latimes--2020-11-04--L.A. County voters approve Measure J, providing new funding for social services

Los Angeles County voters have approved Measure J , which will divert more county money to social services and jail diversion programs .
The Yes on J campaign declared victory Tuesday evening , celebrating as results showed almost 60 % of voters were in favor of the measure .
As of early Wednesday morning , 57 % of voters had cast ballots in favor of the proposal , according to the results .
“ For far too long the needs of our Black and brown communities fell on the budget chopping block and as a result these communities have paid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , co-chair of the Yes on Measure J campaign , in a statement .
“ Measure J will now change that.
” Measure J requires that 10 % of locally generated , unrestricted county money — estimated between $ 360 million and $ 900 million — be spent on a variety of social services , including housing , mental health treatment and investments in communities disproportionally harmed by racism .
The county will be prohibited from using the money on prisons , jails or law enforcement agencies .
The measure was placed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Supervisors amid growing calls for criminal justice reforms after a spate of local police shootings and the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota .
Supporters said the police shootings gave momentum to long-standing efforts to increase non-law enforcement investments in communities of color .
“ We have tried building political movements out of the loss of life in Los Angeles County and to fight just for some crumbs in the budget , and what we continue to be told is , ‘ There ’ s no money for alternatives to incarceration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expand mental health ’ ” and addiction treatment , Hernandez said .
Opponents of Measure J included the Assn .
for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs , which spent more than $ 3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media .
While Measure J doesn ’ t call directly for police budget cuts , opponents say that money will inevitably be slashed from law enforcement , with L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva , in a tweet , going so far as to raise the specter of a “ Mad Max ” future in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Some believed the measure was rushed , including the League of Women Voters of L.A. County , which was neutral on the measure .
The league ’ s members believed the Board of Supervisors should have spent more time analyzing the effectiveness of current social services county programs .
Supervisor Kathryn Barger , the only of the five supervisors opposed to Measure J , said she didn ’ t support the voter question not because of the issues it was trying to address — she has long supported funding the organizations that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the voter question went against her principles about how the budget should be crafted .
“ This sets a bad precedent , ” Barger said .
“ We were all elected to put together budgets each year and be transparent and get feedback from the public , and base our budget on the input we get.
” Political experts agree it wasn ’ t easy to determine how voters would swing on Measure J .
Former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said usually it ’ s important for the supervisors to make the case for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time .
“ In this particular instance , the case was being made on national television every day from the murder of George Floyd forward , ” said Yaroslavsky , who represented the 3rd District until 2014 .

Protests over police brutality and the police killing of George Floyd took place for weeks across Los Angeles.
Los Angeles County voters have approved Measure J, which will divert more county money to social services and jail diversion programs.
The Yes on J campaign declared victory Tuesday evening, celebrating as results showed almost 60% of voters were in favor of the measure.
As of early Wednesday morning, 57% of voters had cast ballots in favor of the proposal, according to the results.
“For far too long the needs of our Black and brown communities fell on the budget chopping block and as a result these communities have paid the price,” said Eunisses Hernandez, co-chair of the Yes on Measure J campaign, in a statement. “Measure J will now change that.”
Measure J requires that 10% of locally generated, unrestricted county money — estimated between $360 million and $900 million — be spent on a variety of social services, including housing, mental health treatment and investments in communities disproportionally harmed by racism. The county will be prohibited from using the money on prisons, jails or law enforcement agencies.
Advertisement
The measure was placed on the ballot by the L.A. County Board of Supervisors amid growing calls for criminal justice reforms after a spate of local police shootings and the police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota.
Supporters said the police shootings gave momentum to long-standing efforts to increase non-law enforcement investments in communities of color.
“We have tried building political movements out of the loss of life in Los Angeles County and to fight just for some crumbs in the budget, and what we continue to be told is, ‘There’s no money for alternatives to incarceration, there’s no money to expand mental health’” and addiction treatment, Hernandez said.
Opponents of Measure J included the Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, which spent more than $3.5 million on advertising on TV and social media.
While Measure J doesn’t call directly for police budget cuts, opponents say that money will inevitably be slashed from law enforcement, with L.A. County Sheriff Alex Villanueva, in a tweet, going so far as to raise the specter of a “Mad Max” future in the region if the measure passes.
Some believed the measure was rushed, including the League of Women Voters of L.A. County, which was neutral on the measure.
The league’s members believed the Board of Supervisors should have spent more time analyzing the effectiveness of current social services county programs.
Supervisor Kathryn Barger, the only of the five supervisors opposed to Measure J, said she didn’t support the voter question not because of the issues it was trying to address — she has long supported funding the organizations that will benefit from Measure J — but because the voter question went against her principles about how the budget should be crafted.
Advertisement
“This sets a bad precedent,” Barger said. “We were all elected to put together budgets each year and be transparent and get feedback from the public, and base our budget on the input we get.”
Political experts agree it wasn’t easy to determine how voters would swing on Measure J.
Former Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky said usually it’s important for the supervisors to make the case for a funding measure over a period of time.
“In this particular instance, the case was being made on national television every day from the murder of George Floyd forward,” said Yaroslavsky, who represented the 3rd District until 2014.


latimes--2020-11-04--L.A. school board races show split between union- and charter-backed candidates

The Wednesday morning tally in two crucial Los Angeles Board of Education contests showed a charter-school backed candidate leading in one race and a teachers union-backed candidate leading in another .
Although more votes remain to be counted , the margins for the leaders appear large enough to hold and are based on what the county registrar ’ s office called “ semi-official results.
” If they do hold , school board members supported by charter advocates would hold a 4-3 board majority in the nation ’ s second-largest school system .
In the first posted returns for District 3 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ San Fernando Valley , union-backed incumbent Scott Schmerelson had a lead over charter-backed Marilyn Koziatek by 54 % to 46 % of votes cast .
In District 7 , which stretches from South L.A. to the Harbor area , charter-backed Tanya Ortiz Franklin was in front of union-backed Patricia Castellanos by a tally of 58 % to 42 % .
The school board contests are probably the most expensive board elections ever , with combined reported spending nearing $ 17.5 million so far .
Supporters of charters , backed by a relatively small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the other side .
At stake was whether a board majority would consist of trustees helped into office by one faction or the other , something that will matter as privately operated charters compete with district-operated schools for a declining number of public school students .
Moreover , under recently passed state laws , local school boards have more authority to reject applications for new charters and to deny renewal of existing ones .
Close to 1 in 5 district students attends one of these independent charters , which are authorized and monitored @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by L.A. Unified .
The school system has more than 200 charters , more than any other district in the nation .
Most charters are nonunion .
The current , pre-election day board majority , by a 4-3 margin , leans toward the view of United Teachers Los Angeles , which wants stricter oversight on charters and to limit their growth .
Both seats on the ballot were held by board members considered to be part of the narrow union-leaning majority — although no board members have voted lockstep with their supporters on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a split election day decision of the two races creates a new political dynamic , with the 4-3 split favoring candidates brought to office with dominant financial support from charter advocates .
As with everything else in 2020 , the COVID-19 pandemic affected both the campaign and campaign issues .
L.A. Unified campuses shut down on March 13 and remained entirely closed for in-person instruction until Oct. 5 , when teachers began limited one-on-one tutoring .
So far , about 1,000 of the district ’ s 460,000 K-12 students have been able to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to district figures , leading to increasing frustration among students and parents who already are beset with the challenges of learning from home .
Several thousand more students could soon benefit from extra help — because the district and union agreed this week on procedures to allow up to three students per teacher at a time .
Only students with special needs are eligible for these services .
Campuses will not reopen for all students until January at the earliest .
One question hanging over the campaign is how the coronavirus would affect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , defended the district ’ s response .
The other three candidates were more critical , saying more students should have been helped sooner in receiving computers and internet access to do schoolwork entirely from home .
Campaign forums took place online , and the issues included the district ’ s response to the pandemic .
It was not a new development for charter supporters to outspend unions , but that differential reached new levels in this campaign , according to figures compiled by the City Ethics Commission , which collects campaign spending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Koziatek spent more than five times as much as did one on behalf of Schmerelson .
The spending differential in the other race favored Franklin by more than 3 to 1 .
The teachers union has compensated for this difference in the past with a well-developed ground game — sending teachers and allies door to door in residential neighborhoods .
This approach was abandoned because of the pandemic .
Instead , the union has emphasized calling voters , which the pro-charter side has done as well .
Another election wildcard is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the past , school board elections were settled in low-turnout municipal elections .
This election , however , marks a switch of the board races to the general election .
The campaign dynamic — charters versus unions — oversimplifies existential questions facing L.A. Unified .
Long-standing problems include serious financial strains and ongoing contention over how best to serve low-income Black and Latino students who are lagging academically and will have when campuses ultimately reopen .
The District 3 race pitted Schmerelson , 69 , a longtime and well-liked principal , against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outreach for Granada Hills Charter High School .
Her two children attend a traditional neighborhood public elementary school .
Schmerelson finished first in the March primary , with 42 % of the vote , but was at risk because of the money being spent against him — and the possibility that dissatisfied voters would unite behind the one remaining challenger in the Tuesday runoff .
Franklin would replace longtime incumbent and current board President Richard Vladovic , who was barred from seeking reelection by term limits .
On policy matters , Vladovic moved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at various times .
Recently , the unions have been more pleased with his positions .
The two candidates — Franklin and Castellanos — staked out similar policy positions , including in response to the pandemic .
But they presented different strengths to voters .
The union-backed Castellanos , 50 , brought the experience of a current district parent and political savvy .
Charter-backed Franklin , 36 , counters with education experience as a former classroom teacher and as an administrator within a group of L.A. schools .
In the March primary , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Franklin 24 % .
Three other candidates split the remainder of the vote .

