The Five By Five Nine 2020 California Propositions Guide
Everything you need to know about California's propositions & local measures on your ballot
In California, propositions are a form of direct democracy that offers up new laws as referendums. Propositions give voters a say in major legislation and can even amend the California Constitution.
They’re extremely important because of the incredible power they wield. It was a proposition that made gay marriage illegal in 2008. Another legalized recreational marijuana in 2016. But while those two statements are simple enough, the full context is labyrinthian and nuanced.
Fiveby is all about taking a big complicated thing and breaking it down for you. Below are the propositions on the 2020 ballot, but not just what they are—what they mean, where they came from, and even a recommendation for how you should vote.
💙 Love, Tommy.
For our Fresno County Candidates Guide, click here.
Proposition 14: Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative
This prop authorizes 5.5 billion in bond spending to fund grants for stem cell research, epilepsy, Parkinson's, Alzheimer’s, and other kinds of brain and central nervous system research.
The grants would be issued 540 million a year by the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine and would go to educational, non-profit and private entities.
The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance tells us that it will cost 7.8 billion to pay it off over 25 years because bonds come with interest. What are bonds? Well.
Background: Proposition 71 (2004) authorized 3 billion in bonds back when federal funding for stem cell research was blocked. This new proposition would pour significantly more state money into these research grants, only now federal funding is possible.
Our recommendation: We aren’t scientists, and even the scientists aren’t totally sure about stem cells because “regenerative therapy” is still in its infancy. While miracles have seemingly been achieved, like curing a rare skin disease, you don’t have to go far to find sketchy advertisements framing stem cells as a panacea, a practice that the FDA has been slow to crack down on. Kinda like essential oils. We’re gonna say “further study is needed,” which means funding is needed.
Go ahead and vote Yes.
Proposition 15: Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative
Rolls back 1978’s Proposition 13, which caps increases on property taxes at just 1% a year. Instead, business properties worth $3 million will be taxed at their current market value. Meanwhile, Prop 15 will leave the cap on housing properties, what’s called a “split roll tax.”
Commercial agriculture properties and small businesses (defined here as businesses with 50 or fewer employees) are exempt.
The Legislative Analyst’s Office says it will raise between $6.5 to $11.5 billion annually, and supporters say the Central Valley will see $145 million. The state will take the first cut, and 60% of the remainder will fund local governments and 40% schools.
Opponents say that the proposition, written pre-COVID, will worsen an already stark economic downturn and increase the cost of living, reasoning that business owners will merely raise prices to offset the hit.
The California Tax Foundation reports that 120,000 private sector jobs would be lost, but increased government spending from Prop 15 could generate 66,000 public sector jobs and a net gain of 21,000 jobs overall. The foundation also reports a $12.5 billion shrinking of California’s gross state product—however, this study was conducted pre-COVID. The study also suggests that a split roll tax system will incentivize local governments to invest in business-related construction projects over housing, because the former will generate more money.
Our Recommendation: The economy is complicated, and tax policy complicates it even further. There’s always going to be given and take—in this scenario, we would gain lots of funding for our schools, and we’d pay for that with like, pricier staplers and oat milk. We’d also lose some jobs. Fiveby believes that investing in our communities is essential, especially during a pandemic.
We’re recommending you vote Yes.
Proposition 16: Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment
Affirmative Action, baby! Prop 16 will repeal Proposition 209, which forbids considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national orgin in government policy decisions.
This means that race, sex, etc. could be considered in, “public education, public employment, and public contracting to the extent allowed under federal and state law,” for the purposes of diversification and equity.
Opponents say this would undermine the state constitution’s emphasis on equality under the law and allow the state to play favorites.
Background: Affirmative Action has been a hot button issue in the United States since its inception. President Kennedy first used the term in Executive Order 10925, “take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” Over time, various presidents have amended or added on to these designs. Affirmative action is understood as taking steps to diversify employment and educational opportunities and protect minority students from discrimination.
In the ’70s, a man sued the University of California and argued that he had been rejected by the university because he was white. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the college and said that they were allowed to consider race to diversify their student body, but that quotas were unlawful. Affirmative Action was also upheld in 2003 and again in 2015. But in California, Proposition 209 has forbidden Affirmative Action. The court will weigh in on another Affirmative Action suit, this time against Harvard and on behalf of Asian American students.
Our Recommendation: We live in an unjust world, governed by unjust laws. The deepest wounds of slavery, segregation, and other racist and discriminatory practices are still felt today. Your zip code really does determine your odds of success in life. Your skin color really does affect how people will perceive you—and how likely you are to be hired. Affirmative Action accepts this reality and works to undermine these built-in biases in our systems.
Fiveby recommends Yes on Prop 16.
Proposition 17: Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment
Restores voting rights to former inmates in California.
Individuals on parole would be eligible to vote after reaching 18-years-old, in line with other states.
Our Recommendation: Fiveby unequivocally supports voting rights for all persons, and we reject the prison industrial complex and its stranglehold on incarcerated persons, both during and after their imprisonment. We recommend Yes on Prop 17.
Proposition 18: Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment
Seventeen-year-olds will be allowed to vote in primary and special elections if they will turn 18 before the next general election and are otherwise eligible to vote.
Our Recommendation: Fiveby believes that youth participation in the electoral process is paramount. We started this newsletter because we believe in Fresno’s young people—we believe they care, and we believe they should have a say. We recommend Yes on Prop 18.
Proposition 19: Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment
Gives a tax break to disabled persons, wildfire victims, and seniors 55+ when they buy new homes, but pays for it by curtailing tax breaks on inherited homes, unless those homes are used as primary homes or farms.
Under Prop 19, seniors who buy new homes would enjoy significantly lower property taxes, as would their heirs—so long as those heirs actually live in the home and don’t rent it out, or use it as an Airbnb.
Prop 19 is projected to raise $10 million in revenue, which could balloon to a few hundred million a year.
Background: Two years ago, realtors floated a very similar initiative that was rejected. Because that initiative didn’t close the inheritance loophole, it was projected to cost local governments a great deal of money. This time, it’s projected to increase revenue by millions and is backed by the California Association of Realtors, the California Professional Firefighters and the California Nurses Association.
Our Recommendation: We think the tax cuts for seniors, wildfire victims, and disabled persons are valuable, and we think that tax cuts on inheritance are whack.
We call that two birds with one stone: vote Yes.
Proposition 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative
Imposes harsher sentences on repeat petty thieves, increases penalties on repeat parole offenders, makes it harder for non-violent offenders to get parole, and allows the state to collect DNA from...shoplifters? People with drugs?
Background: Proposition 47 changed several felonies into misdemeanors, and Proposition 57 opened the door for more inmates to apply for early release. Quite the sea change from 1994’s Three Strike Law, and other initiatives that have crowded California prisons. Proposition 20 would reverse some of these changes.
Our Recommendation: Proposition 20 is a pretty obvious attempt to balloon our prison populations. Stranger still, it opens the door to DNA collection from nonviolent offenders in a strange and unnecessary way. Who was asking for this? Well, prisons for one. And the politicians they bankroll.
Fiveby recommends No on Proposition 20.
Proposition 21: Local Rent Control Initiative
Local governments will be allowed to establish rent control on properties over 15 years old.
Rent control cannot be imposed on single-family households owned by landlords with two or fewer properties. Protections for small landlords. Really.
Background: The Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (1995) limits rent control laws in three ways.
Rent control cannot be imposed on single-family homes.
Rent control cannot be imposed on newly built housing after February 1995.
Rent control cannot restrict what landlords charge new tenants.
Statewide, landlords cannot increase rent each year more than 5% plus inflation or 10%, whichever is lower, so long as the property is at least 15 years old (there are some exceptions).
If passed, Prop 21 will modify Costa-Hawkins provisions, and allow cities and counties to enact more rent control on properties older than 15 years, with the exception of those single-family homes. Plus, they can limit what landlords are charging new renters, as long as they let them raise rent by up to 15% during the first 3 years.
Landlords will still be entitled to their “fair rate of return,” meaning that they must be able to make some profit.
Our Recommendation: It is indisputable that rent is out of control in the state of California, and at Fiveby we believe that communities should be allowed to restrict the worst impulses of their landlords. To be frank, we’d say yes to a proposition that abolished landlords entirely.
Fiveby recommends Yes on Prop 21.
Proposition 22: App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative
Drivers for app-based companies like Lyft, Uber, and Instacart will be considered independent contractors rather than employees. Drivers will receive 120% of minimum wage while transporting customers or goods in addition to thirty cents per mile. They will also receive accident insurance and healthcare subsidies. Drivers will not receive the standard benefits and protections that businesses must offer employees.
Background: AB5, a new California law, requires that companies like Lyft and Uber must treat their workers as employees—that means offering overtime pay, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation insurance, and paid family leave.
Gig Worker reliant companies immediately sued, and even though judges have ruled that they must comply, those same companies are now supporting Prop 22.
Prop 22 would exempt App-Based drivers from AB5.
Proponents say that Prop 22 will result in an average of $25 per hour for gig workers, but a high-profile study from Berkely’s Labor Center says it’s more like $5.64 an hour. Quite the disparity.
The Berkeley study says that it’s possible for drivers to actually lose wages under Proposition 22. And another report by the National Employment Law Project and the Partnership for Working Families said these workers will lose between $175-210 a week under Prop 22.
An economist at Uber said that if their drivers are considered employees, then fare prices will increase anywhere from 25 to 111%. Wow. Also, when the gig companies went to court to petition that they should be exempt from AB5, they threatened hundreds of thousands of job cuts and a suspension of services in California.
Our Recommendation: So we all know Lyft is convenient. We all know it’s cheap. Much cheaper than a taxi. And we all know why—convenience is normally the result of exploitation. In this case, it’s our gig drivers. These companies say that if we don’t pass Prop 22, they’ll hike up prices and cut jobs. But somehow they found the funds to bankroll this campaign (Uber, Lyft, and Doordash worked together to spend almost $200 million buying your Yes vote). We’re gonna say No on Prop 22.
Proposition 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative
Requires a physician on-site at all times at dialysis clinics. Clinics cannot reduce operations without approval from the state, who they must now report infection data to. Clinics won’t be allowed to refuse service based on the payment sources.
Background: California voters rejected a very similar proposal called Proposition 8 (2018), which would have capped clinic profits and forced more investment in-patient care. Both Prop 8 and Prop 23 are being pushed by the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West. It’s another labor dispute.
Opponents argue that Prop 23 is both unnecessary and burdensome. Unnecessary because clinics already report their data to the federal government, and burdensome because staffing doctors around the clock in addition to regular clinician staff—who opponents say is already providing adequate care every day—will prove too costly, and lead to lots of shuttered clinics.
Proponents say this will improve care and lead to safer and more hygienic clinics, in addition to preventing discrimination against patients with certain types of insurance.
Our Recommendation: Dialysis clinics serve about 80,000 Californians who badly need liver transplants, and must undergo dialysis in the meantime. That meantime tends to be about five years on average. While the possibility of clinics closing is a major concern, we think that more doctors and protections for Medicare and MediCal patients are important and valuable. Vote Yes.
Proposition 24: Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative
Expands California’s data privacy laws by creating the Privacy Protection Agency to enforce existing law. Also amends existing law to triple fines against companies that violate the privacy rights of children, limit how long companies can hold on to data and empowers consumers to prevent tech companies from utilizing sensitive data (race, exact location, health information, religion, or sexual orientation).
Background: Prop 24 exists to amend our already strict data law, the California Consumer Privacy Act. Alastair Mactaggart, a real estate developer, was one of the main supporters of the CCPA, and is pushing Prop 24 as well. Among other things, the CCPA gave Californians the right to know about the personal information businesses collect, the right to delete that information, the right to opt-out of the sale of that information, and the right to non-discrimination when pursuing these new rights. While the CCPA took effect this year, Prop 24 won’t until 2023.
Strangely, unlike the Prop 22 situation, tech companies seemingly have no interest in fighting or pushing for Prop 24. Their silence has been noted by detractors as a red flag. Those same detractors say that Prop 24 will open the door to a “pay-for-privacy” model, where companies will either charge consumers for their privacy rights, or discount them for waiving those rights—mainly by exempting loyalty and rewards programs from existing limits.
Companies are currently allowed to charge for opting out of data collection, but Prop 24 grants the companies more avenues and more freedom to do so.
Exempts companies that harvest the data from less than 100,00 houses a year from any of the above regulations, including in the original CCPA.
Our Recommendation: While we believe Prop 24 is well-intentioned, it has some glaring, seemingly purposeful oversights designed to throw tech companies a bone. We think a new agency to enforce data privacy laws is a good idea, but further enshrining pay-for-privacy into law is a very bad one. We’re asking you to vote No on Prop 24.
Proposition 25: Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessment Referendum
Eliminates cash bail in the state of California and replaces it with an algorithmic “risk assessment” system.
Background: SB10, signed by former Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018, would end cash bail in the state of California. Prop 25 is a veto referendum on SB10, and a yes vote will uphold SB10 and abolish cash bail.
Currently, anyone facing a criminal trial in California is subject to cash bail, which means they must pay a bond before they are released, where they can wait and prepare for trial. A judge sets bail based on the alleged crime, criminal history, and, well, their personal whims. Most people pay 10% of their posted bond to a bail bondsman, who pockets that 10% and pays the rest of the fee. Regardless of whether the defendant attends their trial, the bonds company keeps their cut. SB10 would dramatically overhaul this system.
For starters, persons arrested for most misdemeanors would be released twelve hours after their arrest, barring 10 notable exceptions. For felonies and excluded misdemeanors, an algorithmic Pretrial Assessment Services (PAS) Investigation and Review would take place within 24 hours of booking. The algorithm would evaluate individuals based on their age, past misconduct, and other factors to predict whether they will fail to appear in court. Based on that assessment, people would be sorted into Low Risk, Medium Risk, and High Risk.
However, these assessments would serve merely as a recommendation for judges, who would still wield the same level of discretion they do now under the bail system. They are not bound by the pretrial reports and recommendations.
Forty-nine of California’s 58 counties already have some type of pretrial risk assessment system but not all have abolished cash bail, or use the risk assessment tool in the same way. Santa Clara, San Francisco, Humboldt, Riverside, Imperial and Santa Cruz have had risk assessment tools like this for a few years.
Opponents say that Prop 25 will replace a broken cash bond system with an even worse algorithm system that gives judges the final say, and the accused very little recourse. California’s three ACLU affiliates released a joint statement criticizing the original SB10 bill, arguing that a risk assessment tool would disproportionately penalize people of color.
The bail bond industry is strongly against Prop 25, because it would render them irrelevant and smother their industry once and for all in California.
Proponents say that the cash bail system is innately classist and racist, because it benefits the rich who can easily pay their cash bail, and disadvantages the poor who are then preyed on by bail bond companies. They argue that the current system disproportionately affects people of color, keeping them in jail awaiting trial simply because they lack the resources to pay their way out.
Our Recommendation: OK, wow, that was a lot. This issue is emotionally and logistically fraught. The possibility of racist algorithms and judges with limitless discretion deciding who stays behind bars even before their trial isn’t just risky—it’s terrifying. But why is the algorithm racist? Why are certain zip codes more associated with crime than others? Systemic inequalities. Poverty and over-policing. The algorithms are shaped by the human hands that shape them, the human society that informs them.
At Fiveby, we believe that criminal justice reform is paramount and that the bail bondsmen industry is exploitative. Prop 25 (and SB10) represents a chance to fundamentally alter this system and discard cash bail once and for all.
But it’s hardly the end all be all. Addressing the systemic racism and inequality that overpopulates our prisons with people of color is essential. Risk assessment tools are becoming commonplace in California, and states like New Jersey have succeeded in lowering their prison populations. We call to defund the police, we call to combat poverty and inequality, and we call for the end of cash bail.
We cautiously advise Yes on Prop 25.
Wow, that was a lot. But so you don’t forget what we recommend here is all of our recommended votes in a nice, easy list.
PROP 14: Yes
PROP 15: Yes
PROP 16: Yes
PROP 17: Yes
PROP 18: Yes
PROP 19: Yes
PROP 20: No
PROP 21: Yes
PROP 22: No
PROP 23: Yes
PROP 24: No
PROP 25: Yes
Measures
The measures are smaller, more localized propositions. Most of the measures listed here involve bond spending, which we covered earlier in the guide. Most of these finance school renovation projects in one way or another. Most of these measures are very specific to the communities and schools they’ll impact, so we have decided to refrain from making any recommendations.
Clovis Unified School District
Measure A: A Yes vote authorizes $335 million in bonds at legal interest rates, levying 6 cents per $100 assessed value, raising 27.3 million annually in order to build, modernize, and repair career/vocational facilities for the purposes of maintaining neighborhood schools, upgrading security/health measures and avoiding overcrowding.
Coalinga
Measure B: A Yes vote will issue $46 million in bonds generating $2.6 million annually, at a rate of approximately 6 cents per $100 assessed value for the purposes of renovating ventilation, heating, and air-conditioning systems, new construction on school facilities, classrooms and bathrooms, and repairing leaky roofs.
Sanger
Measure C: A Yes vote will upgrade Sanger Unified School District Educational Complex, all schools, online learning technology, emergency communication systems, security, and health systems with $150 million in bonds at legal interest rates, levying 6 cents per $100, raising $7.6 million annually.
Measure H: A Yes vote will extend the term of the mayor of Sanger from two years to four years, starting with the mayor elected in the Nov. 3, 2020 election.
Central Unified School District
Measure D: A Yes vote authorizes $120 million in bonds with legal interest rates, estimated levies averaging less than 6 cents per $100 for the purposes of building a comprehensive high school and a new elementary school, improving security, renovating existing schools and upgrading technology infrastructure.
Selma
Measure E: A Yes vote will alter electoral practices for the City of Selma from four districts electing the city council and voters from the whole city electing the mayor, to five districts electing the legislative body.
Measure L: A Yes vote establishes a cardroom in the City of Selma for the purposes of legal gambling.
Parlier
Measure G: A Yes vote repeals the Sunset Clause (expiration date) of the Special Parcel Tax, extending the tax in order to continue funding basic and necessary public safety services in Parlier.
Riverdale Joint Unified School District
Measure J: A Yes vote will construct permanent classrooms to replace portables; expand vocational facilities; renovate classrooms and athletic facilities; replace aging roofs, fire alarms, and heating/air conditioning systems with $25.9 million in bonds and estimated levies of 6 cents per $100 averaging $1.4 million annually.
Washington Unified School District
Measure K: A Yes vote will improve quality of local schools; construct classrooms; repair heating and ventilation systems, restrooms and school facilities and leaky roofs with $46 million in bonds at legal rates generating $2.6 million annually.