It’s that biennial time to take pride in our democracy, or, after reading the arguments for and against 21 ballot measures, we might wonder if the serf system was underrated. I’ve invested many hours studying all 21 propositions, and what I most learned is that suffrage is time consuming.
While I don’t suggest relying solely on my impressions, I’m happy to share them along with my recommendation to check out the voter guides in the LA Times, Cal Matters, and your very own Santa Monica Daily Press (SMDP).
I’ll start with the Los Angeles County ballot measures, because there’s only two, and one, Measure E, is just fixing errors from a previous ballot measure in 2024 that accidentally deleted language in the county charter. It’s easy to support fixing a mistake, but it highlights the poor construction of these measures. Too many mix good intentions with potentially bad consequences.
There are five measures regarding taxes. The simplest is state Proposition 3, which removes the expiration date for a current tax. It seems unethical to convince people to vote for a tax on the basis that it’s temporary and then make it permanent. However, it only impacts taxpayers with more than $360,000 of annual income, and at a time of economic need, it seems reasonable to ask those who are suffering less to contribute more.
Proposition 40, the “billionaire tax,” is more complicated. Reporting by the LA Times revealed the measure was largely an act of political gamesmanship by a powerful union, designed as much to blackmail the governor as to tax billionaires. Independent researchers have estimated that the measure could easily backfire, resulting in reduced tax revenue rather than increased.
Propositions 41 and 42were created to counter 40, but 42 raises valid questions about whether property tax should be allowed on personal assets other than real estate. If we approve the state taxing the savings accounts, stock portfolios and trading cards of billionaires today, what’s to stop legislators from taxing ours tomorrow?
Proposition 43attempts to close a loophole that allows tax measures to pass with only 50% of the vote, rather than 67%, if they are placed on the ballot by citizens (and friends and relatives of elected leaders count as “citizens”). If the measure passes, it will make it much more difficult to pass new taxes (like local Measure ES), for better and for worse.
There are three additional propositions that won’t increase taxes now but will likely do so in the future, because they require heavy borrowing. Proposition 1allows for issuing $11 billion of bonds, Proposition 37 is for an additional $25 billion, and Proposition 38 includes $8 billion more. The stated purposes for the $45 billion are laudable, including loans to middle-class home buyers for mortgage down payments. Left unsaid are the hundreds of millions of dollars of annual costs, and I haven’t heard a single state leader question the timing of taking on immense debt when interest rates are at 20-year highs.
But responsible fiscal stewardship isn’t what we expect from legislators. They’re far better at symbolic gestures and partisan rivalry, which brings us to Propositions 5 and 39. Proposition 5 can be seen as an attempt to eliminate the carnival atmosphere of recall elections by separating the recall of a statewide officer from the election of a potential replacement, or it can be seen as political payback.
However, it’s hard to see 39’s voter restrictions as anything but a Hail Mary pass by the President’s minions using Trumped-up accusations of voter fraud. One day there needs to be a level-headed bipartisan discussion about voter ID, but that’s not what this measure is about.
Most of these initiatives come down to trusting that our elected representatives meticulously composed these legally binding measures with careful consideration of repercussions, but based on what I’ve witnessed locally, I’m skeptical.
One of the Santa Monica ballot measures protecting rent control tenants had to be rescinded two weeks after being passed because it violated state law. In its place, the Council instructed the city to quickly create Measure VV, which provides protections for market rate tenants—at the expenses of the rights of private homeowners (and renters) who lease (or sublease) their homes. It’s unclear to what degree those rights are abrogated, because, well, the measure was assembled quickly.
Meanwhile, at the last council meeting, legislation was proposed to carve out protections from Measure GG, in case it passes, since the rent-control tenants it was intended to help have expressed alarm about it. And Measure RR, which is intended to prevent landlords from unfairly evicting rent-control tenants when they owe less than a month’s rent, has the extra bonus of allowing those tenants to never pay their rent on time again.
However, Measure TT, seems like a fairly straightforward effort to close a loophole in the local hotel tax (TOT), which is a bedrock of the city’s economy, by allowing the tax to be collected for stays over 30 days, when they coincide with major events (ie, the Olympics).
If you’re not already bleary-eyed from reading this column, you can find more details about the pros and cons of the local measures on SMDP’s Election Central, and I covered the proposed parcel tax, Measure ES, in my previous column. Next week, I’ll focus on the more than five dozen candidates on our ballots. No one ever said democracy was easy.
Devan Sipher can be reached at Devan@smdp.com.