The Xpress 2020 California Ballot Measure Voting Guide (Con Traducción) (Sa Pagsasalin) (翻译)

November 3, 2020

Californians will have the option to vote on 12 statewide ballot measures this November. A handful of these deal with longly contested topics, such as affirmative action and rent control. In order for a proposition to have made the ballot this year, voter signature-based propositions required 623,212 votes for initiative statutes and 997,139 for initiative constitutional amendments. Voter signatures pushed eight propositions forward, while the California State Legislature is seeking to modify the California Constitution with the other four proposed propositions.

The Xpress California Ballot Measure Voting Guide was created as a comprehensive resource to clarify what each proposition entails, as well as who supports and opposes each proposition.


Proposition 14, the Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 14 would provide the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine $5.5 billion through general obligation bonds, bonds backed by the state’s ability to tax residents to pay bondholders.

The bonds would add up to about $7.8 billion, given a projected $2.3 billion in interest and broken down into estimated annual payments of $310 million for 25 years. This total is subject to change based on interest rates and the time in which the bonds are paid.

CIRM was created after the passing of Proposition 71 in 2004, granting the institute $3 billion. Of that funding, $132 million remained as of October 2019. CIRM halted project applications in July of last year as a result of the available funds; without additional funding, CIRM is expected to end by 2023.

Proposition 14 would outline how CIRM spends its money. Funds would be used for the sole purpose of stem cell research and facility start-up costs, with 7.5% allocated for operational costs. Neurological disorder therapies and treatment methods would be allotted $1.5 billion; human clinical trials, treatments and cure facilities 1.5%; state-funded facilities under the Shared Labs Program 0.5%. 

CIRM would also change the way it operates if the proposition is passed. The number of members governing CIRM under the Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee would increase to 35 from its current 29. A fourth advising group to the ICOC, specific toward treatments and cures, would be added to the already-existing groups on medical research funding, research standards and facilities grants. CIRM would also establish a cap on full-time employees and training programs for undergraduate and graduate students interested in stem cell research.

Proponents of Proposition 14 include: UC Board of Regents

Opponents of Proposition 14 include: Center for Genetics and Society

Proposition 15, Tax on Commercial and Industrial Properties for Education and Local Government Funding Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 15 would tax all commercial and industrial properties –– with an exception for commercial agriculture –– based on their current market values, rather than their initial purchase prices. The shift would largely begin in the fiscal year 2022-23.

Properties are currently taxed at their purchase prices and experience annual increases of 2% or increases equal to the rate of inflation– whichever is lower.

Residential properties, agricultural properties and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less would remain exempt from Proposition 15. 

The money gathered from Proposition 15 would first cover county costs of implementation and go to the state to supplement decreases in revenue resulting from increased tax deductions. The remaining revenue would then be split, as opposed to going into the General Fund– 60% to local governments and special districts and 40% to school districts and community colleges in a newly created Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund.

The further breakdown of money toward education would look like this: 89% for public and charter schools and county education offices; 11% for community colleges; and an additional minimum of $100 for all schools per full-time student (adjusted annually).

Proponents of Proposition 15 include: Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; Sen. Bernie Sanders; California State Sen. Scott Wiener; San Francisco Mayor London Breed; Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf; and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Both Los Angeles and San Francisco school districts support the proposition as well. 

Opponents to Proposition 15 include: California Black Chamber of Commerce; California Small Business Association; California NAACP State Conference; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

Proposition 16, Repeal Proposition 209 Affirmative Action Amendment:

If passed, Proposition 16 would repeal Proposition 209, established in 1996, allowing public employment, public education and public contracting to take race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin into account when selecting applicants for hirings and admissions.

To clarify, affirmative action in the form of racial quotas was deemed unconstitutional in 1978, under the landmark Supreme Court case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The Supreme Court also stated that any forms of affirmative action must be reviewed under strict scrutiny.

The calls for affirmative action largely grow out of proponents’ desire for more diverse college campuses. Following the implementation of Proposition 209 in 1998, the California State University saw two-thirds of the drop in minority enrollment across the state, and the University of California system witnessed a decline in underrepresented groups — Black, Latino, Pacific Islander and American Indian — from 20% in 1995 to 15%.

Opponents of Proposition 16 argue that it would discriminate against more deserving students and applicants and judge individuals based on their ancestry rather than merit. Former California 12th Congressional District Rep. Tom Campbell mentioned that Asian Americans make up 15.3% of the California population, yet are 39.72% of UC enrollees. He added that this proposition would create tension between Asian-American and Black and Latino communities, as “[t]he politics are inescapably racial.”

Proponents of Proposition 16 include: Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; UC Board of Regents; CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White; and the Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus.

Opponents to Proposition 16 include: San Diego Asian Americans for Equality; Asian American Coalition for Education; and the Pacific Legal Foundation

Proposition 17, Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment:

If passed, Proposition 17 would restore the right to vote for over 57,000 Californians on parole for felony convictions.

Currently, those on parole for felonies are ineligible to vote until their time on parole is completed. This would make California the 20th state to allow parolees to vote if passed. As of now, California is one of three states that requires people convicted of felonies to complete parole in order to have their voting status restored. In California, individuals are ineligible for voting if they are serving prison time at state or federal prisons, serving a state prison felony sentence, awaiting transfer for a felony conviction or have violated parole.

Proposition 17 would also address the mass incarceration of Blacks and Latinos. The Public Policy Institute of California found in a 2016 study that African-Americans, which comprise 6% of the state’s adult population, made up 26% of those on parole. Similarly, Latinos comprise 35% of the adult population and make up 40% of those on parole. White individuals make up 26% of the adult population and make up 7% of those on parole. 

Opponents of Proposition 17 argue the right to vote is a privilege that shouldn’t be restored until those who have committed felons have fully completed their sentencing. 

Proponents of Proposition 17 include: Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; state Sen. Scott Wiener; ACLU of California; and League of Women Voters of California

Opponents of Proposition 17 include: The Election Integrity Project California

Proposition 18, Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment:

If passed, Proposition 18 would allow individuals to vote in the primary election at the age of 17 if they turn 18 before the general election.

Proposition 18 would make California the 19th state, in tandem with Washington D.C., that allows this demographic to vote in primary elections.

While there is no exact count for how many 17 year olds would become eligible voters, the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health estimates there are over 2 million people in the state of California between the ages of 14 and 17.

The bill was first introduced by South San Francisco Assemblyman Gene Mullin in 2004. Last year, Mullin’s son, San Mateo Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, reintroduced the bill. This was his sixth attempt, but it was the first time it had ever reached the Senate floor. It passed with a bipartisan vote of 29-2, with two Republican senators voting for the bill.

The California Association of Student Councils argues that the proposition would correct the “disadvantage” these young people face, as they are not permitted to have a say in who will be on the general election ballot. “Without full exposure to the election process they are unable to submit their most educated vote in the general election,” a statement from the association read.

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. argues that because 17 year olds are still legally considered minors, they are heavily influenced by their parents and “immediate superiors.” “This again makes it less likely that they would be expressing their own, independently thought-out choices were they to be allowed to vote,” the group said.

Proponents of Proposition 18 include: The California Association of Student Councils

Opponents of Proposition 18 include: The Election Integrity Project California

Proposition 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment:

If passed, Proposition 19 would allow eligible homeowners to transfer their property tax to a more expensive home anywhere in the state with an upward adjusted tax rate, rather than a new rate altogether. This would protect eligible homeowners from having to pay additional taxes for a property that is better suited for their needs. Older homeowners and those with disabilities can also move to a new property up to three times, rather than the current limit of once. Wildfire and natural disaster victims would not be eligible to move more than once. 

Currently, homeowners that are disabled, over the age of 55 or victims of natural disasters are eligible to transfer their property tax rates from their original property if they move into a new home of the same or lower value within the same county. For inherited properties, a lower property tax rate would only be possible when moved-into properties are used as primary residences and used only on the first $1 million between original purchase price and its market value. 

Inherited properties, such as family vacation homes and business properties, would be subject to reassessment if they were to exceed $1 million purchase price and market value difference. Any additional tax revenue would go toward the California Fire Response Fund and County Revenue Protection Fund. The CFRF would reimburse counties for revenue-related losses resulting from the proposition, and the CRPF would fund fire-suppression staffing and full-time station personnel.

Because of the proposition’s proposed tax increases for inherited properties, the fiscal impact statement claims it would bring in tens of millions of dollars to local- and state-level governments, including school and fire protection funding.

Proponents argue that this measure will help victims of natural disasters find homes easier in an expensive market and also open up more family homes after older homeowners move to a smaller property. They also argue that this would close a loophole that allows wealthy, non-California residents to avoid paying a “fair share of property taxes on vacation homes, income properties, and beachfront rentals they own in California.

Opponents argue that this measure is a revised version of a previous, failed proposition which was largely voted against, such as 2018’s Proposition 5.

Proponents of Proposition 19 include: Gov. Gavin Newson; California Professional Firefighters; Californians for Disability Rights 

Opponents of Proposition 19 include: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Proposition 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole and DNA Collection Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 20 would add restrictions on parole eligibility for incarcerated people charged with non-violent offenses. In order to be granted parole, the parole review board would have to consider additional factors such as the person’s family ties, age, mental wellbeing and attitude about the crime, along with the conditions of the crime. 

The proposition would also classify 51 offenses as violent crimes or offenses otherwise not eligible for parole. Crimes such as firearm theft, credit card fraud and organized retail crime would be defined as wobblers – crimes that could either be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony based on the circumstances. Certain wobblers or felonies –– shoplifting, prostituition with a minor, drug possession –– would require offenders to submit a DNA sample for state databases. 

The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimate that this proposition would cost state and local correctional facilities tens of millions of dollars due to greater penalties for theft-related crimes. It would also cost state and local courts a few million dollars annually because of stricter probation qualifications and felony filings.

The state currently has a list of crimes permitted to shorter sentences under the 2016 Proposition 57, an effort to encourage incarcerated people to participate in rehabilitation programs. Among the offenses on the list are: spousal abuse; human traficking of a child; and rape. 

Proponents of Proposition 20 include: Orange County Board of Supervisors; Los Angeles Police Protective League; and Peace Officers Research Association of California

Opponents of Proposition 20 include: former Gov. Jerry Brown; ACLU of Northern California; and SEIU California State Council

Proposition 21, Local Rent Control Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 21 would permit local governments to create rent control for houses over 15 years old that are owned by landlords with more than two properties. These specifics modify the now-rejected Proposition 10 from 2018.

