My take on the head-scratching California ballot measures

Voting early is a mistake, I figure. Take all the time you’re allowed. Something could happen right before the election to change your vote.

And those puzzling propositions need extra pondering.

Sure, practically everyone knew how they’d vote in the presidential and Senate races long before their ballots arrived in the mail.

But many of those 10 state propositions are head-scratchers. Some shouldn’t even be on the ballot. Others are worthy of support.

Here’s how I finally came down on them, in chronological order:

Proposition 2: A $10-billion bond issue to repair, modernize and build facilities at K-12 schools and community colleges.

Yes. Although the 35-year payoff period is too long — eating up billions in interest — the need is real. And borrowing is the only way these projects will be funded.

Proposition 3: Deletes obsolete language in the California Constitution that states marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

A no-brainer. Yes.

Proposition 4: Another $10-billion bond, this one for water storage, cleansing polluted water, wildfire prevention and various climate-related projects.

Yes — for the same reason as the school bond. This 40-year payoff is excessively long, but bonds are the only practical way to pay for these worthy projects.

Proposition 5: Reduces from two-thirds to 55% the vote required to pass local bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure such as roads. Local school bonds already need just 55%.

Yes. One-third of the electorate should not be allowed to make decisions for the other two-thirds.

Proposition 6: Forbids prisons from forcing inmates to work. They still could work voluntarily and potentially have their sentences reduced.

Yes. Inmates are sentenced to time behind bars, not forced labor, a vestige of chain gangs and slavery. Prisoners could use their free time to take education courses or undergo various treatments. There is no organized opposition.

The above measures were placed on the ballot by the Legislature.

The ones below are initiatives sponsored by private interests:

Proposition 32: Raises the state’s current $16 minimum wage to $18 in January with annual increases for inflation.

No. California’s minimum wage is already among the nation’s highest, greatly exceeding the federal rate of $7.25. And there’s an annual inflation adjustment. Our liberal state legislators are very capable of hiking the rate further if they think it’s needed.

Proposition 33: Prevents the state from limiting local government’s expansion of rent control.

No. Excessive rent control will just prompt landlords to take their properties off the rental market. This measure overreaches, barring the state from seeking a balance that protects landlords and renters.

Proposition 34: Requires healthcare providers to spend 98% of their federal prescription drug discount revenue on patients. Huh?

Loud no. This is about nonsense. Apartment owners and Realtors backed this measure to get at the AIDS Healthcare Foundation that is pushing the rent control proposal. These interest groups should trade blows outside and leave the ballot alone.

Proposition 35: Makes permanent an existing tax on managed healthcare plans and boosts provider reimbursement rates for treating low-income Medi-Cal patients. The rate hikes are needed. But this measure is a Byzantine quagmire of foggy muddle.

No way. It’s the sort of complexity that the Legislature gets paid to handle. That’s where this issue belongs.

Proposition 36: The biggie state ballot measure. It increases punishment for repeated theft and hard drug offenses, including deadly fentanyl. And it requires treatment for repetitive criminal addicts.

Yes. Opponents argue that by stiffening penalties we’ll refill our prisons after having dramatically reduced their populations to meet a federal court order. I say good. Behind bars is where repetitive criminals belong, not on the street stealing merchants’ goods and their customers’ cars, and peddling poison to children.

Proposition 36, sponsored by the California District Attorneys Assn. and bankrolled by big retailers such as Walmart, partially rolls back the sentence-softening Proposition 47 that voters passed overwhelmingly 10 years ago.

Proposition 47 reduced certain property and hard drug crimes from felonies to misdemeanors and arrests plummeted, the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California found in a year-long study.

Then-Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was one of Proposition 47’s loudest promoters. And as governor, he has been an ardent defender. But on Monday he acknowledged to reporters that Proposition 36 is likely to win.

“I’m not naive about people’s feelings,” Newsom said.

A recent PPIC poll found lopsided bipartisan support for Proposition 36 by 73% of likely voters, including 67% of Democrats.

The poll showed three other measures receiving solid backing from at least 60% of voters: Proposition 3, the marriage constitutional amendment; Proposition 4, the water and wildfire bond, and Proposition 35, the tax on managed healthcare plans.

Proposition 2, the school bond, was barely ahead at 52%. And its outcome was dicey.

The other measures were all running under 50% with bleak futures.

I’ll drop my votes in the mailbox on election day — taking all the time fortunately allotted.

Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the LA Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.

This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.