ONLY 6 DAYS LEFT TO VOTE!

https://sandiegorepublicans.org/endorsements

 Proposition Snapshot:

· Each proposition includes a summary of the title and key points from the perspective of the author of this document

·  Notable political party support or opposition.

Review of Propositions: For each proposition, you will find:

· A general overview.

· Key arguments in opposition and in support.

· Information on funds raised against or for the proposition.

· Organizations opposing or supporting the measure.

#2 -NO

Borrows $10   Billion to Build Schools, Colleges: 

For infrastructure; not classroom instruction

· $17-18 Billion   over 30 years

· CA currently has over $109 billion in outstanding and unissued bonds; $200 billion in unfunded   pension and retiree benefits

 Prop 2: -Authorizes bonds for Public School and Community College Facilities.

Prop 2 authorizes the state to issue $10 billion in bonds, with $8.5 billion allocated for K- 12 schools and $1.5 billion for community colleges. The funds would be used to renovate, repair, and construct educational facilities. Distribution of money would be through matching grants, with a greater share of costs covered for less affluent districts.

In Opposition:

 This bond will raise property taxes as school districts need to provide local matching funds, leading to new local bonds that increase property tax bills.

 This $2 billion bond at a cost of $17-18 billion (with interest payments) does not go toward academics! The bond will go to infrastructure, not classroom instruction.

 CA already has over $109 billion of outstanding and unissued bonds alongside almost $200 billion in unfunded pension liabilities and retiree benefits.

 According to nationsreportcard.gov, for 12 th grade, California public school students are about 46 th for reading and math! About 55% of 11 th graders met or exceeded English standards and less than 30% met or exceeded math standards.

 The “Project Labor Agreement” stipulates that these projects must use union labor, though only 5% of California workers belong to private sector unions.

In Favor:

 Many California school buildings are in disrepair, with leaky roofs, broken air conditioning, and peeling paint. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, 38% of students attend schools that don’t meet the state’s minimum safety standards. Research has shown that students who attend school in sub-standard facilities tend to have lower attendance rates, lower morale and lower achievement.

 School repairs in California come entirely from state and local bonds, with no permanent funding stream.

  Smaller and lower-income districts struggle to raise enough bond money to pay for school repairs, and often can’t pass local bonds at all. As a result, they rely entirely on state bond money.

$ Raised against this Prop: None. Opponents: Save California

$ Raised for this Prop: $4.7 million: Supporters: include: Assoc of CA School Administrators, CA Labor Federation, CA Chamber of Commerce, CA Federation of Teachers, CA School Boards Association.

#3 -No

Constitutional   Right to Marriage:  

US Supreme Court ruled (2015) that same sex couples have a fundamental right to marry. This prop removes marriage defined as between “a man and a   woman” and replaces it with broad statement “the right to marry is a fundamental right”. 

Prop 3 Constitutional Right to Marriage

Prop 3 would amend the California Constitution, repealing the 2008 provision (Prop 8)that defines marriage as between “a man and a woman,” and replacing it with a guarantee that “the right to marry is a fundamental right.”

In Opposition:

 Critics suggest Prop 3 would permit polygamy, bigamy, child marriages, incestuous marriages (and even people-animal and people-object marriages) by defining the right to marry, removing all existing legal standards and restrictions, raising concerns about unintended consequences.

 Rather than add “marriage is between a man and a woman or two people of the same sex”, the reference to man and woman was deleted and replaced with “right to marry is fundamental right” and is in furtherance to Article 1of the California State Constitution: The inalienable right to enjoy life and liberty and to pursue AND OBTAIN safety, happiness and privacy.

In Favor:

 Supporters argue this measure updates the California Constitution by removing outdated language and affirming a right already upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 The US Supreme Court in 2015 ruled that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clause, same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry, invalidating state bans on same-sex marriage.

$ Raised against this Prop: None. Opponents: California Family Council, The American Council of Evangelicals.

$ Raised for this Prop: $4.2 Million: Supporters: Equality California, Planned Parenthood, California Chamber of Commerce, California Labor Federation

#4 -NO

Borrows $10   Billion for Environment & Climate Programs: 

Approximately $17-18   Billion over 30 years in general obligation bonds – repaid from state tax revenues.

· Since 2014, CA   has authorized $16.5 billion for environment and climate projects.

Proposition 4: Authorizes Bonds for. Safe Drinking Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protecting Communities and Natural Lands from Climate Risks

Proposition 4 would authorize $10 billion in general obligation bonds, primarily repaid from state tax revenues, to fund environmental and climate projects. These funds would address safe drinking water, drought, flood, water resilience, wildfire prevention, coastal resilience, extreme heat mitigation, biodiversity and nature-based climate

solutions, sustainable farming, park creation and outdoor access, and clean air programs.

