By Dayna Ghirardelli, Executive Director
There is a growing frustration in California that is becoming harder to ignore: the feeling that each year brings another rule, regulation, mandate, or government “solution” that adds another layer of complexity to everyday life. For many Californians, the issue is not whether every individual regulation is well-intentioned. Many are. The larger question is whether we are considering the cumulative effect of all these decisions on the people who have to live with them.
Take California’s new replacement-tire efficiency rule. Beginning in 2029, replacement tires sold in California will have to meet state energy-efficiency standards, with stricter requirements coming in 2033. State officials say the rule will reduce emissions and save consumers money on fuel. Perhaps it will. But Californians are entitled to ask another question: What will the rule cost consumers, manufacturers, retailers and businesses, and how will those costs play out over time? That is a reasonable question to ask about any new regulation.
California families and businesses are navigating rules governing housing, energy, transportation, property, agriculture, employment, and countless other aspects of daily life. Each requirement may have a legitimate purpose, but collectively they can create a regulatory system that is expensive, complicated, and difficult to navigate. And then we wonder why the cost of living continues to be such a pressing concern. This should not be a partisan question. It should be a question of accountability.
Regardless of political affiliation, voters should be willing to ask whether the policies being adopted are producing the results promised. Are they making life more affordable? Are they improving government services? Are they helping businesses create jobs? Are they protecting communities without creating unnecessary burdens? Those are questions worth asking of every elected official, regardless of the letter next to their name.
The same principle applies to legislation such as Assembly Bill 2624, which has been dubbed the “Stop Nick Shirley Act” by its critics. Supporters say the law is intended to protect certain employees of immigration nonprofits from threats, harassment, and doxxing. Critics have raised concerns about potential effects on transparency and public scrutiny. Whatever one’s position, the broader principle is important: government protections should be examined carefully to ensure that they accomplish their intended purpose without creating unintended consequences.
The same careful attention should be given to ballot measures. California voters are routinely asked to make decisions on complicated issues through ballot propositions that can be reduced to a few words on a campaign advertisement. But the actual consequences can be much more complicated.
Proposition 19, for example, changed California’s property-tax rules involving inherited property. For families whose wealth is tied to a home, farm, or ranch that has been held for generations, changes in tax treatment can have significant consequences.
That is why voters owe it to themselves to look beyond campaign slogans and ballot titles. Understand what a measure actually does. Consider who pays for it. Ask what problem it is intended to solve and whether there are less costly or less complicated ways to accomplish the same goal.
Most importantly, hold elected officials accountable for results. Democracy is not simply about choosing a political party every few years. It is an opportunity to evaluate leadership, examine policies, and decide whether government is moving in a direction that serves the people it represents.
California has tremendous strengths. We have extraordinary natural resources, innovative businesses, productive farms and ranches, talented people, and communities that care deeply about their future. The challenge is making sure our government decisions strengthen those assets rather than unintentionally making it harder for people to live, work, and build here.
Perhaps the most productive conversation we can have is whether government is doing the right things, doing them effectively, and understanding the consequences of the decisions it makes.
Are they?
The answers start with voters, and we are coming up on a pivotal election.
We should expect transparency. We should expect accountability. We should expect elected officials to explain not only what a policy is (really) intended to accomplish, but what it will cost and how success will be measured.
And when election season arrives, we should take the time to look beyond party labels and campaign promises and consider the record in front of us. Change does not have to begin with anger or division. It can begin with informed citizens asking better questions and expecting better answers.
Ultimately, the direction of California is not determined solely by politicians or government agencies. It is shaped by the people who participate, pay attention, and vote.
