Your Guide To The Ballot Propositions In California's General Election

Published Sep 22, 2020

It's a wild time to hold an election, with major stakes for the state's criminal justice system, property tax rules, the gig worker economy and more, and in the midst of a national reckoning over race and policing, and in the middle of a pandemic -- but here we are. Welcome to the November 2020 election in California.

Californians have 12 statewide ballot propositions to vote on this year. Lest we forget, the global pandemic has decimated our state budget and put huge dents in funding for social services, health care and schools. The nationwide protests sparked by the police killing of George Floyd and others have also inspired a surge of momentum for racial equity. Both could determine the fate of some of these ballot initiatives in a way that wasn't anticipated when they first got on the ballot.

LAist depends on your support

We don't have paywalls, but we do have payments (aka bills). So if you love independent, local journalism, join us.

If you've voted in previous elections, many of these propositions will look familiar. Several of them would repeal, expand or amend previous voter-approved measures, and some are slightly altered repeats of measures that didn't pass previously. A tip: read up on California's Proposition 13 from 1978 before you vote on some of these.

To get an overview of all 12 propositions, you can watch the one-hour "cram session" below from our public affairs show AirTalk. Scroll a little further for a written breakdown of each ballot measure, including a video explainer and a link to the abbreviated cram session talk via our podcast The L.A. Report.

PROPOSITION 14: STEM CELL RESEARCH FUNDING

On the ballot as: Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research. Initiative Statute

Proposition 14 would issue $5.5 billion in funding to an existing state stem cell research institute. The California Institute for Regenerative Medicine, based in Oakland, was created in a 2004 voter-approved measure to support scientific research toward finding treatments and deeper understanding of diseases such as Alzheimer's, heart disease, cancer and strokes. Voters originally approved $3 billion, but that money is now on its last legs; as of June 2020, only $30 million remained.

Prop 14 comes with a few stipulations for that funding: No more than 7.5% of the funds can go to administrative costs; there would be a cap on the number of employees the institute can hire; and $1.5 billion of the funds would also be earmarked toward research and treatment for diseases of the brain and central nervous system (which include Alzheimer's, brain cancer, stroke, epilepsy and Parkinson's).

The funding would come from general obligation bonds -- money that California has to borrow from bond buyers.

Get The Latest Election News

Our daily newsletters deliver all our election news to your inbox. Sign up to stay informed about voting -- and all things Los Angeles.

SUPPORT

Supporters say stem cell research is always valuable, given that the diseases this research aims to treat affect millions of people across the state. Given the stem cell institute's low reserves, they argue that research would be significantly delayed without passing Prop 14, thus setting back treatments and cures that can save lives.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include Robert N. Klein II and Affiliated Entity Klein Financial Corporation (Robert Klein authored this initiative), JDRF (formerly the Juvenile Diabetes Research Fund), and the Open Philanthropy Action Fund. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Some opponents say the institute hasn't produced the kind of life-saving treatments that were promised when it was created. Moreover, we no longer have a ban on federal funding for stem cell research, which is what precipitated the creation of the institute to begin with. Others oppose Prop 14 because they say it doesn't address some of the shortcomings of the previous 2004 measure -- and even makes some of them worse. For one, the institute is funded with public money, but does not have any legislative oversight. Nor does the measure address any conflicts of interest that may arise between the institute's leaders and the projects the organization decides to pursue, they say. Some opponents have also criticized the requirement that $1.5 billion be cordoned off for brain and central nervous system diseases, saying it hampers the institute's flexibility to respond to changing needs.

Read more arguments against Prop 14 from Southern California News Group and the San Jose Mercury News.

Who donated money in opposition? No political action committees have registered to oppose Prop 14.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 15: PROPERTY TAX "SPLIT ROLL" FOR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE

On the ballot as: Increases Funding for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

The massive, expensive fight over Proposition 15 is decades in the making. The so-called "split roll" initiative would be a partial but major reversal of Proposition 13, which in 1978 changed the way property taxes are calculated, and reshaped all of California in the process. Even if you don't own any property at all, this measure affects you in a big way.

