California November 2022 Propositions
- PROP 1: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- PROP 26: ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
- PROP 27: ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
- PROP 28: PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- PROP 29: REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- PROP 30: PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
- PROP 31: REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
Only 7 statewide propositions this year! And most of them are easy. I feel like the teacher forgot to assign homework. I still need to fill out the ballot though so here is my traditional voter guide:
PROP 1: CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO REPRODUCTIVE FREEDOM. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Yes. This only really makes a statement, but it's worth making given the fundamental corruption of a Supreme Court which is now just an emblem of the failure of the American political system to represent the people who live here.
PROP 26: ALLOWS IN-PERSON ROULETTE, DICE GAMES, SPORTS WAGERING ON TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
No. I think Californians should be allowed to gamble more freely. I'd love to see something from the legislature though, not from gaming tribes or companies. I don't understand why we use sin based indulgences to fund tribes. Gambling should be legal across the board (which I'd favor) or not at all. So getting deeper into this immoral deal is a non starter for me.
PROP 27: ALLOWS ONLINE AND MOBILE SPORTS WAGERING OUTSIDE TRIBAL LANDS. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND STATUTE.
No. I'd be more inclined to back 27, but it makes the process of qualifying so expensive and complex that only existing giant companies would benefit. So it stinks of regulatory capture. Also, positioning this as a mechanism to solve homelessness is repulsive. Homelessness is a problem that we need to make more progress on. It probably makes sense to allow more gambling in the state. But that gambling is probably going to lead to more homelessness and the funds that might be provided to address it are a small drop in a very large bucket.
PROP 28: PROVIDES ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR ARTS AND MUSIC EDUCATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. We don't need more voter mandated spending levels that constrain our ability to manage the budget in the future.
PROP 29: REQUIRES ON-SITE LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL AT KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS AND ESTABLISHES OTHER STATE REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. Same answer and rationale as 2020. Stop asking.
PROP 30: PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This will probably pass, and if so it will be the second time in two years that Lyft has been able to just buy favorable legislation. Last time it was less regulation so that it didn't have to provide benefits to its 'independent contractors' and now somehow it's more regulation so we can lower their costs.
PROP 31: REFERENDUM ON 2020 LAW THAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE RETAIL SALE OF CERTAIN FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS.
No. You can't vape mango nicotine to give up smoking at the same time as another fun addictive plant is seen as the future? I continue to believe that all drugs should be legal, taxed and regulated.
Related Posts
- California November 2016 Propositions
- California November 2020 Propositions
- California 2012 Propositions
You Might Also Like
- San Francisco 2014 Ballot Measures
- San Francisco New Year's Eve Timelapse
- Blogger Classic Templates Bugs and XHTML
2021 California Gubernatorial Recall
I just voted no to recalling Gavin Newsom. He probably shouldn't have had that mid-Pandemic party at The French Laundry, but I don't think that rises to the level of getting kicked out of office. I think we can wait for 2022 to pass judgement on his tenure.
The polling seems fairly tight right now, which is a little surprising given the Democratic lean of the state. I was tempted to leave the tedious second question unanswered, or write something stupid in, but it's possible that Newsom loses and we have to pick a new Governer. I backed Kevin Paffrath because he's going to fix homlessness in 60 days and he's the leading Democrat in the polls (and I don't believe he's going to fix homlessness). I don't want Newsom to lose but if he does I'd rather avoid the bear renter or talk radio climate skeptic.
The New York Times says:
"The vote is expected to come down to whether Democrats can mobilize enough of the state’s enormous base to counteract Republican enthusiasm for Gavin Newsom’s ouster."
But everyone is getting a postal vote. You don't even need a stamp. "Mobilize" is a bit of a stretch. If Newsom ends up sacked it's because he partied while the rest of us were bleaching our broccoli.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
- Bumpass Hell
- I don't always find droids...
- Apparently you can’t build an alternative to Facebook without Facebook integration…
California Climate Credit
Once in a while I'm stupid enough to read my email. This month I'm getting a climate credit! Must have done something right? No:
"The California Climate Credit is part of California’s efforts to fight climate change. This credit is from a state program that requires power plants, natural gas providers, and other large industries that emit greenhouse gases to buy carbon pollution permits. The credit on your bill is your share of the payments from the State’s program."
So... apparently part of fighting climate change is making my energy bill randomly cheaper?
It's hard to think of anything less likely to help. Just as I'm starting to feel the pain of winter bills I'm paying slightly less and so I'm slightly less inclined to turn down the heating or finally do something about my beautiful but effectively absent front windows.
A problem with carbon taxation is that it's regressive. So why not use this money to make the first $xx cheaper, and maybe even charge more at the high end of usage?
