---

Click here for a full list of our voting recommendations.

---

Proposition 4 would allow the state to borrow $10 billion by issuing bonds for natural resources and climate change activities. Individual proposals include efforts to make sure clean drinking water, increase drought, flood and water resilience, increase clean energy production, address sea level rise, create parks and outdoor access, mitigate heat or to fund wildfire prevention programs.

Yes: Clean water advocates say it's time to take a position in proven climate solutions now slightly than pay later. Too many Californians live without clean, protected water supplies, and much more are served by vulnerable systems. Proposition 4 requires that at the very least 40% of funding go to disadvantaged communities that need it most.

No: California senator says we are able to't afford to fund supposed climate programs promised by a state that hasn't lived as much as its past commitments. The measure includes programs which might be vaguely defined and sometimes dubiously labeled, leaving taxpayers stuck with the bill. Although some programs are worthwhile, they mustn’t be funded with long-term debt.

Editorial: Proposition 4 favors policy over common sense policy with a hodgepodge of environmental programs that lack clear priorities. After this yr's federal budget debacle, elected leaders mustn’t wait for brand spanking new bonds and more debt to pursue an unfocused spending plan. The measure reads more like a shopping list than a sound policy proposal.

---

---

At the highest of the list of things most Californians take with no consideration is the power to soundly drink water from the kitchen faucet or safely bathe in water from the lavatory faucet. Believe me and the handfuls of farmworker families who lived within the housing cooperative I managed and lived in for years: This shouldn’t be something you need to ever take with no consideration.

To live and not using a protected and clean water supply is to be consistently aware of its absence. There are itchy, painful rashes and illnesses brought on by showering with contaminated water. There are the constant trips to purchase bottled water. There are the mounting water bills to pay for the drilling of ever deeper wells that sometimes provide temporary relief.

About 1 million Californians live under such conditions and about one other million are supplied by water systems the state classified as endangered. In view of the increasing threats The impacts of climate change on our water supply must be of great concern to all Californians.

Now is the time to speculate in proven solutions somewhat than accepting these outrageous, inhumane conditions or allowing them to spread. California voters can approve such an investment this fall by Proposal 4a $10 billion bond whose fundamental objective is to enhance the amount and quality of drinking water.

It would fund grants and loans to local water utilities to assist them provide protected and reliable drinking water. It would fund projects to scale back or treat contaminants in groundwater, recharge aquifers, construct infrastructure to supply access to wash water, expand services to communities currently underserved, and protect and restore our rivers, lakes and streams.

Although there are failing water systems across the state, they’re concentrated within the Central Valley and the Central Coast, where the housing cooperative I run is positioned near Salinas. Most individuals who have been denied what California calls Fundamental right have access to wash water and live in low-income communities.

Sentence 4 recognises these injustices and demands that at the very least 40% of the funds go to disadvantaged communities. The money goes where it’s most needed.

Voters are rightly cautious about approving loans that have to be paid back over time. In this case, there may be every reason to spend money now so taxpayers can save later. That applies to protecting our water resources and likewise to Prop. 4's other fundamental focus: Wildfire Prevention and containment. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Every dollar spent today to enhance resilience save $6 on disaster relief tomorrow.

In addition, the recent Assessment of climate change The state Natural Resources Agency estimates that if we do nothing, the price of climate change to the state will exceed $200 billion by 2050.

We cannot pass these costs on to our kids and grandchildren. If we don’t act now, the price to taxpayers shall be astronomical.

We have the chance to enhance their lives and combat the climate impacts that threaten our drinking water supplies and our ability to breathe clean air. This requires resources, political will and the determination to act before things worsen.

Now is the time to make use of all these tools. We must not lose the battle for clean air and clean water.

This fall's race over anti-crime Proposition 36 guarantees to be some of the costly and unnecessary ballot campaigns California has ever seen, as zealous supporters of 2014's Proposition 47 fight to maintain it alive in greater than name.

It's a political fight that Gov. Gavin Newsom and the many prosecutors and major supermarket chains behind the brand new ballot initiative could have avoided relatively easily. They could have (and will have) used a decades-old process that permits initiators to succeed in agreements with lawmakers who oppose their measures, resulting in latest compromise laws after which the withdrawal of the initiatives in query.

