Latest / Groundwork Policy / 2026 California Props 5, 39, and 43: What They Actually Do

Transcript

2026 California Props 5, 39, and 43: What They Actually Do · Groundwork Policy

• Sean Bhardwaj: Today we're talking about a change to how California recalls its officials written by a senator who was once recalled. James Joyce III: A measure on voter ID that could have you writing part of your ID number, maybe even your social security number on the outside of your ballot envelope. Sean Bhardwaj: And a tax measure whose own author says she's adamantly opposed to it. This is Groundwork, the podcast where we take what's being decided at the local, regional, and state levels and tell you what it actually does to you, your business and your community, and most importantly, what you can do about it. I'm Sean Bhardwaj, I work with business owners and leaders, so I read every policy the way they would. What will this do to my organization? James Joyce III: And I'm James Joyce. I was a trained journalist and I've worked inside government for more than a decade, so I know some of the players and how the game gets played. We do the homework and follow the money so you get to see what your choice gets you, and we'll each tell you where we land. When Where you land is your call. Sean Bhardwaj: We're continuing our rundown of California's fourteen state measures on this year's ballot. Today we're going through props five, thirty-nine, and forty-three. Prop 5 changes what happens after voters recall a state official. Today the recall ballot asks two questions: should this person go and who replaces them? Prop 5 means that if a recall happens, instead of voting on who takes it, the job goes to whoever's next in line, to an appointment or to a later election, depending on the office. If it passes, it would take effect by mid-December. So it would cover the governor we elect this November along with any other state official who can be recalled in the future. James, what does it take to get a recall going? James Joyce III: A recall is how voters remove a state official before their term is up for any reason. And recent recalls followed something voters blame them for, like a tax vote. For a governor, recall backers need signatures equal to 12% of the last vote for that office. For a legislator, it's 20%. Eleven recalls have made the ballot since nineteen thirteen. Six of those removed someone, all but one of those a legislator. The exception was the governor, Gray Davis, in two thousand and three. After blackouts, a budget hole, and a tripled car tax, 135 people ran to replace him on the ballot. 135. Arnold Schwarzenegger won with about half the replacement vote. The tail end of his tenure is when I started working in the legislature. Sean Bhardwaj: And one of those recalled legislators actually wrote Prop 5. James Joyce III: Yes, Senator Josh Newman, whose district then was mostly North Orange County. In twenty seventeen, he voted for a twelve cent gas tax increase A group called Reform California started a recall drive, and in twenty eighteen, close to sixty percent of the people who voted in his recall taught him how to reach his voters. After the twenty twenty one governor's recall and legislative hearings on it, he made changing recalls his cause. Prop five passed both houses by better than three to one. So the legislature's behind this one, and because it changes the state constitution, it comes to us as voters. Sean Bhardwaj: So critics are gonna say this is an example of him and legislators writing the rules for things that could cost them their seats. James Joyce III: Yeah, Sean, the the no side says that. it says he's protecting politicians like himself. He says he didn't do anything other than cast a tough vote and that recalls run as political games aren't what the recall was created for back in nineteen eleven. The yes side says today's ballot lets someone take the state's top job with a slice of the vote and turns a recall into a do-over of the last election. The Secretary of State, Common Cause and the League of Women Voters sponsored this one. Opponents say Prop 5, take away your pick, hands it to politician, and leaves seats empty for months. Yeah. My read on this whole thing pivots on who picks the replacement and when. In lawmaking, like with business, predictability and consistency are very helpful. And often those closest to the problem are the ones best positioned to fashion a solution. Sean Bhardwaj: Here's what changes under Prop 5. If voters recall a governor, the lieutenant governor would become the new governor. If that happens early in the term, before candidates finish filing for the statewide primary in its first two years, then there's also a special election for a new governor on that primary ballot. And you'd need a majority to win it, or the top two go on to November. James Joyce III: That's two elections for one recall early in a term, and running elections costs us voters money. I think it's worth noting that local recalls already work the way that Prop five is proposing for statewide offices, whereas a recall vote doesn't also choose a replacement. Sean Bhardwaj: Yet for the other statewide jobs like attorney general or treasurer, the governor names a