Your 2020 Study Guide for the California Ballot Initiatives
Provided that the next 2020 curveball isn’t aliens descending upon us to commence intergalactic warfare, we will soon find ourselves in front of our ballots (either mail or in-person) staring down another long list of California Ballot Initiatives. Although much of the oxygen in our political world and the media which covers it gets inhaled by national politics, the political decisions that truly impact our everyday lives (and, particularly in this state, pocketbooks) are often made on the state and local levels with much less fanfare.
As a supplement to the Voter Information Packet that we ordinarily receive in the mail (which, in my opinion, is not worth the paper on which it is printed), this piece will analyze each Proposition on the ballot in detail. I will present the arguments for and against each Proposition, as well as offer my preferred decision with rationale. At every opportunity, I do my best to link to the material on which I rely for you to review at your leisure.
Proposition 14 — Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research
Proposition 14 seeks to authorize $5.5 billion in state bonds for stem cell and other medical research, including training, research facility construction, administrative costs, with a dedication of $1.5 billion toward medical research focused on brain-related diseases. The General Fund would be appropriated for repayment.
Argument For — Supporters of Proposition 14 argue that the effort to fund stem cell research in California has yielded an enormous wealth of information, including over 2,900 published, peer-reviewed medical discoveries, and has enrolled, or is expected to enroll, more than 4,000 patients in over 90 clinical trials. In addition, the funding has led to the discovery of cutting-edge therapies or cures often thought as impossible, such as reversing paralysis resulting from a motor vehicle accident and curing blindness. Finally, Proposition 14 intends to commit $1.5 billion toward research for treatments and cures for debilitating diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, and potentially Covid-19.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 14 contend that the stem cell research enterprise has received enough taxpayer money (to the tune of $3 billion) and failed to produce tangible, widely available public health benefits since its inception in 2004. Moreover, they note that Proposition 14 seeks to expand an already bloated bureaucratic aspect of the stem cell research committee while shielding the committee, and its decision-making, from public oversight. Essentially, the opposition believes that this research is not the sort of economically viable project that the State should continue to undertake because, unlike in 2004, the federal government no longer prohibits funding of stem cell research, thereby rendering moot the impetus behind California’s motivation to fund it own efforts.
My Take — Proposition 14 raises a classic conundrum in which I believe that two things can be true at the same time: (1) research into stem cells and the development of treatment and cures has yielded incalculable public benefit in the fields of science and medicine; and (2) the State of California has lived up to its reputation and mismanaged taxpayer money, probably due to unnecessary bureaucracy. Originally, in 2004, when our initial $3 billion of funding was provided, advocates promised us cures for Parkinson’s disease and spinal cord injuries, among other illnesses. Obviously, those promises have yet to be fulfilled.
It is impossible to ignore that there have been individual success stories made possible by our initial public investment into stem cell research. That said, the final bill for Proposition 14 will amount to approximately $7.8 billion after accounting for the additional interest that we, the taxpayer, will have to absorb as part of the deal. Proposition 14 also precludes any Legislative oversight, specifically with respect to the way in which our money is spent. In my opinion, that is a lot of money to grant to anything that refuses to make itself accountable to the people. While I admire the achievements of this project to date, I cannot, as a matter of principle, advocate for allocation of that much taxpayer money without public oversight.
I am a NO on Proposition 14.
Proposition 15 seeks to tax commercial and industrial properties based on current market value, instead of maintaining the status quo, which ties the tax assessment to the property’s purchase price.
