Here is my conservative input on CA propositions:
Every one of these things is some connected group trying to enact some sort of law that will benefit them, and them only. Period.
CA is done. There is a liberal demographic avalanche in progress in this state that will take at least 2 generations to reverse, if it can be done at all.
There are 3 possible functions of CA propositions:
1: to make business in general more difficult by tightening pollution standards, imposing new fees, (like the 1 & 2 cent per oz soft drink fees for RIchmond and for SF) or by redistributing profits or by demanding yet more environmental reports or imposing environment restrictions (Chevron, Richmond) on any sort of development; Incidentally, all of these enviro suits can seek recovery legal costs as part of any settlement and are typically so awarded. All Sierra Club lawsuits get their legal costs paid, they are freebies.
2: to enrich some group, whether insurance companies, telecom companies, cable cos, trial lawyers, at the expense of the consumer/customer.
3: Or to recharge union pensions, either by changing bargaining regulations or by taking on massive cost-overrun exercises like the bullet train and the SF Bay Bridge replacement.
Subset of all of these: To create yet further bureaucracies so that Jerry Brown or his successor will be able to appoint 6-figure/yr agency heads and staff and capture more and more tax revenue for no purpose other than to gather money because they can. Like CARB.
There is zero notion of returning CA to the state it was in 30 years ago, when CA had the best schools & roads in the country. Under the name of diversity and inclusion, CA is headed towards an amalgam of Tijuana, Cartagena, and Baghdad. Exactly the same as Washington, DC, the idea is to strip the last morsel of meat off the corpse before it all collapses. If you have read any of the “prospectuses” for prior CA propositions, you know they are written in very deceptive language and it is often very hard to figure out whether you are voting yes or no. And in any event, CA courts often overturn these things.
I don’t vote “yes” for *any* of these things. If anything, CA needs a moratorium on enacting new laws or opening new bond issues for at least 3 years.
Better be careful...
Sometimes a No is a Yes the way they are written...