The Student News Site of University Preparatory School


Proposition 14:  gives a $5.5 billion general obligation bond for California’s stem cell research institute and makes changes to the institute’s governing structure and program.

For: The Coalition for Stem Cell Research and Cures led the fight to try and convince voters to approve the proposition, and was supported by Robert N. Klein II, Ann and John Doerr. If approved, the ballot measure would also increase the number of the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee from 29 to 35, create a fourth working group at CIRM, cap the number of bond-funded full-time employees at CIRM at 70, and establish training programs for undergraduates and fellowships for graduate students. 

Against: The Republican Party of California, Marcy Darnovsky ( an executive director of the Center for Genetics and Society), and 8 news organizations oppose the proposition. Marcy Darnovsky has argued that CIRM has conflicts of interest, and that the proposition outsources critical decisions on stem-cell research ethical standards to an unaccountable national committee, while also having no federal limitations on its funding.


Proposition 15: schools, community colleges, local government, property taxes, funding, homeowners, business owners

For: Teachers and Communities. Prop 15 is a measure that if approved will have more funds to build more schools, community colleges, and local government from wealthy taxpayers. It will increase property taxes on commercial buildings that earn more than 3 million dollars, in doing so providing 6.5 billion to 11.5 billion in new funding to local schools and government. Some pros are that it closes loopholes for wealthy corporations, cuts taxes for small businesses, and requires full transparency and plans to reclaim billions of dollars for schools. It does not impact homeowners as it would protect Prop 13’s full rights for renters and homeowners and cut property taxes on equipment, computers, and fixtures. It would also rebalance the scales, and invest in essential workers.

Against: Wealthy Business Owners. Voting no means that the property tax would stay the same for the commercial buildings, meaning no new government and schools because of lack of funding. The 12.5 billion increase of property tax that can increase the cost of living and make everyday items like gas, food, utilities, day care, and health care more expensive. Prop 15 will make the property tax increase the highest in California. Opposers say it is the first step in completely dismantling Prop 13 which the voters approved to stop skyrocketing taxes. Prop 15 lacks accountability, costing taxpayers 1 billion each year in bureaucratic expenses, and higher administrative costs.

Proposition 16: equity, equality, diversity, no racism, no discrimination, less favoritism.

For: Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Gavin Newsom, Black Lives Matter Co-Founders. Proposition 16 wants to remove Prop. 209 from the Californian Constitution. Proposition 209 states that people of the United States cannot oppress people or favor people with different race, gender, color, or ethnicity such as Asian, Native American, African American, European, and more. Prop. 16 would allow those factors like race, ethnicity, or gender, to play into admissions, hirings, and contracts. Supporters of Proposition 16 believe that Prop. 16 will guarantee equity for women, ethical backgrounds, and the dissolution of racism. They believe that Californian universities have tried to address racial inequality without considering race and that it does not make sense that they can look at every other factor of students’ lives except race. 

Against: Ward Connerly, Ling Ling Chang, Melissa Melendez, Tom Campbell, Bob Huff. Opposers of Proposition 16 say it is another method of separating people. They also say that people will use the proposition as a “crutch” and that racial preferences will not bring about true change. They believe it is equivalent to legalizing sexism and racism. Other opposers say it goes against Martin Luther King’s dream of judging people solely on the content of their character. They believe that public school reform would be better than “government sanctioned discrimination.”

 Proposition 17: Restores voting rights, state constitutional, porale rights.

For: JCRC, Kamala Harris, Anna Eshoo, Mark Stone, Ash Kalra, Democratic party of California, Libertarian party of California, Peace and Freedom Party

Against: Jim Nielsen, Republican Party of California. It states “Restores rights to vote after completion of prison term. Legislative constitutional amendment.” The ballot summary says, “amends state constitution to restore voting rights to a person who has been disqualified from voting while serving a prison term as soon as they complete their prison term.” This proposition, if the majority vote for yes, would change the state constitution to allow those on parole in California to vote and also run for office if the qualifications are met. As of now, citizens can not vote until they have fully completed their term but in some states, they are able to in the about 3 years or parole they have.


Proposition 18: voting rights, legal ages, teenagers, elections.

For: Gavin Newsom, Alex Padilla, Evan Low, and Kevin Mulin. The 2020 California Proposition 18 would allow 17 year olds to vote in primary elections if they will turn 18 by the general election. Supporters say that if 17-year-olds are able to vote sooner, there is a higher chance they will be more involved in the future. This would also put a boost on the number of how many people actually vote.

Against: Election Integrity Project California, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Opposers believe since they are not considered adults yet, 17 year olds might not be mature enough; they might also not have enough life experience to know what side to vote for. They say that most 17 year olds still live with their parents and can easily be influenced by them and anyone around them, including teachers.


