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."
View original content to download
multimedia:https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/proposition-34-is-a-threat-to-our-health--democracy-consumer-watchdog-tells-the-california-supreme-court-302198613.html
SOURCE Consumer Watchdog