When Californians head to the polls in November, they won’t just cast their votes for the next president and congressional representatives; they’ll also make decisions on key policy issues like affordable housing, the environment and upgrades to public schools.

California’s system of direct democracy has enjoyed widespread support among voters since the state adopted the statewide initiative, referendum and recall processes in 1911. Since 1974, California voters have reviewed over 500 propositions on statewide ballots, including measures that forced businesses to place health warning labels on products known to cause cancer, provided supportive housing for homeless people and funded arts education in K-12 schools.

“California continues to be the national leader in allowing citizens to use ballot measures to resolve important state issues, with a healthy 10 issues on the ballot at this time,” said John G. Matsusaka, executive director of the Initiative and Referendum Institute at USC, which studies and tracks ballot initiatives and propositions nationwide. “As is the case in almost every election, there are some important issues on the ballot for the voters to decide.”

How California’s ballot propositions work

In California, measures generally make it to the ballot in one of two ways: through the legislature, which can propose amendments to the state constitution or secure bond funding for projects, or via citizen-led petitions that directly place issues on the ballot.

“On a typical ballot, most of the propositions are placed on the ballot by the legislature. This year, five of the 10 propositions currently set for the ballot came from the legislature and five came from citizen petitions,” said Matsusaka, the Charles F. Sexton Chair in American Enterprise at the USC Marshall School of Business and the USC Gould School of Law.

Matsusaka explained legislative propositions appear on the ballot because the California Constitution mandates that bond issues and constitutional amendments must be approved by voters. In contrast, propositions from citizen petitions, known as “initiatives,” are efforts to bypass the legislature and directly address issues proposed by the public.

“Groups typically sponsor initiatives after they fail to persuade the legislature to pass a law they want, in an effort to go over the heads of elected officials to the final authority, the people,” he said.

CALIFORNIA BALLOT MEASURES: Q&A WITH JOHN MATSUSAKA
Matsusaka, a political economist and expert on direct democracy, discusses the key statewide ballot measures voters will decide on in November.

Proposition 2: A game-changer for public schools — and housing

One of the most notable measures, Proposition 2, proposes issuing $10 billion in bonds to fund the modernization of California’s public education facilities. Of this amount, $8.5 billion would be allocated to elementary and secondary schools, while $1.5 billion would support improvements at community colleges.

“The two school construction bond measures on the California ballot in November are essential for ensuring that every student in the state has a safe and up-to-date place to attend school every day,” said Lawrence Picus, the Richard T. Cooper and Mary Catherine Cooper Chair in Public School Administration at the USC Rossier School of Education.

Picus noted many school facilities are over 50 years old and require significant upgrades to meet current technological and educational needs. “These funds will help transform classrooms and schools into environments where all our children can thrive,” Picus said.

In addition to upgrading schools, experts say Proposition 2 might also address the critical housing shortage for educators.

“Prop. 2 is also likely to be used by some school districts to support efforts to develop housing for teachers and staff. While this might seem like an unusual expansion of the responsibilities typically taken on by school districts, the critical housing shortage in California has made it necessary,” said Pedro Noguera, dean of USC Rossier.

Proposition 2 isn’t the only measure aimed at improving housing. Proposition 33 would eliminate a state law prohibiting cities from limiting rental rates on single-family homes, and Proposition 5 would make it easier for cities to borrow money for affordable housing by reducing the number of votes needed to approve housing and infrastructure bonds, with the caveat the money won’t be used to buy single-family homes.

Proposition 4: Weighing the costs, benefits of California’s most ambitious environmental proposal yet

Proposition 4 proposes borrowing $10 billion for a range of critical environmental projects, including flood control, water infrastructure, wildfire management and parks. Experts have expressed concerns about its complexity, arguing the bundled nature of the measure could make it difficult for voters to assess each component.

Matthew Kahn, an economic expert on climate change policy and urban quality of life, pointed out several key concerns: the financial impact on middle- and low-income residents, the distribution of benefits across different regions in California and the anticipated improvements in environmental quality.

“When we go to a restaurant, we can construct our own meal based on choosing which courses we want to eat. In contrast, this proposition resembles a fixed price, fixed menu meal,” said Kahn, provost professor of economics and spatial sciences at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

“Why didn’t the authors propose a separate ballot initiative for each of the ballot’s pieces? There could be a separate vote on flood control and on investing in parks. Under these rules, voters could better prioritize which of these environmental items they care the most about,” he said.