ADVERTISEMENT

Some quick background: Prop 13 allows homeowners and commercial real estate owners to pay property taxes based on the value of their property when they bought it, rather than on the current market value. Bought a house in 1980? Your taxes to this day will still be based on that 1980 price, with only modest increases each year, even if the market value of that house has multiplied since then. That's the case whether you bought a house, an office building or a strip mall.

In the decades since, homeowners and businesses have made huge savings. Local governments, however, saw revenue from property tax payments plummet after Prop 13 was passed, forcing them to turn elsewhere for funding. School districts faced the same dilemma. (Here is a more in-depth exploration of the ways that Prop 13 has reshaped California.)

This year's Prop 15 tackles the commercial and industrial real estate portion of Prop 13. If you are a homeowner, nothing about this measure will change your situation. But for some commercial and industrial real estate property owners, Prop 15 will change the rules so that property taxes will be based on current market values, with assessments happening every three years beginning in 2022. That means a likely jump in taxes, and thus, more revenue for local governments and school districts. The measure targets wealthier landlords: business owners with $3 million or less in property holdings across California are exempt, as is agricultural land -- an effort to spare farms and small businesses from the burden of higher taxes.

Prop 15 is the most significant attempt to roll back portions of Prop 13 since it went into effect more than 40 years ago. The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates it would raise between $6.5-to-$11.5 billion from commercial real estate taxpayers, of which about 60% would go to local governments and 40% to schools and community colleges.

SUPPORT

Billions of dollars in local government and school revenues have been lost over the years due to Prop 13, and this new measure could finally generate some much-needed funding, supporters say. California school spending lags behind the majority of states, and Prop 15 could help bring a boost for students. Proponents also say that it only affects a small group of wealthier landlords, and will help close a tax loophole that has long been used to benefit corporations at local communities' expense.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 15 from the Yes on 15 campaign.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include the California Teachers Association Issues PAC, Service Employees International Union California State Council, and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative Advocacy. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Prop 15 would burden commercial property renters, consumers and business owners alike, opponents say. Even though developers who own millions in property would stand to directly lose the most from this proposition, they could very well pass on the tax burden by raising rents for tenants. And although agricultural land is exempt from new tax hikes, farm fixtures -- such as barns, dairies, fruit trees and more -- are not exempt, which agricultural advocates say leaves farmers vulnerable.

Read more arguments against Prop 15 from the No on 15 campaign, Southern California News Group and the San Jose Mercury News.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include the California Taxpayers Association, California Farm Bureau Federation, and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. See more donors here.

Want more? Watch the in-depth discussion about the pros and cons of Prop 15 moderated by KPCC/LAist reporters Kyle Stokes and David Wagner:

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 16: REPEALING THE BAN ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

On the ballot as: Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Want to open the door to bring affirmative action back to California? Proposition 16 would repeal a ban that's been in effect for nearly 25 years.

Since the passage of the 1996 measure, known as Proposition 209, California has been prohibited from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education or contracting. If Proposition 16 is passed, it would remove Prop 209 from the state constitution, once again allowing public institutions to consider factors such as race and sex in education or employment if they so choose.

These institutions would still be bound by federal laws, which prohibit the use of quotas or race-based point systems, but allow race or sex to be considered as long as they serve a compelling state interest (such as diversity) and are narrowly tailored in order to address that interest. For example, a university wouldn't be able to accept or reject an applicant solely because of their race, but could consider race as a factor in a holistic review of the applicant's background, qualifications and life experiences.

SUPPORT

Proponents of Prop 16 say that the "colorblind" policy California has adopted since the passage of Prop 209 has only decreased diversity in public institutions, especially when compared to California's demographic makeup. Women and racial minorities, especially Black and Latinos, have consistently been paid less and had less access to higher education than their white, male counterparts. Prop 16 supporters say the measure is a crucial step to leveling the playing field.

They also say that focusing on socioeconomic background alone is not enough to address the vastly different life experiences and circumstances that may have prevented women and non-white people from accessing opportunities. Forty-two other U.S. states also allow factors such as race and sex to be considered in public hiring and education, so supporters say passing Prop 16 would put California more in line with the majority of the country.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 16 from the Yes on Prop 16 campaign, the L.A. Times and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include M. Quinn Delaney, California Works: Senator Toni Atkins Ballot Measure Committee, and Elizabeth Cabraser. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Having preferences for job candidates or college applicants based on factors such as race or ethnicity is inherently discriminatory, opponents say. They argue that Prop 16 will merely divide and stoke tension along those fault lines. Some groups also express concern that these policies could hurt university applications among Asian Americans, as they are overrepresented among University of California undergraduates compared to their proportion of the state population. (More on that here.)

