HERE ARE HJTA’s BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS
Your ballot will be arriving in the mail any day now. Here are the ballot measure recommendations from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the candidate endorsements from the HJTA PAC. These are the only official endorsements from HJTA. You can also find them on our website at HJTA.org:
NO on 2, 4, 5, 6, 32, 33
YES on 34, 36
HJTA takes no position on 3, 35
Why the gap in the numbers?
Propositions 2 through 6 were placed on the ballot by the Legislature and given special numbering.
Propositions 32-36 are citizens’ initiatives that were given sequential numbering from prior elections, as usual.
No on 2
Why we’re against it
Proposition 2 is $10 billion of bonds, new state debt, to pay for school facilities. It is almost certain to result in higher property tax bills, because school districts must provide a “local match” of funds in order to receive money from the Prop. 2 state bonds. That will lead to districts issuing new local school bonds, which are paid for by adding new charges to property tax bills. Enrollment is declining in both K-12 district schools and community colleges and the declines are projected to continue. But Proposition 2 commits California to pay an estimated $18 billion, including interest, for school buildings that may not even be necessary. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 2. Click here for more from the HJTA team.
Proposition 3 – HJTA takes no position on this measure
Proposition 3 removes language from the state Constitution that defines marriage as between a man and woman. It adds the language, “right to marry is a fundamental right.” According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, this measure has no effect on current law in California because of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
No on 4
Why we’re against it
This is the $10 billion “climate bond” that state politicians have long planned. California already has too much bond debt, over $78 billion outstanding as of January 1. Then $6.38 billion was added with Proposition 1 in March. Proposition 4 would add another $10 billion in bond debt to pay for climate “programs.” It’s reckless to use borrowed money, an estimated $18 billion with interest, to pay for “programs,” including salaries for all the groups that receive the money. Bond financing only makes sense for necessary projects that will last more than the 30 years it takes to repay the debt. The governor has already declared a budget emergency because the state spends more than it takes in. Spending even more “on the credit card” is a bad idea. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 4. Click here for more from the HJTA team.
No on 5
Why we’re against it
Proposition 5 is ACA 1, a direct attack on Proposition 13. It makes it easier to raise taxes by eliminating the longstanding two-thirds vote of the electorate required to pass local bonds (borrowed money that must be repaid with interest). All new bond measures for “infrastructure” (nearly everything is “infrastructure”) and for public housing projects would pass with just 55% approval instead of the current 66.7%. Local bonds are paid for with extra charges on property tax bills, adding to the tax burden on homeowners and businesses, leading to higher rents for tenants and higher consumer prices for everyone. If Proposition 5 is not stopped, property tax bills are likely to go up after every election, forever. Proposition 5 will raise the cost of living in California, which already has the highest poverty rate in the country when the cost of living is taken into account. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 5. Click here for more from the HJTA team.
No on 6
Why we’re against it
Proposition 6 bans mandatory work requirements for state prison inmates. It doesn’t seem fair to further increase the burden on taxpayers by creating the conditions to negotiate higher wages for inmates who are paying off their debt to society by serving their sentences in state prison. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 6. Click here for more from the HJTA team.
No on 32
Why we’re against it
Proposition 32 would raise California’s hourly minimum wage from $16 to $18 and then adjust it annually for inflation. Unfortunately, raising the hourly minimum wage has sometimes reduced weekly wages as businesses cut hours and lay off workers. The best way to raise incomes in California is to stop driving job-creating businesses out of the state or into the ground. Raising the minimum wage is counter-productive. It also increases the state’s expenses by raising government labor costs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 32.
No on 33
Why we’re against it
Proposition 33 is a rent control measure that would lead to a reduction in the supply of rental housing. It repeals a sensible 1995 law, the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which put limits on rent control laws to ensure that housing providers could make a fair return on their investment and stay in business. Repealing Costa-Hawkins would mean cities could enact radical rent control, even on single-family homes and condos, and prevent property owners from resetting the rent to the market rate after a tenant voluntarily moves out. Proposition 33 would lead to a sharp reduction in new apartment construction as lenders evaluate financial risk due to potential rent control laws. That will worsen the housing shortage in California. Voters have already rejected this proposal twice before, in 2018 and 2020. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 33.
Yes on 34
Why we’re for it
Some nonprofit healthcare organizations that receive federal funds to provide health care services have abused the system to spend large amounts of money on political causes. Proposition 34 would end this practice and require that healthcare providers spend most of the money they receive from a federal prescription drug discount program on direct patient care. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34.
Proposition 35 – HJTA takes no position on this measure
California currently taxes managed care organizations (MCOs) such as Anthem Blue Cross and others. The MCO tax is set to expire in 2026, and we expect the Legislature to make it permanent. Proposition 35 would also make it permanent but would require the revenue from the tax to fund Medi-Cal, the government health insurance program for low-income residents, instead of being used to close gaps in the state budget. About 14 million California residents rely on the Medi-Cal program for their health care needs.
Yes on 36
Why we’re for it
Proposition 36 is the “Homelessness, Drug Addiction and Theft Reduction Act,” backed by law enforcement groups and retailers. It makes thoughtful changes to Proposition 47 (2014), which reduced some theft and drug felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 would get tougher on third offenses and also offer drug and mental health treatment as an alternative to incarceration. It would allow judges to sentence some individuals to state prison instead of county jail. The surge of retail theft, vehicle break-ins and open drug use on California’s streets has increased the burden on first responders, and on taxpayers, as well as raising insurance costs throughout the state. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 36.