Proposition 21 would also allow properties under rent control to increase their monthly fees only “up to 15% over three years from previous tenant’s rent above any increase allowed by local ordinance,” according to the proposition’s ballot summary. The proposition would also  supersede current local rent control rules.

The Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance estimates that this could reduce local and state revenues by tens of millions of dollars per year, contingent on local government action. 

Rent control in California has been a widely contested subject of interest – 56 of 58 California counties rejected rent control in 2018. However, 2018 polling revealed Californians were mostly in favor of rent control, but rejected the specifics of the former proposition.

Proponents believe that rent control will protect lower income and middle class citizens from being displaced from their homes, especially in high population cities with limited housing, like San Francisco. 

Opponents of the proposition argue that it would discourage the private sector from creating affordable housing units to the market. Lax regulations on permitting processes and zoning could make this possible.

Proponents of Proposition 21 include: Sen. Bernie Sanders; Rep. Barbara Lee; Rep. Maxine Waters; the AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Urban League of Los Angeles; and the Eviction Defense Network

Opponents of Proposition 21 include: President Sid Larkey of the California Rental Housing Association; Californians for Responsible Housing; State Building and Construction Trades Council of California; and the California NAACP State Conference 

Proposition 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 22 would define app-based rideshare and delivery drivers as independent contractors. Instead of following the state-wide benefits and protections employees receive, these companies would be required to provide alternative benefits that meet the specificities of their gig-workers, including “minimum compensation and healthcare subsidies based on engaged driving time, vehicle insurance, safety training and sexual harassment policies,” according to the state’s official proposition summary. 

Proposition 22 would override California Assembly Bill 5 in regards to only app-based drivers. AB 5 is a response to the 2018 Supreme Court case Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, in classifying gig-workers in the state as employees rather than independent contractors if the employer cannot prove each part of a three part test.

Under AB 5, if employers fail to prove these three components of the test, their employees are entitled to standard benefits such as minimum wage, health insurance and sick leave. Under Proposition 22, employers must classify app-based drivers as independent contractors unless the company sets drivers’ hours, requires acceptance of specific ride or delivery requests, or restricts working for other companies.

App-based delivery services and ride-share programs such as Uber, Lyft and Doordash are asking for an exception, as their business structure depends on digitally based gig-workers who have the freedom to work as much or as little as they want.

This proposition may slightly increase state personal income tax revenue for rideshare and delivery company drivers and investors, according to a report by the Legislative Analyst. If these companies no longer have to pay for state employee benefits, lower delivery and rideshare rates could follow. Cheaper rates may appeal to more customers and generate more revenue for drivers.

Proponents of Proposition 22 include: California NAACP State Conference; California Black Chamber of Commerce; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; and the California Small Business Association

Opponents of Proposition 22 include: Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden; Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; Sen. Elizabeth Warren; California Labor Federation; and California State Council of Laborers

Proposition 23, Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 23 would require Chronic Dialysis Clinics to have a doctor on-site during all hours of operation, though a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant can suffice if there is a proven shortage of doctors in the area. 

Additionally, clinics must: report dialysis-related infections to the California Department of Public Health and National Healthcare Safety Network every three months or face penalties up to $100,000; seek state approval before closing or reducing clinic hours; receive approval from the clinic’s principal officer under penalty of perjury; and serve every patient regardless of their source of payment for care.

In California there are approximately 600 centers treating the state’s almost 80,000 patients each month, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. The office also found that roughly 75% of these centers are owned by two for-profit, private companies: Davita, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care.

Proposition 23 builds off 2018’s Proposition 8. The proposition, which was rejected by a margin of 2.4 million votes, intended to maximize center profits. According to Calmatters, a nonpartisan media organization that covers California policy, this proposition battle was the most expensive ballot campaign ever, with Davita, Inc. and Fresenius Medical Care spending a combined $111 million to go against the Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers union in 2018. 

This proposition would likely increase the costs of state and local spending by tens of millions of dollars, as well as the cost of dialysis service due to staff demands, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Proponents of Proposition 23 include: California Democratic Party; California Labor Federation

Opponents of Proposition 23 include: California Medical Association; Dialysis Patient Citizens; California NAACP State Conference

Proposition 24, Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative:

If passed, Proposition 24 would expand upon the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, creating a new government agency – the Privacy Protection Agency, designed to regulate data privacy. Consumers would also be permitted to change incorrect information, prohibit data sharing and protect “sensitive personal information.” Business violation penalties would triple for data violations of minors 16 and under. 

The California Consumer Privacy Act initially gave California consumers a say in how much personal information businesses can collect from them. Since then, businesses must now disclose how personal data is used and stored, allow consumers to delete information, opt-out of their data being sold and cannot discriminate customers for doing so. Proposition 24 is seeking to further heighten these privacy measures.

Organizations such as Common Sense and Consumer Watchdog say this proposition would make California the example for privacy protection laws, especially as a state run by major tech companies.

“Especially post-COVID, people are going to be more sensitive to privacy concerns,” San Francisco-based real estate developer and chair of Californians for Consumer Privacy Alastair Mactaggar said in June. Mactaggar also heavily pushed for the 2018 privacy act as well.

Opponents argue that there simply hasn’t been enough time to determine how effective the existing privacy act is yet, as it’s taken effect this July. 

“We fear Prop 24 would undermine existing California privacy regulations by making it more burdensome for consumers to prohibit Big Tech companies from selling their confidential data,” Linda Sherry, Director of National Priorities at Consumer Action, said in a statement.

Proponents of Proposition 24 include: Common Sense; Consumer Watchdog

Opponents of Proposition 24 include: ACLU of California; Council on Islamic American Relations – California; Consumer Federation of California; Media Alliance 


Proposition 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum:

If passed, Proposition 25 would replace the current cash bail system for detained criminal suspects with a risk assessment to determine the conditions of potential pretrial release.

Currently, criminal suspects are eligible for release before trial if cash bail is posted and promise to return to court for their trial and hearings. Bail, which is refunded to accommodating suspects regardless of trial outcomes, can be posted using personal funding or commercial bail bond agents that charge non-refundable premiums. There is no limit to how much premiums can cost, although the average is typically at 10%, according to the California Department of Insurance.

If passed, Proposition 25 would make California the first state to end cash bail, which will be replaced with assessments using “tools [that] shall be demonstrated by scientific research to be accurate and reliable,” according to the bill. In the assessments, suspected criminals would be categorized into one of three categories: low, medium and high risk. High-risk individuals would be refused pretrial release, low-risk would be allowed release given specific circumstances and medium-risk could be subject to either option depending on the court’s rules. Those denied pretrial release would be allowed to argue the assessment before a judge.

Opponents to the bill argue that the potential tools to make assessments carry the risk of racial bias. “While we all agree that bail reform is necessary, this costly, reckless plan will use racially-biased computer algorithms to decide who gets stuck in jail and who goes free. That’s not right,” Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme spokesman Jeff Clayton said.

Proponents of Proposition 25 include: Rep. Karen Bass; state Sen. Scott Wiener; California Democratic Party; and the League of Women Voters of California

Opponents of Proposition 25 include: California NAACP State Conference; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Crime Victims United of California; and the California Black Chamber of Commerce

Guía Sobre Medidas Electorales de California 2020 para Xpress

Guía Sobre Medidas Electorales de California 2020 para Xpress

Los residentes de California tienen la opción de votar para 12 medidas electorales en el mes de noviembre. Algunas de las medidas se tratan de temas que han sido popularmente debatidos , como acción afirmativa y control de renta. Para qué una propuesta pueda estar en la boleta de este año, se necesitan suficientes firmas de votantes. Se requieren 623,212 de votos para estados de iniciativa y 997,139 para las iniciativas de enmiendas constitucionales. Las firmas de votantes pasaron ocho propuestas adelante, mientras la legislatura del estado de California está buscando modificar la Constitución de California con cuatro otras propuestas es en contienda. 

La guía de votación de la medida electoral de Xpress fue creada para clarificar que es lo que cada propuesta implica, tanto como quien la apoya o quién se opone a cada proporción. 

Propuesta 14, la iniciativa bonos del Instituto de Investigación de Células Madre:

Si es aprobada, la propuesta 14 proveería $5.5 billones al Instituto de California para Medicina Regeneradora (CRIM) a través de bonos obligatorios generales.Los bonos están respaldados por la habilidad del estado de pedir impuestos a residentes para pagar los bonos.

Los bonos serían $7.8 miles de millones en total, dado que se proyecta un $2.3 billón en interés y desglosado en pagos anuales estimados de $310 millones por 25 años. Este total está sujeto a cambiar dependiendo de las tarifas de interés y el tiempo en que los bonos son pagados.

CRIM fue creado después de que la propuesta 71 en 2004, otorgara al instituto $3 miles de millones. De este financiamiento , se mantuvo $132 millones desde octubre de 2019. CRIM paró las solicitudes de proyectos en julio del año pasado como resultado de los fondos disponibles.Sin fondos adicionales, se espera que CRIM termine en el año 2023. 

La propuesta 14 mostraría como CRIM gasta su dinero. Los fondos serían utilizados con el único propósito de investigación de células madre y costo inicial de las instalaciones, y un 7.5% asignado para gastos operacionales. Terapias y métodos de tratamiento para trastornos neurológicos serían asignados $1.5 miles de millones; ensayos clínicos en humanos, tratamientos e instalaciones de cura 1.5%; instalaciones financiadas por el estado bajo el Programa de Laboratorios Compartidos 0.5%.

Si la propuesta es aprobada CRIM cambiaría la forma en que funciona. El número de miembros que gobiernan CRIM bajo el Comité de Supervisión Ciudadana Independiente (ICOC) subiría a 35, actualmente está en 29. Un cuarto grupo aconsejado el ICOC, específico a tratamientos y cura, sería agregado a los grupos que ya existen en fondos del estudio médico, normas de estudios e instalaciones subsidios. CRIM también quiere establecer un límite de empleados trabajando tiempo completo y en programas de entrenamientos para estudiantes de universidad y posgrado interesados ​​en la investigación con células madre.

Los defensores de la propuesta 14 incluye: UC Board of Regents

Los oponentes de la propuesta 14 incluyen: Center for Genetics and Society

Propuesta 15, Impuestos en la iniciativa de financiamiento de propiedades comerciales e industriales para la educación y el gobierno local 

Si es aprobada, la propuesta 15 recolectará impuestos en todas las propiedades comerciales e industriales — con la excepción de la agricultura comercial — basados en los valores del mercado actual, en lugar de su precio inicial de compra. El cambio empezará en el año fiscal de 2022-2023. 