Read more arguments against Prop 16 from the No on Prop 16 campaign and Southern California News Group.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., an organization that also filed lawsuits against Harvard University for affirmative action practices. See more donors here.

Want more? Watch an in-depth discussion about the pros and cons of Prop 16 moderated by KPCC/LAist reporter Adolfo Guzman-Lopez:

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 17: VOTING RIGHTS FOR FELONS ON PAROLE

On the ballot as: Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Should people convicted of felonies regain their right to vote when they are out on parole? Proposition 17 says yes. Introduced to the state legislature by California Assemblymember Kevin McCarty, Prop 17 would amend the state constitution to restore voting rights to this group, which includes some 40,000 Californians. Current law allows those convicted of felonies to vote, but only after they have completed their parole period, which lasts about three years on average. Currently, 16 states and the District of Columbia allow parolees to vote as soon as they are released from prison.

SUPPORT

Supporters of Prop 17 say giving parolees the right to vote is an important move to enfranchise those who have served their time in prison. Parole is not meant to be a punishment, but a period to help people reintegrate into mainstream society after prison, and being able to vote will help that reintegration, they say. They also argue that If parolees are already able to have jobs, pay taxes and contribute to public life, they should also be allowed to vote on policies that will affect them.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 17 from the Yes on 17 campaign, the L.A. Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include the Brennan Center for Justice, ACLU of Northern California and Susan Pritzker. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Parolees are not finished making full restitution for their crimes, and they already live with certain restrictions -- including their geographical movements, drug use and contact with certain people. Opponents say that under these circumstances, there is no reason to expect that parolees should have full access to activities such as voting.

Who donated money in opposition? No political action committees were formed to oppose Prop 17.

MORE READING:

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 18: ALLOWS SOME 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARIES

On the ballot as: 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. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Prop 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they will be 18 at the time of the general election and are otherwise eligible to vote. Currently, 18 other states and the District of Columbia allow this group of people to vote in primaries. It's unclear how the measure would affect actual turnout if passed; only 16.1% of eligible California voters aged 18-24 turned out to vote in the March 2020 primary.

SUPPORT

Supporters say allowing 17-year-olds to vote in the primary when they'll be 18 during the general election allows them to shape their choices and become more informed about their vote in the general election. Others say that even though they are not yet legally adults, many 17-year-olds are already dealing with adult activities in their everyday lives, such as working and funding their own education, and should be able to have a say in issues that affect them.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 18 from the San Francisco Chronicle and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Who donated money in support? Major donors to support Prop 18, which was introduced to the state legislature by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin, include Kevin Mullin for Assembly 2020 and the Committee to Innovate for California's Future (a ballot measure committee for Assemblymember Evan Low). See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Opponents say that 17-year-olds are still legally minors, and there is no reason to allow them to vote before they are legal adults. Some also argue that because teenagers' brains are still developing and don't rely on reasoning to the same degree as mature adult brains do, we should not lower the eligible voting age.

Read more arguments against Prop 18 from Southern California News Group.

Who donated money in opposition? No political action committees were formed to oppose Prop 18.

MORE READING:

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 19: PROPERTY TAX TRANSFERS AND INHERITANCES

On the ballot as: Changes Certain Property Tax Rules. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

Prop 19 is a mashup of two different property tax measures: one would potentially expand savings for mostly older homeowners; the other would potentially limit savings for people who inherit homes from their parents. But even if you're not a homeowner, Prop 19 will affect you, too.

The current rules have been in effect since 1978, when Prop 13 was passed. That legislation allows homeowners to peg their property taxes on the value of their house when they bought it, not the current market value. For example, if you bought a house in a trendy part of L.A. 20 years ago for $300,000, your taxes are based on the original price you paid -- even though the house's value has multiplied since then. If you buy a new house, your taxes would increase substantially because they'd be calculated according to the current market price of your new home. Translation: it can be much cheaper to hold on to a house than to buy a new one.

