Latest news with #Prop35
Politico
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Politico
How to governor-proof an initiative
Presented by Our Sun. Our Power. WHAT BALLOT MANDATE? — Supporters of last year's two most popular statewide ballot initiatives found that spending tens of millions of dollars to qualify and pass their proposals wasn't enough to keep the measures' most high-profile critic, Gov. Gavin Newsom, from disregarding them in his latest budget proposal. Newsom's moves to undercut last year's Propositions 35 and 36 raise strategic, political and legal questions for organizations hoping to go to the ballot in 2026 or 2028. How do you convince funders to pour millions into a measure — and persuade voters to support it — if the governor can undo it on a whim come budget season? 'There may be a new approach taken on making sure that you're governor-proof on something, certainly if it's related to the budget,' said Rob Stutzman, a Sacramento-based consultant who worked for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and many interests at the ballot before and since. Prop 35's backers across the health care industry specifically drafted their initiative to prevent state leaders from sweeping billions of dollars into the general fund in tough financial years, and 68 percent of voters agreed with them. But Newsom, facing a large deficit, announced Wednesday he would do exactly that (just as he wants to repurpose millions in revenue generated by Prop 56, the tobacco tax increase passed in 2016). Also missing from Newsom's budget proposal was money for the drug treatment, probation, social workers and administrative costs experts say is required to properly implement Prop 36, the tough-on-crime initiative voters also overwhelmingly passed in November over the governor's opposition. 'It's like he's purposely wagging his fingers at the voters and saying, 'I told you so, and since I told you so, I'm not going to fund this thing, or I'm going to take money from it when you didn't want me to in the first place,' state Sen. Roger Niello told Playbook. 'I'm at a loss to understand why he's doing it.' Interest groups unhappy with their lot in a state budget typically follow two main ballot strategies for recourse. They can ask voters to establish a new source of revenue (like the Prop 56 tobacco tax, for example) or pass a statute that attempts to lock in a funding stream for a specific purpose (like Prop 35). But Newsom's budget casts doubt on how enforceable either of those will be once voters have passed a measure. Tom Hiltachk, a veteran lawyer who specializes in ballot-measure clients — including the proponents of last year's Prop 36 — said governors have long tried to shortchange initiatives by refusing to fund them. Initiative backers typically consider the scenario when drafting their proposals, he said. 'The actions of the governor to disregard the policy preferences of the electorate, as most recently evidenced by the 2024 election results, is unfortunately not a new concern for initiative proponents,' he said. Backers of a measure like Prop 36, which changed sentencing rules but did not include a direct mechanism to pay for expanded prisons or mental-health treatment beds, could opt to build funding into the proposal itself. That poses its own challenges: Suddenly you're asking voters not only to change policy but possibly raise their own taxes, too. Molly Weedn, an adviser to the Yes on 35 campaign, told Playbook that the coalition that passed Prop 35 is considering a range of legal and political options to ensure the initiative is properly implemented. Going forward, she said, campaigns will need to think inventively about how to keep governors' hands off the piles of money voters create via the ballot. 'The current climate, both with the budget and what's going on federally, gives the opportunity for organizations to be creative with how they pursue solutions,' Weedn said. 'We may be surprised what sort of creative outlets people come up with.' — With help from Rachel Bluth NEWS BREAK: Drake calls for Newsom to pardon fellow Canadian rapper Tory Lanez after prison stabbing … California officials react to Joe Biden's cancer diagnosis … San Jose fire captain charged with stealing drugs from station. 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 eschultheis@ and wmccarthy@ 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. Measure Z (Santa Cruz, 2024): Almost three weeks after the first challenge to a statewide ban on soda taxes took effect, the American Beverage Association has still not filed a widely expected lawsuit. The Santa Cruz city attorney is among those now speculating that the beverage industry fears a losing lawsuit may harm its position more than any courtroom victory would help. 2. Transit tax (Bay Area, 2026): Among the losers in last week's budget revision were Sen. Jesse Arreguín and Assemblymember Mark González, whose request for a $2 billion infusion for BART and MUNI didn't make Newsom's list of priorities. The lawmakers had proposed the money to maintain service levels while transit operators ask voters to back new taxes to fund the system on next year's ballot. 