Click on a proposition number below or (+) to learn more

State Ballot Propositions

Proposition 14 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative

SUMMARY

  • Issues $5.5 billion in bonds for state stem cell research institute

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • The state government continues to take on more ways to spend taxpayer dollars. Especially since the state is already begun using reserves to fill in for the inevitable budget shortfall because of COVID-19, the state should not take on more debt. An estimated $260 million per year of general fund money will pay bond debt service for the next 30 years.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Robert N. Klein II (Klein Financial Corporation)
  • Dagmar Dolby
  • Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
  • Open Philanthropy Action Fund

NOTABLE OPPOSITION

  • Marcy Darnovsky, executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society
  • Orange County Registrar
  • Bakersfield California Editorial Board
  • Mercury News & East Bay Times Editorial Board

Proposition 15 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative

SUMMARY

  • Requires commercial and industrial properties, except those zoned as commercial agriculture, to be taxed based on their market value, rather than their purchase price.

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • This proposition removes protections put in place by Prop 13 (1976) for commercial and industrial property owners. Before the COVID-19 shutdowns, this was a bad idea. Prop 13 has kept taxes relatively low for Californians and by uncapping tax assessments on commercial properties, many small businesses will be unable to remain in their space. No doubt prices will increase on goods and services for those who may be able to stay. While this year’s proposition is only for commercial properties, local governments are stated to benefit from the new taxes collected. As a local elected, I would rather have our business owners stay in business rather than collect more funds for government.
  • I have signed onto a coalition opposing this ballot measure.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Bernie Sanders – Senator (VT)
  • California Teachers Association
  • Chan Zuckerberg Advocacy
  • SEIU California State Council
  • The San Francisco Foundation
  • California Federation of Teachers

NOTABLE OPPOSITION

  • California Business Roundtable Issues PAC
  • California Taxpayers Association – Protect Taxpayer Rights
  • California Business Properties Association Issues PAC
  • AMERCO
  • California Farm Bureau Federation

Proposition 16 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

SUMMARY

  • Repeals Proposition 209 (1996), which says that the state cannot discriminate or grant preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, or contracting

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Under no circumstances should we allow preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. Permitting the government to hire based on anything but merit, regardless of any of the categories above, should be the top priority. We should be seeking out the best and brightest for our government workforce and this proposition would set our state back significantly.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • M. Quinn Delaney
  • Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
  • Patty Quillin
  • California Teachers Association
  • Connie Ballmer
  • Steve Ballmer

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Students for Fair Admissions
  • Gail Heriot
  • Frank Xu
  • IvyMax, Inc.
  • Susan Xu

Proposition 17 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

SUMMARY

  • Restores the right to vote to people convicted of felonies who are on parole.

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Revocation of voting rights is one of the many restrictions that are a standard part of the sentencing for convicted felons in California. The state government continues to make life easier for criminals and this is one more example.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Susan Pritzker
  • ACLU of Northern California
  • California Nurses Association PAC
  • SEIU-UHW West
  • Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters PAC

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Senator Jim Nielsen – Former Chair of the Board of Prison Terms
  • The Election Integrity Project California

Proposition 18 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment

SUMMARY

  • Allows 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primaries and special elections.

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • There is no solid argument by which we should continue to lower the voting age. The state government has in fact raised the age for things like driving on the grounds of responsibility. Why should voting be different? Social studies classes often fail to teach our students the fundamentals of our history and government leaving many youth unaware of the process, significance, or consequences of our election system.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Committee to Innovate for California’s Future, Even Low Ballot Measure Committee
  • Kevin Mullin for Assembly 2020
  • California Nurses Association PAC
  • SEIU-UHW West
  • Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters PAC

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Orange County Register
  • Tom McClintock, U.S. Representative

Proposition 19 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment 

SUMMARY

  • Changes tax assessment transfers and inheritance rules

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Current law allows older and disabled homeowners to move to a replacement home and transfer their base-year property tax assessment. This proposition would require reassessment to market value of property transferred from parents to children. Children could be forced by higher taxes to sell their family’s property. The intent of this proposition is to increase property taxes by selling more homes. It will also have significant negative impacts on small counties, like Placer, which have a number of transplants from other counties in California. It should be noted that while the state and national Association of Realtors has endorsed this Proposition, our local realtors association has remained intentionally neutral.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • California Association of Realtors PAC
  • National Association of Realtors
  • California Professional Firefighters
  • Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 PAC

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
  • Tom McClintock, U.S. Representative

Proposition 20 – VOTE YES

TITLE

  • Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative

SUMMARY

  • Makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison release, and DNA collection

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Proposition 20 seeks to correct some of the consequences of bad criminal reform measures passed in the last decade. (AB 109, Prop 47, Prop 57) The state continues to decriminalize many crimes. This would reinstate 51 crimes and sentence enhancements as violent and give the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Parole Review Board the ability to assess additional factors like the felon’s age, marketable skills, attitude about the crime, and mental condition, as well as the circumstances of the crimes committed, before deciding whether to release a felon on parole. Crimes do not happen in a vacuum and we need to allow our justice system to operate with some command.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • California Correctional Peace Officers Association – Truth in American Government Fund
  • The San Francisco Foundation
  • Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs PIC
  • Los Angeles Protective League Issues PAC
  • Jim Cooper for Assembly 2018
  • Albertsons Safeway

NOTABLE OPPOSITION

  • Patty Quillin
  • Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
  • Stacy H. Schusterman
  • The Heising-Simons Action Fund Nonprofit 501(c)(4)
  • Lynn Schusterman

Proposition 21 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • “Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.”