Proposition 19: Tax transfers, Marijuana legalization and tax collection, local government

For: Pete Stark, Barbara Lee, Gry E. Johnson, Drug Policy Alliance, Marijuana Policy Project, ACLU of Northern California. Arguments in favor of Proposition 19 are that it will reduce Crime and racial bias, generate $1.2-$1.4 billion in direct taxes, and reduce police corruption.

Against: Kamala Harris, Steve Cooley, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, DARE, Mothers against drunk driving, The California Cannabis Association. Doesn’t require the public transit workers to be drug free, can’t be smoking on the clock of a job but can work having marijuana in there system, make it hard for police to do warrantless searches.


Proposition 21: Rent control, Affordable housing, prevent evictions

For: Michael Weinstein, AIDS healthcare foundation, Democratic party of California, Eviction Defence Network, Bernie Sanders, California Nurses Association. Supporters of this say proposition 21 helps to stabilize communities by allowing locals to give more freedom to rent control policies that decrease and maintain the rental prices that increase yearly. They say with the approval of proposition 21, it would be possible for there to be less work and more time with family and loved ones. They also say proposition 21 helps keep people off the streets and out of homelessness.

Against: Gavin Newsom, California Apartment Association, Essex Property Trust and Prometheus Real Estate Group, AvalonBay communities, California Business Roundtable. These opponents of proposition 21 say builders would have less money to build more houses. They include that proposition 21 would affect not only affordable houses being built but non affordable houses being built as well. Another reason the opponents oppose proposition 21 is it would be bad for California, knowing there is a huge housing shortage. It would decrease the revenue for all of the cities as well as state governments. They also say it is a bad idea to continue with this because it would only worsen the problem due to the pandemic.

Proposition 22: app-based driving, independence, wages, companies, employees, freedom

For: Senior Advocates, public safety, app-based drivers, community advocates. App-based drivers are people who work independently, are their own boss, and are not required to be tied to a company they work for. Proposition 22 allows App-based drivers to work whenever they want to or can. If it passes, they will have control of the hours and rides or deliveries they are willing to take, giving them the flexibility to do other things. 

Against: Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, app-based drivers. If it does not pass, app-based drivers will be hired as regular employees and get paid minimum wage all the time no matter how many rides they have or deliveries they make. They will have a steady income, and not have to rely on the numbers of rides or deliveries they make to get money. Those who oppose it say that they do not think it’s fair because they should be entitled to minimum wage, health care, and a minimum amount of hours to work.


Proposition 23: Kidney dialysis, Healthcare workers, wages, safety measures for facilities

For: Democratic party of California, SEIU-UHW West. Supporters of proposition 23 say that kidney patients need better treatment over what they get from an average dialysis facility, and these organizations haven’t put enough into the wellbeing of the patient. When they remove blood from their bodies it puts a massive amount of strain on their bodies and that could lead to huge medical issues. So having a doctor nearby means that during crises, a doctor can react right away.

Against: Republican party of California, DaVita Inc, Fresenius Medical Care, AMVETS, California Medical Association. Opposers of proposition 23 say prop 23 would make dialysis clinics cut services or close, endangering lives. They also say that prop 23 would limit available doctors and lead to packing in emergency rooms. The opposers believe that patients are already taken care of well and they don’t need more supervision.


Proposition 24: business, data, consumers, privacy, online, private information

For :Ben Allen, Jim Beall, Bill Dodd, Lena Gonzalez, Connie Leyva, Bill Monning. Proposition 24 would stop corporations from tracking our every online move. It would also put a safeguard on young people meaning it would be tripling fines for any violations involving children’s private information.

Against: James Czerniawski, Policy Analyst, Tech and Innovation, Libertas Institute, Jamie Williams, Jess Miers, CIPP/US, Legal Policy Specialist at Google, Jessie Reeves. Opposers think that it would ruin the rights that people in California already enjoy. They also think it’s an overall step backwards.


Proposition 25: changes the cash bailing system in jails to an algorithm that determines someone’s freedom on whether or not they are a safety risk

For: Karen Bass, Ted Lieu, Gavin Newsom, California Democratic Party. The new proposition would release all those awaiting a trial that are not seen as a safety risk which in turn would save the state of California roughly $5 million a day. 

 Against: Republican Party of California, Orange County Board of Supervisors, who opposes Proposition 25, this new proposition is biased and would use an algorithm instead of a real judge to determine whether or not someone should be allowed bail. They state that the new proposition would “deprive justice for victims of crime”, and overburdens local law enforcement.

Listen UP • Copyright 2021 • FLEX WordPress Theme by SNOLog in