Election voting has now been closed. Thank you for participating!
Proposition 51, authorizes $9 billion in general bonds, controlled by the state, to modernize and construct facilities for K-12 public schools, charter schools, and community colleges. Proposition 51 is supported by the Cajon Valley Union School District, California’s Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, and the California Democratic and Republican Parties. Supporters argue that proposition 51 will make schools more educationally accessible to California residents and improve the safety of schools by meeting earthquake and fire codes. However, opponents of proposition 51 including Governor Jerry Brown, the California Taxpayers Action Network, and third parties, such as the Libertarian and Green Parties argue that school bonds are most accountable in local communities, and not in the hands of the state government. Opponents also claim that the $9 billion in bonds will place California under more debt.
Proposition 52 will require that hospitals pay their Medi-cal fee permanently. In other words, private hospitals currently pay their medi-cal fee,however,those fees are set to end in 2018.
This fee is called the “Hospital Quality Assurance Fee” in which was first collected during the year of 2009. The current amount that the state charges private hospitals is $4.6 billion(dollars) which finances the country’s share of increased Medi-Cal benefits. With those requirements, proposition 52 claims that it will help accomplish all of those goals. Supporters of proposition 52 include the Association of hospitals or Hospitals, and non-profit healthcare organizations. Opponents of the proposition include Californians for Hospitals Accountability and Quality Care and the California Libertarian Party . Opponents argue that it will remove $3 billion in taxpayer dollars and will direct that money to hospital CEOs.
The proposition would impose voter approval for infrastructure-related revenue bonds that total $2 billion or more. However, the fiscal impact on state and local governments is still undetermined. Proposition 53 allows voters have a say in what projects that their state and local governments undertake. Supporters claim that Proposition 53 allows voters to be informed of state and local projects totaling over $2 billion. Support funds have come in at over $14 million, coming from Republican affiliates and taxpayer associations. Opponents argue that local decisions would have to be made at the state level, causing inefficiency for Californians. Most of the opposition is coming from Democratic-affiliated organizations and persons with funds over $6 million.
Proposition 54 calls for bills to wait 72 hours before the California legislature can pass it. Politicians that are Accountable support the proposition and argue that a meeting before the passing of a bill and the posting of the legislation on the internet for 24 hours is required before its passing. However, opponents like political consultant Steven Maviglio argue that tobacco, oil, and drug companies would have time to kill the bill which could potentially benefit special interests. If passed, the Proposition will cost $1 to $2 million dollars to buy cameras and other equipment, on top of an annual cost of $1 million.
Proposition 55 extends personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on individuals earning over $263,000 for another 12 years, preventing the tax increase from ending in 2019. Approximately 89% of tax revenue supports k-12 schooling with the leftover 11% funding the state’s community colleges. Supporters like the California Democratic Party claim it will raise taxes only on the wealthiest Californians to pay for the $2 billion bond. Opponents like the California Republican Party argue that the tax increase favors special interests, and would hurt small businesses.
California’s Proposition 56 calls for a tobacco tax increase of $2.00 from the current $0.87. The tax will be applied to cigarettes and other tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes. The tax revenue would fund health minded programs such as
physician training, dental disease treatment, tobacco-use prevention and Medi-Cal, as well as research in cancer and diseases in the heart and lungs. Supporters include the California Hospitals Committee on Issues and the California Democratic Party, contributing over $30 million. Those opposing the proposition include Cigarette Manufacturers, Philip Morris USA and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, as well as the California Republican Party. With a total contribution of $66 million, opposers have doubled the campaign funds of those in support.
Proposition 57 vote on this proposition would increase and parole opportunities for criminals convicted of nonviolent crimes and those with good behavior. It would also give judges, not prosecutors, the power to decide whether they want to try juveniles as adults in court. Supporters include Governor Jerry Brown, the California Democratic Party, and the Chief Probation Officers of California who claim that the Proposition would keep dangerous criminals behind bars, rehabilitate juvenile and adult inmates, and save taxpayers tens of millions of dollars. A “No” vote on this Proposition would mean that there would be no change to the inmate release process and certain youths could be tried in an adult court without having a hearing in juvenile court. Opponents include San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer, the California Republican Party, and the California District Attorneys Association who argue that the proposition was poorly drafted allowing criminals convicted of rape, lewd acts against a child, and human trafficking to be released early from prison.
Proposition 58 allows for a continuation of languages other than English to be instructed in public schools. Supporters include the California Democratic Party, Governor Jerry Brown, and the California Federation of Teachers, who argue that this will expand educational opportunities for learning languages other than English. Opponents of the Proposition such as the California Republican Party and Republican Representative Tom McClintock argue that public schools would not be regulated to teach an English-based education. So far, supporters have raised over $4,000,000 for the proposition, with opponents not raising any money.
