2020 California Ballot Propositions

This year there are 12 propositions on California’s 2020 General Election Ballot. The information below provides brief summaries of each, as well as small samples of the groups and individuals who are either supporting or opposing them. If you have any questions regarding the 2020 ballot, please email PIASC's lobbyist, RJ Cervantes at rjc@fernandezgov.com.

Proposition 14: Stem Cell Research  In 2004 Californians opted to fill the federal void created by a ban on funding stem cell research by borrowing $3 billion to create California’s own stem cell agency, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine. However, without a fresh infusion, this agency will be terminated. Prop. 14 would generate the money to keep the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine open, and also expand its research capacity.  The Proposition calls for funding stem cell research by borrowing up to $5.5 billion, including a set-aside of $1.5 billion for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, stroke, epilepsy and other brain and central nervous system diseases. The rest of the money would go for other research, medical training, building new research facilities and expanding treatment access. The state would sell bonds to investors worth $5.5 billion, and taxpayers would then pay back that money, with interest, over the next 30 years.  Opponents argue that California tried to make this work, but funding stem cell research didn’t lead to the kind of life-saving cures voters hoped for in 2004. The federal government no longer bans federal dollars from supporting embryonic stem cell research, therefore voiding the intent of the original effort.  Who’s For It? University of California Board of Regents, The Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, The Latino Cancer Institute, Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California, Gov. Gavin Newsom, and the California Institute for Regenerate Medicine Board of Directors Who’s Against It? Jeff Sheehy, board member of the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, Los Angeles Times editorial board, San Francisco Chronicle editorial board, Mercury News & East Bay Times editorial boards

Proposition 15: The Split Tax Roll Back in 1978, California voters passed Proposition 13, a huge permanent tax cut for landowners. It amended the state constitution to reset property taxes based on the purchase price of a home or business and capped how much the tax could increase each year after that. Now, owners pay property taxes based on the price they originally paid for that real estate, which is typically a lot less than what it’s worth today.  If this measure passes, property taxes on most commercial properties worth more than $3 million would be elevated to the property’s current, probably higher, market value. That would net up to $11.5 billion in revenues; 60% of this revenue would go for cities, counties and special districts, and 40% for schools and community colleges.  Who’s For It? Joe Biden and Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Teachers Association, California Democratic Party, Mark Zuckerberg Who’s Against It? California Chamber of Commerce, California Retailers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California NAACP, California Farm Bureau Federation

Proposition 16: Affirmative Action  Proposition 16 would restore affirmative action in California. This means that universities and government offices would be allowed to factor in someone’s race, gender or ethnicity in making hiring, spending and admissions decisions. This practice has been illegal in California since 1996, when voters approved another proposition that banned affirmative action. More than two-thirds of state lawmakers voted to put this measure on the November ballot.   Opponents argue that allowing schools and government offices to make decisions based on race, ethnicity or sex is in it of itself a prejudiced act. Opponents also argue that it’s legal now to give preference to students who really need it—i.e. those who grew up in low-income families. As for who gets into the public universities, opponents say that the fault lies with inadequate K-12 schooling. Who’s For It? California Community Colleges and the California State University, Gov. Gavin Newsom, University of California, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Who’s Against It? Californians for Equal Rights, Chinese American Civic Action Alliance, Students for Fair Admissions, California Republican Party

Proposition 17: Parolee Voting Proposition 17, if passed, would allow people on parole in California to vote. It also would allow parolees to run for office if they’re registered to vote and haven’t been convicted of perjury or bribery.  Sixteen other states and the District of Columbia allow people to vote once they’ve finished their prison sentences. Opponents argue that parole is an opportunity for violent offenders to prove they’ve been rehabilitated. Voting is a right that offenders should receive once they demonstrate they have been rehabilitated; not before. Who’s For It? League of Women Voters in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Californians for Safety and Justice, Democratic Assemblymember Kevin McCarty of Sacramento (who introduced the constitutional amendment) Who’s Against It? Crime Victims United of California, Election Integrity Project California

