Elections 2020: My Voter Guide
Voting started in California on October 5th and a significant majority of people are planning to use their mail-in ballots. If you drop your ballot in the mail by Oct 27th, California has promised that your vote will be part of the election night count. The Trump campaign has telegraphed pretty overtly that they will challenge and call into doubt the expected blue shift as mail-in ballots are counted after election night. So, it is imperative that all of us do whatever it takes to ensure that our vote is counted on Nov 3rd itself. Now, on to my guide.
As usual, the bulk of my voter guide/recommendations are for the various statewide props, but I do include the local San Diego measures at the end. I will get the individual races out of the way first — most of it is quick, but I do dwell a bit on the choice for San Diego mayor.
State Level Offices
For the state level races, I am recommending a straight party (Dem) line vote: Scott Peters for the 52nd House District, Toni Atkins for the 39th District State Senator, and Brian Maienschein for the 77th District State Assembly. These are not quite knee-jerk recommendations: all of these incumbents have good solid records of doing the right thing by their constituents and deserve another term.
San Diego Offices
I am also recommending Marni Von Wilpert for the City Council (District 5), Mara Elliott for City Attorney, Terra Lawson-Remer for the Board of Supervisors (District 3), and Tim Nadler for Superior Court (#30) Judge.
San Diego Mayor
This one merits a bit of a tangent before getting to the main discussion. Going back to its founding in 1850, San Diego has had an almost even split of Republican and Democratic Mayors (36 Rep & 35 Dem, as per Wikipedia). However, the recent history is decidedly one of being a GOP stronghold — since 1971 there have been only two Democratic Mayors, one of which was the sleazy Bob Filner, who resigned in disgrace without even completing his first term. So it is a rather remarkable shift when both candidates for mayor in 2020 — Todd Gloria and Barbara Bry — are Democrats. This Blue trend has been noticeable for some time of course — the Dems have a commanding 7–2 majority in the current city council, but I doubt anybody expected San Diego to morph into San Francisco (which last elected a Republican mayor in 1956) so quickly.
Todd Gloria was way ahead of the pack in the Primary, getting more than 40% of the vote, compared to just under 23% for the second place Barbara Bry. However, the race has tightened considerably in recent days, which (I suspect) largely reflects the coalescing of the conservative voters around her (she has multiple Republicans endorsing her). After all, roughly 40% of the vote didn’t go to either Gloria or Bry in the Primary and is up for grabs. On the flip side is the fact that she also has some supporters on the very liberal side — Donna Frye being a notable one. Most likely this is because Bry and Frye take common cause against the real estate lobby, which is blamed (rightfully) for many of San Diego’s intractable problems. This refusal to kowtow to the builders can also be seen in Bry’s refusal (or at least reluctance) to endorse Measure A (more on this later), which Gloria endorses. One might expect an outsider to pursue bold initiatives, but Bry feels more incremental — she wants to clamp down on conversions to AirBnB properties (many of them illegal according to existing but rarely enforced, city laws )— as part of tackling the short supply of affordable housing. She also believes that trying to extend the rail network by drilling underground is a terrible idea. Such extensions of the public transportation network are part of SANDAG’s 30 year plan, which Gloria endorses. Having said that, there is also significant overlap between their policy positions, sometimes down to the wording. For instance, both want to take “a data-driven approach” to the solving the homelessness problem. Both also come across as decent people, very much interested in public service.
One could fall back on biography: Gloria is a third generation native San Diegan (which is no small feat — it is famously said that everybody in San Diego is from somewhere else). Bry grew up and studied on the East Coast, but having lived in San Diego for almost 40 years, can justifiably claim quasi-native status. More importantly though, Gloria feels more like a “man of the people” — his upbringing is a lot less privileged (his mother was a maid and his father was a gardener) and his ethnic background is a veritable collage of colors — half Native American, a quarter Filipino, and some Dutch and Puerto Rican thrown in for good measure. He is also a career politician, which probably counts against him in some people’s minds, especially when you set that against Bry’s claim of not being beholden to any “special interests” since she doesn’t take money from them. There is also a generational consideration — Bry is 71 and Gloria is 42.
