| | | | |  | | By Emily Schultheis and Will McCarthy | |  Big labor is largely taking a backseat role on this year’s crop of ballot measures. | Rich Pedroncelli/AP Photo | SITTING THIS ONE OUT? — The California Labor Federation’s members will vote Wednesday to set the organization’s positions on this year’s slate of 10 issue questions, typically a crucial occasion as a heavyweight in the state’s ballot-measure politics identifies its priorities. But don’t expect as much major news out of the convention in San Diego as usual: Big labor is largely taking a backseat role on this year’s crop of ballot measures. Federation leaders had believed they were gearing up for a pair of epic fights over a California Business Roundtable-backed amendment to limit tax increases and an initiative to repeal a law related to workers’ protections. Both were removed from the ballot in the weeks leading up to the late June deadline. For the first time in years, California’s powerful labor movement — which includes the Labor Federation, individual unions that have spent on ballot measures in the past like the SEIU, the Teamsters and the California Teachers Association — is entering the general election without a single major concern on the issue ballot. Proposition 32, which would raise the statewide minimum wage to $18, was initiated not by labor groups but by progressive financier Joe Sanberg and has gotten little attention from unions thus far. While the federation may announce some endorsements this week, none are likely to be accompanied with the full political and financial force that organized labor has typically put behind its priorities. Labor leaders have said they will direct those untapped resources to key House and legislative races instead. They’re not the only ones. The slimmed-down ballot means several major actors whose spending dominated recent years’ ballot drama are now offstage. There’s nothing on this year’s ballot of interest to tribal organizations who, when gambling issues have been up for grabs, have proven to be big spenders. In 1998, tribes spent $65 million to legalize tribal gaming compacts and tens of millions more two years later to pass an amendment clarifying the constitutional authority for it. In 2008, four tribes put more than $120 million into separate initiatives expanding their compacts. In 2022, the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, the Pechanga Band of Indians and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation each poured tens of millions into backing Prop 26, which would have legalized sports betting on tribal bands, and opposing Prop 27, which would have allowed online sports betting. And after three straight election cycles with votes on regulating dialysis clinics, the issue won’t appear on this year’s ballot. That means the SEIU-UHW West union, which had backed the proposals, and dialysis giant DaVita, which had spent more than $175 million over the three cycles to oppose them, are also out of the ballot measure game this time around. All this adds up to less money spent on this year’s broadcast advertising and direct mail campaigns — plus more attention on the unlikely coalition of prosecutors and big box retailers propelling the big-ticket initiative: Prop 36. NEWS BREAK: Donald Trump taps Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance to run as his VP … Bay Area elected officials respond to shooting at Trump rally … Gov. Gavin Newsom signs bill prohibiting school districts from outing transgender and gay students. Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM every Monday focused on California’s lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. Drop us a line at eschultheis@politico.com and wmccarthy@politico.com, or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart.
| | | | Understand 2024’s big impacts with Pro’s extensive Campaign Races Dashboard, exclusive insights, and key coverage of federal- and state-level debates. Focus on policy. Learn more. | | | | | |  | TOP OF THE TICKET | | A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures getting our attention this week. 1. PROP 36: The “No” campaign on the tough-on-crime initiative will be led by Lindsey Cobia, a consultant with close ties to Newsom. Cobia is not working on behalf of the governor, but the two are certainly on the same page: In addition to her new gig battling Prop 36, Cobia is a key official on Newsom’s bid to make Democratic inroads in red terrain. 2. EAST SOLANO PLAN (Solano County): The tech-billionaire-backed plan for a new city in Solano County found a new ally last week in the Bay Area Council. The powerful regional business association released a report expressing optimism about the proposed city northeast of San Francisco and described it as an opportunity to return to an era when the Bay Area was a place for “free thinkers and risk takers.” 3. PROP 34/35: Proponents of two wildly divergent proposals have landed on remarkably similar messaging. The campaigns for Prop 34, a measure designed in part to restrict the funding of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation, and Prop 35, a measure intended to restrict governors from sweeping a health care tax into the general fund, are both arguing that their initiatives will aid Medi-Cal, improve access to care and protect patients. Will voters be able to tell the difference? 4. SUPERVISORS REFORM (LA County): The nation’s most populous county looks poised to ask voters to sign off on a major reorganization of its government this November. The proposal would amend the county charter to increase the number of seats on the powerful Board of Supervisors from five to nine and have the county chief executive be elected by voters. 5. BATTERY STORAGE (Morro Bay, San Luis Obispo County): A measure to block the construction of a battery storage facility in this seaside tourist and fishing town could have a fatal vulnerability. Although the initiative would freeze the land-use designation of the proposed site, it’s possible the company behind the project could bypass local laws by applying to the California Energy Commission for approval. 6. OIL WELLS: The referendum to overturn a 2022 law on oil well setbacks may have been pulled from the ballot, but the committee that had fought to uphold the law still has $20 million in the bank — and is putting it toward a general purpose committee to advocate on the issue going forward. 7. NONCITIZEN VOTING (Santa Ana, Orange County): A judge ruled last week that the proposed charter amendment to allow noncitizens to vote in local elections in Santa Ana will be rewritten to remove a line describing noncitizens as “taxpayers and parents,” which the judge said was “flawed” and prejudicial language.
