Episode 05- Ballot Measures November 2020 Part 1, An Interview with Jeremy B. White from Politico

Our host, Paul A. Smith, speaks with Jeremy B. White of Politico about the twelve ballot measures California voters will decide this November. Jeremy B. White co-writes Politico's California Playbook and covers politics in the Golden State.

Together, Paul and Jeremy provide a nonpartisan look at each ballot measure. They discuss the support and opposition arguments and financing behind the propositions, and provide insight about the impact of each measure on rural counties.

This is the first of two episodes in a series about California's November 2020 ballot initiatives and covers

• Proposition 14: California Stem Cell Research, Treatments, and Cures Initiative of 2020 Act
• Proposition 15: The California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act (Split Roll)
• Proposition 16: Repeal of Proposition 209 of 1996
• Proposition 17: Voting Rights of Convicted Felons
• Proposition 18: Age of Voting

This episode is also available in Spanish

For a look at the remaining seven ballot measures, be sure to listen to Hometown California Episode 6, available now!


Visit Politico on the web at politico.com
Follow Politico California on Twitter @politicoca
California Playbook: Subscribe Here
More from Politico about the California November 2020 Ballot Initiatives: Available Here

Transcript

INTRO: [00:00:00] 

Welcome to Hometown California production of the Rural County Representatives of California, advocating for California's rural counties for nearly 50 years. Hometown California tells the rural story through the eyes of those who live, work, and play in the rural communities of the Golden State. 

PAUL: [00:00:26]

This is Hometown California. I'm your host, Paul Smith. Joining me today is Jeremy White from Politico magazine. Jeremy co-writes the California Playbook and covers politics in the Golden State. Welcome, Jeremy. 

JEREMY: [00:00:38] 

Good to be here. 

PAUL: [00:00:39] 

We're gonna have some fun today. This is going to be the first of two parts because Jeremy and I are going to go through the 12 ballot measures that California voters are going to be weighing in on in November. And so we wanted to give our listeners some educated analysis of what these 12 ballot measures are and kind of put the rural spin on it and the RCRC spin on how it will impact rural California and, in particular, rural counties. For Politico. Jeremy, you did a series of pieces in July covering the 12 ballot measures slated for November 2020, and I understand that's been a pretty fantastic piece. We're so delighted that you are able to take some time today.

You may know that RCRC does weigh in on ballot measures and our Board of Directors has taken positions on eight of the 12 that we're going to talk about here. And we expect at least one more ballot measure the RCRC Board of Directors will undertake a review at the September board meeting in mid-September. 

At a time when people are struggling to wade through the arguments of different sides the goal of this series is really to give our listeners straightforward, unbiased information that hopefully will aide them in making well-informed decisions this November. 

So, Jeremy, if you don't mind, we're gonna go through some of these measures in numerical order. We're gonna try to get to the first five measures that California is gonna be seeing over the next 60-90 days and go through them and walk through what they are, what the politics are of them, where the money and the campaigns are going on. And I'll probably talk a little bit about the RCRC perspective. So if you don't mind, let's get right to it. Jeremy, are you good with that? 

JEREMY: [00:02:15] 

Sounds good to me. 

PAUL: [00:02:16] 

All right. So the first measure Californians will see on their ballot when they get to all of the propositions is Proposition 14. This is the STEM Cell Research Treatments and Cures Initiative Act of 2020. At Essence, it's a five billion dollar bond to continue the stem cell research that started back in 2004 when the voters enacted Prop 71. Jeremy, talk a little more about this and why we're seeing this now. 

JEREMY: [00:02:42] 

This is really one of the most straightforward ones on the ballot. As you mentioned, it's pretty much a bond measure to fund stem cell research because the initial bond measure is starting to run out. And so this would offer billions of dollars more to continue doing stem cell research. A rarity for ballot initiatives, while this one has some spending for from a stem cell research advocate and the University of California, there's no real opposition. So it's hard to imagine this one facing many headwinds. There's just not really an actual political opponent to this one. There are folks who, in the past, have raised objections sort of for ethical reasons to stem cell research but, at least in California, this one is not really attracting much controversy or opposition at this point. 

