Hold Your Nose and Vote on Tuesday, November 8, 2016: Measures Submitted to the Voters

[mithriltabby]

As usual, I’ve done my research for the upcoming election and written up my notes to share with the rest of the class. I’ve given my conclusions, and invite you to come to your own. Even if we disagree on every issue, I’m happy if this saves you a headache.

San Jose Inside has A Voter’s Guide to California’s 17 Statewide Ballot Measures and Santa Clara County Voter’s Guide to All 32 Local Ballot Measures.

• Proposition 51: School Bonds. Funding for K–12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This is $9bn in bonds ($7bn to K–12, $2bn for community colleges) that will be repaid over 30 years.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on Proposition 51 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions League of Women Voters of California San Francisco Chronicle California Democratic Party Republican Party of California	San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California

  We need to invest in our schools, and it would be better to do so with fees from the developers who are making money in new construction. If this does pass, the money will tend to go to the districts that have good lobbyists rather than ones in the most need. No. (Though check Pete Rates the Propositions for a pragmatic reason to vote Yes.)
• Proposition 52: Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. The state currently charges a quality assurance fee on hospitals, which is due to expire in 2018; this fee gets us $8.1bn in federal matching funds. Each time the legislature extends it, it has to get approval from the federal government; this makes it permanent (unless the federal program goes away).

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on Proposition 52 $$$$$ San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters Planned Parenthood San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee California Democratic Party Republican Party of California Green Party of California	No on 52 $$$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions Libertarian Party of California

  Voting no doesn’t block the legislature from continuing to comply with the relevant convoluted regulations, and whenever the federal regulations are improved, it won’t require a constitutional amendment to keep up. No.
• Proposition 53: Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. Currently, if a bond pays for itself (e.g.: bridge tolls paying for bridge-building bonds), it doesn’t need approval from the voters. This would change that for projects over $2bn. This is an initiative backed by a single wealthy farmer.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 53 $$$$ Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California	No on Prop 53 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times California League of Conservation Voters California Democratic Party Green Party of California

  There are only two projects this big on the drawing board: high speed rail and the delta tunnels. This adds an extra veto point to any big project that has already gone through all the trouble of arranging a revenue stream to pay for its bonds, making our government more dysfunctional and creating yet another opportunity for people to say “no” without proposing something better. No.
• Proposition 54: Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This requires that bills and amendments are available online for 72 hours before a vote can be held on them (with exceptions for emergencies like authorizing funding for a natural disaster) and that public meetings of the legislature are recorded and available online within 24 hours. All the money for this one came from billionaire Republican Charles Munger Jr.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 54 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters League of Women Voters of California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California	Vote No on Prop 54 California Democratic Party

  While there’s an argument that increased transparency is harming our government by preventing deal-making that can satisfy both parties even if it’s doing things that the extremist base hates, I would rather have more transparency and work on solving the voter-apathy problem than less transparency and laws being passed without watchdogs being able to keep an eye on them. Similarly, the opponents claim that this will increase the power of special interest to lobby against bills before they can be passed— but they also allow citizen watchdog groups to see the same things. Yes.
• Proposition 55: Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This extends the Proposition 30 tax increase on top earners (approved in 2012, expires in 2018) through 2030. It does not extend the sales tax increase. Politifact California rates the “prevents $4bn in new cuts to our schools” argument as mostly false.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Protecting California $$$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters Planned Parenthood League of Women Voters of California ACLU of Southern California San Jose Mercury Sacramento Bee California League of Conservation Voters California Democratic Party Green Party of California	Oppose Prop 55 San Francisco Chronicle Los Angeles Times Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  This amendment is kicking the can down the road instead of making our legislature face up to the need to actually fix the tax code. Proposition 30 was supposed to be temporary; eighteen years is not “temporary”. I’m fine with a return to the top marginal tax rates that built the interstate highway system and the Apollo program, if we want to go that far, but let’s not give our legislature cover for not doing its job of finding a long term solution. No.
• Proposition 56: Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This taxes E-cigarettes and increases the taxes on regular cigarettes. It’s expected to decrease state income by $1bn as people quit smoking. Loads of opposing money from the tobacco manufacturers, of course. Politifact California rates the “cheats schools out of at least $600m” argument as mostly false.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 56 $$$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters ACLU of Southern California Planned Parenthood San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee California League of Conservation Voters Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter California Democratic Party Green Party of California	No on Proposition 56 $$$$$ Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  Raising prices on tobacco is proven to reduce its use, and our current tax is much lower than other states’. Yes.
• Proposition 57: Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This increases the number of inmates eligible for parole consideration (if they were convicted of nonviolent crimes) and improves opportunities for rehabilitation. Juveniles need a hearing in juvenile court before they can be tried as adults. PolitiFact California have rated the “this will put more Brock Turners on the streets” argument from the opposition as Mostly False and Loretta Sanchez’ “get out of jail free” argument as False.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 57 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions ACLU of Southern California San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters League of Women Voters of California San Francisco Chronicle Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee California Democratic Party Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California	No on 57 San Jose Mercury Republican Party of California