In Opposition:

 Critics argue California already has excessive bond debt, approximately $104 billion, and adding $10 billion (including interest it will be 17-18 billion) for programs is irresponsible.

 Since 2014, the state has authorized $65.8 billion for environment and climate projects, including the $54.3 billion for the 2022 “California Climate Commitment”; $4.1 Billion from 2018’s Prop 68 (Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access); and $7.4 billion from 2014’s Prop 1 ( Water Quality and Storage). Where has the money gone? What are the measurable outcomes?

 On average, California spends $13 billion annually on natural resources and climate initiatives.

 The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea

In Favor:

 Supporters argue that urgent action is needed to address the state’s growing threats from wildfires, water pollution, and extreme heat.

 $10 Billion was scaled back this year (due to budget problems) from the $54.3 billion spending package, “California Climate Commitment” in 2022. So, the money is needed.

 At least 40% of funds must benefit disadvantaged communities, defined as those where the median household income is less than 80% of the area average.

 Hundreds of millions of dollars from the bond would benefit private industry, such as $850 million allocated for clean energy projects like offshore wind farms.

$ Raised against this Prop: None. Opponents: San Diego Union Tribune

$ Raised for this Prop: $920.7 Thousand. Supporters: National Wildlife Federation,

California Professional Firefighters, California Labor Federation, Clean Water Action

#5 -NO

Allows Local   Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter   Approval: 

Permanently   lowers the required threshold from 2/3 to 55% to pass local bonds 

· Local bonds are   paid through property taxes.

· If this passes,   the propositions 2 and 5 on the ballot would pass with 55% approval, not 2/3.

Prop 5: Allows Local Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure with 55% Voter Approval.

This proposition would amend the California constitution by lowering the required threshold from 2/3 to 55% to pass local bonds. Since 1879, local governments in California have needed a two-thirds majority to take on debt. with 2/3 vote. This proposition makes it easier for local governments to fund affordable housing construction, down payment assistance programs and a host of “public infrastructure” projects, including those for water management, local hospitals and police stations, broadband networks and parks. Makes it easier for local governments to borrow money.

(Cal Matters). Local bonds are paid through property taxes.

In Opposition:

 Critics argue that it’s always easy to approve debt when you don’t have to pay for it. Property owners, who may be a minority of voters, bear the financial burden through higher property taxes

 Bond approval should require broad consensus, not a narrow majority, to avoid catastrophic financially irresponsible decisions. 

In support:

 Requiring one-third of voters to overrule the wishes of two thirds is undemocratic. A majority should be able to approve bonds for their local government to borrow money for affordable housing and infrastructure.

 It promotes local control, allowing communities to fund projects without relying as heavily on state or federal funding.

$ Raised against this Prop: $29.7 Million. Opponents: California Chamber of Commerce, National Federation of Independent Businesses, Catalyst for Local Control

$ Raised for this Prop: $ 5 million. Supporters: California State Building and Construction Trades Council, California Housing Partnership, California Labor Federation

#6 -NO

Bans   ‘Involuntary Servitude’ in State Prisons: 

Prohibits  punishment of inmates for refusing work assignments.

· Currently, work   safety measures can be implemented through institutional regulations without   eliminating mandatory work.

· Local   Governments could be able to set pay scales for inmates.

Prop 6 Eliminates Constitutional Provision Allowing Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons.

This proposition would amend the California Constitution to prohibit punishing inmates for refusing involuntary work assignments. Instead, prisons could offer voluntary work programs, allowing inmates to earn sentence reductions through credits. Local governments could set pay scales for inmates in jails.

In Opposition:

 The current system helps maintain order and rehabilitate inmates. Allowing them to refuse work could make prison management more challenging.

 Safety measures for prison work, such as work conditions and hours, can be implemented through institutional regulations without eliminating mandatory work.

 The measure’s financial impact is uncertain. Courts could require the state to pay inmates minimum wage under future voluntary work programs.

 Eliminating mandatory work could increase costs to taxpayers by creating conditions for negotiating higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison.

In Favor:

 It’s inhumane to force people to work dangerous jobs or long hours for little pay.

 Supporters also argue that prisoners often face retaliation for dangerous assignments.

 The state reparations task force recommends changing the state constitution to ban all forms of forced labor as a priority to address historical inequities for Black residents.

$ Raised Against this Prop: None. Opponents: San Diego Union Tribune

$ Raised for this Prop: $1.1 Million. Supporters: ACLU California Action, California

Black Legislative Caucus, California Labor Federation, Anti-Recidivism Coalition

#32 -NO

Raises the state   minimum wage: 

Raise CA minimum wage in 2018 from $16 to $18/hr. (slower increase for businesses   with 25 or less employees). 

· MIT Living Wage Calculator shows single adult needs,   on average, $27.32 /hr. to afford the basics in California.

