On Tuesday, November 3, voters across California will vote in an election that is, in a word, monumental, with a long, complicated ballot to match. At stake this year for Californians: a dozen statewide propositions that seek to, among other things, raise or lower taxes; expand voting rights; resurrect affirmative action; change gig worker classification; and tighten criminal sentencing laws.

Here at Rubicon, members of our Participant Advisory Board, staff, and Board of Directors, came together as a Voter Guide Task Force to analyze the state propositions and selected Alameda and Contra Costa County measures through a financial equity and racial justice lens. Members of the Task Force are: Adriana Ponce-Matteucci, Adrienne Kimball, Alisha Semplar, Becky Johnson, Claire Levay-Young, Kalani Siegrist, Paul Leonard, Sarah Williams, Tara Cantu-Nishimoto, Taunita Trotter, and Jane Fischberg.  
 
Quite a few measures on the ballot address systemic racism and economic justice. We break them down for you so you can feel confident that you’re casting your vote to end poverty and oppose inequality.  
  
RUBICON'S ENDORSEMENTS

PROPOSITION 15: YES
Schools & Communities First: Prop 15 asks California voters to raise an estimated $6.4 billion to $11.5 billion in funding for local schools and governments by increasing property taxes on commercial and industrial properties based on current market value instead of their much lower original purchase price. The measure is considered one of the largest revisions of Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 initiative that slashed property taxes and limited how much they could go up, providing instant tax relief but devastating government services. The proposition will maintain existing exemptions for small businesses, homeowners, agricultural lands, and renters.

A multibillion-dollar corrective to a decades-old economic injustice, Prop 15 creates an influx of funding for public schools, community colleges, and government services. Our one concern is ensuring oversight around how the funds are allocated, but as long as there is transparency, we are all for it. We should note that oversight and ensuring that the goals of public spending initiatives are met is an ongoing concern for many of these propositions and local measures. 

PROPOSITION 16: YES
Opportunity for All: Proposition 16 would repeal Prop 209, which restricts local and state governments from considering race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting. If passed, Prop 16 would permit governments to consider those protected categories in order to promote inclusive hiring and admissions programs in California’s public universities, government, and public agencies.

Passed in 1996, Proposition 209 is a regressive measure that has propped up systems of oppression for far too long. Studies show that banning affirmative action led to a marked decrease in Black and Latinx students in the UC system. California is one of only nine states that bans affirmative action, and it is time for us to get on the right side of history and level the playing field for women and people of color. Additionally, all Californians suffer when they are corralled into environments devoid of diverse thoughts and experiences. The evolution of our nation depends on increasing our competency with navigating ourselves and others in multicultural environments. The global economy is here to stay; to remain competitive we all need to practice and be comfortable with diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging.
 
Proposition 17: YES
Restore Voting Rights: This state constitutional amendment would allow people on parole for felony convictions to vote after their state or federal prison term ends. The state’s constitution currently prohibits people with felony convictions from voting until both their incarceration and parole are finished. The change, proposed by state lawmakers, would restore voting rights to approximately 40,000 Californians, according to a state Senate analysis. 
 
Denying parolees the right to vote is racist. Black Californians make up about 28% of all prison populations despite only making up 6% of California’s total population; the current law is obviously rooted in Jim Crow-era tactics designed to disenfranchise Black voters. Parolees pay taxes and serve on juries; their disenfranchisement is taxation without representation. Parolees are allowed to vote in 14 other states; once again, California is behind the curve on this one, and it is time for us to get with the program. 

PROPOSITION 18: YES
Voting Rights for 17-Year-Olds: This is a constitutional amendment to allow 17-year-olds who will be 18 at the time of the next general election to vote in primary elections and special elections. 
 
This amendment corrects a minor loophole in the system. So many people in the US who are eligible to vote do not; we should not discourage eager voters who are on the cusp of turning 18 from voting in primaries. 
 
