Here is how I am voting on the ballot propositions in the election next month. I write this not necessarily as endorsements, but because the act of writing this out makes me read all the voter materials more carefully and makes me a more informed voter. I’m also open to having my mind changed; if you feel differently on any of these, shoot me a message, and I’d be happy to get together over a coffee to discuss.

Broadly, I believe in representative democracy and think laws are better passed by elected legislators than directly at the ballot box. There is both more flexibility to repeal what turns out to be a bad idea and more room for nuance through debate and iteration over different versions of a bill. Thus, when deciding how to vote on a ballot measure, I try to answer two questions: (1) is it good policy, and (2) does it meet the bar for a ballot measure to pass a law. The answer to both should be in the affirmative for me to vote yes.

This post covers all the statewide ballot measure. There are also a number of city-level ballot measures in San Francisco, but this post is already long enough, so I will cover those in a second part

Ballot Measures: State

• Prop 1: Housing Bond — YES: Both the state Assembly and Senate passed this law by a pretty high margin, but issuing new bonds needs approval by voters, so it also needs a ballot measure. Do I think this is good policy? The low-interest mortgage portion is not — trying to fix housing affordability from the demand side seems like a poor idea when supply is so artificially constrained. The rest of it seems okay: subsidizing certain housing construction with taxpayer money. I’ll let the legislature’s near-unanimous votes on this guide me and vote yes.

• Prop 2: Rainy Day Fund — YES: This proposition weakens 1979’s Prop 4 (the Gann Limit on government spending) and allows (but does not compel) the legislature to put more money into the rainy day fund. I’m in favor of elected legislators doing their jobs and against ballot initiatives constraining them, so voting yes

• Prop 3: Tax Rate Increase — NO: Increases marginal tax rates on high incomes by 1–3%. In general, tax slabs going up with time makes sense, since dollars are worth less over time due to inflation. I would have voted for this if it had come from the legislature rather than as a ballot initiative, or say, if it were endorsed by the governor. As it stands, I don’t trust that the numbers are set sensibly or correctly, so it is safer to vote no

• Prop 4: Public Funding of Campaigns — YES: Repeals 1988’s Prop 78 and allows (but does not compel) local governments to set up campaign financing programs. On how I feel about campaign finance — I’d prefer leveling the playing field by limiting how much wealthy candidates can spend, rather than by giving less wealthy candidates more money. However, I’m voting for this proposition because it seems like an okay band-aid and because it un-constrains local governments from prior ballot measures

• Prop 5: Changes to Recall Elections — YES: Changes statewide recall elections to remove the second question about who should replace the elected official if the recall succeeds. I’d rather we get rid of recalls altogether, or make them harder than they are right now, but in the absence of that, this seems like a reasonable change, and one that can only be made by ballot proposition, so I’m voting yes

• Prop 37: Mortgage Downpayment Assistance — NO: Trying to fix housing affordability from the demand side seems like a poor idea, especially when supply is so artificially constrained. In other words, giving people more money to buy homes without building any extra homes will just make homes more expensive. I also don’t understand why the state needs to be in the mortgage business — banks seem to be doing a fine job. This seems like poor policy, and it is also something that the legislature could do if it wanted to. Voting no

• Prop 38: Immunology Bond — NO: Why should California spend 0.25% of its annual budget on immunology research, as opposed to other medical research, or other research in biology, chemistry, or other fields? It is possible that this is a good idea, but this seems like a subject far too technical for every California voter to have to weigh in on. The legislature should do this if it thinks it is worth doing

• Prop 39: Voter ID — NO: In principle, this seems like an issue similar to gerrymandering, where politicians’ interests may not be aligned with the general population, given that fraudulent voting could benefit one party more than the other. However, I have not seen any evidence of widespread fraud that warrants spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year and making it more onerous to vote

• Prop 40: Billionaire Tax — NO: A wealth tax on assets over a billion dollars. Similar to Prop 3 above, I support tax policy set by the legislature with some rigor, rather than based on vibes alone. Voting no

• Prop 41: Limits to Taxation — NO: This one puts a limit on what taxes may be levied (and therefore undoes Prop 40). My position on taxation remains the same. I’m voting no to another ballot initiative that makes changes to taxation

• Prop 42: Limits to Taxation — NO: And another one, this time prohibiting wealth taxes. I’m voting no.

• Prop 43: Higher Threshold for Voter-Led Taxes — YES: Another tax-related ballot proposition, but this time I’m voting yes. This one seeks to restrict what can be done with ballot propositions by increasing the voting threshold for such tax increases to two-thirds from a simple majority. Since I’m not a fan of passing taxation by ballot initiative, I’m voting yes on this. It was also passed near-unanimously by the state legislature, which is a good sanity check for me

• Prop 44: Community Health Clinics — NO: Another one, similar to Prop 38, which seems like a fairly nuanced and technical subject that every California voter need not have a direct say in. Let Sacramento pass this if it wants to

• Prop 45: Expedite CEQA Review — NO: CEQA has long been abused by NIMBYs to block and delay projects they dislike. CEQA reform is long overdue, and the legislature has been chipping away at it with two laws passed last year. While the changes in this ballot measure seem reasonable and good to me, and I’m tempted to vote yes, on principle I’d rather we pass it through the legislature rather than by ballot initiative — that way it can be tweaked again in the future if certain provisions seem bad in hindsight. Given that they passed AB 130 and SB 131 only in the last session, I have some faith in the legislature to continue CEQA reform