Propositioning Voters

I grew up in a politically engaged family. My mother was active in the League of Women Voters, my church group was active in civil rights, and one of my most formative political experiences was protesting the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. I moved to California when I was in my mid-twenties. I had voted in only one election before moving, because in those days the voting age was 21.

When I moved to California, I was introduced to the proposition. Not all states use this process for legislating. The thing about propositions is that they bring the issue directly to the voters. And, as long as the voters understand the issues and what it means to vote “for” or “against”, then you have real participatory democracy. But if you have people just voting the way they are told to vote, then you become vulnerable to special interests.

Just Tell Me Who to Vote For

I grew up in the western suburbs of Chicago well within the shadow of the Democratic machine politics of Richard J. Daley. As County Clerk, he signed my birth certificate, was first elected as Mayor of Chicago in 1955, and was still mayor when I went away to college, in 1971.

The Daley machine ran politics in Chicago. Depending on which neighborhood you lived in, you were told how you were going to vote. And you were told to vote early and vote often.

There may have been lots of fiery speeches given down at the local union hall, but in kitchens across greater Chicagoland, the stereotypical 1960s “Father Knows Best” ideal held that those in charge know best, so it is best to keep them in charge. This meant voters were only required to show up at the voting booth, flip the switch for the candidate they had been told to vote for, and go home.

What’s Up with Propositions?

So, imagine my shock and surprise when I arrived in California and was introduced to the proposition. I had never encountered such a method, so absolutely rooted in citizens making their voices known! And as a voter, I had never had to sit down and read through dense language outlining the pros and cons and the arguments for and against.

Like so many Americans, I had heard of Prop 13, the ultimate in-your-face, hands-off-my-money tax reform that California voters approved in June 1978 over the opposition of then-Governor Jerry Brown. It was a tax revolt to end all tax revolts.

Voters voted for it even though most didn’t have a clue what the implications of the measure were. The proposition capped property taxes at one percent of assessed value, rolled assessments back to 1975 levels, limited annual increases to two percent, and required a two-thirds vote for many new taxes.

And The Pitch Is . . .

The pitch was simple and emotional: you are being taxed out of your own home. The campaign leaned heavily on stories of retirees and fixed-income homeowners facing tax bills they couldn’t pay. It also had a “government is wasting your money” theme, and the state’s multibillion-dollar surplus made that easy to argue.

The message was delivered through flyers and the news media. Turns out Howard Jarvis made for good TV. Balding, bombastic, and bespectacled, he was interviewed many times with the message that Californians shouldn’t be overtaxed. That resonated, even though most Californians didn’t read the entire proposition or understand how such a measure, now part of the state constitution, would handicap future generations.

That Was Then; This Is Now

California voters have a similar proposition to vote on in this election: Prop 40. It has many parallels to Prop 13. It pits a populist fairness message (make those billionaires pay their fair share) against warnings of harmful consequences (we can’t afford to pay for healthcare, schools).

Voters are being told how to vote. The majority, I suspect, will go along having read only what partisan pundits are saying about it, or by following what a trusted friend or favorite social media influencer tells them is so. Echoes of Mayor Daley’s machine are evident!

The Lesson(s) of Prop 13 in California

Prop 13 solved a real problem in 1978 for real people, many of them older homeowners who feared losing their homes. But its long-term consequences were unimagined. No crystal ball could have predicted sales-tax zoning, a generational housing crisis, venture capital internet, or a state budget riding on capital gains.

Those long-term consequences have fundamentally changed how money is collected and used in the state. First, control shifted to Sacramento. The state stepped in to backfill school funding, and local communities lost much of their say over their own schools. California’s per-pupil spending, once among the highest in the nation, slid toward the middle of the pack and below.

Second, cities began chasing sales tax. New shopping centers generated revenue quickly, while new housing starts brought in less over a longer period. Venture capital money funded computer campuses, not new single family dwellings. Today, as these become more like ghost towns, and the revenue once generated dries up, the financial struggles of local governments become more consequential.

Third, Prop 13 took care of folks who already owned homes, not first-time buyers. This unintentionally created an “us” / “them” between older owners, first-time buyers, and those who couldn’t afford to buy at all.  Vestiges of this remain as older owners may be loathe to give up their low property tax and move somewhere else, freeing up homes for younger buyers.

Increased Dependence on the Personal Income Tax

Since 1978, funding California has grown dependent on the personal income tax, and especially on its highest earners, who now pay close to half of it. That makes the state budget swing with the stock market: windfalls in good years, deficits in bad ones. This is where Prop 40 comes in.

The state needs to find sources of income to keep its promises on healthcare and school funding, and to backfill the federal funding cut by H.R. 1, signed in July 2025. Prop 13 remains the “third-rail” of taxation, so other sources of revenue must be found. The billionaires look to be the the easiest target.

A One-Time Fix for an On-Going Problem

I am voting no on Prop 40. I am also voting no on Props 41 and 42. None of the three addresses the issue of securing predictable income streams to support on-going needs. If either of these passes with more yes votes than Prop 40, then Prop 40 is nullified, even if it passes too.

Why am I voting “no”? I am not against raising taxes on high-income earners (and corporations!), but this attempt doesn’t go far enough. To be successful, it needs to be more than a one-time fix. And this attempt doesn’t achieve that.

A Final Thought About Propositions

Propositions ask a lot of voters. These are complex issues that will impact the lives of all citizens in the state, not just for the moment, but for future generations. It is important that you do more than just vote the way you are told.

Educate yourself; don’t just follow the crowd.  There are good sources of information on these propositions.  Check out CalMatters, or The California Budget & Policy Center, or Ballotpedia.   

If voters aren’t reading the propositions, don’t know or understand the implications of what they are voting for, and instead just vote as they are told to vote, we will find ourselves at the mercy of a different kind of machine.