Proposition 16
Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions
Allows Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in order to address diversity by repealing constitutional provision prohibiting such policies.
Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect on state and local entities. The effects of the measure depend on the future choices of state and local government entities and are highly uncertain.
support: $19,926,905 - CA Teachers Assn, M. Quinn Delaney, healthcare companies
oppose: $1,172,614
Notes
Essentially re-instates Affirmative Action based on race, sex, color , ethnicity or country of origin for schools and public agencies, which was banned in CA via proposition in 1996.
Proposition 17
Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term
Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Restores voting rights upon completion of prison term to persons who have been disqualified from voting while serving a prison term.
Fiscal Impact: Annual county costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars statewide, for voter registration and ballot materials. One-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for voter registration cards and systems.
support: $1,363,887 - Patty Quillin, Susan Pritzker, ACLU, CA Democratic Party
oppose: none
Notes
Allows People on State Parole to Register to Vote.
Proposition 18
Permits 17-Year-Olds to Vote in Primary and Special Elections if They Will Turn 18 by the Next General Election
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
Official Summary
Fiscal Impact: Increased statewide county costs likely between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years. Increased one-time costs to the state of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
support: $835,064
oppose:
Notes
Proposition 19
Changes Certain Property Tax Rules about Transferral of Tax Basis
Changes Certain Property Tax Rules
legislative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Allows homeowners who are over 55, disabled, or wildfire/disaster victims to transfer primary residence’s tax base to replacement residence. Changes taxation of family-property transfers. Establishes fire protection services fund.
Fiscal Impact: Local governments could gain tens of millions of dollars of property tax revenue per year, probably growing over time to a few hundred million dollars per year. Schools could receive similar property tax gains.
support: $37,794,775 - CA Assn of Realtors
oppose: $45,050
Notes
Currently, homeowners who are over 55 or severely disabled or whose property has been impacted by a natural disaster / contamination can move within the same county (or to certain other counties) and keep paying the same amount of property taxes if their new home is not more expensive than their existing home. Homeowners who are over 55 or severely disabled generally can use these special rules only once in their lifetime.
New:
Allows moves anywhere in the state, instead of just within the county or to a county that allows the transfer of cost basis.
Allows the purchase of a more expensive home - their property tax bill would still go up but not by as much as it would for other homebuyers.
Homeowners who are over 55 or severely disabled could use the special rules three times in their lifetime, instead of once.
Special rules also allow properties to pass between parents and children without an increase in the property tax bill. These rules also apply to grandparents and grandchildren if the grandchildren’s parents are deceased.
New:
The special inheritance rules would apply only to a primary home or farm, and would go up if the value of the property exceeds the property’s taxable value by more than $1 million (adjusted for inflation every two years). In this case, the tax bill would go up but not as much as it would if the property were sold to someone else.
Also creates California Fire Response Fund (CFRF) and County Revenue Protection Fund (CRPF).
Proposition 20
Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.
Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to be Non-Violent. Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.
initiative statute
Official Summary
Limits access to parole program established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses.
Fiscal Impact: Increase in state and local correctional, court, and law enforcement costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation.
support: $4,829,677 - Devin Nunes, Police organizations, CA Grocers Assn
oppose: $20,471,086 - Mark Zuckerberg, Patty Quillin, Brown for Governor 2014
Notes
Increases sentencing for some theft crimes
Increase supervision for some on parole for theft related crimes
Limits those who can be considered for release consideration
Adds some theft crimes to list of crimes to collect DNA
Proposition 21
Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
Expands Local Governments' Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property
initiative statute
Official Summary
Allows local governments to establish rent control on residential properties over 15 years old. Local limits on rate increases may differ from statewide limit.
Fiscal Impact: Overall, a potential reduction in state and local revenues in the high tens of millions of dollars per year over time. Depending on actions by local communities, revenue losses could be less or more.
support: $40,184,953 - AIDS Healthcare Foundation
oppose: $59,379,159 - CA Business Roundtable Issues PAC, real estate rental companies
Notes
Current rent control law is Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act which says rent control (limiting the increase in rent from one year to the next):
cannot apply to any single-family homes
can never apply to any newly built housing completed on or after February 1, 1995
cannot tell landlords what they can charge a new renter when first moving in
Change:
can apply to any property over 15 years old, not including single-family homes owned by people with two or fewer properties
cities and counties can limit how much a landlord can increase rents when a new renter moves in. Communities that do so must allow a landlord to increase rents by up to 15 percent during the first three years after a new renter moves in.
