Voters don’t reject progressive measures because their values are wrong. They reject them when confusion makes them feel unsafe—and unsafe voters always vote no.
At a foundational and universal level people want to be safe and free. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness stuff, right? That’s the key when it comes to speaking to a person and not at them. It’s a recognition of these basic human principles.
Take guns. Some people feel safer owning one. Some feel unsafe living in a world where their neighbors do. Others see any restriction as an assault on their freedom. The same object, the same law, lands differently depending on which value a voter is protecting. That’s not irrationality. That’s how political decisions actually get made.
It’s the operating framework voters bring to the ballot box—even when they couldn’t articulate it that way. When a campaign’s message aligns with those values, voters move toward it. When it doesn’t—when it introduces mixed messages, confusion, or uncertainty—voters recoil. Uncertainty feels like danger. And danger produces a no.
Confusion is not neutral. Confusion is the enemy of yes.
When you’re approaching the average person, your policies and values may be sound, but if your narrative creates confusion where it needed to create clarity, people will responded the way they always do when they feel uncertain: they protected what they already had.
Here is a number worth sitting with: eight.
Eight states—Colorado, Nebraska, Utah, Alabama, Tennessee, Oregon, Vermont, and Nevada—have amended their constitutions to remove the exception clause that permits involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime. They did it by an average margin of 70%. Nevada just joined the list with 60% voter approval. Every time this measure has appeared on a ballot anywhere in the country, it has passed.
Except in California. Twice.
Once on the senate floor and once at the ballot box.
The difference isn’t voter values. California voters are not more tolerant of slavery’s legacy than voters in Alabama or Utah. The difference is what message was waiting for them when they arrived.
The Frame Determines the Fight
In every state that passed a similar measure, proponents led with a single, unequivocal moral claim: slavery—and its identical twin, involuntary servitude—no longer reflects who we are. Full stop. The question placed before voters was a values question rooted in safety and dignity—and voters answered it as such.
In California, the messaging pivoted almost immediately to prison labor—a far more contested terrain. Suddenly the conversation wasn’t about the moral legitimacy of language inherited from the antebellum era. It was about labor shortages in the prison system, questions about punishment, and the logistics of incarceration. Voters who might have nodded along to a moral argument were now being asked to take a side in a policy debate they hadn’t signed up for.
That pivot introduced exactly the kind of confusion that makes voters feel unsafe. And voters who feel unsafe vote no.
Complexity Is Not the Same as Depth
There’s a persistent temptation in movement communications to show your work—to demonstrate the full scope of the problem you’re solving, to name every injustice the measure would address, to honor the complexity of your coalition’s concerns. This impulse is not wrong. It becomes wrong when it lands in a campaign.
Voters don’t make decisions the way policy analysts do. They make decisions the way all human beings do: through story, identity, and moral clarity. When a campaign offers a story that is morally clear—“This language belongs to a history we’ve renounced”—voters can locate themselves in it. When a campaign offers a policy argument about incarcerated labor economics, voters feel the ground shift beneath them and they hesitate.
Hesitation, at the ballot box, is a no.
What the Data Tells Us
Californians did not vote against the values underlying Prop 6. There is no evidence that California voters are more tolerant of slavery’s legacy than voters in Alabama or Utah. What the results tell us is that voters who were not already inside the abolitionist framework—who did not arrive at the ballot pre-convinced—were not given a story that could carry them across.
That is a narrative failure, not a values failure. And it is entirely correctable.
The Principle at Work
Either the movement firmly champions justice-based reforms with a clear, singular moral claim—or it risks being diluted by the weight of its own complexity. A campaign can hold nuance in its policy work. The public narrative must be unambiguous.
The frame determines the fight. And right now, California’s progressive movement keeps letting its opponents define the frame by default—not because voters are hostile, but because the story being told leaves too much room for doubt.
Working on a ballot initiative campaign?
COJA Services builds the narrative infrastructure that moves voters—message architecture, framing strategy, and communication systems grounded in two decades of investigative journalism and movement work.
Our ballot initiative campaign services are built for campaigns that want to win on the merits—and communicate them clearly. Learn more at cojaservices.com.
