| | | | |  | | By Emily Schultheis and Will McCarthy | |  Gov. Gavin Newsom and top Democrats in the Legislature have launched a rival ballot measure on crime, complicating campaign dynamics for both sides. | Francis Chung/POLITICO | SEEING DOUBLE — Californians will most likely cast votes in November on two separate crime-fighting initiatives: the proposal backed by prosecutors and big-box retailers that qualified for the ballot last week, and a counter-measure from Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic leaders making its way through the Legislature this week. Both include changes to charging and sentencing rules around drugs and retail theft, but Newsom’s initiative goes further in terms of gamesmanship. Its drafters have included a provision stating it would nullify the prosecutors’ crime initiative if both measures pass and Newsom’s receives more votes, setting up an unlikely horse race between two questions on the same ballot. Normally, elections are contests for a scarcity of votes, as two sides compete for the same limited pot of voters whether in a candidate-on-candidate or yes-versus-no race. Here, though, each “yes” campaign will be battling with not just a “no” side on their own measure, but also with the “yes” side of another separate measure. It’s not the first time that related measures have appeared on the ballot in the same year in California. In 2016, voters considered two initiatives related to the death penalty, one to abolish it (Prop 62) and one to make changes to the process (Prop 66). Prop 62 failed, while Prop 66 won narrowly. The 2022 ballot saw two measures related to sports betting, one that would have legalized sports betting at tribal casinos (Prop 26) and one that would have legalized online sports betting (Prop 27). Both measures failed by large margins. But this year’s situation is different because both crime measures are asking voters to essentially do the same thing, albeit to varying degrees: To amend Proposition 47, the landmark 2014 criminal justice change that reduced penalties for certain crimes. The addition of the winner-takes-all provision in Newsom’s initiative sets up unusual strategic questions for those on all ends of the debate. Either side could decide to run a dual “yes/no” campaign: For example, Newsom’s team could launch ads supporting its initiative while telling voters to reject the prosecutors’ one. But amid each side’s efforts to define their own measure alongside their opponents’, there’s also always the danger that voters could get confused and ultimately decide to vote “no” on both of them. NEWS BREAK — U.S. Supreme Court sends Florida, Texas social media laws back to lower courts … Tulare County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux is suspending his campaign in CA-20 and backing Vince Fong … California’s insurance regulator says extreme heat is deadlier than wildfires, as Northern California faces an excessive heat warning starting Tuesday … Loopholes kill California plan to restrict CLEAR at airports. 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. |  | TOP OF THE TICKET | | A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures getting our attention this week. 1. PROP 47 OVERHAUL: More than two dozen Democrats in the Assembly abstained on Senate Bill 1381, the Democrats’ rival crime-fighting measure, in a vote this afternoon. That could spell trouble within the Democratic ranks — both the moderate and the progressive wings of the party — as legislative leaders try to get the bill over the finish line and put the issue on the ballot on Wednesday. 2. HOUSING BOND (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, S.F., San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Counties): While state lawmakers nickel-and-dimed two $10 billion bond issues, the nine Bay Area counties were going big with one bond measure that could hit $20 billion on its own, officially placing on the ballot the proposal to fund housing infrastructure and affordable home construction across the region. 3. PSYCHEDELICS: After a fourth failed attempt to pass legislation legalizing the therapeutic use of psychedelics, an advocacy group called The Alliance for Safer Use of Psychedelics is exploring a 2026 initiative — this time with real backing from veteran and law enforcement groups. 4. POLICING (L.A. County): It’s shaping up to be a crime-and-justice year all over the California ballot: the L.A. City Council sent to voters a charter amendment that would allow the police chief to fire officers for serious misconduct. 5. SLAVERY: The last-minute addition to this November’s ballot, which would ban all forms of slavery and involuntary servitude, is a sibling to this year’s marriage-equality amendment, symbolically striking outdated language from the state constitution. Will an organized opposition emerge to fight either? 6. CALIFORNIA FOREVER (Solano County): Silicon Valley heavyweights continue to make big promises as they struggle to win community support for their urbanist fever dream. They pledged in late June to open up a series of medical centers and urgent care facilities in the next two years. 7. BONDS: Now that bond backers have released the text of two statewide borrowing packages — $10 billion for school construction and $10 billion for climate-related projects — they have just two days to line up lawmakers’ votes to place them on the ballot.
