Given the predictive nature of California’s statewide elected offices (not a single Republican tapped by voters in nearly 20 years, since before the world saw the first iPhone or Kindle reader), it’s the Golden State’s ballot measures that offer more drama—and arguably a better window into California’s political and policy soul.
Here, let’s give California’s state government credit for a job well done. Each election, the Golden State’s secretary of state (that’s California’s chief election officer, not to be confused with the likes of the Hoover Institution’s own Condoleezza Rice, former US secretary of state), puts out a very detailed voter information guide. For this November election, that includes nearly 50 pages of background, analysis, and argument regarding the 10 ballot measures awaiting the electorate’s verdict.
I’ll spare you a deep dive into all of 2024’s ballot initiatives. What you should know: five of the measures are the result of public demand, while another five came from the state legislature. Meanwhile, a record-setting seven initiatives were withdrawn or removed in late June, shortly before the California ballot went to press.
The end result: a ballot that fans of limited government can embrace—“limited” in that it’s a slimmed-down initiative slate compared to recent presidential years gone by (Californians voted on 12 ballot measures in November 2020 and a very tedious 17 measures in November 2016).
Here are four things to ponder regarding this year’s initiative slate, now that voting season is underway in California.
1. Vox Populi . . . or Iratus Populus? The first of those two Latin phrases you may recognize, “voice of the people,” which one could argue is true of a winning ballot measure that’s received a majority of the electorate’s vote. But it’s the latter phrase—Latin for “angry people”—that helps determine which way the electorate steers.
And just how “angry” are Californians these days? Perhaps “concerned” is a better descriptor. Per this September survey conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC), a majority of likely voters (53%) believe the Golden State is headed in the wrong direction. That’s an improvement from June (62% wrong direction) and roughly the same as a year ago (55%).
The reason for mentioning this: think of a ballot initiative with fiscal implications (a tax increase, a bond that puts that state deeper in debt, expansive government) as something akin to asking a parent for a raise in one’s allowance: no matter how strong your argument, you’re at the mercy of your parent’s mood at the time of asking. Time will tell what a not-so-happy electorate has to say on questions of further government spending (more on that in a moment).
Which leads us a second initiative-related question . . .
2. Mail Bonding. That’s a reference to California’s state government mailing every registered voter a ballot—a ballot whose initiative slate begins with Proposition 2 and the question of a $10 billion bond for school construction and repairs (here’s a nonpartisan analysis).
Like many a California policy matter, school repairs is a complicated topic. Unlike many states, California doesn’t pay for such repairs through a permanent funding source. Instead, it comes from voter approval of state and local bonds.
Where things get complicated in trying to forecast Proposition 2’s outcome: the question of Californians voting with their minds or their hearts.
For while the betterment of schools would seem a noble cause, a $10 billion bond to underwrite that pursuit has troublesome fiscal consequences. Once interest is factored in, the actual repayment cost is closer to $17.5 billion; per California’s state treasurer, California’s current bond indebtedness is $71.4 billion, with another $26.2 billion authorized but not yet issued—and the state, at present, setting aside $8 billion in the annual general budget to tend to that debt obligation (if approved, Prop 2 would take that up to about $8.5 billion).
Will Proposition 2 sink or swim? That same PPIC poll shows it enjoying 54% support, which is no-man’s-land in the world of ballot measures, as late voters to tend to say no to new ideas. (An old California political adage: ballot measures “start high and finish low.”)
On the other hand, maybe present-day California is in a more accepting mood when it comes to racking up bond-related debt. Proposition 4 (a $10 billion bond for “safe drinking water, wildfire prevention, and protecting communities and natural lands from climate risks”) ran 9 points higher than Proposition 2 in PPIC’s poll (here’s a nonpartisan analysis).
Then again, maybe the bond proponents noticed this trend . . .
3. Not a Bonding Agent. History will show that California governor Gavin Newsom has been terrrific at personal advancement/survival—in two gubernatorial elections, in 2018 and 2022, plus a recall vote in 2021, Newsom never finished below 59.2% of the popular vote.
But when it comes to selling the California elecorate on the need for more bonds, Newsom’s record over that same time span isn’t so stellar.
Four years ago, Newsom campaigned across the state on behalf of that’s year’s Proposition 13—$15 billion in general obligation bonds for schools and college facilities. The measure was soundly rejected (a 6-point loss), the first time since 1994 that California voters declined a statewide education-related bond issue.
Fast-forward to earlier this year and Newsom once again stumping for a bond measure on California’s primary ballot. That would be Proposition 1, $6.38 billion in general obligation bonds to fund housing for homeless individuals, including mental health care and drug-and-alcohol treatment facilities, which Newsom sorely wanted as a legacy item.
Curiously, Newsom and his allies didn’t showcase down-on-their-luck Californians in their media campaign. Instead, the governor starred in televised ads. Which was odd in that (a) Newsom wasn’t terribly popular at the time; and (b) his two-decade record on homelessness, as California’s governor and San Francisco’s mayor, has been more about bluster than breakthroughs.
In the end, Newsom got his way on Proposition 1 . . . though barely (a 0.4% win, or a difference of a little over 26,000 votes out of nearly 7.25 million ballots cast). Which suggests California’s governor isn’t always the ideal pitchman. And may also explain why Newsom recently told reporters that he doesn’t have the “bandwidth”—i.e., the time or the inclination—to campaign against a current ballot proposition he doesn’t like.
About that measure . . .
4. Crime and (Voter) Punishment? Newsom was alluding to Proposition 36, which aims to increase punishment for theft crimes. (For crimes involving money or property theft valued at $950 or less, individuals with two or more prior theft convictions would be charged as felons, sentenced with up to three years in custody depending on their criminal past.)
As such, it undermines 2014’s Proposition 47, which reduced certain crimes from felonies to misdemeanors—in doing so, Prop 47 critics claim, triggering rampant retail theft across the state.
Newsom’s aversion to campaigning against Proposition 36 may have more to do with math than time management. September’s PPIC survey reported 71% of likely voters in favor of the measure (85% support among Republicans; 63% among Democrats; 73% among voters with no party preference). A subsequent Berkeley IGS Poll has 60% of likely voters in favor (83% of Republicans; 47% of Democrats; 58% of no-party-preference voters).
So how to undermine such support? Getting back to the notion of voters’ hearts and minds, Proposition 36’s detractors have turned to a money argument: pass the ballot measure and it will take away state money already dedicated to Proposition 47’s funding streams.
One other reason to keep an eye on Proposition 36: how it impacts other contests—in particular, a contentious Los Angeles County district attorney’s race featuring progressive incumbent George Gascón and conservative former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman. Will the county’s electorate engage in ticket-splitting—approving Proposition 36 while also voting to retain Gascón, who coauthored Proposition 47—or will the public’s frustration with crime prove to be the DA’s undoing?
And to think that some would like to end California’s initiative system and its tradition of direct democracy that dates back to the early days of the 20th century.
Denying us a window into California’s zeitgeist? That would be a crime.
