November 2014 Voter Guide

Resources: These are websites I used for help in compiling this guide.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/ The official voter guide. Contains the description of the ballot measures and basic pro and con arguments from the official sponsors and opposition.

http://ballotpedia.org/California_2014_ballot_measures Ballotpedia compiles information about all the ballot measures and, most usefully, information about how much is spent in the campaigns.

Proposition 1: Water Bond. Funding for Water Quality, Supply, Treatment, and Storage Projects.

Note: This proposition is not in the main voter guide because the state legislature changed it at the last moment. The description is in the supplemental voter guide here: http://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2014/general/en/pdf/complete-vig-suppl-v2.pdf

What it does: This is a $7.5 billion bond measure to fund water system infrastructure. It was placed on the ballot by the state legislature for voter approval after long negotiations between different interest groups. The purpose is to maintain and expand California’s water systems and manage their environmental impact. You can read the distribution of the money for yourself, but essentially part of it goes to water storage (including dams), part to watershed and water habitat protection, and part to groundwater quality measures. The money will fund these projects in partnership with local governments, which will also have to provide part of the funding.

    Since this is a bond, the money is being borrowed by the state. A small of the $7.5 billion is leftover bond money from previous measures. The rest will add $360 million in interest to the yearly budget, which is 0.3% of the state’s general budget.

Who supports it: As mentioned above, Prop 1 was placed on the ballot by the legislature, which voted 37-0 in the state senate and 77-2 in the state assembly to approve it. This means that it is a compromise between Republicans and Democrats, as well as between agricultural representatives, which generally want more water storage, and environmental groups, which want more restoration money and fewer dams. So that means that the ballot measure is supported by both parties and the interest groups that were happy with the compromise.

    The website for the YES campaign is combined with that for prop 2, since both are being backed by Jerry Brown and are the focus of his campaigning this fall: http://www.yesonprops1and2.com/. The main argument is that California’s water infrastructure needs to be updated and that this funding will achieve that. They point to the drought as reason to invest in California’s future with these projects.

    Prop 1 is supported by both the chamber of commerce and labor groups; both the Farm Bureau and the Nature Conservancy; by both US Senators from California; and by all the state’s major newspapers.

Who is against it: The offical NO campaign is at http://www.noonprop1.org/ and looks to be mostly environmental groups and mostly people from the North Coast. It is supported by one of the two CA Assemblymembers who voted against the bond, Wesley Chesbro (D-Arcata), who represents the California coast areas north of Santa Rosa. This region isn’t getting a lot of money from the water bond, probably because they have water and not a lot of people live there. The environmental groups think too much money is going towards building dams and are worried about damaging the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta ecosystems. Also they’re mad that Socal is stealing Norcal’s water.

    The other No vote on the water bond was Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks), failed gubernatorial candidate. From what I can tell he thinks the state shouldn’t be borrowing this much money and also there’s too much money going to environmental purposes. There was an article about it but it was on breitbart so I didn’t really want to go look.

Why is this a ballot measure/bond? The state constitutionally needs voter approval to borrow money for spending purposes, so the legislature has to approve the bond with a 2/3rds majority and then send it to voters. The reason this money is spent as a bond is the same reason people buy houses with a mortgage: we want to fund a bunch of big projects and don’t have all the money on hand right now. This bond is supposed to be an investment for california that the state repays over time.

Commentary: The fact that so many groups have aligned to support this measure means it’s probably worth supporting. If you really hate dams or really disdain environmental spending, I guess I could understand voting no, but really that’s the nature of compromise. Compared to congress that can’t pass anything, getting only two no votes here in CA is pretty impressive.

Proposition 2: State Budget. Budget Stabilization Account. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

aka. the Rainy Day Fund aka part 2 of Jerry Brown’s Fall 2014 agenda.

