| | | | |  | | By Will McCarthy and Emily Schultheis | | Presented by |  | | | |  In 2026, voters may weigh in on a multi-county proposal to help fund the Bay Area's financially struggling transit systems. | Godofredo A. Vásquez/AP | BART ON THE BALLOT — Bay Area officials are moving closer to sending voters a measure to fund local transit systems, tasking pollsters to oversee a bakeoff that will decide which parts of the nine-county region see a tax question on their 2026 ballots. Members of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission voted this afternoon to test the relative appeal of two separate regional tax proposals. In February, the commission, a state-chartered regional planning agency that can not directly refer a measure to the ballot, will review polling conducted by Oakland-based EMC Research to determine whether it appears favorable enough to recommend one option to the Legislature. “What we're really testing for here is viability,” said Rebecca Long, the council’s director of legislation and public affairs. “We're not trying to predict where exactly the voters will be.” Monday’s vote, designed to avert a death spiral for the region’s public transportation, is the latest step in a yearslong effort to keep Bay Area transit networks (including BART, SFMTA and Caltrain) solvent. Since ridership plummeted at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, the systems have relied on federal Covid relief funds to fill the gap. That money is set to expire in 2026. Last spring, the regional commission worked with state Sens. Scott Wiener and Aisha Wahab to sponsor a bill that would allow it to put a transit tax on the ballot. The proposal was paused last spring over concerns about how funds would be distributed among counties. The agency then convened a select committee consisting of county supervisors, state legislative staff and transit policy experts to craft the two frameworks presented at Monday’s meeting. One option is a 10-year, half-cent sales tax in the four counties in which BART primarily operates, with Santa Clara County having the ability to opt in. The second option would establish two revenue sources — a 30-year, half-cent sales tax, and a 9-cent per square-foot parcel tax — across the same core transit counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Francisco, San Mateo), with opt-in options for the other five (Marin, Napa, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma). Officials are hoping that pollsters locate more support for one of the proposals than a regional affordable housing bond saw before being yanked from the ballot last spring due to poor polling. That measure is unlikely to return as region-wide efforts have shifted instead to propping up public transit. “Transit underpins everything about how the Bay Area functions,” said Long. “We’re working feverishly to get something resolved.” Once they settle on the more popular approach, officials hope to draft legislation that can receive the governor’s signature by September. But even after months of discussions, a number of commission officials continued to express skepticism about the plan. “From my perspective, I just don't see this ever passing, or even getting out of the legislature,” co-chair Nick Josefowitz said of one option. “It's just so complex, and it requires everyone to have so much faith in our institutions.” NEWS BREAK: Person of interest in UnitedHealthcare CEO’s killing had ties to California … Strong Southern California winds could leave 350,000 without power … PPIC will release new polling tonight (check Playbook tomorrow morning for details). 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@politico.com and wmccarthy@politico.com, or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart.
| | | | A message from Food & Water Action: Will Gov. Newsom side with the oil and gas industry or Californians after the “worst gas leak in US history?" In 2015, the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility released 100,000 tons of methane and toxic chemicals, endangering public health. Governor Newsom vowed to shut down Aliso Canyon, but his Public Utilities Commission appointees voted to expand it. The PUC will decide Aliso Canyon’s future on December 19th. Learn more. | | | |  | TOP OF THE TICKET | | Here are seven issues we expect to capture our attention on the way to the 2026 ballot. 1. Immigration: Incoming Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is aiming to reassemble Prop 36’s tough-on-crime coalition by floating an initiative that would repeal California’s sanctuary law, deploy state guard to the southern border and revoke welfare programs for undocumented immigrants. 2. Death penalty: Initiatives to end the death penalty failed by narrow margins in 2012 and 2016, before Gov. Gavin Newsom imposed a moratorium on executions. Mike Farrell, the former M.A.S.H. star who heads Death Penalty Focus, said that policy now depends on “the whim of the next governor,” and that uncertainty may give groups like his reason to pursue another effort to make repeal permanent via the ballot. 3. Higher-education bond: Assemblymember David Alvarez has introduced AB 48 to begin the process of asking voters to sign off on new borrowing to modernize public college and university facilities. The project is likely to find itself in competition with a housing bond also expected to make its way through the Legislature over the next year and a half. 4. Independence: The CalExit movement lost its momentum after Donald Trump’s 2016 victory, but his return to the White House could reinvigorate the still-quixotic dream of a break from the union. Climate activist Marcus Evans is carrying the torch for the initiative, which would establish a “commission of inquiry on California sovereignty and independence.” 5. Rainy day fund: Lawmakers hoping to help the state weather future economic volatility are discussing the possibility of a constitutional amendment to expand the maximum size of the state’s rainy day fund originally established via 2014’s Prop 2. 6. Trans students: Sacramento-area school-board member Jonathan Zachreson is hunting for major funders to back an initiative targeting a decade-old law that prohibits public schools from discriminating on the basis of gender identity and requires students to be allowed to participate in “sex-segregated” team sports. After relying on volunteers in a failed effort to reach the 2024 ballot, Zachreson says he will move forward again only after securing the budget to fund a paid signature-gathering operation. 7. Recall elections: Californians are already set to vote on how they recall their leaders — separating the elections for removal and replacement — through a constitutional amendment approved by lawmakers this summer.