PROPOSITION 19: NO
Property Tax Breaks: The ballot measure would change the rules for tax assessment transfers. In California, eligible homeowners can transfer their tax assessments to a different home of the same or lesser market value, which allows them to move without paying higher taxes. Homeowners who are eligible for tax assessment transfers are persons over 55 years old, persons with severe disabilities, and victims of natural disasters and hazardous waste contamination.

After the overwhelming defeat of the eerily similar Prop 5 in 2018, this is the latest attempt by the Association of Realtors to line their pockets by providing property tax breaks for older homebuyers, incentivizing them to move and to buy more expensive properties. Realtor associations have contributed $36,270,000 in support of the proposition. While the measure’s goals of funding fire protection are laudable, these goals can and should be accomplished by more narrowly tailored means that do not create a tax loophole. Rubicon supports investment in our schools and local communities, but we do not believe that broadening tax loopholes is the answer. To recap, Proposition 19 widens the already-existing wealth gap, perpetuates the status quo, and rewards those who seek to “buy a law."

PROPOSITION 20: NO
Rollback on Criminal Justice Reforms: Prop 20 would roll back changes to California’s criminal sentencing laws approved over the past decade, including parts of Prop 57, which made inmates convicted of nonviolent felonies eligible for parole after serving just the term for their primary offense. It would authorize judges to impose felony charges on certain theft or fraud crimes currently chargeable only as misdemeanors. It would also restrict the number of inmates eligible for parole by adding drug, theft and other crimes to the list of violent crimes or sentence enhancements excluded from parole review. Lastly, the measure would require people convicted of drug, theft or domestic violence misdemeanors to submit to DNA collection for the state database.

These are draconian measures proposed, supported, and financed by retrograde politicians and police and sheriff associations, and fed to the public using the same scare tactic “tough on crime” rhetoric that led to the wave of harsh, unjust criminal sentencing laws of 1990s (e.g. Three Strikes). Why, at a time when California’s violent and property crimes rates are still at historic lows, are three police unions the top funders of Prop 20? More “criminals” and longer sentencing means increased unsubstantiated financial gain and power for the criminal justice system and purveyors of private prisons. This is dangerous and irresponsible. 

PROPOSITION 21: YES
Local Governments & Rent Control: Prop 21 allows cities and counties to implement rent control for certain residential properties over 15 years old. The initiative's official summary says it would grant exemptions from new rent control policies for individuals who own no more than two homes. The measure is meant to replace the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act, which prohibited rent control for housing that was built after 1995 as well as for units such as single-family homes, town homes and condos. In addition, Prop 21 would limit rent in rent-controlled properties to increase up to 15 percent over a period of three years with the start of a new tenancy.

If you know anything about the Bay Area you know that increasingly high rents have forced families from their homes, devastated communities, and intensified poverty and homelessness. The measure would allow cities more autonomy in establishing measures on rent increases – it would not in itself create rent control laws. This welcome measure to roll back Costa-Hawkins would let cities put limits on rent increases to protect families who are one rent hike away from being driven out of their homes and neighborhoods. Prop 21 is a much-needed step to curb homelessness and slow gentrification.

PROPOSITION 22: NO
Rideshare & Delivery Drivers: Proposition 22 asks voters to classify drivers for ride-share and delivery companies as independent contractors, not employees. 
Don’t believe the hype! This slickly packaged proposition is a self-serving attempt by rideshare and delivery companies like Lyft, Uber, and DoorDash to further mistreat and underpay their drivers. By classifying drivers as contractors, these corporations will be freed up to carry out the human rights violations of their dreams. Pay less than minimum wage? Check. Deny unemployment benefits, overtime pay, and sick leave? Check, check, and check. AB 5, which Prop 22 is trying to repeal, guarantees paid family leave, paid sick days, and unemployment insurance—essential protections during a global pandemic—to those classified as gig employees. The sick thing is that ads for the proposition try to sell it as giving drivers the flexibility they want. Hey, Uber – flexibility and human decency aren’t mutually exclusive.  

