This wasn’t supposed to happen. Proposition 1, a ballot measure backed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature with a multi-million dollar campaign against an opposition campaign that had no money, is hanging on by a thread as votes are still being counted.
Political data crunchers are still projecting it will pass but only by the thinnest of margins. While that may be true, in the immortal words of Yogi Berra, “it ain’t over ’til it’s over.”
But even if Prop. 1 squeaks by, the fact that it almost lost has to be a wake-up call for tax-and-spend interests who thought they had a sure thing. In addition to limitless resources, a broad, well financed coalition, and the popular cause of homelessness and mental health, voters were evenly split. But why?
To understand why Prop. 1 is struggling, let’s review what it would do. According to the non-partisan Legislative Analyst, Proposition 1 would change the Mental Health Services Act that was passed by voters in 2004, putting the focus on how the money from the act can be used. Second, it seeks approval of a $6.38 billion bond to build (1) more places for mental health care and drug or alcohol treatment and (2) more housing for people with mental health, drug, or alcohol challenges.
While initial polling on Prop. 1 a few months ago showed strong support, that support began to drop as election day drew closer. The more voters looked into Prop. 1, the more suspicious they became. First, the claim that the proposal would be a “transformational” solution to mental health care and homelessness seemed to be more hyperbolic rhetoric from the governor. The $6.38 billion will pay for only 6,800 beds in treatment facilities and fewer than 4,500 units of housing for the homeless, including homeless veterans, according to the Legislative Analyst. There are currently more than 180,000 individuals experiencing homelessness in California.
Second, many mental health service providers opposed Proposition 1 because it cuts current funding for county mental health programs which receive substantial revenue from the “millionaire’s tax” approved by voters two decades ago. Their opposition appeared prominently on the ballot label itself.
Also listed on the ballot label in opposition was the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association. Californians who didn’t have the time to read the 60-plus pages of fine print about the measure in the Voter Information Guide may have seen HJTA’s recommendation and decided right then to vote no.
Third, voters may have been turned off by the use of bond financing rather than “pay as you go” funding. The national discussion concerning the troubling amount of public and private debt might finally be starting to resonate with voters.
Related Articles
TikTok ‘ban’ is illegitimate political theater, not serious legislating
IRS must take action against Pastor Jack Hibbs’ electioneering from the pulpit
Newsom recall proponents try to keep him off the road to the White House
Who’s to blame for high gas prices? California’s Democratic politicians should look in the mirror.
California lawmakers must act now to reverse the state’s insurance crisis
Fourth, it shouldn’t come as a surprise that California voters believe taxes are too high and that to take on more bond debt when the state is struggling with a self-inflicted budget deficit — due to overspending — is probably not a good idea.
Another recent PPIC poll found that 48 percent of the respondents believe the state wastes “a lot” of their tax dollars, 43 percent said the state wastes “some,” and only 8 percent said the people in charge of the state government “don’t waste very much.” Another 1 percent said they don’t know.
Finally, the fact that Gov. Newsom put a great deal of his political capital behind the measure might not have been the big positive influence that pundits believed. While his overall approval rating reached a high of 64% during COVID, it is now below 50%.
Win or lose, there are several indicators that should cause those who want more bonds and tax increases to pause. But they probably won’t.
Jon Coupal is president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.