The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA), a renowned advocate for taxpayer rights and the protectors of Proposition 13, has released its voting guide for the upcoming November 5, 2024 General Election. For over 35 years, HJTA has been a staunch defender of California taxpayers, providing guidance on critical ballot measures that impact your wallet. This guide offers clear recommendations on the statewide propositions, helping you make informed decisions that align with taxpayer interests. Facing a complex ballot, understanding the implications of each proposition is crucial. HJTA’s expert analysis cuts through the jargon, providing straightforward reasons behind their positions.
HJTA’s Recommendations at a Glance:
Here’s a quick overview of HJTA’s positions on the California propositions:
- Proposition 2: NO
- Proposition 3: No Position
- Proposition 4: NO
- Proposition 5: NO
- Proposition 6: NO
- Proposition 32: NO
- Proposition 33: NO
- Proposition 34: YES
- Proposition 35: No Position
- Proposition 36: YES
It’s important to note the numbering gap: Propositions 2 through 6 are legislative measures with special numbering, while Propositions 32-36 are citizen initiatives with sequential numbering from previous elections.
Propositions HJTA Recommends Voting NO On
HJTA urges voters to reject several propositions, primarily due to concerns about increased taxes, state debt, and policies they believe are detrimental to California’s economy and taxpayers.
Proposition 2: State Bond for School Facilities
HJTA Recommendation: NO
HJTA Election 2024 Voting Guide
Proposition 2 proposes a staggering $10 billion in state bonds to fund school facilities. HJTA strongly opposes this measure, arguing it will inevitably lead to higher property taxes. To receive funds from these state bonds, school districts are required to provide a “local match,” which often results in issuing new local school bonds. These local bonds are directly paid for by increasing charges on your property tax bills.
Furthermore, HJTA highlights the concerning trend of declining enrollment in both K-12 schools and community colleges across California, a trend projected to continue. Despite this, Proposition 2 commits the state to an estimated $18 billion in repayment, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary in the face of decreasing student populations. HJTA emphasizes fiscal responsibility and urges voters to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2 to avoid unnecessary debt and potential tax hikes.
Proposition 4: “Climate Bond” State Debt
HJTA Recommendation: NO
Proposition 4 is another $10 billion bond measure, this time earmarked for climate-related “programs.” HJTA is firmly against this proposition, pointing to California’s already substantial bond debt, which exceeded $78 billion at the start of the year, even before the $6.38 billion added by Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would further burden taxpayers with an additional $10 billion in borrowed money, escalating to an estimated $18 billion with interest.
HJTA argues that using bond financing for “programs,” which include salaries and operational costs for various groups, is fiscally irresponsible. Bond financing is best suited for long-term infrastructure projects lasting longer than the 30-year debt repayment period. With the governor already declaring a budget emergency due to overspending, HJTA believes that incurring more debt through Proposition 4 is imprudent and unsustainable. They advise taxpayers to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4 to curb reckless spending and debt accumulation.
Proposition 5: Weakening Proposition 13 – Lowering Threshold for Local Taxes
HJTA Recommendation: NO
Proposition 5, identified as ACA 1 in the legislature, is labeled by HJTA as a direct assault on Proposition 13. It aims to make it easier to raise local taxes by reducing the voter threshold required for local bond measures. Currently, a two-thirds (66.7%) majority is needed for local bonds to pass. Proposition 5 would lower this to just 55% for “infrastructure” (broadly defined) and public housing projects.
Local bonds are repaid through additional charges on property tax bills. HJTA warns that if Proposition 5 passes, property tax bills are likely to increase after every election, indefinitely. This would significantly raise the cost of living in California, which already suffers from the highest poverty rate in the nation when adjusted for cost of living. HJTA strongly urges voters to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5 to protect Proposition 13 and prevent a continuous rise in property taxes.
Proposition 6: Banning Mandatory Work for State Prison Inmates
HJTA Recommendation: NO
Proposition 6 seeks to prohibit mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. HJTA opposes this measure, arguing that it unfairly increases the burden on taxpayers. They contend that it is unreasonable to create conditions that could lead to negotiating higher wages for inmates who are serving sentences and, in effect, paying their debt to society. HJTA believes inmates should be required to work and contribute, and therefore recommends voters to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6.
