Click HERE if you’re having trouble viewing the gallery on your mobile device.
On Nov. 6, voters will weigh 11 state ballot propositions that, on their face, sound no more or less crazy than usual for a California ballot.
There is a high-profile fight over the gas tax and four (!) propositions about housing. Other major proposals would put money toward water conservation and hospital construction.
But, as ever, 2018 also will include propositions that seem aimed at narrower audiences.
Should ambulance drivers be on call during meal breaks? It’s on the ballot. Should farm animals live in bigger pens and cages before they’re slaughtered? On it. Should California be allowed to consider Daylight Savings Time year round? It’s there, too.
Political buffets like this are nothing new in California. Since 1912, when the state first began to allow initiatives, voters have weighed 1,253 propositions, including 420 launched by fellow Californians.
Click here for a complete list of our election recommendations.
Here’s a non-partisan look at the propositions up for consideration Nov. 6. (Note: There was a Prop 9, which addressed the question of splitting California into three states, but the California Supreme Court ruled in July that it be removed from the ballot. It could appear on a future ballot.)
Proposition 1
Want to spend $4 billion to help veterans and low-income Californians get access to home loans and lower-cost housing? That’s the question posed by the Veterans and Affordable Housing Bond Act.
Supporters argue the chronic shortage of affordable housing in California is a long-term drag on future economic growth and any step toward fixing it – even one that would be only a partial salve, such as Prop. 1 – is a good idea.
Opponents say Prop. 1 is yet another instance of California diving into long-term debt to solve a current problem, noting that taxpayers would be on the hook for $170 million a year for 35 years.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 2
A yes vote on Prop. 2 – also known as the There’s No Place Like Home act – would aim $2 billion to help stave off homelessness among people in need of mental health care.
The money, a revenue bond, would come out of the so-called “millionaire tax” approved by voters in 2004, which takes 1 percent from incomes of $1 million and up and uses it for services and programs for the mentally ill. Because Prop. 2 would divert some of that money to house the mentally ill, rather than provide them with services or programs, it requires voter approval.
Advocates for the mentally ill can be found among both supporters and opponents of Prop. 2.
Supporters argue that it would produce as many as 20,000 permanent homes, not enough to house everybody who is homeless and mentally ill but a strong start. They also point out that, by reducing the number of mentally ill people on the streets, taxpayers will spend less on everything from police to ambulance services.
Opponents want the money to be spent on treatment and other services, not housing. They believe lawmakers will use some Prop. 2 money for purposes other than helping the homeless, and that developers will take advantage of the funding. They also point out that Prop. 2 does nothing to prevent cities from refusing to accept housing for the mentally ill, a key roadblock to the broader goal.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 3
Prop. 3 would authorize the state to sell $8.9 billion in bonds to pay for water recycling, conservation, storm water capture, groundwater storage and projects to improve fisheries and protect and restore key habitat. It would fund restoration of the Los Angeles River, Lake Tahoe and wetlands in San Francisco Bay, along with some of the costs of repairing Oroville Dam. But it would not pay to construct new dams or build Gov. Jerry Brown’s controversial Delta tunnels project.
Supporters say California needs to be better prepared for droughts. Voters in June approved $4.1 billion for water and parks projects, but this is aimed at different situations and projects.
Opponents argue that Prop. 3 has been created by the very groups that figure to benefit from the spending, particularly Central Valley farmers. They add that while the water and environmental issues addressed in Prop. 3 do warrant attention, the “pay-to-play” way that its backers put it on the ballot (some donors to the campaign suggested which projects should be included) is flawed.
The average annual cost to the state budget over the 40-year life of the Prop. 3 bond would be $433 million.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 4
The Children’s Hospital Bonds Initiative would authorize $1.5 billion for renovations and expansions at several pediatric hospitals, including five connected to the University of California system – Davis, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Irvine and San Diego.
Supporters say a handful of hospitals handle the bulk of pediatric hospitalizations in California, about 2 million a year, and many of those young patients aren’t fully insured. That makes it tough for those hospitals to finance improvements, including advances in medical technologies.
Opponents point out that the proposal would add to the state’s bond debt. Prop. 4 specifically would be repaid at an average annual rate of $84 million a year for 35 years.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 5
The Property Tax Transfer Initiative would adjust the best-known property tax measure in state history – Prop. 13, which passed in 1978 – to allow a bigger pool of older people who sell their houses to keep their Prop. 13-level tax rates, meaning they could move without facing a huge jump in taxes.
But the shift could come at a cost to taxpayers of up to $1 billion a year in lost revenues, resulting in potential cuts to everything from schools and police services to parks and roads.
Technically, Prop. 5 would allow home buyers age 55 and older (as well as those who are severely disabled) to keep their Prop. 13 tax rates no matter how much they’re paying for their new house, where that house is in the state, or how many times they move. As of now, Prop. 13 puts limits on all of those conditions, creating what is widely called the “moving penalty” for older buyers and sellers.
Supporters of Prop. 5 suggest the adjustment does what Prop. 13 initially intended – eliminates huge tax obligations for people on fixed incomes. They say older people selling homes will spur the overall market, something that would help, among others, entry-level buyers.
Opponents suggest Prop. 5 is a windfall for the real estate industry and home sellers that will be financed by taxpayers, school kids and others. They also say that most of the buyers and sellers touched by the “moving penalty” are cashing in on gains in property values, making Prop. 5 a needless gift for the already well-to-do.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 6
The SB1 gas tax was passed a year ago, by state legislators, as a way to finance road and freeway expansions and repairs. It’s a big tax – adding more than 12 cents to the price of a gallon of gas and raising registration fees by an average of $50 per vehicle – that’s projected to generate a big amount of money, more than $54 billion, over the next decade.