Argument For — Since Proposition 13 was passed in 1978, California’s property tax laws have remained unchanged. Under Proposition 13, whether the property is residential, commercial, or industrial, the amount of the property owner’s property tax is tethered to purchase price of the property at the time of purchase. Advocates of Proposition 15 seek to increase revenues to local municipalities and schools by changing the law to assess property taxes based on the current market value of commercial or industrial properties worth over $3 million, without regard for the original purchase price of the property. Supporters of Proposition 15 argue that it is time to institute a progressive tax on the wealthiest corporations in the state (who they contend own much of the commercial and/or industrial property) to shore up a financial deficit for social services desperately in need of funding.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 15 note that the timing of the proposed property tax increase could not be worse as businesses throughout the State continue to battle through the economic ramifications of Covid-19. They suggest that the $3 million threshold set by Proposition 15 will increase the tax burden on several mom and pop shops already struggling to remain open, which could result in further shuttering of small businesses. The opposition goes on to argue that any increase in property taxes as operational costs for many businesses will ultimately be passed down to the consumer in the form of higher prices for goods and services. The result is higher costs to live in an already expensive state during a pandemic that has crippled the economy.
My Take — Proposition 13 has been under assault in this State over the last several election cycles and Proposition 15 is just the latest incarnate. Anyone who has lived here for longer than 35 seconds knows that Proposition 15 is the first step that the government is taking before they attempt to completely gut Proposition 13 and apply the exact same perpetual re-assessment policy toward residential properties and residential property taxes. For this reason alone, I find Proposition 15 to be problematic.
Furthermore, the pretext offered in support of Proposition 15 is that the State intends to use the tax revenue generated from the increase in property taxes on commercial and industrial properties to help public schools, which they argue are underfunded. Well, here’s a fun fact: in 2018–19, California public schools received a total of $97.2 billion in funding from three sources: the state (58%), property taxes and other local sources (32%), and the federal government (9%). It appears as though California’s public schools are already getting a pretty nice chunk of change from property taxes in this State, which are already among the highest in the country.
Well, if the schools are receiving such great sums of money, the second part of the inquiry must shift to how the money is being allocated. Since 1970, the State of California’s inflation-adjusted spending on K-12 education has increased by 129 percent. Like any other aspect of government, I’d be willing to bet that there is some wasteful spending taking place throughout the State’s public schooling system. Perhaps school districts need to figure out how to balance their books before we start increasing the tax burden on property owners in order to give schools more money. I have somewhere they can start: the Los Angeles Unified School District, wherein the district receives $16,402 from the State per child yet spends $18,788 per child.
Maybe the suits in government would be better off trying to figure out how and why they are churning through so much of our taxpayer money before they try and rip more of it away from us through asinine taxes on property that the people own. Until then, kick rocks.
I am a NO on Proposition 15.
Proposition 16 seeks to amend the California Constitution and permit the government to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in decision policies in order to address diversity.
Argument For — Proponents of Proposition 16 seek to establish a more equal and fair society, specifically for underrepresented minorities, by allowing state universities, government agencies, and access to public capital to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in deciding whether to admit students, hire employees, or provide financial grants. They argue that California, like the rest of America, is systemically racist and that the idea of a level playing field in society is a myth, resulting in lesser or no opportunities for disadvantaged minorities. Promoters suggest that 1996’s Proposition 209 (which added the language to the State Constitution which Proposition 16 seeks to remove) was not a boon for diversity and has, in fact, hampered it, evidenced by generally low minority student numbers throughout California universities.
Those who believe that Proposition 16 should be passed view California as lacking in social mobility, essentially relegating those born in certain economic circumstances to a specific caste. By allowing the State to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in making certain decisions, advocates of Proposition 16 believe that we can achieve equality by targeting outreach to specific communities to provide them with the assistance and resources to be upwardly mobile.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 16 believe that allowing the State of California to consider race, gender, sex, national origin, or color in decision making is an affront to the ideal of America, where any person can achieve any heights through merit. They contend that such a regime will ultimately result in the State favoring some groups of people over others, based solely on their ethnic background, and that this will ultimately harm some groups of minorities or disadvantaged communities.
As for diversity numbers, opponents of Proposition 16 note that California, generally, is more diverse than at any previous time in its history. Moreover, the University of California system boasted its most diverse student class in 2020. Finally, opponents of Proposition 16 note that re-instating affirmative action would replace one form of discrimination with another, whereas a truly color-blind or equal system would reward merit rather than reinforce stereotypes.