Las propiedades actualmente pagan impuestos con relación a los precios de compra y ven un aumento de 2% o aumento igual a la tasa de inflación – la cantidad que sea menor.

Propiedades residenciales, propiedades de agricultura y los dueños de propiedades comerciales e industriales con un valor conjunto de $3 millón o menos será exento de la Proporción 15.

El dinero recaudado de la propuesta 15 primero cubriría los gastos de implementación del condado, después estos se irían al estado para complementar las disminuciones en los ingresos resultantes del aumento de las deducciones de impuestos. Los ingresos restantes se dividirán en lugar de ir al Fondo General: entre 60% a los gobiernos locales y distritos especiales y 40% a los distritos escolares y colegios comunitarios, en lugar de ser proporcionados al Fondo General. Estos ingresos serán divididos en un Fondo de impuestos para la propiedad de escuelas locales y colegios comunitarios recién creados.

El desglose adicional del dinero destinado a la educación se vería así: 89% para las escuelas públicas y autónomas y las oficinas de educación del condado, 11% para colegios comunitarios y un mínimo adicional de $100 para todas las escuelas por estudiante de tiempo completo (ajustado anualmente).

Los defensores de la propuesta 15 incluyen a Kamala Harris, candidata a vicepresidente del Partido Demócrata, el senador Bernie Sanders, el senador de California, Scott Wiener, London Breed, alcaldesa de San Francisco, la alcaldesa de Oakland, Libby Schaaf y el alcalde de Los Ángeles, Eric Garcetti. Los distritos escolares de Los Ángeles y San Francisco también apoyan esta propuesta.

Los oponentes de la propuesta 15 incluyen: California Black Chamber of Commerce, California Small Business Association, California NAACP State Conference y California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce. 

Propuesta 16, Revocar la propuesta 209, enmienda de acción afirmativa 

Si es aprobada la propuesta 16 revocaría la propuesta 209 que fue establecida en 1996, permitiendo tomar en cuenta la raza, sexo, color de piel, etnia y nacionalidad durante el proceso de solicitud o admision a un empleo público, a la educación pública y a la contratación pública.

Para clarificar, la acción afirmativa en la forma de cuotas raciales fueron consideradas inconstitucionales en 1978, bajo el punto de referencia del caso de la Corte Suprema Regentes de la Universidad de California v. Bakke. La Corte Suprema también declaró que cualquier forma de acción afirmativa debe ser revisada por un escrutinio estricto. 

El apoyo hacia la acción afirmativa crece considerablemente debido al deseo de los proponentes en tener universidades diversas. Siguiendo la implementación de la propuesta 209 en 1998, la Universidad Estatal de California registró dos tercios menos en inscripciones de personas pertenecientes a un grupo minoritario en el tados. El sistema de la Universidad de California vio una disminución de grupos subrepresentados –– afroestadounidenses, latinos, isleños del pacífcio, e indios americanos –– de 20% en 1955 a 15%. 

Los oponentes argumentan que la propuesta 16 discrimina más en contra de los estudiantes y aplicantes merecedores y juzgan a los individuos por su ascendencia en lugar de su mérito. El ex representante del distrito 12 del Congreso de California, Tom Campbell mencionó que los asiáticos americanos representan 15.3% de la población de California, pero son 39.72% de los estudiantes inscritos en las universidades UC. El agregó que esta propuesta crearía una tensión entre las comunidades Asiáticos Americanos y Negras y Latinas porque “las políticas son ineludiblemente racial”.

Los defensores de la propuesta 16 incluyen a Kamala Harris, candidata a vicepresidente del Partido Demócrata; la Junta UC de Regentes; Timothy P. White Canciller del sistema universitario CSU; y el caucus legislativo de las Islas del Pacifico Asiatico.

Los oponentes de la propuesta 16 incluyen a San Diego Asian Americans for Equality, Asian American Coalition for Education y el Pacific Legal Foundation

Propuesta 17, Restaurando el sufragio para personas en libertad condicional

Si es aprobada, la propuesta 17 restaura el derecho de votar para 57,000 californianos que están en libertad condicional por condenas de delitos graves. 

Actualmente, las personas en libertad condicional por condenas de delitos graves no son elegibles para votar hasta que se complete su libertad condicional. Si la propuesta es aprobada, California sería el vigésimo estado en permitir que las personas en libertad condicional voten. Ahora, California es uno de tres estados que requiere que las personas con condenas de delitos graves terminen su libertad condicional para recuperar su voto. En California, individuos que cumplen tiempo en prisión en prisiones estatales o federales, cumplen una sentencia federal en una prisión estatal, esperando la transferencia de una convicción de un delito grave o aquellos que han violado su libertad condicional son inelegibles para votar. 

Propuesta 17 también abordaría el encarcelamiento masivo de afro estadounidense y latinos. Un estudio de 2016 del Instituto de Política Pública de California, encontró que afro estadounidenses, que forman 6% de la población adulta del estado, constituye el 26% de los que están en libertad condicional. De igual manera, los latinos forman el 35% de la población adulta y constituyen al 40% de los que están en libertad condicional. Personas blancas forman el 26% de la población adulta y constituyen el 7% de los que están en libertad condicional. 

Los oponentes de la propuesta 17 argumentan que el derecho de votar no debe ser restaurado hasta que los que han cometido delitos graves completen su sentencia.

Los defensores de propuesta 17 incluyen a Kamala Harris, candidata a vicepresidente del Partido Demócrata; Senador del estado Scott Wiener; ACLU de california; y la Liga de Mujeres Votantes de California

Los oponentes de la propuesta 17 incluyen a The Election Integrity Project California. 

Propuesta 18, Votación primaria de enmienda para votantes de 17 años

Si es aprobada propuesta 18 permitiría que personas de 17 años de edad voten en la elección primaria si cumplen los 18 años antes de la elección general.

propuesta 18 convertiría a California en el decimonoveno estado, junto con Washington D.C., que permite que este grupo vote en las elecciones primarias. 

Mientras no hay un recuento exacto de cuántos jóvenes de 17 años serían votantes elegibles, Lucile Packard Foundation for Children ‘s Health estima que hay más de 2 millones de personas de entre 14 y 17 años de edad en el estado de California. 

Este proyecto de ley se presentó por primera vez por el asambleísta del Sur de San Francisco, Gene Mullin en 2004. El año pasado, el hijo de Mullin, el asambleísta de San Mateo, Kevin Mullin, re-introdujo el proyecto de ley. Este es su sexto intento, pero es la primera vez que llega al Senado. Pasó con un voto de 29-2, con dos senadores Republicanos votando por el proyecto de ley. 

La California Association of Student Councils argumenta que la propuesta corregiría la desventaja que enfrentan estas personas jóvenes, ya que no se les permite opinar quien participará en la boleta de las elecciones generales. “Sin una exposición completa al proceso electoral, no pueden presentar su voto más educado en las elecciones generales”, una declaración leída de la asociación. 

The Election Integrity Project California, Inc. argumenta que porque los jóvenes de 17 años legalmente todavía son considerados menores de edad, están muy influenciados por sus padres y “superiores inmediatos.” “Esto, nuevamente hace que sea menos probable que expresen sus propias elecciones independientes y pensadas si se les permite votar”, dijo el grupo.

Los defensores de la propuesta 18 incluyen a The California Association of Student Councils

Los oponentes de la propuesta 18 incluyen a The Election Integrity Project California, Inc

Propuesta 19 Transferencias de impuestos a la propiedad, exenciones e ingresos para agencias de incendios forestales y enmienda de condados

Si es aprobada la propuesta 19 permitiría a los propietarios de viviendas elegibles transferir sus impuestos a la propiedad a una casa más costosa en cualquier parte del estado con una tasa impositiva ajustada al alza, en lugar de una tasa nueva. Esto protegería a los propietarios elegibles de tener que pagar impuestos adicionales por una propiedad que se adapta mejor a sus necesidades. Los propietarios de viviendas mayores y las personas con discapacidades también pueden mudarse a una nueva propiedad hasta tres veces, en lugar del límite actual de una vez. Las víctimas de incendios forestales y desastres naturales no serían elegibles para mudarse más de una vez.

Actualmente, los propietarios discapacitados, mayores de 55 años o víctimas de desastres naturales son elegibles para transferir sus tasas de impuestos de su propiedad original si se mudan a una nueva casa del mismo valor o menor dentro del mismo condado. Para propiedades heredadas, una tasa de impuesto a la propiedad más baja sólo sería posible cuando las propiedades son usadas como residencias principales y usadas solo en el primer $1 millón entre el precio de compra original y su valor de mercado.

Las propiedades heredadas, como las casas de vacaciones familiares y propiedades de negocio, estarían sujetas a reevaluación si excedieran una diferencia de $1 millón entre la compra original y el valor de mercado. Cualquier ingreso tributario adicional se destinaría al Fondo de Respuesta a Incendios de California y al Fondo de Protección de Ingresos del Condado. La CRPF reembolsaría a condados por pérdidas relacionadas a ingresos resultante de la propuesta, y la CRPF financiaría la dotación de personal de extinción de incendios y personal de estación a tiempo completo. 

Debido a los aumentos de impuestos propuestos en la propuesta para las propiedades heredadas, la declaración de impacto fiscal afirma que generaría decenas de millones de dólares a gobiernos de nivel local y estatal, incluyendo el financiamiento escolar y de protección contra incendios.

Los defensores argumentan que esta medida no solo ayudará a las víctimas de desastres naturales a encontrar viviendas más fácilmente en un mercado más costoso, sino que también abrirá más viviendas familiares después de que los propietarios mayores se muden a una propiedad más pequeña. También argumentan que esto cerraría una escapatoria que permite a residentes no californianos adinerados evitar pagar “una parte justa de los impuestos a la propiedad sobre casas de vacaciones, propiedades de ingresos y alquileres frente a la playa que poseen en California.”

Los opositores argumentan que esta medida es una versión revisada de una propuesta anterior fallida que fue ampliamente votada en contra, como la propuesta 5 del 2018.

