| | | | |  | | By Rachel Bluth, Emily Schultheis and Will McCarthy | |  The Fairness Project worked on ballot measures across the country, including Arizona's Proposition 139. | AFP via Getty Images | BALLOT BOXING — A progressive political group with roots in Oakland has found surprising success exporting California policies to red states through a very California tool: the ballot measure. The Fairness Project, founded in 2015 with funding from the East Bay-based United Health Care Workers, notched a series of wins down ballot this past election in many places where the Golden State’s own Kamala Harris resoundingly lost, pushing through initiatives often pioneered by California: enshrining abortion rights in Arizona and Montana; increasing the minimum wage in Alaska and Missouri; establishing sick leave in Nebraska; and protecting direct democracy measures in Ohio and North Dakota. In total, the group won nine out of 11 campaigns in the 2024 cycle (they were unable to pass abortion rights protections in Nebraska and Florida), and 39 out of the 43 total that they’ve worked on over the years. It's the kind of success top Democrats hoped to replicate this cycle, using topics like reproductive rights to ride to victory in their own races — but ultimately, they failed to connect with voters. “We don't have to wait for the Democratic Party to reinvent itself and figure out what its new priorities or talking points are going to be,” Executive Director Kelly Hall told Playbook. “We don't have to wait for a set of politicians in any given jurisdiction to figure out how they're getting back up off the mat.” The Fairness Project is now looking to 2026 and beyond for its next targets. Abortion rights will continue to be a major focus — the group expanded its campaigns from solely labor issues to abortion rules after Roe v. Wade was overturned, arguing abortion protections are of the utmost importance to a union of health care workers. “I understand that potential disconnect, why is the labor union working on reproductive rights issues?” Hall said. “[UHW] is a health care union. They endeavor everyday to make sure that the patients under their care get the care that they need.” In the next cycle, the Fairness Project is hoping to establish paid family leave practices (like California has had for decades) and upend abortion rights in the strictest states where citizen-initiated ballot measures are also allowed: Arkansas, Oklahoma, South Dakota, North Dakota, Indiana and Utah. The group argues its advantage lies in championing economic ballot measures rather than culture-war topics, which may end up stuck in a gridlocked Congress or watered down in a Republican-controlled state house. “What amazes us is this tool doesn’t get used more often,” said Dave Regan, president of SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West, who also founded the Fairness Project. “Our political system isn’t doing enough to deliver the results that people want.” But the group has to be careful about working with local organizations on the ground in red and purple states to avoid the appearance that a California-based organization is parachuting in to win an election. And there are certain issues they won’t touch, like marijuana legalization — a broadly popular progressive idea that has started appearing on state ballots. Cannabis legalization efforts failed in Florida, North Dakota and South Dakota this cycle. The Fairness Project argues that cannabis decriminalization, while important, isn’t directly connected to the “ethos of working families.” Focusing on economics helps the group be more effective in politically conservative areas by staying away from partisanship, Regan said. “First thing you have to do is avoid that typical labeling … we’re not a lefty labor group,” Regan said. “Our agenda is entirely mainstream, we’re not out here doing some set of fringe things.” NEWS BREAK — Gov. Gavin Newsom projects “modest” budget surplus and will propose a $322 billion budget … Sen. Scott Wiener pledges renewed focus on affordability … Kamala Harris certifies Donald Trump’s election. 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.