What it does: Since Proposition 13 passed in 1978, California’s revenue has become highly dependent on capital gains taxes. This means that the states income fluctuates based on the state of the stock market. This causes problems: in 2008 state money tanked right as the economy went down, causing a budget crisis. Right now, however, revenue is exceeding projections since all those tech companies are having IPOs and people are getting their money. Proposition 2 is essentially Jerry Brown’s proposal for dealing with these fluctuations by creating a state rainy day fund. Funnily enough California already has a rainy day fund that Schwarzenegger proposed and voters approved. However, the law lets the governor decide not to fund it, so it hasn’t been funded because neither Schwarzenegger nor Brown wanted to put money in it, saying the state was in crisis and needed the money.

    The voter information pamphlet has a really good explanation of all these issues by the way.

    Proposition 2 will change the rainy day fund laws to make saving mandatory and to regulate how the money can be spent. In addition the law will mandate paying down state debts to local governments as well as pension funds. The amount of money required to be spent into the rainy day fund and on debts will increase when capital gains are high, varying from $800 million to $2 billion spent. The state will only be able to withhold money from the rainy day fund if the Governor and the Legislature agree the state is in a “budget emergency,” meaning either a natural disaster or a drop in income below the highest level in the last three years. Money could only be spent out of the fund in a budget emergency, and only the money needed unless the budget emergency continues for multiple years.

    Proposition 2 will also change school funding processes. It will create a reserve fund for schools that will be spent into when capital gains are strong and then can be used to meet spending requirements for education during bad economic periods. Also, an accompanying state law will set a maximum limit to how much individual school districts can save in local reserves. School districts in california already have a minimum limit to how much money they need to save. According to the legislative analyst, the conditions on funding the school reserve fund mean that money won’t go in there for the next few years as the economy is still recovering.

    The purpose of this law is therefore threefold. First, existing debts to local government and to pensions will be paid off faster, which will limit the budget now but reduce the interest in the future, as well as helping pensioners and local governments who want that money. Second, a rainy day fund that is more enforced should help smooth out the impact of economic swings on the state budget. Finally, the school money reserve is intended to help out education funding but also force school districts to spend their reserve money, since many districts currently have more than the maximum amount saved up (see opposition section).

Who is for it: Like proposition 1, the campaign supporting Proposition 2 is led by governor Jerry Brown. Website is again http://www.yesonprops1and2.com/. Like proposition 1, prop 2 was put on the ballot by the state legislature, which passed it 36-0 in the senate and 78-0 in the assembly. Like proposition 1, prop 2 is supported by groups on all sides of the political spectrum: the Democratic and Republican parties, the Chamber of Commerce, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, all the labor-oriented democrats in the legislature, the League of Women Voters, and the state’s major newspapers.

Who is against it: The campaign against Prop 2 is led by the group Educate Our State and is available at 2badforkids.com. Educate Our State is a group that claims to represent parents of public school children. This organizations looks like it campaigns for increasing school spending by the state across the board. The main part of Prop 2 they oppose is, not surprisingly, the part affecting school funding. They really want us to think of the children and how they will be hurt by this measure. Ok but really they don’t like that the state can put money into a school reserve fund to reduce the amount spent on schools in that year. In addition, the districts will then have to limit the money they have saved.

    From what I can tell, the limit to the amount districts can save was pushed for by teacher’s groups who think that districts are reserving too much money and should be spending it on giving teachers raises. At least that’s what the opponents say. However this part of the law was passed as a law by the legislature that will take effect if prop 2 passes, so its easy to change if its a bad idea.

Why is this a ballot measure: Since the rainy day fund requires a state constitutional amendment, it must appear on the ballot. The legislature had to pass it with a 2/3rds majority first, which was achieved with no “no” votes.

Commentary: Like proposition 1, the forces aligned for prop 2 make it very hard to vote against. The NO campaign seems to think its all about them, since they don’t even bother to argue acknowledge the main part of the proposition dealing with the state budget. Any controversy about local district savings can be dealt with in the legislature because it’s not part of the constitutional amendment part of the law.

Proposition 45: Health Insurance. Rate Changes. Initiative Statute.