Los defensores de la propuesta 19 incluyen al Gobernador Gavin Newsom, California Professional Firefighters, Californians for Disability Rights

Los opositores a la propuesta 19 incluyen a la Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Propuesta 20, Sentencia Penal, Libertad Condicional Y Iniciativa De Colección De ADN

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 20 añadiría restricciones sobre elegibilidad de libertad condicional para personas encarceladas por crímenes no violentos. Para obtener libertad condicional, la comisión revisora de libertad condicional tendría que considerar factores adicionales como los lazos familiares, edad, salud mental y actitud sobre el crimen de la persona, junto con las condiciones del crimen.

La propuesta también clasificaría 51 ofensas como crímenes violentos o ofensas que de otro modo no son elegibles para libertad condicional. Crímenes como robo de armas de fuego, fraude de tarjeta de crédito y crimen organizado minorista serían definidos como delitos no tipificados – crímenes que pudieran ser cargados como falta o delito basado en las circunstancias. Ciertos delitos no tipificados o delitos — robo, prostitución con un menor de edad, posesión de droga — requeriría que los infractores envíen una muestra de ADN a las bases de datos estatales.

El Analista Legislativo y Director de Finanzas estima que esta propuesta les costaría decenas de millones de dólares a las instalaciones correccionales estatales y locales debido a que existiría un mayor número de sanciones por crímenes relacionados con el robo. También le costarían millones de dólares anualmente a cortes estatales y locales debido a requisitos más estrictos de libertad condicional y delitos.

Actualmente, el estado tiene una lista de crímenes permitidos a sentencias más cortas bajo la propuesta 57 del 2016, un esfuerzo para alentar a personas encarceladas a participar en programas de rehabilitación. Entre los delitos se encuentran: abuso conyugal; trata de personas adolescentes; y violación.

Defensores de la propuesta 20 incluyen a la Junta de Supervisores de Orange County, Los Angeles Police Protective League y el Peace Officers Research Association of California.

Quienes se oponen a la propuesta 20 incluyen a el ex gobernador Jerry Brown, ACLU de California del norte; y el SEIU California State Council.

Propuesta 21, Iniciativa de control de alquileres locales

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 21 permitiría a gobiernos locales crear un control de renta para propiedades de más de 15 años que son poseídas por propietarios con más de dos propiedades. Estas especificaciones modifican la propuesta 10 de 2018, ahora rechazada.

La propuesta 21 también permitiría a propiedades bajo control de renta aumentar sus cargos mensuales solo “hasta 15% durante tres años del alquiler del inquilino anterior por encima de cualquier aumento permitido por ordenanza local,” de acuerdo con el resumen de la boleta de la propuesta. La propuesta también reemplazaría las actuales reglas de control de renta locales.

El Analista Legislativo y Director de Finanzas estima que esto puede reducir ingresos locales y estatales por decenas de millones de dólares anualmente, dependiendo de la acción del gobierno local.

El control de rentas en California ha sido un tema de interés ampliamente discutido– 56 de 58 condados de California rechazaron el control de renta en el 2018. Sin embargo, las elecciones del 2018 revelaron que los californianos estaban en su mayoría a favor del control de renta, pero rechazaron las especificaciones de la propuesta anterior.

Defensores creen que el control de renta protegerá a ciudadanos de bajos ingresos y de clase media de ser desplazados de sus casas, especialmente en ciudades de alta población con vivienda limitada, como San Francisco.

Quienes se oponen a la propuesta argumentan que esto desalentaría al sector privado de crear unidades de vivienda asequibles en el mercado. Regulaciones tolerantes sobre procesos de permisos y zonificación pudieran hacer esto posible.

Defensores de la propuesta 21 incluyen al Senador Bernie Sanders, a la Representante Barbara Lee, a la Representante Maxine Waters; AIDS Healthcare Foundation, Los Angeles Urban League y Eviction Defense Network.

Quienes se oponen a la propuesta 21 incluyen a el Presidente Sid Larkey de California Rental Housing Association, Californianos para Vivienda Responsable, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, y la Conferencia Estatal NAACP de California.

Propuesta 22, Conductores de Aplicaciones en línea contratados como contratistas y la iniciativa de pólizas laborales

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 22 definiría como contratistas independientes a conductores de viaje compartido y entrega basados en aplicaciones. En lugar de apegarse a los beneficios y protecciones que empleados reciben en todo en el estado, estas empresas serían requeridas a proveer beneficios alternativos que cumplen con las especificaciones de sus trabajadores temporales, incluyendo “compensación mínima y subsidios de cuidado de salud basados en tiempo de conducción, aseguranza de vehiculo, entrenamiento de seguridad y pólizas de acoso sexual”, de acuerdo con el resumen official de la propuesta del estado.

La propuesta 22 anularía el Proyecto de ley 5 de la Asamblea de California en lo que respecta a conductores basados en aplicaciones. AB 5 es una respuesta al caso Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court de la Corte Suprema de 2018 que clasifica a la mayoría de trabajadores en el estado como empleados en lugar de contratistas independientes si el/la empleador(a) no puede probar cada parte de una prueba de tres partes

Bajo AB 5, si los/las empleadores(as) no logran probar estos tres componentes de la prueba, sus empleados(as) tienen derecho a beneficios como salario mínimo, seguro médico y licencia por enfermedad. Bajo la propuesta 22, los/las empleadores(as) deben clasificar conductores basados en aplicaciones como contratistas independientes a no ser que la compañía fije las horas de los/las conductores(as), requiera la aceptación de peticiones de viaje o entrega específicas o restrinja el trabajar para otras empresas. 

Servicios de entrega basados en aplicaciones y programas de viaje compartido como Uber, Lyft y Doordash están pidiendo una excepción, ya que la estructura de sus negocios depende de trabajadores temporales de base digital que tienen la libertad de trabajar tanto o tan poco como quieran. 

Esta propuesta puede aumentar levemente los ingresos públicos de impuestos sobre ingresos personales del estado, según un informe del Analista Legislativo. Si estas empresas ya no tienen que pagar para beneficios de empleados estatales, tarifas de entrega y viaje más bajas podrían seguir. Tarifas más baratas pueden atraer a más clientes y generar más ingresos para conductores.

Defensores de la propuesta 22 incluyen a la Conferencia Estatal NAACP de California, California Black Chamber of Commerce, California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, CalAsian Chamber of Commerce y la California Small Business Association

Quienes se oponen a la propuesta 22 incluyen al candidato a presidente Joe Biden, la candidata a vicepresidente Kamala Harris, la senadora Elizabeth Warren, la Federación Laboral de California y el Consejo de Trabajadores del Estado de California.

Propuesta 23, Iniciativa de requisitos del Clínicas de Diálisis

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 23 requeriría que Clínicas de Diálisis tengan un médico presente durante todas las horas de operación, aunque un enfermero especializado o un asistente médico pueda ser suficiente si hay una escasez de médicos en el área. 

Adicionalmente, clínicas deben reportar infecciones relacionadas con diálisis al Departamento de Salud Pública de California y a la Red Nacional de Seguridad Sanitaria cada tres meses o enfrentar multas de hasta $100.000,uscar aprobación del estado antes de cerrar o reducir el horario de la clínica, recibir aprobación del oficial principal de la clínica bajo pena de perjurio y atender a todos los pacientes sin considerar su fuente de pago por la atención.

En California hay aproximadamente 600 centros que tratan a los casi 80,000 pacientes del estado cada mes, según la Oficina del Analista Legislativo. La oficina también encontró que aproximadamente el 75% de estos centros son propiedad de dos empresas privadas con fines de lucro: Davita, Inc. y Fresenius Medical Care.

La propuesta 23 se basa en la propuesta 8 de 2018. La propuesta que fue rechazada por un margen de 2.4 millones de votos, tenía la intención de maximizar los beneficios del centro. Según Calmatters, una organización de medios no partidista que cubre la política de California, esta lucha fue la campaña electoral más cara de la historia, con Davita Inc. y Fresenius Medical Care gastando $111 millones combinados para ir en contra del sindicato Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers en 2018.

Esta propuesta probablemente aumentaría los costos del gasto estatal y local por decenas de dólares, así como el costo del servicio de diálisis debido a las demandas del personal, según la Oficina del Analista Legislativo.

Los defensores de la propuesta 23 incluyen a el Partido Democrata de California y la Federación Laboral de California.

Los opositores de la propuesta 23 incluyen a la Asociación Médica de California, Ciudadanos Pacientes de Diálisis y la Conferencia Estatal NAACP de California

Propuesta 24, Iniciativa de ley y agencia de información personal del consumidor

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 24 expandiría sobre la Ley de Privacidad del Consumidor de California de 2018, creando una nueva agencia gubernamental – la Agencia de Protección de Privacidad–diseñada para regular privacidad de datos. A los consumidores también se les permitiría cambiar información incorrecta, prohibir el intercambio de datos y proteger la “información personal confidencial”. Las sanciones por infracciones comerciales se triplicarían por infracciones de datos de menores de 16 años.

La Ley de Privacidad del Consumidor de California inicialmente les dio a los consumidores del estado opinión sobre cuánta información personal pueden recopilar las empresas. Desde entonces, las empresas deben revelar cómo se utilizan y almacenan los datos personales, permitir que los consumidores eliminen información personal, optar no vender sus datos y no pueden discriminar a los clientes por hacer algún cambio. La propuesta 24 busca reforzar aún más estas medidas de privacidad.

Organizaciones como Common Sense y Consumer Watchdog dicen que esta propuesta convertiría a California en el ejemplo de las leyes de protección de la privacidad, especialmente como un estado dirigido por grandes empresas tecnologicas.

“Especialmente después de covid, la gente será más sensible a preocupaciones sobre la privacidad”, dijo en junio el desarrollador de bienes raíces con sede en San Francisco y presidente de Californianos por la Privacidad del Consumidor, Alistair Mactaggar. Mactaggar también presionó fuertemente por la ley de privacidad de 2018.

Quienes se oponen argumentan que simplemente no ha habido tiempo suficiente para determinar qué tan efectiva es la ley de privacidad existente, ya que entró en vigencia este julio.

Tememos que la propuesta 24 le quitaría autoridad a las regulaciones de privacidad existentes en California al hacer más pesado para los consumidores prohibir a las grandes empresas tecnológicas vender sus datos confidenciales”, dijo Linda Sherry, directora de Prioridades Nacionales de Consumer Action, en una declaración.

Defensores de la propuesta 24 incluyen a Common Sense y Consumer Watchdog

Quienes se oponen a la propuesta 24 incluyen a ACLU de California, Council on Islamic American Relations – California, Consumer Federation of California y Media Alliance.