3. Local tax thresholds (2026): Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is hoping to ride shotgun on the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association's drive to make it harder for local governments to raise taxes. The Republican lawmaker, who had introduced a similar amendment earlier this year, has begun raising money for his grassroots apparatus Reform California with promises to support a petition drive behind whichever version of the measure the business community chooses to support. 4. Measure B (Cathedral City, 2021): The California Fair Political Practices Commission slapped a $31,500 fine on the Palm Springs-area resort haven for using public funds to promote a 2021 ballot measure voters passed that places new restrictions on short-term vacation rentals, a warning sign to other city halls looking to change policy via the ballot. 5. City charter reform (Los Angeles, 2026): Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass has named her picks to serve on the city's charter reform commission, as well as a new executive director to steer the effort. As POLITICO's Melanie Mason reported this morning, Bass's delay doing so has thus far slowed the commission's work. Now, with a quorum in place, the commission can get started — with the goal of putting its proposed changes before voters in November 2026. 6. Pay for performance (San Jose, 2025?): San Jose Mayor Matt Mahan's efforts to tie elected leadership's pay to performance may not need to go to the ballot, the Mercury News reports, based on a charter provision that allows city officials to voluntarily reduce their salaries. But the council members who would need to vote to do so are increasingly wary of an idea that could cut their paychecks by at least five percent. 7. Measures A & B (Huntington Beach, 2025): The campaign over control of the public library in this Orange County beach town is entering its final weeks, and the Yes side is out with its latest cozily bookish tactic — a rhyming Dr. Seussian mailer. The June 10 vote is being watched nationwide, as Emily reported in a story this weekend, inspiring librarians to consider the merits of fighting back against MAGA book bans via the ballot rather than through the courts. ON OTHER BALLOTS Voters in Louisiana may be asked to ban foreign contributions to ballot-measure campaigns after lawmakers advanced a proposed constitutional amendment on the topic … Signature-gatherers in Michigan will be working to qualify two dueling constitutional amendments requiring proof of citizenship to vote after a second proposal on the topic was cleared for circulation just a month after an initial proposal … Smart & Safe Florida, the group leading the push to legalize recreational marijuana via the Florida ballot, has signed onto a lawsuit against a recently enacted law it says would place 'draconian restrictions' on those looking to qualify future measures for the ballot … Lawmakers in Missouri passed legislation to overturn Proposition A, the ballot initiative voters approved in 2024 to implement paid sick leave … And an anti-tax group in Ohio moved a step closer to seeing its proposal to eliminate property taxes on a future ballot after the state's attorney general said its proposed title and summary were 'fair and truthful,' clearing the proposal for consideration by the Ohio Ballot Board. I'M JUST A BILL HOUSING BOND (AB 736): Assemblymember Buffy Wicks' proposal for a $10 billion affordable housing bond received Newsom's endorsement last week, a boost for the bill as it enters a crucial phase of the legislative process. 'We need to support a bond to address the issues of housing, yes, affordability, but also infrastructure,' the governor said during his presentation of his May revised budget proposal, calling the bond 'foundational' to the state's efforts to promote housing affordability. Newsom's comments were 'a shot in the arm' for the bond's chances of making it onto the 2026 ballot, said Ray Pearl, executive director of the California Housing Consortium, which represents developers, builders and public-sector interests and is backing the bond. 'Having him put his finger on the scale and say this is important is a signal — not only to advocates, but especially members of the Legislature — that this is going to be looked upon favorably should it get through the legislative process.' Pearl said the bond's backers hope to see it on Newsom's desk this fall, so that it can appear on the ballot in 2026. After passing through committee, AB 736 is set to be considered among dozens of other costly bills in the suspense file next week. WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ... PROP 24 (2020): California's landmark Privacy Rights Act enshrined an individual's right to control his or her personal data and created the nation's first privacy enforcement agency. But it's facing a serious stress test from Big Tech and Republicans in Washington as policymakers are forced to reread the four-year-old initiative in light of advances in artificial intelligence. The controversy hinges on three words buried near the back of the 34-page measure approved by 56 percent of voters: 'automated decisionmaking tools,' a technology that uses algorithms and often AI to assist or replace human decision-making in areas like health care, hiring, education and criminal justice. California's Privacy Protection Agency, the regulatory body created by Prop 24, argues that