- Ballot Proposition Recommendations for the March 5, 2024 California Primary Election.
Ballot Proposition Recommendations for the March 5, 2024 General Election
Proposition 1: YES
California Council of Churches IMPACT has long been well known for thoughtful deliberations on non-partisan ballot measures. We arrive at these decisions to recommend or oppose measures based on our existing Legislative Principles derived from many hours of discussion and discernment among our diverse denominational Board members. We try to interpret secular policy through the lens of our faith values with a devotion to democracy and our Constitutions, state and federal as well.As with the medical profession, we begin with the premise, “First, do no harm.” We then proceed from that point to find the best reactions to thorny and often confusing measures, always keeping in mind our mission statement to be a prophetic witness to the Gospel by advocating in the public policy arena for justice, equity, and fairness in the treatment of all people, in particular those most vulnerable in our society.
We have done our best to find the most helpful, least harmful recommendations. We hope these are of help to you.
Proposition 1 Recommendation: Support
Behavioral Health Services Program and Bond MeasureA homeless man, obtaining care from his assigned clinic, was offered mental health counseling. He said, “I don’t need it. I’m not crazy!” His doctor asked how long he’d been homeless, and it was a few months. The physician said, “Wait another 6 months. You will be.”
The mere fact of homelessness is contributory to the rise in mental health illnesses. Social isolation, fear, daily uncertainty, physical illness, aging without resources – all kinds of factors contribute to a loss of good mental health. Add to that an increased use of addictive substances to dull that pain, and society has a crisis needing addressing.
In 2004 the Mental Health Services Act provided a 1% tax on incomes over $1 million to be used to expand mental health services statewide. The demand has always exceeded that supply of resources. After Governor Ronald Reagan closed mental health hospitals, community-based services were to expand, but even then the need outstripped the resources. The current crisis, not fully known, must be tackled better and more holistically than it has been.
Proposition 1 is the referendum to voters concerning the elements of two bills passed in late 2023. One would expand and change the scope of the 2004 law. The other would provide supportive housing for those with mental health issues including veterans now living on the streets.
The bond portion of Proposition 1 would issue $6.8 billion for housing including $4.4 billion for mental health facilities including drug and alcohol treatment. The alterations in the 2004 program would allocate a larger portion to the state and add to housing intervention programs for the mentally ill.
This is partly the program, “Housing First” but is not housing without intervention. It will have wrap around services attached so that those who qualify will also be required to get the mental health care they need.
Proposition 1 is creating bed space and efforts to increase the expansion in the numbers of mental health professionals in order to extend “5150” 72-hour holds that now are fairly ineffective. Proposition 1 is designed to improve the likelihood of actually treating patients.
However, for some in the mental illness advocacy community, there is resistance to this Proposition from longtime fears of gross negligence, maltreatment. No one, even today, forgets the horrors of past cases of mistreatment while in involuntary confinement. Parents committed their children for political differences, people without advocates were violently restrained and even killed. Untrained and underpaid staff were not competent to deal well with many patients, and needless deaths and injuries added to the misery within institutions. Proposition 1 seeks to make sure that rancid legacy does not recur.
With these abuses in mind, this Proposition also expands the Oversight Commission from 16 to 27 members including those from communities of people impacted by severe mental illness. The diversity of this body should – SHOULD – help create standards that are patient oriented and humane.It is clear to California Council of Churches IMPACT that something serious needs to be done to address the growing crisis in mental health. Small adjustments will not help. Although we initially opposed Proposition 4 as a drain on the General Fund, it is now well established and needs expansion and reforms not abolition.
We think that the bills that comprise Proposition 1 have mostly adequate safeguards to avoid a repetition of the worst abuses of the past. Offering resources for community treatment and increased bed space for longer term treatment seem essential. It is also clear, however, that the community-based programs will not have the same level of funding as they do now. This could, if the case load does not reduce from the in-patient treatment, cost counties more money than they pay out now.
Whether a reduction in the numbers those needing outpatient care are offset by providing more longer term care, the scope of service demand is not now entirely clear and won’t be for some time. It IS clear that there is a huge demand for longer term care since 72-hour holds cannot usually obtain compliance for further treatment. For those of us witnessing breakdowns daily, the need for more compulsory holds with actual treatment, not just pretense, is obvious. Having actual physical resources for that care will be essential.
The ethical standards of care for emergency providers looking at longer-term holds are already matters of law and professional performance. (Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2013) The decision to hold someone and enforce treatment is a serious responsibility, but the standards of treatment are of long standing and designed to produce actual help to people unable to make clear decisions for themselves. Were those standards not in place, this would be ethically and medically untenable.
