| | | | |  | | By Will McCarthy and Emily Schultheis | | 
An annexation of the land east of Suisun City could subvert the local resistance that has grown to oppose California Forever's development. | Getty Images | TO SUISUN? — The billionaire-backed effort to build a massive new city unsaddled from California’s urban problems may have just found a backdoor that saves the group from having to put its deeply unpopular project before Solano County voters. Suisun City’s council voted last Tuesday to direct its city manager to discuss growing the size of the city with “regional partners” as a way to resolve long-standing financial challenges faced by the municipality. “At only four square miles, we are Solano County’s smallest city,” city manager Bret Prebula said via press release following the council’s decision. “Now is the time to consider what more we can do to creatively grow our community and deliver more economic opportunity.” Notably, the only direction the city can expand is east — directly into land owned by California Forever, the group behind the contentious effort to develop a dense, new-urbanist-style city that would double the county's population. Solano County residents quickly connected the dots. “The city manager’s verbiage is exactly like California Forever, everything he says sounds like all their stuff,” said Michelle Trippi, an opponent of the project who helped create a local online opposition group called California ForNever. “It's like this has all been systematically set up.” Just six months ago, facing months of poor polling, California Forever was driven to unceremoniously pull an initiative that asked voters countywide to rezone 17,500 acres of land for construction. Since then, the company’s leaders have tried to reach a development agreement with county officials that would eventually allow them to begin building. But that agreement, too, would have to come before voters. Partnering with Suisun City would offer a different path to construction, in which a countywide ballot initiative would no longer be necessary. Instead, it would resemble a more traditional municipal land-use process. Should the Suisun City Council choose to move forward, annexation would need only the approval of the Solano County Local Agency Formation Commission, a planning body responsible for regulating the growth of cities and local governments. “The project would stop being California Forever and it would start being the city of Suisun. That’s what was a total mind trip,” Suisun City Mayor Pro Tem Princess Washington, a vocal critic of the project, told Playbook. “To do this was very cunning. It's diabolical.” Prior to the meeting, Catherine Moy, the mayor of neighboring Fairfield, alleged that Prebula and Washington “apparently quietly worked the deal out” with California Forever. The company’s CEO, Jan Sramek, personally donated $5,000 to a ballot measure committee aiming to pass a local 2024 sales tax to fund public services in Suisun City. A California Forever representative declined to confirm any negotiations, with spokeswoman Julia Blystone saying only that the company is “committed to working with all stakeholders to build a stronger Solano County.” “If we receive an invitation to explore annexation by Suisun City, we would be open to a conversation,” she said. NEWS BREAK: Mayor confirms federal immigration “operations” in San Jose…Oakland and San Jose face fire department understaffing…Flooding prompts road closures in Los Angeles...Gov. Gavin Newsom suspends coastal rules for wildfire rebuild. DON’T MISS IT: POLITICO AT USC — Join POLITICO’s own Chris Cadelago, Sasha Issenberg and Jonathan Martin alongside other political luminaries like James Carville and Reince Priebus at USC’s annual Warschaw Conference on Practical Politics on Thursday, Jan. 30. Throughout the day, panelists from politics, government, media and academia will discuss “The Trumping of America: Why and What’s Next.” Please register via Zoom or email California Editorial Director Julia Marsh at jmarsh@politico.com for an in-person invitation. 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.