What it does: This proposition would give the California Insurance Commissioner the power to review health insurance rates (premiums) and approve or reject them. The position of Insurance Commissioner was created in 1988 by Proposition 103 to regulate car and home insurance. Prop 45 would add some varieties of health insurance to the types of insurance the Insurance Commissioner can regulate. This process would involve health insurance companies submitting their proposed plans to the Department of Insurance, which then would go over the plans and approve them based on how reasonable the premium rates are. This would only apply to individual plans and small group plans (fewer than 50 ppl companies), not large group plans offered by large companies. Currently the government agencies can review the health plan rates but not reject them. Prop 45 would give the rejection power to the elected Insurance Officer.

Who is for it:

Proposition 47: Criminal Sentences. Misdemeanor Penalties. Initiative Statute.

What it does: This proposition will reclassify certain nonviolent crimes as misdemeanors rather than felonies. The crimes affected fall into two categories: drug possession and theft of $950 or less.

For illegal drug possession, the classification of the crime depends on the type of drug and the amount possessed. The initiative will change this so that all drug possession crimes are classified as misdemeanors. This measure will affect possession of drugs such as cocaine and heroin, but not marijuana since marijuana possession is already at most a misdemeanor.

For theft, currently the law makes theft of less than $950 of property a misdemeanor, but apparently there are ways to make it a felony if the defendant has a history of theft or stole specific types of property (cars and guns, apparently). In those cases the courts have the discretion to charge the crime as a misdemeanor or a felony. Prop 48 would tighten the rules so that these crimes are charged as misdemeanors. This will apply to theft, shoplifting, and check forgery.

If the defendant was previously found guilty of violent crimes such as rape or murder than the thefts can still be charged as felonies.

Prisoners who are serving felony sentences under current law will be eligible for a resentencing to lighten their sentence.

The main effect of the change in the law will be to reduce the time criminals serve in jail and in probation. In addition, the sentences will generally be served in county jails rather than in state jails.

Finally, the money saved by the state from having fewer prisoners is sent to a new state fund. This money is to be used for school truancy, victim service, and mostly mental health and drug abuse treatment programs to keep people out of jail.

How did it get to the ballot: This was a state voter initiative, meaning that sponsors had to collect at least 500,000 signatures to get it on the ballot. The sponsors were George Gascón, DA for the City and County of San Francisco, and William Lansdowne, former police chief for the cities of San Diego, San Jose, and Richmond.

Why is this a proposition: According to the Mercury News, even though this ballot measure is supported by the California Democratic Party, which controls the legislature, this kind of proposal can’t make it through the legislature because “weak on crime” is still a strongly effective campaign tactic and so legislators are scared of reducing criminal penalties.

Who is for it and why: The website for the YES campaign is VoteYes47.com. Their slogan is “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools.” The argument from the YES campaign is that this initiative will end wasting prison space and state money on “low-level nonviolent crimes,” and instead dedicate that money to prevention programs. California prisons are overcrowded and underfunded. In addition, since a felony conviction limits access to employment and housing, this initiative will help nonviolent criminals reintegrate into public life.

The list of endorsements is here: http://www.safetyandschools.com/who-supports-reform/.

This list includes various district attorneys, police chiefs, judges, elected officials, and bunch of bishops and reverends. Organizations endorsing include the California Democratic party, some victim support groups, many social justice organizations, and the teachers’ and service workers’ unions. Newspaper endorsements include the SF Chronicle and SJ Mercury News.

Other interesting individuals who endorsed YES include Jay-Z and the CEO of Netflix, Reed Hasting.

Who is against it and why: The website of the NO campaign is votenoprop47.org. The main arguments is that Prop 47 will make it easier for felons who should be in jail to get released early and that criminals convicted of felonies will be released from jail. In addition, they claim that Prop 47 will increase crime and sexual assault by making such crimes as gun theft and possession of date rape drugs misdemeanors rather than felonies. The reasoning is that the current laws are in place for a reason, and that courts should be able to make these crimes felonies/keep prisoners who committed the crimes in jail in order to preserve public safety. They also have stories about two inmates who are in jail due under Three Strikes and would be eligible for early release under Prop 47 to scare you into voting NO.