Given all that, the outcome of Prop. 6 – known as the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative – has big implications.
If approved, Prop. 6 would end the SB1 portion of the taxes you pay at the pump and put more than $5 billion a year back into drivers’ wallets. It also could end many of the hundreds of road projects already financed by SB1 and defund many more future projects. All of those projects are expected to generate tens of thousands of jobs and related economic growth.
If Prop. 6 is defeated, SB1 would stay in place. The money it generates would help finance a statewide transportation building boom that figures to last through any economic cycles of the next decade.
Supporters say passage of Prop. 6 would lower gas prices immediately. They also point out that the tax is regressive, with poor people paying a greater share of their income than the wealthy pay. Supporters also argue that the state can finance road construction without SB1, by pulling money from other projects and programs.
Prop. 6 opponents say California has some of the worst roads and bridges in the country and that upgrading them is a necessity, not an option. They say the 6,500 projects connected to SB1 are essential for future economic development, and they disagree that existing money could finance those projects.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 7
Do you like Daylight Savings Time, the time system we use in much of spring, all of summer and part of fall? Prop. 7, if passed, would allow California to consider using Daylight Savings Time year round if such a switch is ever allowed by federal law.
Just to be clear, Prop. 7 would not lead to longer days in winter. California voters, powerful as they are, cannot change the shape or size of the earth or its distance from the sun.
Supporters point out many benefits to switching to Daylight Savings Time, full-time, from fewer heart attacks to energy reductions that could save $434 million a year statewide.
Opponents say the current time system allows standard work and school days to start in sunlight, not pre-dawn, noting that sunrise in Southern California would be close to 8 a.m. during the shortest days of the year if Daylight Savings Time were in effect year round. They say the current system is safer for school-age children and reduces the number of accidents connected to morning commutes.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 8
A yes vote for Prop. 8, known as the Limits on Dialysis Clinics’ Revenue and Required Refunds Initiative, would require clinics to issue refunds on revenue exceeding more than 115 percent of the cost of caring for patients. Clinics also would be forced to accept most patients, regardless of their insurer, and to report more information to state regulators.
Refunds would be capped at $100,000 and go to insurance companies and patients who pay out of pocket.
Supporters of Prop. 8 say transparency and better oversight by state regulators will reduce fraud and over billing, which some say is rampant in the industry.
Opponents say Prop. 8 will force many dialysis clinics to close, leading to a potential health crisis for the 66,000 Californians who currently need dialysis.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 10
The Local Rent Control Initiative would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995, letting cities expand rent control and giving them more freedom to determine how those rules might work.
A no vote would allow Costa-Hawkins – which limits the use of rent control in California – to stand. Costa-Hawkins prohibits cities from placing rent controls on housing built after Feb. 1, 1995, and on single-family homes and condominiums. It also ensures that landlords of rent-controlled properties can raise prices to market levels after a tenant moves out.
Supporters believe if Prop. 10 passes many cities in the state will impose new rent control rules or strengthen existing rules, helping to drive down rents. They point out that about half of California residents currently rent their dwelling, and that spiraling rent prices are a key factor behind rising poverty, income inequality and long commutes, among other issues.
They argue that with half of the state residents renting or leasing properties, a move to keep rents in line with inflation will help the state’s long-term economic health.
Opponents say Prop. 10 will only exacerbate some of the problems it intends to fix, and that housing will be in shorter supply if landlords and apartment developers don’t have an economic incentive to bring properties to market. If that scenario plays out, Prop. 10 opponents say the people hit hardest will be low-income renters and seniors.
A fuller explanation of the ballot measure is here.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 11
The Ambulance Employees Paid On-Call Breaks, Training, and Mental Health Services Initiative would set on-call rules for ambulance drivers during their shifts. Drivers would be required to be available to roll on calls during their breaks, and be reachable by cell phones or other devices during their meals and rest periods. They also would be paid while on break, and they would not be required to take their break at the beginning or end of a shift.
The proposition is backed by American Medical Response, which has about 29,000 clinician/drivers and about 6,600 ambulances, and provides medical transportation services about 4,000 cities and towns nationally.
Supporters say the law would bring ambulance driver break rules in line with similar rules for police, firefighters and other emergency service providers.
Opponents suggest the proposal is actually aimed at helping American Medical Response dodge labor lawsuits currently pending against the company in California.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
Proposition 12
The Farm Animal Confinement Initiative would ban the sale of meat and eggs from animals confined in small pens and cages, and define what is and isn’t “too small” by setting specific minimum sizes.
A similar law, Prop. 2, which voters approved in 2008 and took effect in 2015, sets limits for pen sizes and cages, but those limits are based on animal behavior. If Prop. 12 is approved, the specific size requirements would replace the requirements mandated in Prop. 2 starting in 2020.
Interestingly, groups that stick up for animals – including the Humane Society and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals – are on opposite sides of Prop. 12.
The Humane Society and other supporters of Prop. 12 say the current cage rules in California are inhumane, and that the new rules will prevent the sale of products that wring profit out of animal suffering.
The egg and pork farmers who oppose Prop. 12 say the new rules will add costs that have to be passed on to consumers and that they’ll lead to shortages of some meats and eggs. The animal groups that oppose Prop. 12, including PETA, say the measure will perpetuate a system that includes what they believe are inhumane “multi-level” and “cage-free” factory farms.
Read our recommendation on how to vote here.
