For the 2024 California Primaries
(UPDATED 4 March 2024)
Welcome to the 2024 Edition of Roger’s Recommendations! What follows are my observations about the key issues at stake in this year’s California Primary Election – one major Proposition, a key opening in the U.S. Senate, and a few other local elections of note. (And, of course, there’s the issue of the upcoming Presidential election as well.)
So, let’s begin . . . .
PROPOSITION 1
- A “YES” vote on Prop 1 renames the Mental Health Services Act (2004) to the Behavioral Health Services Act and expanding its purpose to include substance use disorders, including for persons without a mental illness;
- changes how revenue from the 1% tax on income above $1 million is spent under the law, including requiring 30% of the Behavioral Health Services Fund be allocated to housing intervention programs;
- increases the size of the oversight commission from 16 to 27 voting members; and
- issues $6.38 billion in bonds to fund housing for homeless individuals and veterans, including up to $4.4 billion for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment facilities and $2.0 billion for housing for homeless persons.
Two decades ago, California voters passed Proposition 63 – the Mental Health Services Act – as means of attacking the growing mental health crisis in the Golden State. 20 years later, Californians are faced with a new opportunity to confront the growing problem of homelessness, addiction and an epidemic of increased proportions in the world of mental health services. On the surface, Proposition 1 appears to address all of these issues. But a closer examination reveals a different outcome.
For openers, adding in the treatment of those dealing with substance abuse issues seems like a good idea – but it potentially expands the scope of this initiative to untenable requirements. The number of Californians dealing with addiction issues has skyrocketed over the past 20 years, and its conceivable that many residents grappling with issues such as paranoia, Schizophrenia and the like might see their access to treatment actually LIMITED due to the system being overrun with new patients – and a serious lack of qualified caregivers available to treat them.
In addition, the focus on creating more opportunities for housing intervention SOUNDS admirable – but the requirement to allocate 30% of the Behavioral Health Services Fund to “housing intervention programs” drastically reduces the amount of available funding for medical intervention.
And then there’s the “More Government Doesn’t Always Mean BETTER Government” component: increasing the Oversight Commission from 16 to 27 voting members does not assure that the Commission will be more any more effective at doing their job – but it DOES insure taxpayers will have a larger bill to pay for these services. And speaking of PAYING MORE: more than $6 BILLION in new State bonds means a good return for investors. But who winds up paying the interest on the bonds? YOU DO through higher taxes. It will take somewhere between $10 and 12 BILLION in new taxes to eventually retires these bonds – and those funds will be generated through HIGHER TAXES.
So, while promising to “improve” the mental health treatment system in California, Proposition 1 is l the kind of Trojan Horse the Golden State can’t afford. I RECOMMEND A ‘NO’ Vote on Prop 1.
United States Senator
This year’s California Primary offers a unique opportunity for voters in the Golden State. On Tuesday, 5 March, we’ll be heading to the polls not only to select who will be on the ballot to run for the U.S. Senate 5 November . . . but we’ll also be voting to elect a candidate who will head to Washington, D.C. IMMEDIATELY to be sworn in as the Junior Senator from California.
Sound confusing? Well, there’s a simple explanation as to why this taking place.
As you may recall, back on 19 September 2023, long-time California Senator passed away. Her passing created a unique opportunity for California voters. Since she was last voted into office during the 2018 Midterms, her seat was already scheduled to be on the ballot during the 2024 election. So, when you see U.S. Senate on your Primary ballot, that’s the seat you’ll be voting to fill. HOWEVER . . . you may have ALSO noticed the designation U.S. Senate SPECIAL ELECTION on your ballot. So on Tuesday 5 March, you will be voting to nominate one of the two candidates who will square off for this hotly contested Senate seat in November. But you will ALSO have the opportunity to elect the person who will fill Diane Feinstein’s seat until January 2025.
There are no fewer than 30 candidates for the November ballot – considerably fewer for the Special Election to fill the seat for the next year. So let me make this easy for you: simply vote for STEVE GARVEY for both. J
The top 3 Democrats running for this coveted seat would all be disastrous for the state (Adam Schiff, Barbara Lee or Katie Porter). But Steve Garvey has emerged as the top Republican candidate and is leading all 3 of his Democrat counterparts heading into the Primary. (Of course, if he does make it on to the November ballot, he will certainly have an uphill climb. But if he IS successful in the Special Election, we may wind up with a GOP Senator from California for the first time since John Seymour in 1992.
It’s a bit of a longshot – since both seats (the remainder of Ms. Feinstein’s 2018 term as well as the full six-year term to begin in January 2025 would have to withstand a massive challenge from Democrats. But a unified Conservative front – and a LOT of prayer – could turn things for the better. That’s why I RECOMMEND VOTING FOR STEVE GARVEY for BOTH the U.S. Senate as well as the U.S. Senate SPECIAL ELECTION.
For the rest of my recommendations regarding this year’s California Primaries, I encourage you to click the link below. Over the years – and with very few exceptions – my friend and colleague Craig Huey and I have tracked together consistently more than 80% of the time regarding candidates, propositions and initiatives. His team at Election Forum does a remarkable job of compiling comprehensive data statewide and then curating those findings into one, easy-to-use document. Craig and his team have compiled their data for the 40 largest counties in California (out of a total of 58) so you can easily find his recommendations for your county.
Thank you for praying, voting and then engaging the culture for the cause of Christ with your vote!