SUMMARY

  • Expands local governments’ power to use rent control

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Voters soundly rejected a nearly identical effort in 2018, Proposition 10. This rent control bill claims to give local governments more power to implement rent control but only further restricts private property rights on residents and limits resident’s ability to rent their property. Rental rates would only be allowed to rise 15% during the first three years following a vacancy instead of allowing reassessment to market rate when a tenent moves. Further, it removes incentives to build new affordable housing and right now our state and community need more housing options, not less. There are rare occasions when Governor Newsom and I will see eye-to-eye, but a “No” vote on this measure is one of those instances.
  • I have signed onto a coalition opposing this ballot measure

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator (VT)
  • Dolores Huerta – Co-Founder of the United Farm Workers
  • AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Michael Weinstein – President
  • California Nurses Association
  • American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME California)

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Essex Property Trust, Inc
  • California Business Roundtable Issues PAC
  • Equity Residential
  • Avalonbay Communities
  • California Apartment Association

Proposition 22 – VOTE YES

TITLE

  • “Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute.”

SUMMARY

  • Considers app-based drivers to be independent contractors and enacts several labor policies related to app-based companies

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • AB 5 passed in 2019 and revoked drivers for services like Uber, Lyft and Doordash from being qualified as “Independent Contractors.” The state government throughout the years has piled on what it means to be an employee and what is required of companies to provide their employees. I am not alone in believing that the app-based driver structure allows for more flexibility for drivers, especially those using it for supplemental income beyond a primary job or retirement.
  • Technology and times have changed, innovation has evolved how we live our lives and AB 5 was used to pull our state back into the 20th century. AB 5 was proposed and passed by union-influenced elected officials and is a misguided piece of legislation that removed opportunities for workers well before the COVID-19 shutdown. Like with housing, we need more jobs right now – not less.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Uber Technologies
  • Lyft
  • DoorDash
  • Maplebear/InstaCart
  • Postmates

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • International Brotherhood of Teamsters
  • SEIU-UHW West
  • Service Employees International Union
  • United Food & Commercial Workers Local 770
  • United Food & Commercial Workers Western States Issues PAC

Proposition 23 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • “Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute.”

SUMMARY

  • Requires physician on-site at dialysis clinics and consent from the state for a clinic to close

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Specialized nurses care for dialysis patients and have for many years. Requiring a physician on site is unnecessary, especially considering they would not supplement the level of care provided to the patients. Our physicians need to be in hospitals and clinics where they are needed, not sitting behind a desk and supervising already qualified workers. This proposition will likely make operating costs increase significantly and could shut down many clinics throughout California.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • SEIU-UHW West Political Issues Committee
  • Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West (Nonprofit 501(c)(5))

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • DaVita
  • Fresenius Medical Care
  • US Renal Care
  • Dialysis Clinic

Proposition 24 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • “Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute.”

SUMMARY

  • Expands the provisions of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and creates the California Privacy Protection Agency to implement and enforce the CCPA

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Just because it is a solution does not mean it is the correct solution. While consumer privacy protection is important especially as technology continues to evolve, the creation of a $10+ million government agency is not the solution. More agencies equal more demand of your tax dollars. The state needs to do more to control its budget, not expand it. Further, loopholes in this proposition appear too frequent and the punishment appears too minor.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Alastair Mactaggart
  • Yes on 24, Californians for Consumer Privacy

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Consumer Federation of California
  • Californians for Real Privacy – No on Proposition 24
  • California Consumer and Privacy Advocates Against Prop 24

Proposition 25 – VOTE NO

TITLE

  • “Referendum on Law that Replaced Money Bail with System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk.”

SUMMARY

  • Replaces cash bail with risk assessments for suspects awaiting trial

MY PERSPECTIVE

  • Elimination of the cash bail system will put additional strain on local law enforcement and governments to backfill the loss of the bail industry specifically due to the additional resources required to ensure those charged with crimes show up in court and administration costs of the new system.

NOTABLE SUPPORTERS

  • Connie Ballmer
  • Steve Ballmer
  • John Arnold
  • Action Now Initiative
  • SEIU California State Council

NOTABLE OPPONENTS

  • Triton Management Services
  • Bankers Insurance Company
  • AIA Holdings
  • American Surety Company
  • Lexington National Insurance Corporation

Local Ballot Measures

Measures F, G, H and I are recommended changes to
Placer County’s Charter, the County’s governing
document. The recommendations were developed by a
committee of local residents and approved for voter
consideration by the Board of Supervisors.

Measure F (2020) – VOTE YES

Measure F focuses the duties of the Civil
Service Commission to hearing grievances and
disciplinary appeals while redirecting all other
personnel responsibilities like job descriptions,
compensation and filling vacancies to the
County’s Director of Human Resources, a more
qualified and appropriate manager of such
functions.

Measure G (2020) – VOTE YES

Measure G enhances accountability by
providing the County CEO with the final authority
over nearly all County Department Head hirings,
firings and suspensions.

Measure H (2020) – VOTE YES

Measure H clarifies our County governing
Charter by eliminating discrepancies between
local and state law concerning bidding
thresholds.

Measure I (2020) – VOTE YES

Measure I guarantees Placer County will
always be represented by local residents.
Measure I requires those seeking county-wide
elected office live in the County at least 30 days
prior to filing to run for office and must continue
to live in Placer County while they hold office.