During the November General Election, California voters will cast their vote on a Presidential race, Congressional and local government races, as well as determine the fate of 12 statewide ballot measures that range from repealing Proposition 209 known as the ban on affirmation action to rent control. This article provides an overview on each measure and the implications they may have on the state budget and its constituents.

The last day to vote is Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

Proposition 14: Authorizes Bond Continuing Stem Cell Research

This measure would authorize $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine for stem cell and other medical research, including training; stem cell therapy development and delivery; research facility construction; and administrative expenses. Of this amount, $1.5 billion would be dedicated to brain-related research and therapy. This measure would appropriate state General Fund dollars to pay bond debt service.

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means authorizing the state to sell $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds for stem cell research.
  • A NO vote means that it would not authorize the state to sell $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds for stem cell research.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 15: Increase Funding Sources for Public Schools, Community Colleges, and Local Government Services by Changing Tax Assessment of Commercial and Industrial Property

This measure would increase property taxes on commercial and industrial properties worth more than $3 million and would require these properties to be taxed based on how much they could be sold for instead of their original purchase price. Beginning in 2022, the proposed tax increase would be phased-in; however, for commercial properties that meet certain rules and have fewer than 50 employees, the proposed tax increase would not take effect until 2025. By 2024, the measure would reduce the taxable value of each business’ equipment by $500,000, with businesses with less than $500,000 of equipment paying no taxes on those items.

Housing and agricultural land would continue to be taxed based on its original purchase price.

The measure would generate about $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion per year in new property taxes to be distributed 60 percent to cities, counties, and special districts. The other 40 percent, would be distributed to K-12 public schools and California community colleges, as follows:

  • 89 percent to K-12 school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education based on the share of funding that each of these entities received from the state’s Local Control Funding Formula as of July 1, 2019.
  • 11 percent to community college districts based on the share of funding that each district received from the state’s distribution formula as of January 1, 2020.

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. 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.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means increasing the property taxes on most commercial properties worth more than $3 million and provide new funding to local governments and local educational agencies.
  • A NO vote means maintaining the property taxes at the current rate for commercial properties worth more than $3 million and not provide new funding to local governments and local educational agencies.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 16: Allow Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions.   

This measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature and Governor Newsom, through the passage of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (Resolution Chapter 23, Statutes of 2020) by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (AD 79–San Diego). The measure would eliminate the ban on the consideration of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin and permit state and local governments the ability to establish a wider range of policies and programs to address diversity needs, consistent with federal and state law related to equal protection. The measure would repeal Proposition 209 (1996), Section 31 of Article 1 of the California Constitution.

CASBO Endorsement. On August 29, 2020, the CASBO Board of Directors took a support position of Proposition 16, as the measure aligns with the organization’s strategic plan to address equity and diversity in the field of public education. This measure will allow public education institutions, from K-12 schools to higher education systems, to support programs and services that address the needs of underserved communities, and create a path for recruiting and training a stronger and diverse pool of educational leaders and teachers with the focus on closing the achievement gap for students.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. No direct fiscal effect on state and local governments as the measure does not require changes to current policies and programs, as possible fiscal effects are dependent on local and state entities’ decisions to implement future changes.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means allowing state and local governments to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting to the extent allowed under federal and state law.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current law as established under Proposition 209 (1996) to ban from consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public education, public employment, and public contracting.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 17: Restores Right to Vote After Completion of Prison Term.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature and Governor Newsom, through the passage of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6 (Resolution Chapter 24, Statutes of 2020) by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (AD 7–Sacramento). This measure would allow people on state parole to regain their right to register to vote, as soon as they complete their prison term.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increased annual county costs for voter registration and ballot measures, and increased one-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to update voter registration cards and systems.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means allowing people on state parole, who are U.S. citizens and California residents, and at least 18 years of age, to reinstate their ability to vote upon completion of their prison sentence.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current law that people on state parole are unable to vote in California.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 18: 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.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature and Governor Newsom, through the passage of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 (Resolution Chapter 30, Statutes of 2020) by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (AD 22–South San Francisco). This measure would permit 17-year-olds who will be at least 18 years old and eligible to vote at the time of the next general election to vote in any primary or special election that occurs before the next general election.

In California, a person may pre-register to vote if they are a U.S. citizen and is either 16 or 17 years old, and will be automatically registered to vote when they turn 18 years old. As of June 29, 2020, there were about 108,000 17-year-olds pre-registered to vote in the state.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increased county costs to process voting materials to eligible registered 17-year-olds, estimated between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years. For the state’s estimated one-time costs would be in the hundreds of thousands to update existing voter registration systems.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means allowing eligible 17-year-olds who will be 18 years old by the time of the next general election may vote in the primary election and any special elections preceding the general election.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current law that no one younger than 18 years of age may vote in any election in California.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 19: Changes Certain Property Tax Rules.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the Legislature and Governor Newsom, through the passage of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 11 (Resolution Chapter 31, Statutes of 2020) by Assemblymember Kevin Mullin (AD 22–South San Francisco). Starting April 1, 2021, this measure would permit homeowners who are 55 years old, severely disabled, or whose homes were destroyed by wildfire or disaster, to transfer their primary residence’s property tax base value to a replacement residence of any value, anywhere in California. For the elderly and disabled, these new rules could be used three times in their lifetime.