replacement and both houses of the legislature vote on the pick. For a state senator or an assembly member, the governor calls a special election within about four months, and the person voters just removed can actually run in it again. In essence, today a recall is a firing and hiring on the same ballot. Prop 5 keeps the firing and hands the hiring to the next in line, whether that's an appointment or a later election. But James, can we trust that appointed replacements, even with confirmation, are better than just rerunning the race for some of these roles? James Joyce III: It's the same rule we use whenever one of those offices comes up open. And the governor making the pick won a statewide race. So there's already some agency there as a leader. How much the confirmation checks, it depends on who's confirming. In 2021, the assembly confirmed a new attorney general and a new Secretary of State without a single no vote. In 2010 when the governor and the legislature were on opposing sides, the assembly fell short of the votes to confirm his pick for lieutenant governor, then confirmed him two months later. Sean Bhardwaj: Let's do our box score, which is something we do with every measure. We give it a number from one to ten, one being not at all, and ten being a perfect match for whether the label matches what's inside. It's not about whether it's the right tool for the job, we'll get to that later. James, does prop five do what it says on the box? James Joyce III: This one misses the bullseye for me a bit. I give it a six because the label says statewide offices and inside it reaches every state legislator too. How about you, Sean? What's yours? Sean Bhardwaj: I'm a 4 because the title says it changes recall election process, which is true, but for every statewide office but governor, what it really does is take the replacement out of any election and let the governor pick. As of october fourteenth, no committee had formed to raise money for or against it. So who's lined up on this anyway? James Joyce III: Against it are the Senate's minority leader and an assembly member, a taxpayers group, and an election integrity group. The state's business chamber hasn't taken a position on this. When it went through the legislature, the lieutenant governor's office backed it. That's the office that would take over a recall governor's job. But Sean, why should businesses be interested in how this one turns out? Sean Bhardwaj: For businesses, the interest is stability. In 2003, hours after taking office. The new governor signed an executive order undoing his predecessor's tripling of the car tax. A hike news reports put out at 4 billion, and that had just taken effect seven weeks earlier. Today, a recall can put in a new governor in weeks on less than half the replacement vote. Under Prop 5, the lieutenant governor steps in, and that's less whiplash, but if you were counting on the change that a recall promises, it's going to be coming much later. A recalled senator's seat though is still empty until the special election. James, what does that look like from inside a district office? James Joyce III: Yeah, I was district director for about 10 years, and thankfully have had I have no direct experience with this one. But let's say your senator is recalled in June. Until the spectral election in that fall, the staff keeps answering the phones, likely identifying as a Senate district as opposed to a particular office holder. constituent work would continue, but nobody votes for your district in the Senate, in the state Senate. Sean Bhardwaj: For all of us, recalls, while infrequent, mean more accountability for elected officials to be more responsive to the public, and we wanna have more of that. And somebody pays for those special elections. James Joyce III: Yeah, under state law, counties pay to run elections, and the state covers a special election only when the legislature approves that money. In 2021, the legislature approved the money for the governor's recall, which cost about $200 million. About $174 million of that was the county's cost of running it. The state set aside about $4.3 million for Ventura County specifically. Sean Bhardwaj: For a county, that's a bill nobody's budgeted for and it lands on taxpayers. James Joyce III: So yeah, Prop five can save money or cost it depending on timing and the office. The legislative analyst, the legislature's nonpartisan budget office, says a standalone election, one that can't ride on a ballot already scheduled, could cost millions. And that these costs or savings would be rare. The savings comes when there is no election following the recall, like a governor recalled late in the term or an office filled by an appointment, because the recall ballot no longer lists replacement candidates. Sean Bhardwaj: This is really a tension between keeping the status quo and being responsive and where we want that slider to sit between them. Is dropping the replacement question a good way to keep a recall about removing an official and to make sure no replacement candidate wins an office without a majority? James Joyce III: It's built right for what it's trying to do. Voters still decide who represents them. My worry is a Senate district with nobody