But, there are also a few current scenarios where homeowners can keep paying low property taxes even when they move. People who are over 55, severely disabled, or whose homes were destroyed by natural disasters can transfer the (presumably lower) tax base of their current home to a new property if the new place is of equal or lesser value, and in the same county, or on a list of select counties. They can only make this transfer once.

Prop 19 would change part of that. The lower-rate transfer would be allowed for any home in the state. And instead of only once, you could do it three times. This is the part of the measure that would expand savings. A similar measure was put before voters in 2018 and rejected. It's being attempted again now with a second provision attached.

That second provision is the part that would limit savings. And it affects a different group of would-be homeowners: children who inherit their parents' houses. Currently, if a homeowner dies and their children inherit the property, they get to keep the property tax base, even if they aren't living in the house. Prop 19 would only allow that to happen if the home becomes their primary residence. That means you wouldn't be able to inherit your parents' house and enjoy a low tax rate, and earn rental income off that house all at the same time.

If you're not a homeowner and won't be anytime soon, does any of this mean anything for you? Absolutely. Any additional revenue generated from this ballot measure (i.e., if homeowners pay more in taxes) would go toward state wildfire fighting efforts.

ADVERTISEMENT

SUPPORT

Our property tax rules give people who've owned their houses in California for many years little incentive to move. Why opt for higher property taxes in a skyrocketing housing market? But this means a tighter housing supply, with fewer options available on the market and not enough people willing to move or downsize to free up properties. Prop 19 supporters say it's time to loosen the chokehold on the housing market.

They also say that restricting the inheritance rules will also close a Prop 13 loophole that has allowed people to rent out inherited property with low taxes and hoard savings at the expense of local governments and schools. Moreover, the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that local governments and schools will gain tens of millions of dollars each year from the net effect of Prop 19, which could grow to hundreds of millions over time. Also, that wildfire fighting money would really come in handy.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 19 from the Yes on Prop 19 campaign.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors to support Prop 19 include the California Association of Realtors (which also conceived the measure), the National Association of Realtors, and the California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issues Committee. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Critics of Prop 19 say the measure -- expanding tax savings for one group of homeowners while limiting savings for another -- exacerbates inequality and is a poor substitute for meaningful reform of the state's property tax transfer rules.

First of all, allowing all older Californians to hold on to their tax breaks when moving, will enable already wealthy homeowners to keep consolidating their wealth, some critics say. Property tax revenues fund local schools and governments, so those savings come at the expense of our communities. An analysis of the failed 2018 measure from the Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that 85,000 older Californians move every year without taking advantage of property tax transfers. If they were to do so under Prop 19, local governments would needlessly lose revenue. And even though new restrictions on inheritance rules could result in more revenue, opponents also say that reserving those funds for wildfire efforts hampers local governments' ability to direct resources where they're needed as other crises arise.

Read arguments against Prop 19 from the L.A. Times, Southern California News Group and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Who opposes this proposition? Opponents include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the ACLU of Southern California and the League of Women Voters of California.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors against Prop 19 include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 20: RECATEGORIZING CRIMINAL SENTENCING CHARGES

On the ballot as: Restricts Parole for Non-Violent Offenders. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors. Initiative Statute.

Prop 20 would make it easier to charge certain crimes as felonies, and prohibit early parole for more crimes.

It's an effort to roll back portions of previous measures designed to reduce California's state prison population. One of them, 2014's Proposition 47 (authored by current L.A. district attorney candidate George Gascón), allows certain non-violent, minor crimes to be charged as misdemeanors when they previously were classified as felonies, or could have been classified as either a misdemeanor or felony -- crimes known as "wobblers." They include shoplifting, property theft, check forgery and certain cases of drug possession. (Here's more on Proposition 47.)

Another measure, 2016's Prop 57, made it easier for certain felons to get released early on parole. Nonviolent inmates could get released after serving the sentence for their primary offense, and other inmates could earn credits to reduce their sentences through good behavior or participation in certain prison programs.

Prop 20 would reverse some of these provisions. Certain theft and fraud crimes would once again be "wobblers" instead of misdemeanors, including vehicle theft, firearm theft and unlawful use of a credit card. It would also add two new categories of crimes -- serial theft and organized retail theft -- that would be charged as "wobblers." It would also reclassify 17 crimes currently considered "nonviolent" and make them "violent" offenses, thus making offenders ineligible for early parole. Those crimes include child trafficking, rape of an unconscious person and felony domestic violence, among others.