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
California November 2020 Propositions
A good principle for figuring out propositions is that the more money is being poured into local news ad spots the more that position is likely to be a case of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs with you on the receiving end of the costs. I mostly follow that below.
Also, I've realized that previous proposition links have rotted, because of course the state government is too busy to maintain a permalink and maybe even some history for measures that we now seem to need to vote on every two years. Maybe I need to start a proposition to fix that. Anyway...
14: AUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING STEM CELL RESEARCH.
No. CIRM doesn't seem to have delivered much since 2004, it's not a good time to add more debt obligations and I feel that we would be better off funding more basic research in universities.
15: INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.
Yes. Market rate property taxes for >$3M properties to increase school and college funding.
16: ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS.
No. Employment and education should be color blind. Affirmative action perpetuates racism. I'd rather see measures that increase opportunity rather than provide compensation.
17: RESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM.
Yes. If you have served your time then you should be participating in society again.
18: AMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE.
Yes. And I say this while recommending a no vote on San Francisco's Measure G. This is participating in a primary when you're old enough to vote the general which is different from lowering the voting age overall.
19: CHANGES CERTAIN PROPERTY TAX RULES.
No. When the person playing the firefighter in the constant ads says the puppy just won't make it unless you support the proposition you know it must stink.
20: RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY CONSIDERED TO BE NON-VIOLENT. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS.
No. Lock more people up for more time? We don't need to be spending more money on prisons. California (and the US generally) needs to be looking to reduce our dependence on locking people up (and get rid of for-profit incarceration).
21: EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS' AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
No. I'm a little torn on this one but we already have a state law controlling rent increases and the fact that Gavin opposes this prop pushes me to a no.
22: EXEMPTS APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY COMPANIES FROM PROVIDING EMPLOYEE BENEFITS TO CERTAIN DRIVERS.
No. Otherwise everyone is going to end up being contracted through an app. Maybe that's OK if we manage to fix other problems - universal health care that is unconnected to employment for instance - but right now these employees deserve the protections and rights that go with providing the service.
23: ESTABLISHES STATE REQUIREMENTS FOR KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. REQUIRES ON-SITE MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL.
No. This is an issue where I hate both sides and also hate voting the same way as the advertising. I support universal single payer healthcare and this is a vote in favor of profit driven dialysis clinics. But it's not clear that they need a doctor on site and the other side is a profit seeking union looking to muscle in. I resent being involved in the decision and default to no.
24: AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS.
No. Not until we get something that might actually work. The result of all of these privacy choice measures is that you just get an ugly banner on every website that gives you the 'choice' between continuing to share your data and jumping through baroque hoops to try and understand which cookies you need or not. So far this just makes everything worse for both businesses and consumers.
25: REFERENDUM ON LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL WITH SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY AND FLIGHT RISK
Yes. There seems to be some conflict over whether this reform is good enough, but a system where the wealthy go free and the poor are stuck in prison until trial is unfair. We need to wring the profit out of the criminal justice system and this is a reasonable step in that direction.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
- Open Democracy
- Apparently you can’t build an alternative to Facebook without Facebook integration…
- Material Design 3
Stars from Pine Mountain Lake
Timelapse of sunset and then stars shot over several nights at Pine Mountain Lake in Groveland, CA.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
Stars over Lake Tahoe
4K timelapse of stars and the Milky Way over Lake Tahoe, California.
Related Posts
- Milky Way Rises over South Lake Tahoe
- Stars from Pine Mountain Lake
- Milky Way and stars over Redding
You Might Also Like
California November 2016 Propositions
Stopping Trump is the easy part. We have seventeen statewide propositions to decide this year (and 25 city and district measures in San Francisco). Here is my guide to the California propositions:
51 School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statute.
Yes. This is around $1,125 per student to help fix up run down schools. Pretty modest impact on the state budget.
52 Medi-Cal Hospital Fee Program. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes. Ensures that California continues to get four billion dollars in Federal matching funds for Medicaid.
53 Revenue Bonds. Statewide Voter Approval. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
No. I’d like to see fewer propositions on the ballot. This is asking for a referendum on every medium to large project. What a nightmare. I want to elect representatives to handle this for me and then vote them out if they seem to be making a mess of it.
54 Legislature. Legislation and Proceedings. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes. Would require advance notice of legislation and also preserve video of proceedings for twenty years. Might stop some bad bills from getting through and will certainly provide many hours of footage to the Daily Show.
55 Tax Extension to Fund Education and Healthcare. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes. I grudgingly supported Prop 30 back in 2012. I actually preferred Prop 38 back then which seemed more balanced across income brackets and I hated the regressive sales tax component. This extension keeps the tax on the wealthy while allowing the sales tax to expire.