PAUL: [00:03:29] 

Yeah, this has come to the ballot via the traditional initiative process. And RCRC has not weighed in on this, and I don't believe RCRC is going to consider this one. So, Jeremy, with the 5.5 billion dollar bond measure, voters in March rejected a very large school bond. Do you think that there might be some bond fatigue with the electorate given what happened in March? 

JEREMY: [00:03:52] 

That's an excellent question. I think a lot of folks were genuinely surprised by that bond measure for school construction failing pretty badly back in March, despite the fact that it had the support of people like Governor Gavin Newsom. And so that could indicate some turbulence ahead for the stem cell research fund. You know, it's worth mentioning the school construction bond had been numbered Proposition 13, which, as I'm sure your listeners know, is a very famous property tax measure passed in 1978. So there are some folks who think that maybe this school bond being Prop 13 confused some people, and that might have undercut its chances in a way that wouldn't apply to the stem cell research fund. But I do think that it indicated that there is some skepticism among voters potentially to issuing a new bond. So, even though this one doesn't really have any organized opposition, I think you might be onto something that perhaps the voters did send a signal in March that they are reluctant to ramp up borrowing as much. 

PAUL: [00:04:56]

Yeah, it's going to be kind of an interesting campaign. We'll see how the pandemic with COVID-19 fits in on this and whether there'll be some marketing of this ballot measure and tie some of that research to what might be a potential cure or vaccination. So it's going to be very interesting. The next one we'll talk about, I think, is one we're all going to get familiar with very shortly if we don't know already, because I think the ad campaign on the airwaves is going to be something like we haven't seen in a while. That's Proposition 15, known as the California Schools and Local Communities Funding Act. It is basically the split roll property tax measure. This is whereby two different rolls by assessors and counties will be developed: one consisting of commercial industrial property, which will be taxed in a very different time frame versus everything else, i.e. residential property. And the idea is to tax commercial and industrial property at its fair market value once every three years, produce a lot more revenue for counties and school districts. Maybe you can add a little more flavor to what's going on on this one. 

JEREMY: [00:05:59] 

I think you set the table quite nicely there. A lot of folks would tell you that this is the most consequential initiative on the ballot. Certainly, it has enlisted a lot of the heavy-hitters in California politics. You know, we mentioned Proposition 13 before- the1978 initiative that limits property tax increases in California. Defending Proposition 13 is a paramount goal for a lot of business groups in the state, not to mention real estate groups. A lot of homeowners see it as sort of this important measure for keeping costs down in an expensive state. So, as you mentioned, Proposition 15 would not touch homeowners property taxes. It explicitly applies to commercial properties. Its backers, principally folks in organized labor, teachers unions, a lot of big city mayors say California has been undertaxing property for a long time and that this is revenue that's badly needed for education, for local government. And they are making the argument that when the pandemic and the recession taking a huge bite out of revenue collection, we need that money more than ever. On the other side are a lot of powerful business interests who say California is an expensive state already, it's already a tricky place to do business, and so the last thing we need is to be raising taxes on some of these businesses. You know, changing Prop 13, particularly trying to find a way to get some more money from the commercial side, has been a goal of liberal elected officials and interests like labor unions for years, essentially since Prop 13 passed. And as I said, defending Prop 13 has also been sort of a north star for a lot of folks on the other side. So I think this is one that not only would the economic consequences be huge, both in terms of what it would mean for the business landscape and what it would mean for local government finances, it's really a sort of watershed political moment that tests, are voters open to changes to this tax protection that has really been seen as sort of inviolable for so many years? And I think supporters, when they qualified this, they were counting on the fact that a presidential election year with Californians energized to vote against Donald Trump would mean huge liberal turnout. Obviously, the coronavirus pandemic scrambled that picture, but I think we are really going to see a pretty consequential vote here. 

PAUL: [00:08:32] 

Do you think that the No side is probably going to win in the money race on this one? I know the teachers, as you alluded to, CTA, some of the other public labor groups are much more inclined to dig deep into their pockets. Where do you see the campaign money going on this one? How do you see that playing out? 

