The Team Normal Democratic Voting Guide - Part II - Proposition 5

Don't Reward Government Dishonesty

On Sunday, I published my Team Normal Democratic Voting Guide with endorsements on each of the ballot measures being voted on in California, Los Angeles County, and the City of Los Angeles.

Some have asked why I did not explain my opposition or support more fully on each ballot initiative. The truth is, each of the nineteen (19) different ballot measures I voted on could easily warrant its own essay at minimum and I only have so much time I can devote to writing about each individual ballot measure. So, I am sticking to the ones that my paid subscribers request specific analysis for.

Per request, I will explain why I am voting against Proposition 5.¹

Proposition 5 will lower the current voter passage requirement for local bonds from 2/3rds of the electorate to 55% of the electorate when they are bonds for what is defined as “housing” and “public infrastructure”.²

There are numerous good reasons to vote against Proposition 5. For one thing, there is a great risk of dramatically increasing local property taxes since bonded indebtedness is an exception to Proposition 13 (1978).³

This could have the effect of turbocharging gentrification, putting small businesses who are required to pay property taxes through triple net leases out of business, and forcing senior citizens out of their homes - all things that Prop 13 has helped mitigate. Prop 13, which is very popular among rank and file Democrats in California,⁴ has also helped lead to the highest rates of black and brown homeownership in the country.⁵

However, my chief reason for voting against Proposition 5 is that Proposition 5, which was places on the ballot by the California State Legislature, is being presented to the voting public in a dishonest way. Thus, even if I could be persuaded on the merits that Proposition 5 was a good policy, I would vote against it out of principle.

If nothing else, Team Normal Democrats believe that government should be honest with its citizens. We’re not subjects, we’re citizens.⁶ And while we can support big government and believe in its occasional need subject to inherent limitations, we don’t support a government that misleads us.

Ballot measures should be presented honesty to the public. Proposition 5 falls far short of that standard.

Proposition 5 is misleading in several ways.

First, the current title of Proposition 5, “ALLOWS LOCAL BONDS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITH 55% VOTER APPROVAL”, makes it look like the proposition is imposing a new restriction on the passage of bonds. But it’s not.

Currently, local governments in California may only take on bonded indebtedness if the bonds are passed by a two thirds vote of the electorate.⁷ This constitutional requirement has existed since 1879.⁸ The only exception is for general obligation bonds that are for school facility improvements, which only require approval from 55% of voters.⁹ This limited constitutional change was enacted by voters in 2000.¹⁰

What is the strategy here?

The title was purposely written to confuse and mislead low information conservative voters into accidentally voting in favor.

In 2020, Proposition 19, a massive tax increase that repealed part of Proposition 13 protection passed narrowly statewide. This took away the ability of people to leave their primary residence to their children (or grandchildren if their children were predeceased) without a tax reassessment.

How did this pass? It was disguised as an initiative that created additional tax protections that provided property tax relief for senior citizens, people with disabilities, and wildfire victims (mostly providing tax protections that property owners already had). The way that the ballot summary explained it, voters were creating new limitations on property tax reassessments.

Although nearly half of Los Angeles County voters voted against Proposition 19, normally sufficient to defeat a ballot measure increasing taxes statewide, it performed much better in reliably red counties where many voters didn’t bother to actually read the measure.

Proposition 5 follows the same successful tactic used to pass Proposition 19. Confuse low information conservative and centrist voters who are unaware of pre-existing limitations and trick them into weakening current limitations or taking them away.

That’s dishonest and it’s really unacceptable.

But that’s not the only way in which Proposition 5 is being dishonestly presented.

For example, while it purports to lower bond passage requirements for “housing” and “public infrastructure”, Proposition 5 allows bonds to be passed at a 55% threshold for things that aren’t actually housing or public infrastructure.

Proposition 5’s definition of “housing” includes the following:

• “Downpayment assistance programs.”¹¹

• “First-time homebuyer programs.”¹²

Though these are very admirable and good things that I support, they are government assistance programs, not actual housing assets. They are government expenditures for which jurisdictions will take on debt but have no assets to sell off as would normally be the case for a bond measure.

