Proposition 30
Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million
initiative statute
Official Summary
Increases tax on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples and allocates new tax revenues as follows: (1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters.
Requires audits of programs and expenditures.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs (80 percent) and wildfire response and prevention activities (20 percent).
support: $37,135,250
oppose: $12,004,944
Notes
Proposition 31
Referendum on 2020 Law That Would Prohibit the Retail Sale of Certain Flavored Tobacco Products
approval of law
Official Summary
A “Yes” vote approves (and allows to take effect) a law enacted by the State Legislature in 2020 that:
Prohibits the retail sale of certain flavored tobacco products (including, but not limited to, cigarettes, e-cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and snuff) and tobacco flavor enhancers.
Excludes from prohibition certain premium handmade cigars, loose leaf tobacco (not intended for making cigarettes), and shisha tobacco products (if sold by a hookah tobacco retailer meeting specified conditions).
A “No” vote rejects the law and prevents it from taking effect.
Fiscal Impact: Decreased state tobacco tax revenues ranging from tens of millions of dollars annually to around $100 million annually.
support: $6,268,438
oppose: $22,910,614
Notes
Measure A
Cannabis Business Tax
institute tax
Official Summary
Shall the measure to fund general County purposes including but not limited to parks, fire safety, roads, health, and social equity, by taxing cannabis businesses in the unincorporated area on gross receipts at maximum 6% for retail, 3% for distribution, 2% for testing, cultivation at 3% or $10 (inflation adjustable) per canopy square foot, and 4% for other businesses, generating an estimated $2,930,000 to $5,600,000 annually until repealed by voters, be adopted?
Notes
2020 General Election
State of California Propositions
City of Oceanside Propositions
Elected Officials
Federal
President: Joseph Biden or Donald Trump
US Rep 49th District: Mike Levin or Brian Maryott
State
State Assembly, 76th District: Tasha Boerner Horvath or Melanie Burkholder
Judicial
Judge of Superior Court Office 30: Paul Starita or Tim Nader
City of Oceanside
Mayor: Rocky Chavez, Ruben Major, Esther Sanchez, Rob Howard, Christopher Rodriguez, David Joseph Turgeon, Fernando Garcia, Fabio Marchi, Jack Feller, Louis Uridel, Perry Alvarez, Alvin McGee
City Clerk: Zeb Navarro or Laura Richardson Bassett
City Treasurer: Victor Roy
Tri-City Healthcare District
Board Member: Gigi Gleason or Robert Lee Motsinger
Proposition 14
Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research
Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research
initiative statute
Official Summary
Authorizes $5.5 billion state bonds for: stem cell and other medical research, including training; research facility construction; administrative costs. Dedicates $1.5 billion to brain-related diseases. Appropriates General Fund moneys for repayment. Expands related programs.
Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years.
support: $12,810,328 - JDRF, ROBERT N. KLEIN
oppose: $250
Notes
In 2004, voters approved Proposition 71, which created CIRM and issued $3.00 billion in bonds to finance CIRM, and almost all of that money is gone. So this replenishes the funding source.
Repayment would amount to $260 million/yr.
Proposition 15
Changes Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property
Increases Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property
initiative constitutional amendment
Official Summary
Taxes such properties based on current market value, instead of purchase price.
Fiscal Impact: Increased property taxes on commercial properties worth more than $3 million providing $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding to local governments and schools.
support: $56,320,926 - Mark Zuckerberg ($13M), CA Teachers
oppose: $60,905,901 - California Business Roundtable Issues PAC (half)
Notes
If the owner has more than $3 million of commercial land and buildings in California, tax on current market value, instead of purchase price. Reduces the taxable value of each business’s equipment by $500,000 starting in 2024. Businesses with less than $500,000 of equipment pay no taxes on those items. All property taxes on business equipment are eliminated for California businesses that meet certain rules and have 50 or fewer employees.
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.
Authorizes Bonds Continuing Stem Cell Research