JEREMY: [00:08:49] 

Yeah, that's a really good question. I think supporters, particularly teachers unions, are motivated to spend a lot of money. I think potentially the opponents, given that they represent a lot of deep-pocketed business groups in various sectors, they are prepared to spend whatever it takes to defeat this. So I don't know that I can state with certainty who will outspend whom, but I think it is a safe assumption that a huge amount of money is going to be spent on this ballot initiative. Because, you know, both sides really see it as a fight that they have to win, which you might think you could say about any ballot initiative, but I really think the stakes on this one, again, not just for local government school finances, but for sort of the capturing the political moment in California and seeing what the electorate is willing to entertain, I think people see this as having enormous stakes. 

PAUL: [00:09:41] 

And just to remind our listeners to this is another measure that's come through the traditional initiative process where signatures were gathered. RCRC did weigh in on this, and our Board went ahead and voted to oppose this measure, not necessarily the ideological conversation between should we be levying higher property taxes or more frequent property taxes on businesses, but there's a little caveat in that initiative whereby there's a an exemption that's been increased on personal property, and many rural counties just don't have a lot of commercial property or big dollar commercial property to offset that loss of revenue due to an increase in the personal property exemption. So a number of RCRC member counties are going to actually lose revenue, not just fail to gain, but actually lose revenue, and that's why predominately why the board went the direction it did. 

But back to the campaign, Jeremy. I've already seen some ads from SEIU, the Service Employees International Union and the Teachers Association kind of setting the table for this. They're just talking about the need, that public services are being starved right now due to the pandemic and just the way the nature of the state does business in terms of its revenue. Do you find that's gonna be an interesting strategy, is to just talk about the need for revenue and then perhaps in the last 60 days come in with a more vocal Yes campaign on 15? 

JEREMY: [00:11:01] 

I think there is no question that supporters see the pandemic as raising the level of urgency of this. You know, teachers unions have been pretty clear that if we're gonna get back into classrooms safely, they need more money. Even before the pandemic happened, you know, teachers unions- some your listeners may remember, there was a big planned strike in Los Angeles and it was kind of resolved with pleas for more money. So that precedes the pandemic. But I think that argument has been amplified. And you've seen that with mayors like Los Angeles Mayor, Eric Garcetti, San Francisco Mayor, London Breed, other big city mayors, saying we need this money more than ever and you can choose between voting to ask more of big business or we're going to have to cut the budget. And I think that's the sort of stark framing they are going to put before voters. 

PAUL: [00:11:55] 

Yeah, it's going to be fascinating, like you said. This is a fight that's been brewing for probably decades, so we're going to see it play out live and in person on our TVs, on our computer screens, probably on our apps when we look down at our iPhones. It's going to be fascinating. 

Let's go ahead and move on to Prop 16, which I think is almost as fascinating. This is the affirmative action measure. It originates from the legislature. The legislature put this on the ballot and it effectively repeals Prop 209. That's a measure the voters approved back in 1996, which really prohibited affirmative action in public contracting and public university and college admissions. This couldn't come at a more interesting time as we're, as a society, not just here in California, but as society around the world, looking at race. What do you see about this one? 

JEREMY: [00:12:42] 

I think you really hit the nail on the head there. This is, similarly, something where folks have been hoping for a redo of voters chose for years. As you mentioned, back in 1996, California voters chose to prohibit race as a factor in public contracting, hiring and university admissions. And activists have been trying to change that ever since. As recently as 2014, though, when the legislature tried to move a similar measure to the ballot, it collapsed in a public and kind of ugly fashion in which we really saw some ethnic divides within the Democratic caucus. Black and Latino lawmakers were really pushing for it. Some Asian lawmakers got pushback from constituents who were worried about what it would mean for their kids winning coveted university spots. It went down pretty hard and there were some recriminations between Democrats, and it was kind of a spectacle. Fast forward to 2020. The country is thinking a lot about racial justice in the wake of George Floyd's death and national protests. And this time it passed off the floor of the legislature fairly easily. There was a long and emotional debate again, but I think lawmakers really didn't want to look like they were on the wrong side of history on this one. So ultimately, it is, of course, up to the voters to decide. Given that it was voters who pass this prohibition initially, voters have to reverse that. And I think this is another one where, even leaving aside sort of the change in national consciousness around race that we've seen in the last few months, the 2020 electorate is going to look very different from the 1996 electorate. A lot more diverse. And I think that it's going to sort of be another test of California's electorate and sort of the extent to which the state's politics may have shifted in the last few decades. 

