LOS ANGELES, July 16, 2024 /PRNewswire/ — Proposition 34, currently scheduled to appear on the November 2024 ballot targeting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (“AHF”), violates the California and United States Constitutions and threatens the health of those living with HIV and our democratic institutions, Consumer Watchdog told the California Supreme Court in an amicus letter filed today.
Download the letter here.
Under the guise of protecting patients, the California Apartment Association–backed Proposition 34—the so called “Protect Patients Now Act of 2024″—is retribution against AHF for its advocacy supporting affordable housing. AHF has been an outspoken advocate for rent control, including with its Proposition 33, also slated for the November 2024 ballot.
As noted in Consumer Watchdog’s letter to the Supreme Court, the California Apartment Association has made clear that Proposition 34 is indeed intended as payback for AHF’s rent control advocacy and appears intended to force the world’s largest HIV/AIDS advocacy organization to close its doors. The attack on AHF and affordable housing would have dire consequences for those living with HIV or at risk of contracting the disease.
As Consumer Watchdog pointed out in its letter today:
“Housing stability is essential to individuals living with HIV, as well as preventing the spread of the disease. According to the Center for Disease Control, ‘[p]owerful HIV prevention and treatment tools help keep people healthy and prevent HIV transmission, but nonmedical factors, known as social determinants of health, also influence HIV-related health outcomes.’ A lack of affordable housing options is one such social determinant of health and can undermine access to HIV treatment and prevention services.”
Consumer Watchdog urged the state’s highest court to bar Proposition 34 from appearing on the ballot in November. According to the letter submitted today:
“Perhaps most glaringly, the Initiative violates the United States and California Constitutions as an illegal Bill of Attainder. (U.S. Const., art. I, §§ 9–10; Cal. Const., art. I, § 9.) Because such a law may never be enacted under either the state or federal constitutions, it thus should not be presented to the voters.”
The Bill of Attainder clauses of the U.S. and State Constitutions prohibit ballot initiatives and other laws that single out an entity and impose harsh and extreme punishment on past conduct.
Prior court decisions have found that such measures should not be presented to voters:
“The presence of an invalid measure on the ballot steals attention, time and money from the numerous valid propositions on the same ballot. It will confuse some voters and frustrate others, and an ultimate decision that the measure is invalid, coming after the voters have voted in favor of the measure, tends to denigrate the legitimate use of the initiative procedure.”
(American Federation of Labor v. Eu (1984) 36 Cal.3d 687, 697.)
Proposition 34 requires AHF to perform specific and punitive duties that would render AHF’s continued operation impossible, including spending 98 percent of its revenues generated in California from the federal 340B Discount Drug Program (“340B program”) on what the Initiative self-servingly defines as “direct patient care” (leaving a two percent margin for operating expenses).
The 340B program is funded by pharmaceutical companies, not taxes, as some supporters of Proposition 34 have claimed.
Proposition 34 would also permanently revoke “any and all pharmacy licenses, health care service plan licenses, or clinic licenses,” prohibit AHF and its owners, officers, and directors from applying for pharmacy and other related health care service licenses for a 10-year period, and revoke AHF’s tax-exempt status for a 10-year period. (Initiative, Section 14124.47(b)(1)–(5).)
According to Consumer Watchdog,
“The proposed Initiative is a poorly veiled attempt by the California Apartment Association to silence a political adversary. If it is allowed to be put to the voters, no organization in the future will be safe from similar retribution by monied opponents. This Court should prevent this unconstitutional initiative from being placed on the ballot.”
SOURCE Consumer Watchdog
