Larry Mantle
Welcome to the AirTalk voter cram session, a KPCC In Person event, we
have such limited time to talk about so many ballot propositions just
as we've done in previous election years. Unlike our previous years,
I'm the only one at the Mohn Broadcast Center. It's so good to have
you joining us virtually or over 89.3 KPCC. And our format's the same
contained within this hour, it's a primmer on all 12 California ballot
propositions. For a number of years now, we've been hosting the voter
cram sessions and had wonderful attendance here at KPCC in our
Crawford Family Forum, and we're going to do our best to recreate that
for this special event. Joining me from the nonprofit statewide news
organization CalMatters reporter Laurel Rosenhall. Also with us from
our fellow NPR member station, KQED in San Francisco political
correspondent Marisa Lagos. She also co hosts the podcast Political
Breakdown. He's Loyola Marymount University professor of political
science and Chicano Latino Studies, and director of LMU's Center for
the Study of Los Angeles, Fernando Guerra and also with us from
Pepperdine University School of Public Policy Associate Dean and
Associate Professor Michael Shires. We begin with Proposition 14, a
five and a half billion dollar bond measure for the state's Institute
of Regenerative Medicine. The Institute's stem cell research funding
program was established by voters with the 2004 passage of Proposition
71, Laurel Rosenhall, please start us off is this essentially a
recharge of Prop 71 and the funding that came with that?
Laurel Rosenhall
Yeah, exactly. Basically, the supporters are going back to the voters
and asking for more money because they've spent up everything that
they got in the last round. And I think the most interesting thing to
note about this one is that when this funding was first approved, in
the early 2000s, the federal government was not allowing any federal
grants for stem cell research. And that's changed since then. So there
is some argument to be made, that this kind of investment by
California taxpayers is no longer necessary, because federal funding
is available. On the other hand, supporters say that, you know, it's
led to a lot of jobs in biotech, and keep the state on the forefront
of innovation.
Larry Mantle
Fernando Guerra, one of the things that I've heard from a critic of
this, on our AirTalk segment, was that there was supposed to be
through patents, you know, with funding provided by the Institute,
that money would flow back to the state to recharge the coffers of of
the Institute, that apparently is has not really happened. So that's
certainly one of the issues here. What for you is central to
proposition 14?
Fernando Guerra
Well, I think Laurel already said it is that they made a promise that
they would be able to come up and have some gains. And really, the

 rationale for it the last time was that the federal government wasn't
doing it, they are now doing this. Now it is important for California
to be a biotech leader to be out there. So in theory, it's appealing
to me, but in practice, they haven't produced much. There's no
certainty that they will, the rationale for it to first be on the
ballot wasn't there. On the other hand, it is a lot of money to some
extent, and people oftentimes put this amount of money based on the
today's budget, but remember, you would pay over 30 years, and during
that time, it'd be less than one half of 1% of the state's budget. And
it does have the potential for a tremendous finding that could really
help.
Larry Mantle
Mike shires of Pepperdine. Quick thought on Prop 14.
Michael Shires
Got to remember to unmute. In the COVID era, you know, with all the
pressure that's going to be on budget, really the question that
taxpayers need to be asking, Is this where we want to focus those $6
billion of our scarce resources. And I think there's a lot of
uncertainty in the near term future. And I think it's going to make it
a little harder for voters to say yes to this, even though its
intentions and the promise that it has is tremendous.
Larry Mantle
Again, proposition 14, five and a half million dollar bond measure to
go to the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine for stem cell
research and research on other neurological disorders and illnesses.
Proposition 15 would create a split roll on property taxes, removing
commercial and industrial properties from long standing Proposition
13. Restrictions on tax increases residential property would continue
to have prop 13 limits on tax hikes. Marisa who's backing prop15?
Marisa Lagos
So this has been sort of a long held fever dream of the left in
California unions, the Democratic Party, others have really pushed for
a long time to consider this, you know, the 1978, Proposition 13,
locked in these property rates and was really, I think, before my
time, but framed to voters by Howard Jarvis, who wrote it as a way to
keep senior citizens in their home, they were seeing a lot of problems
with people at the time, really being unable to keep up with inflation
and the rising property values and the reassessments on them, but it
has benefited businesses. And I think one of the big things that
they're going to be talking about or are talking about in this
campaign, is the fact that there was kind of a loophole in this that
allowed businesses if you don't sell more than 50% of a stake to keep
those same taxes. On the other hand, you know, you have business
groups, the Republican Party, others who see this as kind of a
slippery slope, prop 13, has long been kind of a third rail of
politics. Nobody wants to touch people's personal property tax rates.

 And so I think this is really a kind of who's who, on both sides of
the aisle of business interest versus largely unions and democratic
interest.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires of Pepperdine. What do you think's most important about
prop 15?
Michael Shires
Well, I mean, this it, Marisa's right, this has been a long held
strategy. They proposed this several times in different forms. This is
the latest iteration. I think they just have very, very bad timing
this time around. I mean, if you look at a business environment where
small businesses have been locked down for seven or eight months right
now, and you're asking them to pay 12 billion more in property taxes
every year, going forward, everybody says, Oh, no, it's just the
wealthy landowners. Well, all these businesses have all these
landowners have leases with the businesses that says you pay the
property taxes on this site, your share of the property taxes, and so
this is going to go down to the local businesses at exactly the time
they're struggling just to survive, let alone to be able to pay
another 12 billion in property taxes. If you've look at California's
competitiveness, we're 48 out of 50 in taxes already. I mean, this is
a great step to move as the 50 out of 50 in terms of business climate.
Larry Mantle
Fernando Guerra, on the other hand, voters know the kinds of
challenges that schools are facing right now with the extra expenses
of COVID-19. And the challenges in having enough state funding to
operate.
Fernando Guerra
To me this is the most significant proposition on the ballot. The
first time I ever voted for governor was 1978. And I voted against
Proposition 13. My father, very liberal, but a retired homeowner voted
for it. It was conflict. And you think there were you know, there are
discussions right now between Trump and Biden supporters in a
household. That's what it was like back in 78. In terms of Proposition
13. In addition, Proposition 13. In 1978, I think all the way to 2003
with a recall of Governor Davis was this conservative regime that
solidified a lot of their policy goals through the initiative process.
In the last couple of election cycles. You've seen democrats, unions,
liberals start chipping away at that, and this is one of those. And
then the next one that we're going to talk about very significant has
tremendous impact for the future of California.
Larry Mantle
We're talking about Proposition 15. On the voter cram session, we're
going in numerical order with each of the ballot propositions joined
by Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount Mike Shires Pepperdine