Propuesta 25, Referéndum para reemplazar la fianza en efectivo con evaluaciones de riesgo

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 25 reemplazaría el actual sistema de fianza en efectivo para los sospechosos de delitos que están detenidos con una evaluación de riesgos para determinar las condiciones de una posible liberación antes del juicio.

Actualmente, los sospechosos de delitos son elegibles para ser puestos en libertad condicional antes del juicio si se paga una fianza en efectivo y prometen regresar a la corte para su juicio y audiencias. La fianza, que se reembolsa a los sospechosos independientemente de los resultados del juicio, se puede depositar utilizando fondos personales o agentes comerciales de fianzas que cobran tarifas no reembolsables. No hay límite para cuánto pueden costar las tarifas, aunque el promedio suele ser del 10%, según el Departamento de Seguros de California.

Si se aprueba, la propuesta 25 convertiría a California en el primer estado en poner fin a la fianza en efectivo, que será reemplazada por evaluaciones que utilicen “herramientas [que] se demostrará mediante investigaciones científicas que son precisas y confiables”, según el proyecto de ley. En las evaluaciones, los presuntos delincuentes se clasificarían en una de tres categorías: riesgo bajo, medio y alto. Se denegaría la liberación antes del juicio a las personas de alto riesgo, se permitiría la liberación de bajo riesgo dadas las circunstancias específicas y el riesgo medio podría estar sujeto a cualquiera de las opciones según las reglas de la corte. A aquellos a los que se les niegue la libertad antes del juicio se les permitiría argumentar la evaluación ante un juez.

Quienes se oponen al proyecto de ley argumentan que las herramientas posibles para realizar evaluaciones conllevan el riesgo de prejuicios raciales. “Si bien todos estamos de acuerdo en que la reforma de la fianza es necesaria, este costoso e imprudente plan utilizará algoritmos informáticos con prejuicios raciales para decidir quién queda atrapado en la cárcel y quién sale libre. Eso no es correcto”, dijo el portavoz de Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme, Jeff Clayton.

Los defensores de la propuesta 25 incluyen a la representante Karen Bass, el senador estatal Scott Wiener, Partido Demócrata de California, Asociación de Maestros de California, Liga de Mujeres Votantes de California y la Asociación Médica de California

Quienes se oponen a la propuesta 25 incluyen a la Conferencia Estatal NAACP de California,California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Crime Victims United of California y la California Black Chamber of Commerce

Ang Xpress 2020 Gabay Sa Botohan sa Panukalang Balota

Ang Xpress 2020 Gabay Sa Botohan sa Panukalang Balota

Ang mga Californians ay may pagkakataong bumoto sa 12 panukalang-batas ukol sa balota sa buong estado ngayong Nobyembre. Ang iba sa mga ito ay tungkol sa mga matagal nang pinagtatalunang mga paksa, katulad ng affirmative action at rent control. Upang ang mga panukalang ito ay umabot sa balota ngayong taon, ang mga voter signature-based na panukala ay kinakailangan ng 623,212 boto para sa kusang kautusan at 997,139 para sa kusang pag amyenda sa konstitusyon. May walong panukalang itinutulak sa Voter signatures, habang ang California State Legislature ay gustong i-modify ang California Constitution gamit ang natitirang apat na panukala. 

Ang gabay na ito ay nilikha para linawin kung ano ang ibig sabihin ng mga panukala at kung sino ang sumusuporta at sumasalungat.


Proposisyon 14, Ang Stem Cell Research Institute Bond Initiative:

Kung papasa, ang panukalang ito ay maglalaan ng $5.5 billion para sa California Institute for Regenerative Medicine sa pamamagitan ng general obligation bonds, mga bonds  na suportado ng estado sa kakayahang buwisan ang mga residente para ipangbayad sa mga bondholders.

Ang Bonds na ito ay aabot ng $7.8 billions sa ipinalalagay na inaasahang $2.3 billion na tubo o interest at ito ay manggagaling sa tinatantyang taunang bayarin na $310 million sa loob ng 25 taon. Ang pangkalahatang ito o ang total ay maaring mabago o maiba ayon sa pangkasalukuyang tubo na kung kailan ang bonds ay binayaran. 

Nalikha ang CIRM pagkatapos maipasa ang Panukalang 71 noong 2004, na nagbigay ng $3 billion sa Institusyon. Sa kabuuang pondong ito, mayroon pang natitirang $132 million sa ngayong buwan ng Oktubre 2019. Natigil ang aplikasyon para sa proyekto ng CIRM noong Hulyo ng nakaraang taon dahil sa kakulangan ng pondo. Ang CIRM ay maaaring mawala sa katapusan ng taong 2023 kung walang karagdagang pondong ibibigay para dito. 

Ang Proposisyon 14 ay magpapakita kung paano gastusin ang pondo ng CIRM. Ang pondo ay gagamitin lamang para sa pananaliksik ng tungkol sa stem cell at gastusin sa pasilidad para masimulan ito, na may nakalaang 7.5% na gagastusin para sa operasyon nito. Maglalaan din ng $1.5 billion para sa neurological disorder therapies at treatment methods; 1.5% din ang ilalaan para sa human clinical trials, treatments at cure facilities; at 0.5% naman sa mga pasilidad na pinopondohan ng estado sa ilalim ng Shared Labs Program.

Kung ang Proposisyon na ito ay maipasa, mababago rin ang pamamalakad ng CIRM. Ang bilang ng mga miyembro na namamahala ng CIRM sa ilalim ng Independent Citizens’ Oversight Committee ay magiging 35 mula sa ngayong 29 na miyembro. Magdaragdag din ng pang apat na advising group sa ICOC na nakalaan lamang sa paggagamot at pagpapagaling, sa kasalukuyang mga grupo sa medical research funding, research standards and facilities grants. Ang CIRM ay maglalagay rin ng hangganan para sa mga regular na empleyado at programang pagsasanay o training programs para sa mga undergraduate at graduate na estudyante na interesado sa pananaliksik tungkol sa stem cell.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 14: UC Board of Regents

Mga kumakalaban sa Proposisyon 14: Center for Genetics and Society


Proposisyon 15, Bono sa mga Ari-Ariang Pang Komersyal at Industriyal para sa Edukasyon at lokal na Gobyerno na Pondong Inisyatiba

Kung ang Proposisyon 15 ay papasa, lahat ng ari-ariang pang komersyal at industriyal ay bubuwisan maliban sa mga agrikulturang komersyal batay sa kasalukuyang halaga sa pamilihan at hindi sa inisyal na presyo ng pagkakabili rito. Ang pagbabagong ito ay magsisimula sa taong 2022-2023.

Ang mga ari-arian ay kasalukuyang binubuwisan batay sa pagkakabili dito at ito ay tumataas ng 2% kada taon o tumataas katumbas ng rate of inflation – kung alin ang mas mababa.

Ang mga ari-ariang residensyal at agrikultural  at mga nagmamay-ari ng mga ari-ariang komersyal at industrial na may pinagsamang halagang $3 million o mas mababa ay hindi saklaw sa Proposisyon 15.

Ang naipon na pera galing sa proposisyon 15 ay unang mapupunta sa implementasyon ng mga gastusin ng county at pupunta sa estado para matugunan ang pagbabawas ng kita dahil sa tumaas na bawas sa buwis. Ang natitirang kita ay hahatiin, sa halip na mapupunta sa General Fund– 60% ay pupunta sa pamahalaang lokal at sa mga espesyal na distrito at ang natitirang 40% ay pupunta sa mga distrito ng eskwelahan at kolehiyong komunidad sa bagong Local School and Community College Property Tax Fund.

Ang karagdagang paghahati-hati  ng pera tungo sa edukasyon ay ganito: 89% para sa eskwelahang pangpubliko at sa mga charter schools at mga opisinang edukasyonal sa isang county; 11% para sa kolehiyong komunidad; at may dagdag na hindi bababa ng $100 para sa lahat ng eskwelahan per full time student (adjusted annually).

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 15: Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; Sen. Bernie Sanders; California State Sen. Scott Wiener; San Francisco Mayor London Breed; Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf; at Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti. Los Angeles at San Francisco school districts.

Mga kumakalaban sa Proposisyon 15: California Black Chamber of Commerce; California Small Business Association; California NAACP State Conference; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce

Proposisyon 16, Ipawalang Bisa ang Proposisyon 209 Affirmative Action Amendment

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 16 ay magpapawalang-bisa sa Proposisyon 209 na ipinanukala  noong 1996, na kung saan  nagbigay daan sa mga pang publikong trabaho, edukasyon at pagkontrata na ginagawang batayan ang lahi, kasarian, kulay, etnisidad at pambansang lahi kapag pumipili ng mga aplikante para sa trabaho at pagtanggap sa mga public schools.

Upang malinawan, ang Affirmative Action sa porma ng racial quotas, ay itinuring na hindi naaayon sa konstitusyon noong 1978, sa ilalim ng kaso ng kataaas-taasang korte ng Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Sinabi rin ng Korte Suprema na anumang anyo ng affirmative action ay dapat suriing mabuti. 

Ang kahilingan para sa affirmative action ay lumago mula sa pagnanais ng mga sumusuporta para sa  more diverse college campuses. Pagkatapos maipatupad ang Proposisyon 209 noong 1998, ang California State University nakapagtala ng pagbaba ng two-thirds sa minority enrollment sa buong estado at ang University of California ay nasaksihan ang pagbaba ng underrepresented groups — Black, Latino, Pacific Islander at American Indian — mula sa 20% noong 1995 sa 15%. 

Ang mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 16 ay nagsasabi na ito ay magkakaroon ng diskriminasyon sa mga karapat-dapat na mga estudyante at aplikante dahil sila ay dinidisisyunan batay sa kanilang lahi o ninuno kaysa sa merito. Nabanggit ng dating California 12th Congressional District Rep. Tom Campbell na ang mga Asian-American ay bumubuo ng 15.3% ng populasyon sa California, pero 39.72% ang mga nagpatala sa UC. Idinagdag pa niya na ang proposisyon na ito ay gagawa ng tensyon sa pagitan ng Asian-American, Black at Latino communities, dahil “ang politika ay hindi maiiwasang problemang lahi.”

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 16: Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; UC Board of Regents; CSU Chancellor Timothy P. White; at ang Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus.

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 16: San Diego Asian Americans for Equality; Asian American Coalition for Education; at the Pacific Legal Foundation

Proposisyon 17, Pagbabalik ng Karapatang Bumoto Pagkatapos Makumpleto ang Sentensya sa Pagkabilanggo

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 17 ay magbabalik sa 57,000 Californians ng karapatang bumoto sa parole para sa mga felony convictions.

