I recently presented several non-partisan discussions explaining the propositions on the November ballot. Until those presentations were completed, I did not want to disclose how I voted. Now that the presentations are behind me, I want to use this column to briefly discuss each measure and how I voted.  It is often difficult to analyze propositions because they are written in legalese and advertising about the measure is sponsored by special interest groups and can be misleading. Indeed, many of the political advertisements oversimplify the situation.  Proposition 2: Authorizes a $10 billion general obligation bond issuance by the state to finance the construction and renovation of schools. It also changes the way bond proceeds are allocated among school districts so that districts in low-income neighborhoods would likely receive a greater share of funding. I voted “yes” because the issuance of general obligation bonds by the state is generally the most financially efficient way to fund school construction.  Proposition 3: Amends the California Constitution to remove Proposition 8 language that marriages are only recognized if they are between one man and one woman. Because a person’s vote on this measure is dependent upon the voter’s beliefs, I am not making a recommendation on this measure.  Proposition 4: Authorizes the state to issue bonds to finance several environmental and climate activities, including clean water and certain climate-related matters. I was torn on this one because I am concerned that similar previous measures have not generated the promised results, but I decided to vote “yes” because we need to spend money on many of the endeavors funded by these bonds.  Proposition 5: Reduces the voting threshold for bonds that finance housing and infrastructure from two-thirds to 55%. This proposition undoes a guardrail established by Proposition 13 in 1978, so I voted “no.”  Proposition 6: Amends the state Constitution to remove a provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime by forcing incarcerated persons to work. I voted “yes.”  Proposition 32: Increases the minimum wage to $18 per hour and then adjusts future minimum wage amounts annually by the Consumer Price Index for workers. When wages increase faster than employee productivity, two trends inevitably result: Short-term inflation followed by automation replacing human labor. I voted “no” on this measure.  Proposition 33: Repeals the Costa Hawkins Act, which prevents local governments from imposing rent controls. Anyone who has taken a freshman economics class knows that price controls only exacerbate shortages. Because the adverse collateral consequences of rent control are enormous, I voted “no.”  Proposition 34: This initiative attempts to reign in the political activities of a charitable organization that provides medical services to AIDS/HIV patients. Generally, the tax laws prohibit such organizations from engaging in political activities, but the IRS apparently lacks the bandwidth to audit potential abuses by charitable organizations. This initiative is carefully designed to curtail this particular organization’s political endeavors. It also codifies an executive order issued by Gov. Gavin Newsom to reduce the state’s cost of paying for prescription drugs under the Medi-Cal program. I am torn by this proposition. On one hand, an organization is diverting tax-exempt dollars from charitable activities to fund progressive political activities. On the other hand, I believe this proposition sets a bad precedent by sanctioning a single entity or person. I like the fact that Newsom’s executive order (which saves taxpayer money) is codified. On balance I decided to cast a “yes” vote, but I certainly understand why people would vote “no.”  Proposition 35: Provides permanent funding for Medi-Cal health care services. This measure is backed by both political parties and is a no-brainer. I voted “yes.”  Proposition 36: This proposition modifies many of the provisions enacted by Proposition 47 ten years ago. Proposition 47 reduced many theft and drug-related crimes from felonies to misdemeanors. Proposition 36 increases the punishment for some of these crimes. It creates a new treatment-focused court process for some drug possession crimes. Finally, it requires the courts to warn those convicted of selling or providing illegal drugs to others that they can be charged with murder if they keep doing so and someone who uses drugs provided by them dies. This proposition makes needed changes to the laws enacted by the passage of Proposition 47, so I voted “yes.”  You may disagree with my conclusions. Several propositions were close calls and I could have gone either way in my decision to support or oppose the measure. Whether you agree with my choices or not, it is important that you exercise your right to vote on each proposition.  Jim de Bree is a Valencia resident. The post Jim de Bree | Sifting Through the Legalese of Propositions appeared first on Santa Clarita Valley Signal.