Why “YES” is the Right Vote on Prop. 50 and How to Explain it!

Probably every sentient being in CA received this glossy screed of misinformation, misdirection and outright nonsense from the “No on 50” campaign. It uses different arguments than what the “YES on 50” campaign is focused on, as they are reaching out to the MAGA and undecided demographic. But the damage of an unconstrained Trump for another two years will harm all of us, so we need to be able to competently push back against what they’re shoveling. There are 5 points to cover. Buckle up!

Note: See the grid at the bottom of this post of the legislators whose districts are involved in this proposition – what they promised and what they delivered!

  • The GOP Gerrymander in Texas: How they Rigged the Map (https://www.democracydocket.com/analysis/the-gop-gerrymander-in-texas-how-they-rigged-the-map/)
  • Trump Ordered Texas To Gerrymander 5 New Republican-Leaning Congressional Districts—This Is How Other States Can Fight Back (https://www.lwv.org/blog/whats-so-bad-about-voter-id-laws) “these commissions are well intentioned at moving American democracy toward better representation and more fair elections, their impact is limited by the fact that they are in place in less than a dozen states and are not evenly divided between states with Republican and Democratic governing control. The precise problem of commissions operating in so few states—and, within that, disproportionately in states governed by one party—is that that the system is susceptible precisely to this moment: political gerrymandering initiated by one party in the middle of the decade aimed at shifting the balance of power and circumventing the will of the people.“

EXTRA CREDIT!

Friends don’t let friends sign this petition!

(https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/regulations/current-regulations/elections/petition-processing-signature-verification-ballot-processing-and-ballot-counting#)

EXTRA EXTRA CREDIT!

Besides all the above, here’s our take on why YES of 50. (These are double-sided half-sheet flyers in both English and Spanish)

Downloadable and printable here: English Front, English Back, Spanish Front, Spanish Back

DEEPER DIVE

This hasn’t been the only bit of nonsense we’ve received from the “NO on 50” campaign, which has been almost completely funded by Charles Munger with a $30 million donation to keep CA from fighting back on equal terms against Texas. And although he was the main mover behind CA’s independent districting, championing giving “voters an informed choice,” his support for “NO on 50” “includes a recent mailer that falsely suggested to the state’s liberal voting base that progressive lawmakers and organizations opposed Newsom’s redistricting.

Remember this one?

“… Munger Jr was recently identified as the top funder of a controversial mailer that was widely circulated to households around the state.

The mailer, which is stylized as an official voter guide, urged California voters to oppose the mid-cycle redistricting in the upcoming special election. It featured quotes from progressive state legislators and organizations that suggested they endorsed the mailer’s message.

But not all of the quotes included in the reader were referring to Newsom’s redistricting plan, which had not yet been announced. And some of the people quoted have since clarified that they do not endorse the mailer’s message and never authorized the coalition’s use of their comments.

“The campaign resembled deceptive antiabortion and anti-union efforts that Munger Jr has bankrolled in the past.”

Amongst the untrue bits…

“(abc) Prominently displayed on the front page is a quote from the League of Women Voters of California.

The organization released a statement distancing itself from the flyer. 

“You may have received a mailer from ‘Protect Voters First’ about the redistricting ballot initiative this November. By naming our organization and quoting Gloria Chun Hoo, the mailer wrongly implies that the League of Women Voters of California is part of their coalition and endorses the information contained in the flyer. This implication is not correct — we are not part of that coalition. The League of Women Voters of California did not authorize this action,” the statement said.“

“(jacobin) The mailer also features a quote from Darius Kemp, executive director of nonpartisan government accountability group California Common Cause, stating, “Point blank, this is a dangerous move. We know independent redistricting works because California has been the national leader for years. We can’t afford to put our state’s democracy on the line during a time of national instability.”

But in a recent update, Common Cause’s national organization noted it is not opposing Proposition 50 because it complies with all six of its fairness standards for mid-decade redistricting. In comparison, Common Cause determined that the recently passed redistricting in Texas failed to meet its fairness criteria.

More on Mr. Munger

“(jacobin) The mailer is not the first time that Munger Jr has backed efforts that received blowback for deceptive practices. Despite his projected image as a nonpartisan “good government” advocate, he’s donated to numerous ideological organizations that have been accused of misleading conduct.

From 2004 to 2015, he donated $70,000 to First Resort (later renamed Third Box), an antiabortion group operating “crisis pregnancy centers” in the California Bay Area. Abortion rights advocates and critics contendthat these centers coerce patients out of having an abortion under the guise of providing free health services, and the city of San Francisco eventually passed a law prohibiting these clinics from engaging in what officials argued was misleading advertising.

Munger Jr has also used his wealth to attempt to reduce the labor movement’s political influence in California politics — efforts that again appeared to use misleading tactics in a bid to appeal to the state’s liberal voter base.

Back in 2012, Munger Jr donated $33,029,077 to a committee supportingCalifornia’s Proposition 32, one of three failed ballot measures that would have banned the state’s unions from using members’ dues to support political activities, a move that would have severely weakened labor’s capacity to influence state politics.

The measure, unlike its two predecessors (Proposition 75 in 2005 and Proposition 226 in 1998), was slammed for using deceptive tactics to appear ideologically neutral.

In an effort to appear fair to both labor unions and corporations in the state, the measure would have also barred companies from collecting funds from employees for political purposes. But according to critics, since corporations don’t collect membership dues like a union, the legislation would primarily impact the state’s unions.

Munger Jr has also provided financial support to multiple evangelical organizations that aim to further integrate Christianity into school campuses and the US legal system.

He reportedly donated $3,400 to the Christian Legal Society, an association of lawyers that celebrated the overturning of Roe v. Wade’s abortion protections and provided an amicus brief in support of Joseph Kennedy, a Washington football coach who was fired for leading prayerson the field.

Munger Jr also contributed nearly $83,000 to Campus Crusade for Christ (now known as Cru). The conversion-therapy-promoting organization seeks to promote campus ministries on college, middle, and high school campuses and has taught that “same-sex attraction is contrary to God’s design for human sexuality.”

The state’s redistricting battle is shaping up to be a costly endeavor. The campaign in favor of the redistricting plan recently received a $1 million donation from the California State Council of the Service Employees International Union, which represents state and local public employees, health care employees, and other workers, as well as $300,000 from Andrew Hauptman, founder of private investment firm Andell Holdings.

No matter the outcome, California’s redistricting fight is another instance of wealthy megadonors shaping democracy — and Charles Munger Jr is leading the charge.”

You may be wondering – Which districts would be affected if Prop 50 passes?

Five of these guys!

“NINE CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN members of U.S. Congress turned their backs on millions of children and families with their vote this summer to slash federal funding for health care and other basic services for our most vulnerable to pay for tax cuts for billionaires, corporations and the super-wealthy.”

Information from (https://www.cta.org/educator/posts/californias-republican-congressional-reps-vote-to-cut-services-to-families)

Voted for
Toxic
Billionaires’
Budget
Bill		Potential Impact
on his district:
Medicaid cuts over 10 years		Potential Impact
on his district:
Loss of health coverage		Other issues noted by California Teachers Association (CTA)
Doug LaMalfa
(District 1)		YES$3 billion33,820 residentsLied – stated that he would “protect rural health care” and criticized policies that would “harm access for vulnerable families,” climate change denier in wildfire-prone district
Kevin Kiley
(District 3)		YES$2.5 billion18,940 residentsLied – claimed he would oppose “any bill that jeopardizes health care for working families, also wants to privatize schools, opposed COVID safety and opposes unions.
David Valadao
(District 22)		YES$4 billion 55,000–70,000
residents
(highest nationwide)		Lied – stated he would “never support a bill that hurts my constituents who depend on Medi-Cal.”
Ken Calvert
(District 41)		YES$2 billion15,000–25,000
residents		Lied – stated he would not support “cuts to programs families rely on.” Also opposes LGBTQ+, approves of Trump agenda to expand vouchers and privatize education, voted to overturn the 2020 election results.
Darrell Issa
(District 48)		YES$1.5 billion 10,000–20,000
residents		Lied – “targeted reforms —not blanket cuts.”
anti-regulation, pro-corporate and anti-worker policies. Richest person in Congress voted for his own massive tax break

Leave a comment