By popular request, here are my analyses/recommendations for the propositions appearing on the California ballot this November:
Proposition 1: Yes. This one would create a right to reproductive freedom, including the right to an abortion, under the California Constitution. Seems like a good step to take. (But I have to admit I haven't done the analysis to figure out exactly what practical effect this may have, if any).
Proposition 26 and 27: Leaning No on 26, No on 27.
Proposition 26 would legalize sports betting (and some other games not currently allowed) in California at Indian casinos and licensed racetracks. The tribes are the biggest proponents of Prop. 26. If you are not too worried about the expansion of gambling (since we already have a bunch, including the California Lottery), and you have some sympathy for the tribes, then go ahead and vote for Prop. 26. But if you are concerned about a wider variety of gambling being available, vote no.
Proposition 27 would open up online sports betting, and is sponsored by a bunch of corporations that offer that. I think this is just a corporate money grab and makes sports betting way too easy, and the fact that they throw in a warm-and-fuzzy PR element of dedicating most of the tax revenue to a homeless and mental health fund doesn't change that. Vote no.
Proposition 28: Yes. This one would allocate a minimum amount of funding for arts and music programs in K-12 public schools. I generally don't like budgeting-by-ballot, as it locks in funding levels regardless of where funding needs may be, but on this one unfortunately it is necessary. Arts and music education is valuable for all students (I can explain why if you don't believe me), and those programs have largely gotten the short end of the stick over the years. A guaranteed funding stream is needed, and I recommend voting yes.
Proposition 29: No. OMFG it is ANOTHER proposition on staffing of dialysis clinics, like the ones CA voters have rejected several times. I'm not particularly fond of corporate dialysis clinics, and I have some sympathy for health care workers, but given that similar propositions have been rejected multiple times before (and recently), I think the message should be made even clearer - just stop it with these already.
Proposition 30: No. I am fine with the idea of a raising income taxes a little bit on those making over $2 million, but this is a worse example of budget-by-ballot, with most of the resulting revenues going to subsidize electric vehicles and related infrastructure, with a smaller chunk going to wildfire prevention. It is very prescriptive on what the money can be spent on, and locks in subsidies for a long time, when it is not clear to me that subsidies are needed for that long. Lyft is a big sponsor of this, so they probably are expecting to benefit from the subsidies. I am thinking that we have better things to spend our money on. I am fine with giving money to CalFire, but they don't get so much from this Proposition; I think they are just along for the ride on this one to make it look better.
Proposition 31: Yes. The state legislature previously passed a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco products. The tobacco companies want to overturn it. This proposition essentially says, yes, we want to keep the ban in place. I don't see a pressing need for flavored tobacco products, and I am fine with hindering the ability of tobacco companies to market to kids. Vote yes.
Posts