| | | | 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. | | | | | | | DOWN BALLOT | | WHATEVER HAPPENED TO … PROP 22 (2020) — Uber, Lyft and DoorDash spent a record amount in California to back a measure classifying their rideshare drivers as contractors rather than employees. But the companies have now taken a detour as they navigate a similar ballot clash in Massachusetts. The three companies, along with Instacart, had spent $7 million to put a version of California’s Prop 22 before Massachusetts voters this fall and then fought to beat back a legal challenge before Massachusetts’ top court. But hours after a favorable court ruling, the companies struck a deal with Attorney General Andrea Campbell and walked away from the initiative. Uber and Lyft agreed to pay a combined $175 million to settle a four-year-old lawsuit from Campbell’s predecessor, now-Gov. Maura Healey, and to raise the minimum wage for drivers to $32.50 per hour starting Aug. 15. (Though, it’s worth noting that only applies to time spent during a ride or on the way to a pickup.) In California, meanwhile, the legal limbo over rideshare-worker classification may be near an end: After oral arguments last month, the state Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on the constitutionality of Prop 22. ON OTHER BALLOTS — A measure enshrining abortion rights in the Nevada constitution has formally qualified for November’s ballot, making it the fifth state to confirm a vote on the issue thus far … Abortion rights groups in Florida sued state officials over the fiscal impact statement it issued on their abortion-related measure, saying the state’s Republican leaders are purposely trying to thwart their effort … Lawmakers in Rhode Island passed legislation requiring the state’s ballot measures to be readable and understandable for a person with an eighth-grade reading level, making it the 21st state with readability requirements for ballot measures (California isn’t one of them) … And looking forward to next cycle, progressive groups in Oregon say they’ll begin gathering signatures for a 2026 measure to enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution.
| | POSTCARD FROM ... | | | | 
| … SAN FRANCISCO — A four-mile stretch of road on San Francisco’s Pacific coast has found itself at the center of a caustic debate over privilege, parks and pedestrian access that will now come before voters. The city’s board of supervisors has approved an initiative that would permanently close the Great Highway in the city’s Outer Sunset neighborhood to car traffic and transform it into a full-time public promenade. The vote in November will likely culminate a century-long conversation over what purpose the shorefront road should serve. The area was originally placed under the jurisdiction of San Francisco’s parks department in the 1870s, but was widened for vehicle traffic in the early 1900s as pleasure driving became a popular pastime. Since then, it has become an important route for motorists commuting through the city. In 2020, a section of the road was closed to cars and instead converted into a recreational promenade for pedestrians, bicyclists and skateboarders amid the pandemic. As part of a compromise pilot program launched in 2022, the road is now closed to vehicle traffic only on the weekends. The current proposal would close it for good. “You're giving that gift of coastal recreational opportunities to the next generation,” said Lucas Lux, the president of Friends of Great Highway Park, a grassroots group that pushed for the ballot measure. “Kids learning to ride a bike, neighbors in wheelchairs — these are activities that were impossible before.” Both sides see the initiative as part of a much broader tug-of-war over San Francisco’s identity. Opponents of the measure, who call themselves Open the Great Highway, say the park would benefit only a privileged few who have access to the waterfront. The design, they believe, forces vehicle traffic into surrounding neighborhoods and leads to longer commute times for people who work in the city but can’t afford to live there. “The question is no less than how do we want to use our single oceanfront,” said Lux. “That’s a question that’s important to the entire city.”
| | | BLAST FROM THE PAST | | | This year, Democratic leaders hope Proposition 2 will be a crime policy counter-initiative coming before voters in November. In the past, the number has been used for measures to: Ban the possession and sale of alcohol (1916, failed) … Uphold an enacted law banning the possession and sale of alcohol (1920, failed) … Ban the possession and sale of alcohol to align with federal prohibition under the 18th Amendment (1922, passed) … Provide legislators a $100 monthly salary and five-cent-per-mile travel reimbursement (1924, passed) ... Issue bonds to fund the 1932 Olympics in Los Angeles (1928, passed) … Extend Assembly terms to four years (1960, failed) ... Prohibit farmers from tightly confining pregnant pigs, calves raised for veal, and egg-laying hens (2008, passed).
| | THE Q&A | | WITH BOB STERN — The June 27 deadline for pulling items has come and gone, but the ballot is not yet completely set, as the Legislature might have the ability to add items for a while yet. POLITICO asked Bob Stern, an attorney who as president of the Center for Governmental Studies worked on efforts to revamp the ballot-initiative process, to help us sort through the calendar confusion. What dates really matter here? There is a hard constitutional deadline to get initiatives off the ballot before June 27 — 131 days before the election. But that’s just for initiatives; the Legislature has put on measures as late as September. The only deadline for that is when the ballot pamphlet is sent out. When is that? That’s up to the secretary of state to say. There's no deadline in the constitution for when the Legislature can put measures on the ballot. Sometimes it goes up to the last day of the session. What are the types of things that usually get added later in the cycle? Usually, the measures are not very controversial. They’re constitutional amendments or bond measures. The important thing is, just because we passed the June 27 deadline doesn’t mean we've seen all the ballot measures. Stay tuned, as they say. | | | | 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 | | | | |