Sa kasalukuyan, ang mga nasa parole dahil sa felonies ay hindi pinapayagang bumoto hanggang makumpleto nila ang kanilang parole. Kung papasa, ang California ay magiging ika-20th state na papayagan ang mga parolees para bumoto. Sa ngayon, ang California ay isa sa tatlong estado na nangangailangang makumpleto ang parole upang maibalik ang karapatan nilang bumoto. Sa California, ang mga nakabilanggo sa estado at pederal na mga kulungan, mga bilanggo na may mga felony sentence sa mga estadong kulungan, mga naghihintay ng paglipat dahil sa felony convictions o ang mga bilanggo na lumabag sa kanilang parole, ay hindi pinapayagang makaboto.  

Ang Proposisyon 17 ay bibigyan din ng pansin ang mga nakakulong na Blacks at Latinos. Ayon sa pag-aaral na ginawa noong 2016 ng Public Policy Institute of California, ang mga African-Amerticans na bumubuo ng 6% ng mga may edad ng populasyon sa estado,  26% sa mga ito ay nabigyan ng parole. Sa mga Latinos na bumubuo ng 35% sa may edad na populasyon ay nakapagtala ng 40% sa mga ito na nabigyan ng parole. Ang mga White naman na may 26% sa may edad na populasyon ay nagkaroon ng 7% na nabigyan ng parole.   

Ang mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 17 ay nagsasabing ang karapatang bumoto ay hindi dapat maibalik hanggat hindi pa nakukumpleto ng mga nahatulang bilanggo ang kanilang mga sintensiya.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 17 ay binubuo ng: Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris, State Senator Scott Wiener, ACLU of California; and League of Women Voters of California

Hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 17: The Election Integrity Project California

Proposisyon 18, Pagbabago ng Primary Voting para sa mga 17-Taong-Gulang

Kung ang Proposisyon 18 ay papasa, papayagang bumoto ang mga kabataang may edad na 17 sa primary election kung ang mga ito ay magiging 18 taong gulang bago magkaroon ng general election.

Kung ang Proposisyon 18 ay maisasakatuparan, ang California ang magiging ika-19 na estado, kasabay ng Washington DC, na pinapayagang bumoto sa sa primary election ang mga kabataang may edad na 17 ayon sa panukala.

Bagama’t wala pang eksaktong bilang ng mga kabataang may edad na 17 na mabibigyan ng karapatang bumoto, ang Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health ay tinatayang lampas sa 2 million na kabataan sa Estado ng California ay nasa pagitang edad na 14 at 17.

Ang panukalang ito ay nauna ng iharap ng South San Francisco Assemblyman Gene Mullin noong taong 2004. Noong nakaraang taon, ang kanyang anak na si San Mateo Assemblyman Kevin Mullin ay muling iniharap ang panukalang ito. Ito ang kanyang ikaanim na pagtatangka, at ito ang unang pagkakataon na ang panukala ay umabot sa Kamara. Ito ay pumasa sa bipartisan vote na 29-2, na kung saan may 2 Republican na Senador na sumang-ayon at bumoto para sa panukalang ito.

Ang California Association of Student Councils ay nagsasabi na ang Proposisyon na ito ay siyang magtatama sa mga “kawalan” na kinakaharap ng mga kabataang ito, na kung saan sila ay hindi pinapayagang magkaroon ng pagkakataong mailahad ang kanilang nais na maisama sa general election ballot. “Dahil sa kawalan ng pagkakataong sumali sa proseso ng eleksyon, hindi nila maipahayag ang kanilang makabuluhang pagboto sa general election,” ayon sa binasang pahayag ng Asosasyon.

Ang Election Integrity Project California, Inc.  ay nagsabi na dahil sa ang mga 17 gulang na kabataan ay kinokonsidera  pa ring menor de edad, malaki pa rin ang impluwensiya ng kanilang mga magulang o ng mga mas nakatataas sa kanila. “Dahilan ito upang hindi nila maipapahayag ang kanilang sariling pag-iisip o kagustuhan kung sila ay papayagang bumoto,” ayon sa Grupong ito.   

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 18: The California Association of Student Councils

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 18: The Election Integrity Project California

Proposisyon 19, Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, at Revenue para sa Wildfire Agencies at Counties Amendment

Kung papasa, papayagan ng Proposisyon 19 ang mga karapat-dapat na nagmamay-ari ng bahay na ilipat ang kanilang property tax sa mas mamahaling bahay saan man sa estado na may inayos na tax rate, sa halip na bagong rate. Maproprotektahan nito ang mga may-ari ng bahay sa pagbabayad ng karagdagang buwis para sa ari-arian na mas nababagay sa kanilang pangangailangan. Ang mga matatandang nagmamay-ari ng bahay at ang may mga kapansanan ay mayroong tatlong pagkakataong makalipat sa kanilang bagong bahay kaysa sa isang beses lamang. Ang mga biktima ng natural na sakuna o disaster ay hindi papayagang lumipat ng higit pa sa isang beses.

Sa kasalukuyan, ang mga may-ari ng bahay na may kapansanan at may edad na higit sa 55 taon o mga biktima ng natural na sakuna o disaster ay pwedeng ilipat ang kanilang property tax rates mula sa kanilang orihinal na property kung sila ay lumipat sa bagong bahay na may parehas o mas mababang halaga sa loob ng parehong county.  Upang ang pagbabagong ito ay maisakatuparan, ang paglipat sa bagong bahay ay nararapat na maging pangunahing tirahan at magagamit lamang sa unang $1 milyon sa pagitan ng orihinal na presyo ng pagbili at sa halaga ng merkado.

Ang mga mina-nang ari-arian, tulad ng mga bahay bakasyunan, ay dapat ding sumunod sa buwis ayon sa makabagong halaga ng merkado at kung ang halaga ng presyo ng pagbili ay hihigit sa $1 milyon. Anumang karagdagang kita sa buwis ay mapupunta sa California Fire Response Fund at County Revenue Protection Fund at ito ay mapupunta sa pondo para sa mga tauhan ng pagpigil sa sunog at sa mga full-time station personnel.

Dahil sa mungkahi ng Proposisyon na taasan ang buwis sa mga minanang ari-arian, ito ay magbibigay ng sampu sampung milyong dolyar sa antas ng lokal at estado ayon sa pahayag ng pananalapi o fiscal statement, kasama ang pagpopondo sa protekson ng eskwelahan at sunog.

Ang mga nagtaguyod nito ang nagsabi na hindi lamang ito makakatulong sa mga biktima ng natural na sakuna o disaster upang madaling makakita ng bahay sa mas mamahaling merkado, ito rin ay magbubukas ng mas maraming bahay pang pamilya sa dahilang ang mga matatandang may ari ay lumipat sa mas maliit na ari-arian. Ito rin daw ay isasara ang loophole na nagpapahintulot sa mga mayayaman na hindi nakatira sa California iwasang magbayad ng isang “patas na bahagi ng mga buwis sa pag-aari sa mga bahay bakasyunan, mga pag-aari ng kita, at mga upahan sa dalampasigan na pagmamay-ari nila sa California.” 

Ang mga hindi sumasang-ayon ay nagsabing ito ay binagong bersyon lamang ng dating bersyon ng nabigong proposisyon na maraming bumoto laban dito.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 19: California Professional Firefighters Union; Californians for Disability Rights; California Senior Advocates League 

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 19: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Proposisyon 20, Criminal Sentencing, Parole at DNA Collection Initiative

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 20 ay magkakaroon ng karagdagang paghihigpit sa pagiging karapatdapat na mabigyan ng parole  para sa mga nakakulong na nahatulan dahil sa mga hindi mararahas na krimen. Upang mabigyan ng parole, ang parole review board ay kailangang ikonsidera  ang mga karagdagang kadahilanan tulad ng relasyon nila sa kanilang pamilya, edad, kabutihan ng pag-iisip, at ang pag-uugali tungkol sa krimen kasama na ang naging kondisyon sa krimen.

Ang Proposiyon na ito ay pagbubukud-bukurin ang mga 51 na pagkakasala bilang marahas na krimen o mga pagkakasala na hindi karapat-dapat na mabigyan ng parole. Ang mga krimen tulad ng pagnanakaw ng baril, pandaraya ng credit card at mga organisadong krimen ay tinutukoy bilang “wobblers” — mga krimen na maaring ihabla bilang isang misdemeanor o felony batay sa mga pangyayari. Ang mga partikular na wobblers o felonies — pagnanakaw sa tindahan, prostitusyon sa mga menor de edad, pagdadala ng droga — ay mangangailangang magbigay ang mga nagkasala ng DNA sample para sa state database.

Tinantiya ng Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance na ang Proposisyon na ito ay magkakahalaga sa estado at local correctional facitilies ng sampu-sampung milyong dolyar dahil sa lalong malaking multa para sa mga pagnanakaw. Maari ring magastusan ng ilang milyong dolyar kada taon ang estado at local courts dahil sa mas mahigpit na kwalipikasyon sa probasyon at pagkaso ng felony.

Sa ngayon, ang estado ay mayroong listahan ng mga krimen na pinayagang mabigyan ng mas maikling sentensiya sa ilalim ng Proposisyon 57 ng 2016, isang pagsisikap na hikayatin ang mga nakakulong na lumahok sa mga programang rehabilitasyon. Kabilang sa mga krimen sa listahan ay: pang-aabuso ng asawa; human trafficking ng mga bata; at panggagahasa.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 20: Orange County Board of Supervisors; Los Angeles Police Protective League; and Peace Officers Research Association of California.

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 20: dating Gov. Jerry Brown; ACLU of Northern California; at SEIU California State Council.

Proposisyon 21, Inisyatiba ng Kontrol sa Upa

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 21 ay papayagan ang mga pamahalaang lokal na gumawa ng rent control para sa mga bahay na higit na sa 15 taong gulang na pag-aari ng mga landlords na may higit sa dalawang ari-arian. Ito ay nagbabago sa Proposisyon 10 na tinanggihan noong taong 2018.

Ang Proposisyon 21 ay papayagan din ang mga pag-aari sa ilalim ng rent control na magtaas ng buwanang renta ng “hanggang 15% mahigit  sa tatlong taon mula sa nakaraang renta higit sa anumang pagtaas na pinapayagan sa local ordinance,” ayon sa buod ng Proposisyon sa balota. Ang Proposisyon na ito ay papalitan ang kasalukuyang batas sa local rent control. 