 University, Marisa Lagos joining us as well. Lauren Rosenhall of
CalMatters, Marisa of KQED as we talk about these important ballot
propositions so complex and we're taking them, giving you a little
primer on each one of them. Next up is Proposition 16, which would
repeal the 1996 voter passed Proposition 209. That measure banned the
use of racial or ethnic preferences anywhere in state governments,
including state higher education, prop 16, would allow the use of
racial and ethnic considerations in California's public sector.
Laurel, this has been a longtime goal of progressives, just as
Fernando was saying, for more than 20 years, and I'm wondering if the
racial justice protests that we've seen over the past several months
might well factor into supporters hopes for getting it passed this
time.
Laurel Rosenhall
Absolutely. In fact, you know, this measure was put on the ballot by
the legislature, and in the early months of the year, before the virus
hit and before the killing of George Floyd. It wasn't actually looking
very good in terms of getting the votes it needed, even in the
legislature where Democrats have a super majority. This is extremely
controversial and it had in the past really fractured the Democratic
caucuses along ethnic lines and was not by any means a slam dunk, it
was really seen as something that was a question mark. Um, then you
know the pandemic happened and this enormous national reckoning over
racism. And all of a sudden this issue became framed as, as part of
that as a representation of the Black Lives Matter movement. And it
really gained a lot of political momentum in the legislature because
of that, and that really changed its fortunes and it did pass the
legislature and that's why it's on the ballot now.
Larry Mantle
All right, Mike Shires of Pepperdine, this has been an issue with in
other states, and to some extent in California, that has galvanized
Asian American communities, Chinese American, Korean American
communities concerned about what it might mean for college admissions
into the highly coveted slots in in state universities. How much of a
factor do you think that is with Proposition 16?
Michael Shires
Well, Proposition 16, as Laurel talked about, really hit at a key time
in the policy debate over race in America. But prop 209 was an effort
to kind of take race off the table, but it was extremely divisive when
it happened. And today, as we talk about putting it back on the table,
in this even more incendiary environment, it's going to create
tremendous energy on both sides of the issue. I mean, the reality is
prop 209 is 25 years old, almost and most institutions that need to
figure out ways around its constraints have done so and the courts
have created exceptions. So there is a there is a legitimate debate, I
think about whether this needs to be repealed at this time or whether
advancing it helps. I mean, anytime you insert considerations by race

 into the conversation, it's going to create very strong feelings on
both sides.
Larry Mantle
Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount, what do you think about the
timing? It does seem to be it's optimal for supporters.
Fernando Guerra
Yeah, race matters. It matters in terms of public policy. But I also
like to think about it as a from another perspective that's really
important in California politics, and that this is local control. This
initiative, if it passes, does not create affirmative action. It
allows cities and other governmental units to pursue it if they so
desire. And there's already a body of law for federal and state law
that prohibits certain types of discrimination based on race that
would negatively impact let's say, Asian Americans. Even though
there's a movement for it, there have been two polls that have been
done on this both the PPIC, the Public Policy Institute of California
and ideas, the Institute for governmental studies at Berkeley have
tested it, and it is losing I still there's still room for it to
improve. And I think given the money that they've been able to raise
that it probably is going to pass but barely. It's going to be very,
very close. And it is an important debate that not only America but
California is currently going into it. And by the way over 40 states
do not have prohibition. In terms of affirmative action. California is
one of the few that does
Larry Mantle
All right Fernando Guerra Loyola Marymount University, Mike Shires at
Pepperdine University, also joined by reporters, Laurel Rosenhall of
CalMatters joining us Marisa Lagos of KQED as well, our voter cram
session continues with Proposition 17, which would allow paroled
felons to be able to vote while they're on parole. Marisa, measures
like this have passed in other states in recent years, is this prop
part of the national movement?
Marisa Lagos
I think it really is. And it fits into a broader conversation, both
about criminal justice and sort of, you know, the the idea of
rehabilitation and whether people who have served their time should be
allowed to fully reenter society. But it also really plays into the
broader conversation about voter suppression and voter rights. We're
seeing litigation continue in Florida over their ballot measure a few
years ago to restore the rights of felons to vote with this would
essentially say, Larry, as you said, is that you know, folks in prison
would still not be able to vote. But once they get out, even if
they're still on parole, they can. And I think that this is something
that, again, we see really breakdown along party lines. And something
that I think fits into some of the later ballot measures we're going
to talk about to prop 20 and prop 25. You know, California has really

 seen after years of tough on crime measures in the 90s and early 2000s
a really changing of the tide, and we've relaxed a lot of sentencing
laws. And I think that people who support this would see this on the
same kind of trajectory, as some of those, you know, efforts to really
stress rehabilitation and the idea of allowing people to kind of burn
their way back into society.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires, one of the things that I've heard critics say about prop
17 is parole, as opposed to probation is is essentially part of the
sentence, and that it's more similar to having people who are
incarcerated voting than it is to people on probation. What do you
think of that argument?
Michael Shires
Well, I mean, that goes to the fundamental issue here. Because once
you're off parole, you are allowed to vote, right? So it's it's
literally 50,000 individuals who are in that kind of gray space
between finishing their prison sentences and finishing their parole
time. And so, you know, the question that's, you know, that's out
there for voters is how do we accelerate? 30 states have said that
parole is part of the sentence process, and that you're eligible to
vote after that, for the most part, California has that role has that
position right now. And this would simply change California into that
other column and say, you know, join the other 19 states who say it's
not part of that process. But it really is, in some ways, kind of a
lightening, if you will, the sentence impact and an opportunity to
vote sooner. But it's, again, it's a very small population.
Larry Mantle
Fernando, the supporters, one of the things that they argue is, if
someone is released on parole, it indicates that society is giving
them the chance to integrate back in to regular life, and that voting
is a part of that whole process of re acclamation to being on the
outside. Your thoughts about that argument in favor of the prop?
Fernando Guerra
Yeah, absolutely. Just to be clear, the US Constitution does not
prohibit people on parole or felons or even people in prison from
voting. As a matter of fact, there are two states that allow people
who are in prison to actually vote. And so it's really a decision for
the state, given the rationale that you that you want to use. And the
other thing I want to take off is what Mike said, this is this will
impact at most 40,000 excuse me, 50,000 people, we've got 21 million
voters, we're talking about one 10th of 1% of the voters, this is
symbolic, important about increasing the franchise of the vote and not
having obstacles, California is in the forefront of that they may not
be leaders in individual segments. But overall, we've adopted the most
inclusive voting rights. And this is a continuation of that in a real
impact. There's no impact other to the individuals, it will not change