| | | | REGISTER NOW: As the 118th Congress ends, major decisions loom, including healthcare appropriations. Key focus: site neutrality. Can aligning hospital and clinic costs cut federal spending, reflect physician costs, and lower patient expenses? Join policymakers and providers to discuss. | | | | | | | IN MEMORIAM | | ‘HIGH QUALITY’ SCHOOLS AMENDMENT — The proposed amendment to the state constitution, which would have guaranteed a student’s right to a “high quality” education, is gone three years after being first submitted to the secretary of state’s office. The amendment was declared dead for the 2026 cycle last week by Ben Austin, a former policy director for Students Matter, the policy nonprofit leading a coalition promoting the addition of a new constitutional right. The goal of the intentionally vague “high quality” language was to empower litigants to challenge the caliber of public-school systems and eventually force the legislature to define higher standards. The proposal is survived by Students Matter founder Dave Welch, a Bay Area entrepreneur. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, now a candidate for governor, also supported the measure. The cause of the amendment’s death, its third, is unknown. Supporters first filed the amendment with state officials in 2021 but after receiving ballot language failed to submit signatures for the 2022 ballot. Welch revived it for the 2024 ballot, until announcing in February he would instead focus on 2026.
| | | | A message from Food & Water Action:   | | | | | ON OTHER BALLOTS | | Alaska election officials kicked off their recount for the ballot measure to repeal the state’s ranked-choice voting and open-primary system after the measure lost by 737 votes … Lawmakers in Utah are exploring potential constitutional amendment options for 2026 that would limit the initiative process, including increasing the number of signatures to qualify and requiring 60 percent support to pass … The state supreme court in Nevada is weighing whether an Uber-backed ballot initiative to cap attorney fees on civil lawsuits is constitutional and can appear on the 2026 ballot … And online sports betting will be legal in Missouri after election officials certified the narrow victory of a measure on last month’s ballot with 50.05 percent.
| | | | Billions in spending. Critical foreign aid. Immigration reform. The final weeks of 2024 could bring major policy changes. Inside Congress provides daily insights into how Congressional leaders are navigating these high-stakes issues. Subscribe today. | | | | | | | POSTCARD FROM ... | | | | 
| … CERRITOS — What’s a good day for an election, anyway? If you’re Cerritos, it might be the second Tuesday in April of each even-numbered year. Or it could be the first Monday in March, only this time in odd-numbered years. Maybe the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, but only in even-numbered years? Over the past 60 years, the small city between Los Angeles and Anaheim has tried each of those dates to elect its municipal officers, at one point changing five times in seven years. Each time, it has been the city council that has made the switch. Now residents will get the chance to decide whether they want to keep the power to rewrite the electoral calendar in their own hands — in the form of a charter amendment promoted by elected officials who argue it will protect local control and speed up the vote-counting process. “Going local allows us to have a quicker return, but more importantly it allows the residents to really study who the candidates are,” said Bruce Barrows, a city council member who voted to put the amendment on the city ballot next spring. Cerritos had held its elections in odd-numbered years from 1995 until 2017, when a new state law required city and local elections to be consolidated with the state primary or general election. The law, designed to increase participation in local races, had its intended effect in Cerritos: the next election, rescheduled by the city council for March 2020, had the highest turnout the city had ever seen. But after an appeals court ruled that month that the law shouldn’t apply to charter cities, Cerritos moved to quickly shift its municipal elections back to the off-year. Since the next election now wouldn’t occur until 2025, council members (including Barrows, an appointed member) who approved the move were also voting to give themselves an extra year in office. Then, this fall, the city council sent voters the amendment giving them the exclusive right to change the election calendar. Registered Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly two-to-one in Cerritos, but that split is not reflected in the city council chamber. The only Democrat on the council describes the amendment as a cynical attempt by his Republican colleagues to protect the low-turnout calendar from future changes should Democrats regain a city council majority. “They want to try to lock in their partisan change of our elections,” said councilmember Frank Yokoyama. “They're not doing this just because they want the residents to be able to vote on this subject matter.” Cerritos voters are scheduled to go to the polls on the first Tuesday in March, at least for now.
| | DEBRIEFING | | … WITH THE YES ON PROP 4 TEAM — Just under 60 percent of voters backed the Prop 4 climate bond last month, one of two $10 billion borrowing packages on the ballot. Playbook spoke with the Yes on Prop 4 lead consultant Leo Wallach, a principal at the Los Angeles-based firm RALLY, to understand how they did it. (This interview has been edited for length and clarity.) Playbook: What do voters think about bonds right now? Wallach: We were concerned that there was a general negative mood about fiscal issues. We took that very seriously. We knew that people in California were concerned about the economy and the state budget deficit even though we're not in a traditional recession. Playbook: How did you think about what you were up against? Wallach: Traditionally there haven’t been organized opposition to measures like this. But they still can be challenging, there's just built in skepticism about passing these things. Playbook: There were a lot of local bonds around the state to raise funds for school construction, climate concerns — how did you view those? Wallach: Certainly being asked for money on a lot of different things can lead people to pick and choose, but I don’t think it’s a settled science as to how much and what. At the state level, it was relatively uncluttered. Compared to years where you’re just getting drowned out by other things, it didn’t feel like that this time. It's tremendously difficult to break through in California, and I think when there are multiple measures that are relatively arcane, that can be overwhelming. Playbook: Did you share strategy or tactics with the campaign to pass the Prop 2 school bond? Wallach: No, I didn't speak to their consultants. I think ballot measures need to run their own campaigns. You need to make your own individual case. They need to make a case about schools, we need to make a case about wildfire and water. Playbook: How much did you feel like you had to reassure voters of the merits of specific items in the bond versus the broad objectives? Wallach: Voters definitely cared about the main spending priorities in the bond. The fact that it was a more active wildfire season did highlight the importance of the wildfire piece. We’re not in the middle of a drought right now, but voters still understood that the water aspects and protecting nature in California were still critical. Playbook: Any concerns about overpromising? Obviously a $10 billion bond will not resolve climate change in California. Wallach: Our campaign and our clients were always clear that this was a major step forward, it's allowing California to be proactive. For something as broad as California's natural resources and the impact on natural resources, you can't say it solves everything. I think it's not about promising to solve everything, it's about making progress and shifting to being proactive — we can wait for wildfire and water issues to be even more difficult, or we can do something about it. Voters answered where they wanted to be on that.
| | LETTER OF THE DAY | | Measure M was used on ballots around the state last month to describe proposals that would: Implement a parcel tax to fund fire protection services, including hiring and training firefighters, in Mammoth Lakes (passed) … Authorize $40 million in bonds for local high schools in San Benito (failed) … Increase the transient occupancy tax in Pacifica by 3 percent (passed) … Change the position of city treasurer in Plymouth, Amador County, from an elected role to an appointed one (passed) … Approve a ¾-cent sales tax in Novato, Marin County, to fund city services like fixing potholes and improving parks (passed) … Issue $12 million in bonds for school repairs and improvements in Santa Rosa (passed) … Change how the city of Stockton’s public information officers are assigned within city government (passed) … And keep a beloved public pool open in Hayfork, a tiny, unincorporated area in Trinity County (passed).
| | | | A message from Food & Water Action: Will Gov. Newsom side with the oil and gas industry or Californians after the “worst gas leak in US history?" In 2015, the Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility released 100,000 tons of methane and toxic chemicals. SoCalGas’ disaster forced thousands to evacuate their homes to avoid further exposure to cancer-causing benzene and other chemicals.
SoCalGas took four months to seal the gas leak. Families near Aliso are still suffering the consequences. Instead of shutting it down like Gov. Newsom promised, the PUC allowed Aliso to expand by 3,000%, perpetuating the public health threat.
Over 150 organizations have come together to call for a shutdown of Aliso by 2027, but the PUC is considering kicking the can down the road instead of protecting communities. Gov. Newsom and allies should stand with families, not SoCalGas’ profits. On December 19th, the PUC will decide the future of Aliso Canyon. Learn more. | | | | | | | 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 | | | | |