| | | | Power shifts, razor-thin margins, and a high-stakes agenda. We’ve transformed our coverage—more reporters, more timely insights, and unmatched policy scoops. From leadership offices to committee rooms, caucus meetings, and beyond, our expert reporting keeps you ahead of the decisions that matter. Subscribe to our Inside Congress newsletter today. | | | | | |  | TOP OF THE TICKET | | A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past, present, and future — getting our attention this week. 1. Cannabis reform (2026?): A new group called Cannabis Aligned has emerged to repeal and replace Proposition 64, the 2016 measure that legalized recreational marijuana in California for the first time. Salwa Ibrahim, an Oakland-based cannabis entrepreneur, is leading a coalition of small businesses along with veteran industry consultant Nina Parks. The group is being unusually public about its drafting process (Instagram posts!) as it aims to build a base. 2. Inheritance-tax repeal (2026?): The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association says it is “looking seriously” at reviving an initiative to repeal what it calls a “death tax,” according to vice president Susan Shelley. (The element of 2020’s Proposition 19 requires non-primary residence inherited homes to be reassessed at market value when ownership transfers.) A similar, volunteer-driven petition drive got over half a million signatures last time, but fell short of qualifying for the ballot. Shelley acknowledges the anti-tax organization will have to work enlisting business or large donors to an issue more relevant to individual taxpayers. 3. Voter identification (2026?): Assemblymember Carl DeMaio is fundraising on the back of a statewide voter-ID initiative, one of several measures his Reform California has floated for the 2026 ballot. An email blast this morning asks supporters to pony up $25,000 for polling, which will in turn impress big donors. “Without this polling, they are reluctant to back us,” DeMaio wrote, “and we absolutely need their support to put a Voter ID Initiative on the ballot in 2026.” 4. Cal-Exit (2026): An initiative asking voters if they believe California should become its own country officially entered circulation last Thursday. Similar measures haven’t gotten far in years past, but President Donald Trump’s wild post-inauguration first week could speed up signature gathering efforts. A report from the legislative analyst's office earlier this month said there were unclear fiscal effects for the measure stemming from its “many legal uncertainties.” 5. Voter identification (Huntington Beach, 2024): California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a notice of appeal to challenge a lower court’s decision to uphold the city’s controversial 2024 ballot measure requiring voter identification for elections. After an Orange County Superior Court said the lawsuit was “not ripe for adjudication,” Bonta is looking for a judge to assess the law on the merits. “No court has looked at the issue of the substance of the voter ID measure,” Bonta told Playbook. “When a court does that, we very strongly believe that they will find that it's unlawful.” An appeal will be filed in California’s Fourth District Court of Appeal in the coming weeks. 6. School-choice amendment (2026): State Sen. Shannon Grove introduced a constitutional amendment, developed with the California Policy Center think tank, that would support a program letting parents apply state funds to non-public education. The amendment is likely doomed to die in the rules committee, but Grove may have already succeeded in her objective: putting forward a school-choice messaging bill to satisfy a passionate grassroots coalition. 7. Homelessness funding amendment (2026): A constitutional amendment aims to resolve homelessness in California by devoting a staggering five percent of general-fund revenues to the crisis, about $10 billion annually. Introduced by Assemblymember Corey Jackson, the amendment would direct the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency to use the money “to produce affordable housing and end homelessness.” — With help from Rachel Bluth
| | ON OTHER BALLOTS | | Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis proposed an overhaul of the state’s initiative process that opponents say will be the “kiss of death” for citizen-led petitions. The changes would prohibit third-party signature-gathering and require voters to sign petitions either in election offices or through the vote-by-mail system … Republican state lawmakers in North Dakota are pushing a proposal to raise the voter threshold for constitutional amendments to 60 percent … In April, Wisconsin voters will weigh in on an amendment to enshrine the state’s existing voter ID law in the state constitution … Gun-control groups in Maine have submitted signatures to put a so-called red flag law, which would make it easier to temporarily take guns away from people perceived as a threat by their families or law enforcement, on the November ballot … And regional leaders in Portland, Oregon, are expected to drop their push to reform the homeless services tax via the May ballot, looking instead toward putting the issue before voters in November.
| | IN MEMORIAM | | SPORTS BETS ON TRIBAL LANDS — A coalition to legalize sports gambling in California’s native-run casinos won’t be returning to the ballot in 2026, the second-straight election cycle tribes have chosen to sit out since failing to pass Proposition 26 in 2022. A measure looks increasingly likely in 2028, according to California Nations Indian Gaming Association Chair James Siva, who said his coalition of tribes and tribal-owned casinos needs more time to persuade voters of the merits of sports betting after a confusing dual-initiative campaign in 2022. “Tribes are not in consensus around the timeline, and voters are not going to be ready to approve a sports betting initiative of any kind in 2026,” Siva told Playbook. “I don’t think there's a lot of appetite to force anything quickly. It is our firm belief that 2026 is just not the time to present another initiative.” In 2022, the ballot featured a tribes-sponsored initiative (Prop 26) and one backed by corporate gambling giants (Prop 27) that would both have legalized sports betting in the state. Each was soundly rejected by voters.