My Take — This stuff really should not be difficult. Let’s take a look at the exact language of the State Constitution that Proposition 16 seeks to remove:
California shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.
Said another way: Proposition 16 argues that in order to end discrimination of which we disapprove, we must practice discrimination in a way that we do approve. Here’s another idea: just stop being discriminatory. The whole reason the language cited above was added to the State Constitution in the first instance was because the government was not precluded from being discriminatory and did, in fact, discriminate against certain groups of people and the results were repugnant.
It is myopic to seriously contend that the government should have the ability to “righteously” discriminate to the benefit of some groups of people over others in the name of justice, fairness, or equality. History is replete with well-intentioned people believing that they were going to improve society by specifically discriminating for or against certain groups of people on the basis of immutable characteristics. We do not have to read too far into each story to be reminded of how it always ended.
We have a lot of ills in our society, many of which find their genesis in an unreasonable dislike of others on the basis of nothing more than the color of their skin or the country from which their family originated. I can think of no worse solution to this problem than to allow the State of California to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a basis to specifically discriminate in favor of preferred groups at the expense of other groups. Equality of opportunity does not mean that the State, in its “infinite wisdom,” should have the opportunity to be the arbiter of which race or gender or national origin is more or less entitled to access to a specific service. This road only leads us back towards one thing: separate but equal.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Proposition 16 is also ironically patronizing. The central thesis upon which Proposition 16 is built feigns intent to humbly assist minority or disadvantaged communities, but in reality, evidences contempt for them because the concession must be made that Proposition 16 assumes, as true, that those communities are incapable of achieving anything independently and without the assistance of the State. Not only does this argument cheapen the already established accomplishments of each person who was born into less-than-favorable circumstances and who, nevertheless, succeeded; Proposition 16 also seeks to cheapen the accomplishments of each disadvantaged person going forward by making each such accomplishment subservient to the State through which the accomplishments were purportedly made possible. I reject the flawed assumption that state-sponsored discrimination is necessary to provide people with the opportunity to better their lot.
As a final point for consideration, Proposition 16 assumes, as a matter of undisputed fact, that our preferred political party will always be in charge of the government in this State. As a thought experiment, ask yourself this: do you trust your political opponents with the power to discriminate for or against people in this State on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin? If your answer is no, then you should take great pause in considering your vote.
I am seriously troubled that Proposition 16 is on the ballot. I am appalled that the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board endorsed this albatross. It bears stating unequivocally: discrimination of every flavor, every time, and in every instance is abhorrent.
I am a FIRM NO on Proposition 16.
Proposition 17 — Restores the Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term
Proposition 17 seeks to restore the voting rights of felons upon the completion of their prison sentence but prior to the completion of parole.
Argument For — Advocates for Proposition 17 contend that once a felon completes their prison sentence, but is still on parole, it is beneficial for their assimilation back into civil society to permit them to participate in the voting process. Given the already stringent rules to which parolees must adhere as per the terms of their parole, supporters of Proposition 17 argue that there is no harm to public safety by permitting parolees to have their voting rights restored. On the contrary, research shows that those states where felons are permanently stripped of their voting rights have a higher rate of recidivism.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 17 suggest that it restores the voting rights of felons prematurely. Current California law restores voting rights to released felons after they have completed the entirety of their parole. Citing statistics from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, which note that approximately 50% of felons commit crimes within three years of being paroled, opponents argue that restoring voting rights to all parolees does a disservice to the victims of crime and the general public.
My Take — For me, this is a tough needle to thread. On the one hand, current law provides that felons who complete parole and demonstrate their total rehabilitation have their voting rights restored. On the other hand, parole is not part of the prison sentence and therefore, preventing parolees from having their voting rights restored after paying their debt to society seems less about rehabilitation and more about punitive punishment. In the final analysis, I see no criminal justice purpose served by precluding parolees from voting after the completion of their prison term.
