film producers would be required to make sure
condoms are used while filming vaginal and anal sex. Adult film producers would
be required to get a license and provide information to the state about their
film shoots. These requirements would apply to pornography produced by film
studios, as well as by individual performers or couples. The state’s workplace
safety agency would have more time to investigate and fine adult film producers
that do not use condoms. Adult film
distributors and talent agents could also face liability for violations. California residents would also be allowed to sue
adult film producers for not using condoms if the state failed to take action.
My take
Condom use is already required by Cal/OSHA. Yet the main
impact seems to have less do to with preventing AIDS than letting private
attorneys gain a bunch of new potential lawsuits. This seems born out in the legislative
analysts note that "If the individual prevails, he or she would be able to
recover their legal costs and receive 25 percent of any penalties paid by a
defendant in such a lawsuit, with the rest being paid to the state." The idea that this is a money-grab and not
about reducing AIDS seems supported by this statement as well: "The measure provides that its penalties
will not apply to adult film performers or employees, so long as those
individuals have no financial interest in a film and are not producers of the
film." If you are really trying to
reduce AIDS, why are employees not liable?
This proposition is funded entirely by the "Coalition to
Preserve LA, Sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation".
In the end this seems like an attempt by a local LA group to
either force the pornography industry out of the state by letting them engage
in an endless series of private lawsuits on behalf of the state. It's also opposed by both the CA Democratic
and Republican Parties, which ought to at least make you a bit suspicious.
My vote = No
Prop 61 - State Prescription Drug Purchases
What it does
If passed, State agencies would not be allowed to pay more than
the Department of Veterans Affairs pays for a particular medication. Prop 61
would apply to most state agencies, except the
state’s “managed care system,” which covers 75 percent of people on Medi-Cal.
My take
As one review I read on this says, "The measure puts the
burden on the state to pay no more than the lowest VA prices. It doesn’t force
the drug companies to agree to those prices." Which means a very-possible outcome of this
proposition is drugs companies simply refusing to sell to the state. It's also important to note that the measure
exempts most of Medi-Cal (meaning 70%+ of state spending on Medi-Cal drugs
would not be impacted by this measure), but specifically DOES include
California's AIDS Drug Assistance Program.
Given that the VA best prices are often not published and that
Medi-Cal could be forced to ignore the law in order to comply with federal
requirements that it provide certain treatments, this proposition seems most
likely to end up being fought over in court for years or decades to come. So the proposition is not only not guaranteed
to have any positive effects, it might negative effects.
This measure was financially supported almost entirely by the AIDS
Healtcare Foundation (just like Prop 60).
So it's worth noting that they are reimbursed under Medi-Cal as a
managed-care provider and thus exempt from this proposition. But the California's AIDS Drug Assistance
Program is specifically included and thus likely to face higher costs (if drug
companies simply raise their prices) or reduced ability to serve (if drug
companies simply refuse to sell to the state).
Yes, the financial opposition to this proposition is almost
entirely funded by the drug companies.
But you have to wonder why an AIDS non-profit is spending almost $15
million to push a proposition that is so poorly constructed that it is almost
guaranteed to have negative side-effects?
Maybe the fact that the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is the largest
supplier of HIV and AIDS medical care might have something to do with it? And the fact that they have been accused of
bilking Medicare and Medicade of over $20 million in a federal court says
nothing about them either (so I can't be sued for that last comment, I didn't
accuse them of that, CBS did. See
here: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/aids-healthcare-foundation-accused-scamming-medicare-medicaid-millions/)
Surely, better language for a proposition would have been to
forbid drug companies from selling into the state unless they offered drugs to
the state at a matching price to the VA or their lowest offer?
My vote = No
Prop 62 - Death Penalty
What it does
Prop. 62 would end the death penalty in California and would
retroactively apply to inmates currently on death row. Their sentences would
automatically be changed to life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole. Any currently pending appeals not related to the death penalty in these
cases would be sent to the lower courts responsible for hearing
non-death-penalty appeals.
All inmates sentenced to life without parole would be required to
work, and the maximum amount of their earnings that could be used for
reparations would be raised from 50 to 60 percent.
