[Note: we published this October 16 at 5:55 pm PDT.  Will Swaim, president of the California Policy Center, was kind enough to take a look at it and forward his comments.  We were wrong about prop. 35 and now recommend a yes vote. Explanation below.]

A few days ago, we received a voters’ guide to California propositions.  The sender? The California Democratic party.  After looking over their recommendations, we made a few changes. TL:DR version: with one exception, vote exactly the opposite of their wishes.  To start here’s the original mailer. We’ve removed their recommendations to add a note of suspense.

Slightly edited original version guide to propositions, We’ve removed their recommendations to add a note of suspense. (Click for larter image.)

And here are our recommendations:

Our recommendations using the Dem guide to propositions. (Click for larger image.)

A quick and easy tip: if the word “bond” appears anywhere in the description, vote no.  California is already bleeding younger, taxpaying voters. With their children.  The few kids that are left will be saddled with payments, both interest and principal.  (Revenue anticipation bonds usually anticipate more revenue than is actually created.)

Why Yes on 35 and 36?

Our two Yes recommendations need explanation.  First, and most obvious, it is unbelievable that the Democratic party recommends voting against prop. 36.  We characterize that proposition as, “Make crime criminal again in California.”  It overturns many of the more egregious aspects of prop. 47, including this (from Ballotpedia.org):

The measure [Prop 47] required misdemeanor sentencing instead of felony for the following crimes:

• Shoplifting, where the value of property stolen does not exceed $950
• Grand theft, where the value of the stolen property does not exceed $950
• Receiving stolen property, where the value of the property does not exceed $950
• Forgery, where the value of forged check, bond or bill does not exceed $950
• Fraud, where the value of the fraudulent check, draft or order does not exceed $950
• Writing a bad check, where the value of the check does not exceed $950
• Personal use of most illegal drugs

Second, prop. 35.  Again, from Ballotpedia:  (Note: From the Ballotpedia home page, select 2024 Elections. Scroll down to the bottom and pick 2024 Ballot Measures. From the picklist, select List of State Ballot Measures. Scroll down until you find California. Click the link to Prop 35.)

The California Policy Center was kind enough to read the original version of this post.  They convinced me to switch to Yes on 35.  Here’s what they said:

Every governor since Wilson – Gray Davis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom – has used MCO [managed care organizations] tax revenue as slush fund to cover budget shortfalls. Newsom made that practice more controversial by extending Medi-Cal coverage to illegal immigrants while draining the MCO tax fund and cutting payments to service providers – for example, payments to physicians who see Medi-Cal patients. Some healthcare providers, including some physicians, have responded by refusing to see Medi-Cal patients. The result: many of the 15 million Californians carrying a Medi-Cal benefits card can’t find a doctor who will accept Medi-Cal patients.

We’ll just add that this is not a tax increase.  The tax is already being collected.  Prop. 35 makes the current temporary tax permanent.  And it only allows the tax revenue to be used for Medi-Cal.  No more slush fund for Governor Hairgel or any future governor.

The Original Mailer

Here’s the original mailer. Only the identifying information has been edited out.

Original Democratic guide to propositions. (Click for larger image.)

Conclusion

Yes on 35 and 36.  No on everything else.