The measure requires that rent control laws allow landlords a fair rate of return.
Proposition 22
Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers
Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies From Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers
initiative statute
Official Summary
Classifies app-based drivers as "independent contractors," instead of "employees," and provides independent-contractor drivers other compensation, unless certain criteria are met.
Fiscal Impact: Minor increase in state income taxes paid by rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors.
support: $188,937,777 - Lyft, Uber, Doordash, Instacart, Postmates
oppose: $15,896,808 - unions
Notes
Recently the CA Legislature passed AB5 which requires companies and non profits to classify workers as employees instead of independent contractors, including paying employee benefits. To remain an independent contractor, an individual must pass the following 3 tests:
The worker is free to perform services without the control or direction of the company.
The worker is performing work tasks that are outside the usual course of the company’s business activities.
The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
It has a significant impact in a number of industries. This proposition is the rideshare industry’s answer to it. The proposition specifies that the rideshare gig workers are independent contractors and not employees. It also includes:
Earnings Minimum (120% of the local minimum wage), a Health Insurance Stipend for drivers who normally work more than 15 hours per week, companies will pay for medical costs and some lost income replacement when a driver gets hurt on the job, prohibits drivers from working more than 12 hours in a 24-hour period for a single rideshare or delivery company, prohibits workplace discrimination and requires that companies: (1) develop sexual harassment policies, (2) conduct criminal background checks, and (3) mandate safety training for drivers. Also, it limits the ability of local government to set additional rules.
AB 2257 was passed in Sept 2020 exempting certain workers from AB5, but not rideshare workers: still and video photographers and editors, freelance writers, content contributors, editors, translators, fine artists, and musicians under written contracts. Also, people who provide underwriting inspections and other services for the insurance industry, a manufactured housing salesperson, subject to certain obligations, people engaged by an international exchange visitor program, as specified, consulting services, animal services, competition judges with specialized skills, licensed landscape architects, specialized performers teaching master classes, registered professional foresters, real estate appraisers and home inspectors, and feedback aggregators.
Proposition 23
Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.
Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics. Requires On-Site Medical Professional.
initiative statute
Official Summary
Requires physician, nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site during dialysis treatment. Prohibits clinics from reducing services without state approval. Prohibits clinics from refusing to treat patients based on payment source.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $6,917,438 - healthcare workers
oppose: $104,405,156 - DaVita, Fresenius, US Renal Care
Notes
Two companies operate approximately 75% of dialysis clinics: DaVita and Fresenius. Apprx $3 Billion is paid for dialysis services in CA. Medicare pays for the majority of people on dialysis, plus Medi-Cal and individual or group health insurance (which are often charged significantly more). CDPH is governing entity. This proposition states that:
a doctor must be on-site during all treatment hours
clinic must report infection-related information to CDPH and face penalties if they do not
clinic must notify and obtain consent from CDPH before closing or substantially reducing services
clinic cannot refuse care to a patient based on who is paying for the patient’s treatment.
Proposition 24
Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
Amends Consumer Privacy Laws
initiative statute
Official Summary
Permits consumers to: prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information, and limit businesses’ use of "sensitive personal information," including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. Establishes California Privacy Protection Agency.
Fiscal Impact: Increased annual state costs of at least $10 million, but unlikely exceeding low tens of millions of dollars, to enforce expanded consumer privacy laws. Some costs would be offset by penalties for violating these laws.
support: $5,907,002 - Alastair MacTaggart
oppose: $48,368
Notes
Businesses collect data about consumers from different sources. These include (1) public sources, (2) consumers themselves (such as when consumers create an account), or (3) other businesses (such as by purchasing data).
Under state law, certain businesses that operate in California and collect personal data must meet consumer data privacy requirements. (Personal data include information such as names, Internet or purchase activity, and predictions about consumers.) These businesses generally (1) earn more than $25 million in annual revenue; (2) buy, sell, or share the personal data of 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices annually; or (3) earn 50 percent or more of their annual revenues from selling personal data.