The Legislative Analyst estimates that Prop. 62 would save the
state approximately $150 million annually. These savings would result from
shorter trials, fewer appeals, and reduced prison costs based on the
elimination of separate death row facilities
My take
As stated in the voting guide, "Since 1978, California has
sentenced 930 people to death but performed only 13 executions, at an average
cost of $384 million per execution."
Take that with the Legislative Analyst's opinion above that this would
save about $150 million a year and the only reason to vote "No" is if
you think being executed is worse than rotting in prison for the rest of your
life. Which, by the way, is what happens
to most people on death row already.
Add in that given the raft of information that has come out in the
last few decades on wrongful convictions and it is almost a certainty that 1 or
more innocent people have been put to death in the U.S., and possibly in
California. Unless you can guarantee
that the criminal justice process is 100% accurate all the time, I can't
morally support the idea of a death penalty any more. Whether you can is up to you.
My vote = Yes
Prop 63 - Gun and Ammunition Sales
What it does
Prop. 63 includes various regulations related to the sale of
ammunition, some of which would replace existing law. Individuals would have to
obtain, and pay for, a four-year permit from the DOJ to buy ammunition, dealers
would have to check that buyers have such permits, and the permits would be
revoked from persons who become prohibited.
Persons convicted of stealing a firearm would be prohibited from
possessing firearms. A new court process
would be set up to ensure that those prohibited individuals don’t continue to
have firearms, and new reporting requirements would be established. The maximum penalty for possession of large
capacity magazines would be increased.
Also requires the reporting of lost or stolen guns law enforcement.
My take
This one probably comes down to how you feel about guns. Personally, I think guns should be treated
more like cars. Every one has to be
registered, it's location known, pass regular inspections, owners should be
required to carry insurance against misuse and accidents, and using one without
a license is punishable offense.
My vote = Yes
Prop 64 - Making Recreational Marijuana Legal
What it does
- Legalizes marijuana under state law, for use by adults 21 or older.
- Designates state agencies to license and regulate marijuana industry.
- Imposes state excise tax of 15% on retail sales of marijuana, and state cultivation taxes on marijuana of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves.
- Exempts medical marijuana from some taxation.
- Establishes packaging, labeling, advertising, and marketing standards and restrictions for marijuana products.
- Prohibits marketing and advertising marijuana directly to minors.
- Allows local regulation and taxation of marijuana.
- Authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions.
My take
I have long thought marijuana ought to be treated just like
tobacco, alcohol, and other legal drugs.
This seems like that step from everything I can find. And I don't see any significant issues with
the proposition.
My vote = Yes
Prop 65 - Money from Carry-Out Bags
What it does
Proposition 65 would redirect money collected by stores through
the sale of reusable bags, whenever any state law bans free distribution of
single-use bags and mandates the sale of any other kind of carry-out bag.
Proposition 65 would create a new state fund, administered by the Wildlife
Conservation Board, and require stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into that
fund to support certain environmental projects. Proposition 65 would only be
implemented if the Legislature’s bag ban is upheld by the voters’ approval of
Proposition 67, or if a future, similar, bag ban is passed.
Proposition 65 would apply statewide, including to the
approximately 150 California cities and counties that have their own single-use
carryout bag laws.
If both Proposition 65 and 67 pass,
the one with the most votes would prevail. Thus, if Proposition 67 receives the
most votes, the 10-cent fee would be retained by the stores; if Proposition 65
receives the most votes, the 10-cent fee would go to the environmental fund.
My take
While Prop 67 allows stores to "keep the money" it also
requires that it can only be used in certain ways. Those ways are: "… use the proceeds to
cover the costs of providing carryout bags, complying with the measure, and
educational efforts to encourage the use of reusable bags."
So the main intent of this proposition seems to be to prevent the
stores from using the money that way, which as I stated above includes
"educational efforts to encourage the use of reusable bags". So who would want to prevent that
education? Why, the backers of this
proposition, the plastic bag industry!