 one single election in my mind. But it's important to talk about that
we are an inclusive state when it comes to voting.
Larry Mantle
Yeah, it's just gonna go back to you go ahead.
Marisa Lagos
I do think that there, I think it absolutely you're right, we're
talking about 10s of thousands of people, it is a population that will
change over time. So it will capture more than that over time, right.
And I think one thing to think about is we know from young voters, and
from anybody who has been disenfranchised, that that reinfranchisement, like can really kind of build on itself. So if you
have people working as part of the, you know, the parole process to
register these folks, they're probably more likely to vote than if
they had just served their parole and then been left up to their own
devices. You know, I think that this gets to some really key
questions, as I said, about the about kind of how do we view both
prison time and parole, and some of the problems we've seen in the
past with parole really being used as a way to just get people back in
prison, if they kind of step out of line, even if it's minor. And so I
think that what this could do more than the sheer numbers of voters is
kind of encourage a different subset of the population and even
potentially their families to become more civically engaged. And, you
know, some people may think that that's not a great thing if they've
been convicted of violent crimes. But as both Mike and Fernando said,
we already do lett people who are off parole, you know, participate.
Larry Mantle
Marisa Lagos of KQED our fellow NPR member station in San Francisco,
where she's political correspondent, Laurel Rosenhall of the
nonprofit, statewide news organization CalMatters also with us, and
we're so pleased to have from academia Mike Shires of Pepperdine
University, and from Loyola Marymount University and the Center for
the Study of Los Angeles, Fernando Guerra, our voter cram session
taking you through each one of the ballot propositions numerically we
move on to Proposition 18. A state constitutional amendment that would
allow 17 year olds to vote in primaries and special elections, if
they're going to turn 18 by the next general election, Laurel, flush
this out a little bit for us.
Laurel Rosenhall
Yeah, this is actually a perfect building on the conversation we just
had about the ballot measure that would let people vote if they're on
parole. This is another sort of incremental, small expansion of the
electorate. That's the goal here. And I think that both of these
measures, reflect to the Democratic Party's value on bringing in as
many voters as possible and we know that the voters who tend to vote
less whether they're younger, whether they have a criminal history, or
if they rent their homes instead of own them. Those are the voters who

 also tend to vote for Democrats. So there is a very kind of neat
political alignment with an agenda to sort of expand the pool of
voters, by Democrats and to restrict it by Republicans, as we've seen
in red states, many, many different policies that sort of attempt to
restrict who can vote. So this one in Proposition 18, doesn't have a
very robust opposition campaign in California. There are a couple of
groups voter integrity groups and anti tax groups that are opposed to
it, but there's absolutely no money going into a no campaign. And this
also was put on by the legislature. So that's a little bit about that
one.
Larry Mantle
Okay. Very good. Fernando, both you and Mike know a lot about young
people being college professors. So I assume on campus, there's a lot
of support for this idea.
Fernando Guerra
Oh, absolutely. Students have been talking about it. Number one,
people say, Well, wait a minute, you're 17. Doesn't the constitution
require that you be 18? Remember, we're not talking about the November
election, we're talking about the primary in California. And remember,
primaries are controlled by states and by parties, we can make the
rules that we want. It's not about the November 18, excuse me, the
November election. Again, it's about expanding the franchise educating
we already allow 16 and 17 year olds to pre register so that when they
turn 18, they can vote, it's about really preparing our kids are to be
active, proactive citizens and contribute to society.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires.
Michael Shires
You know, I think that this whole conversation, you know about
boundaries about when you have the full rights of citizenship, whether
it's the convicted felons we saw in prop 17, where it's like, when
have you served your sentence? When have you done your debt to
society? And this one, I mean, 17 year olds are not allowed to sign
binding contracts, they can't consent to a whole range of activities.
I mean, they are not full fledged members of our society. And I think
that it's a little disingenuous to say, well, Republicans are trying
to suppress the vote, and Democrats are trying to encourage the vote.
I mean, there is a point where you receive full citizenship in this
country, and that happens at the age of 18, when you can be drafted
and when all kinds of other things can happen. And so I think that,
you know, as you as you start carving around the edges and say, well,
we want more people to participate. It has to do when you have the
maturity and the legal responsibility, and the legal obligation to
participate. And I think that, you know, the characterization of
Republicans as saying, voting is the most important thing we do as
citizens, we want to make sure that the people who do it are being

 treated fairly across the board, and that the people who are voting
are the people who are supposed to, and that, you know, if you're
going to be voting, you are in fact a full adult making these
decisions. I don't think those are just arbitrary things. That's how
we've structured all of the rest of our society.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires of Pep.
Fernando Guerra
I actually don't disagree with Mike, that on in November, you will be
18 and voting. And if you didn't vote in the primary, all of the
decisions have been structured for you. And so your right as an adult,
18 year old in November, will have been greatly impacted by what
happened in March. And so it seems only fair that you as a full adult
citizen in November have the right to shape those choices in this
entire election. The election is not just November, it's the entire
primary season, and that's the rationale.
Larry Mantle
All right, gentlemen, thanks very much. There's Fernando Guerra Loyola
Marymount University, Mike Shires to Pepperdine University, and also
joining us journalists CalMatters Laurel Rosenhall, KQED's San
Francisco, Marisa Lagos. Next up on our voter cram session, one hour
to go through all of the ballot propositions is Proposition 19, which
has a few components to it, it would allow Californians over 55, or
disabled, to transfer their prop 13 property tax basis. So that
restricted lower property tax basis to a new property when they move,
it would also establish a fire protection services fund. And Marisa
it's also designed to end the ability of heirs to inherit a lower prop
13 tax basis along with the family property if they don't move into
that property and live in it. So this a rather complicated ballot
prop.
Marisa Lagos
Yeah, and I think that last point is really what makes it
controversial or most controversial. You know, the, a lot of counties
actually already allow seniors to transfer their lower rates if they
buy a house, within the within that property or with or within that
county. Or if they are going to a county that allows those types of
transfers. So there is a kind of limited ability to keep those low
rates. And generally what realtors will say, downsize your home. So
one of the arguments for this by the realtors and others is that
people are kind of in these golden handcuffs that they have to stay in
their bigger houses even after they're retired and their kids have
gone away because they can't afford a new house and the higher
property tax rates. But I think that that question of whether you can
keep the lower rate if you inherit something is really what's making
this controversial. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who, you know,
wrote prop 13 originally, that is their kind of biggest beef with

 this, they say see it as a slippery slope. You know, it also, as you
mentioned, applies to wildfire and disaster victims, which I think is
increasingly an issue that Californians is do need to worry about
right now. Because a lot of people have had these fires sweep through
their homes in both Southern and and Northern California, and can't
afford to or don't want to stay put. You know, this is something the
realtors would love to see pass. They're the main proponent of this,
it is something that we had in a slightly different manner, were asked
in 2016 and did reject. And, you know, I think that it's, it's another
one it does tie back to prop 13. And anytime you talk about property
taxes in California, it gets a little bit controversial.
Larry Mantle
It's like like religion in California, Mike Mike Shires. The Los
Angeles Times did, I think it was a series of stories, or maybe just
one long one, that looked at some of these incredibly expensive
properties that had passed down to the heirs who didn't live in them.
And they, you know, had taken their their parents lower property tax
basis, from prop 13, it seems to be that you know, that that sort of
reporting is is one of the big fuelers of this ballot measure.
Michael Shires
Sure. And I mean, you know, the voters in 19, what was in 1986, when
they passed Prop, prop 58 said, you know, as a form of inheritance,
you can pass the House to your kids, and they can hold on to it. And
that's basically the premise behind giving them the lower rate is that
you're not forcing them, because the property taxes would revalue, to
suddenly have to pay more. And so, I mean, that was the commitment
that was the decision, then we may get a different decision in this
election, but it was really about this kind of, you should be allowed
to leave your house to your kids, and they shouldn't have to get rid
of it right away. Now, you know, ideally, would you want them to move
into it and live in it, possibly, but it should be a decision they
make on their own time, not one forced by the economy. There's another
footnote to this and prop 15 that people don't talk about, which is
counties have, don't have the infrastructure anymore to do this stuff.
So when you talk about prop 19, or you talk about prop 15, the
counties are going to have to invest literally 10s of millions of
dollars to create the assessment infrastructure that we have let go
away since prop 13, passed in 1978. And so there's a real cost
associated, especially on the front end of this, that in many cases
will probably wipe out any increases in revenues for at least the
first few years.
Larry Mantle
That's, that's something I have not heard brought up in relation to
prop 19. Fernando, your thoughts about this measure?
Fernando Guerra
So I know I try to be as objective as possible, but I'm a tenured