Proposition 18: Voting at Age 17 If passed, Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will be 18 and eligible by the next general election. Currently, voters must be 18 to participate in any local, state or federal election. This constitutional amendment would also allow 17-year-olds who qualify to vote under this proposition to seek office, because the law says only registered voters can run for elected positions.  The Legislature, by a two-thirds vote, placed this constitutional amendment on the ballot. Nationwide, at least 19 states and Washington D.C. allow 17-year-olds who would be eligible for the next general election to vote early.  Opponents argue that seventeen-year-olds are still children. Biologically their brains are not yet fully developed, they can’t enter into legal contracts, and they still need parent permission for certain activities. These high schoolers may be unduly influenced by teachers or school positions on issues, and many have no real-world experience.  Who’s For It? California Association of Student Councils, Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Alex Padilla, California League of Conservation Voters, California School Boards Association Who’s Against It? Election Integrity Project California, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Proposition 19: Portable Property Tax Break If passed, Proposition 19 would give Californians age 55 or older property tax breaks when buying a new home. Typically when Californians buy a new home, their property taxes shoot way up. That’s because property taxes here are based primarily on the value of your home when you bought it—not its current market value. This proposition would allow older individuals to buy a new house anywhere in the state and retain relatively low property taxes.  To fund that new tax break, it would curtail a separate tax break Californians may receive on homes inherited from parents and grandparents. Under current law, a Californian who inherits a home can rent it out yet still pay property taxes locked in at the parents’ rates. Under Proposition 19, if adult heirs want to keep their artificially-low property tax bill, they’ll need to reside in their inherited home.  The California Realtors Association tried to pass a similar initiative two years ago, which California voters rejected. The Realtors and firefighters’ union, two powerful interest groups, convinced lawmakers to put this one on the 2020 ballot. Opponents argue that Proposition 19 is a giveaway to Realtors, who are twisting public policy to boost their commissions. Plus, adult children should have the right to do whatever they want with the property they inherited.  Who’s For It? California Association of Realtors, California Professional Firefighters, Gov. Gavin Newsom, California Democratic Party, California Nurses Association  Who’s Against It? The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Proposition 20: Increased Penalties for Property Crimes & Parole Violations If passed, Proposition 20 would give California prosecutors new flexibility to charge some property crimes of more than $250, such as “serial shoplifting” and car theft, as felonies rather than misdemeanors. The proposition would increase penalties for former inmates who violate the terms of their supervised release three times, making it more likely that they will be sent back to jail or prison. It would also require law enforcement to collect DNA samples from people convicted of certain misdemeanors, including shoplifting, forgery and illegal drug possession, and place that information in a state database. Additionally, it would double the number of felonies that disqualify prison inmates from being able to apply for early parole consideration.  Six years ago, Californians passed Prop. 47, knocking many felonies down to misdemeanors. Two years later they passed Prop. 57, creating new opportunities for inmates to apply and qualify for early release from prison. Law enforcement unions, conservative prosecutors, crime-minded legislators and some retailers concerned about shoplifting say it’s swung too far and they’ve put Prop. 20 on the ballot. Opponents argue that California already tried the “tough on crime” strategy. It didn’t cut crime, but it did allow for massive growth in the state’s prisons budget.  Who’s For It? California Retailers Association, Various Public Safety Groups  Who’s Against It? Governor Newsom, California Democratic Party, ACLU

Proposition 21: Rent Control  If passed, Proposition 21 would allow cities to pass rent control measures on almost all rental housing, as long as it’s more than 15 years old. Renters got a break in a 2019 Legislative Deal, when the state enacted a law capping annual rent increases at around 8%. But another, older state law doesn’t let cities enact their own, stricter rent control laws for single-family homes or rental housing first occupied in the past 25 years. Nor can cities prevent landlords from raising the rent on new tenants to market rates.  If the measure passes, cities and states may lose revenue in the “high tens of millions per year,” according to an analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s office, because a decline in the value of rental properties will result in landlords paying lower property taxes. There are still a few exemptions built into Prop. 21. For example, cities still wouldn’t be able to cap rent increases by “mom-and-pop landlords,” who own no more than two small properties such as single-family homes or condos.  Opponents argue that Prop. 21 would make it less profitable for builders to construct more housing, affordable or not, at a time when California has a massive housing shortage. It would also decrease revenue for city and state governments, already cash-strapped by the pandemic. Plus, Californians already made up their mind in 2018. Who’s For It? Michael Weinstein, president of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, California Democratic Party, Eviction Defense Network and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders Who’s Against It? California Apartment Association, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Essex Property Trust, Prometheus Real Estate Group, California Seniors Advocates League

