Consumer Federation of California

Leading college student newspaper editorials urge a NO vote on Proposition 33, a measure that threatens graduates with massive auto insurance rate surcharges:

The Daily Guardian, UC San Diego: "Proposition 33 is another way for insurance companies to squeeze more money from drivers… This is especially bad for lower income people who don’t have insurance yet or are inconsistent with their insurance… With this proposition, graduates will be forced to pay higher insurance, even if they’re perfectly safe drivers."

UCLA Daily Bruin: "What proponents do not tell you about Proposition 33 is that new drivers or people who let their insurance lapse because they did not need to drive for a period of 90 days or more in the past five years, would have to pay a higher amount… These higher premiums would even be dealt to people who have perfect driving records but did not have insurance for an extended period of time because they were not driving… For these reasons, this board urges voters to say "no" to Proposition 33."

The Daily Californian, UC Berkeley: "[T]here are many other reasons that someone may not have maintained continuous auto insurance coverage ‘ Prop. 33 could easily jack up insurance rates for innocent customers… This idea was rejected in 2010 for good reason. It must be rejected again. Vote no on Prop. 33."

The Daily Nexus, UC Santa Barbara: "Proposition 33 is not intended to benefit consumers but to ensure future profits for insurance conglomerates at the expense of the downtrodden."

Opinion writers at college newspapers also point out Prop 33’s harm:

The Poly Post, Cal Poly Pomona: "Prop. 33 ensures optimal profit for auto insurers" by Lindsay Floyd: "It sets consumers at a clear disadvantage and at risk of being abused by profit oriented insurance companies… Californians should vote no on Proposition 33…The offering of a discount is purely meant to lure consumers into voting yes and into these bigger insurance agencies’ offices. But the reduced prices are a myth and, in reality, the discounts will be on customer satisfaction."

Spartan Daily, San Jose State University: "Proposition 33" by Dennis Biles "[T]he fact is that insurance companies don’t exist to save us money. Their only goal is to maximize profits. When you throw in the fact that the main funding contributor to this measure is the founder of Mercury Insurance, George Joseph, it raises suspicion."

Sonoma State Star, Sonoma State University: "A closer look at California’s initiatives" by Noah Tenney "Prop 33 says it will offer discounts to California drivers when they switch insurance companies, but Mercury Insurance Corp CEO George Joseph has mainly written it to enrich himself, while for drivers it could actually be more costly (especially to college graduates who dropped their coverage), so a no vote from me."

Graduates face the daunting task of finding jobs in a lingering recession. Most will need to buy a car to get to work. Prop 33 would hit good drivers with an insurance rate penalty simply because they avoided the costs of car ownership while attending school.

College students agree with consumer, labor, senior and civil rights groups and 40 daily newspaper editorials: Voting No on Proposition 33 stops a billionaire from lining his pockets at the expense of millions of California consumers.

Learn more at https://noonprop33.consumercal.org/  and https://stopprop33.consumerwatchdogcampaign.org/.