I am a YES on Proposition 17.
Argument For — Supporters of Proposition 18 note that many 17-year-olds in California are employed, pay taxes, and are permitted to join the military. Proposition 18 has the intended goal of boosting youth engagement in local politics by carving out an exception that permits a 17-year-old to participate in a primary election provided that they turn 18 prior to the general election. This allows for young voices to be heard throughout the entire electoral process, rather than simply in a general election with a field of fewer options.
Argument Against — It was difficult to find much opposition to Proposition 18. What I did find was repeated, nearly verbatim, from what is offered in the Voter Information Packet. At bottom, opponents of Proposition 18 contend that 17-year-olds are still legally classified as children, biologically their brains are not yet fully developed, they cannot enter into legal contracts, and they still need parent permission for certain activities. In addition, these high schoolers may be unduly influenced by teachers or school positions on issues, and many have no real world experience with paying bills, renting or buying a house, or holding down a job.
My Take — Honestly, I was unaware this was not already a thing. An otherwise eligible voter, who will be of voting age at or before the general election, should be able to participate in the primary election preceding that general election.
I am a YES on Proposition 18.
Proposition 19 — Changes Certain Property Tax Rules/Proposition 21 — Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Proposition 19 seeks to allow homeowners who are over 55, disabled, or wildfire/disaster victims to transfer their primary residence’s tax base to their replacement residence, changes the taxation of family-property transfers, and establishes a fire protection services fund.
Proposition 21 seeks to allow local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old and to allow the local limits on rate increases to differ from the statewide limit.
My Take — I grouped these two Propositions together because I am old enough to remember when these exact same Propositions were brought before the people two years ago. I remember because I wrote about them. Back then, Proposition 19 was called Proposition 5 and Proposition 21 was called Proposition 10.
My opinions have not changed. California voters overwhelmingly rejected the former versions of these calamities by nearly the same, identical margins of approximately 40% to 60%. Voters should do the same thing now.
I am a NO on Propositions 19 and 21.
Proposition 20 seeks to limit access to parole programs established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses.
Argument For — Supporters of Proposition 20 seek to address the unintended consequences of 2014’s Proposition 47, which resulted in re-classification of certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. They argue that rape of an unconscious person, trafficking a child for sex, assault of a peace officer, felony domestic violence and other similar crimes are not presently classified as “violent felonies,” making those convicted under these crimes eligible for early release from prison under 2016’s Proposition 57. Additionally, proponents of Proposition 20 seek to address rampant crimes regarding property by creating two new theft-related crimes: Serial Theft (two or more convictions involving property worth more than $250) and Organized Retail Theft (a person committing petty theft acting with others two or more times within 180 days where the combined property stolen is worth more than $250).
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 20 contend that over the last several election cycles, voters have continually voted to reduce wasteful prison spending and that Proposition 20 is too heavy-handed of a reaction in response to these recent criminal justice reforms. They note that between 2009 and 2019, California’s crime rates have dropped in every category, including theft. Moreover, the opposition argues that Proposition 20 has a hidden agenda: requiring the DNA collection of any person convicted of misdemeanor theft or drug possession.
My Take — Proposition 20 is a perfect example of the inherent flaws with the proposition system in California: ultimately, it is an all-or-nothing effort. Some questions are well suited for this system, while others are better suited for resolution through debate in the Legislature.
I do not think that anyone seriously disagrees that certain types of crimes should be upgraded to violent felonies. I do not think that anyone seriously disagrees that those convicted of such violent felonies should be precluded from early release from prison. I do think that reasonable minds can disagree about the DNA collection component, as well as the addition of two new crimes and the associated penalties for conviction of those crimes. In my opinion, Proposition 20 attempts to do too much at once. Ultimately, I think that each of these issues are better suited for debate, compromise, and resolution through the Legislature.
