California’s Electorate Is Rejecting Progressive Policies

In the battle to define our future, California is ground zero. With a gross domestic product of over $3.1 trillion, 189 billionaires, and politically active public-sector unions that collect nearly $1 billion per year in membership dues, the Golden State’s influence is not limited to its status as a social media and mainstream entertainment hub. The state’s political influence is predicated on raw financial power, with its billionaires and government unions exporting hundreds of millions in political spending every year into the other 49 states to support progressive candidates and causes.

Political strategists and political donors who oppose the progressive agenda in the rest of the United States should consider the return-on-investment that would accrue to fighting the devil in his den.

Populist movements in California defy partisan stereotypes and are growing stronger every day. Even in defeat, they tie up the financial resources of progressive donors for pennies on the dollar. And every dollar spent by a progressive in California is a dollar they don’t spend in the heartland of America.

California’s resistance, such as it is, is a fractious quasi-coalition that is only beginning to coalesce but nonetheless displays huge and transformative potential. Among the issues beginning to unite California’s disaffected voters is the future of public education. Unfortunately, for the 2022 election cycle at least, reformers failed to effectively address that issue, and it is a tremendous missed opportunity.

In sports, an unforced error is defined as “a mistake in play that is attributed to one’s own failure rather than to the skill or effort of one’s opponent.” Nothing better describes the fact that California’s school choice advocates managed to come up with two competing ballot initiatives, so similar that it takes an expert to tell them apart.

While school choice efforts in California have been percolating for decades, the earliest entrant for the 2022 election cycle came from the California School Choice Foundation, led by Southern California activist Michael Alexander. The committee he formed, Californians for School Choice, is currently gathering signatures for the Educational Freedom Act.

Also qualified for circulation, but no longer engaged in signature gathering, is the awkwardly named “Education Savings Account” initiative, sponsored by Fix California, founded and led by President Trump’s former acting director of national intelligence, Richard Grenell.

These two committees could have worked together to promote one school choice initiative. That might have allowed them to pool their paltry resources and take on the behemoth called the California Teachers Association, which combined with other education employee unions in California rakes in an estimated $500 million per year in membership dues. But they didn’t.

Both of these initiatives, if approved, would allow parents to receive into an “education savings account” the state funding for their child that ordinarily goes to the local public school. The parents could then use those funds to pay for their child to attend a private school of their choice. If a parent doesn’t want to participate, nothing changes, and their children continue to attend a publicly funded school.

To people who aren’t immersed in school choice issues, the differences between these two initiatives are underwhelming. Alexander’s initiative would pay participating parents $14,000 per year per child, while Grenell’s would pay $13,000 per year. Alexander’s initiative grants eligibility to any parent of a K-12 student in California, while Grenell’s restricts eligibility in the first few years to lower-income parents.

The fact that the two groups of proponents could not agree on one initiative to jointly promote, instead of filing two competing versions, is a textbook example of an unforced error. If you care about school choice, how and why this coalition of people and organizations sharing the same strategic goals managed to splinter over tactical details is an appalling disappointment.

Grassroots Supported Initiatives Are the Future

Over the past decade, the California state legislature has worked steadily to make initiatives more difficult to qualify. The window for ballot initiatives is now restricted to only general elections every two years, and when hiring signature gatherers, firms have to carefully adhere to the somewhat ambiguous provisions of Assembly Bill 5, which increases costs and legal exposure. But these barriers, and others including the COVID pandemic, do not begin to overcome the new opportunities offered by desktop printers and social media.

It is only a matter of time before a grassroots movement coalesces in California with sufficient critical mass to qualify a state ballot initiative overnight and at minimal cost. It will just take the right initiative with the right political objectives to crowdsource registered voters online and secure their signatures. With barely 40 days left to gather the requisite signatures, it is even possible, though unlikely, that the Educational Freedom Act could offer the breakthrough example.

Consider this link on their campaign website: “Print your own petition.” This link provides clear instructions, including a printable PDF of the petition. A visitor to the Education Freedom Act website has merely to click these links, print the six-page petition, then carefully follow the instructions to gather signatures and return it to the campaign.

A Sacramento attorney who specializes in state ballot initiatives had this to say when asked if downloadable and printable state ballot initiatives are valid:

In theory, yes. In most cases, the petition will consist of numerous pages and with all the required info, use of 8.5 by 11 standard home printer paper leaves little room for signatures most of the time. In order to be a valid signed petition, all the pages would have to be printed, stapled, signed, and returned. That is a tall order for people to complete accurately.

It might be a “tall order,” but evidently it is not an impossible one. And Michael Alexander, a man with no quit in him, is putting the theory to the test. If you watch nothing else that comes out of this movement, watch this. Because it is a revolution. Imagine if millions of Californians mastered the skill of printing initiative petitions at home.

Gone are the professional printers, producing immaculate magna opera, formatted to accommodate 4,500 words of initiative verbiage on a single sheet 14-inches by 17-inches folded once, or 7,500 words of initiative verbiage on a single sheet 14 inches by 25.5 inches folded twice. Gone are the logistics of transporting millions of these initiatives from the printer’s shop to every county, every committee, every household, and every collection table at every public venue, in a state of 40 million people. Gone are the legions of paid signature gatherers, with all the cost and legal expenses they bring with them.

