| | | | |  | | By Emily Schultheis and Will McCarthy | | Presented by |  | | | |  The new supporters and opponents lines are the last thing voters see before they check "Yes" or "No" on each ballot measure. | DRIVING THE DAY — Our Chris Cadelago has an exclusive story out this afternoon on Gov. Gavin Newsom breaking from President Joe Biden over his decision to pardon his son, Hunter Biden: “I took the president at his word,” Newsom told Chris. “So by definition, I’m disappointed and can’t support the decision.” THE NEW BALLOT BOTTOM LINE — Average voters might not have discerned anything notable about the way this year’s slate of 10 statewide propositions appeared on their ballots. But the addition of one short line on each — itemizing up to five listed supporters and opponents for each measure — has become a focus for those in the campaign world, where operatives believe the design change may even have helped tip the scales against one initiative last month. “Since the beginning of politics, endorsements have played a critical role — and now it's the last thing that people read when they fill in the bubble,” said Brandon Castillo, who ran the Yes on Prop 35 campaign. “I think it makes a major impact, particularly for those that are undecided or on the fence.” Until this year, the only way a measure’s supporters and opponents appeared in official ballot information was as authors of the arguments for or against in the voter information guide published by the secretary of State. But a 2022 law changed that, adding their names to the ballot itself just after the official title and summary and the fiscal impact statement from the Legislative Analyst’s Office. It has become a new piece of the quintessential polling and strategy puzzle for campaigners determining which names to attach to an otherwise faceless issue question. “All of that thinking, which was typically applied to campaign messengers and the ballot arguments, this cycle was also applied to the ballot supporters and opponents,” said Bay Area-based pollster Dave Metz, who worked on five successful ballot-measure campaigns this fall. For campaigns without the resources for statewide advertising, the ballot language represents a crucial, low-cost opportunity to send a message about their coalition. “We intentionally tried, knowing that most average voters just read that summary, to check a few boxes,” said Courtni Pugh, general consultant for the committee to pass Prop 3, which removed dormant language banning same-sex marriage from the California constitution. Anticipating their opponents would target religious voters, Yes on 3 strategists made the Sierra Pacific Synod of The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America its first named supporter. To address concerns that earlier marriage-equality coalitions had not done enough to reach non-white voters, Pugh recalled, Yes on 3 enlisted the Dolores Huerta Foundation as another. (The amendment’s third listed supporter was the LGBTQ+ rights group Equality California, which unlike the other two played a central role in the campaign.) While some campaigns followed that model of painstakingly choosing a handful of interest groups that could speak to different target audiences, others just included the name of the politician who sponsored the legislation moving the issue to the ballot. For some, like Props 6 and 35, no opponents lent their names. Others, like Prop 34, had up to five listed opponents from a range of groups. In one instance, it was the lack of names that drew attention. For Prop 32, the space made available to identify supporters of the proposed minimum-wage increase simply said “none submitted.” The California Chamber of Commerce, the California Restaurant Association and the California Grocers Association were listed as opponents. That blank space succinctly told a complex story about the contest — that labor unions typically at the vanguard of campaigning for wage hikes were wary of getting involved, and that the measure’s original proponent, investor Joe Sanberg, had largely stepped back from the measure after qualifying it for the ballot. “We want the question to always be about the substance of the policy and the people who are being helped and affected,” Sanberg said of the decision not to submit listed supporters to appear on the ballot. “For that reason, we didn't think it would be sensible to identify or isolate any one organization.” Prop 32 lost by just 1.4 percentage points, and ballot-measure veterans have been left to speculate how things could have turned out had the campaign made a different decision there. “I look at Prop 32 and can’t help but wonder, had they not blundered and put some credible labor organizations [as supporters], if that thing wouldn’t have passed,” Castillo said. “I definitely think this could sway at least a couple hundred thousand voters.”
| | | | 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. | | | NEWS BREAK: Fitch cuts Oakland’s credit rating … South Korea’s president says he will lift martial law after failed autocoup … Latest ballot drop in CA-13 increases Democrat Adam Gray’s lead to 165 votes. Welcome to Ballot Measure Weekly, a special edition of Playbook PM, focused on California’s lively realm of ballot measure campaigns. (Sorry if you looked for us yesterday and read our colleagues’ coverage of the legislative special session instead — our post-election publishing schedule is in flux!) Drop us a line at eschultheis@politico.com and wmccarthy@politico.com, or find us on X — @emilyrs and @wrmccart.
