Measure for Measure: Additional Propositions (3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12)

Voting is an essential part of civic engagement, but it can be confusing, especially in local elections. There are tons of measures and candidates to consider in the upcoming election on November 6th. That’s why we’re doing this round-up of the statewide measures, to provide some insight into the 2018 ballot.

Check out our round-up page for more articles on the other measures.

We’ve covered the statewide measures that pertain to our issue areas in the preceding articles. We’re left with Props 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, and 12, which we’ll cover in this wrap-up Measure for Measure article.

What is Proposition 3?

Prop 3 is a measure that would authorize $8.9 billion in bonds to be used for water infrastructure projects. This money would be distributed to a host of initiatives, including $200 million for the Oroville dam repair (click here to see the distribution). The measure also requires that $1.4 billion be spent on projects that benefit disadvantaged communities, defined by the state as areas with a median income of $63,000/year or less. This is following the similar Prop 68 that passed this past June, which authorized $4.1 billion in bonds to go to protecting natural resources, $1.5 of which was designated for water projects.

What are the arguments for and against Prop 3?

The measure is backed by Yes on 3: California Water Bond 2018, a ballot measure committee that largely consists of conservation groups, agricultural organizations, Central Valley farmers, and water agencies. Supporters of the measure argue that Prop 3 “will benefit individual water users, the environment, and agriculture.” They highlight the wide distribution of funds as balanced and resulting in water improvements across the state.

The measure is opposed most significantly by the Sierra Club and editorial boards of prominent California publications, including The East Bay Times + Mercury News and San Francisco Chronicle. Opponents of the measure argue that it’s pay-to-play, and that Central Valley farmers and specific water districts and authorities would disproportionately benefit from the tax that all Californians will be paying. Some critique the lack of oversight in the measure, saying there is a lack of accountability required for such a large sum of money. Opponents are wary of another water bond; in the past twenty years we’ve passed eight statewide bond measures for water issues, more than $29 billion in total. They argue that our water infrastructure hasn’t benefited from those influxes of cash proportionate to our spending, and that this measure is just a continuation of poor fund allocation

What is Proposition 4?

Prop 4 is a measure that would authorize $1.5 billion in bonds to expand and upgrade children’s hospitals whose patients include children who qualify for government programs like MediCal. It would be distributed to nonprofit children’s hospitals ($1.08 billion), UC hospitals with children’s hospitals ($270 million), and some public and private hospitals that provide pediatric services ($150 million). Since state funding for children’s hospitals was cut in the 90s, these hospitals have been relying on bond measures to fund their operations and infrastructure in the aughts. Voters approved a $750 million bond in 2004 (Prop 61) and a $980 million bond in 2008 (Prop 3). These funds would be used for renovation, construction, equipment, and financing.

What are the arguments for and against Prop 4?

The measure is backed by Yes 4 Children’s Hospitals, a ballot measure committee with wide support. The main proponents of the measure are the children’s hospitals themselves, but they have received support from a significant number of state representatives, editorials, and organizations. Supporters of the measure argue that the money would be put to good use, enabling hospitals to give higher quality care and invest in lifesaving technology and research. They argue the money is needed to go towards meeting the impending seismic retrofitting requirements which need to be met by 2030. Two-thirds of patients served at these hospitals are Medi-Cal recipients (which adds to hospital costs significantly), so this measure would benefit kids from low-income families.

There isn’t a substantial coalition against Prop 4. Opponents of the measure argue that bonds are unsustainable and interest-laden methods for funding private hospitals, and that it should be up to the Legislature to add such funding to the budget, rather than racking up voter-inflicted debt. They say that private hospitals shouldn’t skirt the oversight of the legislature who could have approved such a bond if they thought it had merit.

What is Proposition 7?

Prop 7 would enable state legislators to seek federal approval to end, make permanent, or change Daylight Saving Time. Ballot FYI has some great visuals/tools to help you understand how it would work compared to the rest of the country. If the state Legislature got Congress’ approval to enact year-round Daylight Saving Time, it would mean darker mornings and brighter evenings in the winter.

What are the arguments for and against Prop 7?

The measure is put on the ballot by the state Legislature. Supporters of the measure argue that later sunsets during the winter would reduce traffic accidents, electricity consumption, and crime, as well as prevent increased heart attacks after the day of clock switching and other health detriments. Teachers blame the current system for poor concentration in their students and would welcome the change. Some people just want time to be less complicated, or see this as an opportunity for the state to reevaluate the whole concept.

Opponents of the measure argue that it could put the state out of sync with most of the rest of the country, as well as our southern neighbor Mexico, which would cause more confusion than our synchronized biannual jump. Some argue that the sunnier afternoons coming at the expense of darker mornings will lead to similar traffic complications in the morning as we currently have in winter afternoons.

What is Proposition 8?

Prop 8 would limit dialysis clinic’s revenue to 115% of “direct patient care service costs” and “health care quality improvement costs,” and require clinics to issue refunds for anything exceeding that amount. It includes annual reporting requirements to the state for clinic costs, patient charges, and revenue, and it would prohibit clinics from discriminating against patients based on the source of payment for care. It has largely come out of labor disputes between labor union SEIU-UHW and the two biggest for-profit dialysis firms in California, DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care. The labor union has been having trouble unionizing the dialysis workers, much to the joy of the firms. SEIU-UHW has put this on the ballot in an effort to institutionalize some of their demands, such as investing in staff wages, benefits, and trainings. This revenue cap could potentially focus clinic spending on the above, improving patient care and reducing overall insurance costs for everyone.