Proposition 59, also known as the “California Overturn of Citizens United Act Advisory Question”, declares that corporations should not have the same constitutional rights as a human being, and allows for the regulation of campaign contributions and spending. This Proposition has raised hundreds of thousand of dollars, and is supported by Overturn Citizens United, Tom Steyer’s NextGen California Committee, U.S Senator Bernie Sanders, the California Teachers Association, and the California Democratic Party. Supporters claim that if Proposition 59 is passed it would limit excessive political spending and make sure that corporations do not outspend the people’s’ voice. On the other hand, the opposition, including U.S. Republican Representative Tom McClintock and the Ventura County Star newspaper, claims that it would hurt small businesses regarded as corporations, and allows congress members to play with the first amendment. Opponents further claim that the prop would be ineffective because it fails to regulate corporate and union contributions to candidates, elected officials, and political parties.
Proposition 60 would impose additional workplace safety restrictions, including the use of condoms, on the adult film industry in California. The primary group in support, For Adult Industry Responsibility has raised over $5 million, all from the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. Meanwhile, the Coalition Against Worker Harassment has raised approximately $500,000. Major supporters include the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and American Sexual Health Association. The opposition includes both the California Democratic and California Republican parties, the Free Speech Coalition, and several LGBT groups. A major argument of the opposition is the fact that the measure would allow any Californian to sue an adult film producer for violating the statute, and the rarity of HIV transmission in adult films.
Proposition 61, also called “The Drug Price Standards Initiative”, is supported by former Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, AARP, and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation. The Proposition calls for the State of California to purchase prescription drugs at the same price that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agreed upon with major pharmaceutical companies. This prevents states from individually negotiating with drug companies, which supporters claim will prevent drug companies from overcharging states and people. The California Republican Party, San Francisco Democratic Party, and major drug companies oppose the proposition, funneling in over $100,000,000–as opposed to nearly $50,000,000 by those supporting the proposition–claiming that it will raise costs in the VA by over three billion dollars and ultimately raise the price of healthcare for veterans.
Propositions 62 and 66
Proposition 62 substitutes the death penalty with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Supporters of Proposition 62 like the California Democratic Party and California ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) also add that criminals serving sentences of life in prison must work to compensate victims’ families by paying 60% of their wages in restitution. Supporters assert that this will prevent the wrongful execution of an innocent person. This Proposition is in direct competition with Proposition 66, which favors reforms to the death penalty to make it more efficient.
Since Proposition 62 and 66 propose completely different plans for the death penalty, whichever Proposition gains the most “Yes” votes will become the law of California.
In direct competition with Proposition 62 is Proposition 66, which maintains the death penalty and establishes policies to make death row more efficient. Supporters, like the California Republican Party and multiple California Sheriff’s Associations argue that death penalty procedures must be revised to handle the 741 convicted felons sitting in death row. Any appeals and challenges for a person convicted of the death penalty can be completed within 5 years, with supporters claiming that this allows for no innocent person to be wrongfully executed. In addition to this, felons on death row must work and pay 70% of their wages to victims’ families for restitution.
Since Proposition 62 and 66 propose completely different plans for the death penalty, whichever Proposition gains the most “Yes” votes will become the law of California.
Proposition 63 requires background checks and authorization from the department of justice to purchase firearms, therefore prohibiting firearms from certain people, no longer allowing for the possession or purchase of large capacity magazines. A “yes” vote means a new court process would be made to remove firearms upon conviction of specified crimes, and new standards put in place when buying and selling ammunition. Supporters like the California Democratic Party argue that Proposition 63 keeps guns and ammunition out of the hands of criminals, but still protects civil liberties for law abiding citizens. Supporters claim that this could possibly improve public safety by preventing deadly weapons from being in the hands of criminals and the mentally-ill, helping to bring down domestic gun violence. Because of these reasons, public safety leaders from Safety for All support proposition 63. However, opponents of Proposition 63 claim it would entail costly burdens upon communities and law abiding citizens, costing as much as tens of millions of dollars annually in order to obtain adequate law enforcement. Opponents like the California Republican Party and the National Rifle Association also argue that the Proposition would infringe upon certain civil liberties.