the initiative's language requires the agency to draft rules protecting the right to opt out of sharing personal information with ADMTs. Big Tech, business groups (led by the California Chamber of Commerce) and even Prop 24 architect and CPPA board member Alastair Mactaggart pressured the agency for months to cut AI regulations from the draft rules, contending the 2020 measure never specifically mentions AI. The agency's five-member board reluctantly pared back the draft rules earlier this month over objections from labor unions and consumer privacy advocates. But the Prop 24 debate is far from over, thanks to Congress. Republicans in Washington are considering a 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations, including rules governing ADMTs. It's a longshot idea but one that's gaining steam with tech industry lobbyists and powerful Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz. CPPA Executive Director Tom Kemp urged Congress to abandon the proposal in a letter sent last week, arguing it would 'strip away many crucial [privacy] protections' guaranteed in Prop 24. POSTCARD FROM ... … WESTWOOD: A year after a violent face-off between student protesters and police shut down campus, UCLA undergraduates last week tried their hand at a different California collegiate tradition of dissent: the ballot measure. The 33,040-person electorate faced three initiatives as part of annual student elections, all related to increasing or maintaining quarterly fees to fund various student programs and services. The university is one of many in California with such provisions for direct democracy, one of the few avenues offered for the student body to try to make demands of school leadership, rather than the other way around. For students, some not yet old enough to vote for president, the vote represents their first chance to take a spin on the direct-democracy merry-go-round. In prior elections, many have responded to that opportunity with a shrug, with turnout struggling to reach the 20-percent mark required for an initiative to pass. 'A lot of people don't know what's happening,' said Holly Hebden, a senior and the president of a campus organization called Good Clothes, Good People, which placed a student-fee initiative on the most recent ballot. 'They have other stuff going on.' Making matters more difficult for those trying to indoctrinate their peers into ballot-measure culture are the restrictions on campaigning that campuses impose on student organizations. According to Hebden, her group was allowed to hand out fliers in just one designated campus location and only during specific weeks and times. 'I want to have an impact on my campus and this is the most direct way I see to do it,' said Hebden. 'But it's been harder to reach the threshold.' Even winning at the ballot doesn't guarantee change. In 2018, Chico State students voted down fee increases on three separate occasions, only to have the administration proceed with the change anyways, according to CalMatters. Still, university ballot measures are not some middle-school class president exercise in play-politics. The issues that students vote on have real-life ramifications for student experiences. Hebden's organization, for example, provides free school and hygiene supplies to financially insecure students. As of Friday night, her initiative was passing with majority support and 28 percent turnout. 'Students haven't had this much control over this particular fee. A lot of this money goes to campus administration,' Hebden said. 'Now have direct, unilateral control over this fee and what it's utilized for.' THAT TIME VOTERS ... … GOT BEHIND THE WHEEL: Californians have seen ballot measures on a wide variety of questions related to cars and driving, including to: Impose a one-cent-per-gallon gas tax on top of the pre-existing two-cent license tax (1926, failed) … Require registration fees to be equal regardless of the type of fuel or engine used in a vehicle, and all revenue used for highway purposes (1936, failed) … Impose a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit on California highways (1976, did not qualify) … Repeal a state gas tax and exempt motor vehicle fuels from sales tax (1980, did not qualify) … Require all vehicles registered with the California Department of Motor Vehicles be classified by color and specific model, and require any change of color to be reported within 10 days (1993, did not qualify) … Increase the gas tax by four percent to fund transportation programs and projects like light rail, commuter and intercity rail systems and bicycle projects (1994, failed) … Require the California DMV to make 12 decorative vehicle decals (one per month) available for public purchase for an annual fee of $240, which would go into an 'I Helped Save the Golden State' fund for education, social service, parks and recreation, and environmental protection programs (2004, did not qualify) … Allow buyers of used cars to return them to the dealer and cancel their purchase within three days and receive a full refund, limit dealer loan fees and require 'certified' used vehicles to be inspected by a qualified technician (2005, did not qualify) … And prohibit the sale of gas-only and diesel-only passenger vehicles and light trucks manufactured after 2020 (2020, did not qualify).
