One of the biggest problems in our world of politics is voters' common refusal to accept the concept of tradeoffs. Author Robert Mulligan says it "is one of the most basic principles in economics, that in order to have more of one thing, you have to accept having less of something else." Likewise, economist Thomas Sowell noted, "There are no solutions. There are only tradeoffs."

It's a basic idea that we all understand on a personal level. I've been thinking about trading my 15-year-old car for a new one, as it would be nice to have a vehicle with power windows and Bluetooth. But buying one means using money I could spend on other pleasures. Such is life.

Politics is funny, though. Politicians make promises where everyone gets everything their heart desires. We can have a single-payer healthcare system without any of the resulting shortages. We can have tariffs that don't drive inflation—or that wall Mexico pays for. It would be nice if lawmakers just leveled with us about the ups and downs of policy choices.

One initiative this election, Proposition 45, best epitomizes that tradeoff issue. It seeks to reform the state's "landmark" environmental law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Do we want more building and the good it brings, or do we maintain the Byzantine regulatory process so we can stop construction of projects we don't like?

Complex regulations aren't best reformed at the ballot box, but since Gov. Ronald Reagan signed the law in 1970, CEQA has entangled construction projects of every sort in a maze of hearings, Environmental Impact Reports, and litigation. CEQA was meant to assure developers mitigated any environmental damage. That sounds fine, but it has led to long delays, enormous costs, and special interests that use the process to stop projects or exact non-environmental demands (e.g., union wage concessions).

There's wide consensus in the Legislature that CEQA has exacerbated the state's housing crisis, halted business growth, and slowed our economy. The law even endangers the state's environmental priorities, as cynical actors have used it to derail parks, transit projects, infill housing, wildfire-fighting brush-clearance projects, you name it.

Lawmakers have exempted various projects from CEQA, but have done so on a piecemeal basis—and only those that fit a narrow scope. Sponsored by the level-headed California Chamber of Commerce, Proposition 45 attempts broad reform for any "essential" project. Per the measure, that includes housing, water systems, clean energy, health facilities, police and fire stations, brush clearance, broadband, education facilities, and transportation projects except for the bullet train.

As the Legislative Analyst's Office explains, Proposition 45 "creates more binding time limits for state and local governments to do both CEQA and permitting reviews. This includes time limits for determining if a project application is complete, finishing the EIR, and granting other types of approvals and permits." Some of the changes are deep in the weeds, but it's all meant to speed things up—and to limit what the courts can review.

"CEQA lawsuits, inclusive of appeals, typically take four to five years to resolve, stalling most approved projects and often deterring lenders, investors and grant-making agencies from funding them," explained a September report from the Holland & Knight law firm. Ask any knowledgeable person about why California is incapable of building anything efficiently and they will point to these CEQA impediments. If the state wants to reduce housing prices, it needs to fix this logjam.

As a voter, you must answer a simple question: Do the benefits outweigh the downsides? Again, the downside is that in speeding up approval of projects that you like, it will also speed up the process for projects that you don't like. No wonder opponents are raising the arguable specter that Proposition 45 will help companies build data centers, given those centers are widely unpopular.

We need more housing, including suburban subdivisions. We need more businesses. We need better freeways. We need to speed the process for brush clearance to prevent devastating wildfires. So, yes, I eagerly support this measure. Will it likely mean I'll see the speedier construction of, say, underused light-rail lines and absurdly costly subsidized apartment buildings that annoy me? Probably. Oh well, some bad will come with the good, no matter what the campaigns tell you.

For instance, the "yes" side claims that Proposition 45 offers the "same strong protections." California's environmental protections will still be strong, but they obviously won't be the "same." And opponents claim CEQA needs reform, but this particular fix is the wrong way to go about it. That canard just reflects a myopic refusal to accept downsides inherent in any reform.

To me, Proposition 45 has far more pros than cons. You do you. But be an adult and recognize the tradeoffs. As sci-fi author Robert Heinlein wrote, "there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL)."

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

The post California Voters Have a Chance To Address the State's Broken Environmental Regulations appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Supporters of Proposition 39, the statewide ballot initiative that would implement additional Voter ID requirements for California elections, pitch the measure as a "common-sense reform to increase trust and participation in our elections." Its sponsor, Assembly member Carl DeMaio (R–San Diego), touts widespread support for such measures by Democratic, Republican, and independent voters.

