California Ballot Propositions Guide 2020

The ISF Ballot Proposition team reviewed the California Ballot Propositions for November 2020. Below are summaries and our recommendations for each. You can find all the ballot propositions at https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/.

See also our list of San Francisco Ballot Propositions.

How did we reach our recommendations? The ISF Ballot Proposition team researched each ballot proposition, including the arguments for and against it. We weighted whether the effects of the proposition align with our Mission, Vision, and Values. We also researched the stances of our allies and partner groups on the propositions. Finally, the voter guides were voted and commented on by our membership.

If this measure passes, California will borrow $5.5 billion in general obligation bonds for the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). It will also increase the number of members on the Independent Citizen’s Oversight Committee that governs the institute. Additionally, it caps the number of bond-funded CIRM employees to 85 and establishes new training programs for students. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

ISF Recommendation: NO RECOMMENDATION on 14.

We were not able to determine any significant positive or negative effects of this proposition based on our mission, vision, and values.

If this measure passes, it ends a tax loophole which allows corporations to avoid property tax increases by dividing ownership of a property, and ends corporations’ massive tax break under 1978’s Prop 13, restoring much-needed funding for public services.

Proposition 13, passed in 1978, requires that all real properties are taxed based on their purchase price, rather than their current market value (by limiting the amount by which the county’s assessment of a property’s value can increase until the property is transferred to a new owner). Proposition would require commercial and industrial properties (except for those zoned as commercial agriculture)—but not residential—to be taxed based on their true current market value.

Furthermore, the California Legislature implemented a tax statute that states a change in property ownership only occurs if a stakeholder owns more than 50%. This means that corporations can prevent their property taxes from going up—by splitting the purchase of a property amongst several parties in order to keep all ownership shares under 50%. Proposition 15 would also repeal this loophole.

Proposition 15 would tax commercial properties based on current market value, closing the loophole and making sure corporations pay their fair share. 40% of this revenue would go directly to public schools, with the rest going to local governments.

Proposition 15 is a form of “Split Roll” because it ends the tax-limiting measure for commercial and industrial properties, but does not change things for residential properties. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

Economic justice requires that corporations pay their fair share in taxes, and this proposition will effectively close a tax loophole and provide much-needed funding to local communities. With the devastating economic costs of the pandemic and wildfires on California’s local governments, Proposition 15 is more needed and timely than ever. Indivisible SF has supported Proposition 15’s journey to the ballot from the beginning. Our members joined in the effort to collect signatures to get this measure on the ballot (through Schools and Communities First).

If this measure passes, it will repeal the ban on affirmative action in California. The California Constitution will be amended to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which bans affirmative action, and states that the government and public institutions, cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin, in hiring. This will allow public institutions to develop and use affirmative action programs. Proposition 16 would allow affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences, in compliance with rulings on the matter from the Supreme Court. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

Affirmative action is an important tool in fighting systemic racism and sexism. It gives opportunities to communities of color which are chronically underserved. According to research by UC Berkeley economist Zachary Bleemer, Prop 209’s ban on affirmative action has lowered educational opportunities, wages, and economic mobility for Black and Latino students. These students are left behind from the very beginning, as they are barred by income from the best schools and other important opportunities that could help them get into good colleges and well-paying jobs. Allowing public institutions to practice affirmative action in hiring and education would go a long way to breaking down these systemic barriers.

Indivisible SF has supported Proposition 16 from the beginning. We were a proponent of ACA 5 when it was in the legislature and supported its passing.

Find out more on why voting YES on Prop 16 is so important at Yes on 16: Opportunity for All. 

If this measure passes, California will allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote. The state constitution will be amended to allow people on parole to vote. 

Currently, people with felonies are disqualified from voting until both their prison term and their parole are completed. Proposition 17 will allow people with felonies who are on parole to vote, but those who are still in prison will still be disqualified. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

We believe voting is a right for all American citizens. People who are on parole have re-entered their communities, and we believe they have the right to help make decisions for their community as part of a democratic process.

Find out more about why it is important to vote YES on Proposition 17 at Yes on 17: Free the Vote.

If this measure passes, the state constitution will be amended to allow 17-year-olds to vote in a primary or special election if they will be 18 for the next general election.