Where does all of this leave us? People love the idea of an outsider coming in to “shake things up”, but it almost never works that way in practice. Campaigning is very different than governing. We need to look no further than our Dear Leader, but other obvious examples include Schwarzenegger and (if you want to go a bit further afield) Jesse Ventura. There is also this mythology about how success in the business field will automatically translate to success in running a city. This too is misplaced, IMO. But, perhaps we do need a steady hand at the wheel as we navigate through a post-COVID world, somebody who will be willing to say no to the establishment powers, and somebody who is happy to take small steps and not shoot for the big signature initiatives (which are essential for catapulting your political career to the next level).
As the conclusion to the previous paragraph may suggest, I was ready to endorse Barbara Bry and in fact, had a version of this blog that did exactly that. However, before I could publish it, I heard about a Mayoral Forum organized by UCSD to be held this evening and I decided to watch that before I made a final choice. I am glad I did, because I found it quite instructive. If one were to judge the debate purely on style, Todd Gloria easily had the superior performance — he was totally at home with the online format and his answers were assured and very much on point. Bry did not seem very comfortable with the format and was definitely less polished. Sadly for her, she lost on substance as well. Some of her answers lacked depth and she ended up just repeating her previous point when offered additional time to elaborate or rebut. Her lack of support for Measure A is well documented and her explanation reminded me of John Kerry’s infamous, “I was for the $87B before I voted against it.” In a similar vein, Bry pointed out that she had voted for placing this measure on the ballot (& indeed had voted to do the same in 2018), but is now reluctant to support it because she now thinks the tax burden would be too much for certain communities. That’s a bit weak. When she found herself on the defensive, she fell back on the tired argument of, “I am not a career politician, I am shocked at how nasty this business is.” Her “not a good idea to drill underground” argument against the SANDAG plan (see above) was presented with very little conviction (although there is very likely some merit to it) and repeating it didn’t really help. She also undercut her credibility by essentially talking about flying cars and totally mangling the pronunciation of “Hyundai” (I am guessing she has never been in one).
It is one debate, but taken in the context of how close the case for the two candidates are, it is sufficient for me to change my mind. I recommend Todd Gloria for San Diego Mayor.
Statewide Propositions
Prop 14: Bond for Stem Cell Research
This is a follow-on from a 2004 bond that raised money for stem cell research, which has now mostly run out. The rationale at that time were the federal limits on spending on stem cell research. This is no longer that case, with the Obama administration having lifted those limits. Prima facie, it would appear that supporting stem cell research is a noble goal, but there seems to be very little support for continuing with the efforts supported by the 2004 bond measure. Vote NO.
Prop 15: Property Tax increases for commercial and industrial properties
This measure can be more accurately understood as trying to dismantle a specific section of Prop 13 (which has been blamed and lauded for all manner of ills and benefits). As every property owner in CA knows, Prop 13 freezes the assessment value at the original purchase price and does not reassess until it is sold again. The problem is that Prop 13 covers commercial and industrial properties as well, which clearly biases against new entrants. The same charge is of course made in favor of new home buyers, but this restriction on reassessments seems particularly hard to justify for businesses. Not all businesses are created equal of course, and Prop 15 has exemptions for small businesses and also for lower net-worth business owners. Not surprisingly, the opposition is entirely from Big Business, but even they don’t necessarily dispute the basic fairness of this prop and instead object to the timing (shouldn’t be done in the midst of a pandemic). This is mostly hollow — the increases will be phased in over the next several years. Vote YES.
