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 John Gioia, Jane Fischberg and Claudia Jimenez

Contra Costa County needs greater investment in mental health treatment, job training, affordable housing, and youth services to help keep people from becoming incarcerated, not a larger West County jail.

Approving expensive new jail construction runs counter to the more fiscally responsible and humane strategy of investing greater resources in prevention and rehabilitation services. These cost-effective measures help keep people out of jail, reduce reoffending and improve public safety.

The recent 4-1 vote by the Board of Supervisors to spend $25 million in county funds and apply for $70 million from the state to add 416 high-security beds at the West County Detention Facility in Richmond comes at a time of budgetary uncertainty, with the county facing possible federal funding cutbacks from the new presidential administration.

The Prison Law Office, a well-respected nonprofit public interest law firm specializing in jail system reform, wrote to the Board of Supervisors  that “The county would better serve its population by expanding efforts to reduce the jail population instead of expanding the capacity of its jails.”

We could not agree more.

The county’s focus should be on spending our limited tax dollars on programs that are proven to keep people out of jail and help previously incarcerated individuals successfully re-enter their communities after serving time. This approach ultimately costs less and cuts crime.

The approved jail plan calls for spending $2 million more per year to hire additional sheriff deputies to staff an expanded jail. Those dollars should instead be invested in expanding programs proven to reduce incarceration, such as substance abuse treatment and Behavioral Health Court, which provides vital mental health treatment to people with chronic mental illness.

This is a more cost-effective and humane approach.

Another way to reduce our jail population and improve public safety is to reform our bail system, which currently uses the ability to pay for bail as the primary factor in deciding who should remain incarcerated while awaiting trial.

A wiser system, gaining popularity, is to base incarceration while awaiting trial on the risk of reoffending or fleeing. Approximately 70 percent of those in county jail haven’t been convicted and are awaiting trial, many for lower level non-violent drug or property offenses.

Also, the sheriff can create capacity in the West County jail instead of building new cells. Nearly 200 individuals are being held for possible deportation at the West County jail under a sheriff’s contract with the U.S. Department of Justice to house ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) detainees.

That’s 20 percent of the jail’s capacity that could be used to meet the county’s needs, not the federal government’s.

Contra Costa is the only Bay Area county with such a contract. This cooperation with ICE should end. It erodes our hard-working immigrant community’s trust in local law enforcement and county government.

Health and social service community agencies report that many immigrants have cancelled appointments out of anxiety, fear of deportation, or mistrust — not getting critical care.

Sheriff David Livingston’s cooperation with ICE, and traveling to Washington D.C. and meeting with controversial Attorney General Jeff Sessions on the day of the Board of Supervisor’s jail vote have further eroded community trust.

We can do better.

The community has a chance to express its opposition to this unwise jail expansion project when the issue comes back to the Board of Supervisors after the state decides whether to support the funding request.

Please speak out in favor of policies that invest our tax dollars in effective prevention programs, not costly jail construction.

John Gioia is a Contra Costa supervisor. Jane Fischberg is CEO of Rubicon Programs. Claudia Jimenez is with the Contra Costa Racial Justice Coalition.

This commentary appeared in the East Bay Times on February 14, 2017

This February, we will share a series of posts examining the education system, and the crucial role education has played in the lives of African Americans. We hope these posts will increase awareness, spark conversations, encourage self-reflection and lead to deeper explorations about the education system’s responsibility to a fair and just society. We hope that you will join the discussion on Facebook and Twitter. 

The Crisis in Black Education | Early Disparities

by Jane Fischberg

Education continues to be an important strategy to achieve economic mobility, and gain access to higher quality of life.  However, 60 years after the Brown vs. The Board of Education decision that desegregated schools, there are still gross inequities along racial lines.  Research on disparities and long-term outcomes for African American children expose the bleak truth: African Americans are disproportionately shut out of meaningful educational opportunities.

African American students are less likely than white students to have access to rigorous readiness curriculum -- and they are more likely be suspended from school for the same infractions,  and to be taught by less experienced teachers, according to comprehensive data from the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. 

One of the striking facts to emerge from the data is that disparities start as early as early childhood education (ECE) programs.  

African American children from low-income homes tend to be in ECE classrooms with lower ratings of instructional support.  Students of color are more likely than their peers to attend schools with a higher concentration of first-year and inexperienced teachers. Teachers in predominately black and Latino schools are paid less than their counterparts, resulting in high turnover.  As a result, too many African American children enter kindergarten a year or more behind in academic and social-emotional skills.  Starting out school from behind can trap students in a cycle of continuous catch-up in their learning.

In ECE programs, African American children are 3.6 times more likely to face suspension than their white peers.  Black boys are 19 percent of preschool boys, but represent 45 percent of male preschool children who are suspended.  Similarly, Black girls are 20 percent of female preschool enrollment, but experience 54 percent of suspensions among preschool girls. This phenomenon can send the message to children that they are “bad” and not welcomed at school.  Black boys, especially, suffer, because this feeds the dominant cultural narrative that Black men are dangerous.  This biased approach to discipline can trigger a lifetime of identity issues and disenfranchisement.

Access to high-quality ECE can boost cognitive and social skills in children, help mitigate for disparities in early learning experiences and the effects of childhood trauma, and improve long-term economic and life indicators for low-income African American children and other children of color.  These are all critical benefits that can help break the cycle of poverty and reduce inequality over the long run. 

If you would like to find out what you can do to increase access to quality ECE, connect with the National Black Child Development Institute – you can track its efforts to support federal, state and local initiatives to provide increasing numbers of children with access to quality early education and care, and learn how to add your voice.

Dr. Carter G. Woodson and the Association for the Study of African American Life and History established Negro History Week in 1926 to celebrate and elevate the achievements of African Americans. Negro History Week took root in cities across the country and by the 1960's had become a month-long celebration. In 1976, President Gerald R. Ford was the first U.S. president to recognize Black History Month nationally and hailed it as an opportunity to, “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans in every area of endeavor throughout our history.”

From its beginnings, Dr. Woodson and his colleagues provided a theme for Negro History Week as a starting point for shared learning. Past themes have included Civilization: A World Achievement in 1928, Fulfilling America’s Promise: Black History Month in 1975, and this year's theme, The Crisis in Black Education. This February, we will share a series of posts examining the education system, and the crucial role education has played in the lives of African Americans. We hope these posts will increase awareness, spark conversations, encourage self-reflection and lead to deeper explorations about the education system’s responsibility to a fair and just society.

Rubicon intentionally affirms the struggle for social justice and parity by African Americans because it actively dismantles systemic racism.  When we invest in truth telling to change attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs; when we correct even one misrepresentation or misunderstanding of who contributed to, shaped, and built this nation;  when we shine a light on systems that contribute to and perpetuate the cycle of disparity, disenfranchisement, and unequal access; when we engage in these acts, we chip away at systemic racism -- which is inextricably tied to the root cause of poverty.

The voice of our community is invaluable, and we invite you to share your thoughts, observations, and inspirations on Black History Month with us on Facebook and Twitter.