My vote = No
Prop 66 - Death Penalty Court Procedures
What it does
- Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences.
- Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions.
- Establishes time frame for state court death penalty review.
- Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals.
- Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.
- Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons.
- Increases portion of condemned inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution.
- The measure eliminates the Habeas Corpus Resources Center’s five-member board of directors and requires the California Supreme Court to oversee the center. The measure also requires that the center’s attorneys be paid at the same level as attorneys at the Office of the State Public Defender, as well as limits its legal activities.
- States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.
My take
That last bullet above is the one that really matters. This proposition is really an attempt to void
Prop 62 if it passes
But in addition to that it has a number of other problems:
- Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. So it tries to speed up death penalty appeals by forcing lawyers who may not be qualified to represent those sentenced to death.
- Requires Habeas Corpus petitions to be filed within 1 year of an appealing attorney being appointed. Which means this new attorney who gets an appeal has 1 year to digest an entire legal process that probably took years itself (crime investigation, prosecution processes, court processes, and sentencing processes) and do any follow-up investigation needed in order to evaluate and write a habeas corpus petition.
- Requires Habeas Corpus process to be completed within 5 years of sentencing. So no matter what evidence comes to light later (and as we're seeing evidence of misconduct, faulty investigations, and other issues often come to light decades later). No matter how booked the courts already are with other matters. A petition must be complete in 5 years or the convicted in out of luck. That's a recipe for killing innocent people right there.
- Requires that attorneys at the state Habeas Corpus Resource Center be paid no more than a Public Defender. These are currently highly-specialized attorneys who work only on death penalty cases and who train other attorney's in how to defend them. Public Defenders are among the lowest-paid and most overworked attorneys in government. Basically, this is an attempt to essentially destroy the Habeas Corpus Resource Center and make it ineffective.
- Includes this gem: "No licensing board, department, commission, or accreditation agency that oversees or regulates the practice of health care or certifies or licenses health care
professionals may deny or revoke a license or certification,
censure, reprimand, suspend, or take any other disciplinary action against any
licensed health care professional for any
action authorized by this section." Why is that there? Well, because: "A physician may attend an execution for
the purpose of pronouncing death and may provide advice to
the department for the purpose of developing an execution protocol
…" and "… any pharmacist, or supplier, compounder, or manufacturer of
pharmaceuticals is authorized to dispense drugs and supplies to the secretary
or the secretary’s designee, without prescription, for carrying out the
provisions of this chapter."
Meaning, if you assist the government in killing someone in way that
your licensing or accreditation board decides is unethical or not in compliance
with their stated practice, you can't be punished.
Basically, this is a train wreck trying to speed up executions in
the state by making them easier to do and by eliminating the rights of those
convicted. Are most of them among the
worst of humanity? You bet. But some of them are almost guaranteed to be
innocent and this only makes it more likely that they will be killed.
My vote = No
Prop 67 - Plastic Bag Ban
What it does
In 2014, the California Legislature passed, and the governor
signed, Senate Bill (SB 270), a law that prohibited certain retail stores
statewide from providing single-use carryout bags to customers. The law,
sometimes known as “the plastic bag ban,” also prohibited the stores from
selling or distributing a recycled paper bag at the point of sale unless the
stores charged at least 10 cents per bag. The law required stores to retain the
money collected from bag sales and to use the money only for specified
purposes, such as covering the cost of providing carryout bags. SB 270 would
have gone into effect on July 1, 2015; however, its implementation was
suspended in February 2015 when this referendum qualified for the state ballot.
Proposition 67 is a referendum that asks voters to approve or
reject SB 270. A YES vote on Proposition 67 means that SB 270 will go into
effect. A NO vote means that SB 270 will not go into effect.
My take
As I stated in the Prop 65 notes above, stores can
"keep" the money from the 10 cent charge, but they are required to
use that money "… to cover the costs of providing carryout bags, complying
with the measure, and educational efforts to encourage the use of reusable
bags." And low-income households
are exempted from the 10 cent charge so the poor won't be hit.
No reason to vote against this in my opinion.
My vote = Yes
No comments:
Post a Comment