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

This is a logical measure that encourages young people to participate in their democracy within the year that they become of voting age. 18 states along with Washington DC already allow 17-year-olds to vote, and California should join them.

If this measure passes, California will allow people to transfer their tax assessment to more expensive homes, and increase the number of times people over 55 or with severe disabilities can do so. The measure will also require that inherited homes that are not principal residences be reassessed at market values. Any additional revenues will be allocated to wildfire agencies and counties.

Currently in California, homeowners who are over 55 or with severe disabilities can transfer their property tax assessments to a different home with the same or lesser market value, as long as the home is in the same county or in a county that has agreed to accept such transfers. This allows them to move without paying higher taxes. Prop 19 would allow these homeowners to transfer their tax assessments to more expensive homes, and increases the number of times they can do so. Additionally, the current rule on inherited properties in California is that parents or grandparents can transfer their primary residences to their children without reassessing the property taxes based on market value. Prop 19 would stipulate that the child uses the inherited property as a primary residence for this rule to apply. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

[Edited October 13 to clarify that transferring between counties requires the destination county to agree to accept such transfers. This is provided by existing law in RTC §69.5; the Board of Equalization has a publication that gives more details, including the list of counties that accept such transfers.]

This proposition protects existing homeowners from paying new taxes when they move, and leaves that burden on new prospective homeowners trying to move out of renting. While it does limit some tax benefits for inherited second homes, this proposition appears to be mostly a way for wealthy people to avoid paying taxes. The wildfire agencies donation of any revenue savings is nice, but it seems like a way to pander to organizations who would otherwise not support this. 

If this measure passes, it will amend several criminal sentencing reforms passed to reduce incarceration for nonviolent felonies. The measure will add certain crimes to the list of felonies for which early parole is restricted, will turn certain misdemeanors (firearm theft, vehicle theft, unlawful crest card use) into felonies, and will require DNA collection for certain misdemeanors. It would also require parole review to consider such factors as marketable skills and mental conditions before deciding on parole for felons. This measure amends prison population-reducing laws AB 109, Proposition 47, and Proposition 57. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

Prop 20 will exacerbate prison overcrowding at a time where this can be deadly for incarcerated people, guards, visitors, lawyers, and entire communities. Reducing prison populations and building restorative justice systems is crucial to the safety of our communities, especially in light of the pandemic.Turning misdemeanors into felonies deprives people of their right to vote and keeps them in jail longer. 

We are also against DNA collection as it is a humiliating, unnecessary, and dangerous invasion of privacy for already vulnerable people. ACLU NorCal has also opposed this measure. 

If this measure passes, local governments will be allowed to enact rent control on residences that were first occupied over 15 years ago, with an exception for landlords who own no more than two homes with distinct titles or subdivided interests.

Currently in California, rent control is prohibited on homes that were first occupied after February 1, 1995. This static date means that no new homes, now or in the future, can be rent-controlled by local governments (since they could never have been occupied in 1995.) 

Prop 21 changes the static date of 1995 to a moving 15-year window, such that only homes first occupied in the last 15 years from the given current year can be exempt from rent control. If Prop 21 were enacted today, all homes occupied before 2005 would be subject to rent control. Next year, all homes occupied before 2006 would be subject to rent control, and so forth.

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

This is a logical, incremental measure that prevents the supply of houses subject to rent control from diminishing. We would love to see stronger housing reform, but this is a good start.

If this measure passes, California will define app-based transportation (such as Lyft and Uber) and delivery drivers as independent contractors, and adopt labor and wage policies specific to app-based drivers and companies.

This measure overrides California law AB 5 (2019), under which Uber and Lyft drivers are classified as employees, not independent contractors. Uber and Lyft insist that their drivers should be classified as independent contractors. Along with Doordash, they campaigned for Prop 22 to override AB 5. 

Prop 22 will also enact new labor and wage policies that are specific to app-based companies and drivers, which provides some concessions to drivers such as requiring companies to provide some healthcare subsidies and an earnings floor.

Unions, progressive lawmakers and activists (including Sen. Kamala Harris and Sen. Warren) have opposed Proposition 22 as it deprives drivers of the protections that regular employees receive under California law. 

