Recommendations for 2020 CA propositions
One note on philosophy -- I think that props are in general a terrible way to make laws. It's super hard to change them, so if you get unintended consequences it's really hard to fix (see e.g. prop 13). So it needs to be a really good idea that's well executed if it's a new prop. If it's removing an old prop then it goes the other way -- you have to have a super good reason to oppose it.
The exception is that some things are baked into the constitution and the legislature can't change it. In that case this is the only mechanism and so you just have to muddle through.
Here's how I voted and why:
Prop 14: Soft no. Stem cell research is good, making solid progress, but this is a really weird funding mechanism -- a large amount of guaranteed funds that can't be used for anything else just doesn't seem like a rational way to fund science. Yes the federal government should step up. No I don't think that that means we have to. (Having said that, on net this is probably +EV for society so I think it's close.)
Prop 15: Yes. This is weakening prop 13 and props are bad and prop 13 is especially bad, so yes. We don't need a superlaw that's impossible to change to protect large businesses.
Prop 16: Soft yes. I think in the current environment, universities and other government run agencies are going to go way too far in enacting affirmative action and it's going to be a mess if this passes. However I don't think that the short term negative consequences outweigh the strong anti-proposition good governance position for this one, and this is repealing another prop, so yes. (Probably -EV in the short run for CA, hopefully made up for by increased flexibility later.)
Prop 17: Yes. There's no presumption against changing voting eligibility via proposition because it's the only mechanism. I think people should be given second chances, and I'm not sure why ex-cons would be worse voters than most others. Probably better on e.g. prison reform and policing.
Prop 18: Yes. See above, seems reasonable and no particular strongly held prior that forbids it.
Aside on voting: I think a well-run rational voting system would have some sort of knowledge requirement. You can only vote if you have some familiarity with the issues and consequences and positions and such. But given that we can't have that, probably best to just have things be relatively equal. And the public choice problems of testing knowledge seem rather dire.
Prop 19: yes maybe? This modifies prop 13 and thus doesn't have a strong presumption against it, so it's just a policy decision. I see three considerations:
Closes tax loophole in prop 13 where you can inherit an unlimited amount of houses with no step up in basis (now goes down to 1). Probably good because there's no reason to treat houses 2-n as different from say stocks and I don't see why you should get permanently low property taxes on them.
Says you can keep your low property tax if you move to a new house and you are part of a sympathetic group (eldery, disabled, etc). Actually you could already do that, but now you can do it 3 times. This increases prop 13 unfairness by giving some people an even better deal, but decreases a bit some of the bad side effects where people might prefer to move (downside, switch towns, etc) but are locked in by low taxes. On balance I guess probably good.
Prop 13 is the worst and we should just get rid of it. Does this advance that cause by making it more acceptable to mess with prop 13? Or does it slow it down by making it slightly more workable? Not sure about this aspect.
I voted yes but I don't really know if it's good or not. I hate this whole system.
Prop 20: No. Propositions are bad, law and order propositions are always terrible, and this is no exception.
Prop 21: No. Rent control is a bad policy that makes the problem of too little housing worse over time, and this makes it so that towns and cities can do it much less. However propositions are bad, and in most cases we should have more local decision making. Housing might be an exception because it's fundamentally an issue that crosses town borders. Anyway I think this is good policy but doesn't overcome my general opposition to props.
Prop 22: No maybe? AB5 outlawed the ridesharing business model by saying that Uber/Lyft have to treat drivers as employees and give them all kinds of expensive benefits, and also reduce their flexibility. And because if this was done generally it would cripple tons of industries, lots and lots of them are exempted -- basically any industry that had enough political influence. I like the way Scott Alexander put it in his voting guide:
AB5 locks in the worst parts of the modern economy - inflexibility, you have to have exactly one employer who controls your entire life, health insurance is tied to employment, nobody can choose their own hours or working conditions. It throws independent professionals under the bus in favor of everyone having to be a corporate drone of the exact same government-approved kind.
Prop 22 theoretically overturns AB5, and if it just did that I'd support it even though props are bad. However instead of doing that, this is Uber and Lyft carving out exceptions for themselves and leaving the rest of the law intact. This also seems like a terrible way to do it -- it's just expanding the list of places that get exceptions. Probably still a better policy because they're large and valuable, but ugh it's really not the right solution.
Honestly my main feeling here is that everyone involved is not motivated by good policy choices (contra the theme of this substack), and as usual the workers are going to get screwed.
Prop 23: No. This is exactly the kind of this that is terrible about propositions. Do we need some kind of unchangeable super law about kidney dialysis clinics? Obviously no. Is there even a problem that needs solving here? No. Why is anyone even considering this?
Prop 24: No. Privacy is hard and complicated. GDPR has been a, let’s say not a completely ideal law. What should we do about that? I know, let's have an unchangeable super law that has one shot to get this right because we're that sure we'll never have to make changes! Ugh I can't even.
Prop 25: Yes. Bail is pretty unfair to poor people (it's very hard to pick an amount of money that will keep a rich person from fleeing, and really easy to pick an amount of money that will mean a poor person can't make it and therefore loses their job and wrecks their lives before they're convicted). The legislature banned bail in favor of trying to directly predict flight risk, which seems to be working in DC. I'm not sure if this will work out but definitely seems worth trying, I think a rational system would look a lot like this, though of course the details matter.
The bail bondsmen, unsurprisingly not thrilled about losing their livelihood, got enough signatures to get this on the ballot in the hopes that voters would say no. Here a yes vote is just allowing the legislature to do their thing. So both policy considerations and anti-prop-lawmaking considerations point towards yes here.