This is a guide for voting in California, skewed even further to Irvine 'cause that's where I, @keithzg, vote. ---- == Ballot Propositions == === Proposition 15: {icon check, color=green} Yes === An old proposition 13 back in made property tax valuations in California deeply weird. Taxes are only reassessed for a property when it is sold, not on any sort of regular schedule, and the maximum rate increase per year is 2%. This is already a bit weird for individuals and has the possibility of creating some major inequities; the black family in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air invariably was paying much higher property taxes than their white neighbors who had been in the neighborhood longer, to give a pop culture example soas to seem quirky at first before the ugliness unspools in the imagination. But it gets much, much worse when you consider that //corporations can live forever//. I have the impression that the old prop 13 was sold as a "don't force old people out of their homes!" measure, and it is perhaps with that sort of counter-anecdote in mind that this proposition does not modify how property taxes are handled for residential properties, merely for commercial and industrial properties. There are corporations that still pay a rate based on at most 2%-per-year increased from 1975, despite the vastly higher level of inflation (at multiple levels!) on their properties. And even just the //initial// rollback in 1979 back to 1975 prices put many local governments into fiscal crisis.: > After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in 1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition 13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the state $4.85 billion. Staring down a financial crisis as we are right now, it seems prudent to do the opposite of the Reagan era of American politics. Read more at: * [[ https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf | California Property Tax by the California State Board of Equalization ]] * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 19: {icon times, color=red} No === The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow. === Proposition 21: {icon check, color=green} Yes === There are folks out there that argue rent control causes more issues than it solves. Those people are appealing to the idea that the free market can sort such things out; well okay then, so lets pass this proposition and allow cities to set rent controls if they want and see how it plays out! California is more populous than the entire country of Canada; lets get some natural experiments going, shall we? Furthermore, remember from Prop 15 that property taxes are //already// controlled; if the taxes landlords are paying aren't tied to the market, why should rent be mandated to be by law? Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 22: {icon times, color=red} No === An attempt by gig economy VC-backed firms like Uber to do an end-run around legislation that would force them to actually treat employees fairly rather than pretending they're "independent contractors", this proposition stands a dangerous chance of succeeding because on the face of it it sounds like it helps people. It's really just to preempt better, deeper help and restructuring of employment laws, which is why [[ https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128 | the Yes campaign is so heavily funded ]] (not to mention some [[ https://twitter.com/codehawkfalcon/status/1310658358425264128 | pretty direct advocacy ]]). The CA Dems are against it; the CA GOP is for it. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] --- == External Links == * https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/09/2020-vote-info-1-indexlinks-introduction-calendar/ * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/

This is a guide for voting in California, skewed even further to Irvine 'cause that's where I, @keithzg, vote. ---- == Ballot Propositions == === Proposition 14: {icon check, color=green} Yes === Governmental funding of research is always a tempting prospect, all the moreso as we stare down future economic woes **and** a continued push by the religious right in America to deny funding for such research otherwise. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 15: {icon check, color=green} Yes === An old proposition 13 back in made property tax valuations in California deeply weird. Taxes are only reassessed for a property when it is sold, not on any sort of regular schedule, and the maximum rate increase per year is 2%. This is already a bit weird for individuals and has the possibility of creating some major inequities; the black family in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air invariably was paying much higher property taxes than their white neighbors who had been in the neighborhood longer, to give a pop culture example soas to seem quirky at first before the ugliness unspools in the imagination. But it gets much, much worse when you consider that //corporations can live forever//. Barring the San Andreas fault or sweeping fires demolishing a property, the divergence between current market value and the taxes a corporation is paying on a property could literally diverge forever. I have the impression that the old prop 13 was sold as a "don't force old people out of their homes!" measure, and it is perhaps with that sort of counter-anecdote in mind that this proposition does not modify how property taxes are handled for //residential// properties, merely for commercial and industrial properties. There are corporations that still pay a rate based on at most 2%-per-year increased from 1975, despite the vastly higher level of inflation (at multiple levels!) on their properties. And even just the //initial// rollback in 1979 back to 1975 prices put many local governments into crisis.: > After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in 1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition 13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the state $4.85 billion. Staring down a financial crisis as we are right now, and with municipalities and counties generally underfunded as it is, it seems prudent to do the opposite of the Reagan era of American politics. Read more at: * [[ https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf | California Property Tax by the California State Board of Equalization ]] * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 16: {icon check, color=green} Yes === Much like with Prop 15 immediately above, this undoes an existing applied prop in California, in this case one that was ostensibly banning discrimination. That sounds good, but federal law already has protections against many forms of discrimination (admittedly at least for now; the increasingly solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court puts that in a bit of jeopardy), so the existing ban pretty much only disallows affirmative action. [[ https://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajud.assembly.ca.gov/files/Background%20Paper%20-%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Public%20Contracting%20Since%20Proposition%20209.pdf | As a California justice put it ]], > The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.' Or that is to say, the main outcome of the California law as stands is a ban on affirmative action. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 19: {icon times, color=yellow} No? === The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow. They've probably gamed this out and figure it'll be great for them in some devious way. It certainly //sounds// promising, but as a blogger over at the Orange Juice Blog wrote, > I can’t trust that one of their smart lawyers hasn’t figures out a way to get something terrible into the fine print Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_19,_Property_Tax_Transfers,_Exemptions,_and_Revenue_for_Wildfire_Agencies_and_Counties_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 21: {icon check, color=green} Yes === There are folks out there that argue rent control causes more issues than it solves. Those people are appealing to the idea that the free market can sort such things out; well okay then, so lets pass this proposition and allow cities to set rent controls if they want and see how it plays out! California is more populous than the entire country of Canada; lets get some natural experiments going, shall we? Furthermore, remember from Prop 15 that property taxes are //already// controlled; if the taxes landlords are paying aren't tied to the market, why should rent be mandated to be by law? Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 22: {icon times, color=red} No === An attempt by gig economy VC-backed firms like Uber to do an end-run around legislation that would force them to actually treat employees fairly rather than pretending they're "independent contractors", this proposition stands a dangerous chance of succeeding because on the face of it it sounds like it helps people. It's really just to preempt better, deeper help and restructuring of employment laws, which is why [[ https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128 | the Yes campaign is so heavily funded ]] (not to mention some [[ https://twitter.com/codehawkfalcon/status/1310658358425264128 | pretty direct advocacy ]]). The CA Dems are against it; the CA GOP is for it. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] --- == U.S. House of Representatives == === 45th District: {icon check, color=green} Katie Porter === Recently, Porter got wide attention for her grilling of a pharmacy company CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYvW4pm0_fI In R-leaning swing districts Dems *can* routinely run candidates like Porter and win handily, getting votes even from jaded commies like me, and that they usually don't is all the proof you really need that the party at an institutional level doesn't actually mean what it says. Equivalents of the whiteboard schtick here, sure, dime a dozen in congress; having something even approaching clear-eyed analysis of inequality and the incentives that exacerbate it, though? That's the best way to win swing districts **and** the thing that most scares the party. Anyways, vote to re-elect Porter, I say. Try and make it harder for the party institutions to keep pushing for uninspiring centrists as their nominees in Republican-leaning districts, and keep a pretty decent congressperson in the House while you're at it. --- == Judges == I don't see any option to vote for judges on my ballot. Maybe it's because the one person up seems to be running unopposed? Either way it's unfortunate because I remember Tony Ferrentino being terrible, and he's [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/orange-county/ | perfectly rated by the Judge Voter Guide crazies ]] and running unopposed. Bah! --- == External Links == * https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/09/2020-vote-info-1-indexlinks-introduction-calendar/ * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ * I could have sworn the right-wing group Judicial Watch had a guide last time around, which I used as a nice reverse-endorsement guide; vote the opposite of the right-wing ghouls and you're golden, I figure. Maybe I was mixing that up with the one I //did// find this time around, [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/ | Judge Voter Guide ]], which does at least seem similarly thorough and insane.

This is a guide for voting in California, skewed even further to Irvine 'cause that's where I, @keithzg, vote. ---- == Ballot Propositions == === Proposition 14: {icon check, color=green} Yes === Governmental funding of research is always a tempting prospect, all the moreso as we stare down future economic woes **and** a continued push by the religious right in America to deny funding for such research otherwise. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_14,_Stem_Cell_Research_Institute_Bond_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 15: {icon check, color=green} Yes === An old proposition 13 back in made property tax valuations in California deeply weird. Taxes are only reassessed for a property when it is sold, not on any sort of regular schedule, and the maximum rate increase per year is 2%. This is already a bit weird for individuals and has the possibility of creating some major inequities; the black family in The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air invariably was paying much higher property taxes than their white neighbors who had been in the neighborhood longer, to give a pop culture example soas to seem quirky at first before the ugliness unspools in the imagination. But it gets much, much worse when you consider that //corporations can live forever//. Barring the San Andreas fault or sweeping fires demolishing a property, the divergence between current market value and the taxes a corporation is paying on a property could literally diverge forever. I have the impression that the old prop 13 was sold as a "don't force old people out of their homes!" measure, and it is perhaps with that sort of counter-anecdote in mind that this proposition does not modify how property taxes are handled for //residential// properties, merely for commercial and industrial properties. There are corporations that still pay a rate based on at most 2%-per-year increased from 1975, despite the vastly higher level of inflation (at multiple levels!) on their properties. And even just the //initial// rollback in 1979 back to 1975 prices put many local governments into fiscal crisis.: > After Proposition 13, county property tax revenues dropped from $10.3 billion in 1977-78 to $5.04 billion in 1978-79. As a result, many local governments were in fiscal crisis. Keeping local governments in operation the first two years following Proposition 13 required legislative “bailouts” to offset property tax revenue losses. A first-year stopgap measure costing $4.17 billion in state surplus funds was necessary to directly aid local governments. A second-year bailout, a long-term fiscal relief plan, cost the state $4.85 billion. Staring down a financial crisis as we are right now, and with municipalities and counties generally underfunded as it is, it seems prudent to do the opposite of the Reagan era of American politics. Read more at: * [[ https://www.boe.ca.gov/proptaxes/pdf/pub29.pdf | California Property Tax by the California State Board of Equalization ]] * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_15,_Tax_on_Commercial_and_Industrial_Properties_for_Education_and_Local_Government_Funding_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 16: {icon check, color=green} Yes === Much like with Prop 15 immediately above, this undoes an existing applied prop in California, in this case one that was ostensibly banning discrimination. That sounds good, but federal law already has protections against many forms of discrimination (admittedly at least for now; the increasingly solid right-wing majority on the Supreme Court puts that in a bit of jeopardy), so the existing ban pretty much only disallows affirmative action. [[ https://ajud.assembly.ca.gov/sites/ajud.assembly.ca.gov/files/Background%20Paper%20-%20Affirmative%20Action%20in%20Public%20Contracting%20Since%20Proposition%20209.pdf | As a California justice put it ]], > The measure's language prohibiting 'discrimination' was largely superfluous, given that state and federal law, as well as the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, already prohibit such discrimination. What was new about Proposition 209, therefore, was the prohibition on 'preferential treatment.' Or that is to say, the main outcome of the California law as stands is a ban on affirmative action. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 19: {icon times, color=yellow} No? === The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow. They've probably gamed this out and figure it'll be great for them in some devious way. It certainly //sounds// promising, color=red} No ===but as a blogger over at the Orange Juice Blog wrote, > I can’t trust that one of their smart lawyers hasn’t figures out a way to get something terrible into the fine print Read more at: The Yes campaign is heavily funded by the California Association of Realtors, so . . . yaknow.* [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_19,_Property_Tax_Transfers,_Exemptions,_and_Revenue_for_Wildfire_Agencies_and_Counties_Amendment_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 21: {icon check, color=green} Yes === There are folks out there that argue rent control causes more issues than it solves. Those people are appealing to the idea that the free market can sort such things out; well okay then, so lets pass this proposition and allow cities to set rent controls if they want and see how it plays out! California is more populous than the entire country of Canada; lets get some natural experiments going, shall we? Furthermore, remember from Prop 15 that property taxes are //already// controlled; if the taxes landlords are paying aren't tied to the market, why should rent be mandated to be by law? Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_21,_Local_Rent_Control_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] === Proposition 22: {icon times, color=red} No === An attempt by gig economy VC-backed firms like Uber to do an end-run around legislation that would force them to actually treat employees fairly rather than pretending they're "independent contractors", this proposition stands a dangerous chance of succeeding because on the face of it it sounds like it helps people. It's really just to preempt better, deeper help and restructuring of employment laws, which is why [[ https://twitter.com/arielboone/status/1308106309955248128 | the Yes campaign is so heavily funded ]] (not to mention some [[ https://twitter.com/codehawkfalcon/status/1310658358425264128 | pretty direct advocacy ]]). The CA Dems are against it; the CA GOP is for it. Read more at: * [[ https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) | Ballotpedia ]] --- == U.S. House of Representatives == === 45th District: {icon check, color=green} Katie Porter === Recently, Porter got wide attention for her grilling of a pharmacy company CEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYvW4pm0_fI In R-leaning swing districts Dems *can* routinely run candidates like Porter and win handily, getting votes even from jaded commies like me, and that they usually don't is all the proof you really need that the party at an institutional level doesn't actually mean what it says. Equivalents of the whiteboard schtick here, sure, dime a dozen in congress; having something even approaching clear-eyed analysis of inequality and the incentives that exacerbate it, though? That's the best way to win swing districts **and** the thing that most scares the party. Anyways, vote to re-elect Porter, I say. Try and make it harder for the party institutions to keep pushing for uninspiring centrists as their nominees in Republican-leaning districts, and keep a pretty decent congressperson in the House while you're at it. --- == Judges == I don't see any option to vote for judges on my ballot. Maybe it's because the one person up seems to be running unopposed? Either way it's unfortunate because I remember Tony Ferrentino being terrible, and he's [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/orange-county/ | perfectly rated by the Judge Voter Guide crazies ]] and running unopposed. Bah! --- == External Links == * https://ballotpedia.org/California_2020_ballot_propositions * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/09/2020-vote-info-1-indexlinks-introduction-calendar/ * http://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2020/10/2020-oc-endorsements-1-12-statewide-propositions/ * I could have sworn the right-wing group Judicial Watch had a guide last time around, which I used as a nice reverse-endorsement guide; vote the opposite of the right-wing ghouls and you're golden, I figure. Maybe I was mixing that up with the one I //did// find this time around, [[ https://judgevoterguide.com/ | Judge Voter Guide ]], which does at least seem similarly thorough and insane.