  This creates more opportunities to rehabilitate nonviolent criminals and reduce overcrowding in our prisons. Yes.
• Proposition 58: English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This gives schools more flexibility in offering bilingual education programs.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 58 $$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters League of Women Voters of California ACLU of Southern California Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter San Francisco Chronicle Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee California Democratic Party Green Party of California	Keep English for the Children San Jose Mercury Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  One of the exceptional things about the United States of America is that we’re good at assimilating immigrants. (Terrorists like al-Qaeda and Da’esh hate that because they want to divide the world up.) This proposition plays to that strength. Yes.
• Proposition 59: Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 59 $$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters ACLU of Southern California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Sacramento Bee California League of Conservation Voters Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter California Democratic Party Green Party of California	League of Women Voters of California Los Angeles Times

  This is an advisory vote that has no direct effect. It indicates to the legislature that the people of California support action to overturn the Citizens United decision that permits unregulated spending in elections by corporations, so if an amendment were to be proposed to the US Constitution, this would indicate that the voters of California would want it ratified. The League of Women Voters are troubled by the notion that stripping corporations of personhood could also threaten First Amendment protections for freedom of the press and citizen watchdog groups. It’s a good thing this is an advisory measure that can be implemented by human beings who can pay careful attention to such nuances. Yes.
• Proposition 60: Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. Politifact California rates the “would put workers in the adult film industry at risk for lawsuits and harassment” as half true.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 60 $$$$	$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee California Democratic Party Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  There are already workplace safety regulations for porn; this kind of overkill would likely drive producers underground where there’s no regulation at all, as well as wasting our tax dollars on dealing with frivolous lawsuits. No.
• Proposition 61: State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 61 $$$$	No on Prop 61 $$$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California

  The underlying idea is good, but the implementation is flawed. This could backfire in many interesting ways, including raising drug prices for veterans. No.
• Proposition 62: Death Penalty. Initiative Statute. This would eliminate the death penalty in California, which will save $150m each year. Whichever of 62 or 66 gets the most votes takes effect. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. Politifact rates the “largest death row population in the Western Hemisphere” claim as true.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 62 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters League of Women Voters of California ACLU of Southern California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times California Democratic Party Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California	No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66 $$$$ Republican Party of California

  While I think that there are crimes that would merit the death penalty if we had absolute knowledge of guilt and innocence, our existing legal system is too error-prone to wield such power. Yes.
• Proposition 63: Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. Mother Jones. This one is a bit complicated because the legislature has already passed bills that will modify this proposition, should it take effect, so you need to read the legislative analyst’s work if you want to get the details.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on Prop 63 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters League of Women Voters of California California Democratic Party	Stop the Ammo Grab $$$ Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  The intransigence of the gun lobby prevents more sensible forms of regulation, and it is currently far too easy for unhinged people to commit mass shootings. A recent study shows that gun control laws are successful in reducing gun violence. Yes.
• Proposition 64: Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This legalizes recreational marijuana at age 21 and makes marijuana-related crimes eligible for resentencing or amending records.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 64 $$$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters ACLU of Southern California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times California League of Conservation Voters California Democratic Party Green Party of California	No on 64 $$$ Sacramento Bee Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  This is a statute that can be quickly amended by the state legislature if it needs tweaking. It frees up both prison space and police attention. Illegal marijuana growers do a lot of environmental damage, so this is good for the environment as well. Yes.
• Proposition 65: Carryout Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. If this passes, any fees collected from a statewide plastic bag ban will go to a wildlife conservation fund. If 67 passes, the statewide ban will remain in effect; if 67 fails, there will be no statewide ban, but any future ban’s fees will go to the fund. The money for the proposition comes from plastic bag manufacturers.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  $$$$ Republican Party of California	San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters Pete Rates the Propositions League of Women Voters of California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California