Politico
15-05-2025
- Health
- Politico
There are no best friends on budget day
MEDICAL DEBT: For a man who came into office calling himself the 'health care governor,' filled his office with health industry insiders and enjoyed massive financial and campaign support from the health care sector, Gavin Newsom made some surprising moves to close the state's budget shortfall. The budget plan Newsom unveiled yesterday not only includes deep cuts to Medi-Cal and Planned Parenthood — it also sweeps billions of dollars from a health care ballot measure championed by a who's who of health care interests into the state's general fund, sparking intense and personal backlash. Newsom has had an exceedingly close relationship with prominent players in health care, especially organizations like the California Medical Association and Planned Parenthood. Leaders from Planned Parenthood, a major force in Democratic politics, handed out 'WE LOVE GAVIN + JEN' T-shirts on election night in 2018, and helped Newsom fend off a recall attempt in 2021. The governor's inner circle is full of people who have notched time in the industry — either in-house or as consultants — like Jim DeBoo, Erin Mellon, Stuart Thompson, Anthony York, Brandon Richards, Dana Williamson, Dustin Corcoran and Jason Kinney. The ties are personal, not just political. For those who don't remember: Proposition 35 was an effort from the most powerful health care interests in the state to lock up the proceeds of a tax on some health insurance plans. Instead of letting the governor move all of it into the general fund (as all previous governors had done), the doctors, hospitals, health plans and others hammered out a statewide ballot measure that directed the money to specific pay increases for Medi-Cal providers. The measure passed with an overwhelming 68 percent of the vote back in November, designating rate hikes for certain medical specialties to strengthen the Medi-Cal safety net. But, but, but: Newsom hated Prop 35. He complained that it tied his hands budgetarily, overly prescribing the funds and not giving him enough flexibility to spend. The governor never formally opposed it but made his feelings known whenever he was asked. The rift between Newsom and his longtime allies only deepened after the election, when they bemoaned that he was dragging his feet implementing the measure. Now, it's clear he wants to go back on it entirely. The rage-filled backlash to Newsom's budget announcement was almost instant. 'We believe the Administration's proposal to swipe Proposition 35 funds in order to backfill the state's budget is not only a direct violation of state law, but also a snub to the millions of California voters — 68% — who supported this ballot measure last fall,' said California Hospital Association President Carmela Coyle in a statement excoriating the 'smoke and mirrors budget.' California Medical Association President Shannon Udovic-Constant said Newsom was breaking promises in order to fill a budget hole of his own making. Meanwhile, the governor's office is still blaming Prop 35 for the state's budget woes. A spokesperson pointed to it as the reason why the latest budget proposal cut over $500 million from Planned Parenthood's budget, saying the ballot measure left the state with an 'unfunded mandate' to contend with. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California President Jodi Hicks — who glowingly live-tweeted Newsom's 2023 debate performance against Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis on Fox — delivered one of the most blistering critiques. 'With this May Budget Revision, Governor Newsom is effectively defunding Planned Parenthood in the state of California,' Hicks said. 'Make no mistake: this crushing proposal — the same morning Congress debated whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood nationwide — would immensely harm patients in California.' These funding decisions are not yet final and must be negotiated with Democratic lawmakers. But if nothing changes, there's a chance some of Newsom's longtime friends and allies take him to court. A statement from Molly Weedn of the Prop 35 coalition said the proposal 'raises serious legal concerns and disregards the will of California voters.' IT'S THURSDAY AFTERNOON. This is California Playbook PM, a POLITICO newsletter that serves as an afternoon temperature check on California politics and a look at what our policy reporters are watching. Got tips or suggestions? Shoot an email to lholden@ WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TODAY MILES TO GO: The Assembly's embattled sex trafficking bill advanced off the floor today — but author Nick Schultz's respite likely won't last for very long. Schultz and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas negotiated amendments to AB 379 that would make it easier for prosecutors to charge felonies for soliciting 16- and 17-year-olds for sex — with exceptions for those within three years of a victim's age. (That agreement only came after original author Maggy Krell, a Sacramento Democrat, dragged her caucus through an embarrassing debate over sex trafficking.) Democrats mostly fell in line to move the bill out of the Assembly today, with the exception of Oakland Assemblymember Mia Bonta, who declined to vote on it. LaShae Sharp-Collins, a San Diego Democrat, previewed a possible fight to come in the Senate over another portion of the bill that adds penalties for loitering with the intent to solicit sex workers. 'History has shown that these types of crimes are disproportionately used against people of color and those experiencing poverty,' she said on the Assembly floor. 