 professor. So I'm just gonna say it is a terrible idea. This is
basically Robin Hood in reverse. It's taking from future generations
and giving it to rich people, people who own property right now who
have benefited from proposition 13, for years, sometimes decades, and
now we're giving them even more money. So if you have a home, it's got
a lot of value. You can sell it, pay a little tax, you know, you're
gonna downsize anyway, instead of taking from future generations.
Again, the previous ballot that we talked about was about empowering
young people. This takes away from future generations. You know, and I
agree with everything that Mike said as well.
Larry Mantle
That's proposition 19. On our voter cram session, Fernando Guerra of
Loyola Marymount University, Mike Shires at Pepperdine University,
Marisa Lagos of our fellow NPR member station KQED and Laurel
Rosenhall joining us from CalMatters the statewide nonprofit news
organization. Next on our voter cram session, Proposition 20, which
would make changes to previously passed criminal justice initiatives,
prop 47 and prop 57. Prop 20 would allow the charging of a third theft
worth $950 or less as a felony. Currently taking property of $950 or
less is a misdemeanor regardless of previous convictions. Laurel, it
would also remove some categories of crimes that became eligible for
earlier release under Prop 57. Can you elaborate on that?
Laurel Rosenhall
Yeah, this one is really about trying. This one is really about some
criminal justice reforms that former Governor Jerry Brown champions
and frustrations by many in the law enforcement community that they
have had really negative impacts in in our communities. So this is an
attempt to sort of unravel some of the changes that Jerry Brown
supported. So no surprise, he is putting some money into the no
campaign on this one, he is on the no side, Governor Gavin Newsom is
also on the no side. And the yes side is mostly law enforcement,
district attorneys and some of the more moderate Democratic members of
the legislature.
Larry Mantle
Marisa, you've also done a fair amount of coverage of Proposition 20,
would you please add some to it because there's a lot going on here.
Marisa Lagos
There is and I think this is in a way, sort of a grab bag of the
things that police officers in particular, Jim Cooper, Democratic
Assemblyman, help write this. He's a former police officer, you know,
it is essentially a real effort to tighten some of the reforms that
have led to 10s of thousands of people leaving prison and jails early.
The folks who are against it are very concerned about the fact that
some of the provisions of those earlier measures directed the state to
take savings from lower incarceration rates and put those back into
things like victim services, crime prevention, and rehabilitation. And

 so what they're saying is that this would essentially undermine some
of the progress that California has made around those issues, that it
will take money away from survivors of crime, you really do have, I
think, a sort of war of words here, because it's very hard to parse
out exactly how one part of a criminal justice change impacts broader
crime rates, there has been an uptick in property crimes in California
over the last decade, but that we've seen a lot of those similar
trends nationally, where they haven't had the same reforms. And so
yeah, this is definitely another one that has kind of come down
largely along party lines although as Laurel notes, folks like Jim
Cooper are on the more moderate side of the Democratic Party and
supporting this.
Larry Mantle
Fernando Guerra, one of the supporters, I know were the supermarket
chains because theft has been a significant problem for them. And, and
often my understanding is police reports aren't they don't even bother
with them in many cases, when it's less than $950, because of the
misdemeanor status, and no one does any time for it. So, Fernando,
what's your sense of of, you know, whether that's going to have
resonance with with voters and that argument that that was, was a
loophole in earlier props.
Fernando Guerra
This is definitely a kind of return of the empire in terms of the
criminal justice reform that have been happening. Two major comments
that I have one is if you really take a look at their argument, and
you try to find the data, the data there is not really supportive. And
then I also believe, and good thing that you brought it up, it's
really been pushed a lot by the supermarkets. And you know, they're
really taking a real blunt instrument to a very specific problem. They
can spend their own money for more security and more prevention
policies. They're asking us, the residents and voters of California to
solve their problem and to solve their problem in a very draconian
way. It's kind of very upsetting that a sector would would do this,
solve your own problem, spend your own money, if you're having issues.
Don't expect us to do this for you. I don't expect that this will
pass. I mean, I'd be shocked if it were passed.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires.
Marisa Lagos
Oh, sorry. Can I just add one quick thing?
I think it's worth noting that, you're right, I think a lot of police
officers have thrown up their hands in frustration and decided on
their own not to write reports. And if you talk to district attorneys
on the left on the you know, on the more progressive side who do
support the reforms we've had an oppose this measure, they say I have

 the power to, you know, if somebody continues to come in and do you
know, commit the same crime over and over, even if they hit that lower
dollar threshold, I could charge them a serial theft, and that would
be a felony. So I do think some of this has been sort of gamed within
law enforcement when they have been unhappy with some of the outcomes
of what voters and the legislature have passed.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires, your thoughts on Proposition 20?
Michael Shires
Yeah, I think a lot of the opposition to this initiative focuses on
the supermarket part of this. I mean, there's a whole bunch of stuff
in here. Things like saying, you know, date rape and selling children
for sex should be felonies, period. Right, and, I mean, this is a
backlash, not just against a small few things. And I mean, part of the
reason why you may not see data, for example, on whether it has an
impact on shoplifting is because they're not writing the reports,
right. But but it's a broader question of have we gone too far with
sentencing reform or with with with charging reform, in many ways,
charging people for crimes, and has that undermined our law
enforcement's ability to keep in the community, and this is kind of a
mishmash of issues and topics that have been thrown together to try
and give law enforcement, more tools. Is that the right mix? I mean, I
think this is the kind of stuff that belongs in the legislature where
they can sit down and have long deliberations. I'm a big fan of the
initiative process. But this is one of the initiatives this year that
I think, yep, this really does belong in the halls of the legislature
where these things can be nuanced and in the hands of judges and
district attorneys working together to come up with good guidelines.
Larry Mantle
All right, we're talking on our voter cram session about all the
ballot propositions one by one Mike Shires of Pepperdine University
just speaking, prior to him Fernando Guerra of Loyola Marymount. Also
with us Marisa Lagos of KQED, NPR member station, San Francisco and
Laurel Rosenhall joining us from CalMatters, the statewide nonprofit
news organization. Proposition 21, would allow local governments to
extend rent control to many more properties than they can currently.
Currently, single family homes and housing completed since 1995, are
exempt from rent control. Also, landlords are allowed to charge new
tenants at higher rates currently under California law. Marisa, how is
this different than the rent control measure that was defeated a
couple years ago?
Marisa Lagos
It's not really, this is kind of a second go by Michael Weinstein, who
you in LA are very familiar with, head of the AIDS Healthcare
Foundation, which provides low cost prescription drugs to HIV and AIDS
patients. You know, Weinstein himself has become a real flashpoint in