Is it a proper use of bond money to take on debt to pay for government assistance programs? The debt undertaken will cost taxpayers more and it will leave the state without an asset. This is a debate to be had but it’s one that is being hidden here since voters are not being told that’s this what they are authorizing.

Next, it defines public infrastructure in a way that misleads the public.

Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines “infrastructure” as “the system of public works of a country, state, or region”.¹³ Dictionary.com defines “infrastructure” as “the fundamental facilities and systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation and communication systems, power plants, and schools”.¹⁴

If you ask the average voter, this is what “infrastructure” means - airports, seaports, power plants, water treatment facilities, freeways, tunnels, highways, bridges, subways, light rail, busways - etc. Voters casually looking at Proposition 5 will likely decide their support on that basis.

Proposition 5’s definition of “public infrastructure” includes the following:

• “Projects identified by the State or local government for recovery from natural disasters.”¹⁵

• “Equipment related to fire suppression, emergency response equipment, or interoperable communications equipment for direct and exclusive use by fire, emergency response, police, or sheriff personnel.”¹⁶

• “Projects that provide protection of property from sea level rise.”¹⁷

• “Projects that provide public broadband internet access service expansion in underserved areas.”¹⁸

• “Private uses incidental to, or necessary for, the public infrastructure.”¹⁹

• “Grants to homeowners for the purposes of structure hardening of homes and structures, as defined in state law.”²⁰

Again, these are all important and necessary things but they’re not public infrastructure. Certainly, these things are not what voters think of as “public infrastructure.” They specifically include benefits to private property owners. It includes projects for natural disaster response that might not be related to infrastructure at all.

Finally, the summary of Proposition 5 on the ballot includes the words “Accountability Requirements”, which would lead a voter to think that by lowering the threshold necessary to pass bonds at the local level would be acceptable because there would be stringent requirements to ensure the money is borrowed and spent properly.

To be fair, there are some accountability requirements within Proposition 5. But what if more are needed over time? What if there are loopholes discovered in the future that need to be closed in order to make projects less corrupt?

The text of Proposition 5 requires that the Legislature can only establish additional accountability measures with a 2/3rds vote.²¹ And Proposition 5 requires a 2/3rds vote from the State Legislature to place restrictions on local jurisdictions acquiring and selling real estate.²²

Yet, at the same time, the Legislature, which recently passed a program to give $150,000.00 grants to undocumented immigrants to purchase homes, will only need a majority vote to create new down payment assistance programs under Proposition 5.²³

This is yet another way to manipulate voters into voting for something under the guise that it will be easy to regulate it when it’s being made extraordinarily difficult to do so.

Though there are many reasons to vote against this proposition, the dishonesty in the attempt to pass it is reason alone to vote against it. Voters deserve better.

Watching some on the left support this bad and dishonest ballot measure reminded me of an article that previously left wing podcaster and media personality

Ana Kasparian

recently wrote in Independent and Unaligned, about her own political evolution and decision to no longer consider herself a progressive.

Part of her evolution is due to unhinged attacks from progressives on things for which she did not deserve to be attacked.

For example, she was harshly criticized for sharing that she had been sexually assaulted by a homeless man while walking her dog. She was roundly condemned when she once expressed that she wanted to be referred to as a “woman” and did not want to be referred to as a “person with a cervix”, “person with a uterus”, “birthing person”, or “person who menstruates”.

I think most Team Normal Democrats empathize with her. I certainly can.

In the article’s opening, she identified a mindset

Her article’s opening though stood out because she identified a mindset that drives Proposition 5 and other bad ballot measures. There, she wrote the following:

After Trump came onto the political scene, and especially after he was elected in 2016, the us-vs-them mentality immediately took shape. Anyone who refused to “resist Trump” was seen as a threat to the country, and I was fully on board with that mindset.

It all felt righteous at first. But eventually, the tactics deployed to fight Trump became repetitive, boring and ultimately fruitless.

I’m still opposed to Trump who is a loathsome individual with few, if any, redeeming personal qualities. He’s a criminal and he is very much a threat to our democracy.

However, Kasparian is not wrong in identifying a righteous mindset among many opposed to Trump that has ultimately been counterproductive. If it worked, Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected in 2016, he wouldn’t have almost won re-election in 2020, and he wouldn’t be running again in 2024 with a shot to win.

