The California Propositions: What Happened and Where Do We Go From Here?
In the aftermath of the November 2020 election, Californians are taking a hard look at the results of the state’s ballot propositions. Definitive conclusions are not easy to draw, but for advocates of racial equity, workers’ rights, and housing affordability, the disappointment is undeniable.
Of the nine propositions about which Rubicon made strong recommendations, seven went in the opposite direction. Three of those are Proposition 16, which would have restored affirmative action, Proposition 25, which would have ended cash bail, and Proposition 22, the high-profile measure funded by gig companies to the tune of $200 million. Propositions 16 and 25, which we supported, did not pass. Proposition 22, which we opposed, did pass, clearing the path for corporations to remake labor laws at the expense of workers.
At the same time, there were significant wins for criminal justice reform. Proposition 17, which will give people on parole for felony convictions the right to vote, passed, and Proposition 20, which would have increased penalties for certain misdemeanors, failed, suggesting that there is support for racial justice when it is tied to criminal justice reform.
It is a complex set of proposition outcomes. To get an understanding of what these outcomes signify, in the coming weeks, we will be talking to experts about what happened, what it all means, and next steps in the fight to make California a more equitable place for all. First up, Proposition 16. Why did a measure that would have reversed the ban on affirmative action fail, even in deep blue California in a year defined by our country’s reckoning with racism?
For Lisa Holder, Counsel with the Equal Justice Society, it is important to look at all of the propositions collectively. Proposition 16 didn’t fail on its own. It was in good company with other progressive measures that didn’t pass, including, 15, 21, 22, and 25. For Holder, much of it comes down to how one tells one’s story. “We know that the right is better at messaging,” she says. Specifically, they are better at “co-opting the message of the left.” In the case of Proposition 16, that meant sowing division between and among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other minority groups and, more generally, creating “false narratives in order to divide us.” Oppoonents seized an opportunity to create a wedge between minority groups who are considered "model minorities" and others.
Looking ahead, Holder says that in order for affirmative action to pass, advocates need to be preemptive in their messaging and to build an intersectional coalition with more linguistic inclusion.
They also need more time. There just wasn’t enough time for people to understand the proposition, which was put on the ballot in June by state lawmakers.
Holder says she did see signs of hope, particularly among young people. “University of California students were a tremendous source of energy,” she says. At the same time, there is no denying that the failure of Proposition 16 was a blow. “The disappointment gives us the insight that liberals have not moved along as swiftly toward progressivism as we would have hoped,” she says.
Even with that disappointment, she does see an open-ness among Californians to reimagining ourselves as more inclusive.
Holder says we must keep organizing. Keep communicating. Keep exposing the narratives of the right as “a mechanism used to divide us.” And most of all, “stay committed to transformation and the notion that we can reimagine our society.”
Next up, we look at Proposition 25.