PAUL: [00:14:38] 

Yeah. Bob Stern, who wrote the Political Reform Act in 1974, told me "name me a ballot measure that the voters would overturn, that they passed", and it was hard to come up with one. And I think this is going to test that theory that just when voters say, you know, yes, one time, it's very hard to undo that Yes or, to a certain degree, undo that No depending on your perspective. So I think it's going to be an interesting test. I think where that argument that Bob Stern puts forth has holes is when you get into some of the cultural issues. I think it's pretty certain that if we were to put before the voters a reexamination of gay marriage, I think it would be a different outcome than it was maybe 10 years ago. I'm kind of sensing, from what you've said, that this falls along those same lines where the racial demographics of the state have changed dramatically since the mid 1990s. 

I don’t know about you, but this is one where about 30 days after the election, I'm going to look at the geography of the results of the vote and see really where this played out, because it is going to be some fascinating politics. Just so listeners should know, RCRC's Board actually voted to support this measure. The Board believes that this measure will empower each individual county to assess their own hiring practices because this would definitely play a factor in what they do with their contracting practices and their hiring practice. So the board, after a really robust conversation, went ahead and supported this measure. Let's move on to Prop 17. This one is kind of under the radar screen, not getting a lot of attention. In essence, what it does is it allows those that are on parole, released from prison, but remaining on parole to go ahead and vote in elections. Certain parolees, convicted felons, would enjoy this benefit if this measure were to pass. What are your thoughts on this one, Jeremy? 

JEREMY: [00:16:27] 

You know, you captured it pretty well and, I think as with the Prop 16, this is one that kind of reflects the mood of the moment, which is not to say that this is something that folks have only been trying to do this year. But I think this one, again, sort of turns on these notions of justice in a society where race and policing are intertwined in really problematic ways. And so supporters will say, "Look, these folks may have committed- they did- commit felonies, but they've served their time. They've served their debt to society and preventing them from being able to vote once they get out is just going to make it that much harder for them to integrate into society." I would say even beyond sort of the specific consciousness and activism going on after George Floyd's death, I would fit this one into an even larger trend of California, both legislators and voters, kind of moving away from the harsher sentencing practices of years past when California enacted measures like the three strikes law, and people taking a look and saying, you know, we incarcerate too many people and it's too hard for them to integrate back into society when they get out, when they paid their debt. And so supporters would say not only is this a matter of fairness, this is a matter of people who have served their time being allowed to return to society and participate in civic culture rather than being locked out of it in a way that could potentially make it that much harder for them to get back on their feet and risk them reoffending. The opponents would say that voting is a right that is not immutable, that you can do something that you lose that right. But again, I think the supporters arguments sort of seem to have the momentum of the moment on their side. 

PAUL: [00:18:19] 

Yeah, you kind of alluded to some of the opposition reasons for this ballot measure, or to this ballot measure. And I will say the RCRC Board of Directors concurred with those sentiments. The Board did vote to oppose this measure, which again originated from the legislature. The legislature put this on the ballot. The concern was that those that would be impacted by this measure are those that haven't fully completed their sentence. They have been released from incarceration, they're on parole, but they haven't completed the fulfillment of those terms of parole, and we would be returning the franchise to those felons. And there was just a sentiment that that was a little premature since many of these individuals are still being monitored and have various restrictions. 

I get what a lot of the proponents say. If you look at the war on drugs, there were a lot of felony convictions as it relates to trafficking, using, possessing drugs. And now here we are in the you know, the 20 20s and a lot of those drugs have been decriminalized. So I get the policy reason for allowing people to vote when they've been convicted of something that ultimately their vote in an election could change and decriminalize. 

So this one's going to be fascinating too. But I think you're right. I think the momentum is probably with the Yes here because I just don't see a lot of paid opposition to this. 