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

Rideshare and delivery app companies often exploit their workers by pretending to be a platform, not a driving service. Rideshare drivers are paid by their companies to provide the service the companies offer, and until AB 5 goes into effect, they are doing this without the protections regular employees enjoy. Proposition 22 was written by rideshare companies, and proposes measures that are beneficial to the companies’ bottom line at the expense of their workers. Indivisible SF supported AB 5, as a part of the Indivisible CA State Strong coalition. We believe AB 5 protects rideshare workers from exploitation, and we are against efforts to override it.

If this measure passes, California will require chronic dialysis clinics to: have an on-site physician while patients are being treated; report data on dialysis-related infections; obtain consent from the state health department before closing a clinic; and not discriminate against patients based on the source of payment for care.Opponents of the measure claim that this will force community dialysis clinics to close from increased costs.

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

Dialysis clinics should be safe for patients and regulated to make sure they stay safe. Since dialysis is necessary for patients with failed kidneys to stay alive, the clinics should not be allowed to discriminate.

If this measure passes, it will expand the state’s consumer data privacy laws, including provisions to allow consumers to direct businesses to not share their personal information; remove the time period in which businesses can fix violations before being penalized; and create the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce the state’s consumer data privacy laws.Proposition 24 expands the 2018 CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act), which allows consumers to request that a business disclose what information it has gathered about them, delete the information, and prevent businesses from selling personal information to third parties.

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

At first blush, Prop 24 appears to be a logical expansion of existing consumer privacy law, and this is an important issue where existing law could do more. Misuse of personal information by online businesses is profoundly dangerous to people. Not only is it used for targeted advertising - the scandals of the past four years have shown how personal information can be sold to organizations that spread misinformation, conduct mass surveillance, and leave people vulnerable to identity theft and doxxing.

ISF supports efforts to curb the misuse and abuse of private consumer information for profit by corporations. But this isn’t the reform we need—as opponents such as ACLU, Color of Change, and labor activist Dolores Huerta have pointed out, this bill would introduce loopholes, weaken protections, and further entrench a “pay-for-privacy” economy. And although the Electronic Frontier Foundation ended up reaching a “No Recommendation” conclusion, the EFF’s blog post about Prop 24 lists off many serious concerns. [Added Oct. 1] The League of Women Voters of California has a thorough analysis of Prop 24, and they also came to oppose the measure.

Our own members have noted that proponents of the measure talk in vague terms about privacy issues, whereas the opponents talk about specific problems with the proposed legislation. This is a good sign of bad legislation.

We need real protections for Californians from privacy abuses, not attempts by the corporations responsible for those abuses to subvert and weaken the protections we have now.

If this measure passes, it will uphold SB 10, legislation that replaces cash bail with risk assessments for detained people awaiting trial.

If this measure FAILS, SB 10 will be repealed and California will be back to cash bail.

Proposition 25 is a referendum on SB 10, a law passed in 2018 which replaces cash bail with risk assessments. Until SB 10 goes into effect, California uses a cash bail system where people who are arrested can pay a cash bond as collateral that they return for trial. SB 10 addresses the issue that impoverished people are unable to pay bail, and thus are stuck in jail for long periods of time until their trial can begin. It replaces cash bail with a risk assessment system - people who are deemed a danger to the community stay in jail, the rest are freed until it’s time for their trial.

In response, Proposition 25 was introduced as a veto referendum by the American Bail Coalition. This organization of bail bond lenders hopes the Proposition will fail, thus repealing SB 10. Most progressives, the California Democratic Party and other organizers all support Prop 25 and want to uphold SB 10. 

The ACLU opposed SB 10 because it fails to address racial bias in the risk assessment tools used to determine whether someone has to stay in jail. However, the ACLU opposes the repeal of SB 10 via this proposition, as the bail bonds industry is not interested in equal protection or justice. Further reforms will be necessary.

Read the Ballotpedia entry here.

Indivisible SF supports moving away from cash bail, as it is inequitable to those in poverty. Keeping people in jail for long periods of time because they can’t afford bail violates their rights and endangers them, especially during the pandemic.

Voting YES on Proposition 25 upholds SB 10. SB 10 is far from a perfect law, and further reforms are necessary to achieve true equity and reform in the criminal justice system. However, we believe that repealing SB 10 wholesale will be a step back. Thus, we have determined that it is important to vote YES on Prop 25.