Additionally, it would require people who were convicted of misdemeanors that were "wobblers" prior to 2014 to submit their DNA for state and federal databases.

SUPPORT

The fact that domestic abusers, child traffickers or those who've drugged and raped people are technically "nonviolent" offenders who are eligible for early release shows that the current system has flaws that need to be fixed, supporters of Prop 20 say.

They also say that Propositions 47 and 57 led to upticks in crime, and that they must be rolled back in order to bolster public safety. (An analysis from the Public Policy Institute of California found some evidence that Prop 47 led to an increase in larceny and thefts from motor vehicles, although it found no evidence it led to an increase in violent crime.) They also say that reclassifying low-level theft and drug crimes inadvertently led to far less DNA collection, so requiring such collection for "wobbler" offenses would better help law enforcement solve crimes.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 20 from the Yes on 20 campaign and the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Truth in American Government Fund, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Employees' Benefit Association and Sempra Energy. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Overall crime rates in California remain low -- in L.A. County, violent crime is at its lowest rate since the 1960s, and property crimes declined in 2019. Recidivism also decreased due to Proposition 47, the Public Policy Institute of California found. Given these trends, opponents ask, why do we need to toughen our crime laws? Harsh sentencing and tough-on-crime policies haven't worked in California in the past.

Also, particularly at a time when the nation is reexamining policing and criminal justice, and their disproportionate effects on Black and Latino communities, opponents say we should focus on how to keep crime rates low and communities safe, instead of pushing more funds into mass incarceration. Prop 20 would cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars annually in law enforcement and correctional facility costs, according to the Legislative Analyst's Office, and opponents say those funds are better invested in communities instead.

Read more arguments against Prop 20 from the No on 20 campaign, the L.A. Times and Southern California News Group.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include Patty Quillin, Lynn Schusterman, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the Heising-Simons Action Fund. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 21: RENT CONTROL

On the ballot as: Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. Initiative Statute.

This measure would expand local governments' power to pass rent control laws. If that sounds familiar, it's because we voted on a very similar measure in 2018. It failed, and now there's this new, amended version.

Under current law, cities can't enact rent control on any buildings first occupied after February 1, 1995, or on certain types of housing such as condos or townhouses. It also says a landlord can raise rents to market rates if a tenant moves out. Aside from that, California cities can -- and do -- set their own rent control policies, although court rulings have mandated that they allow landlords to earn a "fair rate of return" on their property.

Prop 21 wouldn't create any kind of rent control policy; theoretically, things could stay exactly the same even if it were passed. But the measure would allow cities to apply new, presumably stricter, rent control measures if they choose, but only on buildings that are at least 15 years old. Single-family homes would be exempt, as long as owners don't own more than two properties. And when new tenants move into rent-controlled property, landlords wouldn't be allowed to raise rents more than 15% over three years.

It's not clear to what degree cities would enact rent control under Prop 21, or how many would do it at all. But the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that it could potentially lead to a loss of tens of millions in state and local property tax revenues per year over time, depending on what exactly local communities would do.

SUPPORT

The housing and homelessness situation in California is staggering. Homelessness in L.A. County alone jumped 13% in the past year -- and that was before the pandemic. Supporters say we need more flexibility with rent control to protect tenants from eviction and potential homelessness. They point out that Prop 21 doesn't create or mandate any new rent control policies, but allows local communities to decide what's best for their own situations.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 21 from the Yes on 21 campaign and the L.A. Times.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Several leaders of the organization, including president Michael Weinstein, filed the ballot initiative. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Rent control isn't the answer to our housing crisis, opponents say -- we need policies that encourage housing access and affordability. Furthermore, California passed a rent control law in January 2020, which caps rent increases across the state at 5% per year plus the local rate of inflation. The state law provides more rent stability without crunching landlords, and opponents say Proposition 21 would undermine it.

Read more arguments against Prop 21 from the No on 21 campaign and the San Francisco Chronicle.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include the California Rental Housing Association, Essex Property Trust, Equity Residential and AvalonBay Communities. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 22: JOB CLASSIFICATION FOR APP-BASED DRIVERS

On the ballot as: Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers. Initiative Statute.

