Elections matter. Elections matter because they are the channel by which we, as the people, choose, freely and fairly, who we want to represent us based on their values, policies, and vision for our state. If elections matter, which we they do, then that means the processes that govern our elections also matter. A key part of the phrase I just shared is “freely and fairly.” If our elections are not free, then the voices of the people are not heard; if they are not fair, then they are not worth participating in at all.
Californians have two propositions on their ballots that would change certain laws regarding elections. These propositions are, quite frankly, boring – focused heavily on procedures and policies that may feel like they barely influence our lives. But it would be a gigantic mistake to overlook them, or to walk into November uninformed about them, because they in fact affect one of the most important duties as Americans: our right to vote.
I am breaking them both down for you in detail today. Because elections matter, and you should know what you are voting for in this one.
Disclaimer – These Propositions Matter
We have our final two propositions to cover today! But, as I alluded to in the introduction, these are not exactly the most exciting propositions on the ballot.
It's easy to get passionate about propositions that deal with controversial topics or that have a big, obvious impact on our lives. I think about the wealth tax or voter ID. Those issues spark a ton of conversation and debate, and as a result, they tend to get a lot of attention. But what about the propositions that deal with the technical details of how our government operates? One that only change a few lines of existing law, or change the rules around something most of us rarely think about? It's tempting to assume those don't matter very much. After all, how much difference can a small change in the law really make?
Well, quite a lot, actually! The government we live under today was created by thousands of individual decisions, policies, and laws, set in place over decades, each one adding to, modifying, or sometimes undoing what came before it.
Think about California's housing crisis. We didn't wake up one morning and suddenly find ourselves in a state where housing was extraordinarily expensive, building new homes was difficult, and families were struggling to afford a place to live. We got here through decades of decisions about zoning, permitting, environmental review, development restrictions, and the involvement of local governments. Each individual law or regulation might have been presented as a reasonable solution to a particular problem, but when you stack all those rules on top of one another, the cumulative effect can look very different from what any one of them was intended to accomplish.
Take, for example, propositions that have changed how things are done in our state. For example, Proposition 13, passed back in 1978. This one proposition fundamentally changed property taxation in our state by limiting property tax rates and annual increases in assessed value. Or there is Proposition 98, passed in 1988, which established minimum funding requirements for public education. Proposition 2, which we discussed last week, deals with how the state manages its budget reserves and spending limits. These are all very different measures, passed years apart, addressing different problems – but each one changes the framework within which California's government operates.
Seemingly small changes can have enormous consequences over time. And sometimes, the consequences aren't even immediately obvious! A law can sound perfectly reasonable on its own, but when you consider how it interacts with existing laws, how it changes incentives, or what it makes possible down the road, you may come to a very different conclusion about whether it's a good idea. This is particularly important when we're talking about elections.
Remember what I said in the introduction: elections are how we, the people, choose who represents us. They are one of the most important ways we exercise our authority as citizens. But elections don't operate in a vacuum, there are rules that they operate and abide by. Laws dictate how elections are conducted, how votes are counted, how districts are drawn, and how decisions are made about who represents us.
Sometimes a new rule can make elections fairer, more transparent, or more accountable to voters. But sometimes a proposed change can create unintended consequences, weaken an existing safeguard, or shift power in ways that voters might not immediately recognize. Which is precisely why we cannot afford to ignore these propositions just because they sound boring!
We have a responsibility as voters to understand what we're being asked to approve. Our job isn't simply to vote yes on something because it sounds good, or to vote no because the language is complicated. It's to understand what a proposed law actually does, what problem it's trying to solve, whether it will solve that problem effectively, and what the consequences might be.
So, with that in mind, let's get into our final two propositions of the year: Propositions 4 and 5.
Proposition 4 – Campaign Financing
Proposition 4, simply put, would make it so that taxpayer funds can be used for campaign financing. What does that mean?
Well, right now, candidates running for office generally have to raise the money to fund their campaigns from private sources. That means obtaining donations from individual supporters, contributions from businesses or political action committees, or money that candidates contribute themselves. That money pays for all the things that go into running a political campaign – like advertising, mailers, campaign staff, websites, events, and so on.
But, under current law, California generally prohibits state and local governments from using taxpayer money to fund candidates' election campaigns. Proposition 4 would repeal that prohibition, allowing state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs if they choose to do so.[1]
So, for example, imagine your city has an election for mayor. Under a public campaign financing program, the city could decide to allocate public funds to eligible candidates to help pay for their campaigns. One way this can work is through a system called matching funds. A candidate might agree to certain rules and spending limits, then receive public funds matching qualifying small-dollar donations from local residents.[2] The idea is to give candidates who have broad support among ordinary voters a way to compete without having to rely as heavily on wealthy donors.
Supporters argue that this could make elections more accessible to candidates who don't have personal wealth or connections to wealthy donors. They say it could reduce the influence of big-money interests and give ordinary voters a greater voice in deciding who gets elected. Opponents, on the other hand, argue that taxpayers should not be forced to finance political campaigns, particularly campaigns for candidates they don't support. They also raise concerns about how much these programs could cost and whether the safeguards in Proposition 4 are sufficient to prevent public money from being spent irresponsibly.[3]
So, should the government be allowed to use taxpayer money to help finance political campaigns? My answer will not surprise you: NO.
I advocate every week for our government to stop spending taxpayer money on non-essential programs, so why in the world would I then want to give government the power to use our money to fund political campaigns?
When I pay taxes, I expect that money to go toward the functions of government that we collectively need – public safety, infrastructure, essential services, and the other responsibilities of government. I absolutely do not think funding political campaigns should be added to that list! You could be a conservative voter whose city council is dominated by progressive politicians, as is the case in most places in California, and under a public financing program, your tax dollars will help fund the campaigns of candidates whose policies you strongly oppose. That’s … insane!
Now, I recognize that government spending doesn't always directly reflect every individual taxpayer's preferences – that's not the point. We pay taxes to fund legitimate public functions, even when we disagree about particular spending decisions. But helping individual candidates campaign for political office is different. These candidates are asking voters to give them power. Why should taxpayers be required to help finance that effort?
But outside of the common sense of it all, there is another problem with this idea. Supporters argue that public financing can help candidates become less dependent on wealthy donors and special interests. But Proposition 4 does not prohibit candidates from continuing to raise private money alongside public funds!! So, we could end up with a system where taxpayers help finance campaigns while private donors and special interests continue contributing, too. In other words, we're opening up a new source of money for political campaigns without necessarily eliminating the source of money that supporters say is the problem in the first place.
Which brings me to the biggest issue with this proposition: it changes the law now, while leaving many of the most important decisions for later. Proposition 4 doesn't establish a specific statewide program with a defined budget. Instead, it allows state and local governments to establish public campaign financing programs in the future. The Legislative Analyst's Office explains that the costs of those programs could be significant for governments that choose to create them, depending on how the programs are designed.[4]
We're being asked to approve a change that opens the door to a new category of government spending without knowing which governments will adopt these programs, how much they will ultimately spend, or exactly how each program will operate. Why should we approve that framework first and leave so many of the practical details to be worked out later?
Here’s the thing, as I say so often: California already has a long list of competing demands on taxpayer dollars! Before we create another way for government to spend money, we should be asking whether that spending is necessary, whether the safeguards are sufficient, and whether the proposal actually solves the problem it claims to solve. Proposition 4 absolutely does NOT clear that bar.
Proposition 5 – Recall Election Procedure
Now, Proposition 5 also has to do with elections, but it is a very different kind of election reform. While Proposition 4 deals with how campaigns can be funded, Proposition 5 would change what happens when voters decide to remove an elected state official from office.
Let’s back up. Most of us understand the basic idea of a recall. If voters believe an elected official is doing a poor job, abusing their power, or failing to represent the people who elected them, they can organize a petition to try to remove that official before their term is over. This is relevant in our state, as you will remember the 2021 gubernatorial recall election, when California voters decided to keep Governor Gavin Newsom in office – such a tragic decision.
Under our current system, a recall election asks voters two questions. First, should this elected official be removed from office? And second, if that official is removed, who should replace them? So, in a gubernatorial recall, like the one in 2021, you might vote YES or NO on whether the governor should be recalled, and then separately select a candidate to become governor if the recall succeeds.
What is interesting is that a majority of voters could decide that they want to remove the sitting governor, which is that first question on the ballot, but the candidate who replaces that governor could go on to win with only a fraction of the vote. That's because the replacement candidate only needs to receive more votes than the other replacement candidates, they don't necessarily need to win the majority.
In 2021, we didn’t pass the first question – voters voted to keep Gavin Newsom in place. But before that, all the way back in 2003, we did see this process in action. Voters chose to recall Governor Gray Davis, again the first question – but then Arnold Schwarzenegger won the replacement contest with less than half of the votes cast for replacement candidates.[5]
Supporters of Proposition 5 argue that this creates a problem. They say a recall should be about removing an official who has lost the confidence of the voters, not creating an opportunity for another candidate to win office without majority support. So, what does Proposition 5 change?
It would remove that second question from the recall ballot. Instead of voting on both whether to recall an official and who should replace them, voters would decide only whether the official should be recalled. If the recall succeeds, the resulting vacancy would then be filled under the rules Proposition 5 establishes. If the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor would assume the governorship, until voters elect a new Governor at a future statewide election or for the remainder of the term.[6]
What does this do? Well, in reality, Proposition 5 just makes it harder for voters to remove a politician and immediately replace them with a candidate of their choosing.[7]
If the Governor is recalled, the Lieutenant Governor takes over. For other statewide offices, the Governor generally appoints someone to fill the vacancy. For legislative seats, voters would typically have to wait for a separate special election. In other words, you could vote to remove a politician from office, but you would no longer get to choose their immediate replacement in that same election.
But often, the Lieutenant Governor is in lockstep with the policies of the Governor. But if we think rationally, we see that when recalling someone from office, you are recalling their policies, not just them as a person. This is why our state has not changed, regardless of changing Governors every few terms – because as long as we keep electing radical Democrats, the policies governing our state don’t change. If voters garner enough support to get the Governor out of office, then they should be given a different choice than a carbon copy of the person they were recalling in the first place.
If we're going to give citizens the power to recall elected officials, we should absolutely preserve their power to decide who will replace them. After all, why should we trust voters to decide who is unfit to hold office, but not trust those same voters to decide who should take their place?
There’s another part of Proposition 5 that is almost comical and voters need to be aware of. Under our current system, an official facing a recall cannot put their own name on the replacement-candidate portion of that same recall ballot. Which makes logical sense, right? Well, Proposition 5 changes even this part of the framework! If an official is recalled and the vacancy is filled through a later special election, that former official could run again!
That’s insane! In other words, voters go through the effort of recalling an elected official, but instead of being able to select a replacement immediately, they may have to wait for another election…and the very person they just voted to remove could be back on the ballot. What!
We have to remember that recall elections are meant to be a tool of accountability. It is supposed to be a way for voters to say that if their elected officials are not fulfilling the responsibilities they were promised then those elected officials will be removed and replaced. That is important! We shouldn’t dilute that ability. If we want government to be accountable to the people, then the people should have the final say over who represents them.
How to Vote This November
Ultimately, both of these propositions come down to details of how our elections work in California. Proposition 4 opens the door for taxpayer money to fund political campaigns, and Proposition 5 takes away voters’ ability to choose an immediate replacement when they recall an elected official.
In both cases, I believe we should be adamantly against shifting more power and control away from the people and toward our government leaders, who have not earned our trust in any way. Elections belong to the voters!!! The rules governing them should then protect just that – VOTERS – not government.
Elections matter, and so do the rules that make them work. So, when you fill out your ballot this November, don’t skip over these technical, procedural issues. Instead, vote NO on Propositions 4 and 5.
References:
[1] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 4 [Ballot],” November 3, 2026, https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=4&year=2026.
[2] Brennan Center for Justice. “Public Campaign Financing,” June 29, 2023. https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/money-politics/public-campaign-financing.
[3] California Secretary of State. “Proposition 4 Arguments and Rebuttals.” Official Voter Information Guide, 2026. https://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/4/arguments-rebuttals.htm.
[4] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 4 [Ballot].”
[5] CBC. “Davis Recalled, Schwarzenegger Wins,” November 17, 2003. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/davis-recalled-schwarzenegger-wins-1.359947.
[6] Legislative Analyst’s Office, “Proposition 5 [Ballot],” November 3, 2026, https://www.lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=5&year=2026.
[7] Reform California. “Reform California Voter Guide,” 2012. https://www.reformcalifornia.org/voter-guides/california.
