California voters will face dueling ballot propositions this fall. Confusion is likely

When California voters approved Proposition 13 in 1978, they forced a massive change in how government services are financed that continues to reverberate nearly a half-century later.

Prop. 13’s limits on property taxes that had financed public schools and other units of local government for many decades forced fundamental changes in fiscal responsibilities — the state assuming education costs being just one example.

California media extensively covered Prop. 13’s financial impacts at the time, and countless academic and journalistic analyses have done so since. But one aspect of its passage has been largely ignored.

California’s political leadership in 1978 — Gov. Jerry Brown and a Legislature controlled by his fellow Democrats — did their best to torpedo Prop. 13 by placing a rival measure on the same primary election ballot. The alternative, Proposition 8, promised property tax relief for owner-occupied homes but denied it to commercial property.

Prop. 13 passed overwhelmingly but Prop. 8 lost narrowly. The failed counterplay was quickly forgotten as politicians — Brown most obviously — rushed to embrace the tax revolt. Brown even called himself a “born-again tax cutter.”

Prop. 13 sparked an explosion of ballot initiatives that continues today. Although the practice of allowing initiatives to make law while bypassing the Legislature had been in place since 1912, it was scantly used until Prop. 13 demonstrated its power. Hundreds of initiatives have been proposed since — nearly a thousand just in the last 20 years.

And while the rates of qualification and passage are relatively tiny, voters can anticipate facing about a dozen ballot propositions every two years. Most faintly resemble, if at all, truly grassroots movements. The vast majority are sponsored by narrow economic or ideological interests seeking to gain financial or political advantages.

Backers will spend millions of dollars to draft and qualify their measures using paid signature-gathers to fill their petitions and many more millions to sell them to voters. Swing Strategies, a Sacramento political consulting firm that specializes in ballot measures, says placing a measure on the ballot can cost more than $10 million, and campaigns can hit the $100 million mark.

During a webinar on the 2026 initiative picture this week, Swing Strategies said 48 measures were originally proposed, 36 of them tried to make the ballot by collecting the required number of valid voter signatures and 17 are true contenders as the April 17 deadline for submitting petitions draws near.

The 17 contenders fit the mold of reflecting narrow interests. Many harken back to 1978, when politicians placed a rival measure on the ballot in hopes of killing Prop. 13.

For example, Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West ( or SEIU-UHW), a huge health care worker union, has a measure to limit health care executives’ compensation, and the California Hospital Association countered with a proposition to compel health care unions to tell members how much money they spend on politics.

Another example: Personal injury lawyers have a measure to hold rideshare companies liable for sexual assaults by drivers, while Uber has one to limit lawyers’ fees in auto crash lawsuits.

There’s also a quadruple play on taxes.

SEIU-UHW is sponsoring a 5% tax on the wealth of California billionaires to provide more health care money, and the California Teachers Association wants to make a temporary surtax on high-income Californians permanent.

Meanwhile, business and anti-tax groups propose making local government tax increases more difficult by increasing their vote thresholds — paying homage to Prop. 13. But a measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature would torpedo it by requiring a higher vote threshold for measures that raise tax increase vote thresholds.

That’s a clone of the Prop. 13 duel 48 years ago. Some things never change.