The clear conflict between Newsom and the liberal Democrats who dominate the legislature and the sponsors of Prop. 36, who called their measure the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act” (though the connection to homelessness is unclear), has at all times been clear: Newsom’s side views Prop. 47 as largely successful in reducing repeat crime and treating the drug addiction that motivates many crimes.

But much of the law enforcement community views Prop. 47 as an abject failure that has increased crime by downgrading many previous crimes to misdemeanors and setting $950 because the minimum limit for the worth of stolen goods. They say official statistics suggest that crime rates generally are actually near historic lows.

The hard side on this dispute had no trouble gathering greater than 600,000 voter signatures to qualify their plan for the ballot. The proposal would allow prosecutors so as to add up the worth of products stolen by a defendant and launch a felony prosecution if the whole value exceeds the $950 threshold. It would also crack down on fentanyl users, dealers and manufacturers.

The obvious compromise might have been to aggregate the proceeds from thefts committed by individuals, but retain all of Prop. 47's drug-fighting advantages. Such a deal would have returned some crimes downgraded from felonies by Prop. 47 to that status, including crimes resembling burglary during business hours and forgery. At the identical time, a compromise could have kept crimes resembling drug possession and writing bad checks as misdemeanors.

But no attempt at compromise was made. Instead, under pressure from Newsom, lawmakers passed a package of recent laws that allow prosecutions for third-offense thefts, no matter value. The latest laws also allow judges to issue injunctions stopping “lesser” thieves from revisiting the stores where they stole, while eliminating cut-off dates on prosecuting organized shoplifting, resembling last yr's highly publicized blitzes at major retail stores.

This allows the governor and his allies within the legislature to assert they’ve solved the issues related to Prop. 47, which caused major corporations resembling Walmart, Walgreens and Nordstrom to shut quite a few stores in California – partially due to huge losses brought on by the thefts enabled by Prop. 47.

The laws they passed, nonetheless, aren’t as strict as Prop. 36, which places extreme emphasis on shoplifting. Nevertheless, some lawmakers who voted against the Newsom-linked package insisted that the increased emphasis on repeat theft would result in a rise in mass incarceration of racial minorities within the United States.

“These measures exacerbate mass incarceration and run in the opposite direction of what Californians (intended to achieve with Proposition 47),” said Democratic Sen. Lola Smallwood-Cuevas of Los Angeles. In her statement, she added that “increasing criminalization too often falls on the shoulders of Black and Latino Californians.”

Other Democrats opposed the bill, arguing that it created two latest crimes that they said were already covered by existing laws: breaking right into a vehicle with the intent to steal and possessing property stolen from a vehicle with the intent to sell it.

If the conflicts between the brand new legislative package and Prop. 36 seem relatively minor, since each goal alleged deficiencies in Prop. 47, that's because they’re. That's also why it was clear from the moment Prop. 36 got here to a vote that it will be essentially unnecessary for lawmakers to pass latest laws that achieves a lot of its goals.

They have now done so. This implies that voters will waste their time and psychic energy in the event that they get too caught up within the upcoming battle over the ballot bill. The basic reality is that the majority of this effort and expense could and will have been avoided.

Send Thomas Elias an email at tdelias@aol.com and skim more of his columns online at californiafocus.net.

Governor Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers in California are suddenly taking a troublesome stance on crime – and the state's voters could face competing referendums in November.

In response to a Republican-backed ballot initiative to repeal House Bill 47 – a 2014 measure that downgraded some property crimes from felonies to misdemeanors – and toughen penalties for certain theft and drug offenses, Newsom and Democratic lawmakers this week announced their very own, barely milder, competing initiative to combat shoplifting and the deadly drug fentanyl.

“The subtext of this initiative is, 'I'm tough on crime too, and even if I'm not quite as tough as the others, I'm also very smart about it,'” says Dan Schnur, a political science professor at UC Berkeley and former Republican strategist.

Newsom's initiative takes the shape of Senate Bill 1381 and requires House approval to make it onto the November ballot. Shoplifters who’re convicted 3 times inside a three-year period might be sentenced to up to 3 years in prison. In addition, accused thieves might be charged based on the entire value of multiple thefts over three years, which could raise the charge from a misdemeanor to a felony.