The Wednesday morning tally in two crucial Los Angeles Board of Education contests showed a charter-school backed candidate leading in one race and a teachers union-backed candidate leading in another.
Although more votes remain to be counted, the margins for the leaders appear large enough to hold and are based on what the county registrar’s office called “semi-official results.” If they do hold, school board members supported by charter advocates would hold a 4-3 board majority in the nation’s second-largest school system.
In the first posted returns for District 3, which covers most of the western San Fernando Valley, union-backed incumbent Scott Schmerelson had a lead over charter-backed Marilyn Koziatek by 54% to 46% of votes cast. In District 7, which stretches from South L.A. to the Harbor area, charter-backed Tanya Ortiz Franklin was in front of union-backed Patricia Castellanos by a tally of 58% to 42%.
Advertisement
The school board contests are probably the most expensive board elections ever, with combined reported spending nearing $17.5 million so far. Supporters of charters, backed by a relatively small number of wealthy donors, vastly outspent the other side.
At stake was whether a board majority would consist of trustees helped into office by one faction or the other, something that will matter as privately operated charters compete with district-operated schools for a declining number of public school students. Moreover, under recently passed state laws, local school boards have more authority to reject applications for new charters and to deny renewal of existing ones.
Close to 1 in 5 district students attends one of these independent charters, which are authorized and monitored — but not controlled or managed — by L.A. Unified. The school system has more than 200 charters, more than any other district in the nation. Most charters are nonunion.
The current, pre-election day board majority, by a 4-3 margin, leans toward the view of United Teachers Los Angeles, which wants stricter oversight on charters and to limit their growth. Both seats on the ballot were held by board members considered to be part of the narrow union-leaning majority — although no board members have voted lockstep with their supporters on every issue. That’s why a split election day decision of the two races creates a new political dynamic, with the 4-3 split favoring candidates brought to office with dominant financial support from charter advocates.
As with everything else in 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic affected both the campaign and campaign issues. L.A. Unified campuses shut down on March 13 and remained entirely closed for in-person instruction until Oct. 5, when teachers began limited one-on-one tutoring.
So far, about 1,000 of the district’s 460,000 K-12 students have been able to take advantage of this tutoring, according to district figures, leading to increasing frustration among students and parents who already are beset with the challenges of learning from home.
Several thousand more students could soon benefit from extra help — because the district and union agreed this week on procedures to allow up to three students per teacher at a time. Only students with special needs are eligible for these services. Campuses will not reopen for all students until January at the earliest.
Advertisement
One question hanging over the campaign is how the coronavirus would affect voters. The one incumbent, Schmerelson, defended the district’s response. The other three candidates were more critical, saying more students should have been helped sooner in receiving computers and internet access to do schoolwork entirely from home.
Campaign forums took place online, and the issues included the district’s response to the pandemic.
It was not a new development for charter supporters to outspend unions, but that differential reached new levels in this campaign, according to figures compiled by the City Ethics Commission, which collects campaign spending information.
An independent campaign in support of Koziatek spent more than five times as much as did one on behalf of Schmerelson. The spending differential in the other race favored Franklin by more than 3 to 1.
The teachers union has compensated for this difference in the past with a well-developed ground game — sending teachers and allies door to door in residential neighborhoods. This approach was abandoned because of the pandemic. Instead, the union has emphasized calling voters, which the pro-charter side has done as well.
Another election wildcard is a change in the timing of elections. In the past, school board elections were settled in low-turnout municipal elections. This election, however, marks a switch of the board races to the general election.
The campaign dynamic — charters versus unions — oversimplifies existential questions facing L.A. Unified. Long-standing problems include serious financial strains and ongoing contention over how best to serve low-income Black and Latino students who are lagging academically and will have additional academic ground to make up when campuses ultimately reopen.
The District 3 race pitted Schmerelson, 69, a longtime and well-liked principal, against Koziatek, 39, who manages community outreach for Granada Hills Charter High School. Her two children attend a traditional neighborhood public elementary school.
Schmerelson finished first in the March primary, with 42% of the vote, but was at risk because of the money being spent against him — and the possibility that dissatisfied voters would unite behind the one remaining challenger in the Tuesday runoff.
Franklin would replace longtime incumbent and current board President Richard Vladovic, who was barred from seeking reelection by term limits. On policy matters, Vladovic moved toward or away from charters or unions at various times. Recently, the unions have been more pleased with his positions.
The two candidates — Franklin and Castellanos — staked out similar policy positions, including in response to the pandemic. But they presented different strengths to voters. The union-backed Castellanos, 50, brought the experience of a current district parent and political savvy. Charter-backed Franklin, 36, counters with education experience as a former classroom teacher and as an administrator within a group of L.A. schools.
In the March primary, Castellanos received 27% of the vote and Franklin 24%. Three other candidates split the remainder of the vote.


latimes--2020-11-04--L.A. Community College District: 3 incumbents, 1 newcomer take early leads

The outcome of an election that will determine a majority of seats on the governing board of the nation ’ s largest community college district , which serves some of the most vulnerable students in the state , remained uncertain Tuesday night , with three incumbents and one newcomer holding a preliminary edge in early returns .
Four seats on the seven-member Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees were in contest this year , with 33 candidates vying for the at-large seats .
Incumbents Andra Hoffman , David Vela and Mike Fong were endorsed by the Los Angeles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ represents community college teachers and wields substantial influence over election outcomes .
For the fourth seat , the guild endorsed a newcomer , Nichelle Henderson , who is a teacher at Cal State L.A. and active in that university system ’ s union , over incumbent Scott Svonkin .
The guild spent at least $ 1.66 million , mostly on political mailers and phone banking , to support its preferred slate of candidates .
In early counts of ballots Tuesday night , these were the candidates leading the pack .
Svonkin , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the board in 2011 , said it was “ disappointing ” that the guild had spent so much money on this election , and that he hoped to introduce campaign finance reforms to limit such contributions in the future .
Svonkin has in the past been supported by the guild .
“ I am proud of my record leading on the L.A. College Promise , my efforts to fight waste , fraud , and misuse of public funds , and my plan to create a COVID promise for free college to all who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Another camp of candidates , self-branded the “ L.A .
Justice Squad ” — Karen Hernandez , Ruffin Patterson , Cory Butler and Michelle Manos — raised barely any money but had the support and dedication of a small group of students and faculty members who hoped their election would bring a focus on the board to student priorities .
Among this camp , Manos , a homeless services provider who was endorsed by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action , is perhaps the best known .
Mona Field , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remaining candidates as a mix of promising contenders , students and student advocates , underemployed “ consultants ” or “ freelancers ” with little familiarity with the district , and “ perennials ” — individuals who repeatedly run for election , despite little promise .
More candidates were able to get on the ballot this year because of a change in rules that didn ’ t require them to submit filing fees or a certain number of signatures , Field said .
The outcome of the election will determine the tone on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their business civilly .
In recent years monthly board meetings have been punctuated by acrimony and infighting .
“ Your No .
1 goal to get things done is to be a good colleague , ” Field said .
The new board will quickly be faced with the immediate challenges related to COVID-19 and distance learning , which have hit low-income , Black and Latino students — who make up the majority of the district ’ s roughly 230,000 students — particularly hard .
In addition , the LACCD has had to contend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ degree completion and transfer , and the fact that most of its students need many non-academic supports in order to remain enrolled and complete their academic goals .
The board is responsible for appointing and overseeing the chancellor and setting policy for the nine-college system : East Los Angeles College , Los Angeles City College , Los Angeles Harbor College , Los Angeles Mission College , Los Angeles Southwest College , Los Angeles Trade-Technical College , Los Angeles Valley College , Los Angeles Pierce College and West Los Angeles College .
A shift @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in support for Chancellor Francisco Rodriguez , who was named in 2014 .

Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, one of the nine colleges in the Los Angeles Community College District.
The outcome of an election that will determine a majority of seats on the governing board of the nation’s largest community college district, which serves some of the most vulnerable students in the state, remained uncertain Tuesday night, with three incumbents and one newcomer holding a preliminary edge in early returns.
Four seats on the seven-member Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees were in contest this year, with 33 candidates vying for the at-large seats.
Advertisement
Incumbents Andra Hoffman, David Vela and Mike Fong were endorsed by the Los Angeles College Faculty Guild, the union that represents community college teachers and wields substantial influence over election outcomes. For the fourth seat, the guild endorsed a newcomer, Nichelle Henderson, who is a teacher at Cal State L.A. and active in that university system’s union, over incumbent Scott Svonkin.
The guild spent at least $1.66 million, mostly on political mailers and phone banking, to support its preferred slate of candidates. In early counts of ballots Tuesday night, these were the candidates leading the pack.
Svonkin, who was first elected to his seat on the board in 2011, said it was “disappointing” that the guild had spent so much money on this election, and that he hoped to introduce campaign finance reforms to limit such contributions in the future. Svonkin has in the past been supported by the guild.
“I am proud of my record leading on the L.A. College Promise, my efforts to fight waste, fraud, and misuse of public funds, and my plan to create a COVID promise for free college to all who lost their jobs,” he said.
Another camp of candidates, self-branded the “L.A. Justice Squad” — Karen Hernandez, Ruffin Patterson, Cory Butler and Michelle Manos — raised barely any money but had the support and dedication of a small group of students and faculty members who hoped their election would bring a focus on the board to student priorities. Among this camp, Manos, a homeless services provider who was endorsed by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action, is perhaps the best known.
Mona Field, a former longtime board member, described the remaining candidates as a mix of promising contenders, students and student advocates, underemployed “consultants” or “freelancers” with little familiarity with the district, and “perennials” — individuals who repeatedly run for election, despite little promise. More candidates were able to get on the ballot this year because of a change in rules that didn’t require them to submit filing fees or a certain number of signatures, Field said.
Advertisement
The outcome of the election will determine the tone on the board and whether its members can conduct their business civilly. In recent years monthly board meetings have been punctuated by acrimony and infighting.
“Your No. 1 goal to get things done is to be a good colleague,” Field said.
The new board will quickly be faced with the immediate challenges related to COVID-19 and distance learning, which have hit low-income, Black and Latino students — who make up the majority of the district’s roughly 230,000 students — particularly hard. In addition, the LACCD has had to contend with slipping enrollment, low rates of degree completion and transfer, and the fact that most of its students need many non-academic supports in order to remain enrolled and complete their academic goals.
The board is responsible for appointing and overseeing the chancellor and setting policy for the nine-college system: East Los Angeles College, Los Angeles City College, Los Angeles Harbor College, Los Angeles Mission College, Los Angeles Southwest College, Los Angeles Trade-Technical College, Los Angeles Valley College, Los Angeles Pierce College and West Los Angeles College.
A shift among the members could mean a shift in support for Chancellor Francisco Rodriguez, who was named in 2014.


latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 17, which will let parolees vote in California, is approved by voters

Californians convicted of felonies but who are on parole will be allowed to vote in elections under Proposition 17 , a ballot measure that won approval by state voters Tuesday .
The measure restores the vote to some 50,000 parolees by changing the state Constitution , which disqualifies people with felony convictions from voting until their incarceration and parole are completed .
Proposition 17 was supported by 59 % of voters , according to the unofficial tally .
The initiative ’ s supporters include the California Democratic Party ; Sen. Kamala Harris , the Democratic nominee for vice president ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , who authored the measure .
“ Prop .
17 gives Californians the chance to right a wrong and restore voting rights for a marginalized community and people of color , ” McCarty said .
“ This is good for democracy and good for public safety.
” Opponents include the California Republican Party and state Sen. Jim Nielsen ( R-Gerber ) , who called Proposition 17 an “ affront ” to victims of crime .
“ They deserve to see justice done , ” Nielsen said , adding that those convicted of felonies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sentence , and that includes the parole period.
” The measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature at a time when the Black Lives Matter movement was sparking new discussion of the impact of the criminal justice system on people of color .
Three out of 4 men leaving California prisons are Black , Latino or Asian American , according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation , a fact the Proposition 17 campaign says is a result of persistent and systematic racial inequalities in the criminal justice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a “ victory for democracy and justice , ” said Taina Vargas-Edmond , executive chair of the Yes On Prop 17 campaign and co-founder and executive director of Initiate Justice .
“ For far too long , Black and brown Californians have been excluded from our democracy .
Today , California voters definitively righted a historic wrong.
” Under Proposition 17 , people convicted of felonies who are still in prison will continue to be disqualified from voting .
The state Constitution allows people on probation to vote .
Nineteen states allow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are on parole .
Maine , Vermont and the District of Columbia allow those convicted of felonies to vote while incarcerated .
There was no organized campaign committee opposing Proposition 17 , while supporters , including Secretary of State Alex Padilla , raised more than $ 1.3 million for their campaign .
“ Today , in California there are 50,000 women and men who have completed their state prison sentence , are reintegrating back into society , working jobs and paying taxes , but are denied the right to vote , ” Padilla @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in jurisdictions where voting rights are more easily restored , formerly incarcerated individuals re-offend at lower rates.
” Among people who had been arrested previously , 27 % of nonvoters were rearrested , compared with 12 % of voters , according to a 2004 study by Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza , sociology professors at the University of Minnesota and New York University , respectively .

Voters approve Proposition 17, giving Californians who are on parole from prison the right to vote.
Californians convicted of felonies but who are on parole will be allowed to vote in elections under Proposition 17, a ballot measure that won approval by state voters Tuesday.
The measure restores the vote to some 50,000 parolees by changing the state Constitution, which disqualifies people with felony convictions from voting until their incarceration and parole are completed.
Proposition 17 was supported by 59% of voters, according to the unofficial tally.
The initiative’s supporters include the California Democratic Party; Sen. Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for vice president; and Assemblyman Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento), who authored the measure.
Advertisement
“Prop. 17 gives Californians the chance to right a wrong and restore voting rights for a marginalized community and people of color,” McCarty said. “This is good for democracy and good for public safety.”
Opponents include the California Republican Party and state Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-Gerber), who called Proposition 17 an “affront” to victims of crime.
“They deserve to see justice done,” Nielsen said, adding that those convicted of felonies “should serve ... just time for the sentence, and that includes the parole period.”
The measure was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature at a time when the Black Lives Matter movement was sparking new discussion of the impact of the criminal justice system on people of color.
Three out of 4 men leaving California prisons are Black, Latino or Asian American, according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, a fact the Proposition 17 campaign says is a result of persistent and systematic racial inequalities in the criminal justice system.
Advertisement
The approval of Proposition 17 is a “victory for democracy and justice,” said Taina Vargas-Edmond, executive chair of the Yes On Prop 17 campaign and co-founder and executive director of Initiate Justice. “For far too long, Black and brown Californians have been excluded from our democracy. Today, California voters definitively righted a historic wrong.”
Under Proposition 17, people convicted of felonies who are still in prison will continue to be disqualified from voting. The state Constitution allows people on probation to vote.
Nineteen states allow voting by people convicted of felonies who are on parole. Maine, Vermont and the District of Columbia allow those convicted of felonies to vote while incarcerated.
California previously extended voting rights to people in county jails.
There was no organized campaign committee opposing Proposition 17, while supporters, including Secretary of State Alex Padilla, raised more than $1.3 million for their campaign.
“Today, in California there are 50,000 women and men who have completed their state prison sentence, are reintegrating back into society, working jobs and paying taxes, but are denied the right to vote,” Padilla said. “Yet research shows that in jurisdictions where voting rights are more easily restored, formerly incarcerated individuals re-offend at lower rates.”
Among people who had been arrested previously, 27% of nonvoters were rearrested, compared with 12% of voters, according to a 2004 study by Christopher Uggen and Jeff Manza, sociology professors at the University of Minnesota and New York University, respectively.


latimes--2020-11-03--Measure RR, L.A. school bond for modernization and technology, headed to victory

Measure RR , which would provide $ 7 billion for building , repairing and modernizing local public schools , was headed to victory in what the county registrar ’ s office described as “ semi-official results ” Wednesday morning .
To pass , the measure needed 55 % of the votes cast within L.A. Unified boundaries , which extend beyond the city of Los Angeles .
Ballot totals showed nearly 71 % of voters choosing to support the tax measure , well above the needed margin .
“ The students are the real winners today — this victory is theirs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Austin Beutner in a statement Wednesday .
“ Because of voter support , and the support of labor , business and community leaders , more students will get access to safe and updated schools and learning technology.
” “ We acted boldly during these uncertain times by placing Measure RR on the ballot , knowing we needed to continue to address needs in school facilities , ” he added .
“ We are grateful voters overwhelmingly supported this effort.
” School bonds in Los Angeles and statewide have not fared well lately , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for optimism — there was no significant opposition campaign and the November electorate was expected to be more tax friendly .
A possible parallel would be Measure Q , which the school district put on the ballot in 2008 .
That earlier $ 7-billion bond measure passed easily during the November election that brought Barack Obama to office .
Then as now , liberal-leaning Democrats were especially inspired to vote .
Some of the Measure Q money remains , but all of it is committed to projects , and there ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the largest school district in California .
The long list includes work on ceilings , bus purchases , new air conditioners and seismic retrofits .
Also on the list are mobile computers and other technology .
Money also could be used to pay for a portion of the district ’ s response to the COVID-19 pandemic — although officials hope that funding for this purpose will come from elsewhere .
To make the bond tax more appealing — and less noticeable — L.A. Unified officials structured the overall tax rate for schools @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , through 2034 , before the tax rate begins to taper off over the following 20 years .
The annual property tax payment for schools during that peak period would be about $ 140 per $ 100,000 of assessed property value .
This figure would include Measure RR and other previously passed bonds that taxpayers are still paying off .
If Measure RR were defeated , the tax rate for schools would decline sooner as earlier bonds are retired .
The share of that tax bill resulting from Measure RR by itself would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $ 22 a year per $ 100,000 of assessed property value .
The Measure RR tax rates are linked to the assessed value of residential and commercial properties .
Measure RR proceeds , instead of going to the district ’ s general fund — where they could be used , for example , to pay for teachers and nurses — would pay for construction and facilities-related purchases .
This kind of bond typically fuels the construction industry , and .
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn .
as an unfair additional burden , asserting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spent efficiently .

Iron worker Pete Perez welds posts at a performing arts building under construction at Cleveland Charter High School in Reseda. A bond measure on Tuesday’s ballot to pay for additional school modernization and construction projects has enough votes to win.
Measure RR, which would provide $7 billion for building, repairing and modernizing local public schools, was headed to victory in what the county registrar’s office described as “semi-official results” Wednesday morning. To pass, the measure needed 55% of the votes cast within L.A. Unified boundaries, which extend beyond the city of Los Angeles. Ballot totals showed nearly 71% of voters choosing to support the tax measure, well above the needed margin.
“The students are the real winners today — this victory is theirs,” said L.A. schools Supt. Austin Beutner in a statement Wednesday. “Because of voter support, and the support of labor, business and community leaders, more students will get access to safe and updated schools and learning technology.”
“We acted boldly during these uncertain times by placing Measure RR on the ballot, knowing we needed to continue to address needs in school facilities,” he added. “We are grateful voters overwhelmingly supported this effort.”
School bonds in Los Angeles and statewide have not fared well lately, but supporters of Measure RR had reason for optimism — there was no significant opposition campaign and the November electorate was expected to be more tax friendly.
Advertisement
A possible parallel would be Measure Q, which the school district put on the ballot in 2008 . That earlier $7-billion bond measure passed easily during the November election that brought Barack Obama to office. Then as now, liberal-leaning Democrats were especially inspired to vote. Some of the Measure Q money remains, but all of it is committed to projects, and there’s a substantial additional need for repairs and upgrades across the largest school district in California.
The long list includes work on ceilings, bus purchases, new air conditioners and seismic retrofits. Also on the list are mobile computers and other technology. Money also could be used to pay for a portion of the district’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic — although officials hope that funding for this purpose will come from elsewhere.
To make the bond tax more appealing — and less noticeable — L.A. Unified officials structured the overall tax rate for schools to remain about where it is now, through 2034, before the tax rate begins to taper off over the following 20 years. The annual property tax payment for schools during that peak period would be about $140 per $100,000 of assessed property value. This figure would include Measure RR and other previously passed bonds that taxpayers are still paying off.
If Measure RR were defeated, the tax rate for schools would decline sooner as earlier bonds are retired.
The share of that tax bill resulting from Measure RR by itself would work out, on average, to $22 a year per $100,000 of assessed property value.
Advertisement
The Measure RR tax rates are linked to the assessed value of residential and commercial properties. Measure RR proceeds, instead of going to the district’s general fund — where they could be used, for example, to pay for teachers and nurses — would pay for construction and facilities-related purchases. This kind of bond typically fuels the construction industry, and business and labor groups united in support .


latimes--2020-11-03--Proposition 15 to loosen California's business property tax rules is trailing

Proposition 15 , an effort to remove high-value business properties from the low-tax protections enacted by California voters more than four decades ago , was trailing on Wednesday morning , after an expensive and fierce campaign over how much to spend on government services and the economic effects of raising taxes .
The ballot measure was failing by a narrow majority with more than 11.5 million ballots counted , a shortfall that was far from certain with millions of votes left to count .
The ballot measure seeks to curtail the rules governing property taxes that were established by Proposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ annual levy at 1 % of a property ’ s value and allows only small adjustments to the assessed value until there is a change in ownership .
Those strict limits apply to all property owned in California — both homes and businesses .
Proposition 15 would create a separate set of tax rules for commercial and industrial property holdings worth $ 3 million or more .
County tax assessors would be required to revise the value of those business properties to reflect current market prices , increasing the total taxes paid .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ increase could boost revenue for schools and local services by as much as $ 11.5 billion a year once fully implemented in 2025 .
Approximately 40 % of the revenue would be sent to K-12 schools and community colleges while the remaining 60 % would be provided to counties , cities and special districts for services such as law enforcement and fire suppression .
As the campaign season came to an end , the messaging on both sides was clear .
Supporters said Proposition 15 would boost crucial public services by making large @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with what they can afford , noting that land values of some Bay Area and Southern California business-owned properties have changed very little since the 1970s .
Opponents , meanwhile , insisted higher taxes paid by corporations would trickle down to small businesses and consumers at a precarious time for the state ’ s economy .
The final public poll , conducted last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies , found 49 % of likely voters said they would vote for Proposition 15 and 42 % said they were opposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ institute ’ s September poll but no change in the number of supporters .
One claim of opponents , that Proposition 15 is the first step toward higher homeowner property taxes , was both ominous and unfounded .
The ballot measure made no changes to residential taxes .
But the UC Berkeley poll showed some voters believed the accusation .
Instead , the ballot measure asked voters to embrace the most talked-about idea for changing Proposition 13 , a “ split roll ” of business properties that could be taxed based on market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to the ballot reflects how much California has changed since the tax revolt led by the late Howard Jarvis in 1978 .
For decades , the political potency of Proposition 13 kept at bay any effort to rethink its sweeping provisions .
Voters routinely said they still supported the landmark law , though they also lamented sharp cuts in school funding — the result , in some cases , of California ’ s reliance on volatile personal income tax revenues to replace the property taxes they had voted to cut .
Supporters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their timing , believing the fall election this year would attract a high turnout of voters sympathetic to the idea of a tax increase on big business .
But opponents of Proposition 15 focused their efforts on what they said was the ballot measure ’ s indifference to small business tenants , who often pay a portion of the building owner ’ s property taxes in their monthly rent , and its confusing language about exemptions for the agricultural industry .
The battle lines over Proposition 15 were unsurprising .
Liberal Democrats and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as did Gov .
Gavin Newsom .
The state ’ s largest businesses strongly opposed it , along with anti-tax groups and a variety of groups that advocate for small businesses .
The coalitions on both sides of the property tax increase were similar to those formed over tax increase proposals in 2012 and 2016 — campaigns that ended with voters approving both of the ballot measures .

Proposition 15, an effort to remove high-value business properties from the low-tax protections enacted by California voters more than four decades ago, was trailing on Wednesday morning, after an expensive and fierce campaign over how much to spend on government services and the economic effects of raising taxes.
The ballot measure was failing by a narrow majority with more than 11.5 million ballots counted, a shortfall that was far from certain with millions of votes left to count.
The ballot measure seeks to curtail the rules governing property taxes that were established by Proposition 13 in 1978, which set the annual levy at 1% of a property’s value and allows only small adjustments to the assessed value until there is a change in ownership. Those strict limits apply to all property owned in California — both homes and businesses.
Proposition 15 would create a separate set of tax rules for commercial and industrial property holdings worth $3 million or more. County tax assessors would be required to revise the value of those business properties to reflect current market prices, increasing the total taxes paid.
Advertisement
Independent estimates concluded the commercial property tax increase could boost revenue for schools and local services by as much as $11.5 billion a year once fully implemented in 2025. Approximately 40% of the revenue would be sent to K-12 schools and community colleges while the remaining 60% would be provided to counties, cities and special districts for services such as law enforcement and fire suppression.
As the campaign season came to an end, the messaging on both sides was clear.
Supporters said Proposition 15 would boost crucial public services by making large corporations pay property taxes more in line with what they can afford, noting that land values of some Bay Area and Southern California business-owned properties have changed very little since the 1970s. Opponents, meanwhile, insisted higher taxes paid by corporations would trickle down to small businesses and consumers at a precarious time for the state’s economy.
The final public poll, conducted last week by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, found 49% of likely voters said they would vote for Proposition 15 and 42% said they were opposed — an uptick in opposition from the institute’s September poll but no change in the number of supporters.
One claim of opponents, that Proposition 15 is the first step toward higher homeowner property taxes, was both ominous and unfounded. The ballot measure made no changes to residential taxes. But the UC Berkeley poll showed some voters believed the accusation.
Instead, the ballot measure asked voters to embrace the most talked-about idea for changing Proposition 13, a “split roll” of business properties that could be taxed based on market value.
California Proposition 13 treats all California property taxes the same. Voters could change that in 2020 Voters will likely consider a proposal in 2020 to limit Proposition 13’s tax limits to homeowners, boosting assessments on commercial properties and using much of the money on K-12 schools.
Advertisement
That the effort even made it to the ballot reflects how much California has changed since the tax revolt led by the late Howard Jarvis in 1978. For decades, the political potency of Proposition 13 kept at bay any effort to rethink its sweeping provisions. Voters routinely said they still supported the landmark law, though they also lamented sharp cuts in school funding — the result, in some cases, of California’s reliance on volatile personal income tax revenues to replace the property taxes they had voted to cut.
Supporters of the split roll idea carefully chose their timing, believing the fall election this year would attract a high turnout of voters sympathetic to the idea of a tax increase on big business. But opponents of Proposition 15 focused their efforts on what they said was the ballot measure’s indifference to small business tenants, who often pay a portion of the building owner’s property taxes in their monthly rent, and its confusing language about exemptions for the agricultural industry.
The battle lines over Proposition 15 were unsurprising. Liberal Democrats and organized labor supported the ballot measure, as did Gov. Gavin Newsom. The state’s largest businesses strongly opposed it, along with anti-tax groups and a variety of groups that advocate for small businesses. The coalitions on both sides of the property tax increase were similar to those formed over tax increase proposals in 2012 and 2016 — campaigns that ended with voters approving both of the ballot measures.


latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 25,  which would have abolished California's cash bail system, is rejected by voters

A ballot measure that would have abolished California ’ s cash bail system was rejected by the state ’ s voters in Tuesday ’ s election .
Proposition 25 would have replaced the use of money bail as a condition for getting out of jail while awaiting trial with a system allowing release by judges based on a determination of public safety or a defendant ’ s flight risk .
Community groups against Proposition 25 said in a statement Wednesday that voters “ took heed of our alarms ” about eliminating cash bail .
“ We warned our communities that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ automate racial profiling , give unchecked power to judges and increase funding and power for corrupt probation departments , ” said the statement by Lex Steppling and Dolores Canales , chairs of a No on Prop .
25 committee .
Proposition 25 was opposed by 55.4 % of voters , according to the state ’ s unofficial election results posted Wednesday .
State legislators who sought to replace cash bail indicated they would try again sometime in the future .
Sen. Scott Wiener ( D-San Francisco ) , a co-author of SB 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Proposition 25 “ absolutely devastating.
” “ Money bail is classist and racist — no one should ever be held in jail or released based on how much money they have , ” Wiener said Wednesday .
“ We can not give up this fight , and we won ’ t give up.
” The state Legislature approved the new system in Senate Bill 10 in 2018 , but the multibillion-dollar bail industry , which represents some 2,500 bail agents in the state , qualified a referendum that put that law on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approve it .
The bail industry put up more than $ 10 million for the campaign to defeat Proposition 25 , while supporters raised $ 13.4 million , including $ 6 million from Steve Ballmer , the former Microsoft chief executive who owns the Los Angeles Clippers NBA team , and his wife , Connie .
Those wanting to eliminate the payment of money as a condition of release say it unfairly results in low-income defendants remaining in jail awaiting trial , even though they have not been convicted of a crime , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In signing the 2018 law , then-Gov .
Jerry Brown said : “ Today , California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly.
” The financial stakes are high for the bail industry , which issued some $ 6 billion in bail bonds and collected about $ 560 million in bail bond fees in 2018 , according to a recent report by the independent Legislative Analyst ’ s Office .
The new law would have required that people held in county jails on suspicion of most misdemeanors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to post cash bail .
Those accused of other misdemeanors , including domestic violence or repeated failures to appear in court , would not have been released automatically .
People held in county jails on felony charges and others not released automatically would have been assessed for their risk of possibly committing a new crime or failing to appear in court if released , using various factors .
Those judged to be a low-to-moderate risk could be released , although the court could order supervision by county probation staff .
Those deemed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ jail until their arraignment .
A study released in September by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California looked at 2015 data and concluded 39.6 % of those arrested on suspicion of misdemeanors — about 142,500 people — who were detained or released after two days would instead have been released within 12 hours under the provisions of the new law .
However , thousands of people charged with more serious crimes , who currently might be released within a few hours on bail , would likely be held up to 36 hours @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study said .
The law approved by the California Legislature did not win support from all groups advocating for less incarceration .
Groups opposing Proposition 25 include the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California , as well as Human Rights Watch , which has pressed for bail reform but said the law “ exchanges money bail for a system that uses racially biased risk assessment tools [ and ] gives judges nearly unlimited discretion to incarcerate.
” Gov .
Gavin Newsom said recently that division within the reform community over Proposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bail industry to oppose the measure , and its defeat would be a major setback for efforts nationwide to make the criminal justice system fairer .
“ If this initiative goes the wrong direction , it sets back the entire cause and [ the bail industry is ] back front and center in control of people ’ s fate and their future , ” Newsom said in an Oct. 21 recorded interview with Houston philanthropist Laura Arnold , whose financier husband , John Arnold , contributed $ 5 million to the Proposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ profoundly not just disappointing , but devastating to hundreds of thousands of lives that will be torn asunder because of this miscalculation , ” Newsom added .
“ And we won ’ t be able to fix it legislatively because the way the bail industry drafted this , we won ’ t be able to go back and do anything similarly to what we did to lead the nation.
” Proposition 25 was also opposed by more than two dozen sheriffs in California , including Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes , who said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mechanism ” for ensuring defendants appear in court .

A ballot measure that would have abolished California’s cash bail system was rejected by the state’s voters in Tuesday’s election.
Proposition 25 would have replaced the use of money bail as a condition for getting out of jail while awaiting trial with a system allowing release by judges based on a determination of public safety or a defendant’s flight risk.
Community groups against Proposition 25 said in a statement Wednesday that voters “took heed of our alarms” about eliminating cash bail.
Advertisement
“We warned our communities that if passed, Prop. 25 would automate racial profiling, give unchecked power to judges and increase funding and power for corrupt probation departments,” said the statement by Lex Steppling and Dolores Canales, chairs of a No on Prop. 25 committee.
Proposition 25 was opposed by 55.4% of voters, according to the state’s unofficial election results posted Wednesday.
State legislators who sought to replace cash bail indicated they would try again sometime in the future.
Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), a co-author of SB 10, called its repeal by the failure of Proposition 25 “absolutely devastating.”
“Money bail is classist and racist — no one should ever be held in jail or released based on how much money they have,” Wiener said Wednesday. “We cannot give up this fight, and we won’t give up.”
Advertisement
The state Legislature approved the new system in Senate Bill 10 in 2018, but the multibillion-dollar bail industry, which represents some 2,500 bail agents in the state, qualified a referendum that put that law on hold until voters could decide whether to approve it.
The bail industry put up more than $10 million for the campaign to defeat Proposition 25, while supporters raised $13.4 million, including $6 million from Steve Ballmer, the former Microsoft chief executive who owns the Los Angeles Clippers NBA team, and his wife, Connie.
Those wanting to eliminate the payment of money as a condition of release say it unfairly results in low-income defendants remaining in jail awaiting trial, even though they have not been convicted of a crime, while defendants with money are released.
In signing the 2018 law, then-Gov. Jerry Brown said: “Today, California reforms its bail system so that rich and poor alike are treated fairly.”
The financial stakes are high for the bail industry, which issued some $6 billion in bail bonds and collected about $560 million in bail bond fees in 2018, according to a recent report by the independent Legislative Analyst’s Office.
The new law would have required that people held in county jails on suspicion of most misdemeanors be released within 12 hours without having to post cash bail. Those accused of other misdemeanors, including domestic violence or repeated failures to appear in court, would not have been released automatically.
People held in county jails on felony charges and others not released automatically would have been assessed for their risk of possibly committing a new crime or failing to appear in court if released, using various factors. Those judged to be a low-to-moderate risk could be released, although the court could order supervision by county probation staff.
Those deemed to be a high risk would stay in jail until their arraignment.
A study released in September by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California looked at 2015 data and concluded 39.6% of those arrested on suspicion of misdemeanors — about 142,500 people — who were detained or released after two days would instead have been released within 12 hours under the provisions of the new law.
However, thousands of people charged with more serious crimes, who currently might be released within a few hours on bail, would likely be held up to 36 hours for risk assessment under SB 10, the study said.
The law approved by the California Legislature did not win support from all groups advocating for less incarceration.
Groups opposing Proposition 25 include the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, as well as Human Rights Watch, which has pressed for bail reform but said the law “exchanges money bail for a system that uses racially biased risk assessment tools [and] gives judges nearly unlimited discretion to incarcerate.”
Gov. Gavin Newsom said recently that division within the reform community over Proposition 25 has been “weaponized” by the bail industry to oppose the measure, and its defeat would be a major setback for efforts nationwide to make the criminal justice system fairer.
“If this initiative goes the wrong direction, it sets back the entire cause and [the bail industry is] back front and center in control of people’s fate and their future,” Newsom said in an Oct. 21 recorded interview with Houston philanthropist Laura Arnold, whose financier husband, John Arnold, contributed $5 million to the Proposition 25 campaign.
“It will be profoundly not just disappointing, but devastating to hundreds of thousands of lives that will be torn asunder because of this miscalculation,” Newsom added. “And we won’t be able to fix it legislatively because the way the bail industry drafted this, we won’t be able to go back and do anything similarly to what we did to lead the nation.”
Proposition 25 was also opposed by more than two dozen sheriffs in California, including Orange County Sheriff Don Barnes, who said ending cash bail removes an “important mechanism” for ensuring defendants appear in court.


latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 20, which would have toughened sentencing in criminal cases, is rejected by California voters

Proposition 20 , a California initiative that would have toughened sentencing in criminal cases and reduced the number of prison inmates eligible for early parole , was rejected by state voters on Tuesday .
The measure by law enforcement and prosecutors hit the ballot just as the Black Lives Matter movement was drawing new attention to demands for change in the criminal justice system to reduce incarceration and its disproportionate effect on people of color .
“ The defeat of Proposition 20 is a significant milestone in California ’ s ongoing effort to make its criminal justice system more effective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by voters is a major advance for the national criminal justice reform movement , ” said Jay Jordan , executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice , the organization behind many of the reforms that Proposition 20 targeted to eliminate .
Proposition 20 was opposed by 62 % of the voters , according to the state ’ s unofficial election tally .
The initiative would have added 22 crimes , including felony domestic violence , rape of an unconscious person and human trafficking of a child , to the list of offenses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ parole under a previous initiative approved by voters in 2016 .
The ballot measure voted on Tuesday also would have increased penalties for repeat shoplifters and members of organized theft rings , and collected DNA samples from adults convicted of some misdemeanors .
“ While we ’ re confident that those who heard our pro-victim , pro-consumer message voted ‘ yes ’ — and we ’ re grateful for their support — we just weren ’ t able to educate as many Californians as we ’ d hoped on how Prop .
20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” said Richard Temple , a political consultant for Proposition 20 .
Former Gov .
Jerry Brown , who played a key role in some changes that would be rolled back by Proposition 20 , campaigned against the measure and criticized its supporters , calling the measure “ vindictive.
” On Tuesday night he said voters have supported past criminal justice reform measures including Proposition 57 .
“ A small group of people got together and wanted to roll back Prop .
57 , ” Brown said during a Zoom election night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ This is an important night.
” He noted it would cost millions of dollars more to keep people behind bars longer , which is money that he said could otherwise could go to rehabilitation and other programs .
Brown put $ 1 million from his political accounts into the campaign against Proposition 20 .
Opponents of the measure raised more than $ 7.6 million , including $ 2 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative , a philanthropic investment group created by Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and his wife , Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Proposition 20 raised $ 4.8 million , including $ 2 million from the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn.
, the prison guards union .
The measure is supported by the California Republican Party and opposed by the state Democratic Party .
The proponents of Proposition 20 said it was meant to address flaws in previous criminal justice laws , including Proposition 57 in 2016 , Proposition 47 in 2014 and Assembly Bill 109 in 2011 .
The past laws have contributed to reducing the population of California prisons by one-third in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
One law change increased the value of stolen merchandise that could result in a felony charge from $ 450 to $ 950 , which law enforcement officials say has contributed to a spate of serial thefts of goods just under the higher threshold .
Proposition 20 would have created a new felony for serial theft when a person is caught for the third time committing thefts valued at $ 250 or more .
The initiative was supported by retail grocery store chains such as Albertsons and Kroger .
The San Francisco-based Center @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advocates for reducing incarceration , estimates that up to 9,900 arrests on theft-related offenses could be charged as felonies rather than misdemeanors each year under Proposition 20 .
The group estimated that 66 % of the people sent to jail or prison under Proposition 20 would be Black , Latino , Asian or other Californians of color .
The initiative would also have required the collection of DNA samples from adults convicted of crimes newly classified as misdemeanors under AB 109 , including forging checks and certain domestic violence crimes .
Cooper predicted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hits on DNA evidence annually , helping law enforcement solve many more old crimes .

Proposition 20, a California initiative that would have toughened sentencing in criminal cases and reduced the number of prison inmates eligible for early parole, was rejected by state voters on Tuesday.
The measure by law enforcement and prosecutors hit the ballot just as the Black Lives Matter movement was drawing new attention to demands for change in the criminal justice system to reduce incarceration and its disproportionate effect on people of color.
“The defeat of Proposition 20 is a significant milestone in California’s ongoing effort to make its criminal justice system more effective, and the rejection of mass incarceration by voters is a major advance for the national criminal justice reform movement,” said Jay Jordan, executive director of Californians for Safety and Justice, the organization behind many of the reforms that Proposition 20 targeted to eliminate.
Advertisement
Proposition 20 was opposed by 62% of the voters, according to the state’s unofficial election tally.
The initiative would have added 22 crimes, including felony domestic violence, rape of an unconscious person and human trafficking of a child, to the list of offenses that make prison inmates ineligible for early parole under a previous initiative approved by voters in 2016.
The ballot measure voted on Tuesday also would have increased penalties for repeat shoplifters and members of organized theft rings, and collected DNA samples from adults convicted of some misdemeanors.
“While we’re confident that those who heard our pro-victim, pro-consumer message voted ‘yes’ — and we’re grateful for their support — we just weren’t able to educate as many Californians as we’d hoped on how Prop. 20 would tackle violent crime and retail theft,” said Richard Temple, a political consultant for Proposition 20.
Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who played a key role in some changes that would be rolled back by Proposition 20, campaigned against the measure and criticized its supporters, calling the measure “vindictive.”
On Tuesday night he said voters have supported past criminal justice reform measures including Proposition 57.
“A small group of people got together and wanted to roll back Prop. 57,” Brown said during a Zoom election night gathering shortly after the polls closed. “This is an important night.”
Advertisement
He noted it would cost millions of dollars more to keep people behind bars longer, which is money that he said could otherwise could go to rehabilitation and other programs.
California The clash between former Gov. Jerry Brown and California sheriffs continues with Prop. 20 California Gov. Jerry Brown is airing ads criticizing Proposition 20, calling it a “prison spending scam.” The California State Sheriffs’ Assn., a frequent opponent of Brown’s that represents the state’s 58 sheriffs, said the measure is urgently needed for public safety.
Brown put $1 million from his political accounts into the campaign against Proposition 20. Opponents of the measure raised more than $7.6 million, including $2 million from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, a philanthropic investment group created by Facebook Inc. Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg and his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan.
The campaign in favor of Proposition 20 raised $4.8 million, including $2 million from the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn., the prison guards union.
The measure is supported by the California Republican Party and opposed by the state Democratic Party.
The proponents of Proposition 20 said it was meant to address flaws in previous criminal justice laws, including Proposition 57 in 2016, Proposition 47 in 2014 and Assembly Bill 109 in 2011.
The past laws have contributed to reducing the population of California prisons by one-third in the last decade, or about 50,000 inmates.
One law change increased the value of stolen merchandise that could result in a felony charge from $450 to $950, which law enforcement officials say has contributed to a spate of serial thefts of goods just under the higher threshold.
Proposition 20 would have created a new felony for serial theft when a person is caught for the third time committing thefts valued at $250 or more. The initiative was supported by retail grocery store chains such as Albertsons and Kroger.
The San Francisco-based Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, which advocates for reducing incarceration, estimates that up to 9,900 arrests on theft-related offenses could be charged as felonies rather than misdemeanors each year under Proposition 20.
The group estimated that 66% of the people sent to jail or prison under Proposition 20 would be Black, Latino, Asian or other Californians of color.
The initiative would also have required the collection of DNA samples from adults convicted of crimes newly classified as misdemeanors under AB 109, including forging checks and certain domestic violence crimes. Cooper predicted that would result in an additional 2,000 hits on DNA evidence annually, helping law enforcement solve many more old crimes.


latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 19, which gives new property tax breaks to older homeowners, holds lead

A new property tax break for older California homeowners , easing their tax burdens if they move , held onto its lead in updated results Wednesday morning .
Should Proposition 19 succeed it would mean that those 55 and older will be able to blend the taxable value of their old home with the value of a new , more expensive home they purchase , resulting in property tax savings that could reach thousands of dollars a year .
The measure was ahead by nearly 350,000 votes with 99 % of precincts reporting Wednesday .
As part of the measure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ houses would no longer receive a property tax break if they intend to keep it as a second home or rent it out .
Currently , older homeowners have a one-time opportunity to retain their existing tax benefits if they move to a home of equal or lesser value within the same county .
They can do the same when moving between Los Angeles and nine other counties .
If they didn ’ t meet those requirements or moved to a more expensive home , they would have to pay the full amount @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wins , older homeowners will receive a property tax benefit when they buy a more expensive home anywhere in the state — up to three times .
Disabled homeowners will be able to do the same , and victims of wildfires and other natural disasters will be able to do so after their home is damaged .
Supporters of Proposition 19 argued the measure would help empty nesters and those wanting to move for health reasons to find new homes without facing a big tax hit .
Proposition 19 also restricts an inheritance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of homeowners to keep their parents ’ low property tax assessments .
A 2018 Times investigation found a large number of inherited homes along the coast that are used as investment properties .
The California Assn .
of Realtors was the driving force behind Proposition 19 , with real estate interests raising more than $ 39 million for its passage .
Realtors are expected to benefit from increased home sales , both by older homeowners deciding to take advantage of their new tax benefits to move and heirs preferring to sell their parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taxes .
Much of the Realtor-backed campaign for Proposition 19 focused on benefits to wildfire victims and increased funding for wildfire response .
But disaster-affected homeowners constitute well under 1 % of those eligible for tax relief under Proposition 19 , according to an analysis by the California Budget and Policy Center , which found the benefits almost entirely accruing to older homeowners .
And while the measure does reserve new tax revenue for wildfire response , the state ’ s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst ’ s Office believes that the vast majority of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until 2025 at the earliest .

A new property tax break for older California homeowners, easing their tax burdens if they move, held onto its lead in updated results Wednesday morning.
Should Proposition 19 succeed it would mean that those 55 and older will be able to blend the taxable value of their old home with the value of a new, more expensive home they purchase, resulting in property tax savings that could reach thousands of dollars a year. The measure was ahead by nearly 350,000 votes with 99% of precincts reporting Wednesday.
Advertisement
As part of the measure, children who inherit their parents’ houses would no longer receive a property tax break if they intend to keep it as a second home or rent it out.
Currently, older homeowners have a one-time opportunity to retain their existing tax benefits if they move to a home of equal or lesser value within the same county. They can do the same when moving between Los Angeles and nine other counties. If they didn’t meet those requirements or moved to a more expensive home, they would have to pay the full amount in property taxes.
If Proposition 19 wins, older homeowners will receive a property tax benefit when they buy a more expensive home anywhere in the state — up to three times. Disabled homeowners will be able to do the same, and victims of wildfires and other natural disasters will be able to do so after their home is damaged.
Supporters of Proposition 19 argued the measure would help empty nesters and those wanting to move for health reasons to find new homes without facing a big tax hit.
Proposition 19 also restricts an inheritance property tax break that allowed the children of homeowners to keep their parents’ low property tax assessments. A 2018 Times investigation found a large number of inherited homes along the coast that are used as investment properties.
The California Assn. of Realtors was the driving force behind Proposition 19, with real estate interests raising more than $39 million for its passage. Realtors are expected to benefit from increased home sales, both by older homeowners deciding to take advantage of their new tax benefits to move and heirs preferring to sell their parents’ properties rather than paying higher property taxes.
Much of the Realtor-backed campaign for Proposition 19 focused on benefits to wildfire victims and increased funding for wildfire response. But disaster-affected homeowners constitute well under 1% of those eligible for tax relief under Proposition 19, according to an analysis by the California Budget and Policy Center, which found the benefits almost entirely accruing to older homeowners.
Advertisement
And while the measure does reserve new tax revenue for wildfire response, the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office believes that the vast majority of the wildfire funding will not start flowing until 2025 at the earliest.


latimes--2020-11-03--Prop. 18, which would allow some 17-year-olds to vote, trailing

Proposition 18 , which would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they turn 18 before the next general election , was trailing by more than a million votes early Wednesday .
The measure called on California to join at least 18 other states that allow some 17-year-olds to cast ballots , including red states such as Kentucky and Mississippi , as well as blue states such as Illinois and Maryland .
More than 11.5 million ballots had been counted as of Wednesday morning , encompassing results from 99 % of precincts .
Under current California law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in any election .
The ballot measure was endorsed by the California Democratic Party , along with party leaders Gov .
Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Alex Padilla .
Supporters argued that the measure would help encourage young Californians to engage in the political process , and provide a real-world understanding of what they learn in high school civics classes .
The California Republican Party opposed Proposition 18 , along with the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn .
Opponents have argued that 17-year-olds should not be able to vote on complex tax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ affect them , and they also question whether most high school students that age have enough maturity and life experience to take part in an election .
The Democratic-controlled Legislature voted in June to place Proposition 18 on the ballot .
Assemblyman Kevin Mullin ( D-South San Francisco ) , one of the authors of the proposed amendment , said Proposition 18 was a “ modest ” effort to expand voting rights in California , since the 17-year-olds eligible to vote were close to 18 anyway .
Mullin ’ s father , former @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first introduced the measure 16 years ago .

Proposition 18 would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries if they turn 18 before the general election.
Proposition 18, which would allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary and special elections if they turn 18 before the next general election, was trailing by more than a million votes early Wednesday.
The measure called on California to join at least 18 other states that allow some 17-year-olds to cast ballots, including red states such as Kentucky and Mississippi, as well as blue states such as Illinois and Maryland. More than 11.5 million ballots had been counted as of Wednesday morning, encompassing results from 99% of precincts.
Under current California law, residents must be 18 to vote in any election.
The ballot measure was endorsed by the California Democratic Party, along with party leaders Gov. Gavin Newsom and Secretary of State Alex Padilla. Supporters argued that the measure would help encourage young Californians to engage in the political process, and provide a real-world understanding of what they learn in high school civics classes.
The California Republican Party opposed Proposition 18, along with the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn. Opponents have argued that 17-year-olds should not be able to vote on complex tax and bond proposals that will not directly affect them, and they also question whether most high school students that age have enough maturity and life experience to take part in an election.
Advertisement
The Democratic-controlled Legislature voted in June to place Proposition 18 on the ballot.
Assemblyman Kevin Mullin (D-South San Francisco), one of the authors of the proposed amendment, said Proposition 18 was a “modest” effort to expand voting rights in California, since the 17-year-olds eligible to vote were close to 18 anyway. Mullin’s father, former South San Francisco Assemblyman Gene Mullin, first introduced the measure 16 years ago.


latimes--2020-11-03--GOP pins hopes on 4 California congressional district seats

As the results continue to roll in , Republicans remain locked in tight races for four key California congressional seats lost to Democrats in 2018 as they seek to turn around their party ’ s diminished influence in the Golden State .
Three of the races remained very close early Wednesday .
From Orange County ’ s moneyed coast to the dust-filled Central Valley , the GOP sought to recapture onetime Republican footholds in an election year when such issues as the government ’ s response to the pandemic , President Trump ’ s policies and the wildfires that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ races .
Results were close in the race between Democratic Rep. Harley Rouda and Republican challenger Michelle Steel in Congressional District 48 .
The district includes Laguna Beach , Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach .
Rouda , an attorney and former real estate investor , won his first term by unseating 30-year Republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher in 2018 .
Steel , an Orange County supervisor , has won praise from Republicans for advocating to reopen local businesses amid the pandemic as other counties have moved more cautiously .
In the tri-county 39th Congressional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Republican , was in a close rematch with Democratic Rep. Gil Cisneros .
Cisneros beat Kim in 2018 in an election prompted by the resignation of longtime Republican Rep. Ed Royce .
Kim worked as a longtime aide to Royce before running for the state Assembly .
Both Steel and Kim were clinging to thin leads as of just after 5 a.m. Wednesday .
The 39th district reaches into Los Angeles County , including Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights , San Bernardino County ’ s Chino Hills , and northern Orange County @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Cisneros sought to tie his opponent to Trump by pointing out that Kim backs the president for a second term .
Likewise , supporters of Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith hoped that voter anger at Trump would propel her to victory over Republican Rep. Mike Garcia in the race for Congressional District 25 .
The district includes parts of L.A. 's Porter Ranch , Simi Valley , Santa Clarita , Palmdale and Lancaster .
Garcia , a former Navy pilot and defense industry executive , won a May special election for the seat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rep. Katie Hill resigned in 2019 amid a House Ethics Committee probe into allegations that she had an affair with one of her aides .
The two candidates have clashed over climate change , with Smith linking rising temperatures to the forest fires that have ravaged the district .
Garcia agrees that the Earth is warming but argues that better forest management also is needed .
Another closely watched race is Congressional District 21 in the Central Valley , where Democratic Rep. T.J. Cox is being challenged by the politician he narrowly unseated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Valadao .
The heavily rural district includes Kings County and portions of Fresno , Tulare and Kern counties , and has a reputation as a blue-collar , tight-knit community .
It is also one of the congressional districts with the highest percentage of Latinos in the country , with Latinos constituting three-quarters of the population and about 57 % of registered voters .
In all , the Republican Party lost seven California congressional districts amid a 2018 anti-Trump blue wave that helped Democrats retake the U.S. House of Representatives .
The to lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at a comeback .
Justin Richards , political director of the National Republican Congressional Committee , said last month that though the group does not reveal its internal polling , there was evidence that some of its candidates were doing well leading up to the election .
“ There ’ s enough data out there to show how strong some of our candidates are doing , whether it ’ s David Valadao in California 21 , a district that Hillary Clinton won by 15 points , being up by 10 , or [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a Hillary district , ” he said .
Times staff writers Hailey Branson-Potts , Stephanie Lai , Anh Do , Sarah D. Wire and Luke Money contributed to this report .

The 48th Congressional District, held by Rep. Harley Rouda and sought by Orange County Supervisor Michelle Steel, is among four California congressional seats the GOP is hoping to reclaim after Democrats flipped them in 2018.
As the results continue to roll in, Republicans remain locked in tight races for four key California congressional seats lost to Democrats in 2018 as they seek to turn around their party’s diminished influence in the Golden State.
Three of the races remained very close early Wednesday.
From Orange County’s moneyed coast to the dust-filled Central Valley, the GOP sought to recapture onetime Republican footholds in an election year when such issues as the government’s response to the pandemic, President Trump’s policies and the wildfires that have devastated swaths of California are shaping local races.
Advertisement
Results were close in the race between Democratic Rep. Harley Rouda and Republican challenger Michelle Steel in Congressional District 48. The district includes Laguna Beach, Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach.
Rouda, an attorney and former real estate investor, won his first term by unseating 30-year Republican incumbent Dana Rohrabacher in 2018.
Steel, an Orange County supervisor, has won praise from Republicans for advocating to reopen local businesses amid the pandemic as other counties have moved more cautiously.
In the tri-county 39th Congressional District, former Assemblywoman Young Kim, a Republican, was in a close rematch with Democratic Rep. Gil Cisneros.
Cisneros beat Kim in 2018 in an election prompted by the resignation of longtime Republican Rep. Ed Royce. Kim worked as a longtime aide to Royce before running for the state Assembly.
Both Steel and Kim were clinging to thin leads as of just after 5 a.m. Wednesday.
Advertisement
The 39th district reaches into Los Angeles County, including Diamond Bar and Hacienda Heights, San Bernardino County’s Chino Hills, and northern Orange County cities from Anaheim Hills to Buena Park.
Cisneros sought to tie his opponent to Trump by pointing out that Kim backs the president for a second term.
Likewise, supporters of Democratic Assemblywoman Christy Smith hoped that voter anger at Trump would propel her to victory over Republican Rep. Mike Garcia in the race for Congressional District 25. The district includes parts of L.A.’s Porter Ranch, Simi Valley, Santa Clarita, Palmdale and Lancaster.
The latest election results show her narrowly leading Garcia.
Garcia, a former Navy pilot and defense industry executive, won a May special election for the seat, which was left vacant after first-term Rep. Katie Hill resigned in 2019 amid a House Ethics Committee probe into allegations that she had an affair with one of her aides.
The two candidates have clashed over climate change, with Smith linking rising temperatures to the forest fires that have ravaged the district. Garcia agrees that the Earth is warming but argues that better forest management also is needed.
Another closely watched race is Congressional District 21 in the Central Valley, where Democratic Rep. T.J. Cox is being challenged by the politician he narrowly unseated in 2018, former Republican Rep. David Valadao.
Valadao was leading Cox early Wednesday.
The heavily rural district includes Kings County and portions of Fresno, Tulare and Kern counties, and has a reputation as a blue-collar, tight-knit community. It is also one of the congressional districts with the highest percentage of Latinos in the country, with Latinos constituting three-quarters of the population and about 57% of registered voters.
In all, the Republican Party lost seven California congressional districts amid a 2018 anti-Trump blue wave that helped Democrats retake the U.S. House of Representatives.
The national Republican campaign arm last year hired a state director to lead its operation and launched an aggressive effort at a comeback.
Justin Richards, political director of the National Republican Congressional Committee, said last month that though the group does not reveal its internal polling, there was evidence that some of its candidates were doing well leading up to the election.
“There’s enough data out there to show how strong some of our candidates are doing, whether it’s David Valadao in California 21, a district that Hillary Clinton won by 15 points, being up by 10, or [California Rep.] Mike Garcia winning again in a Hillary district,” he said.
Times staff writers Hailey Branson-Potts, Stephanie Lai, Anh Do, Sarah D. Wire and Luke Money contributed to this report.


latimes--2020-11-03--Californians once again reject bid to expand rent control in the state

California voters have again decisively rejected a bid to expand rent control statewide .
The failure of Proposition 21 means that , once again , landlord groups have convinced voters that stricter limits on rent hikes are not a solution to California ’ s housing affordability problems .
A statewide ban on most new forms of rent control will remain in effect .
“ Yet again , California voters clearly understood the negative impacts Prop .
21 would have had on the availability of affordable housing in our state by clearly rejecting this radical ballot measure , ” Tom Bannon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assn.
, said in a statement .
“ It is now time to move from ballot-box battles and enact policies through the Legislature that allow the state to build more affordable housing that will once again make California an affordable place to live for our families.
” Proposition 21 was opposed by 59.8 % of the voters , according to the state ’ s unofficial election tally Wednesday morning .
Landlords won a similar battle in 2018 when voters turned down the Proposition 10 rent control initiative .
Like that campaign , total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ million .
Landlord groups , notably large real estate investment trusts Essex Property Trust , Equity Residential and AvalonBay Communities , out-raised supporters of Proposition 21 more than 2 to 1 .
Nearly all the more than $ 40 million behind the Yes on 21 campaign came from the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation , which similarly funded the failed 2018 initiative .
The rent control measures were aimed at addressing California ’ s sky-high housing costs , which force low-income and middle-class residents to spend significant shares of their income to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prices in Southern California hit record highs in September , and according to U.S. Census data , more than 56 % of tenant families in California spend 30 % or more of their income on rent , the level at which spending on housing hinders the ability to pay for other necessities .
While rents in many major metropolitan areas have fallen in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic , millions have lost their jobs , leading to fears of mass evictions in the coming months .
Proposition 21 would not have offered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pay their rent right now .
Instead , it would have allowed cities and counties to implement stricter forms of rent control than they can now under the state ’ s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act .
The initiative would have modified the 25-year-old law to allow cities to control rents on apartments built after 1995 , or earlier in cities that had rent control laws before Costa-Hawkins passed .
Cities would still have been barred from implementing rent controls on apartments built within the last 15 years .
Proposition 21 would also have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ single-family homes and condominiums if they were owned by corporations or the owner had more than two properties .
Lastly , the initiative would have allowed cities to limit rent hikes when eligible apartments became vacant — provided that landlords could receive at least a 15 % increase .
Opponents argued against Proposition 21 as they did two years ago , contending that rent control would slow homebuilding and hurt the investments of small landlords .
Last year , in response to soaring rents , Gov .
Gavin Newsom signed a law capping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inflation annually for most rental housing older than 15 years — one of the strongest policies of its kind in the country .
Newsom cited that law in opposing Proposition 21 .
Supporters of the initiative cited Newsom ’ s position against it , as well as the fact that they were significantly outspent , as reasons for the loss .
“ We are disappointed , although not completely surprised , that Prop .
21 fell short at the ballot box tonight , ” said René Moya , campaign director for Yes on @ @

California voters have again decisively rejected a bid to expand rent control statewide.
The failure of Proposition 21 means that, once again, landlord groups have convinced voters that stricter limits on rent hikes are not a solution to California’s housing affordability problems. A statewide ban on most new forms of rent control will remain in effect.
Advertisement
“Yet again, California voters clearly understood the negative impacts Prop. 21 would have had on the availability of affordable housing in our state by clearly rejecting this radical ballot measure,” Tom Bannon, chief executive of the California Apartment Assn., said in a statement.
“It is now time to move from ballot-box battles and enact policies through the Legislature that allow the state to build more affordable housing that will once again make California an affordable place to live for our families.”
Proposition 21 was opposed by 59.8% of the voters, according to the state’s unofficial election tally Wednesday morning.
Landlords won a similar battle in 2018 when voters turned down the Proposition 10 rent control initiative. Like that campaign, total fundraising for Proposition 21 eclipsed $100 million. Landlord groups, notably large real estate investment trusts Essex Property Trust, Equity Residential and AvalonBay Communities, out-raised supporters of Proposition 21 more than 2 to 1. Nearly all the more than $40 million behind the Yes on 21 campaign came from the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, which similarly funded the failed 2018 initiative.
The rent control measures were aimed at addressing California’s sky-high housing costs, which force low-income and middle-class residents to spend significant shares of their income to keep a roof over their heads.
Home prices in Southern California hit record highs in September, and according to U.S. Census data, more than 56% of tenant families in California spend 30% or more of their income on rent, the level at which spending on housing hinders the ability to pay for other necessities.
Advertisement
While rents in many major metropolitan areas have fallen in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, millions have lost their jobs, leading to fears of mass evictions in the coming months.
Proposition 21 would not have offered any immediate relief to tenants struggling to pay their rent right now. Instead, it would have allowed cities and counties to implement stricter forms of rent control than they can now under the state’s Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act.
The initiative would have modified the 25-year-old law to allow cities to control rents on apartments built after 1995, or earlier in cities that had rent control laws before Costa-Hawkins passed. Cities would still have been barred from implementing rent controls on apartments built within the last 15 years. Proposition 21 would also have allowed local governments to control rents on single-family homes and condominiums if they were owned by corporations or the owner had more than two properties. Lastly, the initiative would have allowed cities to limit rent hikes when eligible apartments became vacant — provided that landlords could receive at least a 15% increase.
Opponents argued against Proposition 21 as they did two years ago, contending that rent control would slow homebuilding and hurt the investments of small landlords.
Last year, in response to soaring rents, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law capping rent increases statewide at 5% plus inflation annually for most rental housing older than 15 years — one of the strongest policies of its kind in the country. Newsom cited that law in opposing Proposition 21.
Supporters of the initiative cited Newsom’s position against it, as well as the fact that they were significantly outspent, as reasons for the loss.
“We are disappointed, although not completely surprised, that Prop. 21 fell short at the ballot box tonight,” said René Moya, campaign director for Yes on 21.
Times staff writer Maloy Moore contributed to this story.