Link to the Proposition Voter Guide Below. Share with friends and family!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T2Yk9ApEWv6WLelwT7hsMa9fLwtNJaHT/view?usp=sharing
| Proposition | Author(s)/Support/Donor(s) | Voting “YES” Means | Voting “NO” Means |
| 14: Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative | Robert N Klein, II (Low Income Housing Developer)University of California Board of Regents | YES: You support issuing an additional $5.5 billion general obligation bond for the state’s stem cell research institute and making changes to the institute’s governance structure and programs. This would cost the taxpayer $260 million per year for 30 years. You support allowing public funding for stem cell research. | NO: You oppose issuing an additional $5.5 billion general obligation bond for the state’s stem cell research institute, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. The institute has depleted the $3 billion dollar fund derived from Proposition 71 passed in 2004. Fiscal Impact: Increase state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years. |
| 15: Tax on commercial and industrial properties for educational and local governmental funding initiative (Partial repeal of Prop. 13) | Kamala HarrisBernie SandersChan Zuckerberg AdvocacyCalifornia Teachers Association (CTA)SEIU CaliforniaScott WeinerEric GarcettiCalifornia Democratic Party | Yes: You support this constitutional amendment to require commercial and industrial properties to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price. This would partially repeal Prop. 13. This would increase taxes on properties like supermarkets, shopping malls, office buildings, factories, movie theaters, hotels, restaurants, sports stadiums, warehouses, self-storage facilities, major retailers and other businesses. This would potentially lead to an increase in rent, raise prices, and raise cost of living. This tax increase may generate up to $12.5 billion/year which would be given to the local government and schools. | NO: You oppose this new tax and constitutional amendment on commercial and industrial properties that is designed to undermine the historic Prop. 13, which limits property reassessments only to when there is a change in ownership, and from that baseline keeps increases to a maximum of two percent per year. Voting NO would avoid the “largest tax increase in California history at exactly the wrong time in our economy to be able to afford it.” (Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable). Organizations for voting NO: California Black Chamber of Commerce, California Small Business Association, California Taxpayers Association, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, California Restaurants Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. |
| 16: Repeal Prop. 209 Affirmative Action Amendment | Kamala HarrisCalifornia Teachers Association Scott WeinerEric GarcettiShirley WeberUniversity of California Board of RegentsCalifornia Nurses Association Initiative Political Action Committee | YES: Your support allows the state to discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. | NO: A no vote would retain the language of Proposition 209 (1996), which says that the state cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting. Prop. 209 helped ban affirmative action. This would “legalize racial discrimination.” (Sen Ling Ling Chang, R-29) Ward Connerly (President of Californians for Equal Rights), “I ask you all to vote No on Proposition 16, which would delete that commitment to equality from the California Constitution.” |
| 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment | Kamala HarrisScott WeinerAsh KalraShirley WeberACLU | YES: Your support for this amendment would allow convicted felons on parole to vote. In 1974, California passed a ballot that allows convicted felons to vote after they have completed their sentence and are no longer on parole. | NO: You would oppose this amendment, and thereby not allow convicted felons on parole to vote. |
| 18: Primary Voting for 17-year-olds in Primary Election | Kevin MullinAlex Padilla | YES: You would support the amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. | NO: You would oppose this constitutional amendment. You support continuing with the voting age of 18. Opponents argue that 17-year olds are not legal adults, cannot enter into contracts, still need parental consent to engage in certain activities, and may be unduly influenced by teachers or their school’s positions on issues. |
| 19: Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment | California Association for RealtorsNational Realtor Association (>$19 million raised for the “Vote on Yes 19” campaign) | YES: You support reversing the benefits from Prop. 13 and Prop. 58: This requires that inherited homes that are not used as principal residences, such as second homes or rentals, be reassessed at market value when transferred. Under Prop. 58, a home of any value and up to a million dollars of assessed value of other property may be transferred between parents and children without reassessment. Proposition 19 (2020) would repeal Proposition 58. | NO: You oppose the increase in property taxes. Prop. 13 limits the increase in “taxable value” of the property to 2% increase annually, and Prop. 58 prevented the reassessment of the property to the market value when transferred to a family member, which further prevents property tax increase. Prop. 19 would reverse those two provisions. This will likely increase property taxes and make it more difficult for lower and middle income individuals to hold onto inherited homes. Jon Coupal (President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association): “This is yet another attack on the longstanding taxpayer protections in Prop. 13. Special interests continue to push for new and higher taxes to pay for their out-of-control pensions, which have already directed existing tax revenue away from classrooms and other state priorities.” |
| 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative (Keep California Safe Act) | Association of Deputy District Attorneys Ventura County Professional Peace Officers Association PACAssociation for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Los Angeles Protective LeagueOrange County Board of SupervisorsVince FongJim Cooper | YES: You support expanding the list of violent crimes for which early release is not an option, including rape of an unconscious person, child trafficking, assault of a peace officer, domestic violence with trauma, physically assaulting a child. (These are currently “nonviolent” crimes under Prop. 47 and Prop. 57 that allow for early release.) You support giving victims reasonable notice of inmates’ release. You support serial theft being a felony charge. You support the Board of Parole Hearings to consider an inmate’s entire criminal history when deciding parole. You support requiring a mandatory hearing to determine whether parole should be revoked for any parolee who violates the terms of his parole for the third time. You support reinstating DNA collection for crimes that were previously reduced to misdemeanors as part of Proposition 47, such as rape of an unconcious person, child sex trafficking, attempting to explode hospital or school and more. | NO: You oppose classifying the following as violent crimes: rape of an unconscious person, child trafficking, assault of a peace officer, felony domestic violence. You oppose felony charges for theft of less than $950. You oppose considering inmate criminal history in parole consideration. You oppose DNA collections for crimes like rape, child trafficking. |