Prop 16: Repeal Prop 209 and allow for affirmative action
Back in 1996, Californians passed Prop 209 which amended the constitution to basically outlaw taking race into consideration — commonly interpreted as eliminating affirmative action. I was in CA in 1996, but don’t recall this prop at all (I wasn’t eligible to vote then and as such, probably didn’t follow the elections very closely) and I am fairly astounded that this measure actually passed then. Of course, CA was much more purple then (if not almost red), so perhaps people found it easier to believe that we were in a post-racial world. Well, it is patently obvious that we are still far away from that day and affirmative action (with all its moral ambiguities) is still the best tool we have for getting there. A significant source of the opposition are a number of Asian American advocacy groups, largely on the basis that the passage of Prop 16 would potentially reduce the number of Asian American students that are admitted to CA universities (they are quite possibly correct). While Indian Americans are typically not considered part of the Asian American classification, we are certainly part of that group when it comes to college admissions and as such, I should perhaps be concerned about Prop 16’s impact to the prospects of my own kids. However, that is too narrow a consideration and I recommend a YES vote.
Prop 17: Felons can vote while on parole
Denying convicted felons of the most basic of rights as a citizen always seemed invidious to me. Continuing to do so even when they have been granted parole (as one of only three states to do so) makes even less sense to me. Vote YES.
Prop 18: 17 year olds can vote in primaries
To be more specific, if a 17-year old is going to be 18 by the time of the General Election, they can vote on the Primary for that election. What’s to argue against? Really, voting age should be lowered to at least 16 — if they are responsible enough to drive, they can certainly handle the vote. Vote YES.
Prop 19: Transfer of property tax basis
This prop expands the ability of people over 55 and victims of wildfires to transfer their property tax basis to anywhere in the state (the transfer is allowed already, but not to anywhere in the state) and most crucially, allows them to do it three times (as opposed to just once). It also allows them to transfer this basis to a higher priced property (albeit with some caveats). An increase in tax revenue is projected (from all the new real estate transactions that would happen) and the prop proposes to use some of that to help wildfire victims. All sounds great, except the supporters only play up the extra help for wildfire victims in all the ads. Oh, there is more than $36 Million contributed in support and only about $45,000 raised by those opposing. I don’t buy the premise of this prop — it sounds mostly like a scheme to have more real estate transactions and I also don’t see why people who bought real estate a long time ago should continue to reap the benefit of that original transaction even after they move. BTW, this particular prop is one where I am bucking the Dems (Gavin Newsom and the Democratic Party are listed as supporters). Vote NO.
Prop 20: Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection
Faced with a severe prison overcrowding problem, California enacted a trio of bills in 2011, 2014, and 2016, all targeted at reducing the inmate population. While those laws and other related actions have had their intended effect, the pendulum has now (predictably) swung the other way and folks are arguing that those efforts went too far. So, they want to classify a bunch more crimes as more “serious” than they currently are (which would naturally lead to longer sentences and reduced chance for parole). The US already incarcerates its citizens at much higher rates than any other country in the world — almost 700 per 100,000. The next closest is Turkmenistan (!) at less than 600 per 100,000. While California is below the national average, it still has too many people in jail. We don’t need measures that will increase that even more, especially when there is no real evidence that such high rates of incarceration leads to lower crime. Vote NO.
(Minor aside: Oklahoma has the dubious distinction of being #1, with almost 1100 people in jail for every 100,000. A close second is Louisiana, which held the top spot for the longest time, till about two years ago.)
Prop 21: Rent Control
Rent control would generally be a reliably liberal cause and indeed, this particular one has some pretty solid support from Left (both Bernie Sanders and the Democratic Party of CA are listed as supporters), but not quite from everyone — Gavin Newsom is a notable opponent. If this prop triggers deja vu in some voters, it is because Prop 10 in 2018 purported to achieve similar goals, but was defeated pretty soundly. The opponents not only have outraised the proponents 2:1 (40M vs 20M), but their ranks are also thickly populated by members of the real estate lobby. Even one of these by itself would have given me pause, but taken together, it would seem a slam dunk to support the Yes side. But, the prop just feels too heavy handed. Yes, the ostensible goal of retaining affordable housing is noble (& essential in CA), but I am not sure that this is the fix we need. Vote NO.