I am a NO on Proposition 20.
Proposition 22 seeks to allow classification of app-based drivers as independent contractors, instead of employees, as a specific exemption to Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”) and provides independent-contractor drivers other compensation.
Argument For — Supporters of Proposition 22 argue that the flexibility of being classified as independent contractors, as opposed to employees, allow drivers of app-based transportation/delivery services to set their own schedules and earn as much supplemental income as they desire. They argue that requiring all drivers to be classified as employees would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs at a time in which a large portion of the population are already in dire economic straits.
In addition, the major players in the space (i.e., Uber and Lyft) have offered to provide extended benefits to drivers, such as health insurance, as a sign of their commitment to employee care. Finally, proponents of Proposition 22 note that requiring app-based transportation and delivery companies to re-classify all of their drivers as employees would require a total overhaul of their business operations, which would likely result in, at a minimum, disruption of service, or at worst, shutdown of business.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 22 attack on two fronts. The first is that Proposition 22 does not provide as many workplace protections for drivers as they would receive under AB5, such as unemployment, sick days, and family leave. While they concede that opposing Proposition 22 could result in the loss of jobs, they maintain that the risks are worthwhile in order to secure sufficient workplace rights.
The second front focuses on the fact that the reason Uber and Lyft have dedicated so much money (over $180 million spent on the Yes campaign as of the date of this writing) to the effort to pass Proposition 22 is because the status quo is lucrative for company higher-ups and shareholders. Ultimately, the opposition concludes that the token effort to “better” the working experience of app-based drivers under Proposition 22 is nothing more than a smokescreen.
My Take — Before we substantively analyze Proposition 22, it is important to understand the context of how we arrived here. In 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an unanimous decision in a case entitled Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. The central holding of this case completely redefined the legal analysis used since 1989 to distinguish between employees and independent contractors.
Previously, under what was known as the Borello test, a series of eleven factors were balanced on a case-by-case basis to make a determination as to the legal status of an individual worker. With the ruling in Dynamex, the Borello test was replaced with a three-prong analysis, commonly referred to as the ABC Test. Both tests, for whatever it’s worth, were invented out of whole cloth by the judges sitting on the high court.
Not long after the Dynamex opinion was issued, AB5 was passed into law, which is itself modeled after the Dynamex decision. Thus, essentially overnight, the legal relationship between employees, independent contractors, and employers was radically altered. As one would expect, those industries powerful enough to have lobbies (i.e., physicians, lawyers, financial services, etc.) immediately carved out exceptions to AB5. However, less fortunate industries (i.e., freelance photographers, journalists, and independent theatre and arts groups) faced mass layoffs or shuttering of operations altogether. In sum, AB5 is a disaster.
Enter Proposition 22. Companies like Uber and Lyft are powerful enough (even if they are both operating at huge losses) to have done what should have been done: crafted Proposition 22 to overturn AB5 and the Dynamex decision and bring the vote to the people. In fact, if you listen to the “Yes on 22” ads on television and don’t pay close attention, they are actually framing Proposition 22 as so doing. But the reality is quite different: Proposition 22 provides only a narrow exception to AB5 for those companies, leaving every other independent contractor in the state to fend for themselves as subjects to this disastrous legislation.
Furthermore, I think Uber and Lyft are bluffing. If AB5 were truly so prohibitive to their business operations, then they would have sought to overturn the law rather than simply obtain a carveout. Additionally, I think they can convert their drivers to employees, even if the expense of doing so is costly, because I suspect that they are simply going to pass those costs through down to us, the consumers. One seemingly obvious reason that they are fighting this tooth and nail is because their officers and directors have fiduciary obligations to their respective shareholders, and converting their business models after putting up a fight is a little easier of a pill for their shareholders to swallow, while also serving as a shield from costly litigation.