|  | TOP OF THE TICKET | | A highly subjective ranking of the ballot measures — past and future, certain and possible — getting our attention this week. 1. Gann spending limit and rainy day fund (2026?): Gov. Gavin Newsom renewed his push Monday for changes to two previous constitutional amendments: 1979’s Prop 4, which established the so-called Gann limit on government spending, and 2014’s Prop 2, which set new minimums for the state’s rainy day fund. But Newsom conceded both could be a tough sell to voters. “We need to create the right political conditions to advance it,” he said in Turlock. “That’s going to take a Herculean effort.” 2. Prop 34 (2024): The AIDS Healthcare Foundation strategy remains unclear after dropping its legal challenge to the constitutionality of a landlord-backed measure targeting its political spending. At AHF’s request, California’s Third Appellate District dismissed the case the day after Christmas, but the nonprofit could still be planning to take the matter into federal court. 3. Millionaire tax extension (2026/2028?): Unions and supportive lawmakers looking to keep taxes on high earners first established with 2012’s Prop 30 and extended by 2016’s Prop 55 are debating whether to take the issue to the ballot in 2026 or wait until 2028. The current Prop 55 extension expires in 2030, so backers have options — and their calculus will likely focus on gaming out which year will have a friendlier electorate. 4. Prop 36 (2024): In the days since the initiative to increase criminal penalties for theft-and drug-related crimes went into effect, city and county law-enforcement officials across the state, including San Francisco D.A. Brooke Jenkins, have been touting arrests made under the new law. 5. Retirement fund for legislators (2026): A constitutional amendment from Assemblymember Corey Jackson would ask voters to sign off on a retirement system for longtime legislators. Jackson says the benefit would help diversify the Capitol, but it seems equally likely to stir an outcry from voters already wary of elite politicians lining their pockets. 6. Punish unconstitutional lawmaking (2026): Assemblymember Carl DeMaio has introduced an amendment that would dock legislators’ and governors’ salaries if they enact laws that courts later find unconstitutional. DeMaio has now introduced three initiatives in the legislature (and floated others) he says he wants to put before voters. At some point, he’ll likely have to choose favorites. 7. Measure JJ (Dublin, 2024): A new ethics package just took effect for politicians in this Bay Area city, but former mayoral candidate Tom Evans is arguing that voters were tricked into approving the most surprising element of it: an extension of city-council term limits from 8 to 12 years. Evans hasn’t said whether he intends to lead a charge back to the ballot to reverse the limits, which he believes were obscured by accountability provisions like a gift ban and transparency standards.
| | OFF-SEASON TRANSACTIONS | | WEEDN GOES SOLO — Ballot-measure veteran Molly Weedn, who served as comms lead on last year’s campaigns to pass Props 2 and 35, is launching her own San Francisco-based firm, Weedn Public Affairs. Weedn has worked at the California Medical Association and Airbnb and leaves Axiom Advisors to strike out on her own in time for the 2026 ballot season.
| | ON OTHER BALLOTS | | Gov. Tony Evers is calling for a state constitutional amendment to introduce the citizen initiative and referendum process in Wisconsin, where currently the only path to the ballot is via legislatively referred measures … In Mississippi, meanwhile, state lawmakers look unlikely to push legislation that would reinstate the initiative process there, which was scrapped after a 2021 state Supreme Court ruling invalidating a 2020 medical marijuana initiative … A conservative group in Maine is aiming to get an initiative requiring voter ID on the ballot in November … A proposed initiative to limit high-interest loans like payday loans in Nevada will not appear on the 2026 ballot after supporters failed to gather enough signatures … The proponent of the effort to repeal Alaska’s open primary and ranked-choice voting system, which lost narrowly in November, is looking to bring the issue back to the ballot in 2026 … Voters in Wyoming will weigh in on a proposal to cut property taxes in half after the initiative submitted enough signatures to appear on the 2026 ballot … Opponents of Colorado’s efforts to reintroduce wolves within the state — which voters passed via initiative in 2020 — are moving forward with plans to repeal the state’s wolf policy on the 2026 ballot … And residents of Vancouver, Canada may weigh in on a ballot initiative this coming November that would require voter approval to remove any traffic lanes on the city’s streets after the initiative received enough signatures.