The ballot initiative would do the following:
changes threshold for a company needing to comply with data privacy requirements, from 50,000 or more consumers, households, or devices annually to 100,000 or more consumers or households.
requires these companies to not share a consumer's personal information upon the consumer's request, including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, religion, genetic data, private communications, sexual orientation, and specified health information
requires these companies to provide consumers with an opt-out option for having their sensitive personal information, as defined in law, used or disclosed for advertising or marketing;
requires these companies to obtain permission before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 16 and obtain permission from a parent or guardian before collecting data from consumers who are younger than 13
requires these companies to correct a consumer's inaccurate personal information upon the consumer's request
establish California Privacy Protection Agency to additionally enforce and implement consumer privacy laws and impose fines.
triples maximum penalties for violations concerning consumers under age 16, to $7500.
authorizes civil penalties for theft of consumer login information in certain situations
eliminates the ability of businesses to avoid penalties by addressing violations within 30 days of being told of the violation
Proposition 25
Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk
Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based on Public Safety and Flight Risk
referendum
Official Summary
A "Yes" vote approves, and a "No" vote rejects, law replacing money bail with system based on public safety and flight risk.
Fiscal Impact: Increased costs possibly in mid hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process for release from jail prior to trial. Decreased county jail costs, possibly in high tens of millions of dollars annually.
support: $13,446,871 - John Arnold, Steven and Connie Ballmer, Patty Quillin, Act Now, Tom Steyer
oppose: $10,181,122 - bail bonds and insurance companies
Notes
In 2018, the bail industry issued about $6 billion in bail bonds and collected about $560 million in bail bond fees. Insurance companies are required to pay a 2.4 percent state insurance tax on these fees—about $13 million in 2018.
SB10, to eliminate bail and change the processes for getting released from jail before trial, was passed in 2018 but has not gone into effect, pending the results of this referendum.
Changes to existing system:
Require Automatic Release for Most Misdemeanor Crimes
People placed in jail for (1) felonies and (2) misdemeanors that are ineligible for automatic release will be assessed for their risk of committing a new crime or failing to appear in court if released
High-risk people, medium-risk people who are not released, and certain others (such as those charged with certain severe felonies, including murder or arson of a home) would remain in county jail until arraignment.
State trial courts responsible for pretrial assessment; Pretrial Risk Assessment Tools are currently used by city/county trail courts to determine whether to assign bail or release an arrested person on their own recognizance (OR).
Measure K
Establish Limits of Three Four Year Terms Whether Consecutive or Not for the Offices of Mayor and City Council Member
Establish Limits of Three Four-Year Terms Whether Consecutive or Not for the Offices of Mayor and City Council Member
Official Summary
Establish limits of 3 four-year Terms, whether consecutive or not for the offices of Mayor and City Council Member
Notes
Mayor and City Council term limits would be counted separately, so a person could potentially have 3 terms in the City Council and 3 terms as Mayor. A partial term of 2+ years counts as a full term. It will apply starting on Nov 3, 2020. The City Council unanimously approved putting this on the ballot.
Measure L
Rezone Approximately 176.6 acres in Northeastern Oceanside to Implement the North River Farms Project
Rezone Approximately 176.6 acres in Northeastern Oceanside to Implement the North River Farms Project
Official Summary
Rezone Approximately 176.6 acres in Northeastern Oceanside to Implement the North River Farms Project, approved by the City Council, including up to 585 homes, a 24.9-acre commercial village, 68.1 acres of agriculture, and 17 acres of parks/open space.
Official San Diego County Voter Guide Summary ; text of proposed law
Show Me The Money
support: $1,500,000 - North River Farms
oppose: $8,000
Notes
The current zoning is Agricultural, potentially allowing 2.5-acre minimum residential lots. The Oceanside Planning Commission rejected this development plan twice. But City Council took it up and approved it.
Measure M
Establish Cannabis Business Tax
Establish Cannabis Business Tax
Official Summary
Establish a Cannabis Business Tax not to exceed 6% of gross revenues for Cannabis Retailers, Manufacturers and Distributors and not to exceed 3.5% of gross revenues for Cannabis Cultivators to generate approximately $1,900,000 annually, until voters change or repeal the tax, to fund general city services, including enforcement efforts against cannabis businesses operating illegally
Notes
Current city law does not impose any specific business license taxes on the cannabis industry. Initial rates, based on gross receipts, are proposed to be 2.5% for cultivators, 3% for distributors, 4% for manufacturers and 5% for retailers. This is a general tax meaning its funds are not required to go to any specific purpose.