 this, he's a very controversial figure, very outspoken, has gone after
Democrats on some of the housing things, it's a little confusing in
some ways, what his full politics are on some of these. But the issue
itself is something that a lot of folks within the legislature on the
left flank have tried to push and have failed there, which is this
repeal of a state law called Costa Hawkins that really limited what
local governments could do. So in a place like San Francisco, we had a
pre existing rent control ordinance before that state law passed in
the mid 90s. So we have been allowed to keep rent control. But
jurisdictions who have wanted to increase renter protections since
1995, have essentially been barred from doing so. So this would remove
that. And it's controversial, because rent control is controversial,
people, you know, have very strong feelings on both sides about
whether it actually helps tenants or hurts them, or it can kind of
hurt housing production at a time when California obviously needs to
do more. And, you know, this is really one that I think people have
very sort of strong visceral feelings around rent control. And I
think, I think the only kind of twist here is Weinstein's involvement
in the fact that he's really alienated a lot of people even within the
Democratic Party, and who and I think that that has hurt his chances
to some extent on building a coalition on the left.
Larry Mantle
Fernando Guerra, your thoughts about prop 21, and its rent control
provisions.
Fernando Guerra
So we kind of visited this two years ago, right. And you take again, I
take a look at the data and the argument from both sides, and they
make certain assumptions. And they have very good studies on both
sides. But the data is just not clear for either side. And so they
both make good arguments for or against. I'm leaning in terms of for
because again, it's local control. So it allows the cities in
different jurisdictions to try rent control. And this would then
create experiment, we have 58 counties over five 400, close to 500
cities. And we can then put together some different types of rent
controls in different types of cities and try an experiment to see
what what might work, most cities will not enact it. It did not create
statewide rent control. Again, it gives it to the jurisdiction where
the locals and local citizens and local conditions can determine
whether or not you should have rent control.
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires, what do you think of the prospects of Prop 21?
Michael Shires
I'm going to disagree with my colleague here a bit on this one, I
think that a couple years ago,
Fernando Guerra

 Was not the first time that Pepperdine and Loyola Marymount University
disagree,
Larry Mantle
Friendly rivalry.
Michael Shires
Yeah, I think that, you know, if you go back to where we are in the
rent control debate, I mean, a lot of the things that are being
addressed in the initiative, this initiative, the time periods and the
limits that they want to repeal, were the result of a legislative
compromise between property owners and these very advocates in the
legislature with the full hearing process and the full deliberative
process of the legislature. The governor's office got heavily involved
in this. And they crafted a compromise that tried to balance those
interests. This initiative is literally those same people coming back
and saying, we didn't get what we wanted. We want to throw that entire
compromise out and get what we wanted in the first place. And I just
think, I mean, if you think about the deliberative process, and you
have property building owners saying, okay, we're willing to go along
with rent control. I mean, I think it was a great set of compromises.
And this just undoes that. And while it may just open the door to
local jurisdictions, I guarantee you in the next legislative session,
there will be state level legislation that steps into the holes that
this repeal of these constraints creates and tries to make it
statewide.
Larry Mantle
All right, we just need to pick up our pace a little bit here. Next up
is Proposition 22. An effort by Uber, Lyft and Doordash to keep their
drivers classified as independent contractors. Under California's
recently enacted AB5 drivers for ride hailing companies must be
employees of the companies. Laurel, the legislature has already carved
out a number of exceptions to AB5 from different sectors of the
economy. what's what's going on here between the ride hailing
companies and the legislature over AB5?
Laurel Rosenhall
Oh, those companies desperately wanted an exemption as well, and they
didn't get it. And the reason is that the theory on these exemptions
is that they should be given to, frankly, workers who earn higher
wages and maybe don't need as many protections as very low wage
workers need. That's the rationale of the legislators to support AB5.
This ballot measure is officially the most expensive ballot measure in
California history, which means it's probably the most expensive in
our nation's history. The gig companies, Uber, Lyft, Doordash,
Postmates, and Instacart have put in $185 million already. And they
are up against the labor unions. This is a classic. On the one hand,
it's classic, right? Because it's a labor union fight. And the lines
are very stark. On the other hand, it's definitely on the cutting edge

 in terms of the kinds of issues that have emerged with technology,
with innovation and with the gig economy. So this fight is really seen
as something that will say a lot about the future of what does it mean
to to work? And what responsibilities do employers have for their
employees, for things like, you know, sick time and family leave and
benefits like that, that you get if you're an employee that you do not
get if you're an independent contractor,
Larry Mantle
Mike Shires, one of the things that seems that there's a real
difference in the ride hailing drivers between those who do it full
time, and those who do it as a side gig, and that that might be
reflected in their views of this proposition.
Michael Shires
Yeah, I mean, this whole question of who's an employee and who's a
contractor? Yeah, it has been around forever. And, you know, tax
agencies have had to deal with this. I actually think AB5 had
massively unintended consequences and sectors they never imagined,
which is why they've carved out all these exceptions. But to sort of
generically say everybody is essentially an employee has created a
crisis. And if you think about how Uber and Lyft came into the
economy, it's really dangerous to say, we don't want that to happen
anymore. I think. I mean, I think that kind of innovation that they
brought to the market has really transformed how we do business and
how we how we literally get around.
Larry Mantle
You don't buy their argument that they can't, that they can't, or you
accept their argument, I should say that they, it's not financially
feasible for them to treat their drivers as employees and operate in
California.
Michael Shires
I think, absolutely. I mean, they're the margins. I mean, a these gig
companies tend to run losses to start off anyway. But I mean, the
margins are not going to be there to pay the employees and do all
these other things. And my fear is just that this whole conversation
is going to destroy innovation that we are getting as a result of the
gig economy.
Larry Mantle
Fernando, your thoughts on Prop 22?
Fernando Guerra
Yeah, very similar to Mike's. I mean, listen, we're in the idea that
in today's world, we're trying to put all workers into two massive
categories. We need new categories, new definitions of workers in this
new economy. I think both sides are right and both sides are wrong.
And this really should be again, it being an that that we that people