'When laws are vague, they are ripe for profiling.' Sharp-Collins said her future support for the bill would be contingent on amending that section of the legislation. She's likely to get her wish. Schultz on Monday acknowledged the loitering provision 'is another piece that will change.' IN OTHER NEWS PROP 36 BUDGET WOES: Opponents and proponents of tough-on-crime ballot measure Proposition 36 aren't giving up on their push for state money — even after Newsom's revised budget largely hung them out to dry. The Senate Public Safety Committee and Budget Subcommittee on Corrections, Public Safety, Judiciary, Labor and Transportation met today for an informational hearing on the initiative, which increased penalties for some theft and drug crimes. In particular, local officials continue to lobby lawmakers for resources to implement a portion of the ballot measure that requires drug treatment in exchange for dropping felony penalties. County behavioral health agencies will need $95 million to $213 million annually for evaluations, court-related activities and treatment, said Michelle Cabrera of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California. 'On the one hand, we're going to have our local courts and law enforcement partners telling us that we must address the treatment needs of individuals coming through this as a matter of justice and due process,' Cabrera said 'On the other hand, we're going to have Medi-Cal beneficiaries who are competing for those same scarce beds.' OH SNAP: As Newsom and state lawmakers figure out how to close a $12 billion budget gap, federal lawmakers are actively worsening the situation. The House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday night voted along party lines to advance legislation that could cut $300 billion in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding, kicking the cost down to states, our Grace Yarrow reported. The GOP proposal would create the largest overhaul in decades to the SNAP program — which helps more than 42 million people in the U.S. pay for food — by forcing states to share the cost of food-stamp benefits. The House Budget Committee plans to combine the legislation with other legislation to curb federal spending before a floor vote. But the GOP's plans for the so-called megabill may be hitting a roadblock, our Mia McCarthy and Meredith Lee Hill report today. At least three hard-liners are now pledging to oppose the legislation, calling Speaker Mike Johnson's Memorial Day deadline for a floor vote into question. WHAT WE'RE READING TODAY — The Supreme Court today sounded inclined to rein in the use of national injunctions by judges to halt Trump's policies, including the president's order to end birthright citizenship. (POLITICO) — Sacramento Democratic Rep. Doris Matsui says that a bill approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would 'rip massive holes in the states' budgets that are nearly impossible to fill.' (San Francisco Chronicle) — FEMA cuts to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities grants might cause Rancho Palos Verdes to spend nearly its entire annual budget on its worsening landslide zone. (Los Angeles Times) AROUND THE STATE — San Diego may dip into the city's reserves for the first time in years amid budget problems. (San Diego Union-Tribune) — The average San Jose renter needs to make over $130,000 a year to comfortably afford payments. (San Jose Mercury News) — Sacramento Mayor Kevin McCarty will receive a 12-percent raise, bringing his yearly salary to more than $180,000. (Sacramento Bee) — compiled by Nicole Norman
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Planned Parenthood 'outraged' by Newsom's proposed budget
OAKLAND, Calif. - Governor Gavin Newsom announced a proposed revised budget to address economic disruptions by the federal government. In the revised budget, the governor makes significant cuts to reproductive health services, like Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California said the cuts would essentially defund the organization in California. The backstory The governor said his proposal is adjusting for a projected $12 billion shortfall caused by what he calls a "Trump slump." The revised budget eliminates half a billion dollars towards Proposition 56, which pays for dental, family planning, and women's health providers to make room for funding the voter-mandated Prop 35, which expands Medi-Cal. "Because of Prop 35 and the fact that it is burdened over the next 2 fiscal years by $4.6 billion, it's increased the budget deficit, we are trying to figure out ways of offsetting that," said Newsom. What they're saying The CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California Jodi Hicks, who supported the passing of Prop 35, said the organization is outraged by the revised cuts, because they would slash Planned Parenthood's annual budget in California by one-third. She also argues the cuts go against Governor Newsom's promise to protect abortion access. "We called California the beacon of hope for anyone that needs health care, come to California. So it's a little bit of whiplash that now we're proposing these cuts," said Hicks. The organization said the cuts impact some of their most vulnerable patients. "Over 85% are on public programs, including Medicaid, and some of the most vulnerable patients, and so we're severely restricting access to women's health," Hicks said. This comes after Congress debated whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood services at the federal level. What's next "We'll certainly be fighting back and working with the legislature to ensure that these do not move forward," she said. Meanwhile, Newsom said he plans to keep his promise to support women's reproductive rights. "I absolutely am committed to any adjustments that we can make in partnership with the legislature to address those anxieties in the spirit of our support that has historically been placed," he said. Moving forward, negotiations will begin, and within a couple of weeks, legislative leaders will come to an agreement on a finalized budget, which will be announced in June.