Yet the latest polls show the measure tanking, with a Public Policy Institute of California survey last month showing it losing 55 percent to 43 percent—dismal numbers this late in the election season. The official ballot arguments provide some insight into the reasons. While supporters stick with their "nonpartisan" shtick, opponents tie the measure to President Donald Trump's election denialism.

"Stop Trump from rigging our elections. Don't believe the lies. Prop. 39 MAKES VOTING HARDER, MORE EXPENSIVE, AND LESS SAFE for Californians," per the "no" argument. It refers to the measure's funding from "MAGA rightwing billionaires." That point was reinforced by a recent CalMatters report showing large donations from "deep-pocketed Republican donors." The publication says it's a "signal that conservatives view Prop. 39 as a test of support for future battleground states in the broader push by…Trump to tighten voter restrictions."

That's a fair assessment. In a Democratic state where the president's approval ratings are 24 percent in one poll, it's hard to imagine that most voters will spend much time thinking about the ins and outs of election policy and analyze the measure based on its specifics. They'll no doubt see it for what it largely is: a Republican Party effort to aid and abet Trump's unfounded election conspiracies. That said, its requirements aren't overly obtrusive, only unnecessary.

Currently, Californians must show a state identification or provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number when registering. No identification is needed to vote in person, but election officials use signature verification for vote-by-mail envelopes. Around 90 percent of Californians vote that way, so the main issue involves the requirement that voters add the last four digits from their government IDs on the outside of the envelope—thus adding an additional checkpoint (and sadly an additional opportunity for identity theft).

There's no need to worry about compliance costs for election agencies, as it's their job to administer elections. The measure likely will marginally reduce voter participation (by increasing disqualified ballots, even from legal voters if they forgot the ID they used when they registered), while marginally increasing security. It would force many Californians to re-register, which is a hassle. It would no doubt burden our excruciatingly slow ballot counting.

I don't have any theoretical problem with requiring an identification before voting, but California's elections are remarkably secure. There's no evidence of widespread fraud. Basically no one risks prison time by pretending to be someone else on a ballot. It's not about fixing a problem.

Since his defeat in 2020, Trump has traded in election conspiracy theories. The new GOP game is to trot out evidence-free election-fraud claims whenever they lose. We shouldn't play along. Despite the nonpartisan rhetoric, Proposition 39 is the state GOP's way of leaning into Trump's priorities and, as that CalMatters article noted, build momentum for less-defensible nationwide restrictions—apparently the only way Republicans think they can build a lasting majority. The measure won't do much damage in California as it's fairly modest, but it energizes the party's worst instincts.

Consider what DeMaio wrote in 2024 about his seven-point plan to overhaul the state GOP: "Do you remember a time when Republicans controlled a majority of statewide offices in California and were competitive in the state Legislature and congressional delegations?" He rightly blames the party itself, then offers his first item on a platform to revive it: "Make election integrity CAGOP's top ballot priority." I, too, would prefer more competitive California elections, but my first point would be for the GOP to make a better case for fixing California's messes.

Others see the measure as a means to gin up Republican turnout for a November election that's going to be a referendum on Trump by giving them some high-excitement issue to rally around. But some savvy political observers think that it might backfire. We'll see, but it reminds me that the California GOP has too long relied on cute strategies rather than good candidates.

What about supporters' main claim that Voter ID is necessary because it will restore voters' flagging trust in election integrity? Well, Republicans are the ones who don't trust our elections—and that's precisely because Trump spent the last six years poisoning the well. Do you really believe the people who think MAGA Republican Spencer Pratt could have only lost a Los Angeles mayoral primary (where only 15.9 percent of voters are Republicans) because of fraud will have their faith restored if Proposition 39 becomes law? Doubtful.

Republicans can restore their fortunes by acting normal again. The rest of us needn't enable them by backing a measure based on an election-integrity fantasy.

This column was first published in The Orange County Register.

The post California Republicans Pushing New Voter ID Law Are Motivated by Trump's 'Stolen Election' Fantasies appeared first on Reason Magazine.