 have to decide this. This is too important. I know that the judges
also had this had an impact with the courts and their decision, but
even they are always courts are always backwards looking. Legislators
need to be forward looking this problem needs to be solved. This does
not solve the problem for the California economy. It solves it for one
sector, one excemption. And again, it's very problematic with the
initiative process.
Larry Mantle
Proposition 22 we're talking about, let's move on to Proposition 23.
The second initiative aimed at kidney dialysis centers, just two years
ago, voters defeated one that was sponsored by labor unions, unions
are back with this one, Marisa, what mandates would prop 23 apply to
dialysis clinics?
Marisa Lagos
So this would require that a doctor or nurse practitioner or physician
assistant is on site during these dialysis treatments. And it would
essentially require these clinics to seek state approval if they're
going to decrease their services. And it also requires the clinics to
kind of treat anybody regardless of whether they're on Medicaid or
medical. This is, yeah, you know, I really sort of wade into the poly
sigh Professor territory, but I'm gonna just parrot something both
Fernando and Mike have said, which is like, why are we being asked
about this? I mean, I think voters had a similar response a couple
years ago, it's very troublesome that such a small group of very
wealthy corporations do run these clinics, which are life saving and
necessary. It's also sort of troubling that the unions have taken now
twice to the ballot box to kind of try to settle what I think to some
extent are reflective of bigger problems with our health care system,
and and our in our broader kind of system here. This is something you
know that that the unions say would essentially make these places
safer for patients, and that the dialysis clinics say, similar to
their arguments a few years ago, would really require them to shut
down some of the clinics in more in the rural areas of the state. And
so, you know, I am not a dialysis physician, and it is hard to sort of
read. I mean, this is just one of those ones. I gotta be honest, even
as a journalist who's been following this, you're a little bit like
scratching your head, I don't know, I'm not really sure what would be
best for, for the clinics or for the patients here.
Larry Mantle
Thank you, Marisa. Fernando, you want to briefly weigh in on this?
Fernando Guerra
Sure. This is a complete distortion and abuse of the initiative
system. This is one powerful group trying to punish another. And yeah
the other group happens to be a multi-billion dollar industry that
makes a lot of money and should pay their workers more. But this is
not a way to solve it. Bad public policy, bad politics. It's, again, a

 complete distortion of the initiative process, because you have a lot
of money.
Larry Mantle
Mike, you have one or two sentences to add to that?
Michael Shires
I have four words, what they said. I guess that's three.
Larry Mantle
That's Proposition 23. Proposition 24, would apply new consumer
privacy laws and create a new state agency to oversee and enforce
those laws. Laurel, this proposition interestingly has split privacy
advocates, several consumer groups are in favor of it, and the ACLU is
opposed. What are they seeing differently here?
Laurel Rosenhall
You know, this has to do with whether you have a worldview of sort of
building on what's possible and making a change that's very difficult
in the face of a wealthy and powerful interest group, which is the
technology industry, or whether you want to sort of throw away what we
have now and start from scratch with a very idealized version of what
privacy policy could be. It's absolutely turned out to be one of the
biggest surprises on the ballot this year that this initiative is a
fight among privacy advocates. It's not what we expected, which was
going to be a fight between big tech on one side and privacy advocates
on the other side, that hasn't panned out, big tech is being very
quiet. They're not putting any money into either side. They're not
talking a lot. And the proponent of this initiative, who is a
millionaire, which does speak to the point that Fernando made about
the money that can go into these initiatives, you know, he put $5
million into this thing, so it's on the ballot, and he did negotiate
with all kinds of parties. But it wasn't happening in the legislature,
it was happening privately. So there are concerns both in terms of the
process, and in terms of the policy. A lot of the debate has to do
with going into a scheme where we are going to be asked to pay more
for services if we want privacy. That is allowed under current privacy
law, but is basically reinforced and expanded under this law. And it's
one of the reasons the ACLU is opposed. It's one of the reasons that
Andrew Yang is in support, the former presidential candidate who sees
this as an opportunity to build up some sort of data dividend where
consumers can be paid for the value that they help companies create
through their personal data. So it's pretty technical. And on the
dynamics between the legislature and the ballot, you know, the
legislature did pass the privacy law two years ago, and this would
make some changes to it. And so the question really here is whether
these changes are taking things in in the right direction.
Larry Mantle
All right, that's Laurel Rosenhall joining us from CalMatters giving

 us the explanation of Prop 24. Mike, you have a quick comment on it.
Michael Shires
It's a mess, quite frankly, there's it's a, it's another one of those
big messy policy areas. And the resources just aren't there for the
average voter to decide if this is a better choice than what's there.
And the outcomes are completely ambiguous, and depending on who you
talk to, tech either loves it or hates it. And I mean, at the end of
the day, privacy is going to be the most important thing we do in the
next decade in terms of consumer rights, and we need to get it right.
And this probably isn't the right first step.
Larry Mantle
Fernando.
Fernando Guerra
This is California stepping in because the federal government has
abdicated their power and not been regulating this just by Proposition
14, which we started in terms of stem cell, the feds aren't doing it.
We see ourselves as a nation state, a leader, can have a great impact.
That's why we're taking this on. But it's problematic in that once
this passes, you can't change it unless you have another initiative
and it's gonna solidify some issues that could be problematic.
Larry Mantle
That's Fernando Guerra Loyola Marymount, Mike Shires of Pepperdine
with us, also Marisa Lagos joining us from NPR member station KQED,
San Francisco. Our final proposition a referendum on a state law that
was passed in 2018, SB 10, which eliminated bail and substituted a
formula for determining the extent of an arrestees threat to the
public. That law didn't go into effect pending this referendum.
proposition 25. Marisa, this is, this is quite unusual for us to be
voting on something like this. And this also splits, like our previous
one, splits people that typically would be allied on criminal law
reforms.
Marisa Lagos
Yeah. So before I get into that, let me just back up and say what SB
10 did and what it will do if voters uphold prop 25. So this is really
confusing. But yes, vote means you want to keep this law that was
passed two years ago, and no vote means you want to overturn it.
Essentially, what SB 10 said is that, bail is unfair, it looks at
whether people have enough money or not whether their actual public
threat or whether they're going to show up for their court date or
not, that had benefits the rich over the poor. And really, and I did a
lot of reporting on this at the time, ends up leading to people making
really terrible choices. Because if you are stuck in behind bars
awaiting trial, you could lose your job or your home or your kids,
custody of your kids, you might plead guilty to something that you're
not guilty of because you just want to go home. So on the left,

 there's a pretty big sort of agreement that bail is not a good thing.
And this was funded by the bail industry to get this on the ballot,
they do want to keep their industry in place. What it would replace
bail with, you kind of mentioned, these risk assessments, each county
would be responsible for adopting it. It's kind of an algorithm that
looks at a lot of data and says, you know, Larry, you are in this age
group, you live in this place, you've had a job for this long. This is
your criminal record, we think on a scale of let's say, one to five,
that you are a one and you should go home. But the judge would
ultimately have the same power they do now to really make that call,
right. And so I think that this is really, what we're talking about
here are people who are accused of kind of mid level felonies, people
accused of misdemeanors under this law would automatically be booked
and released home, people accused of pretty violent felonies would be
kept behind bars as they await trial. It's that middle section. And
what some folks in the kind of civil rights group, Human Rights Watch,
for example, I talked to them about this, object to is this idea of
both an algorithm determining someone's risk, and then the power that
a judge would have to keep somebody preventatively behind bars. They
think this could lead to more people being in jail as they await
trial. Supporters say that's not true, they point to a PPIC study,
among others. And I think that the interesting thing here kind of to
the privacy one is that it's become this debate among folks on the
left, and the bail industry is really benefiting from that, because
they're not really out here talking about it, even though they funded
the measure to get this on the ballot. And they along with some law
enforcement groups are really the ones who are pushing to overturn
this law.
Larry Mantle
Marisa you beautifully laid that out. That's so clear. But I do want
to give Fernando, you and Mike a chance to just briefly weigh in. But
that's a great summary.
Fernando Guerra
So I'm actually not going to weigh in on the substance of it. I'm
going to say it's a referendum, unlike the initiative, or it's
basically like a recall of a law. And what's nice about this as you're
just recalling that law, you can still create other laws, and it's a
much better system from my perspective than the initiative but we
typically do the initiative because then you win all out. And so I'll
stop there, but she did a great job of explaining.
Larry Mantle
Alright, Mike, quick comment to close this there.
Michael Shires
No, I agree. I mean, I think you know, the, the discretion that judges
are going to have is really important. The algorithm and the fact that
civil rights organizations are opposed to a proposal that in some ways