The list of endorsements is here: http://www.votenoprop47.org/No_On_Prop_47__Opponents_List.html

The big organizations against are the CA Police Chiefs Association, CA District Attorneys Association, and some big crime victims groups. The list of individuals against are all county sherrifs and DAs.

Not on this list but also endorsing NO are the California Republican Party, the Sacramento Bee, and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Where’s the money: So far, somewhat surprisingly, the YES campaign has heavily outraised the NO campaign. In fact the NO campaign has been a flop, raising only $43,500 by the end of September compared to $3.4 million for the YES campaign.

YES big contributors: Open Society Policy Center, a liberal donor group chaired by George Soros ; Wayne Hughes, Jr., a libertarian rich guy who also gives to the Koch Brothers; the Atlantic Advocacy Fund, another liberal donor group; and Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix.

NO big contributors: the California Police Chiefs Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California.

Commentary: Urg. Reading the arguments on this proposition reminded me of how these campaigns always go for the small details they think will get at the audience. Both sides go on about how voting yes/no will protect the public from rapists even though that’s really not what the measure is about. The people who wrote the measure clearly tailored it to be appealing to the public rather than to what makes sense as state law. Hence the requirement that the money saved go to a special fund reserved for specific programs. This kind of clause gets put into every proposition that raises revenue in order to stave off criticism in the vein of “you want to give money to the legislature to waste” when really it just ends up putting inflexible restrictions on spending in the state preventing evaluation of if those restrictions are actually effective ways of partitioning money once they’re in effect.

    While we’re on the topic of my frustration with initiative campaigns, the NO campaign uses every boring page out of the “hard on crime” playbook. We’re going to release violent criminals! Unless every violent crime carries with it a life sentence, at some point violent criminals will be released anyway. We can have a serious discussion about whether this initiative gives the possibility of early release to the right people without panicking at the fact that at some point criminals leave jail.

    The strongest support behind Prop 47 appears to be from people concerned with injustices in the criminal justice and prison systems. The list of supporters includes many religious leaders, such as the archbishops of LA and SF, and social justice groups focused on humans rights and racial equality. California’s state prisons are severely overcrowded, to the extent that the US Supreme Court ruled the overcrowding as being unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. Various state programs are already working for early release of nonviolent offenders, including 2012’s Prop 36, which modified the state’s Three Strikes law to only count if the third strike is a serious or violent offense. This initiative aims to continue the efforts of reducing the prison population by reducing sentences for lesser crimes. In addition, note that people convicted of felonies are stripped of voting rights in California until they complete their parole.

    I tried looking for a good argument against Prop 47 that didn’t devolve to fear mongering about a violent criminal appearing on your street because he was released from jail early. This was more difficult than you would think; I think the NO campaign isn’t attracting a lot of supporters. The Sacramento Bee editorial (http://www.sacbee.com/2014/09/28/6736828/endorsement-proposition-47-goes.html) makes the best case I’ve found so far. They say that we’ve been making progress on reducing prison population and so Prop 47 is not needed. Essentially the point of the editorial is to say that using a ballot measure to make these changes is too blunt. Some of the sentences should be reduced, but this should be done selectively by a sentencing commission rather than broadly by a ballot measure.

The other argument I found says that its good that currently courts have latitude to judge from the facts of the case and the defendant’s background whether to make it a misdemeanor or felony charge. This means that the court can judge if the defendant has the potential to commit more dangerous crimes and so bump the charge up to a felony. Prop 47 would mandate misdemeanor charges and so remove the court’s latitude to sentence people perceived to be more dangerous to society more harshly. I also found this fact sheet produced by the NO campaign that seems useful: http://porac.org/wp-content/uploads/Prop-47-FACT-SHEET.pdf?054b1e.

Conclusion: I’m going to vote YES because I think that there are real problems within the criminal justice and prison systems that need to be relieved by reducing the number of people we send to jail. Prop 47 seems like a good step in that direction, even though I have reservations about the restrictions on the money saved from implementing the new laws. For me, this is the proposition for which it was easiest to make a decision. I hope that despite that I was able to convey both sides relatively clearly.