56 Cigarette Tax to Fund Healthcare, Tobacco Use Prevention, Research, and Law Enforcement. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes. About time California taxed tobacco more. I’d rather see the funds raised be unrestricted but this is a good cause.
57 Criminal Sentences. Parole. Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute
Yes. Stops throwing away the key on some prisoners who could be rehabilitated. Our prison population is ridiculous. Also makes it harder to send kids to adult court.
58 English Proficiency. Multilingual Education. Initiative Statute.
Yes. Makes it easier for schools to establish bilingual education programs.
59 Corporations. Political Spending. Federal Constitutional Protections. Legislative Advisory Question.
Yes. Corporations are not people. This proposition will do close to nothing to reverse that Supreme Court decision but it doesn’t hurt to complain about it.
60 Adult Films. Condoms. Health Requirements. Initiative Statute.
Abstain. Don’t really know or care.
61 State Prescription Drug Purchases. Pricing Standards. Initiative Statute.
Yes. It’s a tough one because there is risk that VA pricing would increase and some drugs may not be available at the discounted rate. But if that happens the answer is going to be more draconian action against the drug makers not less. The current system where Medicare is banned from negotiating prices while bad actors send costs into the stratosphere has to end. Also, they’re spending $100M to defeat this which makes me inclined to see it as a great idea.
62 Death Penalty. Initiative Statute.
Yes. I disagree with the death penalty for a bunch of reasons. Primarily that the state should only use violence in life or death situations and should not have the power to kill in cold blood. The risk that we execute the wrong person is too high. Practically the cost and complexity is a waste of time. Life without the possibility of parole should be the ultimate sanction (and can be reversed in the event of a miscarriage of justice.
63 Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.
Yes. The only thing that can stop a bad toddler with a gun is a good parent with no ammunition. More seriously this solidifies a ban on large capacity magazines and remove more guns from more bad guys. All for it.
64 Marijuana Legalization. Initiative Statute.
Yes. Make it legal and tax it already. I’d do the same for all drugs. See also #57. We could have more tax revenue and fewer people in jail.
65 Carry-Out Bags. Charges. Initiative Statute.
No, see #67.
66 Death Penalty. Procedures. Initiative Statute.
No, see #62.
67 Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. Referendum.
Yes. Banning plastic bags has been a big success in San Francisco. Reusable bags are way more popular. This is an attempt by the disposable bag industry to fight back. Brace yourselves - other wasteful disposables must be next. Yes on 67 and no on 65.
Related Posts
You Might Also Like
- How to Save a Planet (with an Infiniti QX55)
- Executive Clubbing
- Fastest image merge (alpha blend) in GDI+
California and San Francisco June 2016 Propositions
State
50: Yes - makes it harder so suspend a legislator but provides a more impactful sanction when this does happen. I don't think legislators should be suspended unless the circumstances are extreme.
San Francisco
A: Yes - mostly hospital and fire station upgrades.
B: No - I like parks, but the city should decide how much to allocate to them. I generally don't like measures that carve out specific areas for funding.
C: I have no idea. Abstain. I don't have the time to untangle this one.
D: Yes, clearly more oversight of lethal force by SFPD is needed.
E: Yes, brings San Francisco sick leave in line with State rules.
AA: No, regressive per-parcel tax. Should be funded in a better way.
Related Posts
- San Francisco November 2020 Ballot Measures
- California November 2020 Propositions
- San Francisco November 2016 Propositions
You Might Also Like
California 2014 Propositions
My quick voting guide for the California 2014 Propositions:
1: Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects.
Yes: Doesn't help with the current drought but might help with the next one.
2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes: Should help even out funding by forcing the state to save excess capital gains revenue.
45: Healthcare Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.
No. We have Covered California now. Not clear that this helps.
46: Drug and Alcohol Testing Of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits. Initiative Statute.
No. Too many issues in one confusing package.
47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.
Yes. Time to stop putting everyone in prison already,
48: Indian Gaming Compacts. Referendum.
Yes. I'm not a casino fan in general and the whole compensation through casino monopolies mystifies me. But that's the system we have and this seems like it's a tribal casino on newly minted tribal land. I'm not likely to go there but I don't see a great reason to block it.