At bottom, we the people are left with a catch-22 (pun intended). On the one hand, AB5 is arguably one of the worst modern developments in labor law. On the other hand, Proposition 22 is a woefully inadequate fix, designed solely to benefit two very large corporations at the expense of workers that make each respective company operate, while leaving an awful law in existence. On balance, I am prepared to endure slightly more expensive rides home and hope that the Legislature finds the courage to overturn AB5 and the Dynamex decision.
I am a NO on Proposition 22.
Proposition 23 seeks to require a physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant to be on-site during dialysis treatment and to prohibit clinics from reducing services without state approval or refuse to treat patients based on the patient’s payment source.
Argument For — Proponents of Proposition 23 argue that it is necessary for patient safety. Proposition 23 would require each dialysis facility to maintain a physician on-site during all dialysis treatments, report infection data to state and federal governments, get state approval to reduce services or close clinics, and treat all patients equally regardless of how they pay for care. Supporters contend that it is critical to have a trained physician on-site as the patients who typically receive dialysis treatment are among the most vulnerable.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 23 note that all dialysis treatment centers are already heavily regulated by the State. Moreover, by requiring a physician to be on-site at all times, the cost of dialysis treatment will skyrocket, thereby making an already vital service for a highly vulnerable class of patients more difficult to obtain. With respect to patient safety, opponents note that in 2018, the average dialysis clinic had 11 patients die, which is lower than the national average both in percentage and in number.
My Take — Proposition 23 is reminiscent of 2018’s Proposition 8, which was defeated by voters 40% to 60%. Once again, voters are tasked with deciding how dialysis treatment centers should be regulated. This time, as with last time, the alignment of advocates are the same: unions on the Yes side and DaVita and Fresenius on the No side.
I think that it is tough to make an informed decision in an area that requires such highly specialized knowledge. I do think that the status quo appears to operate without alarming issues. If any changes need to be made, such changes are better achieved by allowing the competing interests to work through elected representatives in the Legislature to add to, remove from, update, or otherwise revise the Health and Safety Codes as appropriate.
I am a NO on Proposition 23.
Proposition 24 — Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
Proposition 24 seeks to permit consumers to prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, and limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information,” including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. Proposition 24 also establishes the California Privacy Protection Agency.
Argument For — Advocates for Proposition 24 contend that the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), which went into effect this year, failed to deliver on its promises. Chief among these failures is the lack of an individual enforcement capability against technologies companies selling data without consumer consent. In addition, supporters argue that Proposition 24 closes various loopholes in the CCPA that have been exploited by large technology companies to the detriment of consumers. In order to give the law more teeth, Proposition 24 allows consumers to sue companies if their negligence causes consumer emails or passwords to be breached, as well as triples the fines against companies that break laws regarding collection or sale of child data.
Argument Against — Opponents point out that CCPA is the already the strongest such law in the nation. Additionally, the opposition notes that the increased protections offered by Proposition 24 allow technology businesses to charge more for those users who choose to opt out of data selling/sharing, thus potentially adversely affecting the privacy rights of less economically fortunate communities. Another factor, which has raised concerns amongst privacy advocates, is the establishment of the California Privacy Protection Agency, another governmental agency that opponents argue will be staffed by political appointees ultimately accountable to no one.
My Take — In conducting my research on Proposition 24, two glaring things stood out to me. First, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”), a non-profit digital rights group based in San Francisco, has expressly chosen neither to endorse nor oppose Proposition 24. They note, in a lengthy post on their website, that Proposition 24 is ultimately a “mixed bag of partial steps backwards and forwards.” Specifically, the EFF denounced the pay-for-privacy scheme, stating: “Unfortunately, pay-for-privacy schemes pressure all Californians to surrender their privacy rights. Worse, because of our society’s glaring economic inequalities, these schemes will unjustly lead to a society of privacy ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots.’”
Second, the ACLU of California expressly stated its opposition to Proposition 24, suggesting that it is ultimately a “giveaway to social media and tech giants.” They go on to argue that, as opposed to protections for consumers, Proposition 24 actually “requires people to jump through more hoops and adds anti-privacy loopholes: exceptions for big business, less protection for workers, and more power for police.”