Measure W
Bonds for Oceanside Schools
Bonds for Schools by Levying Additional Property Taxes
Official Summary
To protect quality schools and upgrade aging facilities, shall Oceanside Unified School District’s measure to: upgrade classrooms for science, technology, engineering, arts, math instruction; address school earthquake, fire, health and safety standards; modernize computers and technology; and repair or replace deteriorating roofs, plumbing, electrical, heating and cooling systems; by issuing $160,000,000 in bonds at legal rates, providing approximately $9,100,000 annually, levying 3ȼ per $100 of assessed value while bonds are outstanding, with independent oversight and audits, be adopted?
Notes
New property tax would be in effect for the duration of the bonds (40 years). For a home assessed at $575,000 (median home price in Oceanside), the increase in property taxes would be $173 annually.
Proposition 1
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Specified Housing Assistance Programs
legislative statute
Official Summary
Authorizes $4 billion of state general obligation bonds to fund existing housing programs.
Includes $1.5 billion for Multifamily Housing Program for low-income residents, $1 billion for loans to help veterans purchase farms and homes, $450 million for infill and transit-oriented housing projects, $300 million for farmworker housing program, and $300 million for manufactured and mobile homes.
Provides housing assistance for buyers, infrastructure financing, and matching grants to expand affordable housing stock.
Appropriates General Fund revenues to pay off bonds for existing programs that have no revenues or insufficient revenues.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $170 million annually over the next 35 years. These bond funds would be used to provide affordable housing.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18) combined totals for Prop 1 and 2
support: $5,223,958 ; big contributors = Zuckerberg, realtors, building/construction unions and businesses
oppose: none
Notes
This was passed by the Legislature, but bond funds need to be approved by the people.
Use of bond funds (in Millions):
$1,800 - Affordable multifamily housing programs
$ 450 - Infrastructure programs
$ 450 - Homeownership programs
$ 300 - Farmworker housing program
$1,000 - Veteran home loans (repaid by loan recipients, no net cost)
Cost: $170 million annually for 35 years
Proposition 2
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Existing Housing Program for Individuals with Mental Illness
legislative statute
Official Summary
Ratifies existing law establishing the No Place Like Home Program, which finances permanent housing for individuals with mental illness who are homeless or at risk for chronic homelessness, as being consistent with the Mental Health Services Act approved by the electorate.
Ratifies issuance of up to $2 billion in previously authorized bonds to finance the No Place Like Home Program.
Amends the Mental Health Services Act to authorize transfers of up to $140 million annually from the existing Mental Health Services Fund to the No Place Like Home Program, with no increase in taxes.
Fiscal Impact: Allows the state to use up to $140 million per year of county mental health funds to repay up to $2 billion in bonds. These bonds would fund housing for those with mental illness who are homeless.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18) combined totals for Prop 1 and 2
support: $5,223,958 ; big contributor = Zuckerberg, realtors, building/construction unions and businesses
oppose: none
Notes
This was passed by the Legislature, but bond funds need to be approved by the people.
Designates funds within the Mental Health Services Act (established in 2004) to the No Place Like Home program.
It is currently in the courts to approve the plan to pay for No Place Like Home using Mental Health Services Act funds. If the court approves the plan, this proposition will have been irrelevant. If the court rejects the plan, this proposition allows the state to move forward anyway.
Main points:
Approves up to $140 million of Mental Health Services Act funds per year to the No Place Like Home program.
Authorizes $2 billion in bonds for No Place Like Home, with the repayment handled by the Mental Health Services Act fund, typically $120 million per year.
Less funding would be available to non-No Place Like Home county mental health services.
Measure A
Proposed “Clean-Up” Amendments
Proposed “Clean-Up” Amendments
County Charter Amendments
Official Summary
Shall the Charter of the County of San Diego be amended for purposes of making “clean-up” amendments including amendments necessary to assure compliance with state and federal laws?
Notes
Brings election timelines into state and federal compliance, and recognizes the fire authority as an organizational unit under the chief administrative officer.
