On Monday October 5, 2020 early voting begins at the Registrar of Voters and mail ballots are delivered to the U.S. Postal Service- increasing the already present deadline for Election Day on November 3, 2020.
With early voting in full swing, the consumption of information on candidates and legislature is paramount. Knowing who and what will be on your ballot before Election Day, may provide you the time to get to know the people and legislature that impacts our community and day-to-day lives before you cast your vote. Get to know what California Propositions, County and City Measures are on your ballot this fall.
CountyofSanBernardinoMeasures
MeasureJ:
REVISEDCHARTEROFTHECOUNTYOFSANBERNARDINO
*Information for "Arguments in Favor" and "Arguments Against" is from the official arguments section on the voters ballot*
Argument in Favor:
San Bernardino County's charter - the laws that govern our community - was written more than 100 years ago. It's time to modernize our charter. Measure J will:
Argument Against:
Don't be fooled. This charter "reform" is not reform. It's a way for the county board of supervisors to lock out voters when it comes to decisions about term limits and compensation. Since elected Supervisors collect a salary of over $250,000 annually nearly six-times the median income of San Bernardino residents and can serve twelve long years, it's easy to understand their motives.
MeasureK
SANBERNARDINOCOUNTYSUPERVISORCOMPENSATIONREDUCTIONANDTERMLIMITS. This Measure would amend the San Bernardino County Charter provisions relating to the term limits and compensation of the members of the Board of Supervisors. San Bernardino County Charter Article I, Section 2 would be amended to impose a term limit of one-term for each Supervisor. The Measure would add Section 10 to Article I of the San Bernardino County Charter to set the total compensation for each member of the Board of Supervisors at $5,000 per month and would repeal San Bernardino County Charter Article VI, Section 1 that currently sets compensation for members of the Board of Supervisors.
Argument in Favor:
Voting YES for term limits and reduced salaries will finally attract representatives interested in public service and committed to following the will of the people.
Argument Against:
Measure K will result is less representation for residents of San Bernardino County on the Board of Supervisors. We need more representation, not less.
CityofSanBernardinoMeasure S:
TopreventreductionstoCityservicesincludingpublicsafety,911emergencyresponse,Currently, the City has a one-quarter percent (1/4%) retail transactions and use (sales) tax, that generates approximately $9 million annually. The current tax expires on March 31, 2022. If this Measure is approved by a majority of San Bernardino voters, this Measure would authorize an increase of the retail transactions and use (sales) tax from one-quarter percent (1/4%) to one percent (1%) within the City of San Bernardino.
Argument in Favor:
Vote YES on Measure S to provide a brighter future for San Bernardino. Measure S renews a critical source of local funding, prevents further cuts to essential city services, improves 911 emergency response, and protects local businesses and jobs here in San Bernardino
Argument Against:
No Argument Against Measure S was filed.
SanBernardinoCountyFireProtectionDistrictMeasure U
This Measure, if approved by a majority of those voting, would repeal the special tax associated with Fire Protection Service Zone Five (FP-5). County Service Area (CSA) 70, Improvement Zone FP-5 was formed on April 18, 2006. On August 1, 2006, a special tax was authorized following a two-thirds vote of registered voters in CSA 70, Improvement Zone FP-5 for fire and emergency medical services. The previously authorized special tax per parcel remained in effect in the reorganized FP-5. Over time, FP-5 has been expanded to include some cities and unincorporated territory in the County of San Bernardino.
Argument in Favor:
VOTE YES on Measure U to END THE UNFAIR FIRE TAX! Beginning in 2015, to save themselves money, politicians across San Bernardino County traded away local fire protection and joined a large, regional agency, saddling residents with a tax increase that penalizes poor and middle-class families the same as rich corporate property owners. This tax approved by only a small number of people, impacts over a million San Bernardino residents. In fact, over 99% of those impacted never had the chance to vote on dismantling local fire protection or paying a new tax!
Argument Against:
VOTE NO on Measure U Measure U is a DANGEROUS PROPOSAL to DEFUND FIRE PROTECTION services for residents in the communities served by the San Bernardino County Fire Protection District. Measure U ELIMINATES $40 MILLION in funding for Emergency Medical and Fire Protection services. It cuts essential life-saving services not budgetary fat. By REDUCING PARAMEDIC SERVICES, Measure U will WORSEN response times in life-threating medical emergencies putting our families at greater risk.
California State Propositions:
Proposition 14: AUTHORIZES BONDS CONTINUING STEM CELL RESEARCH. INITIATIVE STATUTE.
