An Overview of California Propositions 20-25

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 of insurance. There are better ways to fix the latter problem.

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