Prop 22: The Uber/Lyft/DoorDash Prop
This is now the most expensive prop in California history — by almost $40Million. The Yes and No sides together have raised more than $190M, which alone should tell us that there are some very big stakes involved. Ever since AB5 went into force at the end of 2019, the giants of the “Gig” economy (Uber, Lyft, etc) have been fighting against it. It’s undisputed that their current business model is largely made possible by the fact that they don’t have to treat the people who actually provide their service as regular employees — no health care, paid leave, retirement plan contributions, and of course, no payroll taxes (SSN & Medicare).
Now, I love what has become possible with these services — especially Uber, which tends to be available (almost) world wide. All of a sudden, one of the biggest hurdles to visiting a new place (city, country, whatever) was eliminated and the user experience is as smooth as can be. And the savings (compared to regular taxis) are amazing. But, therein lies the rub. For even as summoning an Uber ride became second nature to me, it seemed too good to last. It didn’t seem possible that the prices being charged represented the true cost of providing the service — I seriously doubted that they were adding so much efficiency to the system. Many of us perhaps assumed that it was the investors that were subsiding the cost, but it turns out that a big part of the cost is actually being borne by the drivers. The Uber/Lyft model only works when lots of drivers are willing to be driving around hoping to get hailed, but that driving around is completely uncompensated. This is just one instance of how drivers are taken advantage of. On the flip side, there are lots of drivers who like the flexibility of signing on when they want to and staying on for just as long as they want to. It could also be argued that these platforms have given lots of people the opportunity to earn some cash on the side without a significant amount of investment from their side.
Both Uber and Lyft have said that they will cease service in California if this prop doesn’t pass. That is not going to be good news for their drivers or indeed us consumers. This could be a bluff — CA is a huge market to walk away from — but, there is precedence for it. They stopped service in Austin, Tx when a measure similar to AB5 was passed in that city and only resumed when the Texas Governor (Greg Abbott) overruled the city and allowed them to operate as before. Further, this prop proposes to provide some protections (& benefits) to some of their drivers — those driving 25 hours or more per week. This might provide some assurance that while AB5 won’t apply to these firms, at least we wouldn’t quite return to the pre-AB5 days.
I struggled with this decision, going back and forth many times. Ultimately, a couple of things weighed on me more than the rest of the arguments: Of the $190M spent on this prop, more than $180M was raised by the Yes side. That kind of lopsided battle tells me that it is the Yes side that feels that it has the most to lose by the status quo. Secondly, I don’t like these tech companies (indeed any company, but it seems a particular trait of tech companies) trying to hold the state hostage with threats of leaving the state. If there is truly a market demand for these services, then there will a hundred other smaller (& perhaps more nimbler) startups that will rush in to fill the void. Or being rejected in their attempt to buy our votes will be the motivation to return to the negotiating table. Vote NO.
Prop 23: Regulations for Dialysis Clinics
To the uninitiated, this might seem like a weird outpost of the election ballot landscape — I would submit that not too many us have spent much time (if any at all) considering the state of dialysis care in California. Turns out that it is a pretty big deal and only getting bigger with the increasing number of people that need regular dialysis. It also turns out that most of the dialysis are performed at dedicated dialysis clinics, the vast majority of which are run by a couple of outfits (DaVita and Fresenius). Both of them — stay with me here — have also rebuffed multiple attempts to unionize their labor force. So, there you have it — at heart, this prop (& Prop 8 in 2018) is an attempt by a healthcare workers union (SEIU-UHW-West) to force concessions from the clinic owners with regards to unionization. Superficially, this prop is very different from the 2018 Prop 8. This one purports to add extra regulation to the operations of the clinics (in the guise of improving patient safety), while the 2018 prop tried to impose caps on how much profit the clinics could make (including mandating refunds). That one was easily defeated and it is highly likely that this one will be too. It’s rather easy for the clinic owners to scare voters with doomsday scenarios of shuttered clinics and I daresay most of you have seen at least one of their TV commercials that does exactly this. Once again there is a lopsided battle on the money front — just over $6M raised by the Yes side, compared to over $93M raised by the No side. Incidentally, there was even more money (north of $130M) spent on Prop 8 in 2018, also in a lopsided manner. I support unions, but is this the way to achieve that goal? I don’t know the answer, but clearly the clinic owners need to feel some pressure. I do not expect this measure to pass and nor do I think it really has much merit on its own. However, I am recommending a YES vote largely in the hope that if there is a sufficient showing of support the clinic owners will eventually have to compromise on unionization.
