Kira Davis: 2024 California Voter Guide
A breakdown of the CA voter guide for the sane CA voter
Years ago I found myself inundated with emails and texts from local friends asking me for my ballot recommendations and, more often, clarifications on some of the massively confusing text in our voter guides. I had so many requests I decided to just do my own little voter guide and share that with anyone who asked. Since that time it’s developed into a tradition my California friends still request. I consider it a sort of “Voter Guide for Dummies.”
What to Expect
My intention is to summarize and simplify the measures in our voter guide while providing as much clarity as possible. To that end, here are a few bullet points to give you a sense of what you can expect:
A short summary of the proposition and what it is estimated to cost the taxpayers - keeping it simple
What your YES vote means
What your NO vote means
How I plan to vote and why - some people just want to know how I’m going to vote before they decide. That’s fine too!
TIPS
-A BOND is a loan. A FEE is a tax.
-The INCUMBENT is the person running for reelection.
-If you see the words GENERAL FUND or GENERAL ANYTHING in a ballot measure, run the other way. Our General Fund is a robust fund that Sacramento is always trying to raid for their pet projects. They’ll often create new tax initiatives just to be able to divert those funds to the GF, which has less expenditure accountability.
-It’s ok to SKIP A CATEGORY you don’t understand. Some of your local races and ballot measures win by very slim margins. If you’re not sure, don’t throw away a vote just because you think you have to vote. It’s perfectly fine to leave a box empty and move on. It’s not a test! You don’t lose points
-Don’t let the news keep you from the ballot box! I know a lot of people feel suspicious of mail-in ballots. We can’t control the process of mail-in voting at this moment. There’s only one thing we can know for certain – the only vote that is guaranteed not to count is the one you don’t cast. VOTE!
You can request or download a copy of the California General Election Voter Guide at the Secretary of State Website.
Ok. Let’s get this over with.
PROP 2 - PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMUNITY COLLEGE BONDS
What it does: Authorizes $10 billion in general obligation bonds for repairs and upgrades at K-12 public school, community colleges, and career technical education programs.
What it will cost: Estimated to add at least $500 million annually to the budget over the next 35 years.
What your YES vote means: YES, I want the state to borrow $10 billion for K-12 public schools and other public education programs.
What your NO vote means: NO, I do not want the state to borrow $10 billion for K-12 public schools and other public education programs.
How I plan to vote: No. The devil is in the details, which Assemblyman Bill Essayli points out in the guide rebuttal:
Under the funding formula used in Prop.2, school districts must provide a “local match” of funds to receive new money from the bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills.
I never vote for new monies unless the government can show me the last tax raises they made actually helped. They have never shown taxpayers that proof. California is the worst-performing state in the nation when it comes to K-12 education. We are in the top ten states for funding per student. What are they doing with our money? And, as always, the word “general obligation” or “general fund” in a proposition invalidate the funding destination. It means the government can actually take this money and put it wherever they want, not necessarily to the issue.
No. No. One thousand times NO. Or once since I can only vote once.
PROP 3 CONSTITUTIONAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
What it does: Amends the California constitution to recognize the right to marry regardless of sex or race. Removes language limiting marriage recognition.
What it will cost: No change in costs or revenue.
What does your YES vote means: YES, I want to remove language in the state constitution that limits marriage to only two people.
What your NO vote means: NO, the constitution is fine as is, leave it alone.
How I plan to vote: NO. What on earth is this point of this? Gay marriage is already legal according to the Supreme Court of the Unites States. Did our legislature forget what a big deal that was?
As always the devil is in the details. This language would remove all limitations on marriage, meaning marriage could be defined as applying to three or more people in a relationship, close relatives, or really anything the individual chooses to call marriage. This obliterates the definition of marriage and its purpose for a strong government. This is totally unnecessary and therefore aimed at other things besides liberty. NO all the way.
PROP 4 - BONDS FOR WATER QUALITY, WILDFIRE PREVENTION AND CLIMATE CHANGE
What it does: Authorizes $10 billion in new state general obligation loans for various water, climate and wildfire projects.
What it will cost: Increases state budget by $400 million per year over 40 years.
What your YES vote means: YES, I am authorizing the state to borrow $10 billion for water quality, wildfire prevention and climate change projects.
What your NO vote means: NO, I do not authorize the state to borrow $10 billion for water quality, wildfire prevention and climate change projects.
How I plan to vote: No shocker here. NO. Not only is there that red flag “general obligation,” the proposition gives away the game right there in the summary of the guide:
Appropriates money from General Fund to repay bonds.
Let me break that down for you. This proposition promises to repay the loan by borrowing money from the General Fund, which will receive money from this proposition because the language allows the money raised in this prop to be used for “general obligation” purposes. In effect, this is money laundering. Another clever way to take money from taxpayers for the personal whims of Sacramento politicians. No thank you. NO.