What are the arguments for and against Prop 8?

The measure is backed by ballot measure committee Yes on 8, driven by SEIU-UHW and supported by healthcare and community organizations, labor unions, statewide and regional Democratic Party committees, and sundry political and religious leaders. Supporters of the measure argue that the measure will invest more in quality patient care whilst limiting corporate greed, which will lower healthcare premiums for all Californians.

The measure is opposed by the ballot measure committee No on Prop 8, driven by the two dialysis firms DaVita and Fresenius and supported by medical practitioners, clinics, patient advocacy groups, and sundry Chambers of Commerce. It is opposed by many editorial boards as well. Opponents of the measure argue that this restriction on revenue will force clinics to close and put dialysis patients at risk. Some argue that the ballot is not the proper venue to push the needle on a labor dispute, especially when it may come at the expense of clinics and patients.

What is Proposition 11?

Prop 11 would allow private ambulance companies to require EMTs and paramedics to be on-call during their meals and rest breaks. It would require employers to pay for said breaks, as well as for annual training and mental health services for their employees. Much like Prop 8, this is another labor dispute wrapped up into a ballot measure. In 2016, California Supreme Court made a ruling stating that the requirement of private security guards to be on-call during breaks violates state labor law. After that, some EMTs and paramedics filed similar suits against private ambulance companies, most significantly American Medical Response. They are looking for the same rule to be applied to their breaks, as well as compensation for past breaks that have been interrupted by 911 calls.

AMR and EMT labor unions have attempted to settle this legislatively, but progress has stalled. AMR has decided to bring this to the voters to attempt to finalize the on-call status of their workers during breaks. An important thing to note is the retroactive immunity clause embedded within the measure, which would absolve the private ambulance companies from any liability on the matter since the 2016 Supreme Court decision. This would mean any payout for previously interrupted breaks would be obstructed.

What are the arguments for and against Prop 11?

The measure is backed by the ballot measure committee Californians for Emergency Preparedness and Safety and is driven by American Medical Response, a private ambulance company. The coalition is comprised of taxpayer associations, , Chambers of Commerce, and private ambulance companies. Numerous editorial boards of regional taxpayers also endorse this measure. Supporters of the measure argue that this is a public health and safety issue. Giving EMTs and paramedics full breaks would require significantly higher staffing, which would cost an estimated $100 million. That incurred cost would likely fall onto local governments. They also point to the other facets of the measure, such as the mental health benefits and yearly wellness trainings as important for the workers.

The measure is opposed by No on Prop 11, which is mainly comprised of labor unions representing emergency workers and the California Democratic Party. The SF Chronicle also opposes this measure. Opponents of the measure argue that this is a smoke screen for AMR to get out of their lawsuits without having to pay any damages. They argue that while responding quickly to 911 calls is critical, the way to resolve this labor issue is not by using voters to settle it; they would rather see this issue resolved with the Legislature and all parties at the table. Aside from the politics around the measure, opponents argue that workers deserve real breaks from their work, and that it’s potentially unsafe to have EMTs and paramedics responding to calls without complete breaks.

What is Proposition 12?

Prop 12 would change the definition of ‘cruel confinement’ in the California Health and Safety Code of calves, pigs, and hens raised for food production. It would add a minimum square-footage requirement for the aforementioned animals, as well as the requirement for egg-laying hens to be kept in a ‘cage-free’ environment. The new requirements would require each calf to have 43 square feet of usable space, pigs 24 square feet, and hens 1 square foot, a slight increase from the previous policy (see Ballot FYI’s article for their amazing modeling of the footage per animal). The measure calls for full compliance by 2021 on the new footage requirements, by 2022 on hens being cage-free.

We passed a prelude to this proposition in 2008, Prop 2. The policy said that animals sold for meat and eggs must be able “to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around.” Later that was clarified for hens to be a minimum of 116 square inches, and they expanded the policy to include all eggs sold in state, no matter where they were laid. Prop 2 was a bit too vague and not very easily enforceable, so Prop 12 addresses those points with specific square-foot requirements as well as empowering the CA Department of Food and Agriculture to enforce the law (costing the state $10 million annually).

What are the arguments for and against Prop 12?

The measure is backed by Prevent Cruelty California, sponsored by the Humane Society and comprising of a coalition of veterinarians, family farms, animal shelters, farmworker organizations, food safety groups, and animal protection charities. Supporters of the measure argue that it’s unethical for animals to have such limited spaces, and has health implications for the animals as well as those consuming the meat and eggs.

The measure is opposed by Californians Against Cruelty, Cages, and Fraud, sponsored by the Humane Farming Action Fund. Some opponents of the measure, like the controversial PETA, argue that the measure does not go far enough. Others, especially large farmers and agriculture industry groups, argue that the measure goes too far too fast. They say the changes will be very expensive and will largely impact the price of meat and eggs. Others take issue with the process, saying the ballot is not the place to regulate this.

Check our round-up page for more measure articles as we publish them!

We’re uniting tech workers to create a more equitable economy. Join us!

We believe the tech industry, built on the internet — the most democratizing communications platform in human history — can and should contribute to broad-based economic growth that benefits everyone.