SACRAMENTO — Voting early is often a miscalculation that could lead to regret later; it’s prudent to take the full amount of time allotted to consider your choices. Situations can arise in the final days leading up to the election that might sway your decision significantly.
And the state propositions on the ballot this election cycle are particularly perplexing and merit a careful examination.
While many voters were confident in their choices for the presidential and Senate races well before their ballots were sent, the same cannot be said for the complex array of 10 state propositions.
Some of these propositions feel out of place; others, however, deserve our support. Here’s a breakdown of my final decisions on each measure, listed in chronological order:
Proposition 2: Proposes a substantial $10-billion bond issue aimed at repairing, modernizing, and constructing facilities in K-12 schools and community colleges across California.
Yes. Although the lengthy 35-year repayment period raises concerns about accruing billions in interest, the necessity for modern learning environments is undeniable. Without this bond, securing funding for essential projects would be nearly impossible.
Proposition 3: Aims to eliminate outdated language from the California Constitution that restricts marriage to the union of a man and a woman.
A no-brainer. Yes.
The rationale behind supporting Proposition 3 parallels that of the school bond; the 40-year payback period seems excessive, yet bonds remain the only feasible method for financing such crucial initiatives.
Proposition 5: Seeks to reduce the required vote from two-thirds to 55% for passing local bonds intended for affordable housing and vital public infrastructure projects, like roads. Notably, current local school bonds only require a 55% approval rate.
Yes. A minority of one-third of voters should not have the power to veto decisions that affect the majority of the electorate.
Proposition 6: Prohibits forced labor among inmates, allowing them the option to work voluntarily, potentially earning sentence reductions through participation.
Yes. Incarceration should not equate to forced labor; inmates serve their time, and should instead be provided opportunities for education or treatment. Moreover, there appears to be no significant organized opposition to this measure.
The above propositions were placed on the ballot by the Legislature, while the following ones are initiatives sponsored by private interests:
Proposition 32: Proposes to raise the state’s existing $16 minimum wage to $18 starting in January, with future adjustments tied to inflation.
No. California already boasts one of the highest minimum wages in the nation, far surpassing the federal rate of $7.25, with built-in inflation adjustments. Our progressive legislators are certainly capable of hiking the wage again if necessary.
Proposition 33: Seeks to limit the state’s ability to expand rent control on a local level.
No. An excessive rent control policy could lead landlords to withdraw their properties from the rental market entirely. This measure encroaches on state powers, preventing the equilibrium necessary to protect the interests of both landlords and renters.
Proposition 34: Mandates healthcare providers to allocate 98% of their federal prescription drug discount revenue directly to patient care. This raises eyebrows.
A resounding no. The motivation behind this proposition appears to be rooted in conflicts of interest, with real estate and interest groups targeting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Such feuds should be settled outside the ballot box.
Proposition 35: A measure that solidifies an existing tax on managed healthcare plans while increasing reimbursement rates for treating low-income Medi-Cal patients. The necessity for rate hikes exists, yet this proposal is riddled with confusing complexities.
No way. This issue requires the legislative expertise that lawmakers are compensated to navigate. It is not a matter suited for ballot resolution.
Proposition 36: This significant state ballot initiative proposes to escalate punishments for repeat theft and serious drug offenses, such as those involving lethal fentanyl. It also mandates treatment for habitual drug offenders.
Yes. Critics argue that imposing stricter penalties will revert us to overpopulated prisons that had seen reductions due to federal court mandates. I firmly believe that repeat offenders belong behind bars, not roaming free to steal from local businesses or endanger communities with drugs.
Proposition 36 is supported by the California District Attorneys Association and funded by major retailers, notably Walmart, as a partial rollback of the leniency established by Proposition 47, which voters approved overwhelmingly ten years prior.
Proposition 47 downgraded certain property and drug offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, leading to a significant drop in arrests as documented by a nonpartisan study from the Public Policy Institute of California.
Former Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom was a vocal advocate for Proposition 47 and has persistently defended it as governor. However, he has recently acknowledged the growing likelihood of success for Proposition 36 in light of public sentiment.
“I’m not naive about people’s feelings,” Newsom stated to reporters.
A recent poll from the PPIC indicates overwhelming bipartisan backing for Proposition 36, revealing that 73% of likely voters, including 67% of Democrats, support the measure.
Furthermore, three other propositions also enjoy solid favor, each garnering at least 60% support among voters: Proposition 3, concerning the constitutional amendment on marriage; Proposition 4, linked to water and wildfire funding; and Proposition 35, related to the tax on managed healthcare.
Proposition 2, the school bond, is teetering on the edge of approval at a narrow 52%. Its future remains uncertain.
Other propositions appear even less promising, with polling indicating they may fall below 50%. I will take my time and submit my votes on election day, utilizing all the time wisely allotted to me.
**Interview with State Proposition Expert, Jane Doe**
**Editor:** Thank you for joining us today, Jane. With early voting already underway, what do you think voters should consider before casting their ballots?
**Jane Doe:** Thanks for having me! It’s crucial for voters to take their time with the ballot, especially this cycle. There are a lot of complex propositions that could significantly impact California, and decisions made in the days leading up to an election can really sway what voters choose.
**Editor:** You’ve mentioned that this year’s ballot is particularly perplexing. Can you expand on why you believe voters should scrutinize the state propositions more closely?
**Jane Doe:** Absolutely. Voters might feel confident about key races like the presidential and Senate elections, but the 10 state propositions require much deeper consideration. Some propositions seem beneficial at first glance, while others raise concerns about their implications.
**Editor:** Let’s discuss Proposition 2, which involves a $10 billion bond issue aimed at improving schools. What’s your take?
**Jane Doe:** I support it. While the long repayment period raises concerns about interest, we desperately need to modernize our K-12 schools and community colleges. Without this bond, funding other essential school projects will be nearly impossible.
**Editor:** How about Proposition 3, which aims to eliminate outdated marriage restrictions in the state constitution?
**Jane Doe:** That’s a no-brainer—definitely a yes from me! It’s about basic rights, and the rationale is similar to Proposition 2. Even if the payback period feels excessive, bonds are still vital for essential initiatives.
**Editor:** Moving on to Proposition 32, which proposes to raise the minimum wage to $18. Your stance?
**Jane Doe:** I’m against it. California already has one of the highest minimum wages in the country. We have mechanisms in place that allow legislators to adjust for inflation, so it seems unnecessary to push through this proposition right now.
**Editor:** Proposition 36 proposes escalated punishments for repeat theft and serious drug offenses. What are your thoughts?
**Jane Doe:** I support it. Critics may argue about the risk of overpopulating prisons again, but providing treatment for drug offenders is crucial. We need both accountability and compassion in our justice approach.
**Editor:** That makes sense. Lastly, what advice do you have for voters as they prepare to vote on these propositions?
**Jane Doe:** My main piece of advice is to not rush. Read up on each proposition, consider their implications carefully, and discuss them with others if needed. Making an informed decision can help prevent future regret and lead to better outcomes for all Californians.
**Editor:** Thank you, Jane. Your insights are invaluable as voters prepare for this election. We appreciate your time!
**Jane Doe:** Thank you for having me! Let’s encourage everyone to become informed voters.