Since 2016, that same righteous mindset has been damaging in California, where Trump remains unpopular.

Anti-Trump fervor has often created a groundswell of support for:

1. Completely unqualified candidates for elected office who in some cases have endangered the public through pure recklessness.

2. Laws in the California State Legislature that are destructive and harmful to homeowners, small business owners, and gig workers.

3. Dishonest ballot measures with bad policy outcomes.

It’s not hard to understand why this has happened. If you are rightfully infuriated at Trump and want to vote against him, you will be inclined to vote for candidates who are supported by those who are on your same side and vote against those who you see as associated with Trump.

This logic applies to ballot measures too.

If you know little about a particular ballot measure, but someone who is active in a Resistance group or the Democratic Party tells you that you should vote in favor while some dude in a MAGA hat or Trump apologist tells you that you should vote no, you’re probably going to vote in favor of that ballot measure.

And you can’t be blamed for voting yes either, especially when the ballot measure is presented to you in an intentionally dishonest manner.

But if you think about it, a dishonest ballot measure is something that Trump himself would write if it benefitted him or something he wanted. Among Trump’s worst traits is that he’s a pathological liar.

Dishonesty by our elected officials shouldn’t be rewarded just because they’re Democrats who oppose Trump.

I urge all to vote NO on Proposition 5.

Here again, the Team Normal Democratic Voting Guide:

Statewide Ballot Measures

Proposition 2 (Issues $10 Billion in Statewide Bonds for School Improvements): No
Proposition 3 (Repeals Same-Sex Marriage Ban in Constitution): Yes
Proposition 4 (Issues $10 Billion in Statewide Bonds to Combat Climate Change): No
Proposition 5 (Eliminates 2/3rds Vote Requirement for Passage of Local Bonds): NO!!!!!
Proposition 6 (Requires Compensation for Labor of Incarcerated Felons): No
Proposition 32 (Increases Minimum Wage): No
Proposition 33 (Allows New Local Rent Control): No
Proposition 34 (Stops AIDS Healthcare Foundation From Spending Money Politically): No
Proposition 35 (Permanently Enacts Tax on Managed Health Insurance Plans): No
Proposition 36 (Makes it a Felony to Steal More Than $950 in the Aggregate): YES!!!!!

Los Angeles County Ballot Measures

Los Angeles County Measure A (Enacts Permanent Increased Sales Tax to Continue Funding Current County Programs to End Homelessness): NO!!!!!⁷
Los Angeles County Measure E (Enacts special tax to upgrade emergency services): No
Los Angeles County Measure G (Expands Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, Creates County Ethics Commission, and Creates County Elected Executive): YES!!!!!⁸

City of Los Angeles Ballot Measures

Los Angeles City Measure DD (Independent Redistricting for City Council): Yes
Los Angeles City Measure HH (Cleans up Charter Language): Yes
Los Angeles City Measure II (Allows food sales at LA Zoo and El Pueblo Monument): Yes
Los Angeles City Measure ER (Expands Power of Ethics Commission): No
Los Angeles City Measure FF (Retirement Plans for Peace Officers): Yes
Los Angeles City Measure LL (Independent Redistricting for School Board): Yes
Los Angeles Unified School District Measure US (School Repair Bonds): No

Ballot Measures in Other Parts of California

Recall of Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price: YES!!!!!*
Recall of Oakland Mayor Theng Shao: YES!!!!!!*
San Francisco City Measure K (Permanently Close the Great Highway): No
Folsom City Measure G (1% Sales Tax Increase): No
Yuba City Measure D (1% Sales Tax Increase): No

*Recalls of elected officials are legally considered ballot measures.²⁴

1. The author of this article is an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and the District of Columbia. This article and all of the works on this Substack page are statements of the opinions of the author, only, and do not constitute legal advice; they are not intended to be relied upon by any individual or entity in any transaction or other legal matter, past, pending, or future. A paid subscription to this Substack page supports the author’s scholarship and provides access to research that the author has compiled, but does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The author does not accept unsolicited requests for legal advice or representation, and this Substack page is not intended as legal advertising. The opinions expressed on this Substack page reflect the personal views of the author only.

2. https://vig.cdn.sos.ca.gov/2024/general/pdf/prop5.pdf