| | | WHATEVER HAPPENED TO ... | | PROPOSITION 65 (1986) — The near-ubiquitous Prop 65 labels, which have warned California consumers for nearly four decades of chemicals that could cause cancer and birth defects, are getting an overhaul. State officials approved updated requirements last month for the warnings, which will now have to list a specific chemical associated with the adverse effects specified under the initiative, regardless of the type of product or the length of the warning. It’s a significant departure from the existing standard, set in 2018, which allowed companies to use a “short-form” warning on non-food products that did not have to identify specific harm-causing chemicals. “There are approximately 1,000 chemicals on the Prop 65 list, so a lot of products we come in contact with likely have a Prop 65 chemical,” said Sedina Banks, an attorney with the LA-based firm Greenberg Glusker who works on regulatory compliance and environmental litigation. Given the size of the California market, the new requirements — which also include the possibility of a “CA WARNING” or “CALIFORNIA WARNING” tag — are likely to be felt outside the state’s borders as affected companies adjust their labels to comply ahead of a 2028 deadline.
| | POSTCARD FROM ... | | | | 
| | … SAN MATEO COUNTY — A ballot drama surrounding San Mateo County Sheriff Christina Corpus has all the elements of a dime store novel: a hidden romance, fake diplomas and the dramatic arrest of a political rival. Now, those scenes have culminated in a charter amendment that asks voters to give supervisors unwilling to see the Corpus scandal play out for another year the one-time privilege of firing her. It represents a peculiar trick of the calendar: supervisors in the Bay Area county have been able to schedule a special election for March to amend the constitution but would likely have to wait another full year for a citizen recall to reach the ballot. The spectacle dates back to early July, when the county’s counsel asked retired judge LaDoris Cordell to conduct an “independent fact-finding investigation” into the Sheriff’s Office after hearing complaints about the concerning behavior of Corpus and her chief of staff, Victor Aenlle. The investigation outlined a series of allegations against Corpus and Aenlle, including maintaining an “improper” relationship, engaging in retaliation and intimidation, using homophobic and racist slurs, and abusing authority. Aenlle allegedly misrepresented having a Ph.D and acted as if he was a sworn officer. A day after the report was released, Carlos Tapia, the president of the San Mateo County Deputy Sheriff’s Association and one of the officers who had criticized Corpus, was arrested by the Sheriff’s department for wage theft charges that were later dismissed. Supervisor Ray Mueller said the Sheriff’s Office was in “an operational crisis,” and his colleagues all apparently agreed that the solution was to boot Corpus. But they couldn’t fire another elected official without voter approval, and a citizen-driven recall effort that began gathering signatures likely couldn’t reach the ballot until April 2026. The board of supervisors instead drafted an amendment that would allow it to remove a sitting sheriff for cause, citing the investigation as a deciding factor in the one-use-only grant of power to the board. It comes before voters on March 4. Corpus has vowed not to be cowed. Elected in 2022 after defeating the incumbent on a platform of trust and accountability, she has continued to call the investigation a “mean-spirited political scheme.” Just last week, she sued the county for $10 million, claiming discrimination and harassment.
| | THAT TIME VOTERS ... | | … WENT FISHIN’: Californians have cast votes on a wide variety of fish-related questions over the years, including: Amendment 14, amending the state constitution to include a right to fish on state-owned lands (1910, passed) … Prop 11, creating the Klamath River Fish and Game District and prohibiting dams or other artificial obstruction of waters there (1924, passed) … Prop 5, establishing a permit system for transporting California-caught fish, mollusks or crustaceans out of state (1938, passed) … Prop 8, requiring all money from fines for violating fishing and hunting laws be spent on preservation and conservation efforts (1942, passed) … Prop 6, which would have prohibited the use of nets, traps, set lines and other commercial fishing equipment in the San Francisco Bay (1948, failed) … Prop 15, to ban some fishing nets in ocean and tidewater south of Point San Simeon in San Luis Obispo County (1948, failed) … Prop 20, approving $60 million in bonds for fish, recreation and wildlife facilities (1970, passed) … And Prop 132, which banned additional types of fishing nets and created four new ocean water preserves for research purposes (1990, passed). | | | | 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 | | | | |
