HERE ARE HJTA's BALLOT RECOMMENDATIONS

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. Find a polling place at www.voterstatus.sos.ca.gov.

Ballot measure recommendations

Candidate endorsements

Click here to request yard signs or door hangers.

Our "No on 5" yard signs help spread the word that
Proposition 5 on the statewide ballot will unleash property tax increases after
every election. Prop. 5 makes it easier
to raise taxes, cutting the vote needed from the current two-thirds (66.7%)
down to just 55%. We have signs in our Los Angeles office. Help
us stop the tax increases! Tell your friends and neighbors to vote No on 5.

HJTA's QUICK GUIDE TO THE STATEWIDE PROPOSITIONS:

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.

Click here for printable version

GENERAL ELECTION - NOVEMBER 5, 2024

Statewide Propositions

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 Alameda County

No on Berkeley Measure EE

Imposes a $0.13 per square foot tax increase on building improvements
for pedestrian infrastructure. This measure 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.

No on Berkeley Measure FF

Imposes $0.17 per square foot tax increase on residential building
improvements and $0.25 per square foot tax increase on other properties
for road repairs. This measure 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.

No on Berkeley Measure GG

Imposes a tax increase of $2.9647 per therm of natural gas consumed in
buildings larger than 15,000 square feet for decarbonization programs.
This measure 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 El Dorado County

No on South Lake Tahoe Measure N

Imposes a tax on properties that are used less than 182 days per year.
This measure is a vacancy tax that 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 Kings County

No on Avenal Measure B

Imposes a vacancy tax on property unused or unoccupied commercial spaces
and uninhabited residences up to $1,000 per linear foot of frontage,
transit occupancy tax of 15% and progressive business license fees from
.05 percent to .475 percent of gross receipts for general municipal
purposes. HJTA opposes all vacancy taxes.

In Los Angeles County

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. This measure 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.

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. This measure 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.

No on LAUSD 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 Orange County

No on Orange 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 Sacramento County

No on Folsom 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 San Diego County

No on Measure G

Imposes a 0.5 percent transactions and use tax for public transportation
infrastructure. This measure 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.

No on National City Measure R

Imposes a parcel tax on property owners from $75 to $1,000 depending on
property type for street and park purposes. This measure 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 Sonoma County

No on Measure I

Imposes a 0.25 percent transactions and use tax for early childhood
development and health programs. This measure 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 Sutter County

No on Yuba City 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

Clickhere 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 Assembly 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.

Paid for by Protect Prop 13, a
Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, No on Prop 5

Paid for by the Howard Jarvis
Taxpayers Association State PAC

Not authorized by a candidate or
a committee controlled by a candidate

** This is email id #418842 sent by Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. To unsubscribe from this list, please reply to this email. **