The initiative also targets fentanyl, the synthetic cousin of heroin that kills 1000’s of Californians annually. People who knowingly sell or pass on drugs laced with fentanyl without informing the recipient withstand six years in prison. People convicted of selling fentanyl might be charged with murder in the event that they later sold the drug to someone who died of an overdose.

In addition, public agencies that provide drug and mental health treatment would receive more cash diverted from a grant program designed to enhance student performance in public schools.

“This ballot measure is a critical step forward in our efforts to strengthen California's public safety laws and provide law enforcement with additional tools to address growing concerns about property crime and the fentanyl crisis,” Newsom said in a press release. “This balanced approach tackles crime and protects our communities.”

But Republican lawmakers sharply criticized Newsom and his allies, saying the contradictory measures could confuse voters. Newsom has defended Prop 47 prior to now.

State Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones attacked the brand new bill on social media platform X on Sunday, calling it a “weaker crime initiative designed to compete with the one already on the ballot in November” and a “blatant attempt to undermine the will of the people.”

If the 2 competing initiatives are put to the vote together, the initiative with probably the most yes votes would take effect.

The Newsom-backed initiative would seem on the ballot together with the initiative to combat homelessness, drug addiction and shoplifting, which was approved for the November ballot earlier this month. It is supported by San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan and San Francisco Mayor London Breed, in addition to state associations of police chiefs, sheriffs and district attorneys, and businesses from small Bay Area restaurants to Walmart, Target and Home Depot. That initiative, too, targets theft and medicines.

Both proposals would reverse provisions of Prop 47 that downgraded most drug possession and property crimes valued at $950 or less to misdemeanors and allowed resentencing of those convicted of those offenses. The goal was to alleviate overcrowded prisons and address social justice issues.

According to the nonpartisan California Budget and Policy Center, crime rates in California, including theft, have been declining for a long time. But critics say the numbers are unreliable because many business owners fail to report incidents like shoplifting because police in lots of areas don’t reply to or investigate minor crimes. Widely circulated photos and videos of brazen shoplifters and robberies have helped bring shoplifting to the forefront of public concern.

“Newsom has recognized what many other members of his party have observed in recent years: crime and public safety have once again become central issues for California voters,” Schnur said.

The proposal, backed by Newsom, won the endorsement of the California Retailers Association, which advocates for reform of Prop 47. The group's president, Rachel Michelin, called the plan “a smart solution that will protect our stores, employees and customers.”

Newsom and Democratic lawmakers could rating political points if their initiative passes, said Melissa Michelson, a political scientist at Menlo College.

“Now it's no longer the public taking the lead,” Michelson said. “Now it's the governor and other elected officials who are in control of this issue.”

SACRAMENTO – An initiative to amend Proposition 47 by reinstating penalties for serial thieves and treatment requirements for drug addicts has qualified for the November ballot, the California Secretary of State's office announced Tuesday afternoon.

The office is predicted to certify the initiative for the overall election later this month on November 5.

Supporters of the measure include small business owners, social justice activists and families of drug victims.

They argue that while Proposition 47 has achieved notable gains in bringing justice to the state's criminal justice system, it has also led to unintended consequences, including repeated and infrequently more organized shoplifting, downtown store closures, and difficulties in persuading people to hunt drug or mental health treatment.

Passed in 2014, the law reclassified most drug possession and property crimes valued at $950 or less as misdemeanors and allowed for resentencing of individuals convicted of great crimes for those offenses. The goal was to alleviate overcrowded prisons and address social justice issues.

Prop. 47 was supported by former San Jose and San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne, former San Francisco District Attorney and current Los Angeles District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Santa Clara County District Attorney, former Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, and then-Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, now the state's governor.

An try and toughen a number of the penalties mitigated by the law – Proposition 20 in 2020 – failed.

Supporters of the brand new initiative say it might amend but not repeal Prop 47. The measure would make a 3rd conviction for shoplifting a felony, whatever the amount stolen. In addition, it might impose penalties for trafficking fentanyl – an inexpensive and deadly synthetic opioid – and supply incentives for convicted addicts to hunt treatment.

Writer John Woolfolk contributed to this report.

Based on their line of questioning, California Supreme Court justices gave the impression to be in search of a compromise as they heard oral arguments today within the long-running legal saga over whether gig staff needs to be considered independent contractors or employees.