|  | TOP OF THE TICKET | | Seven potential 2024 issue questions that died on the way to the ballot this year that could be reborn for 2026: 1. Statewide affordable housing bond: Housing advocates are set on reviving a $10 billion bond to fund new construction after being forced to abandon a similar package this spring. The nonprofit Housing California is counting on Assemblymember Buffy Wicks to assemble a legislative coalition that can bring the bond issue to the ballot. 2. Taxpayer Protection Act: The state Supreme Court may have booted the California Business Roundtable-backed amendment making it harder to pass some new taxes and fees but new Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is hoping to bring it back. The Republican has introduced a bill that rewrites the TPA to clarify the Legislature’s intent to amend the constitution in a way DeMaio hopes will placate the court. “They think they’re the final say — they’re not, actually,” he said. 3. California Forever: A recent spat with county administrators suggests the NorCal new-town visionaries have already grown frustrated by Solano County’s pace and regulatory requirements. Although developers pledged to follow standard county development procedures after pulling their initiative from the local ballot in June, local government’s plodding bureaucracy could jeopardize the ambitious timetable to put a new initiative before voters in 2026. “We have collaborated with you in good faith,” CEO Jan Sramek wrote county administrators. “Unfortunately, the county’s actions have not shown the same motivation.”
| | | | Want to know what's really happening with Congress's make-or-break spending fights? Get daily insider analysis of Hill negotiations, funding deadlines, and breaking developments—free in your inbox with Inside Congress. Subscribe now. | | | | | 4. ACA 13: The constitutional amendment to raise voter thresholds on ballot measures related to voter thresholds was pushed back two years after the Taxpayer Protection Act it was intended to combat got booted from the November 2024 ballot. It’s already qualified for 2026. 5. Restrict rights of trans students: An initiative requiring schools to out transgender students could not rustle up enough signatures this year, but backer Jonathan Zachreson has been looking for big funders to finance a renewed campaign and may find a more receptive cultural environment next time around. 6. Sports betting: A sports betting initiative proposed by two political novices without financial backing never got off the ground this year. But FanDuel, which spearheaded a costly but failed 2022 initiative to legalize online sportsbooks, doesn’t seem to have given up on California. The company spent the fall doling out contributions to the campaign committees of nearly two dozen state lawmakers. 7. “High quality” public schools: Bay Area entrepreneur David Welch came up short the last two times he tried to advance a constitutional amendment requiring California public schools to offer “high quality” education. Welch has been quiet since pulling his initiative one year ago and promising to return to the 2026 ballot.
| | | | A message from Food & Water Action:   | | | | | DOWN BALLOT | | ON OTHER BALLOTS — Officials in Alaska will conduct a recount of votes on its measure to repeal the state’s open primary and ranked-choice voting system, which lost by just 737 votes last month … A proposed constitutional amendment to implement a top-two primary system in Oklahoma has drawn mixed reactions from the state’s elected officials … Voters in Louisiana will weigh in on four constitutional amendments in March 2025, on issues ranging from taxes and budget questions to criminal justice and court reform … Pro-gun activists in Massachusetts have qualified a referendum for 2026 that would overturn the state’s new gun laws, which include a ban on assault-style firearms … And election officials in Idaho have cleared backers of an initiative that would legalize recreational marijuana to start gathering signatures for the 2026 ballot.
| | | | Policy Change is Coming: Be prepared, be proactive, be a Pro. POLITICO Pro’s platform has 200,000+ energy regulatory documents from California, New York, and FERC. Leverage our Legislative and Regulatory trackers for comprehensive policy tracking across all industries. Learn more. | | | | | | | POSTCARD FROM ... | | | | 
| | … SAN FRANCISCO — After the passage of an initiative to permanently shutter a stretch of road on the city’s Pacific coast, San Francisco has a new park on the horizon. But those best-positioned to take advantage of the neighborhood amenity — and possibly see their property values boosted by it — are the least happy. In a remarkable display of NIMBY unanimity, almost every single precinct in the Outer Sunset neighborhood surrounding the proposed park opposed Measure K by about a 20-point margin. In the end, the initiative owed its passage to a wave of support from voters furthest from the new ocean promenade. Those who lost are not giving up. No on Measure K organizers Richard Corriea and Vin Budhai announced plans on Tuesday to pursue a recall of Supervisor Joel Engardio for having supported the initiative. “A majority of voters feel he has betrayed his constituents and put the district’s public safety at risk through his decisions and lack of responsiveness,” Corriea and Budhai wrote in a release. Their Open the Great Highway group argues that the road’s closure will dramatically worsen traffic and congestion in the Sunset and surrounding neighborhoods. Backers of the initiative, led by the Friends of Great Highway Park, argue it will provide unique coastal access for future generations. But local opponents in the foggy, demographically mixed, largely middle-class neighborhood — some of whom ran a ballot measure campaign two years earlier asking voters to keep the road open to cars permanently — describe a park being forced down their throats by downtown residents. Park advocates said they were excited to show their neighbors the benefits of the park and they would “all work together” to address concerns over its construction. But one Yes on K organizer pointed to earlier debates over other now popular public spaces, like Crissy Field and the Embarcadero, as evidence that San Franciscans are not always ready to watch their neighborhoods change. “If you look at all the similar changes in our city through recent history, there's a pattern. They were all incredibly contentious at different times, and then you fast forward a decade or two and very few people say they should go back to how they were,” said organizer Lucas Lux, an Outer Sunset resident himself. “We live in a city and we make big decisions together as a city.”