Sa palagay ng Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance, ang Proposisyon na ito ay maaaring mabawasan ang kikitain ng lokal at ng estado ng sampu-sampung milyon dolyar kada taon, batay sa gagawin ng pamahalaang lokal.

Ang rent control sa California ay isang malawak na pinagtatalunang paksa — 56 sa 58 California counties ay hindi sumasang-ayon sa rent control noon 2018. Subalit, ibinunyag ng 2018 polling na karamihan ng Californians ay pabor sa rent control, pero tinanggihan ang mga detalye ng dating Proposisyon.

Ang mga sumasang-ayon ay naniniwala na poprotektahan ng rent control ang lower income at middle class na mamamayan na mapaalis sa kanilang tinitirhan, lalo na sa mga lungsod na may limitadong tirahan dahil sa mataas na populasyon, kagaya ng San Francisco.

Ang mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon ay sinasabi na ito ay magbibigay pangamba sa mga private sector na magtayo ng mga murang pabahay sa merkado. Maluwag na regulasyon sa permitting processes at zoning ay maari itong gawing posible.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 21: Sen. Bernie Sanders; Rep. Barbara Lee; Rep. Maxine Waters; the AIDS Healthcare Foundation; Urban League of Los Angeles; at the Eviction Defense Network

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 21: President Sid Larkey of the California Rental Housing Association; Californians for Responsible Housing; State Building and Construction Trades Council of California; and the California NAACP State Conference

Proposisyon 22, App-Based Drivers as Contractors at Labor Policies Initiative

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 22 ay tutukuyin ang rideshare at delivery drivers bilang mga independyenteng kontratista. Sa halip na sundin ang mga benepisyong state-wide at ang kasamang proteksyon ng mga empleyado, ang mga kumpanyang ito ay kinakailangang magkaroon ng mga alternatibong benepisyo na makakatugon sa mga detalye ng kanilang mga manggagawa, kasama na nang “pinakamababang kabayaran at mga subsidyo sa healthcare batay sa nakatuon na oras ng pagmamaneho, seguro sa sasakyan, pagsasanay sa kaligtasan at mga patakaran sa panliligalig sekswal,” ayon sa buod ng estado tungkol sa proposisyon. 

Ang Proposisyon na ito ay magpapawalang bisa sa California Assembly Bill 5 tungkol sa mga app-based drivers. Ito ay isang tugon sa kaso ng Korte Suprema ng 2018 Dynamex Operations West, Inc v. Superior Court, na pinag-uri ang karamihan sa mga manggagawa sa estado bilang empleyado sa halip na independyenteng kontratista, kung ang employer ay hindi kayang patunayan ang bawat bahagi ng three part test

Sa ilalim ng AB 5, kung ang employer ay nabigong patunayan ang tatlong sangkap ng pagsusuri, ang empleyado ay may karapatan magkaroon ng minimum wage, health insurance at sick leave. Sa ilalim ng Proposisyon 22, ang mga employers ay kailangan uriin ang mga app-based drivers bilang mga independiyenteng kontratista maliban kung ang kumpanya ay magtatakda ng mga oras ng pagmamaneho, humingi ng pagtanggap ng partikular na sakay o hatid, o ipinagbabawal magtrabaho sa iba pang mga kumpanya. 

App-based delivery services at ride-share programs kagaya ng Uber, Lyft at Doordash ay humihingi ng eksepsiyon, dahil ang kanilang istruktura ng negosyo ay nakasalalay sa digitally based gig-workers na may kalayaang magtrabaho ng ayon sa kanilang kagustuhan.

Ang proposisyon na ito ay magtataas ng kaunti ang state personal income tax revenue, ayon sa ulat ng Legislative Analyst. Kung ang mga kumpanyang ito ay hindi na kailangan magbayad para sa mga benepisyo ng empleyado ng estado, bababa ang delivery at rideshare rates. Pag mas mababa and rates, mas maraming parokyano, at mas malaking kita para sa mga drivers.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 22: California NAACP State Conference; California Black Chamber of Commerce; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; CalAsian Chamber of Commerce; and the California Small Business Association

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 22: Democratic Party nominee Joe Biden; Democratic Party VP nominee Kamala Harris; Sen. Elizabeth Warren; California Labor Federation; and California State Council of Laborers

Proposisyon 23, Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 23 ay mag-aatas na magkaroon ng doktor sa mga Chronic Dialysis Clinics anumang oras ng kanilang operasyon,  bagaman at isang nurse practitioner o physician’s assistant ay sapat na kung napatunayan na may kakulangan ng mga doktor sa lugar.

Bilang karagdagan, ang mga klinika ay dapat: i-ulat ang mga impeksyong konektado sa dialysis sa California Department of Public Health at National Healthcare Safety Networks kada tatlong buwan o magmumulta na aabot ng $100,000; humingi ng pahintulot sa estado bago baguhin ang mga oras ng klinika; makatanggap ng pahintulot mula sa punong opisyal ng klinika sa ilalim ng parusa ng perjury; at paglingkuran ang bawat pasyente anuman ang kanilang pagkukunan ng pang bayad para sa pangangalaga.

Sa California, mayroong humigit-kumulang 600 centers na nangangalaga sa halos 80,000 na mga pasyente bawat buwan, ayon sa Legislative Analyst’s Office. Nalaman din ng tanggapan na humigi-kumulang 75% ng mga sentro na ito ay pagmamay-ari ng dalawang for-profit, pribadong mga kumpanya: Davita, Inc. at Fresenius Medical Care.

Ang Proposisyon 23 ay binuo ayon sa Proposisyon 8 noong 2018. Ang Proposisyon na tinanggihan ng 2.4 milyong boto, ay inilaan upang mapalaki ang kita ng mga centers. Ayon sa Calmatters, isang nonpartisan media organization na sumasaklaw sa patakaran ng California, ang laban para sa proposisyon na ito ay ang pinakamahal na kampanyang balota kung saan ang Davita, Inc. at Fresenius Medical Care ay gumastos ng $111 milyon upang hamunin ang Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers union noong 2018. 

Ang Proposisyon na ito ay malamang na tumaas ang mga gastusin ng pang-estado at lokal na gobyerno ng sampu-sampung milyong dolyar, pati ang gastos ng serbisyong dialysis dahil sa pangangailangan ng mga tauhan, ayon sa Legislative Analyst’s Office.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 23: California Democratic Party; California Labor Federation

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 23: California Medical Association; Dialysis Patient Citizens; California NAACP State Conference.

Proposisyon 24, Mga Batas sa Pribadong Impormasyon ng Mamimili at Agency Initiative

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 24 ay lalawak sa ilalim ng California Consumer Privacy Act ng 2018, at ito ay lilikha ng bagong ahensya ng gobyerno — ang Privacy Protection Agency, na idnisenyo upang makontrol ang data privacy. Papayagan din ang mga mamimili na baguhin ang maling impormasyon, pagbawalan ang pagbabahagi ng data sa iba at protektahan ang “sensistibong personal na impormasyon.” Ang parusa sa paglabag ay triple para sa mga data violations ng mga menor de edad 16 at mas mababa. 

Ang California Consumer Privacy Act ay una ng nabigyan ang mga mamimili sa California na sabihin kung gaano kalaki at anong impormasyon lamang ang maaaring kolektahin ng mga nagnenegosyo. Simula noon ay kailangang ipaalam ng mga nagnenegosyo sa mga mamimili kung paano ginagamit at itinatago ang mga personal data, payagan ang mga mamimili na magtanggal ng impormasyon, hindi sumang-ayon sa pagbenta ng kanilang data at hindi pwedeng tanggihan ang mga parokyano na gawin ito.  Ang Proposition 24 ay naghahangad na lalong palawigin ang mga hakbang ukol sa privacy.  

Sinasabi ng mga samahan kagaya ng Common Sense at Consumer Watchdog na ang Proposisyon na ito ay magiging halimbawa ang California tungkol sa privacy protection laws, lalo na sa kadahilanang maraming malalaking tech companies ang nasa California. 

“Lalo na sa post-COVID, ang mamamayan ay magiging mas sensitibo sa kanilang alalahanin sa privacy,” ayon sa San Francisco-based real estate developer at pinuno ng Californians para sa Consumer Privacy na si Alastair Mactaggar noong Hunyo. Si Mactaggar ay nanguna rin sa pagtulak ng 2018 privacy act.

Sinasabi ng mga hindi sumasang-ayon na wala pang sapat na panahon para malaman kung gaano kabisa ang privacy act dahil ito ay naging epektibo lamang noong Hulyo.

“Nangangamba kami na mabalewala ng Proposisyon 24 ang mga umiiral na regulasyong pang pribado na maging pabigat ito sa mga mamimili na pagbawalan ang mga Big Tech Companies na ibenta ang kanilang kumpidensyal na data,” ayon sa pahayag ni Linda Sherry, Director ng National Priorities sa Consumer Action.

Mga sumusuporta sa Proposisyon 24: Common Sense; Consumer Watchdog

Mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 24L ACLU of California; Council on Islamic American Relations – California; Consumer Federation of California; Media Alliance

Proposisyon 25, Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum

Kung papasa, ang Proposisyon 25 ay papalitan ang kasalukuyang sistema ng piyansa para sa mga hinihinalang kriminal na nakakulong na may risk assessment upang matukoy ang mga kondisyon ng potensyal pre-trial release. 

Sa ngayon, ang mga hinihinalang kriminal ay pinapayagang makalaya bago makarating sa hukuman  kung ang piyansa ay nai-post at nangakong babalik sa korte para sa kanilang paglilitis at pagdinig. Ang piyansa, na kung saan ito ay ibinabalik sa hinihinalang kriminal at hindi alintana kung ano man ang kalalabasan ng paglilitis, ay pwedeng i-post gamit ang personal na pananalapi o komersyal na mga ahente ng bail bond na sumisingil ng karampatang halaga na hindi maibabalik. Walang limitasyon kung magkano o gaano kalaki ang halaga na sinisingil ng mga ahente ng bail bond ngunit ang average na singil ay 10% ayon sa California Department of Insurance 

Kung ang Proposisyon 25 ay papasa, ang California ang magiging kauna unahang estado na magtapos ng cash bail, na papalitan ng pagtatasa o assessment gamit ang “mga pamamaraan na nagpakita ng siyentipikong pananaliksik na tumpak at maaasahan,” ayon sa panukala. Sa pagtatasa o assessment, ang mga hinihinalang kriminal ay ikakategorya sa isa sa tatlong kategorya: mababa, katamtaman at napakadelikado. Ang mga hinihinalang kriminal na makategorya na napakadelikado ay hindi papayagang makalaya bago pa man silang iharap sa hukuman, ang mababang kategorya ay papayagang makalaya batay sa pangyayari at ang katamtamang kategorya ay papayagang makipagtalo sa hukom sa pagtatasa o assessment.  