For us the largest concern is not this proposition per se but its enactment by counties. God is in the details, and if a county does not live up to the law and ethics of the mental health profession, it is on the residents of the county to assure compliance. That is true of every service offered in our state. It comes down to the counties to enact what the state passes. And that requires our eternal vigilance at the level of service provision. Passing Proposition 1 is just the beginning. We must also make a pledge to keep vigilant over what and how services are deployed in our counties.
With that caveat in mind, we urge the passage of this service expansion and housing bond act.
Spread the Word!
We encourage members and friends to distribute these ballot guides from now until the election through “IMPACT Sundays.” More information on IMPACT Sundays is available on our website. We thank you for your interest in encouraging active deliberation on these and all issues that affect our democratic process and our moral perspectives as people of faith. If you find these recommendations helpful, please help defray the cost with a contribution to California Council of Churches IMPACT. You can help us by making sure we have your email address! Because of the cost of postage, we must cut costs by sending our mailings electronically. Please sign up by clicking the “Join Our Mailing List” button on our website! - Dates and Information about the November 8 General ElectionThe California General Election on November 8, 2022. All California active registered voters will receive a vote-by-mail ballot. Note these key dates:
- Last day to register to vote online for the November 8, 2022, General Election is October 24, 2022.
- County elections office will begin mailing ballots by October 10, 2022.
- Your ballot will include 7 Ballot Propositions, candidates for U.S. Senate, Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Secretary of State, Controller, Treasurer, Attorney General, Insurance Commissioner, Member of State Board of Equalization, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, U.S. Representative in Congress, State Senator, State Assembly Member, Supreme Court Justices, as well as other local candidates and local measures.
- There are two contests for the U.S. Senate on this ballot. You can vote for both contests. One for a 6-year term ending January 3, 2029; and One for the remainder of the current term ending January 3, 2023.
- Return your vote-by-mail ballot by mail with prepaid postage postmarked on or before Election Day and received by November 15, 2022, or in-person to a secure ballot drop box, to a voting location or your elections office by 8 p.m. on November 8, 2022.
- In-person voting locations will offer voter registration, replacement ballots, accessible voting machines, and language assistance to those who need it.
- Vote centers open in all Voter’s Choice Act counties on October 29, 2022.
As our partner organizations release their recommendations, we will link them here so you can compare perspectives when making your own decisions on how to vote.
California League of Women’s Voters - Ballot Proposition Recommendations for the November 8, 2022 General Election
California Council of Churches IMPACT has long been well known for thoughtful deliberations on non-partisan ballot measures. We arrive at these decisions to recommend or oppose measures based on our existing Legislative Principles derived from many hours of discussion and discernment among our diverse denominational Board members. We try to interpret secular policy through the lens of our faith values with a devotion to democracy and our Constitutions, state and federal as well.As with the medical profession, we begin with the premise, “First, do no harm.” We then proceed from that point to find the best reactions to thorny and often confusing measures, always keeping in mind our mission statement to be a prophetic witness to the Gospel by advocating in the public policy arena for justice, equity, and fairness in the treatment of all people, in particular those most vulnerable in our society.
This year there are seven propositions, fewer than in some years. They represent a wide range of topics but contain issues of concern for us all. We have done our best to find the most helpful, least harmful recommendations. We hope these are of help to you.
Here is a summary of our recommendations. Further explanation for each proposition follows below.
Proposition 1: YES
Proposition 26: YES
Proposition 27: YES
Proposition 28: YES
Proposition 29: YES
Proposition 30: YES
Proposition 31: No RecommendationYou can download a PDF of our recommendations for use in your congregation here.
You can download ideas for IMPACT Sundays in your congregation and community here.
- Proposition 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive FreedomRecommendation: Support
Proposition 1: Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision overturning what had been a federal constitutional right to abortion services, commonly known as the Roe v Wade decision of 1973, states inaugurated their individual versions for or against that right. In 2002 California passed the Reproductive Privacy Act to conform California law with the language in Roe. That was a statutory right but not a California Constitutional right.
This Proposition, submitted by the leadership of both houses in the state legislature, would take the 2002 language a step further and embed it in the California Constitution.
Obviously, abortion is a deeply personal issue. Women and their families arrive at the decision to have children in light of their own understandings of their individual values, morality, family situations, health, and obligations. In no way does this measure compel anyone to have an abortion nor to forbid it.