voting for it. For up to four months, the whole taxation without representation thing. But had the 2021 recall passed, the leading replacement would have taken over with about 28% of everyone who voted, right? And that worries me more than a maximum four-month lapse in representation. Sean Bhardwaj: I'm not fully convinced that this helps voters more than it protects people already in office. In that same 2021 recall, the lieutenant governor shared the governor's politics. So under Prop 5, voters who are asking for a change would have gotten more of the same. And accountability is the whole point of a recall. So moving that choice away from voters, I think cuts a little bit against accountability, but I do see the benefits we've talked about in terms of continuity. James, here's an idea for getting a replacement with majority support. Keep the second question on the recall ballot, and if no one wins a majority there, send the top two to a runoff. James Joyce III: Could work, I'm not sure about that, but it sure sounds like a great argument for ranked choice voting, perhaps with an expiration date on the results. So the successor for a potential recall has already been pre-selected by the voters. A bit of a compromise, but there'd have to be a way to disincentivize a recall effort by those in the ranked results. Sean Bhardwaj: The bottom line is a yes on Prop 5 means a recall would no longer ask who should fill the job. Depending on the office and the timing, it would be filled by a special election or an appointment, and a recalled governor's job would go to the lieutenant governor. A no means voters would keep choosing the replacement on the same ballot as the recall. If this passes and there's a recall, James, who should people call? James Joyce III: for a legislator, you would call your county elections office, which runs the special election. for a statewide job other than the governor, if the legislature doesn't vote on the governor's pick within that 90-day window, the pick takes office anyway. So it's your assembly member and your state senator. Sean Bhardwaj: And if prop five fails. James Joyce III: Recalls keep asking both questions. Changing that takes another constitutional amendment, and the legislature that voters elected this November can start that amendment process right away. A petition drive is the other way in, and either way, it comes back to the voters. Sean Bhardwaj: That covers prop five. Next, prop 39. Prop 39 would change the state constitution so that every time you vote, you prove who you are with a government ID. You have to show it in person or write part of its number on the outside of your mail ballot envelope. It would cost the state and counties tens of millions of dollars to maybe even hundreds of millions of dollars per year. And its backers call it a national model. James, for everyone who dropped a ballot in the mailbox or dropbox, How does the county know that it's them? James Joyce III: That falls on the signature. Your signature. The county compares the one on your envelope to the ones in your voter file, which often comes from the signature on the back of your driver's license or ID. A ballot gets rejected only if two more staffers each find it clearly doesn't match. Even then, the county tells you that you can fix it with the signed statement. Sean Bhardwaj: So the argument we're gonna hear for this is that thirty six states ask for some kind of ID at the polls, and you could frame this as California catching up. James Joyce III: The backers say signature checks are slow and throw out good ballots, and that an ID builds trust. The no side says requiring people to do that would throw out valid ballots too. The way I see it, the backers and the group against it want the same thing: account that people can trust. Sean Bhardwaj: If 39 passes, the state and the counties use best efforts to check that everyone on their rolls is a citizen using government data, with the legislature deciding what best efforts means. And if you vote by mail, you'd pick one ID for voting, your driver's license or your social security number, even if you've already registered. The county prints which one on your envelope and you write the last four digits of that number on it. If you leave the four digits off or write the wrong ones, the county can't count it. My read of the text is that the signature check also stays. So the number is a second check on top of it. If you've ever run into one of those wonderful two-factor logins and software where it needs to Have your password, and then it's gonna send you a text message or a little code to your email. This is basically the same thing. The signature is your password and the four digits are the code that you get texted or emailed. Personally, I find those kind of annoying. James Joyce III: So belt and suspenders then for your voting pants? Huh. That new step is gonna trip people up the first time out. Sean Bhardwaj: Texas found that out in 2022. In its first election, under a similar rule, it threw out about one in eight male ballots, mostly for a missing or mismatched number. A peer-reviewed Brennan Center study found that about 9 in 10 of the voters the rule turned away didn't vote another way in that