No on Prop 45 campaign gets labor boost

Did someone forward you this email? Sign up here.

Hello and welcome back to Capitol Confidential! 

We’ve nearly made it to the weekend. But before you tune out of the daily news cycle for a few days, here’s your latest election season dispatch. 

As I did last edition, we’re continuing to dive deeper into some of the races and ballot measures facing California voters this November. Today, that’s Proposition 45 and the race for governor. 

While the billionaire tax may be the flashiest measure on the ballot, it’s not necessarily the most contentious. 

With only a few weeks to go until Nov. 3, groups are amping up their messaging – and their spending – around one ballot measure that could reform one of California’s landmark environmental laws. 

Proposition 45 would speed up environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, for specified housing, transportation, water, health and clean-energy projects. It would set deadlines for public agencies, narrow some analysis of project alternatives and limit the ability for courts to review project approvals.

It all sounds very procedural at first pass, but since it was enacted more than 40 years ago, CEQA has become one of the state’s most important land use laws. Whether it be multibillion-dollar development projects debated in the Capitol or small-town proposals heard in tiny planning commission meetings, CEQA is ubiquitous in California. 

Those who support Proposition 45’s changes to the law say CEQA has been wielded to halt development, used to entrap projects into what some call “green tape.” Prop 45’s opponents say it’s a necessary environmental protection, which gives communities the ability to mitigate, or sometimes block, developments that would have  negative impacts. 

CEQA reform had for decades been a sort of white whale in Sacramento. Over the last decade, lawmakers have opted to pass piecemeal exemptions from the law – a phenomenon that created what many have called “Swiss cheese CEQA.” Most of those exemptions, however, have focused on housing development. 

Environmental groups aligned with the No on Prop 45 campaign held a press conference in Sacramento this week, and one of the state’s most powerful labor groups registered its opposition a day later.

As Politico first reported, SEIU California has now waded into the fight, throwing its endorsement behind the No on Prop 45 campaign. 

“The corporate interests bankrolling Prop 45 want shortcuts for their polluting projects that harm working families and our communities,” Executive Board Member David Green said in a statement. “Californians need to stand up to greed and take on corporations and reject this overreaching measure.” 

Prop 45’s funding has come largely from business, construction and housing groups, including the California Building Industry Association – a major financial backer. 

In response, Yes on Prop 45 campaign spokesperson Amelia Matier told Capitol Confidential that the No campaign is attempting to distract voters, calling the current CEQA regulations a “broken system.” 

“Prop 45 will lower costs for California families by streamlining approvals for housing, water infrastructure, clean energy, transportation, hospitals, schools, broadband and wildfire prevention, with clear, enforceable timelines that end years of costly delays,” Matier said. 

Those in support of Proposition 45 have raised more than $40 million as of Tuesday – more than half of the opposition campaign’s $18.9 million in the same timeframe. Additional filings this week will push those numbers even higher as the election creeps closer.

The No campaign’s largest backers are environmental groups, the State Building and Construction Trades Council and billionaire philanthropist Wendy Schmidt. 

The state Democratic Party opposed Proposition 45, while the Republican Party endorsed it. The California Chamber of Commerce placed the measure on the ballot.

As the Chronicle’s Sophia Bollag reported, governor candidate Steve Hilton has made hyper-specific campaign promises, released a provocative viral ad and traveled across the state to try to get himself on the news. His opponent, Xavier Becerra, meanwhile, has avoided making promises or headlines and dodged reporter questions.

But neither strategy appears to have moved the needle on the state of the race for California’s next head honcho, as Bollag lays out. 

Independent polls continue to show Becerra up by double digits – the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley found him 25 points ahead of Hilton, while the Public Policy Institute of California found him 22 points ahead. 

Hilton generated some controversy – and lots of attention – last week when he released an ad depicting two young women in a dimly lit bedroom engaged in sexually suggestive banter. Two of Hilton’s conservative allies who have campaigned with him rebuked the ad.

Meanwhile, Becerra has been careful to avoid specific campaign promises, instead favoring broad policy ideals like increasing access to healthcare generally and bringing down the cost of living. But, for someone running to head up the country’s largest state economy and take the reins amid ongoing housing and affordability crises, it leaves a lot to be desired. 

Roger Salazar, a Democratic strategist who worked for Becerra’s attorney general campaign but is not working on his gubernatorial bid, said that’s just not Becerra’s style. It’s also a reflection of his massive lead in the polls, he told the Chronicle.

“When you've got a lead like this, there's always a tendency to want to at least default to first do no harm,” he said. But if Becerra is elected, Salazar added, “I think the downside is it might take you a little bit longer to ramp up your policy operation.”

California’s largest union representing thousands of state workers is going on strike, after negotiations for a new contract with Gov. Gavin Newsom’s administration stalled several weeks ago. 

If it all goes as planned, many Californians – especially here in Sacramento – will see waves of purple strike lines on Oct. 21. The one-day strike will be the first-ever for SEIU Local 1000, which represents more than 100,000 state workers across dozens of state agencies and departments. 

State workers’ current union contract expired at the end of June. SEIU Local 1000 President Anica Walls said negotiations have been deadlocked for the last two months, 

“We are demanding a contract that recognizes our important work, keeps our jobs sustainable and makes it possible for us to afford to live in the communities we serve,” Walls said in a statement. “This vote is a notice to the Newsom administration that if they continue to bargain in bad faith, we will take action.” 

The union voted nearly unanimously for the one-day strike, with a 96% yes vote. 

Walls said the union is pushing for a general salary increase, larger retirement and benefits packages and investments into workforce modernizations. 

At the end of July, state workers filed an unfair practice charge with the Public Employment Relations Board, alleging the state’s labor agency CalHR had not bargained in good faith, resulting in a formal complaint against the state. 

CalHR spokesperson Angela Musallam said in a statement that the agency is open to continuing talks, but did not address questions over the union’s allegations it has not engaged in good-faith negotiations.

“CalHR remains ready to sit down anytime with the union to negotiate a fair and responsible agreement,” Musallam said in the statement to Capitol Confidential. “The state remains focused on protecting the critical and essential services that Californians rely on.” 

The strike vote came after Newsom vetoed two of the biggest state worker bills to have made it to his desk: AB1729 and AB1383. 

AB1729, by Assembly Member Alex Lee, D-San Jose, would have required every state agency to streamline its telecommuting plans by reporting cost savings and reevaluating its policies every decade. It aimed to provide a more flexible and supportable telework policy for state workers. SEIU Local 1000, had supported the bill, presenting it as a part of their demands for workforce modernizations. But it also stirred up ongoing frustrations by many state workers who have resisted Newsom’s March 2025 executive order mandating they return to the office at least four days a week. 

In his veto message on Friday, Newsom said the bill would take the state’s telework policy in the “wrong direction,” and pointed to existing policies that evaluate teleworking on a case-by-case basis.

AB1383 by Assembly Member Tina McKinnor, D-Hawthorne, would have lowered the retirement benefit eligibility age for firefighters and police officers to age 55. 

In his veto message, Newsom referred to the state’s pension crisis in the early aughts, and warned the bill would reverse some of the reforms made to the state’s pension system in response by his predecessor, former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Like with many issues plaguing Newsom’s final few months as Califorrnia’s governor, the impasse raises the question of whether it will land on the next governor’s plate. 

“We know that they're ready to show the administration that we mean business,” Walls said of union members. “And we know that administrations change, but our demands will not.”

Questions? Thoughts? Interesting tidbits to share? Reach out at [email protected], and follow me on X, @KathrynPlmr.