The standards in California law on abortion are consistent with the Common Law principles enshrined in Roe: the ages-old understanding that life begins at viability. In turn, Common Law was derived from faith standards that life beings at “first breath” so that viability — the capacity to take that breath — was our historical norm. This means legally the state can have a compelling interest in the fetus in the third trimester with abortion legal only to save the life and health of the mother.
For many people, this standard is insufficient. Life is believed to begin at conception. Abortion is anathema to that belief. Thus the California law honors such beliefs with no mandates that would violate their choice to refrain from abortion in all cases affecting themselves.
We fear that rights taken away or insufficiently secured legally, could have dire consequences not only on abortion but on miscarriage, non-viable fetuses, and the health and well-being of the mother. Those women impacted are definitely living, thinking, loving human beings. The choice of that status for fetuses is individual and personal.
Our care is for the living, the present. Our affirmation of life is for women, children, men, and all families. We want to reduce the need for abortion by raising the supports for those children who are here. But we cannot sacrifice women’s health and safety to engage in being merely pro birth, but not pro life. We trust women. We revere their many roles and how they create a positive, vibrant society. However they choose, let it be their choice, not that of government.
We at California Council of Churches IMPACT believe only individuals directly and immediately impacted by abortion decisions should make choices. No one can mandate abortion for another person. No one can forbid it for another person. We believe the Reproductive Privacy Act honors the law, tradition, and our collective faith principles. We urge a YES vote on this measure.
- Background on Props 26 & 27
Propositions 26 and 27 are related. They both involve various forms of gambling. California Council of Churches IMPACT has long opposed gambling at all. We think it’s a lure the outcomes of which are about the same as standing in your front room tearing up $10 bills in the hope you will find a $100 bill among them. Gambling can be an addiction as many things are. That said, it exists around us. Our challenge is not to resort to pietism and forbid it but to find ways to live with it so as to do some good and reduce the harm.
We also support indigenous Californians in the choices they make about how to best finance their economic, social, and cultural lives. As descendants of those colonized by predominantly white settlers, indigenous people have taken what opportunities they have been permitted and have built strengthened economic opportunities through them. Gambling is one such route to economic strength. It is not ours to criticize or condemn.
Legal gambling in California has mostly been confined to reservations and rancherias belonging to indigenous people. There are exceptions in horse tracks, card rooms, and a few others. In 2018 the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a ban prohibiting sports betting — wagering the outcome of sporting events — and now it exists everywhere. With the rise of the internet, it has become easy if not legal to bet on any team, anywhere, at any time. The question is how to deal with gambling in ways that minimize harm and especially to protect underage youth from this activity. Propositions 26 and 27 address those issues.
- Proposition 26: Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, and Sports Wagering on Tribal LandsRecommendation: Support
Proposition 26: Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, and Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
This proposition expands the types of games allowed inside indigenous tribes’ casinos as well as in-person sports wagering, now permitted by the Supreme Court of the United States. It also authorizes four privately owned racetracks to have in-person sports wagering as well.
The opposition fears this is a monopoly. The exceptions to reservation and rancheria based gambling are card rooms that often are within smaller, minority-dominant towns and small cities. They additionally posit the proposition “weaponizes” trial attorneys’ ability to sue competitors, but the suits are possible against only illegally operating betting parlors.
Another concern is what the expansion of in-person sports wagering will have on those places such as the card parlors that are not authorized to have such betting. This is a source of jobs and revenue in some communities. So, it’s important to determine whether gamblers would desert the card parlors for the casinos.
Some researchers from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, did a study based on data and observations from the 1970s-2000s on the types of gaming pursued by different groups of gamblers. There are strong preferences for “table” v mechanical or “electronic” games. In other words, those who like card games will patronize the card parlors. Those who like electronic games will patronize the casinos with slots. Those preferences and patronage are not currently impacted by the existing arrangements and are not, it would seem, likely to change. (UNLV Gaming Research & Review Journal • Volume 6, Issue 1)
What about underage gamblers? The barriers to those under 21 are already in place, appear quite effective, and are also not likely to change. No one encourages underage wagering of any type. Neither the tribal casinos nor the racetracks will be marketing to underage youth.
What Proposition 26 does do is increase tribal jobs and revenues. It increases tribal self-sufficiency, and it will return, per the California Legislative Analyst, “tens of millions of dollars” to the state annually.
While, as noted, we think gambling is a waste of people’s time and money, it is their time and money. We always will deal with addiction concerns, and we expect these changes will not alter, one way or the other, what people’s personal experiences are, good or bad. Unless we are prepared to end all casinos and all wagering, which SCOTUS has said we cannot do, we look to mitigate harm and find as much that is positive in the choices before us. We recommend a YES vote.
