Skip to content
Subscribe

Assessing the compatibility of key California ballot measures

Published:

Ballot propositions 19, 25, and 26 present California voters with some noticeably contradictory elements. Prop 19 would permit marijuana to be regulated and taxed as a legal drug, similar to alcohol. The legalization element, however, is not the problematic one – rather, the regulation and taxation elements are likely to clash with the anti-prohibition coalition supporting the initiative.

The reason for this is the existence of Propositions 25 and 26, which would respectively permit the California legislature to pass a budget by simple majority vote while simultaneously requiring that all taxation votes meet a 2/3 majority. Even on their own, these two measures will put the legislature in a very precarious position, with the spending portion of the budget subject to simple majority, while revenue-raising is still left difficult. This result alone would likely produce further legislative gridlock.

But then throw in Proposition 19 and this fight will likely go nuclear. One of the oft-cited arguments for legalizing marijuana on the progressive side of the aisle is that legalizing it will open up new sources of revenue for the state, as marijuana is a highly profitable cash crop, and even a small tax on it would probably bring in a significant sum of revenue.

However, since no existing marijuana tax currently exists on California’s books, the creation of such a thing would first have to pass a 2/3 majority vote in California’s legislature if Proposition 26 is passed. And given that anti-tax sentiment in the legislature has historically frustrated this sort of effort, that would in effect make marijuana perhaps the only untaxed drug in California, which, while it would produce a boom in the marijuana industry, would also give purveyors of tobacco and alcohol incentives to seek similar tax breaks for their good.

Thus, the issue of marijuana legalization, while it would satisfy the demands of its more libertarian-minded supporters, would likely end in disappointment for progressives who would like to see the drug taxed and regulated, especially given that regulation is costly, and without revenue, unlikely to be popular and/or feasible.

At no other time, then, is a critical outlook more necessary in critically evaluating the various initiatives currently in play on California’s ballot. Tax relief and marijuana legalization both have compelling arguments to back them up, but for California voters, the issue in this case may be that they have to pick one or the other.

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.

IVN staff: fill in who you're inviting above, then create the invite.

Preparing the article

Assessing the compatibility of key California ballot measures

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

To for

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us