Proposition 22, the gig industry-backed initiative that passed 58% of the state's voters in 2020, has been mired in a legal back-and-forth because it went into effect — including a Supreme Court justice ruling it unconstitutional before it was upheld by a state appeals court. Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart and other corporations have used the law to treat their drivers and delivery staff in California as independent contractors slightly than employees.

The specific query before the state's highest court is whether or not Prop. 22 conflicts with the state legislature's constitutional authority to implement a full staff' compensation system. A provision within the initiative that makes gig staff ineligible for staff' compensation as independent contractors could end in your entire bill being thrown out. But the judges didn't appear to want that.

John Mejia, an Alameda gig employee in his late 60s who has driven for Uber and Lyft for nine years, said becoming a contractor means forgoing protections offered to virtually every other employee in California. “There is no unemployment insurance. There is no employee compensation. There is no health insurance,” said Mejia, a member of the Gig Workers Union, a bunch that represents Californians who work for corporations like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash and Instacart.

“When you're sick, you don't make any money and you suffer. Being a contractor under Prop 22 essentially takes away the California civil rights that everyone in California has.”

Gig drivers must cover their very own healthcare costs and pay for fuel or charging, tires and vehicle maintenance, Mejia said. Because their pay is so low — a UC Berkeley Labor Center report released Monday found that the median wage with suggestions is between $7.63 and $11.43 — many gig drivers work 12-hour days and sleep of their cars, Mejia said.

“It’s unfair that you take the ballot measure in California, create your own law and take advantage of the people who work with you and your clients,” Mejia said.

When Scott Kronland, the attorney who argued on behalf of SEIU California and 4 gig staff, said that Prop. 22 conflicted with the Legislature's exclusive and unfettered authority over staff' compensation, Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero asked whether the Legislature was violating the Workers' Compensation for Gig Workers Could Restore Workforce.

Associate Justice Goodwin Liu said there’s “still uncertainty” about voters' initiative power, which is imagined to be reminiscent of legislative power: “Does that mean voters are not allowed to act at all in this area (employees' compensation)?”

Crown land responded that the legislature's power over worker compensation was unlimited.

Attorney Jeffrey Fisher, who argued on behalf of the gig corporations, said, “The Constitution allows voters to act on any issue.” That prompted an issue from Associate Justice Leondra Kruger: “Could voters, on initiative, abolish workers' compensation altogether?”

Fisher said yes, but “we are miles away from that.”

At the top of the hour-long hearing, Kronland reminded the justices: “If the Court decides this case on the basis that the Legislature could restore workers' compensation coverage to gig workers…Prop. 22 states that this section cannot be amended. The drafters of Prop. 22 put it on the ballot as an all-or-nothing vote.”

If Prop. 22 is overturned in its entirety, it could impact some gig staff who’ve come to depend on a few of its provisions, comparable to guaranteed earnings of 120% of the minimum wage for time spent driving or making deliveries. whatever they did. That wasn't the case before the initiative became law.

Cora Mandapat, a Bay Area driver who got here to the San Francisco courthouse with the industry-backed group Protect App-Based Drivers + Services, said she receives extra cash each week as a part of this guaranteed income. She added that she takes an uncle for dialysis and that driving for Lyft gives her the liberty to accomplish that. She said she wished there was a way for some drivers to grow to be employees, “but let me do what I want to do.”

Ed Carrasco, a rideshare driver and member of Rideshare Drivers United who got here to San Francisco today but drives within the Los Angeles and Orange County areas, said afterward that the justices look like “asking how to change Prop. 22.” For example, drivers could qualify for staff' compensation if, for instance, the legislature passes a law making them eligible. Carrasco and about 100 other gig staff and members of labor groups, including Gig Workers Rising, gathered for a rally outside the courthouse before the hearing. The gig staff who didn't go into the courtroom watched the oral arguments on a big screen they arrange outside United Nations Plaza across from San Francisco City Hall.

At the rally, Hector Castellanos, the lead plaintiff within the case, spoke about being injured as a gig driver years ago and never with the ability to get staff' compensation. He said his daughter needed to drop out of college to support his family.

“We're asking the judges to stand behind the drivers,” Castellanos told the gang. After the hearing, he told CalMatters that he knows many drivers who regret voting for Prop. 22, which he said was bought by ride-sharing corporations.

The court's seven justices have 90 days to make a choice.

Staff author Ethan Baron contributed to this report.