election. Most of them had voted in general elections before. By that November, After there was a new envelope and voter outreach, Texas threw out about 3% of mail ballots. But in 2020, before this type of law was enacted it had been under 1% of ballots getting tossed out. And we couldn't find what it cost Texas counties. But before it passed, their state budget office listed new forms, outreach, and rejected applications as county costs with no price attached to them. James Joyce III: The rule has held up so far in court. A federal judge ruled against it in twenty twenty three, and in twenty twenty five a federal appeals court reversed that ruling. A question I'd expect from anyone voting in person, what happens if you show up and your wallet's at home? Sean Bhardwaj: Under Prop 39, you'd vote a provisional ballot, which counts only after election officials verify who you are. And the text doesn't really say how or by when. If you're eligible and you have no license, you could ask the state for a voter ID card, apparently at no charge, but there's going to be a charge to do it, and that's the idea you'd show. James Joyce III: The petition people signed to get this on the ballot was titled Additional Voter Identification and Citizenship Verification Requirements. Then, in July, the Attorney General retitled it to Prohibits Citizens from Voting Unless They Present Government-issued Identification. The backers sued, saying the new title wasn't neutral, and they lost. The legislative leaders sued over the backers argument in the voter guide. A judge found the arguments claim that it makes voting easier, protects privacy, and saves millions false and misleading, and the backers rewrote them. The backers lost both cases. Sean Bhardwaj: Also, under the hood, making people write the four digits on the envelope would affect most voters in California. In November 2024, about 13 million of the 16 million Californians who voted did it by mail. Here in California, we already throw out mail ballots from our younger voters at the highest rate. In that same election, voters 18 to 24 had more than 3% of theirs thrown out. Across all voters, it was under 1%. My bet is this is one more thing to get right that lands the hardest on the voters who are the newest. James, does Prop 39 do what it says on the box? James Joyce III: Not for me, I give this one a four. Largely because the Attorney General's title is all about showing ID, and then on the inside it's also having counties check anyone on the voter rolls for their citizenship status, which the title never mentions. How about you? Where are you on this one, Sean? Sean Bhardwaj: At a 2 because it's supposed to make voting more secure and requiring more ID technically does that. But the real effect from what Texas saw is eligible voters losing their ballots and it costs far more than any security it adds. Who's putting money on each side of this one? James Joyce III: As of october fourteenth, the Yes Side's biggest donors have put in about thirty million dollars. More than half of it came from one donor outside of California. The no side's biggest donors have put in about twenty three million, including a tribal government and the nurses association. Sean Bhardwaj: Seventeen million dollars from one person out of the state. It sounds like California is the test market here. James Joyce III: Well, political scientist, David McCuan's read is that a strong showing in California could help the same idea in swing states, even if you lose. For it is Reform California, the group behind the twenty eighteen recall, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association is behind this one too. Against it, the ACLU, Common Cause, and the League of Women Voters. The state's business chamber, again, hasn't taken a position as of mid-September. Sean Bhardwaj: In April, 56% of California voters in a UC Berkeley poll backed it. And that fell below half once they heard the specifics. By September, another statewide poll had 43% of likely voters for it. James Joyce III: If you ask me, between the one donor and those polls, this is about a clear of a special interest measure as I've seen. Sean, what's the impact on businesses? Sean Bhardwaj: If you want your people voting and weighing in on policy, which we should all do, it puts another step between them and the ballot. A voter drive at your chamber or nonprofit adds a line to every form since every voter would have to pick an ID to vote by mail. An employee who goes to the polls without ID votes on a provisional ballot, and if proving who they are takes another trip, that's either on their time or yours. And if they work the polls, I'd guess their day gets longer and harder, checking IDs instead of helping people vote. And from a privacy and security standpoint, if my business asked a customer to write the last four digits of a personal ID number on the outside of an envelope, that would send a cold chill down my spine and probably be illegal in several different ways. James Joyce III: Take a 20-year-old who picked their Social Security number and forgot. So they write their license number instead. That ballot would not count? Hmm. Given that in this last midterm, only about half of register's voters