The Republican donor ready to fight Newsom on redistricting

Politico

6 days ago

THE MUNGER GAMES TRILOGY — Charles Munger Jr. was one of California's best-resourced political hobbyists, a Palo Alto physicist who tapped a family fortune to sell voters on a series of good-government reforms before effectively announcing his retirement from ballot measure politics in 2020.
But Munger, the 68-year-old son of Warren Buffett's longtime business partner, has been drawn back to the fray by Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposed mid-decade partisan gerrymander of California's congressional districts. Newsom describes it as a tit-for-tat offset of a similar move underway in Texas, but there is one major difference between the two states: California voters would have to rewrite the state constitution to give politicians the right to intervene in the process.
Now, according to Munger advisers, the donor who spent $13 million to establish that constitutional status quo is ready to spend more in defense of a signature achievement. As Newsom attempts to rally support from skeptical Democrats nationwide for his plan to revert back to partisan line-drawing, Munger is taking early steps to assemble a campaign that could defeat a Newsom measure at the ballot in a possible snap election this November.
'Any attempt to undermine the nonpartisan California Redistricting Commission will be strongly opposed in the courts and at the ballot box,' Munger wrote earlier this month on a newly created X account that as of press time had 56 followers.
Prop 11, the 2008 amendment which first created an independent redistricting commission for state legislative districts, passed with about 51 percent of the vote. Its success was a bipartisan triumph: Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the measure's most vocal advocate, while prominent Democratic donors — including then- New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (at the time a political independent), media investor Haim Saban and former Netflix CEO Reed Hastings — were among its most generous backers.
Prop 11's proponents then came back two years later to extend the commission's authority to U.S. House districts in time for the decennial redistricting season via Proposition 20. This time, the campaign was funded almost entirely by Munger, an ideological moderate trained in atomic physics at U.C. Berkeley, who had given $1 million to pass Prop 11 before shelling out $12 million to the Yes on 20 campaign.
Newsom has said he would like to see California change its rules so that districting lines can be redrawn before the November 2026 midterm elections. (Newsom has spoken only of the congressional map and hasn't addressed whether his proposal would keep redistricting commission in place for state legislative seats.) That would likely mean a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on a special-election ballot this fall, leaving Munger limited time to rally opposition.
Munger has recruited campaign consultants and earlier this month began commissioning polls and focus groups to determine the contours of a campaign that would likely turn again to a coalition of Republican leaders and good-government progressives — albeit in a very different partisan environment.
'The governor is trying to develop a bit of a national profile and sees this as a vehicle for doing that,' said Dan Vicuna, a senior policy director for Common Cause, which submitted voter arguments for Prop 20 in 2010 and likely would play part in any revived coalition. 'We have a straightforward narrative. Republicans in Texas, Democrats in California, are doing what they always do with redistricting — using it to their political advantage … I kind of like our odds in that political fight.'
NEWS BREAK: Covid-19 spikes in California … Home prices drop in San Jose summer sales … University of California admits record number of California residents amid continued uncertainty.
Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM focused on California's lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. Drop us a line at [e-mail] and [e-mail], or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart.
TOP OF THE TICKET
A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past and future, certain and possible — getting our attention this week.
1. Save Prop 13 Act (2026?): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is preparing to decide which of three versions of a constitutional amendment to take to voters, despite being what president Jon Coupal says is 'a little bit disappointed' by ballot language the attorney general's office has drawn up for two of them. (The third should get its title and summary by the end of August.)
2. Gross receipts tax repeal (Los Angeles, 2026?): Southland chamber of commerce leaders have launched an an initiative effort aimed at the city's gross-receipts tax, part of a counteroffensive to the city's new $30 minimum wage law and a series of related initiatives targeting the tourism industry proposed by Unite Here Local 11.
