Prop. 1 Analysis: Voter Guide Kicks Off California Election Season

The Orange County Registrar of Voters in Santa Ana, Calif., on March 5, 2021. (John Fredricks/The Epoch Times)

Commentary

California’s “Official Voter Information Guide” is now being distributed to mailboxes across the state. Languages include English, Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. It ought to be essential reading. But I noticed a dozen of them thrown into the trash bin next to my apartment complex’s communal mailbox.

The guide kicks off the primary voting season, with ballots arriving soon.

Secretary of State Shirley Weber does a good job with the guide. It begins with the “Voter Bill of Rights,” including the qualifications for voting: Being a U.S. citizen living in California, at least 18 years old, registered at your current residence, not serving a felony prison sentence, and not found mentally ill by a court.

There’s also a link to the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s website listing the top contributors to candidates and ballot measures: fppc.ca.gov/transparency/top-contributors.html.

The two main sections then follow. One is for listing the entire wording of any ballot initiatives. The second is for the statements of the political candidates, which I will cover in a second article.

Proposition 1

There is only one measure on the March 5 ballot: Proposition 1. That’s because, starting in 2011, the Legislature banned initiatives by the people from appearing on primary ballots. Only the Legislature itself can do so.

Related Stories

High Interest Rates, Weak Economy to Blame for California’s Budget Deficit: Legislative Analyst

12/27/2023

California Cities, Counties Bracing for Impact of State’s Record Budget Deficit

12/26/2023

Conservatives preferred primary elections for their initiatives because turnout is lower, meaning voters tend to be older and more conservative than in the general election. They no longer can do that.

The title and summary of initiatives are written by Attorney General Rob Bonta. Although he was fairly objective ahead of the 2022 election, he appears to have abandoned that goal in 2024. For the Nov. 5 election, on Jan. 3 a parents’ right group sued him over his wording for the Protect Kids Initiative, a controversy I wrote about in The Epoch Times last December.

Prop. 1, according to the guide (which uses all capital letters), “AUTHORIZES $6.38 BILLION IN BONDS TO BUILD MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR THOSE WITH MENTAL HEALTH AND SUBSTANCE USE CHALLENGES; PROVIDES HOUSING FOR THE HOMELESS.”

That’s all most voters read. But the important part is in the summary: “Amends Mental Health Services Act to provide additional behavioral health services. Fiscal Impact: Shift roughly $140 million annually of existing tax revenue for mental health, drug, and alcohol treatment from counties to the state. Increased state bond repayment costs of $310 million annually for 30 years. Supporters: California Professional Firefighters; CA Assoc. of Veteran Service Agencies; National Alliance on Mental Illness-CA. Opponents: Mental Health America of California; Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; CalVoices.”

The key is the $310 million in new annual spending to pay for the bonds. But the summary doesn’t say the money must come from the state’s general fund, which is at least $38 billion in the red this year, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s Jan. 10 budget proposal for fiscal 2024-25, which begins on July 1; or $58 billion, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office’s Jan. 13 analysis.

This is why, for three decades, I’ve called bonds “delayed tax increases.” The money has to come from somewhere.

Next are the pro/con arguments (which occasionally use capitalization for emphasis). The pro argument ignores the cost of paying back the bonds: “Proposition 1 addresses California’s urgent crisis of homelessness, mental health and addiction, authorizing $6.4 billion in bonds and directing billions more annually to expand mental health and addiction services, build permanent supportive housing and help homeless veterans. Vote YES on Proposition 1. Learn more at TreatmentNotTents.com.”

The con argument brings up the cost: “Prop. 1 is huge, expensive and destructive. It costs more than $10 billion, but isn’t a ‘solution’ to homelessness. Now’s a BAD TIME for new bonds and debt. Prop. 1 CUTS funds for mental health programs that are working. Mental health advocates and taxpayer groups oppose it. Vote NO!”

Cost Summary

Further into the pamphlet is a good summary of the measure’s fiscal impact by the Legislative Analysis, along with longer pro/con arguments, followed by rebuttals. The pro section is signed by Brian K. Rice, President California Professional Firefighters; James Espinoza, MS, President The Veteran Mentor Project; and Jessica Cruz, MPA/HS, Chief Executive Officer National Alliance on Mental Illness-California.”

It lists projects paid for from the bonds, including community-based services, supportive housing, treatment programs instead of incarceration, and homes for veterans.

The argument against is signed by Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, Assemblymember Diane B. Dixon, both Republicans, and Heidi Strunk, CEO of Mental Health America of California. It begins, “Governor Newsom’s Proposition 1 is a nightmare for taxpayers, cities and counties, and people with mental illness.”

Another “against” segment reads, “PROP. 1 WILL COST TAXPAYERS MORE THAN $10 BILLION. Prop. 1 puts taxpayers on the hook for DECADES to pay back new bonds. This isn’t ‘free money!’ It’s credit card borrowing from Wall Street. According to Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, bonds are the most expensive and inefficient way to pay for a government program. And with interest rates today, it’s a VERY BAD TIME to be taking on new bond debt, adding at least 60% IN INTEREST COSTS, costing taxpayers an estimated $10.58–$12.45 billion.”

The rebuttal to that by the pro-Prop. 1 side is signed by Stephen Peck, Director California Association of Veteran Service Agencies; Jennifer Barrera, CEO California Chamber of Commerce; and Alan W. Barcelona, Chair Orange County Coalition of Police and Sheriffs (OC Cops).

Their main arguments: “Opponents of Proposition 1 want to ignore the crisis of homelessness, mental illness and substance abuse plaguing communities across California. Their position is isolated and extreme. Proposition 1 overwhelmingly passed the California Assembly and Senate with support from Democrats and Republicans because it’s based on compassion and common sense.

“Proposition 1 doesn’t raise taxes. Leading business organizations, including California Retailers Association, support Proposition 1 because it addresses the crisis for the long term without raising taxes.”

Notice they again ignore the cost to the general fund, and the “Against” side’s argument that the existing programs are the way to go. But these arguments don’t have to be fair.

68 Pages of Legalese

The guide also helpfully includes the full text of Prop. 1. Except it runs from pages 37 to 105. It’s 68 pages of the guide’s 112 pages, or 61 percent. It’s all legalese nobody is going to read. For example, on p. 37 is this: “SEC. 94. Section 5823 is added to the Welfare and Institutions code, to read:

“5892. (a) To promote efficient implementation of this act, the county shall use funds distributed from the Mental Health Services Fund as follows:

“(1) twenty percent of funds distributed to the counties pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 5891 shall be used for prevention and early intervention programs in accordance with Part 3.6 (commencing with Section 5840).”

It’s absurd to make voters try to figure out 68 pages of that.

This is another case of the Legislature shirking its responsibilities and instead putting the burden on voters. It’s true that part of Prop. 1 has to go before voters because it modifies a previous measure, Proposition 63 from 2004. But that part should have been kept separate from the new part with the bonds. And Prop. 63 itself ought to have been defeated, because it imposed an additional 1 percent tax on millionaires, causing many of them to leave the state—and take all their tax payments with them.

Prop. 1 this year, and Prop. 63 before it, also are what’s called “ballot-box budgeting.” Such initiatives impose constraints on the Legislature on how it raises and spends money, the main things an elected body does. During tough economic times, it makes it harder for the Legislature to set priorities by cutting some programs in preference to others, instead all but mandating even more tax increases.

According to the FPPC’s listing, top contributors to what’s called “Yes on Prop 1 - Governor Newsom’s Ballot Measure,” include:

• $1 million: State Building and Constitution Trades Council
• $1 million: California Correctional Peace Officers Association (prison guards)
• $1 million: Kaiser Foundation Health Plan
• $1 million: California Hospital Committee
• $500,000: Service Employees International Union
• $275,000: SEIU Local 2015

As you can see, all of them would benefit from the $6.38 billion in bonds. Last August, Mr. Newsom gave the prison guards $1 billion in raises. Even as the state was running up the current massive budget deficit.

What about those opposing Prop. 1? How much money did they raise to stop the new spending and eventual higher taxes? The FPPC site reads, “No committee opposing this ballot measure raised enough money to reach the reporting threshold for this list.”

In Sacramento parlance, it’s called “pay to play.” You “pay” for the politicians’ campaigns and projects and you get to “play” with the taxpayers’ money. No wonder California’s finances are in such a mess and taxpayers who can are headed for the exit.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.