HJTA Voter Guide 2024: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Recommendations for the November Election
Navigating the ballot can be challenging, especially with numerous statewide propositions to consider in the upcoming November 5, 2024 General Election. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), a renowned advocate for taxpayers’ rights and the protectors of Proposition 13, offers a straightforward guide to help you make informed decisions. This Hjta Voter Guide 2024 provides clear recommendations on each proposition, ensuring you understand the potential impact on your taxes and the state of California.
HJTA’s Recommendations on Statewide Propositions
This election cycle features a mix of propositions placed on the ballot by the Legislature and citizens’ initiatives. Propositions 2 through 6 are legislative measures with special numbering, while Propositions 32-36 are citizens’ initiatives numbered sequentially from prior elections. HJTA has carefully reviewed each proposition and recommends the following votes:
Vote NO on Propositions: 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, 33
Vote YES on Propositions: 34, 36
No Position on Propositions: 3, 35
Let’s delve into the specifics of each proposition and understand HJTA’s reasoning behind their recommendations.
Why Vote NO on Proposition 2: State School Bonds
HJTA urges a NO vote on Proposition 2 due to its $10 billion bond measure for school facilities. This new state debt is projected to cost taxpayers an estimated $18 billion, including interest. HJTA argues that with declining enrollment in both K-12 schools and community colleges, these bonds are an unnecessary financial burden. Furthermore, Proposition 2 mandates a “local match” of funds from school districts, likely leading to increased local school bonds and higher property taxes for homeowners. Voting NO on Proposition 2 is a vote against unnecessary debt and potential property tax hikes.
Proposition 3: HJTA Takes No Position – Constitutional Right to Marry
HJTA takes no position on Proposition 3, which seeks to amend the state Constitution by removing the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and adding language affirming the “right to marry as a fundamental right.” HJTA notes that this proposition is largely symbolic and has no practical effect on current law, as the U.S. Supreme Court already recognizes the constitutional right to marry.
Why Vote NO on Proposition 4: Climate Bonds
Proposition 4 is another bond measure, this time for $10 billion dedicated to “climate programs.” HJTA recommends a NO vote, citing California’s already substantial bond debt, which exceeded $78 billion in early 2024, before the addition of Proposition 1’s $6.38 billion in March. HJTA believes borrowing an additional $10 billion, estimated to cost $18 billion with interest, for climate “programs,” including salaries, is fiscally irresponsible, especially given the governor’s declaration of a budget emergency. Bond financing, HJTA argues, should be reserved for long-lasting projects, not ongoing programs.
Why Vote NO on Proposition 5: Weakening Proposition 13
HJTA strongly opposes Proposition 5, labeling it “a direct attack on Proposition 13.” This measure, also known as ACA 1, aims to lower the voter threshold for local bond measures from a two-thirds majority to just 55% for “infrastructure” and public housing projects. HJTA warns that Proposition 5 will make it significantly easier to raise local taxes through bonds, which are repaid through property taxes. They predict that if Proposition 5 passes, property tax bills are likely to increase after every election, further escalating the cost of living in California. A NO vote on Proposition 5 is crucial to protect Proposition 13 and prevent continuous property tax increases.
Why Vote NO on Proposition 6: Inmate Work Requirements
HJTA recommends voting NO on Proposition 6, which would prohibit mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. HJTA argues that eliminating mandatory work requirements and potentially negotiating higher wages for inmates would unfairly increase the burden on taxpayers. They believe inmates should contribute to society and offset their debt through work while serving their sentences.
Why Vote NO on Proposition 32: Minimum Wage Increase
Proposition 32 seeks to raise California’s minimum wage from $16 to $18 per hour, with annual inflation adjustments. HJTA advocates for a NO vote, arguing that minimum wage hikes can be counterproductive, leading to reduced work hours and job losses as businesses struggle to absorb increased labor costs. HJTA believes the better approach to raising incomes is to foster a business-friendly environment that encourages job creation, not policies that may drive businesses out of California. They also point out that increasing the minimum wage raises government labor expenses.
Why Vote NO on Proposition 33: Rent Control Expansion
HJTA strongly opposes Proposition 33, a rent control measure that seeks to repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act. Repealing Costa-Hawkins, HJTA argues, would enable cities to enact radical rent control policies, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from adjusting rents to market rates after a tenant moves out. HJTA believes Proposition 33 would deter new apartment construction due to increased financial risks for lenders, exacerbating California’s existing housing shortage. Voters have already rejected similar proposals twice before, indicating a consistent understanding of the negative impacts of expanded rent control. Vote NO on Proposition 33 to protect housing supply and property rights.
Why Vote YES on Proposition 34: Healthcare Accountability
HJTA recommends a YES vote on Proposition 34, which targets nonprofit healthcare organizations that misuse federal funds intended for patient care on political activities. Proposition 34 would mandate that these organizations primarily use funds from federal prescription drug discount programs for direct patient care, ensuring these resources are used as intended. Voting YES on Proposition 34 promotes accountability and ensures healthcare funds benefit patients directly.
Proposition 35: HJTA Takes No Position – Managed Care Organization Tax
HJTA takes no position on Proposition 35, which concerns the tax on managed care organizations (MCOs). While HJTA anticipates the Legislature will likely make the MCO tax permanent, Proposition 35 would dedicate the revenue specifically to funding Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for low-income residents. HJTA acknowledges the importance of Medi-Cal for approximately 14 million Californians but refrains from taking a position on the proposition itself.
Why Vote YES on Proposition 36: Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act
HJTA supports Proposition 36 and recommends a YES vote. This measure, backed by law enforcement and retailers, aims to amend Proposition 47 (2014) by increasing penalties for repeat offenders of theft and drug crimes and offering drug and mental health treatment as alternatives to incarceration. Proposition 36 would also allow judges to sentence certain individuals to state prison instead of county jail. HJTA recognizes the surge in retail theft, vehicle break-ins, and public drug use and believes Proposition 36 is a necessary step to address these issues, reduce the burden on first responders, and lower rising insurance costs. Voting YES on Proposition 36 is a vote for safer communities and a more effective approach to crime and addiction.
About HJTA
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association remains steadfast in its mission to protect Proposition 13 and advocate for taxpayers’ rights. For over 35 years, HJTA has served as the watchdog for Proposition 13, championing limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases, and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. For further information and to support their work, visit http://www.hjta.org.
