CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2024 OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“PROPOSITION RESULTS SHOW
VOTERS LESS LIBERAL THAN THEIR POLITICIANS”
Once again, California voters
demonstrated in this fall's month-long voting season that they are liberal –
but not so far left as many of the politicians they usually elect.
The vast majority of those
politicians this year, as in the last three decades, are liberal Democrats, who
will again hold supermajorities in the state Assembly and Senate for the next
two years. This makes Republicans almost irrelevant in almost all legislative
matters. They lack sufficient votes in either house of the Legislature to
credibly organize resistance to tax increases, the most basic part of GOP
doctrine in most states.
But the voters? They are a
very different ideological group where crime and money matters are concerned,
and the results on this fall’s 10 statewide ballot propositions proved it.
There was not merely the
overwhelming victory of the tough-on-crime Proposition 36, but also the defeat
of Prop. 33, the third attempt at expanding rent control in the last six years,
all backed by Democratic politicians.
Just like its two
predecessors, the 2018 Prop. 10 and 2020’s Prop. 21, this fall’s Prop. 33 lost
handily. Like the others, it sought to end the 1995 Costa/Hawkins Act, which
exempts most rental units built after 1995 from local rent controls. Prop. 33
actually would have let all local governments set rent controls as strictly as
they like, even to cover brand new apartments and single family homes.
As with its predecessors,
this measure provoked fears it might eliminate incentives for builders to
expand the state’s housing supply by cutting or eliminating rental profits. So,
for a third time, potential statewide rent controls lost – and by a similarly
large margin as the other two efforts.
Somewhat similarly, the state
Assembly voted 55-12 and the Senate 31-8 to put Proposition 5 to a statewide
vote. A loser by more than 10 percent, it would have cut majority votes needed
to pass many local bonds in cities and counties from two-thirds to 55 percent.
Strongly opposed by the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., it aimed
squarely at the 1978 Proposition 13 tax cuts by allowing easier passage of
bonds for affordable housing and public infrastructure like roads, water and
fire protection.
Where voters previously
approved a similar cut to the majority needed for passage of school
construction bonds, they easily said no to this one.
Voters also continued their
swing toward tough-on-crime policy by voting to continue some involuntary labor
in California. The only places allowing this during the last century have been
prisons, and that will continue after defeat of Proposition 6. Wardens and
guards will continue assigning prison inmates to work in kitchens, clean prison
yards or pick up trash beside highways. Prisoners will keep fighting fires,
too, with convicts able to win early-release credits on the fire lines. Had
Prop. 6 passed, they could still have accepted such assignments, but would have
to be paid much more than their previous pittance.\
Rejected by voters not
wanting to reward criminals, it lost by almost 10 percent after getting near
unanimous 33-3 support in the state Senate and 68-0 backing in the Assembly.
But on another matter of
social policy, voters showed they remain open to the liberal side. By a huge
margin, they cut language from the state Constitution that said only a man and
a woman could get married, and never mind men with men or women with women.
Such same-sex marriages are now protected against bans by the Legislature,
should it ever turn conservative.
The bottom line: Once
again, California voters proved themselves liberal on social policy, but not
nearly as open-handed financially as their well-paid political representatives.
Which means Californians may be open minded, as one old saying goes, but not so
much that their brains are falling out.
-30-
Email
Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough:
The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch
It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias
columns, visit www.californiafocus.net.
No comments:
Post a Comment