Susan Shelley: My picks for the November election

If you’re a registered voter in California, you’ll receive your mail ballot for the November 5 general election in a day or two. Parts of it will look like a law school exam. If you vote on a touch-screen, it may look like a TV show about a law school exam.

For the sake of clarity, I’m happy to pass along my recommendations on the ballot measures. Ready?

No on Prop. 2 — This is a huge $10 billion bond for school facilities. Bonds are borrowed money that will cost taxpayers nearly double when paid back with interest. Prop. 2 will lead to higher property taxes because school districts don’t get the money unless they do a “local match” of up to 50%. So districts will have to pass local school bonds, and those raise property tax bills. By the way, voters have approved $54 billion in state bonds for K-12 schools since 1998, and officials are still telling us they need money to remove asbestos and lead from the buildings. If that’s true, who’s going to prison for it?

Yes on Prop. 3 — Prop. 3 changes the language in the state constitution regarding who can marry, but the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) says it “would not change who is allowed to marry in California.”

No on Prop. 4 — Another $10 billion bond, this time for a grab-bag of what the LAO called “activities” in “eight broad categories” supposedly related to climate change. Important clean water projects should be funded in the budget or with a smaller bond, not in a pork-barrel spending spree of grants for “activities.”

No on Prop. 5 — This treacherous measure makes it easier to raise property taxes. It removes the important requirement for a two-thirds vote of the electorate to take on local debt, a protection that has been in the California Constitution since 1879. Even in the 1849 Constitution, from the Gold Rush era, the legislature was directed “to prevent abuses” of excess local debt. But Prop. 5 slashes the vote threshold from two-thirds down to just 55% to borrow money by issuing bonds for “infrastructure” (nearly everything) and for government housing projects and programs. These local bonds raise local property taxes, again and again. Apartment buildings and retail stores are taxed, too, meaning Prop. 5 would bring higher rents and prices. Speaking of “abuses,” Prop. 5 quietly lowers the vote threshold to pass local bond measures that appear on the very same ballot. Vote no on 5.

No on Prop. 6 — The California Constitution bans “involuntary servitude” except as punishment for crime. Prop. 6 would remove the exception. That means state prisons and county jails could not require inmates to work as they do now, generally at jobs related to running the facility, such as cooking and laundry. The Senate Appropriations Committee staff warned that this change to the constitution could lead to court rulings that require inmates to be paid minimum wage, either state or federal, potentially costing taxpayers billions every year.

No on Prop. 32 — This measure would raise the state’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18. This typically leads to businesses cutting employees’ hours.

No on Prop. 33 — For the third time, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation is trying to repeal a 1995 state law that limits local rent control ordinances. Right now, rent control is prohibited on single-family homes and condos, and apartment owners are allowed to raise the rent on a rent-controlled unit to market rate after a tenant moves out voluntarily. Prop. 33 gets rid of those protections for property owners and forbids the state to enact a similar protection ever again. This is a mandate to lose money. It would result in fewer rental units constructed and more of them withdrawn from the market.

Yes on Prop. 34 — This measure would require some nonprofit organizations that make money from a federal drug discount program to spend that money fulfilling their healthcare mission, and not on such things as financing three attempts to unleash radical rent control.

No on Prop. 35 — California has enacted a temporary tax on managed care organizations and uses the money for general government purposes. Prop. 35 would make the tax permanent (which the legislature may do anyway) and direct the money to health care providers. While Medi-Cal reimbursements are abysmally low and should be raised so enough doctors will treat the 14 million Californians on Medi-Cal, this measure seems to empower unions to hold everybody up with “stakeholder” consultations and carves out funding for other special interests.

Yes on Prop. 36 — This is the “fix” to Proposition 47, the criminal justice reform passed in 2014 but now unpopular due to a rise in property crimes and drug use. It’s a thoughtful change that allows tougher penalties on the third offense and seeks to get more people into treatment for substance abuse.

Locally in L.A. County:

No on Measure A — This is a sales tax increase, another one-half percent to fund the same failed homelessness programs, permanently. It would cost more than $1 billion per year. Auditors still don’t know where the previous billions went.

No on Measure E — This parcel tax of $60 per 1,000 square feet of your home, every year, hits communities served by the L.A. County fire department. You already pay taxes for the fire department, and L.A. County should pay for firefighting out of its $45 billion annual budget, without a tax increase.

No on LAUSD Measure US –—This is a massive and last-minute $9 billion bond, rushed to the ballot. It would raise property taxes another $25 per $100,000 of assessed value on top of the current $128 per $100,000. On an $800,000 house, that’s $1,224 per year just for LAUSD school bonds, while enrollment is declining.

Vote by mail or find a polling place at voterstatus.sos.ca.gov. And please check on your friends when ballots arrive. Some people pass out at the sight of a law school exam.

Write Susan@SusanShelley.com and follow her on X @Susan_Shelley