| | DOWN BALLOT | | ON OTHER BALLOTS: Abortion rights supporters in Arkansas say they’re not backing down after the secretary of state rejected their constitutional amendment to enshrine abortion access over supposed paperwork omissions, a move that left the group 3,322 signatures short of the required 90,704 … The Utah Supreme Court reinstated a 2018 ballot initiative that established a nonpartisan redistricting process … New parents in Baltimore, Maryland, could get a one-time “baby bonus” of $1,000 if a recently qualified ballot initiative in the city passes … Natural gas supporters in Washington state are all but certain to see their proposal, which would block state and local governments from restricting gas use in buildings, on the ballot this fall … And a right-wing party in Switzerland is pushing a referendum that would cut off taxpayer funding for the Eurovision Song Contest, which is slated to be held in the Alpine country after its singer won the 2024 contest.
| | | POSTCARD FROM ... | | | 
| … RICHMOND: Sacramento Democrats may have abandoned plans to have the state’s biggest fossil fuel producers pay for their environmental and health impacts, but voters in this bayside city of 115,000 will have the chance to do it this November. An initiative placed on the Richmond ballot last month would tax the Chevron refinery, one of the largest in the state, $1 for each barrel of oil processed within city limits. While other local governments have attempted to make polluting industries pay more for the right to operate in their communities, boosters of the Richmond proposal say it offers a chance to transform a city defined by industry into something new. “The ballot measure, in many ways, represents the start of a new chapter by bringing more resources into community control,” said Kerry Guerin, an attorney with the Communities for a Better Environment policy advocacy group. She said her organization, along with the Asian Pacific Environmental Network, spent “years organizing” community support for the per-barrel charge, which as a general tax requires a majority vote in a general election. The city attorney drafted it as an initiative, and the Richmond City Council voted last month to put it before voters. The measure doesn’t earmark the estimated $90 million in revenue that the tax will generate for any specific purpose. But environmental community groups behind the proposal say the money could be spent to remediate industrial land and invest in clean water and air programs. That, advocates argue, will not just improve the health of Richmond residents, but also allow the city to attract new businesses and gain some degree of financial independence from the refinery. Chevron’s tax liability represents about one-fifth of the city’s general fund. Chevron has called the tax proposal a “power grab” and claimed it could drive the company from the city. The company framed the measure as powered by a small group of advocates that would sever a long relationship between itself and Richmond. “The City of Richmond is playing chicken with the region’s economic future,” said company spokesperson Ross Allen in a statement. “We urge the city to avoid risking the viability of the city’s biggest taxpayer.”
| | | BLAST FROM THE PAST | | | Proposition 31 upheld legislation to ban flavored tobacco products, but difficulties in enforcing it have lawmakers eyeing new rules to close loopholes, as POLITICO’s Rachel Bluth reported recently. Previously, the number was used for measures to: Authorize the railroad commission to determine compensation for eminent-domain seizures (1914, passed) … Send San Francisco’s recommendation that Congress loosen prohibition laws to permit wine and beer (1922, passed) … Exempt fire-related improvements, like the addition of sprinklers and escape stairs, from qualifying as new construction under the tax code (1984, passed) … Limit the ability of individuals to sue another person’s insurer for damages (2000, failed) … Change the state’s fiscal rules, including to impose a two-year budget cycle (2012, failed).
| | THE Q&A | | WITH BILL LOCKYER — All eyes now are on Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose office is responsible for drafting the titles and labels for the 10 measures headed to the November ballot. We spoke with former Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Democrat who served two terms starting in 1999, to understand how the process works. (This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.) At what point did you see the official ballot language? The government law section [within the attorney general’s office] was responsible for reviewing the materials and developing a potential or proposed title and summary, so they did the work, and eventually, that would be signed off on by the chief deputy, as is typical of every work product … but they never went to me until it was the final product. So I was not personally involved — the career professionals did the bulk of the work. Critics often argue that the attorney general’s choice of words can give an advantage to one side or the other. What do you say to that? I don’t think there was any particular bias within the government law section. The problem always is that advocates for or against a particular ballot proposition would like it to be worded in a way that benefits their campaign purposes. There were complaints during my years, but the process was as neutral as I could make it. Part of the problem is, the sponsors typically have a title that they write in their proposal and they think somehow that that means you’re supposed to use their title. The role presents some challenges for attorneys general who might have their eye on higher office, like the current one. What advice do you have for them? Two thoughts: One is to be a good listener to the advocates, and make sure they feel like they got a fair chance to make their pitch on language. The second is, in my view, the best way to seek promotion in political office is to try to do the very best job you can with the current job. I think there’s a lot of voters that figure that out, and so I think it’s good politics as well as the right policy. It’s why I never changed a word. Should this responsibility be taken away from politicians and given to an outside expert? Personally, I think this is a problem that doesn’t need solving. There are some that say, “have the Legislative Analyst do it,” or other alternatives that have been proposed. I personally think it’s significant enough that it should be an elected official that’s responsible for that work. The check on it is to go to court if someone thinks it’s grossly inaccurate or biased in some way. If something is 5,000 words, to try to write a paragraph or one line that summarizes it is not easy. And so there’s always room for complaint.
| | | | Subscribe to the POLITICO Playbook family Playbook | Playbook PM | California Playbook | Florida Playbook | Illinois Playbook | Massachusetts Playbook | New Jersey Playbook | New York Playbook | Ottawa Playbook | Brussels Playbook | London Playbook View all our political and policy newsletters | | Follow us | | | | |