It’s important not to understate the remaining logistical hurdles that initiative proponents have to overcome, and it’s extremely unlikely an initiative campaign could ever completely bypass professional printing shops.

But online communications and desktop printing have revolutionized the business of initiatives and recalls in California. Find a competent attorney for advice, then build a website, format a PDF, put out the word via email or social media, and stand back while overnight, a million followers load standard copy paper in a home printer, click a link, and make history.

California’s Growing Nonpartisan Populist Movement

Californians surprised the nation last week when an unstoppable multitude of enraged parents successfully recalled three of San Francisco Unified School District’s elected school board members. As impressive as this accomplishment was by virtue of being a sweep, more impressive were the margins. As reported by EdSource, “In a landslide, voters recalled board President Gabriela López and members Alison Collins and Faauuga Moliga. Partial returns from 128,000 mostly mail-in votes, more than seven out 10 backed the recall, with nearly 79% voting to oust Collins, 75% to remove Lopez and 72% to recall Moliga.”

San Francisco is a city with only 7 percent registered Republicans. It is also a multiethnic city: 40 percent white, 35 percent Asian, 15 percent Hispanic and 5 percent black. According to the New York Times, “it also appeared to be a demonstration of Asian American electoral power.”

Ward Connerly, a former member of the University of California Board of Regents and the author of Proposition 209, which outlawed affirmative action in California in 1996—an initiative upheld by voters as recently as 2020, when 57 percent of voters statewide rejected Proposition 16 which would have repealed Prop. 209—is working closely with Asian activists to eliminate racial discrimination in college admissions and elsewhere.

“Asians are realizing that California’s institutions are failing,” Connerly said, “and they’re beginning to organize to repair the damage.”

This is the stuff of realignment, and it’s everywhere. For example, consider Latino leaders such as Gloria Romero, who had risen to become the majority leader in the California State Senate, then left after recognizing the toxic impact the teachers’ unions were having on public education in the state. In addition there are black Californians such as Ward Connerly, and powerful Asian reform organizations.

Wealthy white liberals as well are belatedly realizing how broken some of California’s institutions have become, as exemplified by David Welch, who was behind the Vergara v. the State of California and the California Teachers Association litigation in 2012. Welch, supported by luminaries such as former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, has filed an initiative for the 2022 ballot called the “California Right to High-Quality Public School Education Initiative.”

And then there are California’s die-hard populists, stigmatized and stereotyped, but gathering in strength. That would include The California School Choice Foundation, along with Fix California. It would also include Orrin Heatlie’s all-volunteer organization, famed for their stunning success qualifying the Newsom recall petition for the ballot in September 2021. Now renamed Rebuild California, Heatlie’s group is quietly preparing to trigger another political earthquake.

Can all these groups find common cause and work together? They certainly can, and they should.

Grassroots movements, often led by volunteers, are bound to attract people with strong passions. Whenever people volunteer their time, their incentive to compromise is reduced. But the perfect is the mortal enemy of the good. In public education, along with a lot of other policy areas, the people running California are making grievous errors. An underfunded team, using cheap online resources, can reach millions. They can fight and win, by highlighting these policy errors and offering solutions via the initiative process.

But they have to work together. In California’s growing nonpartisan populist movement, unforced errors have no place.

If the proponents of California’s school choice initiatives had unified under one initiative, for a few million dollars they would have had the signatures to qualify that in initiative on the state ballot this November. And for a few million dollars more they could have run an effective grassroots campaign to approve the initiative. And win or lose, the public sector education unions would have spent between $50 and $100 million—money that they couldn’t then have spent elsewhere—to protect their monopoly.

If you’re trying to stop California’s progressives from dominating America, the math is pretty compelling. Every dollar you spend in a frontal assault on progressive power in California will pin down many times that much. Make them defend their turf.

There’s much more to this picture, however, because even in California, progressive ideology is rapidly losing credibility. Imagine if California’s electorate rejected progressive ideology. Imagine if their political donors—and possibly even some of their public sector unions—were to embrace a new direction that nurtured prosperity and freedom. Imagine that was California’s export to the nation and the world.

Get the news corporate media won't tell you.

Get caught up on today's must read stores!

By submitting your information, you agree to receive exclusive AG+ content, including special promotions, and agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms. By providing your phone number and checking the box to opt in, you are consenting to receive recurring SMS/MMS messages, including automated texts, to that number from my short code. Msg & data rates may apply. Reply HELP for help, STOP to end. SMS opt-in will not be sold, rented, or shared.

About Edward Ring

Edward Ring is a senior fellow of the Center for American Greatness. He is also the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, which he co-founded in 2013 and served as its first president. Ring is the author of Fixing California: Abundance, Pragmatism, Optimism (2021) and The Abundance Choice: Our Fight for More Water in California (2022).

Photo: iStock/Getty Images

Content created by the Center for American Greatness, Inc. is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a significant audience. For licensing opportunities for our original content, please contact licensing@centerforamericangreatness.com.