Prop 32: Raises the state minimum wage

Proposition 32 would raise California’s minimum wage from $16 to $17 an hour in 2024 and to $18 starting in January 2025. Small businesses with 25 or fewer employees would have a slower increase. Fast food workers now receive $20 per hour, and health care workers will eventually earn $25 per hour, starting as early as October 15, 2024.

In Opposition:

 Current economic conditions and a reduced profit margin for businesses make it difficult to absorb additional expenses. Raising the minimum wage can lead to job cuts and reduced hours as businesses adjust to higher costs.

 Critics argue that attracting and retaining job-creating businesses is a better way to raise incomes than increasing the minimum wage.

 Some argue that broader systemic issues, like illegal immigration and education, need addressing rather than simply raising wages.

 The wage hike would increase state expenses by raising government labor costs.

 The MIT Living Wage Calculator shows that even in California’s cheapest county, a single adult needs at least $20.32 per hour to afford the basics, with the state average at $27.32, meaning $18 will still be insufficient.

In Favor:

 The cost of living is too high, and this would raise wages for 2 million workers not benefiting from industry-specific or city-mandate increases.

 Supporters argue higher wages will help families afford basic needs, boost local economies, and reduce low-income Californians’ use of taxpayer-provided benefits.

 UC Berkeley studies found that previous gradual increase to $15 had “no significant” effect on job losses.

 The Governor may suspend annual increases during economic downturns or General Fund deficits, thereby extending the timeline for reaching $18.00 per hour.

$ Raised Against this Proposition: $ 65 Thousand. Opponents: California Restaurant Association, California Grocers Association, National Federation of Independent Business

$ Raised For this Proposition: $609.8 Thousand. Supporters: California Labor Federation, Working Families Party California

#33 -NO

Allows Local   Governments to Impose Rent Controls: 

Since 1955, the   government has not been allowed to set rent controls on single family   homes. This eliminates that provision.   

· May lead to reduction / shortage in rental units.

Prop 33: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on

Residential Property.

For the past 30 years, California’s Costa-Hawkins law (1955) has restricted rent control on single-family homes and apartments built after 1995, allowing landlords to set new rental rates for incoming tenants. If Proposition 33 passes, local governments could

impose rent control on all housing types, including single-family homes and newly built units.

In Opposition:

 Home and apartment owners are facing higher costs. Rent control will lead some to exit the rental business, reducing supply and raising rents.

 Property values will drop, and developers will be less likely to build new housing, which, in turn, will drive up prices in existing rental units and reduce the supply.

 California voters have rejected this proposal twice already.

 According to the Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, the fiscal impact on the state and local governments will potentially reduce 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.

In Favor:

 Nearly 30% of California renters spend over half their income on rent. Teachers, police officers and firefighters starting their careers are struggling to afford housing. Entry level workers in service industries and people on fixed incomes also cannot afford increased rents, with many on the brink of homelessness.

 Prop. 33 would give local governments the power to implement rent control policies tailored to their residents’ needs.

$ Raised Against this Proposition: $76.6 Million. Opponents: California Small Business Association, California Rental Housing Association, California YIMBY

$ Raised For this Proposition: $41.8 Million. Supporters: Aids Healthcare

Foundation, Veterans’ Voices, CA Alliance for Retired Americans, Housing is a Human Right

#34 -YES

Restricts   Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers: 

This proposition has strict guidelines. 

· Only one organization would be affected by this at   this time: the AIDS Healthcare   Foundation

Prop 34: Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues by Certain Health Care Providers.

Since 1992, federal law has allowed healthcare providers to receive discounts on pharmaceuticals if they serve low-income and at-risk patients. These providers can sell the drugs at retail prices and use the profits to expand services. Proposition 34 would require some California providers to spend at least 98% of this net drug revenue on

direct patient care. Providers that don’t comply could lose their state tax-exempt status, and government contracts. However, this rule only applies to “providers with over $100 million in non-care expenses, who own apartment buildings, and have accumulated 500+ severe health violations in the past decade”. This seems to target only one organization: the ADS Healthcare Foundation.

In Opposition:

 Critics see this as a politically motivated attack by the landlord lobby. They argue that the measure is illegal and unenforceable because both the U.S. and state constitutions prohibit a law from singling out a single person or organization for punishment. The AIDS Healthcare Foundation has filed a lawsuit.

 The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance report potential costs of up to millions of dollars annually to ensure compliance by healthcare providers.

These costs would be paid by fees created under the measure. Fiscal impacts to state and local government health programs are uncertain, depending on how the affected entities respond to the measure’s requirements

In Favor:

 Supporters argue this ensures accountability and transparency. They believe federal drug discounts should benefit patients, not be misused and that Proposition 34 would stop nonprofit healthcare organizations from spending on political causes instead of patient care.