Proposition 22: App-Based Gig Workers Since January, state law (AB 5) has required former independent contract workers in many industries to be classified as employees and offered benefits such as overtime pay, health care, paid sick leave, unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation. If Proposition 22 passes, companies that employ drivers through apps—including Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Instacart—would instead keep workers classified as independent contractors and be able to offer narrower benefits than what employees receive. This includes pay that is at least 120% of minimum wage, health care subsidies and accident insurance. Benefits under Prop. 22 would be tied to drivers’ “engaged time” completing passenger routes, excluding any wait time on apps between rides. The measure also includes consumer safety changes such as more driver background checks and zero tolerance for drug or alcohol violations.  Opponents argue that by giving these tech companies a carveout, the State would be undermining other industries who pay their employees fairer wages and pay for unemployment insurance and workers compensation.  Who’s For It? Uber, Lyft, Instacart, California Chamber of Commerce Who’s Against It? California Labor Federation, California Teachers Association

Proposition 23: Dialysis Center Rules Proposition 23 would require kidney dialysis clinics to have at least one physician present during all operating hours, and to report infection data to the state. It would also require that operators get approval from the state’s health department before closing a clinic, and prohibit clinics from discriminating against patients based on insurance type.  The Service Employees International Union has targeted the dialysis companies. Two years ago the union introduced a ballot initiative that would have essentially limited clinics’ profits. After a very expensive battle in 2018, voters ultimately sided with the dialysis companies.  Opponents to Proposition 23 argue that it is unnecessary, as clinics already report infection data to the federal government. They also already have the necessary medical staff to keep patients safe, including a medical director. But adding physicians around the clock would only increase costs for clinics, pushing them to reduce hours or possibly close. What this is, at heart, is a union ploy to pressure clinics and organize dialysis workers. Who’s For It? SEIU, California Labor Federation, California Democratic Party  Who’s Against It? DaVita, Fresenius, California Medical Association

Proposition 24: Update to California’s Privacy Rules Proposition 24 would update California’s data privacy law by in the following ways:  By letting you tell businesses to limit the use of sensitive data, such as your exact location, health information, race and religion By prohibiting businesses from holding onto your data for longer than necessary By allowing the government to fine companies up to $7,500 for violating children’s privacy rights By creating a new state agency to enforce the privacy law, investigate violations and assess penalties By reducing the number of businesses that have to comply, making it apply only to companies that buy or sell data of at least 100,000 households a year.  San Francisco real estate developer Alastair Mactaggart began advocating for consumer privacy a few years ago, and successfully pushed the Legislature to pass a landmark data privacy law in 2018. Opponents argue that some of the updates in Prop. 24 would hurt consumers by delaying a rule that allows workers to find out what information employers collect about them, making it easier for businesses to charge you more if you don’t let them sell your data, and allowing tech companies to grab your data when you leave California. They also argue that this proposition is the pet project of one man and lacks backing from a broad coalition of privacy advocates. In fact, some privacy advocates oppose it. Who’s For It: Californians for Consumer Privacy, Consumer Watchdog, NAACP President Alice Huffman  Who’s Against It: ACLU, Consumer Federation of California

Proposition 25: Cash Bail  In 2018, former Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that would have replaced cash bail with an algorithm to assess a person’s risk for not appearing at trial—the higher the risk, the less likely they are to be released. Under the 2018 law, Superior Courts would have to create new pretrial assessment divisions. Opposition, led by the bail bonds industry, challenged the law almost immediately.   If passed, Proposition 25 would uphold the 2018 law, transforming how people get out of jail while awaiting trial by making California the first state to replace cash bail with an algorithm. There are two sides to the opposition: The bail industry and civil rights advocates. The bail industry argues that Proposition 25 is flawed because California shouldn’t switch something that’s working for an alternative that is no better and is potentially more costly. They also argue that it could lead to more people going free before trial and then committing more crimes. Civil rights advocates argue that while cash bail is fundamentally flawed, algorithms shouldn’t be used for release decisions. They also argue that the factors considered for release will still lead to people of color being held for trial at disproportionate rates. Who’s For It: California Democratic Party, California Medical Association, SEIU, Governor Newsom  Who’s Against It: California Peace Officers Association, NAACP, Human Rights Watch

Printing Industries Association, Inc. of Southern California | 323.728.9500 | lou@piasc.org| www.piasc.org ‌ ‌ ‌