Prop. 1 election isn’t over, opponents say

On March 12 — a week after primary day — opponents of Proposition 1 waved the white flag, conceding that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s mental health ballot measure would likely pass.

Monday, the anti-Prop. 1 campaign withdrew its concession and revived its efforts. What changed?

For one thing, the vote count tightened: As of late Monday, Prop. 1 was leading by about 19,700 votes, with 7 million ballots counted and some 220,000 left to be tallied, according to the Secretary of State.

And for another, Newsom’s political action committee put out an appeal late last week for volunteers to reach out to Democrats who had their ballots rejected — for mismatched signatures or other reasons — to fix them and get them counted. The training was Sunday. 

“Governor Newsom needs you…. The votes are being counted and it is CLOSE. Like, just a couple thousand votes close,” the appeal said. 

Prop. 1 opponents called that strategy “sleazy” and “an attempt to manipulate the final vote count by harvesting the votes of only some partisans in certain areas.”

But the foes said they’re launching a similar effort and refocusing their website to help voters confirm their ballots were counted and to assist voters whose ballots were rejected.

• Paul Simmons, a director of Californians Against Prop. 1, in a statement: “We don’t know if reviving rejected ballots will change the outcome of this election, but if the governor thinks it might, we for damn sure aren’t going to let him have the field to himself.”

About 42,500 voters have time to fix signature problems with their ballots, according to election analyst Paul Mitchell.

Asked about Prop. 1 during a visit to the state Capitol on Monday, Newsom told reporters: “We’re looking forward to the final count.”

The Prop. 1 results would have to get even closer, however, for a recount. 

There are no automatic recounts for statewide ballot measures. But a campaign can request one in specific counties — if it’s willing to pay for it. That could be a hurdle for the cash-strapped Prop. 1 opponents if the measure narrowly passes.

There’s another provision in state law that could also come into play: The governor can order a state-funded hand recount of all votes statewide if the official results show a difference between “yes” and “no” votes on a ballot measure of 1,000 votes or less, or 0.00015 percentage points or less — and the latter would be the key number. As of the latest vote count, the second threshold is 1,056 votes for Prop. 1.

So if Prop. 1 fails that narrowly, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Newsom uses this provision. Such a recount order would have to come within 36 days of the primary, or mid-April.

November ballot update: Three more potential measures bit the dust. The Secretary of State’s office said late Monday that these initiatives failed to collect the 546,651 signatures needed to qualify:

A measure to require closed landfills to use aerobic technology to speed decomposition and reduce methane gas emissions. A measure to require the Secretary of State to develop an online platform for voters to view and electronically sign initiative, referendum, and recall petitions. And a measure to allow small solar farms on farmland sell electricity nearby without state regulations on safety or rates.   

If you’re keeping score, that’s six measures for November that have been withdrawn or failed to qualify. So far, 10 measures are eligible, but proponents are trying to get many more on the Nov. 5 ballot. 

From CalMatters Capitol reporter Jeanne Kuang:

The Assembly approved a slew of exemptions to the state’s new fast food labor law on Monday, sending Gov. Newsom carve-outs for fast food chain restaurants located in airports, hotels, convention centers and other venues. Starting April 1, those locations won’t have to pay the state’s new fast food minimum wage of $20 an hour, or be subject to any additional regulations devised by an industry-labor council that began meeting last week. 

Assembly Bill 610 passed with 55 votes, just clearing the two-thirds majority needed for the bill to go into effect immediately upon Newsom’s signature. It passed the state Senate 31-4 in late February. 

But Republicans did not miss an opportunity to criticize the fast food policy. In recent weeks they’ve drawn comparisons to “PaneraGate,” a controversial exemption for some bakeries. 

• Assembly GOP leader James Gallagher of Yuba City: “The process that happened last year stinks… .Either the policy is good or it’s not, and it should apply to everyone equally.”

Assemblymember Chris Holden, the Pasadena Democrat who authored AB 610 and carried the fast food law last year, said locations in airports and hotels should be exempt because unions pointed out that some of them are already subject to contracts in which workers make more than $20 an hour. Of locations the bill exempts, it was not immediately clear how many are under union contracts.

• Tia Orr, statewide director of California SEIU, in a statement to CalMatters: “This will eliminate potentially overlapping and duplicative rules and processes for those workers.” 

In other legislative happenings:

• Wage theft: After passing through the Assembly’s labor committee last week, a proposal to extend the statute of limitations for wage theft investigations from 18 months to 24 months is headed to appropriations. The measure, authored by Democratic Assemblymember Pilar Schiavo of Santa Clarita Valley, also ensures that cases aren’t closed because the state’s labor commissioner’s office can’t finish its investigation in time.
  
  
• Child marriage: Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, an Irvine Democrat, plans to promote her bill today to ban underage marriages. Despite an uptick in the number of 15- to 17-year-olds who reported getting married in 2021, California has not set a minimum age for marriage. A similar bill failed to win approval last year.

• Protecting students: The Assembly’s judiciary committee is expected today to consider a bill to hold schools liable for dangerous hazing practices. The measure follows the 2018 death of a UC Riverside student during a fraternity ritual. And in response to a 12-year-old student who died last year of a heat-related illness during a physical education class, “Yahushua’s Law” would require the state’s education department to develop guidelines for physical education and extreme weather. It is scheduled for a Senate Education Committee hearing in April.

“There will be no shutting that barn door.”

That’s what Sarah Christie, the legislative director of the California Coastal Commission, told CalMatters last July as lawmakers were considering — and ultimately passed — a housing bill that did not provide the typical development exemptions for the state’s coastal area.

Turns out, Christie was correct that more efforts to expedite development on California’s coast would follow. As CalMatters housing reporter Ben Christopher explains, a handful of measures, all authored by Democrats, are currently being pushed through the Legislature to help spur more coastal housing — chipping away at the commission’s authority over some of the state’s most exclusive and regulated real estate.

These bills are not being welcomed by the commission, which was created by voters more than 50 years ago to scrutinize anything that gets built within the California Coastal Zone.

• Kate Huckelbridge, commission executive director, in a statement: “We’re troubled by the number of bills this year that seek to undermine the Coastal Act in the name of promoting housing. We know from experience that abundant housing and coastal resource protection are not mutually exclusive.”

But pro-housing advocates argue that lifting restrictions in areas of the zone where dense development already exists will help ease California’s housing crunch. And with only 1 million people currently living in this zone (about less than 2.5% of the state’s total population) — most of whom are white and affluent — enabling more development will make housing on the coast more accessible and equitable.

For more on this debate, read Ben’s story.

California’s nursing shortage worsened with burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic — about 36,000 positions, according to one recent estimate. The staffing shortage is affecting patient care. But did it cause a brain injury at one Los Angeles County hospital? Read this story from CalMatters health reporter Kristen Hwang to find out.