Measure B
Preserving Balanced Representation in Unincorporated Areas of San Diego County
Preserving Balanced Representation in Unincorporated Areas of San Diego County
County Charter Amendment
Official Summary
Should the Charter of San Diego County be amended to direct a redistricting commission to maintain the current practice of establishing representative boundaries where at least three Board of Supervisor districts include unincorporated territory, with two of the districts having area predominately outside incorporated cities, as population will permit?
Notes
Requires a redistricting commission authorized by state law to reapportion districts, instead of the Board of Supervisors.
Proposition 3
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage
Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage
Official Summary
Authorizes $8.877 billion in state general obligation bonds for various infrastructure projects: $3.03 billion for safe drinking water and water quality, $2.895 billion for watershed and fisheries improvements, $940 million for habitat protection, $855 million for improved water conveyance, $685 million for groundwater sustainability/storage, and $472 million for surface water storage/dam repairs.
Appropriates money from General Fund to pay off bonds.
Requires certain projects to provide matching funds from non-state sources; gives priority to disadvantaged communities..
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $430 million per year over the next 40 years. Savings to local governments, likely averaging a couple hundred million dollars annually over the next few decades.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18)
support: $5,063,486 ; big contributors = Ducks Unlimited, CA Wildlife Fdn, waterfowl groups, farmers
oppose: none
Notes
Authorizes $8.877 billion in bonds, annual repayment cost of $430 million annually for 40 years. Savings to local governments likely averaging a few hundred million dollars annually.
Local agencies currently spend ~$25 billion, and the state ~$4 billion, annually on water projects.
Monies from previous bond measures, roughly $10 billion, is still available for water projects.
Vast majority of monies will be used for Central Valley.
Proposal (in Millions):
$2,495 - Watershed land projects, includes 50 subcategories and specific areas
$250M Sierra Nevada Conservancy, $60 M California Tahoe Conservancy, $100M San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program of the Coastal Conservancy, $180M LA-Ventura-Orange Counties, $40M San Diego River Conservancy, $215M State Coastal Conservancy, $150M Sacramento-San Joaquin Rivers, $320M Wildlife Conservation Board, $25M Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, $170M Dept Parks and Rec, $60M Dept of Conservation, $100M CA Ocean Protection Council, $200M Natural Resources Agency (Salton Sea Mgmt Program), $5M Delta Stewardship Council, $50M Urban Streams Restoration Program, $70M CA Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection, $15M Delta Protection Commission, $25M UC
$2,130 - Water supply, including:
$550 M rainwater collection/cleaning
$500 M drinking water cleanup
$400 M recycling wastewater and desalination
$300 M water conservation including turf removal, leak detection, toilet replacement
$1,440 - Fish and Wildlife habitat improvement
$400M for native fish in Central Valley, $300M for salmon & steelhead trout and $280M for migratory birds in Central Valley
$1,227 - Water facility upgrades
$1,085 - Groundwater management
$ 500 - Flood protection
$200 M to Central Valley Flood Protection Board
$200 M San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority
Many programs must have at least 50% matching local funds, except if project directly benefits a disadvantaged community or economically distressed area. Minimum 10% of funds shall be allocated for projects serving severely disadvantaged communities.
Proposition 4
Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children’s Health Care
Authorizes Bonds Funding Construction at Hospitals Providing Children’s Health Care
Official Summary
Authorizes $1.5 billion in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund grants for construction, expansion, renovation, and equipping of qualifying children's hospitals.
Designates 72 percent of funds to qualifying private nonprofit hospitals providing comprehensive services to high volumes of children eligible for governmental programs and children with special health needs eligible for the California Children's Services program, 18 percent of funds to University of California general acute care children's hospitals, and 10 percent of funds to public and private nonprofit hospitals providing services to children eligible for the California Children's Services program.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds averaging about $80 million annually over the next 35 years.
Show Me The Money (as of 10/11/18)
support: $10,932,096 ; big contributors = each hospital that would receive $135M donated $1.36M
oppose: none
Notes
Fund allocation (in millions):
$1,080 Private Nonprofit Hospitals, each $135: Oakland, Los Angeles, Orange County, Long Beach, Loma Linda, Stanford, San Diego, Madera
$ 270 UC Children’s Hospitals, each $54: UC Los Angeles, UC Irvine, UC Davis, UC San Diego, UC San Francisco
$ 150 Other private nonprofit hospitals
Moneys could be used for just about anything except personnel: construction, remodeling, furniture, equipment, financing, etc.