While we are recommending voting against this proposition, some members of our Task Force have depended on gig driving as a source of income, and they brought a different perspective to the table. One committee member liked the flexibility that gig work allowed and wanted to ensure that would still be in place if workers were treated as employees. In addition, gig work is relatively easy to secure compared with other types of jobs, which is especially helpful to people who are facing barriers to employment.

PROPOSITION 25: YES
End Cash Bail: This is a referendum to overturn a 2018 law to replace California’s cash bail system with a new pretrial release system based on public safety and flight risk. The law, SB10, was put on hold after the referendum qualified for the ballot in early 2019. A “Yes” vote on Prop 25 would approve the law taking effect and end cash bail in California, while a “No” vote would keep the current cash bail system the way it is.

The cash bail system is fundamentally unjust—poor people awaiting trial are forced to stay in jail while people of means buy their way out, perpetuating the cycles of poverty and incarceration in disproportionately Black and Brown communities. The bail bond industry has a financial stake in people getting arrested, so a vote for this referendum is a vote against a parasitic business. At the same time, this proposition is far from perfect. We are concerned that the algorithmic assessment tools that will become the primary determinant of pretrial risk are inherently biased against Black and Brown people. With these concerns in mind, while we recommend a “Yes” vote on Prop 25, we urge the legislature to oversee and monitor the outcomes of using these tools and to act swiftly to correct any bias in the assessment process.

ALAMEDA COUNTY MEASURE W: YES
Measure W is an Alameda County-wide half percent general sales tax that will raise $150 million a year for 10 years. Measure W provides funding that Alameda County can use to:  
• Provide housing assistance, mental health resources, and substance use treatment for our most vulnerable residents.  
• Help people who are at risk of homelessness stay in their homes.  
• Increase hygiene and sanitation services.
• Support homeless veterans, seniors and families with services.  
• Increase employment opportunities through job training. 
• Shelter people experiencing homelessness to reduce COVID19 impacts. 
 
We recommend a Yes vote on this measure. At the same time, we want to ensure that the people who will be directly impacted have input in the decision-making process. 

Oakland, California, Police Oversight and Inspector General Charter Amendment: YES
This is an amendment to city charter 604 to strengthen the independence of the Oakland Police Commission by modifying the powers, duties, and staffing of the Oakland Police Commission and the Community Police Review Agency, and creating an Office of Inspector General. A “Yes” vote supports changing the powers, duties, and staffing of the Oakland Police Commission and the Community Police Review Agency and creating the Office of the Inspector General to review policies of the police commission and review agency. A “No” vote opposes changing the powers, duties, and staffing of the Oakland Police Commission and the Community Police Review Agency creating the Office of the Inspector General to review policies of the police commission and review agency. 
 
Oakland’s history of police violence and this historic moment of reckoning make this amendment a resounding YES from us.  

Hayward Measures NN and OO: YES
 
NN - Transient Occupancy Tax 
 
OO - Would amend charter of City of Hayward to eliminate the requirement of being a qualified elector/registered voter to serve on City Council-appointed advisory commissions, and eliminate gender-based designations and titles and instead use neutral, gender-free designations and titles.
 
Contra Costa County Measure X: YES
This measure will raise an estimated $81 million annually through a 20-year, half½ percent sales tax to support severe insecurities in health, housing, food and other vital needs. Developed through the collaboration of local community-based organizations, hospital and healthcare affiliates, and labor unions, representing essential healthcare, fire and emergency professionals, advocates for interpersonal violence prevention and mental health, early childhood programming and other critical safety net services, the Contra Costa County Needs Assessment is the basis for this campaign. 

We support this measure, and once again, we would like to see the people who are directly affected have input and agency.  
 
