An Overview of California Propositions 14-19

Proposition 14

Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research

California prop 14 authorizes $5.5 billion state bonds for stem cell and other medical research. The funds would be used to continue research on chronic and life-threatening conditions, including Alzheimer’s, cancer, diabetes, heart diseases, Parkinsons, and kidney disease. Supporters say prop 14 would also increase patient affordability and access. The California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) has already used the $3 billion it received in 2004, when voters decided to begin California’s own stem cell research facility following President George W. Bush’s ban on embryonic cell research, which was repealed. The bond will eventually cost an estimated $7.8 billion and may not be the best use of money during this economic crisis. 

Key endorsements: Democratic Party, University of California Board of Regents, many patient advocate organizations

Key opponents: Republican Party, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle 

Editorial Suggestion: NO – Embryonic cell research is no longer banned, and California receives federal funding for medical research. This money could be put to better use elsewhere.

Proposition 15

Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property

Proposition 15 would tax commercial and industrial properties worth more than $3 million based on their current market value, rather than their price when purchased. This money would provide $6.5-11.5 billion in funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services. According to supporters, it would close property tax loopholes that benefit wealthy companies, cut taxes for some small businesses, and protect homeowners. Detractors say prop 15 could also force small business tenants to pay higher taxes and raise the price of living for everyone.

Key endorsements: Democratic Party, California teachers unions, ACLU California, The Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle

Key opponents: Republian Party, California Chamber of Commerce, California NAACP, California Small Business Association

Editorial Suggestion: YES – Although this could raise the cost of living in California, it will force wealthy companies to pay fairer property taxes while funding public schools, community colleges, and local government services.

California Proposition 16 

Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions

California prop 16 is a constitutional amendment that would repeal proposition 209, which currently bans discrimination and “preferential treatment” in public employment, education, and contracting based on race, ethnicity, color, national origin, or sex. If prop 16 passes, discrimination in California would still be against federal law, so prop 16 essentially just allows race-and sex-based affirmative action. Supporters say that prop 16 will give women and people of color more opportunities, while detractors say that prop 16 will cause preferential treatment to occur.

Key endorsements: California Democratic Party, University of California Board of Regents, California teachers unions, ACLU California, the Anti-Defamation League, the California NAACP

Key opponents: Republican Party, opposition led by Ward Connerly. 

Editorial Suggestion: YES – Affirmative action in California will help level the playing field for women and POC and increase their enrollment rates in higher level education.

California Proposition 17

Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term

California prop 17 is a constitutional amendment that would restore the right to vote to felons who have completed their prison sentences but are on parole. Annually, it would cost counties hundreds of thousands of dollars for voter registration and ballot materials. Prop 17 would also have a one-time statewide cost of about the same amount for voter registration cards and systems. Supporters say that prop 17 would restore the right to vote to people who have completed their prison sentences and are already contributing to society by raising families, working, and paying taxes. Opponents say that prop 17 would allow dangerous convicts who have not finished their sentences a say in what happens in our state, which they should not be allowed to have. 

Key endorsements: Democratic Party, ACLU California, League of Women Voters, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle

Key opponents: Republican Party, Election Integrity Project

Editorial Suggestion: YES – People on parole have already completed their prison sentences and are contributing to society, so they deserve the right to vote.

California Proposition 18

Amends California Constitution to Permit 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election and be Otherwise Eligible to Vote

California prop 18 is a constitutional amendment that would allow 17-year-olds to vote in the primaries if they will be 18 and eligible to vote in the next general election. It could cost up to a million dollars every two years, with an additional one-time cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to supporters, prop 18 will allow young people, who are most impacted by student debt, health care, gun control, and climate change, more say in the election. Opponents, however, say that 17-year-olds should not have the right to vote, as their brains are not fully developed, and they do not have to pay the taxes that they would be voting on.

Key endorsements:  Democratic Party, ACLU Southern California, the League of Women Voters California, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle

Key opponents: Republican Party, Election Integrity Project, led by Ruth Weiss

Editorial Suggestion: YES – People under 18 are allowed to serve in the military, pay taxes, and have jobs, so they deserve the right to vote, especially on issues that affect them. 

California Proposition 19

Changes Certain Property Tax Rules

California prop 19 allows homeowners who are over 55, disabled, or wildfire or natural disaster victims to transfer their tax assessment to a different residence of any value, anywhere in California. It would also increase the number of times people over 55 and people who are disabled can transfer their taxes from one to three. In addition, prop 19 would require inherited homes that are not primary residences to be reassessed at market value when transferred. The money from prop 19 would establish a fire protection services fund, and local governments and schools would gain tens of millions of dollars. Supporters say prop 19 would allow seniors, people with disabilities, and natural disaster victims to save money while establishing a fund for fire protection, schools, and local governments. According to detractors, prop 19 would remove taxpayer protections and raise taxes. 

Key endorsements: Democratic Party, AFSCME California, NAACP California

Key opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, League of Women Voters California, ACLU Southern California

Editorial Suggestion: YES – This will enable people over 55, with disabilities, or who were natural disaster victims to save money on property taxes. Vacation homes or secondary residences are the only properties where taxes will increase, and the money from these will generate funding for fire protective services, local governments, and schools. 

Prop 20

RESTRICTS PAROLE FOR NON-VIOLENT OFFENDERS. AUTHORIZES FELONY SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES CURRENTLY TREATED ONLY AS MISDEMEANORS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Prop 20 expands the number of non-violent felonies for which early parole is restricted. It also requires DNA collection from people who commit certain misdemeanors. Ultimately, supporters claim that Prop 20 will prevent child molesters from being released early and more DNA evidence will be used to solve more rapes. Detractors say that this proposition will unnecessarily extend prison sentences in the interest of for-profit prisons, and will take money away from schools or rehabilitation facilities. 