When French historian and educator Baron Pierre de Coubertin founded the modern Olympics in 1894, he did so with a vision of promoting peace through sport. In reality, the Olympics have often reflected the geopolitics of the period.

Tensions flared Wednesday when Olympic officials moved to crush U.S. probes into a Chinese doping scandal. Multiple wars rage, political instability is shaking France and anxiety mounts about the U.S. presidential election. Can Olympic victories translate into geopolitical wins?

“International sporting events have become thoroughly politicized, and given the chaos around the globe, we can expect many acts of protest and disruption both inside and outside the stadiums of Paris,” said Robert English, an associate professor of international relations, Slavic languages and literature and environmental studies at the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.

“We live in an era in which reputation is central to the security of nations. A mega-event like the Olympics becomes a key platform to the host and participants alike,” said Nicholas Cull, a historian and expert in public diplomacy, foreign policy and media at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism. “International actors compete to showcase their own strengths and reveal the weaknesses of their adversaries, real or imagined.”

Geopolitics and the Olympics: Games are apolitical in theory, but not in practice

Though the International Olympic Committee maintains a strong position against the politicization of sport in its Olympic Charter, reality often intrudes.

“In the world we have, we know that the Olympics are political. The U.S. boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics because of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and earlier, in 1968, two Black American runners raised their fists in a Black power salute on the winners’ podium,” said Gregory Treverton, a professor of the practice of international relations and spatial sciences at USC Dornsife.

Treverton, who served as chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council from 2014 to 2017 and previously worked for the first Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he handled Europe for the National Security Council, said that the main benefit of the Olympics from a political perspective is probably the athletes themselves, as they get to know their counterparts from other countries.

As athletes interact, they participate in a unique cultural exchange that only an event like the Olympics can provide, experts say.

Geopolitics and the Olympics: Games a platform for public diplomacy?

Cull, a professor of communication at USC Annenberg, said he’ll be watching athletes from smaller, lesser-known countries whose potential Olympic victories could have broader political ramifications.

He notes that Kosovo’s 2016 Olympic success in women’s judo was a “massive deal,” which bolstered the nation’s argument to be recognized as a nation in its own right rather than a runaway province of neighbor Serbia.

Experts predict news headlines to center on the performances of U.S., Chinese and Russian athletes. Competitors from Russia and its ally, Belarus, will participate as Individual Neutral Athletes, without national flags or anthems, and will be excluded from the official medal table.

“Russia is effectively banned from the 2024 Summer Olympics because of its war in Ukraine. Ideally, this ban would work as another sanction to pressure Russia to stop the war,” English said. “Practically, it will have zero such effect and mainly serves to further alienate ordinary Russians from the West.

“It is also seen by many as hypocritical when the Israeli Olympic team can compete despite the carnage of Israel’s war in Gaza,” he added, noting that the U.S. faced criticism when its athletes competed internationally despite the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

USC Professor Jonathan Aronson warned that the high-profile nature of the Olympics brings with it the potential for demonstrations or acts of violence, a Russian attack in Ukraine aimed at distracting global attention, efforts by right-wing French or European Union factions to undermine President Emmanuel Macron, road closures and travel disruptions, or a major cyberattack that could disrupt events.

“If the Olympics proceed without significant disruptions, it will be considered a major success and a huge relief for the organizers,” said Aronson, a professor of communication at USC Annenberg and a professor of political science and international relations at USC Dornsife.

The expert in international relations, communications, globalization and trade negotiations added: “While there will be many touching personal stories during the Olympics, it is unrealistic to expect a widespread moment of public diplomacy or a unifying atmosphere.”

USC’s Aya Gruber is a nationally recognized expert in criminal law and procedure, feminism, and critical theory. Her work tackles critical societal issues, such as how the legal system handles sex crimes, whether policing is an effective solution for problems like homelessness, and the intersections of racism, feminism and mass incarceration — themes she explored in her first book, The Feminist War on Crime.

A frequent source for media, Gruber has commented on the challenges in applying traditional criminal laws to sexual assaults that occur in the metaverse, as well as on high-profile cases like the E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump defamation trial and the recall of Judge Aaron Persky, who presided over the infamous Brock Turner case.

