Californians have largely been seen as willing to approve government spending measures in their state and at the national level. However, during the current economic times, when housing remains unaffordable for many and inflation is eating into household budgets, even Golden State voters are prioritizing their interests and saying no to lower-priority government programs.
Shift in Voter Sentiment
Experts cite rising inflation, California’s $68 billion budget deficit, and increasing skepticism about public spending as reasons for voters’ shifting preferences away from progressive candidates and agendas. This preference has called into question the political viability of school bonds, housing initiatives, and climate projects throughout the state.
Historical Support for Bonds
Based on historical data, it would be almost a given that voters would approve such public interest bonds for schools and low-income residents of the state. For example, California voters passed a $1.5 billion bond for children’s hospitals and a $7.1 billion bond to secure the water supply. Both initiatives were popular with voters and passed easily. However, policymakers in California do not see the same ease of passage in the current fiscal environment.
Governor Newsom’s Proposition 1
In terms of programs to aid the homeless, Governor Gavin Newsom’s Proposition 1, which cost taxpayers $6.4 billion, narrowly passed in March. Prop 1 did not have significant opposition to the policy initiatives; therefore, the cost was the major determining factor of the modest support for the proposal. Voters were not as willing to expend billions for a public good as they have historically been willing to do.
Impact of Voter Skepticism
After Prop 1’s unexpectedly narrow passage, political strategists in California conducted a postmortem evaluation of the campaign and learned that voters were concerned about their own cost of living and were also skeptical about the prospect that spending more money could resolve the homelessness situation in any long-lasting, meaningful way.
Public Spending Cynicism
According to analysts, voters across the country, including in California, are concerned that government spending is ineffective in resolving the community’s problems. In California, a state audit showed that it could not assess the impact of $24 billion spent on anti-homelessness programs. When residents of the state struggle to pay their mortgages and grocery bills, an “inconclusive” return on a $24 billion investment in resolving the very real and tangible homeless problem in the state is not good enough for many voters to keep signing off on expensive propositions.
Waste of Tax Revenue
In addition to the audit showing less than stellar results from the $24 billion homeless initiative, another poll revealed that 48 percent of California voters think the state wastes a significant amount of its tax revenue. If these voters seek to hold elected officials responsible for the alleged misuse of funds, California’s Democratic supermajority is in trouble.
Strategic Adjustments for Bond Campaigns
Since the near failure of the Prop 1 anti-homelessness initiative in March, political consultants are rethinking their proposition and bond initiatives.
The Canary in the Coal Mine
Many strategists see Prop 1 as the proverbial “canary in the coal mine,” the first warning to other campaigns of what to expect in November. While caution and understanding are warranted in how campaign officials will shape their message to voters, it is also not the whole story, as the March primary attracts a much smaller voting pool and engages the most opinionated.
In this case, the election brought out the conservative voting electorate, who were motivated to oppose Prop 1 due to the expense and the state’s poor record of actually stopping homelessness despite all of the money dedicated to the initiative.
Governor’s Perspective
Governor Newsom has shifted his techniques for reaching voters and admonishes other campaigns to do the same. Specifically, Newsom has urged campaigns to focus on desired, tangible results rather than emphasizing the large dollar amount being directed toward a problem. He has also directed his efforts toward demonstrating the need and urgency of resolving particular issues.
Upcoming Bond Proposals
Voters should see campaigns adjust to this new reality as they promote their proposition and bond initiatives coming before voters in November. Specifically, voters will have to vote on education bonds spanning $14 to $15.5 billion, climate-related bonds costing $16 billion each, and a housing bond for $10 billion.
Local and Regional Measures
In addition to the statewide bonds for education, climate, and housing, many local and regional entities will ask voters to support bond measures. In Los Angeles, voters will decide whether to support or oppose a homelessness-related tax, and San Francisco voters will vote on a $20 billion housing bond.
Voter Pessimism and Strategy
Political consultant Catherine Lew acknowledges voters’ requests and the high ticket costs of the programs under consideration. Voters will have to prioritize at some point between the costs. Lew states that campaigns must focus on posing realistic requests of voters. She warns that overly ambitious or extravagant proposals will likely not be met with success.
Modeling Voter Segments
In political campaigns, strategists typically categorize voters based on their likelihood to support government spending measures. Strategists have noted that more Americans are less likely to approve government spending measures this year. According to Brandon Castillo, a Sacramento-based political consultant, nearly 18 percent of the electorate has moved toward the right on fiscal issues.
Revised Campaign Strategies
Castillo’s consultancy has determined that over the course of the past five years, voters in California have become less willing to favor “more services over lower taxes.” Castillo said, “California voters are still willing to invest in must-haves.
They’re less willing to invest in nice-to-haves.” To be successful, campaigns must focus on the necessity and urgency of their proposals and highlight how the project will be accountable and return tangible successes to voters.
Potential Impact of Taxpayer Protection Act
Another potential complication for the California propositions and bonds on the ballot in November is the Taxpayer Protection Act. This constitutional amendment will be directly voted upon by California voters and, if passed, could restrict the state of California and local governments from raising taxes. There is a push to have the Taxpayer Protection Act removed from the ballot, but the California Supreme Court will make that decision.