Related Posts
- California November 2016 Propositions
- California 2012 Propositions
- California November 2020 Propositions
You Might Also Like
California 2012 Propositions
My favorite proposition would be one to do away with propositions altogether. We need Legislative Service instead. But there is an election on Tuesday and a fresh slate of propositions for California and San Francisco that need to be decided. My thoughts on the statewide propositions are:
30: TEMPORARY TAXES TO FUND EDUCATION. GUARANTEED LOCAL PUBLIC SAFETY FUNDING. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Yes, grudgingly. I hate that Governor Brown has a knife to our throats on this one. If it passes then we get $6 billion of extra annual revenue, largely for education. If it fails then because the revenue is already in the budget we’re looking at further evisceration. The sales tax component is regressive, I prefer proposition 38’s more balanced income tax increases across the board. I actually like that the proposition 30 money hits the general fund – I hate measures that earmark money so specifically that there is no room for maneuver. So yes on 30 and no on 38.
The arguments against proposition 30 seem to be that it isn’t specifically earmarked (which I see as a plus) and that we shouldn’t be raising more money for education and public safety while also building out high speed rail. But as the 8th largest economy in the world California should be able to mange to improve public transport and education at the same time. Both are critical to long term growth and prosperity. There is also the argument that you can’t trust government with any money or decisions and that any problem can be handled by just reducing ‘waste’. I don’t really buy that and if you do you might be better off somewhere like Nevada.
31: STATE BUDGET. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTION AMENDENT AND STATUTE.
No. ‘Local Action Plans’ would allow local government to circumvent state laws and this doesn’t seem like a great idea. Allowing the Governor to make budget cuts without the state legislature smells bad as well. Publishing bills in advance of a vote to help prevent pet projects and pork from being stuffed in sounds good, I wish it had been included as a separate proposition rather than lumped in here (in general Proposition 30 suffers from being too broad).
32: POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS BY PAYROLL DEDUCTION. CONTRIBUTIONS TO CANDIDATES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. It’s just a naked attempt to stiff unions and further increase the corporate money stranglehold on US politics.
33: AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES. PRICES BASED ON DRIVER’S HISTORY OF INSURANCE COVERAGE. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. This allows insurance companies to offer a discount based on how long you’ve been insured with another company but also allows them to punish you for a lapse in coverage. If you choose to be without a car for more than a few months you can get a large increase in coverage. It doesn’t seem that the pros outweigh the cons here and the fact that the proposition is funded by the chairman of Mercury further tips me towards a no vote.
34: DEATH PENALTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Yes. I don’t care about the cost of the death penalty, or particularly in it’s effectiveness. I’m fundamentally opposed to the death penalty because I don’t think the state has any business taking life in cold blood. I also don’t think you can guarantee that you’re not executing someone who is innocent.
35: HUMAN TRAFFICKING. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. Punishment for specific offenses shouldn’t be dictated by ballot initiative. Most of these crimes are Federal anyway and so any changes in CA law would have a minor impact (KQED reports 18 offenders in CA prison for trafficking). There is a provision expanding the definition of human trafficking to include copying child pornography… sounds great but you’ll probably end up doing 15 years hard time for backing up your teenager’s phone after they’ve been sexting.
36: THREE STRIKES LAW. REPEAT FELONY OFFENDERS. PENALTIES. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Yes. As the law currently stands you can get life in prison for drug possession. The US really needs to stop throwing everyone in jail. Judges should have the latitude to make the sentence fit the crime and not be automatically forced to throw away the key. This proposition makes three strikes a little more humane – I’d rather see it done away with altogether but it’s a step in the right direction.
37: GENETICALLY ENGINEERED FOODS. LABELING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Yes. Personally I don’t really care about eating GM food, but a lot of people care very deeply and it seems reasonable to provide this information. The main argument against is sinister special exemptions but these boil down to alcohol (not labeled the same way as food to start with) and animals that have been fed GM food but are not GM themselves.
38: TAX TO FUND EDUCATION AND EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAMS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. See 30, above.
39: TAX TREATMENT FOR MULTISTATE BUSINESSES. CLEAN ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY FUNDING. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
No. I’m not really sure which way of determining how to tax multi-state businesses is best. Allowing businesses to choose which method they use doesn’t seem the right way to go. If this proposition was just about changing the tax calculation I might be in favor, but unfortunately it also funnels around half of the additional revenue to a new outfit to spend on clean energy projects over five years. As the proposition is sponsored by one hedge fund manager you’ve got to believe that there is a hedge fund posed to benefit from the extra spending.
40: REDISTRICTING. STATE SENATE DISTRICTS. REFERENDUM.
Yes. Approves the outcome of the Citizens Redistricting Commission. The backers of the proposition have withdrawn support for it (Republicans trying to throw out the new districts), it’s only on the ballot because it can’t be removed – a yes vote in this case keeps things the same.
Related Posts
- California November 2016 Propositions
- California November 2020 Propositions
- California 2014 Propositions