spectator.org
Californians Reject the Worst Initiatives
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Here are two of the more surprising granular results from Tuesday’s statewide elections in California. Even though San Francisco’s voter registrations are 63 percent Democratic and only 7 percent Republican, voters there opposed a far-reaching rent-control measure by a wide margin, 59–41 percent. The city’s famously progressive voters (although less so in recent years) also supported a tough-on-crime measure by nearly a two-to-one margin.
The city’s voters backed measures that float new bonds and increase the minimum wage, but their “no” on Proposition 33 and “yes” on Proposition 36 reinforced a pattern. As I wrote in The American Spectator last week, California voters tend to vote in a far more conservative manner on statewide initiatives than in their candidate selections. (READ MORE: Preview of California’s Initiative Frenzy)
This holds true in most election years. California voters have passed some notoriously bad initiatives over the years (1972’s Proposition 20 creating the California Coastal Commission), but they’ve also backed some great ones (1978’s Proposition 13 limiting property taxes). Our state’s leaders understand this reality, which is why Gov. Gavin Newsom and his allies successfully sued to keep a potential landmark tax-limiting measure off of this year’s ballot.
Obviously, Election Day results were even better after heading off of the peninsula. Proposition 33 was my biggest concern. Promoted for the third time by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, the initiative would have overturned the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act — a 1995 law that limited the ability of localities to impose far-reaching rent controls on residential properties. That law restricts vacancy controls and rent controls on newer buildings and single-family homes. More rent control will further dry up supply and exacerbate our ongoing housing crunch.
Statewide, voters rejected Proposition 33 by a 62–38 percent margin. That’s quite the smackdown. Based on the latest tally, voters also appear poised to approve Proposition 34 which restricts the ability of the abovementioned pro-rent-control group to spend certain federal healthcare dollars on political activity and other non-patient uses. It was, as opponents claim, something of a “revenge initiative” backed by apartment owners. Sometimes, however, revenge is sweet.
Voters’ support for Proposition 36, which is set to pass by an unimaginable 70–30 percent margin, was not surprising. Even liberal Californians are tired of the state’s crime wave, uncontrolled retail thefts, sprawling homeless encampments, and some failed criminal justice reform policies. It probably goes too far, but, as I explained, California’s Democratic leaders could easily have avoided this embarrassment had they taken a proactive approach to crime problems and not played cynical political games with crime policy.
Another encouraging sign, with almost all of the ballots counted, Proposition 32 is headed toward a solid defeat (52–48 percent). That measure would have once again increased the state’s minimum wage to $18 an hour. We learned in the national election that voters are tired of inflation — and California voters clearly saw the obvious connection.
They also rejected, 55–45 percent, an odd piece of progressive policy that claimed to “end slavery.” In reality, Proposition 6 would have removed the “current provision that allows jails and prisons to impose involuntary servitude to punish crime (i.e., forcing incarcerated persons to work),” per the ballot summary. Most voters understand that requiring inmates to work isn’t slavery. And this wasn’t the year for anything that smacked of being soft on crime.
Not surprisingly, voters approved, 61–39 percent, Proposition 3 providing a constitutional right to marriage. It was mostly for show since same-sex marriage has long been legal here. More significantly, Californians voted “yes” on two wasteful bond measures. Proposition 2 will spend $10 billion on public school facilities even though more than 40 percent of the state budget goes toward K-12 education. Proposition 4 will spend $10 billion on unneeded climate pork.
Unfortunately, Californians tend to vote “yes” on these spending grab bags given that state bonds don’t directly raise their taxes. These bonds do, however, tap a portion of the general fund for repayment and cost far more than the initial amount because of the interest on the debt. Between the two of them, the state will have to make an additional $1 billion annual payment.
On a more encouraging note, on Tuesday, voters showed fiscal prudence by rejecting (56–44 percent) Proposition 5, which would have made it easier for local governments to float affordable housing bonds. Those bonds directly raise property taxes. Voters also favored a technical Medi-Cal funding measure (Proposition 35) that had no official opposition, but it’s hard to draw any deep conclusions from that measure’s passage.
All in all, voters showed a remarkable level of common sense in their initiative votes — once again debunking the idea that voters can’t be trusted to wade through complex legislative matters. In fact, they do much better when presented with initiative language, summaries, and ballot language than when picking candidate names and their affiliated parties, which no doubt explains why progressives here have become increasingly hostile to direct democracy.
Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.
READ MORE:
Trump’s Morning in America
Donald Trump Wins!
The Bullet We Dodged, the Miracles We Experienced, the Idiot We Faced
The post Californians Reject the Worst Initiatives appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.
News Feed (Home)
Popular Posts 
Events 
Blog 
Market 
Forum 
Headline News
VidWatch
Game Zone
Top PodCasts
