Richie Boy’s November, 2024 Ballot
I suppose most Californians have already returned their ballot, and I returned mine about a week ago, but I’ve finally done my writeup of how I voted and why.
President
• Kamala Harris — Strong YES
Hopefully, I’ll find some time for a full endorsement over the next few days, but until then I’ll just a couple of quick thoughts:
For those people not voting for Harris due to inflation, you’re non vote is an endorsement of higher inflation, as that’s essentially what Trump is running on. Deporting 25% of the low wage work force will cause inflation. High tarrifs will cause inflation. Even tax cuts can contribute to inflation. I wonder how many people are even aware that pre-covid inflation doubled under Trump after Obama. And if you’re not voting for Harris due to Gaza, and you’re on the left, well you’re nonvote is an endorsement of even more destruction in Gaza, as that’s what Trump has promised.
For those folks in swing states who think their vote doesn’t matter, please remember that we’re in this mess because of a 587 vote difference in Florida in 2000. The entire world would be different now, were it not for that tiny amount of votes.
For those folks in non-swing states who think their vote doesn’t matter, please note that there’s a reason Trump has campaigned in NY and CA. It’s because he understands that the popular vote does matter. It’s why he made such a big deal out of it in 2016. Consent of the governed is important. And if, gods forbid, we ‘elect’ convicted felon, rapist, and traitor, and we protest as their doing in Georgia right now, the popular vote count will add legitamacy to those protests.
• Democrats — Strong Yes
In California, we have a runoff system of elections that is sometimes (incorrectly) labeled open-primaries. I’ve grown to really like it, even though I voted against when it was proposed. Ultimately, I’ve decided that it’s the best form of election, even better than ranked choice. You can vote for anyone in the first round, and, months later, in the second round, there are only 2 choices. This year those choices for me are between a Republican & a Democrat. In all cases. I’ll be voting for the Democrat. My reasoning hasn’t changed since I wrote this in 2022:
I’m going to vote for the party that isn’t filled with people who still won’t accept the results of the 2020 election. I’m going to vote for the party that doesn’t have the full support of the nazis, the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oathkeepers, and all the other white supremacist and anti-semitic groups in the country. I’m going to vote for the party that didn’t try to overthrow the US government in 2020.
I didn’t believe it possible, but it’s only gotten worse over the past 2 years. Now we know that Trump stole classified documents, had an elaborate plot to overturn the 2020 election, is a convicted felon, was found guilty of rape, and so much more. The Republicans, as we used to know them, are gone. All that remains are people who believe in alternate facts.
CA Prop 2— Bonds for public schools …
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_2,_Public_Education_Facilities_Bond_Measure_(2024)
Issues $10 billion in bonds: $8.5B for elementary and secondary schools and $1.5B for community colleges
• Mild YES
I’m not a fan of using bonds to pay for stuff, but I’ve accepted that it’s how we do things in California. We need to maintain the school buildings and infrastructure, and that needs to be paid for, so this is how we do it. I only hope that we don’t start shutting down schools again and/or let them go into disrepair if there’s another temporary smaller generation (like GenX was).
CA Prop 3— Constitutional right to marriage
This one repeals the heinous Prop 8 (2008) that banned same-sex marriage. It enshrines in our constitution the right of 2 people to get married regardless of sex or race, and established marriage as a fundamental right.
• Strong YES
This one’s a no-brainer. It sad that Prop-8 (2008) passed in the first place, but part of the reason is because it was made super confusing by an enormous amount of advertising. Many people thought they were supporting same-sex marriage when they voted for it. In any case, adding this to our constitution provides a safeguard in case the Supreme Court overturns the Obergefell decision and the federal rules change.
CA Prop 4— Bonds for drinking water
This one issues $10 billion in bonds for various projects to reduce climate risks and impacts. About $2B goes for protection of parks & wildlife, and about $1B goes towards protecting coastal regions, and $850M is for clean energy projects. The rest is for various smaller items.
• Mild YES
My same comments for CA Prop 2 hold for this one. I don’t love bonds, but that’s how we do things. I don’t disagree with the detractors who claim these causes should be addressed in the state budget, but those same folks vehemently oppose any increase to any taxes, and, by doing so, they prevent these things from being addressed in the annual budget. So, we’re left with bonds.
CA Prop 5 — Changes rules around localities issuing affordable housing bonds
Currently, in California, if a city wants to issue a bond it requires a ballot measuring garnering 2/3rds of the vote. This prop would change that threshold to 55% for bonds affordable housing, public infrastructure, and fire protection.
• Strong YES
My friend Andy once told me his idea regarding laws that require a 2/3rds majority vote to pass something. He said that those laws should be required to pass by 2/3rds themselves, and that any law already on the books should be re-voted on, and they could only require the percentage at which they passed. That works for me. Barring that, though, this is a step in the right direction. Changing the requirement from 66.7% to 55% means more of these bonds will be passed and more affordable housing will be built.
CA Prop 6 — Outlaws slavery for prisoners
The California Constitution currently allows jails and prisons to require prisoners to work. This prop removes that provision.
• Strong YES
Slavery is bad.