California proposition 64, the California Marijuana Legalization Initiative, will be on the November ballot in California as an initiated state statute. Supporters including the California Democratic Party and Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom refer to the initiative as the Adult Use Marijuana Act. The Proposition imposes state excise tax on retail sales of marijuana equal to 15% of sales price, and state cultivation taxes on marijuana of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and 2.75 per ounce of leaves. Opponents including the California Republican Party and Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein argue that it will allow marijuana advertisements to be posted on billboards and air on television. A “Yes” vote supports the legalization of recreational marijuana, while a “No” vote maintains marijuana being illegal in California.
Propositions 65 and 67
If Proposition 65 passes, there would be no “single-use” bag ban, and all the money will go towards environmental funds. If it fails, and Proposition 67 passes (Prop 67 is a bag ban, but the funds go back to the store rather than the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Fund, or EPEF), then money will go anywhere that the store decides. If both pass, whichever is greater in favor goes into effect, and if neither pass, then nothing will be banned, and no money will be allocated. Proposition 65 was designed to redirect money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores to the EPEF through the sale of carryout bags made to replace the plastic bags being banned. Supporters argue that less plastic pollution would be in the environment, and there would be less waste in general, as well as more abundance in some natural resources. Opponents argue that people would have to pay extra for reusable carryout bags when they want to go shop, and the money only goes towards the EPEF. The American Progressive Bag Alliance, the group sponsoring the initiative, has raised $6.1 million for passing Proposition 65 and defeating Proposition 67. There was no money raised for the opposition. They also have support from the California Republican Party, and Hilex Poly Co. LLC. The parties and organizations against Prop 65 include the Libertarian Party of California, the Green Party of California, and the Center for Oceanic Awareness, Research, and Education.
San Diego County Measure A
San Diego County Measure A, proposed by the San Diego Association of Governments, or SANDAG, is a 40-year-long county-wide half-cent sales tax to fund transportation improvements across the county. This measure would increase the county sales tax from 8% to 8.5% and requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass. Projects on the priority list, intended to be completed within 15 years include improvements on the 5, 8, 52, 67, 78, the 94/125 interchange, and improvements to trolley and COASTER service. Supporters include the San Diego Taxpayers Association, the Nature Conservatory, and the San Diego Fire Fighters. Detractors, including the San Diego Middle Class Taxpayers Association, the San Diego chapter of the Sierra Club, and David Alvarez, San Diego City Councilman for District 8, primarily argue that the measure doesn’t do enough for public transit, the environment, and lacks sufficient taxpayer protections.
San Diego County Measure B
The California Ballot will include Measure B, also known as “Lilac Hills Residential and Commercial Development”, for San Diego County voters. This measure is supported by CALFIRE, the City of Chula Vista, and the Bonsall Unified School District Board of Trustees. Measure B will allow for the development of the Lilac Hills Ranch, and those in favor claim that it will give current residents easier access to stores, parks, and a school. They claim that it will also incorporate a water reclamation facility that will reduce water consumption. The League of Women Voters, Escondido City Fire, and San Diego County Supervisors oppose the measure, claiming that it will not keep residents safe and it will require county taxpayers to pay for safety improvements. Opponents argue that the Measure will also create more daily vehicle trips and will not improve the current road conditions, and the unsafe roads will require payments from county taxpayers.
San Diego County Measures X, BB and EE
Measures X, BB, and EE are local bonds for the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, Grossmont Union High School District, and the Cajon Valley Union School District respectively. Measures X and BB are facility bonds, intended to repair existing facilities and construct new facilities, including a Career Services center under measure X and a new high school in Alpine under measure BB. Measure EE however, is a small short-term bond intended to fund computers and information technology, and is designed to be paid off within the useful life of the equipment.
United States Senate
Current California Senator Barbara Boxer is retiring. A total of 34 candidates ran in the primary, which included seven Democrats, 12 Republicans, and 15 third-party candidates. During the primary, California Attorney General Kamala Harris held the lead with 40% of the vote and Representative Loretta Sanchez finished in second place with 20% of the total votes, with both proceeding to the General Election. This is the first time that the California Senate race features two Democratic candidates from the same party running against each other in the General Election. This is because of Proposition 14, passed in 2010, which established that the top two primary candidates move to the general election, regardless of party, in races for statewide and Congressional candidates.
United States House of Representatives – 50th District
On November 8th, California will choose its representative for the 50th Congressional District. So far, the polls suggest the race anticipates a victory for incumbent Republican Duncan D. Hunter. The 50th Congressional district includes much of San Diego County and part of Riverside County. Running against Hunter is Democratic challenger Patrick Malloy. In the Primary Election, Hunter received 56.5% of the votes, while Malloy received 21.8% of the votes.
California House of Representatives – 71st District