turned out. Do we really want to set up one more hoop? Sean Bhardwaj: Ventura County threw out about 3,900 male ballots in 2024. Most of them were over a signature. Let's say it threw out ballots at the rate Texas did in that first election instead. That's more than 40,000 ballots that would have gotten tossed. And if Texas is any guide, most of them would be eligible voters. James Joyce III: We couldn't find what thirty nine would cost Ventura County, and just like Prop Five's special election, it's the county's bill unless the legislature chooses to pay. Since the cost being placed on the county is from a ballot measure, it isn't one of the state's issues that they have to reimburse. Sean Bhardwaj: It costs time too. County registrars told a TV station that checking partial numbers could actually take longer than checking signatures. If the county pays for $39, the money comes out of something else, or it takes more taxes. And from a business point of view, both are no-nos. Is this what you want the tax money you're paying to be spent on? Is requiring a government ID in this way with every ballot a good way to make sure only eligible citizens vote and that voters trust the count? James Joyce III: I've frequently pointed out that with our current election system and participation levels, we're already pushing the limits of capacity. The delays you pointed out in checking signatures, lines at poll locations, and all sorts of things like that, this would be an extra layer. And election officials say audits show the mail system is secure, and efforts to find non-citizen voters have turned up very few culprits. Whatever the aim, what it actually does. is add a new way to throw out a valid ballot. So it's the wrong tool. Sean Bhardwaj: A national study of strict ID laws over 10 years found no change in fraud real or perceived. Locally, the counties would pay. For me, it fails the test of what it catches against what it costs. In Texas, the number costs male voters their ballots, and the best evidence we have doesn't show it buys security. If you're gonna spend more money and time and make things harder and still not get the result you're going for, that's a hard pass by any business measure. If someone has any creative ideas though to get more people who are eligible to vote though, you have my attention. James, I think we've said all we need to say about this. What do you think? James Joyce III: Enough said. Sean Bhardwaj: A yes means you'd give more identifying information every time you vote, a government ID in person or the last four digits of the ID number you picked on your mail ballot. The state would give a free voter ID card to any eligible voter who asks and use best efforts to check voters' citizenship. A no means your identity would still be confirmed with your signature. If this one passes James, who picks it up next? James Joyce III: That'd be the legislature which has to pass the laws that put it into place, starting with which IDs count. So it's the same door as many of these proposals, your assembly member and your state senator next year. Sean Bhardwaj: And if voters turn it down? James Joyce III: The signature check stays. And its rules are in state law. So it's the same to in Sacramento. Next session. Your assembly member and your senator. If you want voting made easier, they're also the ones to tell. Sean Bhardwaj: That covers prop thirty-nine. Next, prop forty three. Prop 43 raises the bar for local taxes that residents put on the ballot themselves. When a city council or a county board asks voters for a tax that's locked to one purpose, it already needs two thirds of the vote for that to pass. But when residents gather signatures and put the same kind of tax on the ballot, today it needs just over half. Starting in 2027, Prop 43 would make that two thirds two. And its own author says she's adamantly opposed to it. James, for anyone who's never read a tax measure, what's the difference between a special tax and a general tax? James Joyce III: So a general tax goes into the city's main budget for whatever the city council decides. A special tax is locked into one purpose that the ballot names, like the library or the fire department, a bit of a gift card, if you will. And and if you don't know that, don't feel bad. I only learned it when I was a reporter and had to write about these topics for the whole community. Sean Bhardwaj: With this one, the legislature passed it almost unanimously. But something happened on the way to the ballot. James Joyce III: Sure, it was a a deal on the last day a measure could come off the ballot. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association had gathered the signature signatures for a bigger measure. It had this same two-thirds rule. It would have capped local taxes on selling a property at about a tenth of a percent of the price. And it would have voided some local taxes already on the books. Lawmakers had their own measure ready. It would have made the association's measure need two thirds to pass. Then on june 25th both sides pulled their measures and the legislature put the this more narrow measure on the ballot instead. Perhaps That's the compromise that they say politics is the art of. Sean Bhardwaj: The author of this measure says she's against it. Why would a legislator write something she's against? James Joyce III: Assemblymember Buffy Wicks of Oakland says she wrote it, quote, not because I wanted it to become law, end quote. Cal Matters says her choice was between a measure that threatened billions in local funding and a narrow one she still believed was bad policy. Meanwhile, the Taxpayers Association says we're getting what we want on the ballot. And the yes side says the courts opened a loophole. In Prop 13, that's the nineteen seventy-eight measure that set the two-thirds rule, which this closes. That's the push and pull you get at every level of government. Sean Bhardwaj: Is the legislature hoping voters turn this down? James Joyce III: The author is by her own words. As for the legislature, I'd say the point of the deal was getting the bigger measure off the ballot. The no sides case is the math. In their words, a no vote counts twice as much as a yes because it takes just over one out of three voters to stop attacks, even when nearly two out of three want it. There's a line in Prop 43, no official summary mentions. Residents couldn't use a petition to pass a property tax based on what the property is worth beyond what Prop 13 already allows. How far that reaches isn't settled, and one law firm reads it as shutting residents out of new property taxes altogether. From twenty twenty seven, expanding or raising a tax residents already passed needs two thirds two. Sean Bhardwaj: Making it real, what would happen to something like the mansion tax in Los Angeles? James Joyce III: It stays since it's already passed. It's the tax on selling property for more than five million dollars. It made national news and it came about by petition by about 58% the vote. That's short of two-thirds. So if that were to happen under an approved Prop 43, it would fail. The city counts about one point four billion so far for affordable housing and help keeping renters housed. Sean Bhardwaj: I'm getting this as a way to limit taxes for specific things. What about raising general taxes? James Joyce III: A general tax still passes with a majority. The two thirds bar is only for a tax locked to one purpose. Sean Bhardwaj: James, does prop forty three do what it says on the box? James Joyce III: I'm giving this one a five because the label says it limits voters' ability to raise revenues, and it does for special taxes and property taxes by petition, but general taxes still pass with a simple majority. This is a nuanced issue and I understand the challenge to summarize cleanly. How about your number? Sean Bhardwaj: Three, it's a Trojan horse. It says it raises the bar to two-thirds for special taxes residents propose. What it really does is go further with that property tax line that we talked about. Who's behind this one and who's against it? James Joyce III: As of october fourteenth, the Yes Side's biggest donors have put in about fourteen million. Most of it came through California Business Roundtables Committee. The same committee that put almost half a million against Prop 40, the billionaires tax from our last episode. The No Side's biggest donors have put in about five million, mostly coming from unions. Also on the no side, the League of California Cities put in about two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, a quarter million dollars, and I'd bet that's because a tax residents pass is money their cities spent. Business is on both sides of this one, which makes for quite strange bedfellows. Los Angeles real estate firms are for it with the state's business chamber. Construction industry groups and construction unions are against it with firefighters, teachers, and nurses. The way I read it, the real estate money is about the next tax like the mansion tax and the construction union's money follows the work local road taxes pay for. Sean Bhardwaj: No one likes taxes, but we like living in places where things run smoothly, safely, and effectively. Taxes passed this way are a way to pay for wildfire and emergency services in Sonoma County, parks in Fresno, teacher pay and homelessness services in San Francisco, and housing in LA. If your organization builds those, runs them, or gets paid from them, this is your revenue getting harder to raise. Now, if you're the one paying the taxes, while yes, let's say it's a tax on roads that fails, you get to keep that money, but that doesn't mean the road gets fixed. And if that's the thing that your trucks are driving down, it's gonna cost you more in the long run. I can see businesses being on both sides of this, but there certainly is a value to taxes that a community sets on itself. James Joyce III: So let's say you live up in a canyon outside of Ojai, and neighbors want another fire engine staffed during the fire season. They gather signatures for a parcel tax, a flat yearly charge on each property, and 60% of the people who voted say yes. Today it passes. After Prop 43, it fails. The extra engine doesn't come. It didn't meet the threshold. And we're recording this in Santa Ana season, which is exactly when you'd want that engine to be staffed. Sean Bhardwaj: To me, it's a knock on local control. The state constitution would