This is a big one for our gig economy. Prop 22 would classify drivers for Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies as independent contractors. It would also enact several new labor policies specifically for app-based companies.

Prop 22 is the result of fallout from AB5, a controversial state law that redefines which workers are considered independent contractors. According to the law, workers who perform duties that are essential to the businesses they work for -- like a delivery person for Postmates -- are employees, not contractors, and must receive benefits and protections in accordance with laws.

That legislation created exceptions for certain professions, such as doctors, dentists and hairstylists. In September 2020, the legislature passed a bill extending those exemptions to freelance writers, musicians, photographers, translators and musicians. But lawmakers have not made any exceptions for app-based gig workers, which has major ramifications for those companies. Enter Prop 22.

Prop 22 would create a new category of worker for app-based drivers -- of which California has an estimated 300,000 to 400,000 -- and establish labor and wage policies tailored specifically for them. They would be entitled to certain benefits, including a minimum hourly wage for time spent driving (120% of the local minimum wage), accident insurance, a cap on hours worked in a 24-hour period, health care subsidies and a requirement for companies to develop sexual harassment and anti-discrimination policies.

SUPPORT

Requiring companies to treat drivers as employees rather than contractors will force them to put hundreds of thousands of people out of work, which will also hurt riders who rely on these services, supporters say. Additionally, they say, many drivers use those jobs as supplemental income to support their families, taking advantage of the ability to work whenever they want. Those flexible schedules would not be possible under the regulations that come with being an employee. Supporters say Prop 22 would allow them to retain that flexibility while also guaranteeing them some benefits.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 22 from the Yes on 22 campaign and Southern California News Group.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include Lyft, Uber Technologies, DoorDash, Postmates and Maplebear Inc. (which operates Instacart). See more donors here.

ADVERTISEMENT

OPPOSITION

Opponents say Prop 22 would create a permanent underclass of workers if it were to pass. It doesn't give drivers sick leave, unemployment benefits or workers' compensation, and lets Uber, Lyft and other companies get away with not paying into Social Security or Medicare. Opponents say the measure is designed to maximize the profits of rideshare app companies while exempting them from playing by the same rules as other companies.

Read more arguments against Prop 22 from the No on 22 campaign, the L.A. Times and the California Labor Federation.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, California Labor Federation AFL-CIO, and the Transport Workers Union of America and SEIU California State Council. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 23: PHYSICIANS ONSITE AT DIALYSIS CLINICS

On the ballot as: Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional. Initiative Statute.

Prop 23 would require physicians on-site at clinics that perform dialysis, the blood-filtering treatment for people whose kidneys aren't functioning properly. It would also require consent from the state in order for a clinic to close, and require clinics to report infection data to California health officials.

Why are we voting on a measure about dialysis clinics? Prop 23 is the latest salvo in a fight between dialysis corporations (DaVita and Fresenius Medical Care are two of the largest) and labor union SEIU-UHW West. The union has been trying for years to organize dialysis workers in California, and sponsored another measure in 2018 that would have required a cap on how much clinics can charge patients or insurers for treatment. That measure ultimately failed, but only after dialysis companies spent a record-breaking $111 million to defeat it.

SUPPORT

Dialysis corporations make billions of dollars every year, but don't invest enough in making patient care better, supporters say. They say that having a physician onsite will ensure that clinic workers don't rush through life-saving treatments, and having to report infections to state health officials will increase clinics' transparency about conditions at facilities. They also say that requiring the state to consent to closure of a clinic will hold clinics to the same standard as hospitals.

Read more arguments in favor of Prop 23 from the Yes on 23 campaign.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include SEIU UHW-West. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Having a physician present onsite isn't necessary for treatment, opponents say -- and requiring them would unnecessarily increase health care costs and pull doctors away from hospitals where they're needed. And if costs increase, it could force some clinics to close -- perhaps making treatment harder to access.

Read an argument against Prop 23 from the No on 23 campaign, the L.A. Times and Southern California News Group.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include DaVita, Inc., and Fresenius Medical Care. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 24: ADD NEW CONSUMER PRIVACY RULES

On the ballot as: Amends Consumer Privacy Laws. Initiative Statute.

