Primary Election 2024: Ballot Measure and Proposition Voter Guide

Proposition 1: Neutral

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES PROGRAM AND BOND MEASURE

(Legislative Statute)

CAIR-CA holds reservations regarding Proposition 1’s potential impact on (1) involuntary treatment centers and communities of color, (2) reallocation of county funds, and (3) narrowing of Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) recipients.

1. California has made large strides in reducing investments into involuntary/forced/locked treatment options for persons with severe behavioral needs. These types of facilities are not trauma-informed, evidence-backed, and disproportionately admit people of color. By reinvesting in housing interventions which include these forms of treatment, California risks regressing into discriminatory and ineffective systems of care.
2. County funds currently finance community-based services and supports. Proposition 1 would reallocate these funds to housing interventions with an additional percentage reallocated to the state budget, thus decentering local, community-based resources.
3. The MHSA currently serves a spectrum of behavioral health needs and Proposition 1 would shift funding towards a subset of the population with the most severe needs, thus affecting intervention and prevention services provided by the counties.

CAIR-CA supports the state’s desire to address the homelessness crisis and housing those with severe behavioral challenges but have concerns over Proposition 1’s efficiency and the long-lasting impact it may have on the remainder of the population and particularly on California’s communities of color.

SUMMARY

Proposition 1 makes a number of amendments to reallocate funds towards substance use disorders, complex behavioral health issues, and housing services for the served population into the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). Please see the below sections on supporting arguments and opposing arguments for the pros and cons of Proposition 1.

Proposition 1 would:

• Amend the name of the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) to the Behavioral Health Services Act (BHSA).
• Allocate funds to housing persons with substance use disorders and severe behavioral health issues.
• Change how county mental health plans are required to spend revenues from Proposition 63 which passed in 2004 and enacted an additional 1% tax on income above $1 million, dedicating revenues to counties to fund mental health services and programs. Under Proposition 1, 30% of the revenues would be allocated to housing intervention programs.
• Require counties to allocate their BHSA funds as follows:
  • 30% for housing interventions.
  • 35% for Full Service Partnership programs.
  • 35% for behavioral health services and supports.

Revise the allocation of state-level funds:

• At least 3% to the Department of Health Care Access and Information to implement a statewide behavioral health workforce initiative.
• At least 4% to the California Department of Public Health for population-based mental health and substance use disorder prevention programs. A minimum of 51% of these funds must be used for programs serving Californians who are 25 years or younger.
• Shift about 10% of dollars from counties to the state. This would result in about $140 million annually redirected to the state budget. However, this amount could be higher or lower depending on the total amount of revenue collected from the tax.

Fiscal Impact:
Proposition 1 does not generate new revenue; it reallocates existing revenue.

In terms of bonds, Proposition 1 would issue $6.380 billion in bonds to the Mental Health Services Act. The proceeds from the bond issue would be allocated as follows:

• $1.05 billion for permanent supportive housing for homeless veterans who have mental health or substance abuse disorders,
• $922 million to fund permanent supportive housing for people experiencing or at risk of homelessness and have behavioral health needs; and
• $4.393 billion for grants for behavioral health treatment and housing eligible under the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program.

Note: Prop. 1 would not change the tax on people with incomes over $1 million per year. This means counties would be expected to expand their scope of services without an increase in revenue.

Supporting Organizations

Supporting organizations: TreatmentNotTents, Governor Newsom’s ballot measure committee, is the leading campaign supporting Prop. 1. Other supporting organizations include:

• California Business Roundtable
• California Chamber of Commerce
• California Hospital Association
• League of California Cities
• Mental Health Services Oversight and Accountability Commission
• National Alliance on Mental Illness California

Supporting Argument: Supporters claim that Prop. 1 would prioritize existing funds and generate new funds for Californians with the most severe behavioral health needs and those living in encampments. Other supporters assert that the proposition is a beneficial component in advancing the variety of interventions needed to address California’s housing and homelessness challenges. Supporters of Prop. 1 include California Big City Mayors as well as some behavioral health and housing advocates.

Opposing Organizations

Opposition: Californians Against Proposition 1 is the leading campaign against Prop 1. Other opposing organizations include:

• Cal Voices
• Disability Rights California
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
• League of Women Voters of America
• Mental Health America of California
• ACLU

Opposing Argument: Opponents, including disability rights advocates and peer support advocates, argue that Prop. 1 represents a significant regression in the treatment of mental illness and substance use disorders, likening its impact to a 50-year setback. This perspective stems from allowing funding to be used for involuntary or forced treatment facilities. Opponents also claim that Prop. 1 could result in reduced mental health services for Black, Indigenous, and other people of color.

