Despite its reputation as one of the most progressive states in the nation, California voters rejected a number of progressive-backed ballot initiatives during the general election this November. While there’s no single explanation for why they failed, some progressive activists have cited money in the opposition and misleading campaign tactics as some of the likely reasons behind these losses.
Still, it’s worth looking at the measures individually, as there are some important lessons to be learned from the losses.
Voters were split on the split roll
Prop 15, also known as the split roll, would have closed a loophole that allows for commercial real estate properties to pay lower taxes. For decades, progressives have been fighting to overturn 1978’s Prop 13—the so-called “third rail” of California politics. Although it was supported by countless teachers’ unions, education advocates, progressive legislators and labor groups, Prop 15 ultimately failed at the ballot after a close race.
Both campaigns raised significant funds, with the Yes on 15 campaign raising about $63 million in total contributions compared to the opposition’s $60 million. Although the No on 15 campaign was backed by the California Business Roundtable Issues PAC and AMERCO, the Yes campaign had the fiscal support of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
However, the No on 15 campaign’s messaging relied on a tried-and-true scare tactic: claiming that increasing taxes will hurt everyone. Your gas, groceries and rents will go up, ads said; small businesses will suffer (Prop 15 would have only applied to commercial real estate properties valued at over $3 million). This is especially effective given the myriad economic concerns that have been compounded by the coronavirus pandemic.
Another likely explanation for Prop 15’s failure is simply that Americans tend to vote against tax increases. In fact, that’s the reason Prop 13 passed in the first place; its full name is the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation.
The solution? Better messaging.
For now, the untouchable Prop 13 remains standing. However, the fact that it was such a close race suggests that progressives may be getting closer to removing, or at the very least amending, Prop 13.
Bail reform
Prop 25 would have ended the use of cash bail in California. Considering the increasing demand for criminal justice reform, Prop 25 seems like it should have passed easily. Progressives, however, were split on this initiative, with many expressing wariness as to whether it would actually help those affected by a predatory bail system.
Mother Jones explained that “progressives have long argued that the cash bail system, which requires people to pay money as collateral if they want to get out of jail before their court hearings, disproportionately incarcerates low-income people of color.”
Some groups like Human Rights Watch and the ACLU expressed concern that Prop 25 would do more harm than good because it would grant more power to judges and prosecutors. Given the split among progressives regarding whether or not Prop 25 would be beneficial to communities of color, it’s no surprise that voters were also split.
But one ballot initiative received far less attention than others on the ballot: Prop 16.
A closer look at Prop 16
Prop 16 would have restored affirmative action in California. It was supported by a number of progressive and moderate Democrats, labor unions, the ACLU, the L.A. County Board of Education and the University of California Board of Regents, among others. Even corporations like Facebook, Reddit, Twitter, Instacart, Lyft and Wells Fargo supported Prop 16.
In an op-ed published in the Sacramento Bee, Varsha Sarveshwar, president of the UC Student Association, said, “Today, colleges can consider whether you’re from the suburbs, a city or a rural area. They can consider what high school you went to. They can consider your family’s economic background. They can look at virtually everything about you — but not race. It makes no sense — and is unfair — that schools can’t consider something that is so core to our lived experience.”
“Despite being one of the most racially and ethnically diverse states in the country, California is one of fewer than 10 states that bans affirmative action,” added Sarveshwar.
So why did it fail?
The likeliest answer is the opposition’s messaging. The No on 16 campaign is also known as the Californians for Equal Rights campaign. The official voter information guide describes a No vote as “keeping Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, public education and public contracting.”
The wording makes it sound like voting in favor of affirmative action means voting in favor of discrimination. According to a report by Inside Higher Ed, a poll conducted by the Latino Community Foundation found that a large number of voters did not understand what Prop 16 would actually do.
“Of those who understood that Prop 16 would allow such consideration, a clear majority — 65% to 34% — was in favor,” wrote Inside Higher Ed.
Additionally, and perhaps crucially, Prop 16 received little attention in comparison to other initiatives on the ballot.
A referendum on rent control
Perhaps the biggest frustration for progressives is the defeat of the local rent control initiative. The loss, however, shouldn’t come as a surprise after Prop 10 lost in 2018.
California’s housing crisis is vast. With sky-high rents, increasing gentrification, and a homelessness crisis — all of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic — passing Prop 21 should have seemed like a no brainer, right?
Well, not quite. Rent control initiatives tend to face uphill battles as the opposition tends to be very heavily invested in stopping these initiatives from passing.
Tenants Together is the only statewide renters’ rights coalition in California. Its communications and legislative director, Shanti Singh, cited “an overwhelming amount of money in opposition” as the primary reason for Prop 21’s failure to pass. “There are particular complications with repealing Costa-Hawkins at the ballot that allow the opposition to exploit misleading messaging,” said Singh. “Concessions to real estate that were made as reforms, like limitations on vacancy control, were weaponized against proponents (e.g., ‘your rent will go up by 15%’).”
“It’s what we’ve come to expect,” said Singh. “As with Prop 10 before it, nearly all of our member organizations heard from voters, especially renters, who were misled into thinking a vote against these measures would support rent control.”
Singh’s argument that misleading campaign claims are partially responsible for Prop 21’s failure echo what other activists and organizers have found. The Los Angeles Times, for example, states that rent control “initiative supporters have said that some voters told them they believed voting against the measures meant they supported rent control.”
Labor loses big with Prop 22
Progressives overwhelmingly opposed Prop 22, which sought to reclassify app-based drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. Its supporters included the Republican Party of California, the California State Sheriffs Association and the California Police Chiefs Association. The Yes on 22 campaign was primarily funded by Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Postmates and DoorDash.
Prop 22’s opponents included Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the California Democratic Party and numerous unions such as the California Labor Federation, Transport Workers of America and SEIU California State Council.
The Yes on 22 campaign vastly outspent the opposition. It outspent the No on 22 campaign by about $64 million. The Yes campaign’s expenditure totaled more than $186 million, making it the most expensive ballot initiative in California’s history.
The Yes campaign flooded the airwaves with ads claiming Prop 22 would benefit gig workers. Rideshare Drivers United organizer Nicole Moore told the Los Angeles Times, “The Yes campaign showed videos of single moms saying she wouldn’t be able to figure out how to make extra money for her family, so vote yes on Prop. 22. But in reality, she would have less in the bank under Prop. 22 than under basic labor law.”
She explained that many voters misunderstood what Prop 22 would actually do. “It’s hard, because if you polled people and asked ‘Do you think drivers get paid enough?’ people would say no, and if you asked, ‘Do they deserve basic minimum wage in California?’ most people would say yes. But that’s not how the question was posed,” she said.
Takeaways from the election
Despite the fact that many progressive candidates won elections in California, progressives sustained heavy legislative losses. “The California ballot measures were deeply disappointing to progressives across a variety of issues,” said Singh.
She explained that “misleading tactics” like those used against Prop 21 affected other propositions. “Many voters opposed Prop 15 because they were (wrongly) told that homeowners would be taxed. Many voters supported Prop 22 because there were (wrongly) told that it would guarantee healthcare for gig economy workers.”
Progressive activists and organizers, however, aren’t giving up the fight. “These are hard realities all of us doing the work on the ground must organize around, and respond to, together,” said Singh. The losses offer progressives a valuable takeaway: In order to combat misleading ads, progressives must make even greater efforts to reach voters and educate them on the ballot initiatives.
“We’re taking the bad with the good and moving forward accordingly,” said Singh.
