Propositions on the 2020 Ticket

Proposition 15

by Mia Harley reporter   

Proposition 15, one of the most controversial propositions on the 2020 November ballot, failed to pass by a vote of 52% no to 48% yes. 

If Proposition 15 had passed with a majority vote, it would have increased property taxes on any commercial real estate in California that is worth more than $3 million. Prop. 15 would not have had an impact on private real estate properties like homes and small rental properties. 

Prop. 15 would have made new assessments on commercial property worth $3 million or more. 

Supporters claimed that since the 1970s, public schools have not been properly funded in California and that by reassessing the property taxes for commercial real estate, new and large revenue sources could have been made by taxing the people that can afford it, large business owners and corporations. 

The state estimates that Prop. 15 would have generated between $8 billion and $12 billion in new revenue for California every year. 

These new revenues would have been given to local governments and public schools.

Opponents have claimed that the proposed tax increases to commercial real estate would have raised our cost of living. 

Businesses claim that small business owners, including Black-owned busnesses could have been driven out of business as well.

Proposition 16

by Jonathan Liu reporter

Proposition 16 failed at the ballot box, with “no” votes outweighing “yes” votes 56% to 43%. 

The failure of Prop. 16 means that Proposition 209, which was passed in 1996, is upheld. Prop. 209 states that government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to people based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin when it comes to public enrollment, public education, and public contracting. 

At its core, a no vote on Prop. 16 marks the defeat of affirmative action – a topic that has been at the center of heated debate as the voters have re-evaluated race relations in this country and in California after a summer of protests. 

For students, Prop. 16 most greatly affects them through the University of California school system. Both UC President Janet Napolitano and UC Regents Chair John Perez were in support of Prop. 16, stating that its failure would uphold barriers to higher education for students of color. 

However, proponents of a no vote on Prop. 16 viewed the defeat as a rejection of political correctness and identity politics, keeping public institutions “colorblind,” according to the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board. 

In a largely liberal California, the failure of Prop. 16 may serve as a warning for future court battles surrounding affirmative action and its divisive nature.

Proposition 17

by Aurora Khatibi Garrity news editor

The debate over whether one’s right to vote is restored after completion of a state or federal prison term, including those on parole, has been passed with 58.6% for Proposition 17 and 41.4% against it. 

In 2016, California passed legislation allowing the incarcerated in country jails to vote. 

Prop. 17 addresses state/federal prison, in which supporters argue that those on parole have paid their debt to society, and should have their rights restored as citizens. 

A vote allows a citizen to make sure their voice and opinion is heard.The passing of Prop. 17 could open up voting for 50,000 parolees, altering the course of future elections. 

Those against Prop. 17, who want to maintain the United States common practice of making felons ineligible to vote, argue that parole is made for offenders to prove rehabilitation, and that “Voting is a right that offenders should receive once they demonstrate they have been rehabilitated; not before” (CalMatters). 

 The fiscal impact of Prop. 17 includes the annual county cost and one-time state cost, which will supply for voter registration cards and ballot materials. This cost could amount up to 1,800,000 dollars. 

California joins 16 other states and the District of Columbia in restoring the voting rights of the formerly incarcerated.

Proposition 18

by Sydney Lyle reporter

If Proposition 18 had passed, 17-year-olds would be able to vote in primary elections if they will be 18-years-old by the general election in November.

With the majority of votes counted, the state of California has voted ‘No’ on Proposition 18. 56% of Californians voted against this proposal.

The California Democratic Party emphasized their support for this proposition. Those who support this proposition believe that if an 18-year-old is allowed to vote in the general election, then they should be also permitted to vote in the primary election and determine which candidates they will later be able to vote for on the November ballot.

Supporters also believe that allowing 17-year-olds to vote in the primary elections may increase participation in voting.

The California Repulican Party opposed Prop 18. These individuals who do not support this proposition believe that 17-year-olds are not legally adults, so they are not mature enough to be given the privilege of being able to vote. 

It is also argued that 17-year-olds can be heavily influenced by their parents, teachers or counselors.

Since Prop. 18 would increase the number of people who could vote, more money would need to be spent sending out voter information and counting ballots. 

Every election would cost up to $1 million more statewide if Prop. 18 had passed.

Proposition 22   

by Sarah Liu editor-in-chief

Proposition 22 passed with 58% of the vote on Nov. 3. The passage of Prop. 22 means that app-based rideshare companies like Uber and Postmates can hire drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Gig workers would be able to dictate their own hours and where they drive, but will not get the standard benefits and protections that companies are required to provide employees. 

Under Prop. 22 are provisions for the creation of mandatory anti-discrimination and sexual-harassment policies, training programs and criminal background checks. However, critics of the measure say it weakens current protections for both consumers and drivers facing harassment and alleviates the obligation to investigate harassment claims. Prop. 22 also includes benefits that would take the place of the benefits that employee status would provide like health care subsidies.

An alluring feature of Prop. 22 was its promise of a 120% minimum wage. However, this is only guaranteed for engaged driving time. Due to the amount of time it takes to wait for ride or order requests, it was found that guaranteed wages would decrease to $5.64, well under the current minimum wage of $13 dollars an hour for employees.

According to gig companies, the passage of Prop. 22 is a win for the freedom of independent contractors, but to its opponents, it is an infringement on workers’ rights and protections.