 is supposed to make it better for affected poor and minority
communities, I think says a lot and points to the fact that probably
we should be repealing this law and revisiting how we handle that bail
process.
Marisa Lagos
I think it the one unanswered question is whether the the referendum
would prevent the legislature from eliminating bail in the future.
There are some case law that indicates that they can't take up the
same question after voters have overturned it. And so that is
something for people to think about.
Larry Mantle
Fascinating legal point there. I want to thank all of you wonderful
job going so fast with all of these 12 ballot propositions. Joining us
Marisa Lagos, KQED with those final words. Also with us Laurel
Rosenhall of CalMatters, the nonprofit statewide news organization,
Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University, and Michael Shires of
Pepperdine University, we thank you so much for joining this. And for
those of you who are with us on our live In Person event, we're going
to be taking your questions and turn to our panel to do that right
now. So we've got about 10-15 more minutes to take questions on our
voter cram session. So let me go to those. Let's see, Chloe says, "in
regards to Proposition 15, will private residences also have changes
in their property taxes?" and Chloe, no, this this would not apply, as
I understand it, Proposition 15 being the the split roll to people's
own personal residences, but you want to comment on that one? Marisa?
Marisa Lagos
Yeah, that's correct. Um, this is aimed at commercial properties. It
does have a provision that says, some an owner who owns commercial
properties worth more than $3 million. So somebody could potentially
own more than one property, and the sum of those would add up and
trigger this reassessment. But absolutely, this should not apply to
people's personal homes and anything that is not meant for commercial
purpose.
Larry Mantle
All right, Chloe, thank you. Sandy asked, "Does anyone know how the
writing's in the voter guides get chosen? Who can write a rebuttal
response? Who can write an argument for or against?" Laurel, is that
something you'd be willing to weigh in on?
Laurel Rosenhall
I believe it's the campaigns, it's the organized Yes and No campaigns
for each side. If anyone knows anything, otherwise, please chime in.
Larry Mantle
Yeah, Fernando, can you elaborate at all on on that?

 Fernando Guerra
So typically, you have the sponsors of the initiative, and they get to
do the, the the pro side and then certain people respond against it.
And and then it's up to the Secretary of State and the Attorney
General to determine who would do it. So it's, it's not an organized
effort it's always not very clear. And you can sometimes even have
multiple people. So it's not limited to just one opponent being on the
rebuttal or argument for it.
Larry Mantle
All right. Jennifer wants to go back to proposition 15. The split roll
property tax initiative, multifamily residences, apartment buildings
essentially, count as commercial when applying for a loan. So would
that change in the tax basis, the higher property tax affect apartment
buildings? I think this goes back to what Marissa was was saying about
the $3 million. And that's for a single owner. So as I understand it,
Mike, Mike Shires, do you want to add anything on that?
Michael Shires
Well, the intent was to exclude residential, residential homes. In
terms of apartment buildings, it's a little ambiguous the way the
language is written in there, whether court rulings in the future
would would exempt them or include them because of that original
intent on residential properties. Marisa might have a better sense of
the details, but but my understanding is that the intent is to exclude
that. But for apartment buildings, it is possible that they will be
part of it.
Larry Mantle
And Marisa, my understanding was if it's someone who holds over $3
million worth of property, then that counts is commercial ownership.
Is that right?
Marisa Lagos
I believe so. And I think you know, you need to look at yeah, if
there's a big real estate organization that owns multiple apartment
buildings, that's probably going to be different than somebody who
owns just one, although with property values, what they are in
California, that $3 million threshold probably isn't that difficult to
hit. But, you know, I think that what this is really aiming to target
if you ask proponents would probably be bigger commercial properties,
think the downtown areas think, you know, these huge corporations who
have managed to kind of really, you know, I think no matter whether
you support or oppose prop 15, kind of play with the code in a way so
that they have been able to keep ownership, kind of limited ownership
changes limited and really suppress those rates over time, even if,
you know, they've changed owners and other commercial activities
happen.
Larry Mantle

 We have Chris who asked about prop 21. "Can anyone provide data that
shows that rent control helps on the cost of housing? I'm desperate to
do something about the cost of housing here, but every study I've
read", this is Chris writing, "says rent control does not work."
Fernando, you want to weigh in on that one?
Fernando Guerra
Yeah, I mean, he's absolutely right now most of the studies that have
said that have been funded by a business groups, you know, against
rent control, and but it's a good theory. I mean, I think the theory
is strong that it you know, the the more constraints you have in terms
of making money, the less you're going to make that investment. On the
other hand, this is way beyond an economic argument for private
sector, it's about civil society, in housing, given the homelessness.
Something has to be done, whether this is the right issue or not, is
yet to be seen. But certainly rents are way too high. We have too many
renters not enough homeowners. Government has to do something about
that.
Larry Mantle
Well and Mike Shires, I mean, it's undeniable, right, that if you're
living in a residence that's rent controlled, and you couldn't afford
to pay market rate, that is a huge impact on that individual renter.
Michael Shires
It is and I mean, you know, you go to places like New York City, which
have very aggressive rent controls. And you know, you can will it to
your children, right. I mean, it's one of these assets that, that you
want to hold on to the people who get the controlled units when
everybody else who's trying to find a place to live can't find one.
And so they end up paying even more. So I mean, in some ways, it's a
redistribution between winners and losers.
Larry Mantle
Laurel or Marisa, you want to add anything, either one of you to this
question that came from Chris? Nope. Okay. Let's take the next
question, Zora asks, "Whether we like it or not, prop 23 is on the
ballot, I understand it maybe shouldn't be on the ballot, but it is.
So how would you advise us to vote?" Well, Zora, we're trying not to
have our experts. You know, they're sharing their opinions, we don't
want to tell you how to vote. And just to refresh Proposition 23 is
the kidney dialysis center one, the second one, that organized labor's
put on the ballot it would require a physician, with some exceptions
to be in attendance at dialysis centers. Mike Shires, do you want to
respond in some way to what Dora's asking?
Michael Shires
I think there was a consensus that the initiative may not be the best
way to set this policy. And so I mean, you can interpret whether, this
initiative is the right vehicle to do that, and what that means for

 your vote. But I
isn't responsive
public health. I
COVID. So I just

think that it creates it creates a landscape that
to the industry and to changes and to changes in
mean, as we see the public health sector redefined by
I think that's the best answer, we can give.