Prop 24 would add new provisions to a current law on consumer data privacy and create an agency for its implementation and enforcement.

The background: California passed a landmark law in 2018 that gives people more privacy over their digital data. That law allows consumers to know what personal information businesses are collecting from them, and whether -- and to whom -- that data is sold or disclosed. It also requires businesses to delete or refrain from selling that data if the consumer denies permission.

Prop 24 adds more elements to the law -- a lot more, given that the text is 52 pages long. Among the new provisions: consumers could request businesses to stop sharing their personal information, not just stop selling it. It would create a new category of "sensitive personal information," including data such as race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, precise geolocation, health or biometric data, and Social Security number, and allow consumers to restrict use by businesses. The measure also triples penalties for violations of the law when it concerns people under the age of 16. Additionally, it would establish an agency tasked with enforcing these new privacy rules, using money from California's general fund.

Passing Prop 24 means that changing the law would require the approval of voters, rather than allowing the legislature to change it at will.

SUPPORT

Prop 24 is necessary for consumers to have more control over the data that businesses routinely collect on them, proponents say. Even though California's sweeping data privacy law went into effect in January, they say these additional measures are necessary to expand consumers' rights, increase transparency, and hold businesses accountable for how they use our personal data.

Read more arguments supporting Prop 24 from the Yes on 24 campaign and the L.A. Times.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include Alastair Mactaggart, the real estate developer who authored the initiative. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Opponents say if you actually read through the 52-page initiative, it presents too much of a mixed bag for consumer privacy, with too many giveaways to companies that make use of personal data. For instance, it would allow businesses to withhold discounts from consumers unless they agree to let the business collect and share certain data about their habits -- a scheme described as "pay for privacy." It would also expand businesses' ability to refuse to delete consumers' information. Under these circumstances, it would be best to advocate for stronger privacy protections elsewhere than with this initiative, opponents say.

Read more arguments opposing Prop 24 from the No on 24 campaign, Southern California News Group and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (note that the EFF neither supports nor opposes the measure).

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include the Consumer Federation of California and the California Nurses Assocation Initiative PAC. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE:

PROPOSITION 25: REPLACE CASH BAIL WITH RISK ASSESSMENT

On the ballot as: Referendum on Law that Replaced Money Bail with System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk.

Prop 25 would effectively end the use of cash bail in California and replace it with a risk assessment system to determine whether suspects awaiting trial should be held in jail or released in the meantime. Under the risk assessment system, a judge would be able to decide whether a suspect is sufficiently dangerous to await trial in jail or can be released.

Any of this sound familiar? Back in 2018 the California legislature passed a bill to do this very thing. Then-Governor Jerry Brown signed it into law. But a political action committee, helmed by the leaders in the bail bond industry, worked to get the referendum measure on the November ballot. That has kept the law on hold until the election; it will only go into effect if voters affirm it.

SUPPORT

Bail in its current form discriminates against poor people and people of color. That's backed up by a number of studies. Continuing to invest resources in a discriminatory system doesn't contribute to public safety, and it's time to adopt another model, Prop 25 supporters say. Plus, keeping tens of thousands of people in jail when they might otherwise be able to await trial at home will save taxpayers money.

Read more arguments supporting Prop 25 from the Yes on 25 campaign and Southern California News Group.

Who endorses this proposition? See a list of supporters here.

Who donated money in support? Major donors include SEIU California State Council, Patty Quillin, Action Now Initiative, LLC, and Lynn Schusterman. See more donors here.

OPPOSITION

Bail bond groups say passing Prop 25 means defendants would have no financial incentive to return to court for their trial, potentially endangering communities. Other groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union support ending cash bail, but say the measure gives too much power to judges and prosecutors to detain defendants in certain situations. For instance, it would give prosecutors power to file for "preventive detention" when they believe a defendant is a threat to public safety or won't show up in court. It would also allow judges to independently have the authority to hold people if they're charged with violent or serious crime.

Read more arguments against Prop 25 from the No on 25 campaign and Human Rights Watch.

Who opposes this proposition? See a list of opponents here.

Who donated money in opposition? Major donors include Triton Management Services, LLC, Lexington National Insurance Corporation and Bankers Insurance Company. See more donors here.

MORE READING

LISTEN AND SUBSCRIBE: