Californians will vote on a dozen separate ballot measures this fall.
Last week we looked at six of those ballot measures. Now, this week, let’s take a look at the rest.
This proposition authorizes $5.5 billion in bonds for the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine – the state’s stem cell research institute. Bond issuance is limited to $540 million annually, and $1.5 billion is reserved for research relating to Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, strokes, epilepsy and other nervous system diseases and conditions.
This proposition would amend California’s constitution to allow schools and other public entities to take race into account in admission or public contracting – essentially allowing affirmative action, which was banned with Proposition 209 in 1996.
This proposition would amend the state constitution to allow 17-year-olds to vote in primary elections so long as they will turn 18 by the date of the general election.
This proposition would amend the state constitution to allow Californians over 55 a large property tax break when buying a home – basically curtailing the negative property tax impacts older Californian homeowners may see when buying a home in 2020 after being able to pay property taxes on their old home based on years- or decades-old market values under Proposition 13. This tax break would be offset by requiring that inheritors of properties – currently, Californians who inherit real estate from their parents can keep their low property tax rates – to pay current market value tax rates unless they live in their inherited property.
This proposition would require dialysis clinics to have at least one licensed physician on the premises at all times and require clinics to report dialysis-related infection data to state and federal officials. Clinics would be able to be exempted from the physician requirement if at least one nurse practitioner or physician assistant is present on-site.
This amendment would permit California consumers to prevent businesses from sharing personal information, correct inaccurate personal information held by businesses and limit businesses’ use of “sensitive information” like race or sexual orientation. It would also prohibit businesses from retaining personal data for longer than necessary, allow fines of up to $7,500 for violators and craft a new state agency to enforce the law. It essentially strengthens the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018, but narrows the number of businesses to which it applies to only those that buy or sell data of more than 100,000 households annually.
Will Fritz can be reached by email at email@example.com.