Authorizes $5.5 billion in state general obligation bonds to fund grants from the California Institute of Regenerative Medicine to educational, nonprofit, and private entities for: stem cell and other medical research, including training; stem cell therapy development and delivery; research facility construction; and associated administrative expenses. Increased state costs to repay bonds estimated at about $260 million per year over the next roughly 30 years.
Argument in Favor:
Prop. 14 provides continued funding to develop treatments, advance clinical trials and achieve new scientific breakthroughs for Californias patients with Cancer, Diabetes, Heart Disease, Alzheimers, Parkinsons, HIV/AIDS, ALS, MS, Sickle Cell Disease, Lung Diseases, Kidney Disease, Bubble Baby Disease, Age-Related Blindness and Genetic Blindness, Epilepsy, Stroke, Schizophrenia, Autism, other Mental Health and Brain Conditions, and Infectious Diseases like COVID-19.
Argument Against:
WE CANT AFFORD TO WASTE BILLIONS In the middle of an economic crisis, with soaring unemployment and budget shortfalls in the tens of billions of dollars, we dont have money to burn. We simply cannot afford the $5 billion that proponents of Prop. 14 are asking for. And thats on top of the nearly $3 billion this troubled state agency has spent over the past 15 yearswith poor results.
Proposition15: INCREASES FUNDING SOURCES FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS COMMUNITY COLLEGES, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES BY CHANGING TAX ASSESSMENT OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Increases funding sources for K12 public schools, community colleges, and local governments by requiring commercial and industrial real property be taxed based on current market value, instead of purchase price. Exempts from taxation changes: residential properties; agricultural land; and owners of commercial and industrial properties with combined value of $3 million or less.
Most owners of commercial land and buildings worth more than $3 million would pay higher property taxes. Only some of these property owners would start to pay higher taxes in 2022. By 2025, most of these property owners would pay higher taxes. Beginning in 2025, total property taxes from commercial land and buildings probably would be $8 billion to $12.5 billion higher in most years
Argument in Favor:
We are all better off when everyone pays their fair share. But California is giving away billions of dollars in property tax breaks to wealthy corporations. These billions could be used instead to deal with increasing inequality, persistent poverty, unemployment, unaffordable housing, homelessness and underfunded schools.
Argument Against:
PROP. 15 WILL BE THE LARGEST ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX INCREASE IN CALIFORNIA HISTORYUP TO $12.5 BILLION PER YEAR! Prop. 15s massive increase in annual property taxes will have disastrous economic impacts for every Californianfrom small businesses and consumers to farmers and homeowners.
Proposition16: ALLOWS DIVERSITY AS A FACTOR IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT, EDUCATION, AND CONTRACTING DECISIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Permits government decision-making policies to consider race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin to address diversity by repealing article I, section 31, of the California Constitution, which was added by Proposition 209 in 1996. Proposition 209 generally prohibits state and local governments from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, individuals or groups on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, education, or contracting.
Argument in Favor:
All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men.
Argument Against:
REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we desperately need to unite. Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their favorites. They think they can fix past discrimination against racial minorities and women by discriminating against other racial minorities and men who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Punishing innocent people will only cause a never-ending cycle of resentment.
Proposition17: RESTORES RIGHT TO VOTE AFTER COMPLETION OF PRISON TERM. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Amends state constitution to restore voting rights to persons who have been disqualified from voting while serving a prison term as soon as they complete their prison term. Increased one-time state costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to update voter registration cards and to update voter registration cards and systems.
Argument in Favor:
Proposition 17 is simpleit restores a persons right to vote upon completion of their prison term. When a person completes their prison sentence, they should be encouraged to reenter society and have a stake in their community. Restoring their voting rights does that.
Argument Against:
PROPOSITION 17 WILL ALLOW CRIMINALS CONVICTED OF MURDER, RAPE, SEXUAL ABUSE AGAINST CHILDREN, KIDNAPPING, ASSAULT, GANG GUN CRIMES AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING TO VOTE BEFORE COMPLETING THEIR SENTENCE INCLUDING PAROLE.
Proposition18: AMENDS CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION TO PERMIT 17-YEAR-OLDS TO VOTE IN PRIMARY AND SPECIAL ELECTIONS IF THEY WILL TURN 18 BY THE NEXT GENERAL ELECTION AND BE OTHERWISE ELIGIBLE TO VOTE. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
The California Constitution currently permits individuals who are at least 18 years old on the date of an election to vote in that election. Increased costs for counties, likely between several hundreds of thousands of dollars and $1 million every two years, to send and process voting materials to eligible registered 17-year-olds
Arguments in Favor:
Follow this link:
Whats on Your Local Ballot? - City News Group, Inc