  This means that grocery stores that were previously able to take the money they charged for bags to pay for the bags must now give all that money to a wildlife conservation fund, resulting in a loss for grocery stores. No.
• Proposition 66: Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. This would streamline the death penalty process so it happens faster, and eliminate special death row housing, which will save money. Whichever of 62 or 66 gets the most votes takes effect.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66 $$$$ Republican Party of California	No on Prop 66 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters ACLU of Southern California League of Women Voters of California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times California Democratic Party Libertarian Party of California Green Party of California

  Our justice system is too error-prone; we don’t need to make it easier to kill people by mistake. No.
• Proposition 67: Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum. Ballotpedia. Voter’s Edge. The California legislature banned plastic bags statewide in 2014. The opposition money comes from the same group of plastic bag manufacturers as are supporting 65.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on 67 $$$$ Pete Rates the Propositions San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters League of Women Voters of California San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Los Angeles Times Sacramento Bee California League of Conservation Voters Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter California Democratic Party Green Party of California	$$$$ Republican Party of California Libertarian Party of California

  This is a referendum, so if it passes, it means that existing legislation takes effect, and if it fails, that legislation is vetoed. It has no effect anywhere that has a local bag ban. Yes.
• Measure A: Santa Clara County Affordable Housing Bond Measure. Voter’s Edge. This tackles both homelessness (using techniques that worked in Utah) and the housing shortage by levying a small parcel tax ($12.66 per $100,000 of assessed value) to create homes for the homeless (which saves a lot of money because they consume far fewer emergency services), affordable housing for people who are having trouble with local property prices, and assistance for first-time home buyers. It has strong oversight provisions. It needs a ⅔ majority to pass.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on A Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter San Jose Mercury Palo Alto Online Santa Clara County Democratic Party Democratic Club of Sunnyvale	Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County

  We need to tackle the housing crisis, and all analyses I can find suggest this will be effective in doing so. Yes.
• Measure B: Santa Clara County VTA Tax Measure. Voter’s Edge. This is an effort to relieve the county’s problems with traffic congestion by levying a ½¢ sales tax for thirty years. It has everything from finishing the BART extension to San Jose, pothole repair to fixing congested interchanges to improving bicycle and pedestrian safety to grade separation that will cut down on stoplights on expressways. What it isn’t doing is naive road-widening, which just raises demand. It needs a ⅔ majority to pass.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on Measure B San Francisco Chronicle San Jose Mercury Palo Alto Online Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters Santa Clara County Democratic Party	No on B Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County

  This is more tricky to judge, as sales taxes fall more heavily on the poor than parcel taxes; they polled the different forms of funding and a sales tax is the only one that had a chance of passing. (Potholes are also a tax, paid at the repair shop.) Facilitating cars on the road means more pollution, but car engines are less efficient at gridlock speeds, which also means more pollution. What ultimately persuaded me is that the VTA is deeply connected to the rest of the local governments; this is the result of some heavy-duty wonks working together to solve problems. While I understand the Sierra Club’s position that it would be better to do this with more concentration on mass transit, I expect we’re more likely to get a fleet of self-driving cars, commuter vans coordinating through ride-sharing services, and other such innovations first, and those will make use of our road infrastructure. The falling price of solar power and electrical storage will make it easier for those vehicles to generate no carbon emissions. Yes.
• Measure M. Voter’s Edge. Requires a citywide election for numerous routine operations, such as extending leases; it is so poorly written that lawyers disagree over whether it applies to one-day rentals, which means it could waste tax dollars on litigation in addition to costing taxpayers from $41,000 to $700,000 per year for the election costs. The San Jose Mercury compares it to two similar propositions in other cities.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Yes on Measure M	No on M San Jose Mercury Santa Clara County League of Conservation Voters Santa Clara County Democratic Party Democratic Club of Sunnyvale Councilman Jim Griffith

  In software engineering terms, this is well-intentioned code that was created with insufficient unit test coverage, and will create very expensive bugs (which will require another election to fix) if pushed to production. I’d like to see the Measure M supporters come back in 2018 with legislation modeled on Santa Clara’s Measure R and Milpitas’ Measure K. No.
• Measure N: Sunnyvale Essential Services Protection Measure. Voter’s Edge.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  San Jose Mercury	Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County

  This catches up our utility tax from the telephone era to the modern one, matching neighboring cities. Yes.
• Measure BB: Sunnyvale School District Parcel Tax. Voter’s Edge.

  Supported by	Opposed by
  Santa Clara County Democratic Party	Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County

  Renews an existing $59/year parcel tax that helps our local schools, which in turn makes my home’s value higher. Yes.

Comments

[kalimac.livejournal.com]

Measure M supporters claim heatedly that the supposed bugs in their measure are not there, and that claims of their existence are disinformation spread by evil opponents. But the opponents have a neutral authority behind their position, the report filed to the city by city-manager consultants, and the supporters' declarations on their website and literature offer no authority saying that they're right.

So I wrote to the supporters e-mail, asking who told them that their measure lacked these flaws, and how they knew that this person knew more than the consultants did. I got back a reply referring me back to the website declarations. So I wrote back again and repeated that I wanted to know how they knew this. No answer. (It's been well over a week.)

So I can best conclude that they know nothing: they just looked it over with their laymen's eyes and said "It looks fine to me." If it passes, and the city decides not to put some leases on the ballot, we'll just have to hope nobody files suit against the city for not following the other interpretation.

So, a "No" on this one, even though I support the measure's stated goals.

It reminds me of the uncertainty of whether 65 would invalidate 67, if they both pass but 65 gets more votes. The voter guide chart says 67 would still go into effect, but there's a footnote saying there could be a suit to invalidate 67. Well, I'm not taking that chance.
It reminds me a lot

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Wow, I see California politics remains similar to then I lived there 20 years ago. Living in California and Oregon with their many ballot measures cured me of any belief in the utility and justice of direct democracy, but these days Oregon non-bond measure ballot measures are mostly a mixture of kooky stuff that has no chance of passing and awesome bills like the current measure 97 that solves state funding by significant tax increases on large corporations. More than half of the measures you mention are a total mess. Good luck on the pot legalization and death penalty ban though, those would be excellent.

[mithriltabby]

How are you liking Oregon’s vote-by-mail? I’m hoping that 2017 will be a good time for a #NoMoreTrumps initiative, and having all the voters weigh in on primaries rather than the ones who want to take the time to go to the polls could help with that.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Vote by mail is vastly superior to having to walk down to a voting both and seems to work really well for increasing voter turnout (although not by much). Also, it guarantees paper ballots (which are typically read by non-networked optical scanners), so it's also superior from a safety perspective. I'd love to see it instituted nationally.

I’m hoping that 2017 will be a good time for a #NoMoreTrumps initiative, and having all the voters weigh in on primaries rather than the ones who want to take the time to go to the polls could help with that.

That depends upon whether the bulk of the Republican base is OK with having the GOP turn into a hard core nationalist party like Britain's UKIP or France's National Front. Most of the fundys seems ambivalent and most of the non-fundy Republicans seem to support this change. If he loses badly enough (which seems increasingly likely), the big GOP donors will push from some way of reversing this change, but it's unclear if they will succeed.

If that's what happens to the GOP, I want them to pick more blowhard idiots, since a competent racist demagogue with dictatorial ambitions who doesn't conveniently have a cemetery full of skeletons in his closet is an even more terrifying prospect.