Local Measures
In the Bay Area
No on Regional Measure 4 Dropped from the ballot thanks to taxpayer pressure!
A property tax increase in nine counties to pay for borrowing $20 billion for “affordable housing.”
In Los Angeles
No on Measure A
Doubles the temporary sales tax for homelessness programs and makes the tax increase permanent. Raises the sales tax in L.A. County by $1 billion a year to pay for the same failed programs, permanently.
No on Measure E
Raises property taxes by $60 per 1,000 square feet of your home for the County Fire Department. The County can pay for these needs without a tax increase.
No on Measure US
A property tax increase to pay for $9 billion in borrowing for the Los Angeles Unified School District. Will cost an additional $25 per $100,000 of assessed value of your home, on top of the current $128 per $100,000.
In the City of Orange
No on Measure Z
A sales tax increase from 7.75% to 8.25%. City officials are running an annual budget deficit projected to be $26 million within 5 years.
In Folsom
No on Measure G
A sales tax increase of 1%, sponsored by “citizens.” Measure G uses the court-created loophole that weakened the two-thirds vote requirement for special taxes. HJTA opposes all so-called “Upland taxes” that undermine the original intent of Proposition 13.
In Yuba City
No on Measure D
A 1% sales tax increase. The city can spend the tax revenue on anything, even pensions and pay raises; there is no legal requirement to spend the money on the priorities featured in the campaign advertising.
HJTA PAC ENDORSEMENTS FOR THE NOVEMBER 5, 2024 GENERAL ELECTION
Click here for the printable version.
U.S. CONGRESS
U.S. House of Representatives District 1
Doug LaMalfa
U.S. House of Representatives District 2
Chris Coulombe
U.S. House of Representatives District 3
Kevin Kiley
U.S. House of Representatives District 5
Tom McClintock
U.S. House of Representatives District 6
Christine Bish
U.S. House of Representatives District 13
John Duarte
U.S. House of Representatives District 14
Vin Kruttiventi
U.S. House of Representatives District 15
Anna Cheng Kramer
U.S. House of Representatives District 19
Jason Anderson
U.S. House of Representatives District 20
Vince Fong
U.S. House of Representatives District 22
David Valadao
U.S. House of Representatives District 23
Jay Obernolte
U.S. House of Representatives District 24
Thomas Cole
U.S. House of Representatives District 26
Michael Koslow
U.S. House of Representatives District 27
Mike Garcia
U.S. House of Representatives District 28
April Verlato
U.S. House of Representatives District 29
Benito Bernal
U.S. House of Representatives District 30
Alex Balekian
U.S. House of Representatives District 40
Young Kim
U.S. House of Representatives District 41
Ken Calvert
U.S. House of Representatives District 43
Steve Williams
U.S. House of Representatives District 45
Michelle Steel
U.S. House of Representatives District 47
Scott Baugh
U.S. House of Representatives District 48
Darrell Issa
U.S. House of Representatives District 49
Matt Gunderson
STATE SENATE
State Senate District 1
Megan Dahle
State Senate District 3
Thom Bogue
State Senate District 5
James Shoemaker
State Senate District 11
Yvette Corkrean
State Senate District 19
Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh
State Senate District 23
Suzette Martinez Valladares
State Senate District 25
Elizabeth Ahlers
State Senate District 27
Lucie Volotzky
State Senate District 37
Steven Choi
STATE ASSEMBLY
State Assembly District 1
Tenessa Audette
State Assembly District 3
James Gallagher
State Assembly District 4
Darren Ellis
State Assembly District 5
Joe Patterson
State Assembly District 7
Joshua Hoover
State Assembly District 8
George Radanovich
State Assembly District 15
Sonia Ledo
State Assembly District 22
Juan Alanis
State Assembly District 27
Joanna Garcia Rose
State Assembly District 30
Dalila Epperson
State Assembly District 33
Alexandra Macedo
State Assembly District 34
Tom Lackey
State Assembly District 36
Jeff Gonzalez
State Assembly District 37
Sari Domingues
State Assembly District 40
Patrick Gipson
State Senate District 41
Michelle Del Rosario Martinez
State Assembly District 42
Ted Nordblum
State Assembly District 43
Victoria Garcia
State Assembly District 44
Tony Rodriquez
State Assembly District 46
Tracey Schroeder
State Assembly District 47
Greg Wallis
State Assembly District 51
Stephan Hohil
State Assembly District 55
Keith Cascio
State Assembly District 58
Leticia Castillo
State Assembly District 59
Phillip Chen
State Assembly District 60
Ron Edwards
State Assembly District 63
Bill Essayli
State Assembly District 70
Tri Ta
State Assembly District 71
Kate Sanchez
State Assembly District 72
Diane Dixon
State Assembly District 73
Scott Peotter
State Assembly District 74
Laurie Davies
State Assembly District 75
Carl DeMaio
State Assembly District 76
Kristie Bruce-Lane
State Assembly District 80
Michael Williams
COUNTY OFFICES*
Orange County Supervisor, District 1
Janet Nguyen
San Bernardino County Assessor-Recorder-Clerk
Dara Smith
*Due to the number of requests for endorsement we receive, HJTA does not generally endorse candidates for local (city and county) offices. On rare occasions, exceptions are made for candidates that have a long history of protecting Prop. 13.