Ultimately, I think that it is premature to suggest that a law that went into effect this year is ripe for tweaking through the ballot initiative system. With barely eleven months’ worth of information available to us, it strikes me as implausible that all of the CCPA’s shortcomings have been identified at all, much less correctly identified. Absent accurate identification of the inadequacies of a law, it is impossible to weigh whether the proposed solutions are necessary.
Furthermore, without a clear understanding of the problems that Proposition 24 seeks to solve, we have no way of knowing whether implementation of the proposed solutions actually resolves the issues. As it stands, it seems just as likely that by passing Proposition 24, we simply trade one set of problems for another. I also think that if a new government-enforcement agency must be created, further consideration and debate as to the manner in which it is financed, as well as how it will be held accountable to the people, must be had through the Legislature.
I am a NO on Proposition 24.
Proposition 25 seeks to abolish money bail for each accused and, instead, allow only for an assessment of flight risk or danger to public safety to be determined in deciding whether to hold the accused in prison before trial.
Argument For — Supporters of Proposition 25 argue that the accused, while awaiting trial, may be brought to financial ruin, usually as a result of termination of employment, because they have insufficient money to post bail. Moreover, proponents of Proposition 25 point out that the imposition of money bail inherently criminalizes poverty and race. Instead of money bail, advocates suggest that each county establish its own procedures, through which a judge can ascertain if an accused is a high-, medium- or low-risk of committing a crime or of being a flight risk. Those considered low-risk would be set free until trial, those at high-risk would be held in jail, and judges would have discretion to decide how to handle those in the middle bracket.
Argument Against — Opponents of Proposition 25 hone in on the proposed replacement to money bail. They argue that the county-by-county independent assessment procedure would be, in practice, an algorithm similar to those used by Big Tech to target people with advertisements, and which already have a reputation of being discriminatory towards the poor, minorities, and people who live in certain neighborhoods. The opposition posits that, rather than settle for Proposition 25 as an immediate and inadequate solution to the discriminatory aspects of the criminal justice system, true reform advocates should focus their efforts on replacing the existing money bail system with reforms that reduce pretrial incarceration and guarantee meaningful due process for all accused people.
My Take — On the one hand, it is undeniably true that the money bail system benefits those with the economic resources or financial support to post bail. Furthermore, it is undeniably true that the imposition of money bail adversely and disproportionately affects the accused who are minorities, poor, or both. Finally, it is undeniably true that the bail bond industry is built on exploiting victims of the money bail system.
On the other hand, trial court judges in the State of California carry an enormous case load, particularly within the criminal courts. At the outset of every case, during the arraignment hearing, judges are armed with very limited information about the material facts of each case, the accused, or evidence of the alleged crime (or lack thereof). It is at this time, with information at its nadir, when judges make the decision to impose bail. If the accused posts bail, then the accused goes home pending their trial without regard for what the judge may think of the individual.
Proposition 25 contains the flawed foundational assumption that judges are saints, immune from inherent biases. While I have great respect for the judges throughout this State, I am unconvinced that bestowing additional authority on them to ascertain which among the accused are high, medium, or low risk of committing crimes while awaiting trial is the optimal method of criminal justice or bail reform. I am further unconvinced that such judicial discretion, supported by advanced technologically sourced data, would have any positive impact on the pre-trial release of minority or impoverished accused. Ultimately, in my opinion, Proposition 25 is an inadequate solution to a problem that very much needs fixing.
I am a NO on Proposition 25.
—
If you made it this far, thank you for reading. I maintain no illusions in thinking that you agree with each (or any) of my conclusions but I hope that this was informative in assisting you arrive at your own.
As a final note, please DO NOT forget to storygram a selfie with your “I Voted” sticker or else no one, least of all me, will believe you actually voted.