Richmond Measure U: YES 

Analysis by City Finance Director: Measure U would amend the City’s business tax rate structure to authorize the City to tax businesses based on a range of .06% to 5.00% of gross receipts rather than based on the number of employees. Generally, the highest rates will be charged to businesses with the highest gross revenue, with exemptions for specific businesses and activities as identified in the ordinance. If the measure passes, it would provide an estimated $5.950 million annually in new revenue to the City, based on historical sales tax and rental property data. Staff projects that the City would incur software implementation costs as well as annual costs for additional staff support.  

We recommend a Yes vote on this measure to reduce the tax burden on small businesses, which are hardest hit by COVID. 

Rubicon's legal team helps our participants with legal assistance on a wide range of issues to equip them to remove barriers that may stand in their way.

This question and answer series – “In Furtherance of Justice” - with Rubicon's staff attorneys explores the many intersections between the law and breaking the cycle of poverty. This week, we talked with one of Rubicon’s Attorneys, Sarah Williams, about Proposition 64, which legalized Marijuana in the State of California in 2016. 

 

Q: What is the history of marijuana legalization in California?

A: Medical marijuana first became legal back in the 90s in California. As time went on, California essentially decriminalized marijuana–law enforcement no longer was arresting people for using and possessing marijuana. Instead, they wrote tickets. The problem was that even this was pretty unfairly enforced, and it’s no surprise that the people who were predominantly getting ticketed were people of color. As the move toward legalization for recreational use gained traction, there actually was push back – not because many people wanted to see harsher punishments for use, but because they didn’t see a need for formal legislation. In affluent communities people just were not being policed for marijuana use.

 

Q: Was Proposition 64 the first attempt at legalization?

A:  Prop 215 was passed in 1996. It legalized medical marijuana. We were the first state to pass that kind of legislation. In 2010, Governor Schwarzenegger signed legislation reducing possession of marijuana from a criminal misdemeanor to a civil infraction – decriminalization.  In that same year, we voted on Prop 19, which would have legalized recreational marijuana use, but it was voted down.

 

Q: So on January 1, 2018, did it become legal to buy and use marijuana anywhere?

A: On November 9, 2016, the day after California voted on Prop 64, it became legal to possess, use or obtain no more than an ounce of marijuana. The parts of the law that impact setting up dispensaries and legally selling it weren’t figured out until January 1, 2018.

 

Q: Practically, what does this mean for the average person who tries to buy marijuana?

A: It means someone can give it to you, and you can legally possess it no matter where you got it, but you can only legally buy it from a licensed dispensary.  

 

Q: How do you police this?

A: It’s tricky!  The person selling it is guilty of a misdemeanor, even though it is totally legal to obtain and use marijuana recreationally.

 

Q: Does this still put a bigger burden or risk on less affluent communities and communities of color?

A: It does. There are plenty of hurdles to get a license to own a dispensary. If you have a criminal record, it’s pretty much impossible to legally sell the thing that you were cited for selling in the first place. There are many separate conversations happening in California on how to allow people of color and communities who have been selling to actually benefit from this legislation. It’s also challenging because marijuana conglomerates are already forming and taking over the industry.

 

Q: For the average Rubicon participant today, what does this legislation mean? What is the impact going forward?

A: Well, you’re still not legally allowed to just smoke on the street, but it does take away this thing that was hanging over people’s heads. If, for example, someone gets pulled over by the cops and they smell marijuana, that alone is no longer probable cause to search the car. You can’t smoke while you’re driving or drive high – that’s the same as a DUI – but lots of peoples’ cars smell like marijuana. Also, if an officer performs a stop-and-frisk and finds marijuana on you, as long as it’s within the limits of possession, it’s fine.  

This legislation is also very similar to Prop 47 in that if you have a marijuana possession conviction, you can file paperwork with the court and it is not a conviction any more, or if you have a sales conviction you can go back, file paperwork and have it reduced to a misdemeanor. It’s not discretionary, the judge must grant the dismissal or felony reduction, but you do have to file the paperwork. Public Defenders are doing that paperwork for people, and it helps if there is a pendingcriminal case. If you no longer have a felony and you get convicted, your sentencing is going to be different. It can really change things for people.

 

Q: What do you think is the next piece of legislation that will make a huge impact for Rubicon participants?

A: Bail reform. I can’t tell you how many people who have sat here and said to me, “I just pled guilty, or no contest, because I just needed to get out of jail.” Your trial is supposed to happen quickly, but most people “waive time” to give their attorney time to actually prepare for the case, and during that time, if you can’t afford bail, you’re just sitting in jail. Often if you need to get out, you just plead to something. Maybe you didn’t do it, or maybe you know there isn’t enough evidence for conviction, but you do it anyways because you just want to move on with your life.

The problem is that many people don’t realize all of the collateral consequences of having that conviction on their record – in the moment, it’s just about getting out of jail. To me, bail reform is the holy grail of where we’re going with our criminal justice reform in California, because without it, these other laws are just not enough.

Lear more about bail reform or donate today to support our work.

BY JANE FISCHBERG & DAN GEIGER

August 31, 2017

In government, good intentions frequently have unintended consequences. Unfortunately, many of these unintended consequences can have irreversible impacts, costing lives, chilling innovation and disintegrating community institutions that have reliably served our neighbors for decades.

That’s the case with AB 1250. This legislation has a purportedly noble goal: to protect employment security for public employees.  But in actuality, it constructs an elaborate system that locks out the nonprofits and medical specialists that ensure that some of our community’s most vulnerable residents receive care.

The bill would require all county contractors — many of whom are nonprofit Community Benefit Organizations (CBOs) — to spend a significant portion of their modest budgets on expensive audits, burdensome paperwork and administrative overhead.

In the short run, this would divert critical resources from vital services.

In the long run, it could force hundreds of community organizations to shut their doors, leaving tens of thousands of people with limited resources — including survivors of domestic violence, those living with mental illness and families who are homeless — out in the cold.

Almost 65 percent of Contra Costa County’s mental health services are contracted out to provide much-needed additional capacity to the county’s health delivery system. Partnerships between these organizations and the Health Services Department ensure that residents benefit from the cultural responsiveness, expertise and skill they have to offer, while remaining flexible enough to continually innovate and improve their practices.

Outside contracting is particularly necessary in situations where labor is scarce and few people have hyper-specialized expertise. If a disease is relatively rare, why have the county hospital hire a full-time doctor just to serve a handful of people? It makes much more economic sense for a few counties to contract one shared doctor to serve an entire region.

AB 1250 would make it cost prohibitive for a doctor or health group to choose that arrangement. On top of that, there are many emergency services that must be contracted out to protect public safety. The simple truth is that no health department can employ enough professionals to staff and manage the entire system on its own.

Other organizations, such as Rubicon Programs in the counties of Contra Costa and Alameda, deliver services that help the unemployed find jobs. Due to its nonprofit status, Rubicon is able to pool varying sources of funding to maximize its impact. It also can build close, active partnerships between local businesses and community groups, allowing them to develop comprehensive supports that help individuals find a job, establish a career and achieve economic mobility. This holistic, hands-on approach is not one that a government agency could manage effectively.

It all comes down to this: AB 1250 is an existential threat to our local health care delivery systems. It’s a one-size-fits-all policy that solves no real problems and creates new ones.

The 21 members of the Human Services Alliance of Contra Costa – in partnership with the county – serve more than 360,000 residents. Millions more are served in Alameda, San Francisco and across the state. These organizations already face potential cutbacks instituted by the federal government. They cannot afford to further jeopardize their ability to provide high-quality services.

No one wins when you decrease quality and access to services.

We urge you to contact your State Sens. Nancy Skinner, Bob Wieckowski, Bill Dodd and Steve Glazer. Ask them to vote no on AB 1250.

Dan Geiger is the director of the Human Services Alliance of Contra Costa. Jane Fischberg is the president and CEO of Rubicon Programs, a nonprofit serving Contra Costa and Alameda counties. 

Read the original op-ed at www.eastbaytimes.com.

It is our collective responsibility to call out and dismantle injustice and inequity in our fractured system when we see it.  Rubicon Programs remains committed to acting on our responsibility to represent the people we serve and fight for their interests – and what we agree is basic human decency.

I would like to share with you my personal experience and reflections on this past weekend’s blatant show of armed Nazism, white supremacy and unfettered fascism in Charlottesville, and the death and violence that followed.  Frankly, I was horrified and angry.

Last night’s vigils sprang up organically throughout the country, with at least a few right here in the East Bay.  Personally, I attended a gathering in Latham Square in Oakland. So many thoughts ran through my mind. 

People from the ages of 15 to 90 spoke from the heart, and many families brought their young children.  I found high school age speakers to be especially eloquent, expressing both their resolve to be united against hate wherever they see it, and also their hope for the future.

On the other end of the age continuum, someone who attended a vigil in El Cerrito told me about a 93-year-old man who spoke. The man said that he had fought at Iwo Jima, and never thought he would still be struggling against fascism more than 70 years later. He didn’t want to die with the struggle still continuing. 

My friend made a sign, “400,000 US military died fighting fascism during World War II.  Never again.” 

White supremacy is a disease, as well as a system, and it remains a threat.

I then wondered if this immediate and widespread outpouring of anger, grief and dismay by white people was, in part, due to the fact that a white life was lost. Would the national response have been the same if Heather Heyer were black or brown?

Toward the end of the vigil, Oscar Grant’s uncle spoke, introducing himself as Uncle Bobby, and asked how many of us at the vigil had been there eight years before, when his unarmed nephew was shot dead by a BART police officer.

I was one of those who was not.  Only about a quarter of the crowd raised their hands.  

Nonetheless, he found comfort in this, and did not express bitterness. He took this as a sign of advancement. The number of people who are aware of the deep, gnarled roots of systemic racism in America has multiplied exponentially. People are talking about it and acting to end it.

Unfortunately, our nation still has a ways to go. Hundreds of white men are still marching with swastikas on their arms and torches in their hands. Our President remains silent. And more complicated issues like poverty and implicit bias remain ever-present.

We should hold onto Uncle Bobby’s words and embrace his message of hope.

The nation is awakening.  Let’s shine a light on injustice and fight for change one heart and mind at a time.

By TAMMERLIN DRUMMOND | Bay Area News Group
August 14, 2017

Jesse Austin, a 39-year-old Antioch resident, owed more than $1,800 in unpaid tickets stemming from a traffic stop last September in Benicia. He couldn’t pay that high an amount on the $800 he earned every two weeks at a store that sold men’s grooming products. When he didn’t pay or show up in court, Solano County put a hold on his driver’s license. That in turn, he said, stopped him from getting a job as a delivery driver, better-paying work that he had done in the past.

“Not having a license has really hindered my earning ability,” said the father of six who works as a bicycle messenger in San Francisco. “You have to have one for a lot of jobs.”

Last week, Solano County Superior Court agreed to a first of its kind settlement in California that offers low-income people like Austin some relief from crushing traffic ticket debt and penalties that so often lead to a license suspension. The county now must notify drivers about alternatives to paying the full amount. Qualifying low-income residents are able to fill out a declaration of financial need and ask to pay in installments, seek a fine reduction or request community service. It’s also retroactive, which means drivers can petition the court for financial relief to get a license suspension lifted. The new policy applies to non-criminal violations.

“When you suspend a person’s license there is supposed to be a finding of willfulness,” said Sarah Williams, a staff attorney with Rubicon Programs, a Contra Costa County-based nonprofit that led a coalition of Bay Area legal aid organizations in filing a class action lawsuit last year.  “When someone doesn’t pay a ticket that doesn’t mean it’s willful if they can’t afford to pay it.”

Story continued at www.eastbaytimes.com.