$ Raised Against this Proposition: $1.2 Million. Opponents: The AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Consumer Watchdog.

$ Raised For this Proposition: $29.8 Million. Supporters: California Apartment Association, ALS Association, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

#35 -NO

Makes Permanent   a Tax on Managed Health Care Insurance Plans: 

Managed care   health plans pay a tax that allows California to receive matching federal   funds for healthcare services for low-income families

· A temporary tax (periodically reviewed) will be made   permanent.

 Prop 35: Provides Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal Health Care Services.

Currently, managed care health plans pay a tax that allows California to receive matching federal funds. The state uses this revenue to fund healthcare services for low-income families, seniors, people with disabilities, and other Medi-Cal beneficiaries. This tax is set to expire in 2026. Proposition 35 would make the tax permanent and ensure that the funds continue to support Medi-Cal services like primary care,

emergency services, mental health, and prescription drugs. It would also prevent lawmakers from using this revenue to replace existing Medi-Cal funding. Over the next four years, it is expected to generate $35 billion.

In Opposition:

  Increased state costs between roughly $1 billion to $2 billion annually to implement funding increases.

 Governor Newsom opposes the measure, arguing that restricting how tax revenue is spent limits future legislators’ ability to balance the state budget.

In Favor:

 The coalition of doctors, hospitals and clinics argue the tax revenue should be used for increase Medi-Cal payments, which have stagnated despite rising costs.

 Over 14 million Californians rely on Medi-Cal, but provider reimbursement rates are among the lowest in the nation, leading many providers to refuse Medi-Cal patients.

 Supporters argue that California has relied on this tax — known as the Managed Care Organization Tax — for decades to offset general fund spending on Medi-Cal. Health providers who serve Medi-Cal patients argue that the tax revenue should be used for new investments in Medi-Cal rather than supporting the state’s general fund.

$ Raised Against this Proposition: None. Opponents: The Children’s Partnership, California Alliance for Retired Americans, League of Women Voters of California

$ Raised For this Proposition: $48.9 Million. Supporters: California Medical Association, Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, California Hospital Association

#36 -YES

Allows Felony   Charges and Increases Sentences for Certain Drug and Theft Crimes: Modifies the Smash and Grab Proposition   (47) and increases tougher penalties for repeat offenders and offers drug and   mental health treatment instead of incarceration.

Prop 36: ALLOWS FELONY CHARGES AND INCREASES SENTENCES FOR

CERTAIN DRUG AND THEFT CRIMES.

Proposition 36 increases penalties for certain drug and theft crimes. It would modify parts of Proposition 47 (approved in 2014), which reduced penalties for these crimes to address prison overcrowding. The measure introduces tougher penalties for repeat offenders and offers drug and mental health treatment instead of incarceration. Judges would have the option to sentence individuals to state prison instead of county jail.

 Reclassifications: Some misdemeanor drug and theft crimes would be upgraded to felonies, including possession of drugs like fentanyl and thefts under $950, for offenders with two prior convictions.

 New Category: Creates a “treatment-mandated felony”, where individuals can avoid prison if they complete a treatment program, but failure to do so could result in up to three years in prison.

 Increase Sentences: Increases sentences for other specified drug and theft crimes. Adds new laws to address “smash and grab”

In Opposition:

 Opponents say that no studies on criminal justice or homelessness support the idea that harsher punishment — or the threat of harsher punishment — prevents crime or gets people off the street

 Critics say Prop. 36 will expend hundreds of millions of dollars in court and prison costs, without measurably reducing crime or poverty. In the meantime, schools, health care and other essential services will go wanting. 

 Opponents view Prop. 36 as a return to failed “War on Drugs” policies, which they say voters rejected with Prop 47. Summary of estimate by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: 

In Favor:

 Provides a balanced approach between tough-on-crime policies and the more lenient measures under Prop. 47, closing legal loopholes that offenders exploit.

 Helps reduce homelessness by pushing drug addicts into treatment or jail.

 Communities will be safer. Crime rates have been under reported due to lack of enforcement and crime has obviously increased.

 Reduces theft to businesses, reducing the current rate of loss of businesses and jobs. Financial losses to businesses are not quantified.

In Favor (cont.)

 Encourages the increase reporting of theft and drugs. Law enforcement will be more likely to arrest, knowing repeat offenders face stricter consequences.

 Supporters of Proposition 36 contend that Proposition 47 was passed due to misleading ballot title.

$ Raised Against This Proposition: $2.9 Million. Opponents: Alliance for Safety and Justice, ACLU of Northern California, League of Women Voters of California

$ Raised For this Proposition: $13.6 Million. Supporters: Walmart, Target, Home Depot; California District Attorneys Association, California Correctional Peace Officers Assoc.