3. School choice (2026?): Former Thousand Oaks Mayor Kevin McNamee is planning to file a constitutional amendment that would allow parents to use state money allocated to public schools for private schools or homeschooling instead. McNamee, who has enlisted Newsom recall veteran Mike Netter to develop a volunteer-driven petition drive, says he will file this week.
4. Prop 12 (2018): The federal battle over the animal-welfare initiative is dividing congressional Republicans, as Reps. Anna Paulina Luna, Andrew Garbarino and Brian Fitzpatrick take California's side against Rep. G.T. Thompson's efforts to gut the state's confinement regulations in an upcoming farm bill. They argue Congress shouldn't 'strip states of their right to govern agriculture practices within their respective jurisdictions,' according to a draft letter obtained by POLITICO.
5. Measure W (Alameda County, 2020): Oakland Mayor Barbara Lee has joined anti-homelessness activists in pushing the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to ensure hundreds of millions in sales-tax revenue go toward funding homelessness programs as promised by a 2020 ballot measure. An appeals-court judge ruled earlier this year that the county can spend the money however it wants because it was approved as a general tax and not a special tax.
6. Anti-incarceration funding (Los Angeles County, 2026?): The latest meeting of the task force to implement a sweeping governance reform approved by voters last fall was partially overshadowed by the administrative error that led the county to accidentally wipe out Measure J, a 2020 charter amendment to fund jail alternatives. A county attorney told the task force that officials are still figuring out how to fix that snafu — whether it can be handled administratively or would need to go before voters again in 2026.
7. Proposition K (San Francisco, 2024): Supervisor Joel Engardio is touting a 'first of its kind' endorsement from the Sierra Club as he aims to hold off a recall campaign triggered by a contentious initiative. The environmental group ranked him top amongst San Francisco supervisors on a recent scorecard, in part due to his support for closing off the coastal Great Highway to create a city park.
I'M JUST A BILL
BAY AREA TRANSIT FUNDING: Big business interests are hoping to smooth over a rupture within the coalition behind a likely November 2026 regional transit initiative by changing the conversation from how the measure would be funded to what it would actually do.
Thus far the internal debate within the transit-funding coalition has revolved around the type of tax that could be used to raise cash for BART, MUNI and other struggling systems. The Bay Area Council, which has been expected to help fund a campaign, wants a half-percent sales tax. A labor-backed coalition called Bay Area Forward would like to instead see a gross-receipts tax, arguing voters concerned with cost of living would be more likely to support a tax paid by businesses.
The Bay Area Council has begun making the case that rewriting the measure so it promises to upgrade public transportation, rather than simply maintaining service, can raise support for the sales-tax proposal. Rather than switch the funding mechanism, the group — whose corporate members would saddle the cost of a gross-receipts tax — is proposing the measure direct revenue to 'rider focused improvements' and include a financial efficiency review to ensure they do.
Although there is already language in SB 63, the legislative vehicle that now awaits a hearing in the Assembly's appropriations committee, that notes the need to improve 'public transportation service,' it's not clear exactly how those promises will manifest in the final ballot language.
'It's unlikely that voters will support a tax increase that only funds status quo operations,' said Emily Loper, who leads transportation policy for the Bay Area Council. 'We need to deliver a better system for voters to support.'
ON OTHER BALLOTS
Seattle's electorate will weigh in next week on whether to continue the city's 'democracy vouchers' program, which gives voters each four $25 coupons that can be donated to political candidates of their choosing ... A court in Miami ruled the city can't postpone elections planned for this fall until November 2026 without giving voters a chance to weigh in, POLITICO's Kimberly Leonard reports for Florida Playbook ...
A conservative advocacy group in Colorado has launched an initiative effort to exempt tips and overtime pay from state taxes, aligning the state's policy with provisions in Congress' recently passed megabill ... Environmental groups in Oregon are considering gathering signatures for a constitutional amendment that would guarantee residents the right to a healthy and safe climate after the state legislature declined to refer a similar measure to the ballot ...
