How I’m voting on California ballot propositions, November 2018

Two years ago, I wrote this piece on why I oppose California’s ballot prop system and thus vote no on the majority of ballot initiatives. Ever since, people have asked me how I’m voting each election, so I thought I’d document my votes here.

If you didn’t read my ballot props piece, Why I vote “no” on (almost) all California ballot propositions, even if I agree with them, the TL;DR was that ballot propositions should be treated as an absolute last resort with significant costs. And that the only initiatives that should be considered are those that pass three tests: 1) well crafted and clear, 2) pertain to a critically important issue like civil rights, and 3) have no other path to becoming law besides ballot initiative. When in doubt vote no, even if you agree with the spirit of the inititiave.

So, what about 2018?

TL;DR “Yes” on 1, 2, and 7. “No” on all other state initiatives, “No” on SF Prop C.

Bond Initiatives

Bond initiatives represent a bit of an exception to my “vote no” rule, because 1) new sources of revenue can ONLY be enacted via ballot initiative, and 2) bonds are one-time things, unlike for example tax changes, which are forever (unless overturned by a subsequent ballot prop). Nonetheless, bonds aren’t free, and we should have a higher standard.

YES on Props 1 and 2. I believe housing is the #1 crisis in California right now. These bonds are reasonable and will make a difference. Prop 2 doesn’t even create any new bonds, but rather uses revenue already raised from Prop 63.

NO on Props 3 and 4

• Prop 3 is egregious; it is a giveaway to special interests backed by a pay-to-play veteran looking to end-around the legislature. It includes feel good sweeteners designed to manipulate to liberals (like me) into supporting it. Don’t be a sucker, vote NO.
• I’m more ambivalent about Prop 4. Our hospital infrastructure is crumbling. That said, using bonds in the state general fund to fund specific hospitals feels off to me. I don’t know enough about it, so I’m following the “when in doubt, vote NO” rule on this one.

Tax Initiatives

NO on Props 5 and 6. These initiatives are both craven and terrible.

• Prop 5 in particular panders to senior citizens and realtors, and further cements the unfairness of Prop 13. It lets seniors keep their (often huge) property tax subsidy even when UPSIZING their home(!). Scream from the rooftops, NO on 5 and shame on anyone who supports it
• Prop 6 repeals the (good and important) fuel tax, but much more importantly, makes it even harder than it already is to raise fuel and vehicle taxes in the future.

YES on Prop 7

• I’m ambivalent on this one. It’s obviously not critically important. But it repeals a past ballot initiative that locked California into the federal daylight savings time system. If the federal government decides to increase state flexibility on the savings time question, 7 lets us decide for ourselves whether we want to move to permanent DST (which I think would be great). So a yes on 7 = more flexibility for California.

NO on Props 8, 10, 11, 12

• Prop 8 is health care price fixing via permanent ballot prop. I don’t care how good the intent it, this is a bad idea. Unintended consequences are guaranteed
• Prop 10 repeals Costa-Hawkins and lets cities enact rent control. This is bad on both substance and process. Substantively, I believe rent control is bad in aggregate, and expanding it would make it even harder politically to change Prop 13. But even if you support the idea, doing it by ballot prop is a legislative end-around
• Prop 11 involves an ambulance company labor dispute and a huge lawsuit that said ambulance company wants to get out of paying for. Don’t fall for the disingenuous “public safety” argument the TV ads are making. This is a clear no.
• Prop 12 is about animal meat. Fails the compelling interest standard, risks unintended consequences (reminds me of a prop that passed ten years about “free range” chickens. Turns out if you give chickens more space, they don’t care to use it. All the law did was increase the cost of eggs. Of course, it passed

NO on Prop C. This initiative has become a battle royale between tech titans in San Francisco. I tend to side with state representative Scott Weiner on this one. It is a poorly conceived tax, taxing gross receipts (which is wrong per se, and disproportionately affects low-margin, aka non-software, businesses) for companies only over a certain size, and imposes a 1.5% (that’s high!) payroll tax on certain big companies. And I actually agree with the GOP position here (which, if you know me, is highly atypical for me) that 1) SF already has a huge amount of funding for homelessness, with very little to show for it, and 2) Prop C raises money but doesn’t actually put forth a clear plan for how to spend it. Let the new Mayor do her job, don’t tie her hands with Prop C. Vote NO.

As always: please tell me why I’m wrong in the comments! Responses to my first piece changed my mind on at least two initiatives, and I’m ready to be persuaded again.