| | | | New Year. New Washington. New Playbook. With intensified congressional coverage and even faster delivery of policy scoops, POLITICO’s reimagined Playbook Newsletter ensures you’re always ahead of the conversation. Sign up today. | | | | | | | WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ... | | … PROP 1A (2008): After more than 15 years and $5 billion, state authorities are finally beginning to lay down track in Kern County for what would be the West Coast’s first high-speed rail line. The high-profile boondoggle has its roots in a bond measure that voters narrowly approved to fund a fast train between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The price tag, even then, was always understood to be much higher than the $9 billion voters approved borrowing. In the years since, the project has faced allegations of mismanagement that have made it a prominent example of California’s inability to build efficiently. A cash crunch that would prevent the completion of the whole route still looms, but state data shows that the project has created 14,000 jobs and generated $22 billion in economic activity since its passage in 2008.
| | POSTCARD FROM ... | | | 
Emily Schultheis | … HUNTINGTON BEACH: Across the country, conservatives have reached for executive and legislative power in efforts to shape what children can read. In one coastal Orange County enclave, residents looking to protect their local libraries are turning to the ballot. Activists have gathered enough signatures to qualify two separate initiatives for the ballot in Huntington Beach, both aimed at keeping control of the city’s public library system in the hands of librarians rather than parents or outside companies. The city council decided last week to undertake a 30-day “study session” to further examine the initiatives, which is likely to lead to a special election for votes on both later this year. One initiative would repeal a 2023 city law that established a parental review board for library books, which has the authority to approve all new children’s books purchased by the library and review existing books to see if they should be moved out of the children’s section. The second would make it harder for the city council to privatize some library services, a possibility local officials raised last year. Carol Daus, a board member at the Friends of the Huntington Public Library who is involved in the initiative efforts, told Playbook she and others who love the library couldn’t stand by and watch the city council chip away at a beloved local institution. “It was so outrageous in how it was structured … it could be anybody in the community, and they'd have final and non-appealable authority over the books the library would require,” Daus said. “And that’s book banning. I mean, they can fight it for as much as they want, but it is book banning.” City council members have defended the moves to restrict access to certain types of literature as in the best interests of Huntington Beach’s children. “The whole goal [is] to make our libraries the safest place for our children,” Mayor Pro Tem Gracey Van Der Mark said when the review board went into effect last year, saying she had encountered “controversial, very sexually explicit books” in the children’s section of local libraries. The city council had the chance last week to adopt the initiatives or place them directly before voters, but instead accepted a staff recommendation that will serve to delay their arrival on the ballot. The earliest they are likely to appear there is April 29, when voters in several Orange County cities will go to the polls in a special election for state Senate. “The best thing they could have done based on the public support of the initiatives is to accept them,” said Daus. “But if they weren’t going to do that, they should at least let citizens vote on them.”
| | THAT TIME VOTERS ... | | … HAD PET CAUSES: Californians have considered ballot measures on a wide variety of questions related to domesticating animals, including to: Regulate pounds, including prohibiting the sale or surrender of unclaimed animals for scientific, medical, experimental or commercial purposes (1938, failed) … Ban use of “high-altitude decompression chambers” to euthanize dogs and cats (1977, did not qualify) … Prohibit state and local agencies from requiring identification devices be placed under animals’ skin (2007, did not qualify) … Set mandatory holding periods before stray or owner-relinquished animals are euthanized, and require that animals adopted from state agencies be spayed or neutered prior to adoption (2007, did not qualify) … Amend the state constitution to declare that animals owned by citizens, including pets, are property (2008, did not qualify) … Legalize the ownership of ferrets as pets (2015, did not qualify) … And reclassify ferrets as domestic animals, thus legalizing them as pets (2022, did not qualify). | | | | 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 | | | | |
