How you should vote for the California propositions, 2024 Edition

Well, it’s Election Day again, and since I’ve been having conversations with friends about propositions on the ballot, I thought I’d revisit the issue and update it for this year.

Here’s a summary of what I’ve written previously on the subject:

• The California proposition system (also called the initiative process) is ridiculous because we elect legislators to figure out the budget and pass laws, and propositions are essentially an end-run around the legislature. That can be dangerous because it allows special interests to propose laws that favor their agendas.
• There’s no way regular voters (myself included) are informed enough to figure out long-term impacts of complex policy decisions, and poorly thought out propositions that pass due to clever/misleading campaigns can lead to adverse and unintended consequences.
• Therefore — if you’re unsure or don’t feel strongly about a particular proposition, vote no.

As I’m reviewing this year’s propositions I wanted to highlight another rule I go by: vote no on everything that asks for money.

My reasoning is simple: our elected officials are already tasked with creating a budget, so why are we being asked to spend more? Take Proposition 2 as an example: it’s asking for $10 billion to upgrade and build public school facilities. Is that a good thing? In theory, yes. Do I want to pay $10 billion for it? No. Not only that, how do I know if $10 billion is the right amount for this task? Who’s accountable to make sure this money is spent wisely? If it’s actually important why wasn’t it included in the state budget? Since I can’t answer these questions I’m voting no.

Let’s not forget that California has one of the highest tax burdens in the country (shoutout to our sales, income, and corporate taxes), and it is not known for spending our hard-earned dollars wisely. There are so many examples of this but I’ll just give you this one: in 2022 California spent $100+ million on a vaccine lottery to pay people to take the Covid vaccine. No matter where you stand on the vaccine, I hope we can agree that is a colossal waste of taxpayer dollars, and the government needs to be accountable for its poor spending choices.

On the other hand, I am voting yes on Proposition 36, which unfortunately increases state criminal justice costs by “low hundreds of millions of dollars annually.” Why am I making this exception? Proposition 36 allows felony charges and increased sentencing for certain drug and theft crimes. It’s an attempt to reverse Prop 47, which recategorized certain shoplifting offenses from felonies to misdemeanors when the stolen property value doesn’t exceed $950. Since Prop 47 was passed a decade ago, retail theft has surged, causing significant financial burdens for businesses and communities statewide.

Yes, supporting Prop 36 is also an end-run around the legislature, but I see this as a necessary response to the surge in retail theft that’s affecting public safety and local economies. Unsurprisingly, Walmart, Home Depot, and Target have contributed a total of $6 million to support this proposition, which says a lot about the scale of their losses.

My “yes” vote for Prop 36 notwithstanding, I still firmly believe that a “no” vote is almost always the safest choice for California propositions. I am also open to discuss if you disagree, either on the general principle, or on specific propositions.

Happy voting!