raise the bar a city's own voters have to clear when the residents decide to tax themselves. In California's March 2024 primary, about a third of registered voters turned out. A third of that third, about one registered voter in nine, could stop that engine from being possible. Has that two-thirds bar decided anything around here locally, James? James Joyce III: Well, in twenty sixteen, Ventura County supervisors asked voters for a half cent sales tax for roads. The money would have also been used for the 101 and buses. It got 57% of the vote and failed because a county's tax locked to one purpose needs two thirds votes. This spring, Santa Barbara's City Council looked at raising its tax on property sales over three million. In a poll worded for housing for local workers, it reached about 60%, still shorter the two-thirds. As far as we could tell, residents could put either of these on the ballot themselves today and need just over half. If Prop forty three passes, it takes two thirds. Sean Bhardwaj: Is requiring two thirds for every local special tax, including the ones residents put on the ballot themselves, a good way to protect taxpayers and make sure a tax locked to one purpose has broad support? James Joyce III: Broad support for a tax lock to one purpose is a fair goal. Philosophically, one bar for both routes makes sense. Mechanically, the neighbors who vote no get the last word on it. Like the Canyon's engine. Even when they're a smaller group. Most of the people who show up should get to decide how to fund the things they deem important. Sean Bhardwaj: To be fair, James, the yes side says court decisions created loopholes. Take San Francisco in twenty eighteen. The teachers union gathered signatures for a teacher pay parcel tax. It passed with sixty one percent, and the courts upheld it at a simple majority. Is that the kind of loophole the backers mean? James Joyce III: So in in the Bay Area there's a group called Spur, it's a policy group that's against Prop forty three. They say that taxes like that are a small minority and that local measures and Prop forty three raises the bar on every special tax residents put on the ballot. It's like trying to kill an ant with a stick of dynamite. Sean Bhardwaj: Seems like the wrong tool for the job. In addition to requiring that two-thirds bar, by including that little line about property taxes, it makes setting one of those even more difficult as well. California has a lot of valuable real estate. Property values matter to the people who own it, and taxes on that property are an important source of money for local services. My guess is that if residents can't raise that money by petition, the same services get paid for with general taxes on everyone. And that isn't where anyone wants to end up. And the bar for funding a city's library or road is one I'd rather not have the state constitution decide for them. A yes on prop forty three means a new, raised or renewed local special tax would need two thirds of the people who vote, including one that residents put on the ballot themselves, starting January first. Taxes that are already approved stay in place. A no means that special taxes residents put on the ballot could keep passing. With a simple majority. Say it passes. Who should people engage with to influence it, James? James Joyce III: Well, this one is local, your city council and your county supervisors. Chances are more of the next ask for roads, fires, or the library start with them as a general tax. Watch their agendas once the newly elected officials take their seats, the ones that'll win this November. For most, that'll be December and January. And if you're looking to fund something, prepare to do more groundwork to get more people to vote and vote. Together. Sean Bhardwaj: If voters say no. James Joyce III: The petition route stays at a simple majority. I'd expect the Taxpayers Association to try this again. And every new statewide initiative starts at the Attorney General's office. So that's where to watch. Locally, it's your city clerk the day a tax petition gets filed. Sean Bhardwaj: That covers Prop forty three and that's our episode. James Joyce III: Next time, our three measures will be Prop thirty seven, a proposal to create a loan program for middle income buyers of qualified new homes. Prop two would increase the state's rainy day fund and Prop forty two would ban new state taxes on personal property and certain retroactive state taxes. Sean Bhardwaj: Remember to subscribe to Groundwork wherever you're listening. So the next one is in your feed when it comes out. Groundwork is a podcast from Common Ground, Policy, and Public Affairs. The rest of the week we do this work for businesses and organizations. We tell them what's coming at the local, regional, and state levels, what it means, help them decide what to do about it, and see it through with them. James Joyce III: If you like this, send it to someone you know who needs help filling out their ballots this year. Also, if you have different ideas, questions, or something we didn't get to, tell us in the comments. And if your organization needs support with policy and public affairs, reach out to us at hello at commongroundppa.com and let's talk.