Gruber, the Harold Medill Heimbaugh Professor of Law at the USC Gould School of Law, met with USC News to reflect on the historical trajectory of women’s rights, emphasizing both hard-won advancements and ongoing challenges, while also sharing the personal journey that inspired her passion for this critical area of study.

Two years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade and ended federal protections for the right to abortion through its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. What are some of the lasting impacts of this ruling that you are currently monitoring?

Gruber: Today, we’re seeing a convergence of factors: Women are increasingly asserting their sexual, reproductive and political freedoms. At the same time, the mainstreaming of regressive and hyper-masculine ideologies — fueled by figures like Trump — has resurrected antiquated ideas about women’s roles and “purity.”

Efforts to restrict reproductive rights represent a regression from 20th-century strides toward gender equity. Limitations on medical abortion care, even in cases of endangerment or involving minors, alongside attempts to curtail access to birth control, reflect alarming societal shifts. These developments highlight fundamental issues surrounding women’s rights, particularly their bodily autonomy.

On the criminal law side, there’s a troubling trend where legal authorities are considering incarcerating doctors for providing birth control or abortion. There’s even talk of prosecuting individuals who aid minors in crossing state lines for abortions as child traffickers. It’s disconcerting to see criminal law enforcement melding with what appears to be a renewed assault on women’s rights.

How did we get here?

Gruber: Many people see the abortion debate as having to do specifically with 1960s politics, where abortion wasn’t a significant issue until it became part of the Republican agenda, eventually culminating in the conservative-majority U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to roll back Roe v. Wade in 2022. That’s the stock political story on it. But as someone who studies how attitudes toward women and their roles in society have evolved throughout history, I see a broader historical context.

For example, in colonial history and throughout the 19th century, women were confined to a specific societal role: that of a wife and mother. Within marriage, men held all property rights and dictated the terms of sexual relations. Women lacked access to birth control and faced compulsory motherhood, heterosexuality and sexual activity. They were expected to serve as guardians of virtue and chastity. All this fed into a sexual double standard that persists today: Men can be sexual to a point of pride, but women cannot.

The 20th century saw a significant reversal of these norms with women achieving equal citizenship to men. But recent efforts have sought to erode this progress, particularly by curtailing women’s reproductive rights. This erosion happens in a few different ways: first, by restricting access to medical abortion care, even in cases where a woman’s life is at risk or if she is a minor; and second, by limiting access to birth control. There is a growing trend toward discussing and allowing corporations to restrict access to birth control.

This issue is not just about public health, although there are many reasons beyond family planning for taking hormonal birth control. It fundamentally concerns women’s rights — specifically, the right to sovereignty over one’s own body, which has been hard-won.

What are some of the tools we have for addressing these challenges?

Gruber: One of the best tools we have is speaking up, learning and being unafraid to engage in conversations about sex, reproduction and gender. These are painful and difficult discussions, and we need to approach them with sensitivity and skill.

From a feminist history perspective, avoiding these topics is counterproductive. Historically, women were excluded from juries and legal professions because it was assumed they couldn’t handle discussions about sensitive issues like rape or murder.

For example, issues like police brutality and racism, and the potential outlawing of birth control, both intersect with themes of sexuality and gender. We need to talk about these subjects to make progress, especially at this moment when society is at a critical inflection point.

How did you discover your passion for this area of study? 

Gruber: It’s a bit of a long story that traces back to L.A. During World War II, my mother, then a child, was placed in a Japanese detention camp. Her family later settled in East L.A., and some of her siblings even attended USC, which was quite remarkable for that time. Growing up, I often heard these stories.

In the ’80s, these same stories shaped my perspective on the war on drugs and the war on crime in a way that differed from many of my peers. On TV, what I saw were countless people of color being taken away to jail. It reminded me of those mass detentions from my mother’s time.

By the time I was in college, women outnumbered men in enrollment, yet faced a wage gap that exceeded 75 cents to the dollar. This stark gender inequality prompted me to rethink mainstream feminism, which often focused narrowly on combating rape and domestic violence. While these are critical issues, I questioned whether achieving gender justice solely through criminal law — imprisonment one case at a time — was the most effective approach. This dilemma persisted through law school, where I grappled with the desire to defend marginalized communities against a criminal justice system I believed was flawed.

I have been exploring this dilemma in my writing ever since — when criminal law is a friend to feminism, whether feminists should be fighting for more criminal laws or looking for alternatives outside of criminal law.