Beginning February 16, 2021, the measure would scale back the special rules for inherited properties to apply only to two kinds of inherited properties: 1) properties used as a primary home by the child or grandchild, and 2) the rules would apply to farms. The property tax bill for an inherited home or farm would increase if the price the property could be sold for exceeds the property’s taxable value by more than $1 million (adjusted for inflation every two years), but not as much as it would if sold to someone else outside of the family.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Local governments and local educational agencies could gain tens of millions of dollars per year in property taxes, with gains growing over time to a few hundred million dollars per year. Revenues from other taxes could increase by tens of millions of dollars per year for both the state and local governments, dedicating most of the new funds for fire protection. The LAO estimates that counties will experience increased costs in the tens of millions of dollars to hire new staff and make computer upgrades to carry out this measure.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means allowing all homeowners who are over 55-year-olds, disabled, and meet other qualifications to be eligible to transfer their primary resident’s tax base to a replacement residence, and only inherited properties used as primary residence or farms would be eligible for property tax savings.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current status that allows families to pass their home, and up to $1 million of other property, to their families without changing the Proposition 13 tax assessment.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 20: Restricts Parole for Certain Offenses Currently Considered to Be Non-Violent, Authorizes Felony Sentences for Certain Offenses Currently Treated Only as Misdemeanors.

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures and would limit access to the parole program established for non-violent offenders who have completed the full term of their primary offense by eliminating eligibility for certain offenses, such as changing felony charges for specified theft crimes currently changeable only as misdemeanors, including some theft crimes where the value is between $250 and $950. This measure would also require persons convicted of specified misdemeanors to submit to collection of DNA samples to a state database.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increase in state and local correctional, court, and law enforcement costs likely in the tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on implementation.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means people who committed certain theft-related crimes could receive increased penalties.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current law as there would not be any changes to the state’s process for releasing certain inmates from prison early.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 21: Expands Local Governments’ Authority to Enact Rent Control on Residential Property. 

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures and would modify a state law known as the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act to allow local governments to establish rent control policies on residential properties over 15 years old, setting rent increases in these rent-controlled properties up to 15 percent over three years at the start of a new tenancy. This measure provides an exemption for individuals who own no more than two homes from rent-control policies.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. 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. Local governments’ costs can increase in the range from very little to tens of millions of dollars per year, but expected to be paid by fees on owners of rental housing.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means state law would be modified to allow cities and counties to apply more kinds of rent control policies to more properties than currently allowed under state law.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current state limits on rent control laws that cities and counties can apply.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 22: Exempts App-Based Transportation and Delivery Companies from Providing Employee Benefits to Certain Drivers.  

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures and would classify application-based rideshare drivers as “independent contractors” instead of “employees,” unless the company sets the drivers’ hours, delivery requests, and imposes restrictions on drivers from working for other companies. This measure would also provide independent-contractor drivers other forms of compensation such as minimum earnings, healthcare subsidies and vehicle insurance, unless certain criteria are met.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Minor increase in state income taxes paid by rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means app-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide to employees.
  • A NO vote means app-based rideshare and delivery companies would have to classify drivers as employees if the courts say that a recent state law makes drivers employees. Drivers would have less choice about when, where, and how much to work but would get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 23: Establishes State Requirements for Kidney Dialysis Clinics, Requires On-Site Medical Professional.

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures and would require at least one licensed physician on-site during dialysis treatment, and authorize the California Department of Public Health to exempt clinics from this requirement if there is a shortage of qualified licensed physicians and the clinic has at least one nurse practitioner or physician assistant on site. This measure would also prohibit clinics from reducing services without state approval and from refusing to treat patients based on payment source.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increased state and local government costs likely in the low tens of millions of dollars annually.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means chronic dialysis clinics would be required to have a doctor on-site during all patient treatment hours.
  • A NO vote means maintaining current status and not require chronic dialysis clinics to have a doctor on-site during all patient treatment hours.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 24: Amends Consumer Privacy Laws.

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures and would permit consumers to: 1) prevent businesses from sharing personal information; 2) correct inaccurate personal information; and 3) limit businesses’ use of “sensitive personal information,” including precise geolocation, race, ethnicity, and health information. This measure would establish the California Privacy Protection Agency to enforce and implement consumer privacy laws, and impose fines and civil penalties for theft of consumer login information and for violations concerning consumers under age 16.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increased annual state costs of at least $10 million to support a new state agency, but unlikely to exceed low tens of millions of dollars to enforce expanded consumer privacy laws and the potential for some costs to be offset by penalties for violating these laws.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means existing consumer data privacy laws and rights would be expanded. Businesses would be required to meet new privacy requirements, and the new state agency and the state’s Department of Justice would share responsibility to oversee and enforce state consumer privacy laws.
  • A NO vote means businesses would be required to follow existing consumer data privacy laws and consumers would continue to be protected by existing data privacy rights. The state’s Department of Justice would continue to oversee and enforce these laws.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.

Proposition 25: Referendum on Law That Replaced Money Bail With System Based On Public Safety And Flight Risk.

This measure was placed on the ballot by petition signatures and would approve a 2018 law to replace the money bail with system for obtaining release from jail before trial, with a public safety and flight risk-based system.

Legislative Analyst’s Office Statewide Cost Estimate. Increased state and local governments’ costs possibly in mid-hundreds of millions of dollars annually for a new process to release people from jail prior to a trial. Decreased county jail costs, possibly in high tens of millions of dollars annually. Unknown impact on state and local revenues from spending on goods rather than paying for bail.

What the Vote Means:

  • A YES vote means people would not be required to pay bail to be released from jail before trial. Instead, people would either be released automatically or based on their assessed risk of committing another crime or not appearing in court if released. No one would be charged fees as a condition of release.
  • A NO vote means some people would continue to pay bail to be released from jail before trial. Fees may continue to be charged as a condition of release.

For more information on this measure, visit the Secretary of State webpage.