| 21: Local Rent Control Initiative | Bernie SandersCalifornia Democratic PartyLos Angeles Tenants Unions AIDS foundationDemocratic Socialists of America, Los Angeles | YES: You support expanding local government authority to enact Rent Control on Residential Property, permanent policies that prevent rents from returning to market rates.You support the increase in rental properties converting to condo/town homes, which would further contribute to the housing crisis. | NO: You oppose expansion of local government to impose rent control on apartments and privately owned single family homes without the vote of the people.You oppose increasing local government costs by tens of millions of dollars, likely leading to higher taxes, in addition to the increased cost to tenants and homeowners.Thomas Aiello (Taxpayer Union): “The solution to lowering rental prices won’t come from more government mandates and rules, but instead from reasonable changes to strict zoning laws, high building costs, and lengthy permitting processes.” Gary Passover (Congress of California Seniors): “Prop. 21 provides no protection for the seniors and would hurt senior renters, and homeowners alike.” | |
| 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative | California Taxpayer Protection Committee, Over 75,000 app-based drivers in support, Hispanic 100, Black Women Organized for Political Action, LYFT, Uber | YES: You support protecting the ability of app-based drivers to choose to work as independent contractors. You support improving the quality of app-based work by requiring an app-based platform, which would include: guaranteed minimum earning, funding for new health benefits, medical/disability coverage, protecting against discrimination/sexual harassment, 30 cents per miles compensation. Implement new public safety measures: background checks, safety courses for drivers, zero tolerance for alcohol and drug offenses, making it a crime to impersonate a driver You support keeping apps-based service available (job availability) and affordable. | NO: You oppose independent contractor choice for app-based drivers. You support California Assembly Bill 5 which is legislation that reclassified gig workers as employees. This may lead to cutting thousands of app-based driver jobs from companies such as Uber and Lyft, along with delivery services. | |
| 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative | Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West (SEIU-UHW West) – Labor Union | YES: You support requiring dialysis clinics to have an on-site physician administrator without requiring specialty training and who will not participate in medical care. You support increasing clinic costs by $320 million/year, potentially making many clinics unsustainable. If these clinics close, patients may be forced to seek treatment from hospital emergency rooms. Could potentially lead to increased cost to Californians in the form of increased insurance premiums. | NO: You oppose requiring dialysis clinics to have an on-site physician administrator without requiring specialty training and who may not necessarily participate in medical care. You oppose increasing clinic costs by $320 million/year, potentially making many clinics unsustainable. If these clinics close, patients may be forced to seek treatment in hospital emergency rooms. You oppose potentially increased costs to Californians with increased insurance premiums rates. You oppose Prop. 23 as unnecessary because dialysis clinics are already regulated by the state and federal government. | |
| 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative | Californians for Consumer Privacy (CCP)Alastair Mactaggart (San Francisco based real estate developer and investor. Chairperson of CCP)Consumer Watchdogs | YES: You support automatic consent to collect and sell your personal information unless you make an effort to opt out. You support businesses’ personal data collection rather than consumer expectation of privacy. You support giving businesses the ability to refuse a consumer’s request to delete their data. | NO: You oppose changing the state’s consumer data privacy laws to an opt out, so your privacy is protected automatically. A No vote maintains the current opt-in model where businesses cannot collect, use, share, or store our information without explicit consent. You oppose “pay for privacy” fees to protect your personal information. | |
| 25: Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum | Karen BassScott WeinerKevin De Leon California Democratic PartyCalifornia Teacher AssociationService Employees International Union (SEIU) | YES: You support ending the bail system. Some argue that the bail system targets low income people who aren’t able to pay these bonds. You support pretrial detention (being held in jail prior to the trial) determined by risk assessment tools which would label the offender as low, medium, or high risk. You support misdemeanors be exempted from risk assessment and be released pretrial, whcih may include domestic violence, diorderly conduct, probation violation, reckless driving, solicitation of prostitution, assault and battery, drug possession (including heroin), indecent exposure, showing or sending harmful matter to seduce a minor. You support that moderate risk felons may be released pretrial. It is not clearly defined who is a moderate risk (nonviolent felons?) You support putting the responsibility on the police officers to make sure defendants appear in court when released pretrial. | NO: You oppose ending the bail system. You oppose the risk assessment tool that creates more biased outcomes against people of color and low-income communities. You oppose releasing misdemeanors, low risk, and medium risk felons without bail before the trial because of the effect of their premature release on public safety and flight risk. You oppose putting the burden on police officers to ensure defendants show up in court. California’s recent experiment with “zero bail” during the coronavirus pandemic was disastrous, with many defendants arrested, released, and rearrested multiple times in one day. Prop. 25 would make zero bail permanent, which is why law enforcement across the state say NO on Prop. 25. |