Proposition 32: Minimum Wage Increase
HJTA Recommendation: NO
Proposition 32 proposes to raise California’s minimum hourly wage from $16 to $18, with annual adjustments for inflation. While seemingly beneficial, HJTA argues that raising the minimum wage can be counterproductive. They cite instances where minimum wage hikes have reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours or lay off employees to compensate for increased labor costs.
HJTA believes the most effective way to improve incomes in California is to foster a business-friendly environment that encourages job creation, rather than driving businesses out of the state. Furthermore, they note that increasing the minimum wage also raises state expenses through higher government labor costs. For these reasons, HJTA recommends voters to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.
Proposition 33: Rent Control Expansion – Repealing Costa-Hawkins
HJTA Recommendation: NO
Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would repeal the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act of 1995. Costa-Hawkins currently limits the scope of rent control, ensuring housing providers can receive a fair return on their investment. Repealing it would allow cities to enact more radical rent control policies, potentially including single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting rents to market rates after a tenant moves out.
HJTA predicts that Proposition 33 would drastically reduce new apartment construction as lenders become wary of the financial risks associated with expanded rent control. This, in turn, would worsen California’s existing housing shortage. Voters have rejected similar proposals in 2018 and 2020. HJTA advises voters to again VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33 to avoid exacerbating the housing crisis.
Propositions HJTA Takes No Position On
HJTA has chosen to remain neutral on two propositions, indicating they may have mixed impacts on taxpayers or fall outside HJTA’s primary focus.
Proposition 3: Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Rights
HJTA Recommendation: No Position
Proposition 3 would remove the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman from the state Constitution and add language stating, “the right to marry is a fundamental right.” HJTA takes no position on this measure because it has no practical effect on current law. The U.S. Supreme Court has already affirmed the right to marry under the federal Constitution. HJTA views this proposition as largely symbolic and not directly related to taxpayer issues.
Proposition 35: Managed Care Organization Tax and Medi-Cal Funding
HJTA Recommendation: No Position
Proposition 35 concerns the tax on managed care organizations (MCOs) in California, such as Anthem Blue Cross. This tax is set to expire in 2026, but the legislature is expected to make it permanent. Proposition 35 would not only make the MCO tax permanent but also dedicate its revenue to funding Medi-Cal, California’s health insurance program for low-income residents, instead of being used for general budget purposes. With approximately 14 million Californians relying on Medi-Cal, HJTA acknowledges the importance of the program but takes no position on this proposition, possibly due to its complex fiscal implications and indirect impact on taxpayers compared to other measures.
Propositions HJTA Recommends Voting YES On
HJTA recommends voting yes on two propositions that they believe will benefit taxpayers and improve public safety and government accountability.
Proposition 34: Healthcare Provider Accountability – Drug Discount Program Funds
HJTA Recommendation: YES
Proposition 34 addresses the issue of nonprofit healthcare organizations misusing federal funds from a prescription drug discount program. HJTA supports this proposition because it would require healthcare providers to spend the majority of these federal funds on direct patient care, rather than on political causes or other unrelated expenses. HJTA believes this measure promotes accountability and ensures that resources intended for patient care are used appropriately. Therefore, they recommend voters to VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.
Proposition 36: “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act” – Tougher on Crime
HJTA Recommendation: YES
Proposition 36, named the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” is supported by law enforcement and retailers. It aims to amend Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced certain theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. HJTA supports Proposition 36 because it seeks to toughen penalties for repeat offenders and offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration in some cases. It would also allow judges to sentence certain individuals to state prison instead of county jail.
HJTA recognizes that the surge in retail theft, vehicle break-ins, and public drug use has strained first responders, increased insurance costs, and burdened taxpayers across California. They believe Proposition 36 is a step towards addressing these issues and restoring public safety. HJTA urges voters to VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 36.
About the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is California’s largest taxpayer advocacy organization, dedicated to protecting Proposition 13 and advancing taxpayers’ rights. HJTA champions limited taxation, the right to vote on tax increases, and the economical and efficient use of taxpayer dollars. For more information or to support their work, visit http://www.hjta.org.
This guide is provided by conduct.edu.vn as a public service to inform voters about the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association’s recommendations. Remember to educate yourself and vote in the November 5, 2024 General Election.