CA Prop 32— Raise minimum wage
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_32,_$18_Minimum_Wage_Initiative_(2024)
This prop basically accelerates the raising of the minimum wage to $17 and $18/hr. depending on employer size. It’s currently at $16/hr and increases with inflation.
• Mild YES
Why not? I don’t think this will have a huge effect, as there are already laws requiring some industries to have a higher minimum wage, and it’s only $1/hr for small businesses.
CA Prop 33 — Repeals Costa-Hawkins Act
The Coast-Hawkins Act was a 1995 law that limited localities ability to limit rent increases and/or other limits on rents. Sometimes this is referred to as ‘rent control’.
• Strong YES
Rent control works. It accomplishes what it was designed to do. It allows people to stay in their homes. Those same studies that conclude rent increase control can reduce the number of available units also conclude that rent-control is beneficial for the people in the rent controlled units. Put another way, rent increase control provides immediate help to people who might otherwise be forced out of their homes, but it has some deleterious side affects that can appear 10 to 20 years later.
I’m not claiming that rent increase control works perfectly or that there aren’t side affects. The problem is that instead of trying to address those side affects while keeping the main benefit of allowing folks to stay in their homes, culturally (with a lot of lobbying and marketing by developers, landlords, real estate agents, builders, etc) we’ve decided the notion of limiting rent increases is bad, and we should rely entirely on the free market to solve the housing crisis. Instead, we should be experimenting with different forms of rent increase control to see if we can come up with a solution. Unfortunately, the Costa Hawkins act largely prevents those experiments.
A vote YES to repeal this law will allow different cities to experiment with different solutions. One thing that should be perfectly clear 30 years after this ban on rent control was adopted is that it hasn’t worked. Rents have only gone up since ’95, and the housing crisis has only worsened.
CA Prop 34 — Limits how certain non-proficts spend money
This is super-confusing initiative basically restricts how health providers that receive revenues from federal prescription drug discount program can spend the money.
• Mild NO
On the surface, this seems fine, but there are specific criteria to which this law would apply, and only one non-profit organization, The AIDS Foundation, meets that criteria. Even though I support rent-increase-control and I’m voting for Prop 33, I kind of agree with the Prop-34 proponents that the Aids Foundation shouldn’t be spending gobs of money on rent control propositions every year that are virtually guaranteed to lose. That said, a law designed to apply to just a single entity is wrong. That’s not how things should work in a democracy.
CA Prop 35 — Limits how certain non-proficts spend money
This one makes permanent a tax on managed care organizations that has been in place since 2009.
• Mild YES
This decision should have been easier than it is as there was no opposing argument in the election booklet. Then, Governor Newsom kinda sorta said he was against it. Ultimately, that wasn’t enough for me.
CA Prop 36 — Changes some drug & theft related crimes to felonies
This proposition make possession of fentanyl a felony. It does similar for some shoplifting crimes under $950. It effectively repeals some of Prop-47 (2014)
• Strong NO
Much of the media would have you believe that California is a soft-on-crime state. Nothing could be further from the truth. We were the first with a 3-strikes law. We still have people serving life sentences for stealing VHS tapes. Every time we’ve tried to repeal that heinous 3-strikes law (Prop 184–1994), it has failed. In 2009, we had so many prisoners, and conditions were so cruel and unusual that the federal courts ordered California to reduce our prison populations. This order was upheld by the Supreme Court a couple of years later in 2011. That’s how NOT-soft-on-crime California is. A conservative majority SCOTUS thought we were too NOT-soft-on-crime. So we passed Prop 47 (2014) to reduce most drug possession and thefts of under $950 to misdemeanors.
The media would have you believe that this law that has been in effect for 10 years is responsible for a recent increase in shoplifting and drug use. The proponents of Prop-36 (2024) would have you believe that it is Prop 47 (2014) that is the culprit of the sensationalized smash-and-grab retail thefts when in fact those type of crimes are already felonies, In fact, the property crime rate in California is lower now that it was before Prop 47 (2014). The truth is that there are too many variables to establish a causal relationship either way. That said, maybe reducing time & money spent prosecuting and imprisoning people for minor offenses allowed for more police on the streets and prevented more crime. Maybe drug-addiction is a health issue and not a criminal issue. Maybe the hundreds of millions of dollars this prop will cost could be better spent elsewhere.
Santa Cruz Measure Q — $87 parcel tax
This measure levies an $87 parcel tax to be spent on wildfire prevention and protecting clean drinking water.
• Strong YES
The only reasonable way we can increase property taxes in California is through these flat per-parcel taxes. Like our entire (and racist) property tax system, they are unfair to recent buyers, but, ultimately, clean drinking water, fire prevention increase property values and pay off in the long run. From the discussion in the booklet, it seems the argument against this tax is that the money might be spent on litter cleanup, toilets, and after school programs. What? That’s their idea of an argument against this tax? Nahh.
Santa Cruz Measure Z— Sweetened beverage tax
This measure levies a 2 cent/ounce tax on sweetened beverages
• Strong NO
This is a regressive tax that will hurt low income households the most. I don’t drink the shit, but let people drink their soda without judging or punishing them. Beyond that, this seems ripe for reclassifications and corruption in the oversight panel. Let’s think of another way to fund things than a complex new tax.