Key endorsements: CA Republican Party

Key opponents: CA Democratic Party, SF Chronicle, ACLU

Editorial suggestion: NO. In our opinion, the longer prison sentences for non-violent felonies outweighs any benefit from more DNA testing.

YES on 20

NO on 20

Prop 21

EXPANDS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS’ AUTHORITY TO ENACT RENT CONTROL ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE STATUTE.  

Allows local governments to expand rent control covering new buildings, single-family homes, and vacant apartments. Proponents say that Prop 21 will keep families in their current homes, prevent homelessness, and will increase affordable housing. Detractors claim that it will diminish home values, stop the construction of new homes, increase unemployment, and repeal homeowners’ protections.

Key endorsements: CA Democratic Party, LA Times, BLM, ACLU

Key opponents: CA Republican Party, SF Chronicle, American Veterans, Marine Corps Veterans Association

Editorial suggestion: YES. To us, this is not a perfect gentrification solution, but it is a step in the right direction. The arguments from detractors are purely theoretical and there is little evidence that this bill will increase unemployment.

YES on 21

NO on 21

Prop 22

CHANGES EMPLOYMENT CLASSIFICATION RULES FOR APP-BASED TRANSPORTATION AND DELIVERY DRIVERS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.  

The well-publicized Proposition 22 would classify app-based drivers as “independent contractors” and not “employees.” Proponents say that Prop 22 allows much-needed flexibility to app-based drivers. Rideshare companies threaten to leave California if Prop 22 is rejected, leading proponents to argue that it protects thousands of rideshare jobs. Opponents point out that Prop 22 will exempt Uber and Lyft from providing healthcare, unemployment insurance, and other benefits to app-based drivers. They claim that this proposition is a detriment to app-based drivers in the interest of the profits of billion-dollar corporations.

Key endorsements: Uber, Lyft, CA Republican Party, multiple NAACP branches, Mothers Against Drunk Driving

Key opponents: CA Democratic Party, Joe Biden/Kamala Harris, SF Chronicle, CA Labor Federation

Editorial Suggestion: NO. This bill hurts rideshare drivers. There is an argument to be made for the bill that if Uber/Lyft leave California, it would hurt our state. However, we are willing to call the rideshare companies’ bluff.

YES on 22

NO on 22

Prop 23

AUTHORIZES STATE REGULATION OF KIDNEY DIALYSIS CLINICS. ESTABLISHES MINIMUM STAFFING AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS. INITIATIVE STATUTE. 

Another widely-publicized proposition would increase regulation of dialysis clinics, requiring a doctor to be on-site during all dialysis treatments. Proponents say that this bill will improve hygiene in dialysis clinics and stop discrimination based on insurance status. Opponents say that these regulations will force dialysis clinics to close, threatening the lives of 80,000 patients. As a result, they say that emergency rooms will become more overcrowded and healthcare costs will rise. 

Key endorsements: CA Democratic Party, CA Labor Federation

Key opponents: CA Republican Party, SF Chronicle, California Medical Association, CA NAACP, American Nurses Association

Editorial Suggestion: NO. Not a very airtight law. To us, this is unnecessary regulation of dialysis clinics that may force smaller clinics to shut down. The chance of less providers outweighs gains made in discrimination by insurance. There are better ways to fix the latter.

YES on 23

NO on 23

Prop 24

AMENDS CONSUMER PRIVACY LAWS. INITIATIVE STATUTE.

Permits consumers to prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct personal information, and limit the use of “sensitive personal  information.” Proponents say that this proposition strengthens privacy protections, protects kids online, and holds corporations accountable for breaches of civil rights. Opponents argue that this bill will allow companies to extort consumers for privacy in “pay for privacy” schemes and point out that the bill was written behind closed doors after authors met with Big Tech as evidence. Proponents counter that the authors met with many parties involved and rejected almost all of Big Tech’s suggestions.

Key endorsements: LA Times, Andrew Yang, Common Sense Media, CA NAACP

Key opponents: CA Republican Party, SF Chronicle, ACLU, Mother Jones

*CA Democratic Party did not endorse either position

Editorial Suggestion: NO. There is a glaring loophole in this law that allows “pay for privacy” schemes. Consensus between many political analysts is that this bill is sloppily written.

YES on 24

NO on 24

Prop 25

REFERENDUM TO OVERTURN A 2018 LAW THAT REPLACED MONEY BAIL SYSTEM WITH A SYSTEM BASED ON PUBLIC SAFETY RISK.

Replaces money bail with a computerized assessment of public safety implications and flight risk of the defendant. Proponents say that this will reform the racist and oppressive cash bail system with a fairer, more objective method of pretrial release. They argue that this new system will equalize the criminal justice system while also saving taxpayers millions of dollars due to a decreased prison population. Opponents counter that Prop 25 takes away a person’s right to post bail in favor of an arbitrary computerized result that still oppresses minorities, according to some law experts. Some detractors also say that taxpayers will potentially pay hundreds of millions of dollars to support a new release system.

Key endorsements: CA Democratic Party, SF Chronicle, CA Black Women’s Democratic Club, LA Times

Key opponents: CA Republican Party, multiple NAACP branches, CA Black Chamber of Commerce, CA Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, SoCal ACLU

Editorial Suggestion: YES. For us, money bail is too discriminatory to stay. If the computer system is still oppressive, it is much easier to modify the algorithm than the money bail system.

YES on 25

NO on 25