Ang mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon ay nagsabi na ang assessment tools ay may peligrong may kaakibat na racial bias. “Bagama’t lahat tayo ay sumasang-ayon na ang bail reform ay kailangan, ang magastos at madaliang planong ito ay gagamit ng racially-biased computer algorithms upang magdesisyon kung sino ang mananatili sa bilangguan o sino ang makakalaya, at iyon ay hindi tama,” ayon kay Jeff Clayton na tagapagsalita ng Californians Against the Reckless Bail Scheme.

Ang mga sumusuporta sa Proposition 25: Rep. Karen Bass; state Sen. Scott Wiener; California Democratic Party; California Teachers Association; League of Women Voters of California; at ang California Medical Association

Ang mga hindi sumasang-ayon sa Proposisyon 25: California NAACP State Conference; California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce; Crime Victims United of California; California Black Chamber of Commerce; California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce; at ang California Small Business Association 


The Xpress 2020年加州选票投票指南

The Xpress 2020年加州选票投票指南

加州人可以选择在11月对全州12项投票措施进行投票。 其中一些涉及长期争议的主题,例如平权行动和租金控制。 为了使一个提案能够在今年进行投票,选民签名基于提案上需要要求623,212的票是倡议法规,997,139票用于宪法修正案。 选民签名推动了八项提案的提出,而加利福尼亚州立法机构正试图用其他四项提案来修改《加州宪法》。

The Xpress创建了《加利福尼亚州选票计量投票指南》以阐明每个提案的含义,以及提到了谁支持和反对每个提案。



考虑到预计的利息收入为23亿美元,这些债券加起来将达到约78亿美元,并分为25年的估计年付款3.1亿美元。 该总额可能会根据利率和债券的支付时间而变化。

CIRM是在2004年第71号提案通过后成立的,为该研究所拨款30亿美元。 在这笔资金中,截至2019年10月仍为1.32亿美元。由于有可用资金,CIRM于去年7月中止了项目申请。 如果没有额外的资金,CIRM有望在2023年结束。

提案14项将概述CIRM的支出方式。 资金将仅用于干细胞研究和设施启动成本,其中7.5%用于运营成本。 将分配15亿美元用于神经系统疾病的疗法和治疗方法; 人体临床试验,治疗和治愈设施1.5%; 国家资助的设施在共享实验室项目0.5%以下。

如果提案通过,CIRM也将改变其运作方式。 独立公民监督委员会下负责管理CIRM的成员将从目前的29个增加到35个。ICOC的第四个咨询小组,专门针对治疗和治疗,将增加到已经存在的医学研究经费小组中, 研究标准和设施补助金。 CIRM还将为对干细胞研究感兴趣的本科生和研究生建立全职员工上限和培训计划。





如果该法案获得通过,提案15将根据其当前市场价值而不是其初始购买价格对所有商业和工业物业(除商业性农业以外)征税。 这一转变将在2022-23财年开始。

目前房地产按购买价格征税,并且每年增长2%或   等于通货膨胀率的增长—以较低者为准。


从提案15项收集的资金将首先支付给县的实施成本,然后去州政府补充因税收减免增加而导致的收入减少。 剩下的收入将被分割,而不是进入普通基金——60%给地方政府和特别行政区,40%给学区和社区大学,建立在一个新成立的地方学校和社区大学财产税基金中。


15项提案的支持者包括:民主党副总统候选人Kamala Harris;参议员Bernie Sanders;加利福尼亚州参议员State Sen. Scott Wiener;旧金山市长London Breed;奥克兰市长Libby Schaaf;还有洛杉矶市长Eric Garcetti。洛杉矶和旧金山学区也支持这项提议。







反对第16项提案的人认为,它会歧视那些更有资格的学生和申请者,并根据他们的血统而不是优点来评判个人。前加州第12届国会选区众议员汤姆·坎贝尔(Tom Campbell)提到,亚裔美国人占加州人口的15.3%,但在加州大学入学率中却占39.72%。他补充说,这一提议将在亚裔美国人、黑人和拉丁裔社区之间制造紧张关系,因为“政治不可避免地带有种族色彩”。

第16项提案的支持者包括:民主党副总统候选人Kamala Harris;加州大学董事会;CSU大法官Timothy P. White;以及亚太岛民立法党团。






第17项提案还将涉及大规模监禁黑人和拉丁美洲人的问题。加州公共政策研究所(Public Policy Institute of California)在2016年的一项研究中发现,占加州成年人口6%的非裔美国人占假释人口的26%。同样,拉美裔占成年人口的35%,占假释人口的40%。白人占成年人口的26%,占假释人口的7%。


第17项提案的支持者包括:民主党副总统候选人Kamala Harris;州参议员斯Scott Wiener;ACLU加州;以及加州妇女选民联盟

第17项提案的反对者包括:The Election Integrity Project California




虽然目前还没有确切的统计数字,但据Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health在加利福尼亚州年龄在14至17岁之间的人口超过200万。

这项法案最初是由南旧金山州议员Gene Mullin在2004年提出的。去年,Mullin的儿子,圣马特奥州议员Kevin Mullin再次提出了该法案。这是他的第六次尝试,但这是第一次进入参议院。该法案以29比2的两党投票通过了,其中有两名共和党参议员投了赞成票。















第19项提案的反对者包括: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association








第20项提案的反对者包括:前州长Jerry Brown;北加利福尼亚州的美国公民自由联盟;还有SEIU加州国务院。









提议21项的支持者包括:参议员Bernie Sanders;众议员Barbara Lee;众议员Maxine Waters;艾滋病保健基金会;洛杉矶城市联盟;和驱逐防御网

提议21项的反对者包括:加州房屋租赁协会主席Sid Larkey;负责任住房的加利福尼亚人;加州国家建筑贸易委员会;和加州NAACP州会议



提案22项遵循了加州议会法案5的制定,该法案是对2018年最高法院对Dynamex Operations West,Inc.的回应,该法案将该州的大多数工人归为雇员而不是独立承包商,从而使他们获得了诸如最低工资,健康保险和病假。




提案22项的反对者包括:民主党提名候选人Joe Biden;民主党副总统提名人Kamala Harris参议员Elizabeth Warren;加州劳工联合会;和加利福尼亚州劳工委员会





立法分析办公室称,在加利福尼亚州大约有600个中心,每月治疗该州近80,000名患者。该办公室还发现这些中心中约有75%属于两家以营利为目的的私营公司:Davita,Inc.和Fresenius Medical Care。

第23项提案以2018年第8号提案为基础。该提案以240万张选票被拒绝,旨是最大化中心利润。根据涵盖加利福尼亚州政策的无党派媒体组织Calmatters的说法,这场命题之战是有史以来最昂贵的投票活动,Davita,Inc.和Fresenius Medical Care共同花费了1.11亿美元来对抗2018年的国际服务员工联盟-联合医疗保健工作者工会。








Common Sense和Consumer Watchdog等组织表示,这一主张将使加利福尼亚成为隐私保护法的榜样,尤其是作为由大型科技公司运营的州。

总部位于旧金山的房地产开发商,加州消费者隐私保护委员会主席Alastair Mactaggar于6月表示:“尤其是在COVID发布后,人们将对隐私问题变得更加敏感。” Mactaggar还大力推动了2018年的隐私法案。


消费者行动国家优先事项主管Linda Sherry在一份声明中说:“我们担心,提案24将使消费者承受更大的负担,禁止大科技公司出售其机密数据,从而破坏了加利福尼亚的现有隐私法规。”

提议24项的支持者包括:Common Sense; Consumer Watchdog






反对该法案的人认为,进行评估的潜在工具带有种族偏见的风险。 “虽然我们都同意必须进行保释改革,但这项昂贵而鲁莽的计划将使用种族偏见的计算机算法来确定谁被判入狱以及谁获释。这是不对的,”反对鲁莽保释计划的加利福尼亚州发言人Jeff Clayton说。

提议25项的支持者包括:众议员Karen Bass;州参议员斯科特·维纳(Scott Wiener);加州民主党;加州教师协会;加利福尼亚妇女选民联盟;和加利福尼亚医学协会



Leave a Comment
About the Contributors
Photo of Chris Ramirez
Chris Ramirez
Chris Ramirez is a senior at SF State who will graduate in May. He is double majoring in journalism and German and minoring in political science. He serves as editor-in-chief for SF State's student publication, the Golden Gate Xpress and is the spring California intern at POLITICO.

Chris lives in San Francisco and hails from Southern California. In his free time, he enjoys reading, running and living vicariously through the women on The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills. After graduating, he looks forward to catching up on some much-needed sleep.
Photo of Olivia Wynkoop
Olivia Wynkoop
Olivia Wynkoop is a 3rd year online/print journalism student, political science nerd and big-time sushi lover. She's currently the managing editor of Golden Gate Xpress and a reporter at the SF Examiner.

A textbook Gemini, Wynkoop's passion to learn and connect with others drives her to pursue all sorts of human-interest topics -- whether that's covering LGBTQ+ movements in the Castro, advocating for international students during an F-1 visa scare or documenting first-time freshmen experience college in a virtual world.

Other interests include listening to live jazz, finding her inner zen in daily yoga practice and planning international trips with her family.
Photo of Jian Yang
Jian Yang
Hey! My name is Jian Yang, I'm a 24 years old Journalism major, and I'm an international student from China. I'm currently serving as the News Reporter for Golden Gate Xpress and I'm set to graduate this Spring.
Photo of Andres Velasquez
Andres Velasquez
Andres Velasquez as born-and-raised in San Francisco. Andres went to City College of San Francisco for two years before transferring to San Francisco State University in Fall 2019. He decided to pursue journalism after my first semester at CCSF with the intention of combining his talent for writing with his love of sports. His main interests are soccer, basketball and American football. During his time at CCSF Andres covered the school's women's tennis team for the second half the Spring 2017 semester for The Guardsman, CCSF's student publication.

[email protected]


Golden Gate Xpress • Copyright 2024 • FLEX WordPress Theme by SNOLog in

Comments (0)

All Golden Gate Xpress Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *