Local News

California Propositions on the 2020 Ballot

In addition to voting for candidates, California voters will be asked to vote on several ballot measures this November. Here’s a breakdown of each Proposition on the ballot.

Prop. 14: Stem Cell Research Funding

Would issue $5.5 billion in bonds for the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which was created to fund stem cell research.

Support has raised $6.58 million, with $4.63 million from Robert N. Klein II, a real estate investor and stem-cell research advocate.

There were no committees registered to oppose the ballot initiative.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 15: Property Tax Increase on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding

Would allow commercial and industrial properties (with some exceptions) to be taxed based on their market value, as opposed to their assessed value. Residential properties would not be affected. The State fiscal analyst estimated that the ballot initiative would generate between $8 billion and $12.5 billion in revenue per year. Revenue would be distributed mostly to local governments, school districts, and community colleges.

Support has raised $21 million, including $6 million from the California Teachers Association Issues PAC.

Opposition has raised $5.5 million, including $266,490 from the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 16: Ending the Ban on Affirmative Action

Would remove the ban on affirmative action involving race-based or sex-based preferences from the California Constitution by repealing Proposition 209 (1996). State and local governments, public universities, and other public entities would—within the limits of federal law—be allowed to develop and use affirmative action programs that grant preferences based on race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

Support has raised $3.14 million. M. Quinn Delaney is the largest donor, contributing $1,500,000.

Opposition has raised $105,678, including $50,000 from Students for Fair Admissions, Inc.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 17: Restoring the Right to Vote to People on Parole

Would allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote in California. Currently, the California Constitution disqualifies people with felonies from voting until their imprisonment and parole are completed.

Campaign finance data has not been reported.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 18: Letting (some) 17-year-olds Vote

Would allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections.

Campaign finance data has not been reported.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 19: Property Tax Breaks

Would allow homeowners who are over 55, disabled, or victims of natural disaster to take a portion of their property tax base with them when they sell their home and buy a new one. It would also limit the ability of new homeowners who inherit properties to keep their parents’ or grandparents’ low property tax payments. Most of the additional money raised would go into a State fire response fund.

Support has raised $19.15 million with $15.70 million from The California Association of Realtors Issues Mobilization PAC.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative

Would amend several criminal sentencing and supervision laws that were passed between 2011 and 2016.

Would allow prosecutors to charge repeat or organized petty theft as a felony, require probation officers to seek tougher penalties for those who violate the term of their parole 3 times, and exclude those who have been convicted of domestic violence and certain nonviolent crimes from early parole consideration.

Support has raised $1.6 million with $50,000 from San Bernadino County Sheriffs Employees Benefit Association Committee.

Opposition has raised $2.1 million with major funding from the Schusterman Foundation, the Heising-Simons Action Fund, and Patty Quillin.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 21: Local Rent Control Initiative

Would allow cities to introduce new rent control laws, or expand existing ones.

Support has raised $16.68 million, with 99.8% from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation.

Opposition has raised $16.25 million, including $4.70 million from Essex Property Trust, $117,000 from California Rental Housing Association, and other property owner groups.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 22: Self-employment for ride-hail and other app-drivers

Would consider app-based drivers to be independent contractors and not employees or agents. Therefore, the ballot measure would override Assembly Bill 5 (AB 5), signed in September 2019, on the question of whether app-based drivers are employees or independent contractors.

Support has raised $111 million, including $30 million from Lyft, $30 million from Uber, and $30 million from DoorDash.

Opposition has raised $866,591, with the Transport Workers Union of America providing $500,000.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 23: Dialysis Clinic Requirements

Would require chronic dialysis clinics to have a minimum of one licensed physician present at the clinic and to report data on dialysis-related infections to the State and federal health officials.

The ballot measure would also state that a chronic dialysis clinic cannot “discriminate with respect to offering or providing care” nor “refuse to offer or to provide care, on the basis of who is responsible for paying for a patient’s treatment.”

Support has raised $6 million from a healthcare workers union.

Opposition has raised $2 million, with $1 million from DaVita, Inc. and $1 million from Fresenius Medical Care (dialysis clinics).

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 24: Consumer Privacy Protections

Would strengthen California’s consumer privacy law and establish a California Privacy Protection Agency.

Support has raised $4.76 million with most funding from developer Alastair Mactaggart.

No opposition funding has been reported.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Prop. 25: Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments

Would end the State’s cash bail system and give judges the right to determine whether someone who is arrested should be kept behind bars based on the risk they are deemed to pose to themselves or others.

Support has raised $1.36 million. Action Now Initiative was the largest donor, contributing $500,000.

Opposition has raised $4.24 million, including $921,633. from Triton Management Services, LLC and the bail bond industry.

For more information about the measure, click HERE. For the latest financial contributions, click HERE.

Visit the California Secretary of State ballot measures page HERE.

Orange County voters will have three options for returning their ballots.

Protect local journalism – please subscribe to the print edition of the Fullerton Observer. Our online edition is free, but we depend on print subscriptions from readers.  Annual subscription is only $35/year. It only takes a minute – Click Here To Subscribe. Thank you for your support for the Fullerton Observer. Click here to view a copy of the print edition.

3 replies »

  1. for the full story on Proposition 25 visit http://www.stopprop25.com

    Prop advocates for the use of racially biased computer algorithms to determine whether someone is a risk…it is not up to judges. The computer will spit out a risk level and the judge will follow it.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.