Slovenia's parliament voted to cancel planned national referendums on defense spending and the country's NATO membership ... and President Donald Trump's insistence on reverting the Washington, D.C. NFL team's name to the Redskins may inadvertently aid progressive backers of an anti-stadium ballot, POLITICO's Michael Schaffer writes in his 'Capital City' column.
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ...
PROP 63 (2016): Nearly 10 years ago, California voters approved a first-in-the-nation rule that banned high-capacity ammunition magazines and required background checks for the purchase of other bullets. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals may have finally cast the deciding No vote on the measure.
The citizen's initiative was developed by Newsom, then serving as lieutenant governor, whose ballot-measure committee ran the $3.3 million campaign. The coalitions broke down along predictable partisan lines, with the California Democratic Party spending to pass it and the state's most prominent Republicans against. (Barbra Streisand was on one side, Steven Seagal the other.) The initiative received 63 percent of the vote, slightly better than Hillary Clinton did on the same November 2016 ballot.
Prop 63 faced multiple legal challenges from gun-rights groups representing citizens who claimed their constitutional rights were being violated. The 9th Circuit has thus far upheld the ban on high-capacity magazines, although the California Rifle & Pistol Association has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal. But in a separate case, a three-judge panel ruled last week that 'California's ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,' upholding a lower court's injunction against it.
Newsom called the decision 'a slap in the face,' but neither he nor Attorney General Rob Bonta has declared plans to appeal it.
POSTCARD FROM ...
… SANTA CLARA: In recent years, many municipalities across the state have embarked on the unglamorous task of updating their aged city and county charters, many originally drafted in the 1940s and 1950s.
Some, like Oakland, have pitched the changes as an antidote to all that ails them. Others, like Redondo Beach, aim to avoid outdated requirements like posting lengthy code changes in newspapers. Still more, like Alameda County, have preferred targeted reforms that nevertheless raise accusations of power grabs or political maneuvering.
Now, as Santa Clara takes its bite at the charter-reform apple, city attorney Glen Googins is trying to get ahead of any concerns that the proposed changes the city voters see on a 2026 ballot are anything more than a boring local government at work on boring local-government things.
'It's really a very wonky exercise,' Googins said. 'This couldn't be less of a power grab.'
Googins, who as Chula Vista's city attorney helped direct a 2022 charter revision there, was well aware of the hurdles and hoops an outdated founding document can place on a city when he joined Santa Clara's staff two years ago. One notable, time-consuming example Googins cites: a provision in the Santa Clara charter that required the council to approve any public work that costs over $1,000.
'At one time $1,000 was a lot, but now it's a ridiculous number for the city council to have to approve,' Googins said. 'It's not that anyone wants the public not to be aware of things. It's just good government.'
The city council voted to empower a committee to review potential charter changes, including one that would raise the $1,000 threshold, which the council would then place before voters on the 2026 ballot.
THAT TIME VOTERS ...
… PASSED A VET: Californians have seen ballot measures on a wide variety of questions related to the state's military veterans, including to:
Change tax policy for private property, with certain groups including war veterans exempted (1920, failed) ... Issue up to $10 million in bonds for U.S. Army and Navy veterans to acquire or develop farms or homes (1922, passed) ... Establish the Veterans Board as an independent agency with a board appointed by state officials (1985, did not qualify) ... Restore affirmative-action policies for disadvantaged groups, including disabled veterans, in educational opportunity programs, public contracts and employment (1996, did not qualify) ... Regularly audit the Cal-Vet Loan Program and impose criminal penalties on any state employees or others who knew of asserted wrongful use of Cal-Vet money (1999, did not qualify) ... Recommend that the U.S. government fund the Department of Veterans Affairs to provide quality and accessible health care to eligible veterans (2007, did not qualify) ... And allow the Legislature to provide full or partial property tax exemptions for homes belonging to disabled veterans or a disabled veteran's spouse (2012, did not qualify).