Larry Mantle
Fernando, you want to add anything to that?
Fernando Guerra
I'll defer to Laurel right now.
Laurel Rosenhall
Just say that, and I'm not advocating people vote any one way or the
other. But something that can help people determine how they might
feel is that this is another labor management dispute on your ballot,
with labor unions asking for a yes vote. And the companies that own
the dialysis clinics asking for a no vote. So for some voters, that
kind of, those facts can help them decide where they line up. But it
is true that this is this is a labor union that has a real track
record of using the ballot to sort of in the process of its
negotiations as a union that wants to organize the workers at these
clinics, and has been in a long standing dispute with the owners of
the clinics over over that and so these initiatives are getting kind
of all the voters tied up in that dispute.
Fernando Guerra
I mean, this is this is it's, it's a difficult. So, I consider myself
a liberal if all I knew was what Laurel just told me that it was union
versus a big companies, I would probably vote in favor of the unions.
But in this particular case, the unions from my perspective, are
really abusing and distorting the initiative process which should be
reserved for people, not specific organizations to gain a specific
gain that they couldn't do at the management or organization. I mean,
if they were really great at unions, they'd be able to organize very
effectively and unionize, they shouldn't have us unionize for them.
And you know, and I know many of you are gonna say, well, you're not
necessarily pro union by those statements. I think I am. But I'm also
a much more pro democracy pro initiative. And this just distorts it.
Not that the not that the $2 billion companies, I mean, the two
companies that they're going after make over a billion dollars a year,
and so they are at fault by not taking care of their workers, I agree.
But this is not the way to fix them.
Larry Mantle
Sharon asks, "What is the difference between an initiative and a
referendum?" Mike Shires you want to answer that?
Michael Shires
So there's there's actually three kinds of things, an initiative has
two forms. One is I want to propose a law that the legislature hasn't

 proposed, and we see a lot of those on the ballot. Another one is, I
want to change the state constitution. So you have what's called an
initiative constitutional amendment. Those are two ways that citizen
groups can collect signatures and actually propose new laws or
amendments to the Constitution. For referendums, as the legislature
passed a law that we don't like, and we want to repeal it. And so prop
25, is one of those basically we passed SB 10. It's been put on hold
because they collected enough signatures for the people in California
to vote and decide whether we want that to be our law.
Larry Mantle
Just to remind you that's the doing away with bail, and using the
algorithm to determine release or not. We have another question from
this from Brian, regarding proposition 14. This is the five and a half
billion dollar bond measure for stem cell and neurological research
says, "Does anyone know how much if any money, the California
Institute for Regenerative Medicine has generated for California?
What? What has been the return on investment for the first round of
funding?" Laurel, do you want to? I don't know what the exact amount
is myself?
Laurel Rosenhall
Yeah, let me see if I have heard.
Marisa Lagos
I think it's around $500,000 in royalty fees. So they had said that
that could be far higher, at the time, you know, that we first voted
on this, but I think it's been around $500,000. Yeah.
Fernando Guerra
It's not significant.
Marisa Lagos
It's not. When you look at the $3 billion investment.
Larry Mantle
You two always make a good team. That's nice to see. All right.
Proposition 20. Jeff is asking about it. "Someone said the legislature
should take this up with with at least two other ballot measures on
the subject. Isn't the legislature prohibited from making any
significant changes without voter approval?" I just throw that out.
Who wants to take that on?
Marisa Lagos
Yeah, I mean, largely. So again, because this is such a grab bag,
there are things in it, the legislature could address, they're not
going to politically because most lawmakers are on the more liberal
side of the Democratic Party. And this is really being pushed by a
couple moderates, but more by I would say Republicans and law
enforcement. Um, I do think it's worth noting that I mean, Mike

 earlier mentioned things like you know, that this would change the
list of what's considered a technically violent crime under state law.
That's a long standing list that actually predated some of these
ballot measures. And it, I think it's a little misleading to act as
if, I'm not saying Mike is doing this, but I think there's this sense
of like, well, if if, you know, rape of an unconscious woman person is
not on that list, and you're not considering it violent, violent crime
has a really specific sort of definition under statute. And so it's
not to say that if somebody was convicted of that crime, that they,
you know, didn't go to prison because they're in prison for it. And
and again, and I also think it's worth noting that within that
question, the parole board is looking at the largely whole of this
person's background. So it's not to say that if you committed one of
these crimes, you automatically would get out early under current law,
it is considered by the parole board that is largely made up with law
enforcement. But to the question, yes, a lot of what they're trying to
do here is not something that the legislature could legally change,
because voters have already weighed in. And I think it's worth noting
that the reason this, a lot of these things went to voters is because
the legislature just refused to touch these very controversial
questions around criminal justice reform. And you know, one thing we
didn't mention earlier, I think it's important is the reason a lot of
these ballot measures were written prop 47, prop 37 realignment, AB
109, which was a legislative measure, was because we were under a
supreme court order to reduce our prison population. And the Supreme
Court essentially looked at California and said, you can either do
that the way you guys want to do it, or we'll just tell you to start
releasing folks wholesale. And so I think there there's a healthy
debate happening within the campaign about how much this would
increase the population in our prisons and jails. And whether that
would undermine some of the progress we've made in complying with that
court order.
Larry Mantle
Laurel, did you want to add something to that?
Laurel Rosenhall
Well, yeah, it's not specific to prop 20. But just more broadly, that
a lot of the measures that are on our ballot, you know, we've been
talking about all night, they are tweaks, repeals or repeats of
something that was on the ballot before. And so I have felt that this
in evaluating this whole ballot, that there's just a major sense of
deja vu, whether it's, you know, kind of going back and visiting
something, revisiting something from 20 years ago, or from two years
ago. And part of that is because it's baked into the law, once
something is approved by the voters, it can't be changed by the
legislature, unless that's written into the thing that the voters
approved. So we do a little bit have this sort of snowball effect of
ballot measures that were that that I think it's very cumbersome and
challenging for voters.

 Fernando Guerra
Larry, can I say something? In very general terms, I think people have
to vote early. It's very important to vote early, we're all getting a
vote by mail. And I think most of us already know who are going to
vote for president, for Congress, sometimes for state legislature.
What's happening is these propositions tend to be the ones that make
us procrastinate, because we want to learn more about it. And so if
you're watching this, this is awesome. And that's what you need to do
is educate yourself about the so you could vote early about these, I
always think that it's the propositions that hold people back from
voting early. And I would recommend that you rewatch the show that
also to go to CalMatters. They have a fabulous website that really
talks a lot about this and has, who supports it in the money and then
also, further background to answer a lot of these questions that
people are asking.
Larry Mantle
Well, that's a terrific note for us to end on. Fernando, thank you
very much. Appreciate that. And also, just want to remind everyone
that we will be re airing this on KPCC's AirTalk Thursday morning at
11 o'clock, the audio of this special In Person event that we've done
tonight. And I want to thank all of you for tuning in and going
through the voter cram session, I've learned a lot again, from our
experts. And I hope you have too and of course, you'll be able to
study much more with the KPCC Voter Game Plan as well as with all the
in depth debates we've done on AirTalk on every one of these 12 ballot
measures so you get the overview like we've done with this, and then,
of course, the more in depth too so I just want to thank all of you,
Mike, Fernando, Marissa, Laurel, thank you so much for doing this with
us. We really appreciate your expertise and your time. And from all of
us at KPCC In Person, thank you and have a terrific evening.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai