​This proposition makes changes to policies related to criminal sentencing charges, prison release, and DNA collection. It would reclassify many misdemeanors as “wobblers,” permitting crimes to be either misdemeanors or felonies. These would include firearm and vehicle theft, and unlawful use of a credit card as well as serial crime, regardless of content, and organized retail crime. The proposition would prohibit early release by reclassifying crimes as “violent.” Other crimes, committed prior to 2014 reforms, would require the perpetrator to have his or her DNA on file. Furthermore, rather than having the parole board consider applicants on the basis of fulfilling their sentences and in-prison behavior, this proposition directs the parole boards to consider the person’s age, employment prospects, etc. In sum, a person could remain in prison, regardless of compliance, if he or she were poorly educated and less employable; often racially biased. This proposition will undermine past sentencing reform measures passed by voters in recent elections. Crime is significantly lower in the past few years per the Public Policy Institute of California. These new standards would not stop crime but will swell our prison population through reclassification of offenses, to no discernable public benefit.

​Expands local governments’ ability to implement rent control on some housing now covered by the 1995 Costa-Hawkins Act. Under the CHA, rent control cannot be implemented for housing built or occupied after 1995. Rent control cannot be used on dwellings with distinct titles such as single-family homes, condos, townhouses, etc. In light of the soaring rents in every part of California, this year’s Proposition 21 would allow local governments to abolish some CHA provisions. It upholds the bar on property first occupied in the past 16 years owned by natural persons (not those owned by corporations) with no more than two separate units, e.g., single family, condos, duplexes, subdivided units such a cooperative and community apartments. In all other eligible properties, local governments can limit rent increases to 15% during the first three years after a vacancy. While it does nothing to reduce current rental rates, it would slow the further rate increases for new tenants. Because the decision will remain in local control, it gives voice to local citizens based on perceived differences in their own communities, housing stock, and rental demand.

This referendum challenges a state statute to replace cash bail with risk assessments for suspects awaiting trial. SB 10 gave the courts discretion to assess low, medium, and high-risk defendants who could be released or detained on those assessments rather than on a demand for cash bail. Most proffering bail had to come up with 10% for a bail bond from a private provider, and if that was impossible, the defendant languished in jail. Wealthy people got out. Poor people remained. However, SB 10 did not actually improve chances of greater justice. “Risk assessment” may be racially, culturally, and economically biased. There are no guidelines in SB 10 for what sets determinations. All three CA affiliates of American Civil Liberties Union opposed SB 10 with its unintended racial biases and potential for greater not lesser inequity. ACLU is not opposing this ballot measure since it is sponsored by the for-profit bail industry. IMPACT, however, believes the greater good requires revisiting the entire issue to assure real justice. Because it is a referendum, a YES vote is to UPHOLD SB 10. A NO vote is to return to cash bail while we revisit the issue on risk assessments and other criteria.

Recommendation: SUPPORT via a NO vote