PROP 5 - BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND INFRASTRUCTURE
What it does: Pay attention! This is one of those infamous government measures with a title that does not reflect the actual measure. Currently within the state of California, new taxes can only be approved if two-thirds of the voters approve. This proposition changes that requirement to 55%. PROP 5 will reduce the voter threshold for new taxes.
What it will cost: No projections included
What your YES vote means: YES, I want the state to change the threshold for approving new bonds and taxes to change from a two-thirds voter majority to a 55% majority.
What your NO vote means: NO, I do not want the threshold for approving new bonds and taxes to change. I am happy with the current requirement of a two-thirds voter majority.
How I plan to vote: Seriously? Hell no! This one is shady as all hell and I want no part of it. Read the summary for yourself. The uses are vague and broad. That is purposeful. Our legislature is always scheming about how to get rid of our two-thirds threshold. This is just another play to get rid of the one positive political thing Californians have managed to do for themselves.
PROP 6 - REPEALS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ALLOWING INMATES TO BE USED FOR LABOR
What it does: amends the California Constitution to remove the current constitutional provision that allows jails and prisons to force incarcerated persons to perform labor. Prevents the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from punishing inmates who refuse labor assignments.
What it will cost: The guide says, in so many words, nobody knows.
Potential increase or decrease in state and local criminal justice costs depending on how rules around work for people in state prison and county jail change. Any effect likely would not exceed the tens of millions.
What your YES vote means: YES, I want to change the California Constitution to make it illegal to use prisoners for state-sanctioned labor.
What your NO vote means: NO, I don’t want to make it illegal to use prisoners for state-sanctioned labor. I’m fine with prisoners being used for labor.
How I plan to vote: This one really is a vote of conscience and I recognize that people even in the same political ideology might disagree on this topic. I plan to vote NO because I think there is value both for inmates and for society in allowing prisoners to perform labor projects for the state. However, I do realize this program can be abused in terrible ways. I don’t buy the idea this will cost no more than tens of millions of dollars. I don’t know how much “free” labor state prisoners provide for the state, so I can’t calculate how much of that labor will have to be shifted to the free market if this proposition passes. I’m voting NO, but more because I just don’t trust our government to use this to improve anything for anyone. Vote your conscience.
*It may interest you to know that no one officially rebutted this proposition in the voter guide.
PROP 32 - RAISES THE MINIMUM WAGE
What it does: Pretty simple. Raises the minimum wage to $18/hr by 2026.
What it will cost: The state isn’t sure.
State and local government costs could increase or decrease; state and local tax revenues likely would decrease.
What your YES vote means: YES, I want the state to increase our minimum wage to $18/hr by 2026.
What your NO vote means: NO, I do not want a minimum wage increase at this time.
How I plan to vote: NO. The real minimum wage is always ZERO. Raising minimum wage always results in fewer jobs, a fact the guide’s own legislative analysis admits right there in the cost analysis - “state and local tax revenues likely would decrease.”
Insert shrugging emoji here. If even the state recognizes that forced wage requirements result in fewer taxpayers, why would I vote for this? They’re asking me to vote for fewer jobs but with slightly higher wages, in a state where you’d have to institute a $100/hr minimum wage in order for a minimum wage worker to pay rent/mortgage or support a family of four without assistance. We raised the fast food worker wage to $20/hr and immediately the fast food industry began constricting. Make this state more affordable and leave the business of employment to those who actually employ and understand their own industries.
PROP 33 - RENT CONTROL
What it does: Repeals state law that prevents government from enacting rent-control ordinances.
What it will cost: A reduction in property tax revenues of at least tens of millions of dollars annually.
What your YES vote means: Yes, I want the government to have the ability to control rental rates.
What your NO vote means: No, rental rates should remain in the free market and I do not want the government deciding rental rates.
How I plan to vote: Rent control is communism. It’s a no from me, dawg. I did a show about it a few years ago if you’re interested in a larger explanation about why rent control is such a horrible idea. It will provide no new housing. It will only shrink our already anemic housing market and drive up housing costs. NO.
PROP 34 - REGULATES PRESCRIPTION DRUG REVENUES BY SOME HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
What it does: Regulates the prescription drug profits “the greediest healthcare corporations.”
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of this. I’m voting against it. I read the arguments and rebuttals and it is clear something very petty and personal is going on with this proposition. Ballot propositions have become their own kind of business, with millions of dollars floating around for staff and contract work in the process. This seems to be one of those cases.
What is very telling is who is on the opposing sides of this prop. Those in favor include the Legislative LGBT Caucus and multiple LGBT supportive groups. Those opposed include the National Organization for Women and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.
