My take on California’s stunning ballot measures

SACRAMENTO— Early voting is a mistake, I think. Take all the time you get. Something can happen just before the election that changes your vote.

And those puzzling statements require extra thought.

Of course, virtually everyone knew how they would vote in the presidential and Senate races long before their ballots arrived in the mail.

But many of those ten state proposals are headaches. Some shouldn’t even be on the ballot. Others are worth supporting.

Here’s how I ended up encountering them, in chronological order:

Proposal 2: A $10 billion bond issue to repair, modernize and build facilities at K-12 schools and community colleges.

Yes. Although the 35-year payout period is too long – costing billions in interest – the need is real. And borrowing is the only way these projects can be financed.

Statement 3: Removes outdated language from the California Constitution stating that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

A no brainer. Yes.

Statement 4: Another $10 billion bond, this one for water storage, purifying polluted water, wildfire prevention and various climate-related projects.

Yes – for the same reason as the school bond. This 40-year payout is excessively long, but bonds are the only practical way to pay for these valuable projects.

Statement 5: Reduces from two-thirds to 55% the number of votes needed to approve local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure such as roads. Local school bonds already require just 55%.

Yes. A third of the electorate should not be allowed to make decisions about the other two thirds.

Statement 6: Bans prisons from forcing prisoners to work. They could still work voluntarily and possibly get their sentences reduced.

Yes. Prisoners are sentenced to prison terms, not hard labor, a holdover from chain gangs and slavery. Prisoners could use their free time to receive education or undergo various treatments. There is no organized opposition.

The above measures were placed on the ballot by the legislature.

The initiatives below are initiatives sponsored by private interests:

Proposal 32: Increases the current minimum wage to $18 from $16 in January, with annual increases due to inflation.

No. California’s minimum wage is already among the highest in the country, well above the federal rate of $7.25. And there is an annual inflation adjustment. Our liberal state legislators are quite capable of raising the rate even further if they believe it is necessary.

Statement 33: Prevents the state from limiting local government expansion of rent control.

No. Excessive rent control will only encourage landlords to take their properties off the rental market. This measure goes too far, preventing the state from finding a balance that protects landlords and tenants.

Proposal 34: Requires health care providers to spend 98% of their federal prescription drug rebate revenue on patients. Hey?

Loud no. This is about nonsense. Apartment owners and real estate agents supported this measure to take on the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which is promoting the rent control proposal. These interest groups should be outside throwing punches and leaving the vote alone.

Proposal 35: Makes permanent an existing tax on managed health care plans and increases provider reimbursement rates for treating low-income Medi-Cal patients. The interest rate increases are necessary. But this measure is a Byzantine quagmire of misty muddle.

No way. It’s the kind of complexity that legislatures are paid for. That’s where this issue belongs.

Proposal 36: The big state ballot measure. It increases penalties for repeat theft and hard drug offenses, including the deadly fentanyl. And it requires treatment for repetitive criminal addicts.

Yes. Opponents argue that by toughening sentences, we will refill our prisons after dramatically reducing the population to comply with a federal court order. I say good. Repeat criminals belong behind bars, not on the streets stealing merchants’ goods and their customers’ cars and selling poison to children.

Proposition 36, sponsored by the California District Attorneys Assn. and funded by major retailers like Walmart, partially reverses the punitive Proposition 47 that voters overwhelmingly passed a decade ago.

Proposition 47 reduced certain property and hard drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and arrest rates plummeted, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found in a yearlong study.

Then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was one of the loudest promoters of Proposition 47. And as governor, he has been a staunch defender. But on Monday he acknowledged to reporters that Proposition 36 will likely win.

“I’m not naive when it comes to people’s feelings,” Newsom said.

A recent PPIC poll found that 73% of likely voters, including 67% of Democrats, had lopsided bipartisan support for Proposition 36.

The poll found that three other measures received solid support from at least 60% of voters: Proposition 3, the constitutional marriage amendment; Proposition 4, the water and wildfire bond, and Proposition 35, the tax on managed health care plans.

Proposal 2, the school bond, barely made any progress at 52%. And the outcome was risky.

The other measures were all below 50% and the future looked bleak.

On election day I put my votes in the mailbox, taking all the time that I am fortunately allocated.