California Ballot Interpretation

Here I’m going to interpret the California ballot into easier to read information. I have had to interpret the ballot initiatives for several friends so I’m going to post my interpretations here. If you want to see my personal beliefs on these items, I’ll be posting a subsequent post on my opinions. Here I will only be going over the California propositions, not the people running for office or any part of the federal or local ballots.

Proposition 14

Proposition 14 is a continuation ballot measure which will continue funding the California stem cell research facility. This proposition will sell $5.5 billion to “stem cell and other medical research, including training; research facility construction; administrative costs.” This funding will fund the research for 30 years at $260 million per year. The selling of these bonds will cost the California tax payers $7.8 billion dollars. The money will go toward research treating Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy, and other diseases and afflictions of the brain and nervous system. The in-favor argument states the funding provides for research in vital areas which are actively unlocking treatments and cures for deadly diseases. The against argument states the sale of bonds will only increase the California state debt which cannot be paid down as it is.

Proposition 15

This proposition will change the way property taxes are assessed on new commercial property (businesses). Currently taxes are assessed based on the sale price, this proposition will change it to be the actual current value of the property. The proposed schedule would raise between $6.5 and $11.5 billion dollars from new property taxes on businesses. The in-favor argument states the money raised will be able to fund local governments, primary and secondary schools, and community colleges. The in-favor argument states commercial property owners of property worth over $3 million are dodging taxes and the money would be able to help local schools a great deal. The argument against states this proposition repeals the protections guaranteed in Proposition 13 which limits the amount property taxes can be made at.

Proposition 16

This is a constitutional amendment to the California Constitution which would remove the non-discrimination statement from the constitution, allowing the California government (including state, county, and city governments, as well as all state-funded schools) to consider immutable characteristics when hiring and promoting people. There is no proposed fiscal impacts, but that may change in the future based on local and state agencies needing to spend more money on hiring and promoting specific people. The in-favor argument states removing the non-discrimination statement will allow equal opportunity to all Californians in hiring and promotions. The against argument states this allows the state to openly discriminate should they decide and the non-discrimination statement actually ensures equal rights.

Proposition 17

This is another constitutional amendment which will amend the California constitution which will restore voting rights to former inmates as soon as they are released from prison. The costs will be borne by the counties for voter registration forms and ballot information (the stuff you get around election time every year). This amendment is targeted at people on parole as they are not in prison anymore. The in-favor argument states this encourages former inmates to re-enter society by getting them invested in civic life. The argument against states this proposition restores voting rights to those who have committed serious and violent crimes as they are the only ones who get parole based on a 1974 vote and California shifting non-violent criminals to county jails where you are not eligible for parole.

Proposition 18

This is another constitutional amendment which would amend the California constitution to allow people who would be 18 at the time of the general election to vote in primaries even if they are not 18 at the time of the primary. This measure would increase costs to the counties in registration of 17 year olds who would be 18 at the time of the general election to send ballot materials for primary votes. Currently, if a 17 year old were to be 18 by the time of the general election, they can register to vote before the age of 18. This amendment expands the current minimum voter age which those people can vote to the primary elections every other year. The in-favor argument states the need to allow some 17 year olds will get them engaged in civic life earlier. The against argument states because 17 year olds cannot participate in public life, they should not be enfranchised at all.

Proposition 19

Another constitutional amendment which would allow seniors, the disabled, or those who’s homes are destroyed by wildfires to transfer their primary residence’s property tax assessment to a new property or the rebuilt property. This also limits the transfer of property between family members; and expands benefits for transfers of family farms. Any savings will be spent on fire protection services. This amendment will allow people (primarily those who’s homes were destroyed in wildfires) to not have to have their rebuilt homes be assessed at a new tax value at no fault of the owner. The in-favor argument states the measure protects vulnerable people who’s homes are destroyed to continue paying their original property tax. The against argument states this is a way to revoke Proposition 13 because the lost revenue will need to be made up from somewhere which means tax increases on everyone else.

Proposition 20

This proposition would create two new crimes for theft:

• Serial theft is a crime where a person who has two or more past convictions of theft related crimes who is found guilty of a new instance of petty theft or shoplifting.
• Organized Retail Theft is where a person commits petty theft or shoplifting of items over $250 with at least one other individual.

Both of these crimes could be tried as felonies or misdemeanors. People convicted of specific misdemeanors to submit to logging their DNA with the state. The in-favor argument states the proposition would change many non-violent crimes violent crimes (such as assault with a deadly weapon, date rape, selling children for sex, etc.) and ensure serial criminals and violent offenders are held to account. The argument against states the proposition removes rehabilitation funding and prevents convicted criminals from getting the tools to reintegrate into society.

Proposition 21

This measure proposes to allow local governments to enact stricter rent control on rental homes (does not appear to affect apartments, may affect town homes) over 15 years old. This proposition has the direct intent to encourage landlords to sell rental homes to reduce the cost of homes in California. The measure does not affect those who own less than two homes. This would exempt people renting rooms in their home. The proposition writers say the economic effects are less property taxes paid by land lords, more sales taxes collected by renters, and a change in income taxes paid by land lords. The in-favor argument states this ensures lower rent, lower home costs, while protecting mom-and-pop landlords. The against argument states this is the same measure 60% of Californians rejected in 2018 because it eliminates homeowner protections, and reduces home values.

Proposition 22

This proposition seeks to exempt app-based ride-share workers from AB 5 of 2019 in regards to independent contractors. This proposition proposes to give app-based ride-share workers certain benefits based on how many hours they drive as follows:

• Payment equaling 120% of the state minimum wage.
• Limiting work time to 12 continuous hours of in-app time per 24 hours unless there is a 6 hour continuous break.
• A health care stipend for those who work 25 hours per week for a quarter equal to 82%of Covered California premiums per month.
  • If you work at least 15 hours per week you will still get some benefits
• Occupational insurance for all workers
• 30 cents per mile for wear and tear on vehicles.

All of these measurements are based on what the proposition calls “engaged time” which is from the moment of pick up to the moment of drop off. Waiting for a call does not count. The in-favor argument states by a 4:1 margin, app-based drivers want to work as independent contractors and this is a fair compromise between AB 5 and keeping independent contractors. The against argument states this is a way for Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash (the companies who wrote the proposition) to get out of providing benefits employees should get like paid sick leave, and access to unemployment.

Proposition 23

This proposition would require at least one licensed physician to be present during outpatient dialysis treatments. This physician can be a doctor or nurse practitioner. The measure also requires clinics to report infections to the state. Private clinics are also prohibited from closing or reducing services without state approval. Clinics are also prohibited from discrimination based on the individual’s insurance. The in-favor argument states this proposition requires life-saving reporting and staff in all dialysis clinics. The against argument states this measure would force more physicians out of hospitals and force more patients into emergency rooms.

Proposition 24

This proposition seeks to establish the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce Californian privacy from companies selling personally identifying information captured from various means. It increases the penalties for violating law against those under the age of 16. It also prevents businesses from retaining personal information longer than is reasonably necessary. The proposed cost is about $10 million per year to fund the agency. The in-favor argument states this measure is necessary to protect our private information from corporations. The against argument states this proposition was written by social media companies behind closed-doors and is a way to give your personal information to them.

Proposition 25

This proposition is a referendum on a 2018 law which replaces a money bail system with a system based on flight risk in the court system. The in-favor argument states a money bail system is unfair which makes poor accused stay in jail throughout the trial. The against argument states this takes away Californian’s right to pay bail and get out of jail while awaiting trial.

1. […] can be used in Chapter 21 and those in the guard like in Chapter […]

2. […] The counter to the previous two chapters is the same as any low thrust, to pass back with the…

3. 

   how much cbd drops for depression

4. 

   how many mg of cbd ointment for pain

5. 

   where can i buy cbd oil in the us