Why are these people who share political ideologies fighting over this prop?
One answer may come in the guide in the argument portion:
This initiative is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It has only one purpose: to prevent AIDS Healthcare Foundation (AHF) from promoting rent control. It claims to protect patients, but its real intent is to stop AHF from putting tenant protections on the ballot. On this same ballot is Proposition 33, the rent control initiative which is simply 23 words: “The state may not limit the right of any city, county, or city and county to maintain, enact or expand residential rent control.” AHF is the principal funder of this rent control initiative. Proposition 33 restores the ability of localities to stabilize rents and give some relief to California’s 17 million struggling renters.
In case you don’t get it, let me simplify. One group of activists is mad at another group of activists for putting rent control on the ballot, so this prop is designed to punish those activists. This is about rent control, not the cost of your prescriptions or “greedy corporations.”
Do you need to hear anything else? I’m voting NO and I’ll go so far as to say you should too. This is ridiculous.
PROP 35 - PERMANENT FUNDING FOR MEDI-CAL SERVICES
What it does: A temporary tax on private health insurance is set to expire in 2026. This proposition will make the tax permanent. It also increases Medi-Cal funding.
What it will cost: It must be untenable, because the guide lists the short term impact as a broad conjecture between $2 billion and $5 billion annually, and then goes on to say:
In the long term, unknown effect on state tax revenue, health program funding and state cost.
In other words…who knows?!
What your YES vote means: YES, I want to make the current temporary tax on private health plans permanent and I wish to increase Medi-Cal funding at this time.
What your NO vote means: NO, I don’t want to make the current temporary tax on private health plans permanent and I don’t wish to increase Medi-Cal funding at this time.
How I plan to vote: Our government never met a tax it didn’t like, so obviously they’d try to make this permanent. I’m voting NO, but I did find it curious that no organization submitted an official argument against this proposition. Perhaps that is because Governor Newsom has already reportedly signaled that he plans to veto this if it passes. I think this is a proposition designed to take another step toward universal healthcare, which even our Democrat leaders have deemed unaffordable. I think this is just too expensive to pass, even if somehow it beats the ballot. I will spare the Governor the use of his delicate hands for a veto of this one and just vote NO.
PROP 36- THE BIG ONE!!! AMENDS PROP 47 TO INCREASE FELONY CHARGES AND PRISON SENTENCES, REPEALS THE $950 MISDEMEANOR RULE
What it does: Prop 47 has been an absolute disaster for California. It is the measure that is responsible for our current nationally ridiculed crime wave. It reduced many felonies to misdemeanors, most notably making it allowable to steal up to $950 of product per day, per location without being charged with felony theft. That rule in particular caused a rash of petty theft and many important community franchises like CVS and Walgreen’s have been forced out of high-crime areas. Prop 36 will make much needed amendments to 47, repealing the most problematic parts of the proposition.
What it will cost: Increased workload and possible increase criminal justice costs (yes, that’s as specific as the legislative analysis gets).
What your YES vote means: YES, I want to repeal the most problematic elements of Prop 47 and increase criminal penalties, repeal the $950 rule and increase sentences for drug and theft crimes.
What your NO vote means: NO, I don’t want to make any changes to Prop 47. I’m fine with the way things are.
How I plan to vote: This is the only YES on the ballot for me. Of course, it’s a yes. Californians have been begging for this reform and have worked very hard to get it on the ballot, despite shenanigans from Governor Newsom and the Sacramento Democrats. I feel strongly this will pass. I can’t imagine why anyone would vote against it. It seems to have strong bipartisan support across the entire state. This is a YES for me.
And that wraps up my voter guide for 2024. I typically do not wade into candidate assessments so you are on your own for that, but to find out more about who is running where this election cycle, CLICK HERE or navigate to the California Secretary of State website for more information.
AND DON’T FORGET TO READ YOUR WHOLE BALLOT AND VOTE ALL THE WAY TO THE BOTTOM WHERE YOUR SCHOOL BOARD AND OTHER LOCAL OFFICE RACES ARE LISTED.
To find your specific district and who is running there, CLICK HERE.
For a pdf of the 2024 California Voter Guide CLICK HERE.
I hope this helps.
God bless America!
Outstanding. Your analysis is clear and I agree with all your recommendations. Thank you.
THank you for putting this out! I didn't read it before I voted last week on purpose to see how we compared. 100% we agreed (doesn't happen to me very often!). That means I can save some time in the next election, I'll just get your guide and fill in the bubbles!
Really thank you though, it is a pain in the a$$ to read propositions and bills. I still use gov.track.us to read bills that I have questions about, I figure I read more bills than those in congress.