| | | | 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. | | | | | DEBRIEFING | | … LA COUNTY’S YES ON MEASURE G CAMPAIGN — Voters in Los Angeles County last month narrowly passed Measure G, a charter amendment that reshapes the powerful Board of Supervisors. Playbook spoke with supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who helped put Measure G on the ballot and helped direct the campaign to pass it. This conversation has been edited for length and clarity. Playbook: Why did Measure G succeed where past attempts to overhaul the board failed? Horvath: We saw that this was a reform ballot up and down the ticket. In the city of Los Angeles, they were also specifically looking at charter reforms, there were charter reforms proposed in the city of Long Beach, places throughout Los Angeles County. We benefited from people thinking about, what is the best way to structure a government in order to be of service to its people? We also presented this as a package of reforms. In the past, some of these proposals that exist within the charter amendment have been proposed as sort of one-offs, whether it was board expansion or creating an independent elected executive. But I believe the voters saw that any one aspect of this package of reform isn't enough to deliver the kind of meaningful change that they're looking for. It included ethics reform — people want to have more trust in their government, and that can come from increased transparency and accountability through an ethics commission and ethics compliance officer. Playbook: What did you learn from polling about how to pitch this to voters? Horvath: Men had very strong and clear thoughts about this kind of change. Men were very receptive to, you know, shaking things up, doing something different. Women were much more thoughtful in terms of how they considered the ballot question. Because there were a lot of components to it, we targeted a lot of our messaging to women to walk them through what exactly existed within the proposed charter amendment, what all it what all it would do. So we targeted women of different ages and different ways. We know mail doesn't typically work as well for a younger audience. We did do some mail, we did do some digital campaigning, and we really tried to speak to each demographic in the way that they want to be spoken to and answer questions that were of most interest to them. Playbook: What were those questions? Horvath: First of all: Who were our supporters and who was advocating for this kind of change? We had trusted messengers. The nurses were a partner to us, and so we had some of the nurses speak, both through mail and through digital spots, about why this was important to them as people who provide health care and are integral to how we deliver services at the county level. We really tried to speak to people on a more real level than just, This is a big political campaign brought to you by elected officials. This is how change will make a difference for you and your experience of county government, and I think that helped people better understand why this kind of change was necessary. One of the spots that we did focused on the homelessness crisis, which was already top of mind for people who were considering voting on Measure A. We tried to put it in that context — how is this going to make that issue better? Give specificity to how change, how structural change, will deliver on a particular issue.
| | LETTER OF THE DAY | | Measure J was used on ballots around the state last month to describe proposals that would: Establish a primary system for city elections in the East Bay’s Richmond and require a candidate to receive a majority of votes in order to win (passed) … Issue up to $9.8 million in school bonds in Ferndale, Humboldt County (narrowly failed) … Change the city treasurer in Butte County’s Oroville, from an elected to an appointed position (failed) … Approve a ½-cent sales tax increase to fund city services, including libraries and parks, in Orland, Glenn County (narrowly passed) … Authorize $65 million in bonds to fund school repairs and upgrades in Redding (very narrowly passing) … Reauthorize a ¼-cent sales tax to fund local services in Milpitas, Santa Clara County (passed) … Repeal existing special taxes within the RiverPark district of Oxnard, including those funding police, youth sports and flood and storm services (failed) … And ban factory farming in Sonoma County (failed). | | | | 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 | | | | |
