July 13, 2024 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Déjà Vu On The Initiative Front:

California voters can be excused if they get a sense of déjà vu when taking their first look at the ballot initiative pamphlets for the fall election.

That’s because they’ve already seen and decided on several of the issues they’re being asked to consider in November. The decisions, of course, were negative on all those that will be back for another go-’round.

But a no vote, even a resounding one, doesn’t always deter initiative sponsors. And they’re sometimes right. There can be occasions when the time simply isn’t yet ripe for a particular issue. The best example of that might have been Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 property tax cutting measure. Five years before it passed, then-Gov. Ronald Reagan called a special election with another proposed property tax cut the only item up for a vote. It failed by almost a 60-40 percent margin. But as property values skyrocketed through the mid-’70s, taking property taxes for a ride with them, more and more voters felt threatened by fast-rising levies. That allowed Proposition 13 to pass with a 65 percent yes vote.

So it’s no wonder initiative sponsors often try, try again when at first they don’t succeed.

That’s why we’re about to see a repeat of the 2010 attempt by Mercury Insurance Co. Chairman George Joseph to reverse part of the 1988 Proposition 108 insurance rate limits by letting car insurance companies set prices based on how long a driver has continuously maintained an auto policy.

The very slight difference between that one and this year’s Proposition 33, also almost completely funded by Joseph, is that Mercury’s new measure would let insurance companies base their rates in small part on the number of years new customers have had any kind of coverage. Consumer advocates maintain that could produce significantly higher rates for both new drivers and those renewing existing policies.

Then there’s Proposition 32, the so-called “paycheck protection” measure that would force labor unions to get annual member approvals before spending any of their dues money on politics.

Voters saw that one in the 1990s and again in a 2005 special election, where it had the strong backing of then-popular Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It lost anyhow, buried beneath a tide of union-sponsored TV commercials and a classic get-out-the-vote effort. Unions will make the same sort of effort again this year, having put up $10 million to fight the measure by Aug. 1.

There’s Proposition 36, a measure to ease some of the harsh sentencing requirements of the Three-Strikes-and-You’re-Out law that puts three-time felons away for 25 years even if their third offense is so minor or non-violent it might only be a misdemeanor but for the two prior convictions. That sentencing policy is one reason for California’s gigantic prison expenditures. The Three-Strikes component in prison spending won’t be changed during the current realignment program sending supposedly low-risk offenders back to the counties from which they came – unless Proposition 36 passes.

The last effort at easing Three-Strikes came in the early 2000s and got nowhere. It remains to be seen whether voters have come around to seeing the law’s current configuration as at least a partial waste of money.

There is also Proposition 30, so far the most-discussed and -debated measure on the November list. This is Brown’s effort to win approval for temporary tax increases to ease the state’s budget crunch and keep key state programs running at or near current levels.

The proposition bears a lot of similarity to a Schwarzenegger-backed effort in 2009, which failed miserably.

The Brown proposal’s fate may have been sealed by revelations of hundreds of millions of dollars simply lying around in special funds – some unknown even to the governor – that so far have not been tapped even in emergencies. Unless something dramatic occurs between now and early October, when mail voting begins, chances are the early polls which favored this will be reversed in the official vote.

Legislative redistricting is also on the ballot again, via the Republican-sponsored referendum known as Proposition 40, which would nix the state Senate district lines drawn by the rookie Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was set up under another initiative. The cash-strapped GOP will spending nothing on this one, but it could pass anyway because of possible voter confusion over what a yes vote (to nix the districts) or a no one (to keep them) means. So yes means no on the districts, and how many voters will comprehend that?

in Opinion
Related Posts

Letter to the Editor: Criticizing Israeli Policy Is Not Antisemitic

July 10, 2024

July 10, 2024

In the past several months, we’ve seen increasing protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza. We have also seen these protests...

SMA.R.T. WISHES ALL A VERY HAPPY 4TH OF JULY WEEK

July 7, 2024

July 7, 2024

We trust you are enjoying this holiday in celebration of Independence. Independence to be embraced, personally and civically, thru active...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Under SCAG’s Boot

June 30, 2024

June 30, 2024

Four years ago, our esteemed colleague Mario Fonda-Bonardi wrote the prescient essay below when much of the legislative development juggernaut...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 2)

June 23, 2024

June 23, 2024

Last week’s SMart article  (https://smmirror.com/2024/06/sm-a-r-t-column-the-up-zoning-scam-part-1/)  discussed the ambitious 8895 units (including 6168 affordable units) that Santa Monica is required to...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Up Zoning Scam (Part 1)

June 16, 2024

June 16, 2024

Over the last few years, the State of California has mandated a massive upzoning of cities to create capacity for...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Shape Up – On Steroids

June 9, 2024

June 9, 2024

Nine years ago, SMa.r.t wrote a series of articles addressing the adaptive re-use of existing structures. We titled one “Shape...

SM.a.r.t Column: The Challenge of Running a City When City Staff Have Different Priorities

June 2, 2024

June 2, 2024

Living in a city has its perks, but it can be a real headache when the folks running the show...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path to Affordable Ownership in Santa Monica

May 27, 2024

May 27, 2024

[Note: our guest author today is Andres Drobny, a former Professor of Economics at the University of London, the former...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part II

May 19, 2024

May 19, 2024

As referenced in Part I of this article, the state’s use of faulty statistics and forceful legislation has left a...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A Path Forward for Santa Monica: Part I

May 12, 2024

May 12, 2024

To quickly summarize, California grapples with an ongoing housing crisis spurred by state implementation of over 100 policies and mandates...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Where Will Our Huddled Masses Sleep? Navigating California’s Affordable Housing Mandates

May 5, 2024

May 5, 2024

Just as Lady Liberty beckons the “huddled masses” of immigrants to America, cities like Santa Monica have an ethical obligation...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMCLC SPEAKS

April 28, 2024

April 28, 2024

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) periodically invites guest columnists who have made a significant contribution to the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Building Modern Boxes Lacks Identity

April 21, 2024

April 21, 2024

In the relentless pursuit of modernity, cities worldwide have witnessed the rise of so-called architectural marvels in the form of...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Santa Monica Needs Responsible Urban and Architectural Design

April 14, 2024

April 14, 2024

[SMa.r.t. note: Eight years ago, our highly esteemed and recently-passed colleague Ron Goldman documented his thoughts on the need for...

SM.a.r.t. Column: BLINK NOW!

April 7, 2024

April 7, 2024

Nine years ago, I wrote a column for SMa.r.t. titled SANTA MONICA: BEACH TOWN OR ‘DINGBAT’ CITY? (https://smdp.com/2015/05/09/santa-monica-beach-town-dingbat-city/)Here is the...