Prop 24: Consumer Personal Information Act
This prop aims to strengthen the California Consumer Protection Act (CCPA) of 2018 with some additional requirements and restrictions. But, the main goal is really to give this act the extra shielding of a citizen-approved ballot measure. Unlike a law passed by the legislature, a measure voted in by the general public (via a ballot prop) can only be amended by going back to the citizens. Privacy is already at a premium in the age of Big Tech, anything that can be done to get some semblance of it back is a good thing. Vote YES.
Prop 25: Eliminate Cash Bail
This prop would eliminate the system of cash bail with a system of “risk assessments”. Technically, it is a “Veto Referendum” on a bill (SB-10) that was signed into law by Jerry Brown. Apparently this is a way for the general public to have straight up/down vote on passed laws! Not for the first time, one is forced to wonder if ballot propositions are yet another (ostensibly) good idea run amok. Anyway, back to the res — the bail bonds business is as sleazy as they come and the cash bail system is unfairly stacked against the poorer population. Simply put, they will not often get bail because they cannot afford to pay the huge fees (typically 10% of the full bail amount) that the bondsmen charge. So they end up sitting in jail while awaiting trial for some petty crimes, unable to go to their jobs (& earn some much-needed money). The No money is all coming in from bail bondsmen, of course, but a significant portion — $5M of the total of just over $8M — comes from the Balmer family — yes, they of the Microsoft lineage. This totally non-germane to my recommendation, but just seemed interesting enough to mention. Vote YES.
San Diego City Measures
Measure A: Bonds for Affordable Housing
This measure proposes to raise $900M to address the affordable housing crisis that is front and center in San Diego (next to the crumbling infrastructure in various parts of town). It is to be paid for by an increase in property taxes, which would be about $3 for every $100,000 of assessed value. It is predictably supported by the developers’ lobby and one can fairly ask if our best option is building our way out of this crisis, not to mention the burden imposed by raising property taxes while we are still recovering from the economic damage caused by COVID-19. Having said that, I am not sure an incremental approach will be sufficient — anybody who has been to downtown San Diego in the last 3 years will have sense of the scope of the challenge. Of course, the odds of this measure succeeding are pretty low — any measure that would increase your taxes requires a 2/3rds majority — but, even so, I am recommending in favor of it. Vote YES.
Measure B: Charter Amendment for Police Oversight
This is one of the easier ones to call. It proposes to replace the current Community Review Board with a Commission (members to be appointed by the City Council) that will have the right to review actions by the police — including (but not limited to), shootings and complaints of excessive force. Most of that is already part of the current Review Board, but the big difference is that the new Commission will have real teeth — subpoena power to summon witnesses and request specific documents. Vote YES.
Measure E: Removing 30' Height Limit in Midway Area
Way back in 1972, San Diegans passed a measure that limited the height of buildings in the coastal belt to 30' — the purported goal being to prevent San Diego becoming like “Miami Beach” with its high density of skyscrapers along the oceanfront. All fine and dandy, except that somehow the Midway area (between I-8 to the south and I-5 to the west) got included in the coastal belt, although it has no oceanfront or views to block. The downside has been a lack of investment in an area close to the airport, now littered with dilapidated strip malls. Passing this measure would allow for the refurbishment of the aging Sports Arena (now called the Pechanga Casino Arena) which could anchor the revitalization of that area, much like Petco Park revived East Village. Opponents don’t dispute that the Midway district was incorrectly classified as a coastal district, but instead fall back to the “slippery slope” argument — if this passes, next up will be actual coastal areas. That’s just silly. Vote YES.