The final one we'll talk about here today is Proposition 18, another measure that was placed on the ballot by the legislature, and it changes the age of voting. It's kind of interesting. It allows 17-year-olds to vote in Primaries provided they are 18 by the time of the General Election. This is not necessarily a new phenomenon. A number of states do allow for this. Obviously, a number of states allow 17-year-olds to register. But this one goes even beyond that in allowing 17-year-olds who will become 18 at the General to vote in the Primary. Your thoughts on this one?

JEREMY: [00:20:20] 

This one is framed as a civic participation measure. I should note that there is some history here. The assemblyman who carried the constitutional amendment that was placed on the ballot, Kevin Mullin , his father, Gene Mullin , who was also an assemblyman, had pursued the same thing, wasn't able to get it done. Similarly, Assemblyman Kevin Mullin had tried to get this done in previous attempts. It hadn't gotten across the finish line. This one did. And the argument is essentially, the earlier you instill those habits and that respect for voting in people, the more likely they are to become lifetime voters. You also see support for this one from the California League of Conservation Voters, which I was a little surprised to see, but their argument was a similar one. And their take is, you know, these young folks are going to be the ones most affected by climate change, so it makes sense to sort of empower them and give them that voting habit in them early. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla supports, as well, a sort of general point of view that the more people who are voting, the better. So this is a pretty straightforward, should we encourage people to vote by letting them vote the first time a little bit earlier? 

PAUL: [00:21:35] 

Do you think there's going to be any money or any major campaign on this? Are we likely to see ads here? What are your thoughts on how this campaign will be run for this measure? 

JEREMY: [00:21:44] 

Yeah, it's hard to imagine a lot of money being spent on this one. There is some opposition from an outfit called the Election Integrity Project, but they're not exactly a deep-pocketed organization, so it's hard to imagine them running a lot of ads. And then, you know, it's expensive to run a statewide ballot campaign. So the types of groups who are in favor are the League of Conservation Voters, the League of Women Voters. I think they can lend some sort of institutional credibility to this. But in terms of spending a lot of money on it, I wouldn't count on it. This is maybe going to come off cynically, but I think folks tend to spend the money on a ballot initiative when money or power is at stake. And unlike, say, split roll, where there is a lot of money at stake-- either groups that would have to spend more or groups that would get more-- with this, there's not really the same direct dynamics. You know, clear winners and losers. I think this one will probably be mostly left up to the voters. 

PAUL: [00:22:42] 

And for our listeners, this is an interesting measure. The RCRC Board of Directors actually took a position of not having a position on this one. And the big reason was that this empowers 17-year-olds to vote in a Primary, which is now going to be in March ahead of a General Election. That gives folks about eight months. So you have some pretty freshly-turned 17-year-olds voting in elections to decide a lot of things. But more importantly to County Supervisors, County Supervisors can win outright in March if they get 50 percent plus one. And there was some concern that a lot of these 17-year-olds that are eligible if this measure passes, are actually not just voting to set up another vote. They're actually setting up the winner of the election because county offices can oftentimes be won or lost in the March primary. So there was a little bit of a reservation on that. But I think there was also a sentiment that, you know, you can go into the military with your parent's signature at 17. You can do a lot of things at 17, like drive a car. Why shouldn't you be able to vote, at least in the primary, when things are going on that, like you said, are going to impact you for the rest of your life? 

PAUL: [00:23:53] 

Jeremy, this has been a fascinating conversation thus far, and I just want to thank you for your time. I know it's really busy on the campaign trail and in the public policy world, covering all the events that are shaping our day. So really appreciate it. We're going to continue this in part two of our series. We're gonna go through the remaining number of ballot measures, which will be coming up in a few days time. In the meantime, Jeremy, thank you again. And we look forward to the next discussion. 

JEREMY: [00:24:17]

Thank you. 

OUTRO [00:24:18] 

You've been listening to Hometown California, a production of the Rural County Representatives of California. Subscribe now so you don't miss an episode. And be sure to rate and review this podcast. I'm your host, Paul Smith. And thanks for listening.