The Rev Dr. Rick SchlosserCalifornia Church IMPACT recommends a NO vote
This measure would ostensibly bring transparency to ballot measures by requiring 25% of signatures to be gathered before a measure qualifies for a vote. It would also require any new tax passed in 2026 or later to be audited every four years for effective spending, and would prohibit any tax that creates spending exempt from the state’s “Gann Limit.”
While framed as a general reform, this measure is particularly aimed at reining in Proposition 40 should it pass, and at potential new taxes under Proposition 42. In the interest of transparency: this measure is financially sponsored by a Google founder.
On the audit provision: this oversight already exists through the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), whose cost and consequence assessments are publicly available. Auditing a measure before it even qualifies for the ballot isn’t cost-effective — it would waste LAO resources on proposals that may never reach voters.
On the spending-accountability piece: California Council of Churches IMPACT routinely reviews past measures that funded similar issues, checking whether those funds were fully spent and met their intended use. In some cases, we’ve recommended against new spending because earlier funding wasn’t fully implemented. We can do this because the state already conducts ongoing audits — not exciting reading, but available for exactly this kind of analysis.
Finally, every bill submitted to the Legislature, and every initiative proposed for the ballot, already undergoes legal review. Legislative Counsel reviews bills; the Attorney General reviews initiatives before they qualify, including compliance with the Gann Limit and whether a measure may legally sit outside the state budget in an independent fund — similar to how Social Security and Medicare operate at the federal level. The Attorney General determines which measures qualify for that treatment.
In short, what this measure calls for is already being done. The proponents simply don’t like the results — and that’s not a reason to duplicate existing processes in hopes of a different outcome.
Recommend a NO vote