Measure B: YES

Amend County Charter to update recall language

SUMMARY: Measure B will swap out the county’s existing rules for the recall of an elected official and use the state’s rules instead. Measure B would not require those who circulate a recall petition to be registered voters, it would increase the timeline for recalls, and it would affect only elected officers, not those who are appointed. The measure would increase the number of signatures required to get a recall election onto the ballot and and increase the time the county would have to verify signatures.

RATIONALE: Measure B would put Alameda County in line with the recall laws of most other counties that follow state guidelines, undoing the decades-long Alameda County charter. Proponents say the current Alameda County charter is outdated and needs fixing. This measure would require more scrutiny and guardrails for politically motivated recall campaigns

Measure A: NO

Appointed City Clerk Measure

SUMMARY: This measure would make the office of city clerk an appointed rather than elected position.

RATIONALE: CAIR-SFBA believes it is beneficial for the public to democratically select the people they feel will best represent them. The city clerk should answer to Contra Costa voters—not the city. Voters have chosen the city clerk for many years.

Measure A: NO

Appointed City Clerk Amendment

SUMMARY: This measure would make the office of city clerk an appointed position by the city manager rather than an elected position.

RATIONALE: CAIR-SFBA believes it is beneficial for the public to democratically select the people they feel will best represent them. The city clerk should answer to Santa Clara voters—not the city. Voters have chosen the city clerk position for many years.

Measure B: NO

Appointed Chief of Police Amendment

SUMMARY: This measure supports a charter amendment to make the Santa Clara chief of police an appointed rather than elected position.

RATIONALE: CAIR-SFBA believes it is beneficial for the public to democratically select the people they feel will best represent them. The police chief should answer to Santa Clara voters—not the city. Voters have chosen the police chief for many years.

The Measure B ballot question is also potentially misleading as it neglects to mention that the Police Chief is currently an elected position. Voters deserve to make informed decisions with context intact.

Proposition B: NO

Police Officer Staffing Conditioned on Future Funding

SUMMARY: This measure would amend provisions regarding minimum police officer staffing levels and establish a fund for police officer recruitment and staffing. However, these provisions would only go into effect if voters approve a new future tax or amend an existing tax in the future to fund the provisions in the charter amendment.

RATIONALE: CAIR-SFBA does not support measures that can lead to increased police funding. Instead, CAIR supports reducing police department budgets to reinvest in critical social services, health, education, and other beneficial programs. This specific measure also adds a tax to increase staffing and funding, which puts the burden on taxpayers and not the city.

San Francisco Police Department funding is growing by 8.5 percent in the proposed 2023-2025 budget—one of the largest departmental increases. San Francisco Mayor Breed has also confirmed an increase in the police budget. We believe any subsequent increases require more revision and scrutiny.

Proposition D: YES

Changes to Local Ethics Laws

SUMMARY: The proposed ordiance expands rules and prohibitions on gift-giving, bribery, behested payments, and conflicts of interest for city staff, elected officials, departments, and lobbyists. The proposed ordinance also requires annual ethics training for city employees with decision-making authority. The proposed ordinance would require a supermajority approval from both the Board of Supervisors and the Ethics Commission to amend most city ethics laws. This measure does not affect the ability of voters to amend ethics laws through ballot measures.

RATIONALE: This is an anti-corruption measure that would reform the city’s conflict-of-interest regulations by introducing clearer restrictions on gifts to public officials. Additionally, it mandates further ethics training for these officials and other changes in light of recent ethics scandals. Proposition D was placed on the ballot by the San Francisco Ethics Commission and is supported by both the San Francisco Democratic and Republican parties.

Proposition E: NO

Police Department Policies and Procedures

SUMMARY: Sponsored by San Francisco Mayor Breed, this measure would allow police to install security cameras on public property and use drones to monitor certain crimes, expedite reporting procedures for officers’ use of force, and require the commission to gather more feedback from the public.

RATIONALE: Proposition E undermines oversight, accountability, and transparency. It threatens community-supported initiatives addressing police violence and discrimination against communities of color. The proposition will allow the concealment of officer violence, increasing secret surveillance without safeguards and diminishing the power of the independent police commission.

Proposition F: NO

Illegal Substance Dependence Screening and Treatment for Recipients of Public Assistance

SUMMARY: This measure requires drug screening of individuals who are receiving County Adult Assistance Program (CAAP) benefits and are suspected by the city of using illegal substances. It requires the individual to participate in treatment programs (if the treatment program is free) to continue receiving assistance benefits.

RATIONALE: This proposition would do away with basic services and support systems in favor of a system that conditions public assistance on mandatory screenings based on “reasonable suspicion” that could easily be used to target vulnerable people.

Further enforcement measures could exacerbate the problem. Requiring mandatory screenings for eligibility of support could cause people to lose housing and income. Stable housing and supportive services offering a path to treatment would more adequately aid people experiencing drug addiction and homelessness.