California voters can be excused if they get a sense of déjà vu when taking their first look at the ballot initiative pamphlets for the fall election.

That is because they already have seen and decided on several of the issues. The decisions, of course, were negative on all those that will be back for another go-‘round.

But a no vote, even a resounding one, doesn’t always deter initiative sponsors. Sometimes they are right. There can be occasions when the time simply isn’t yet ripe for an issue. The best example might have been Prop. 13, the landmark 1978 property tax cutting measure. Five years before it passed, Gov. Reagan called a special election with another proposed property tax cut the only item up for a vote. It failed by almost a 60 percent to 40 margin. But as property values skyrocketed through the mid-‘70s, taking property taxes for a ride with them, more and more voters felt threatened by fast-rising levies. That allowed Prop. 13 to pass with a 65 percent yes vote.

Are Oldies Goodies?

No wonder initiative sponsors often try again.

That is why we are about to see a repeat of the 2010 attempt by Mercury Insurance Co. Chairman George Joseph to reverse part of the 1988 Prop. 108 insurance rate limits by letting car insurance companies set prices based on how long a driver has continuously maintained an auto policy.

The slight difference between that one and this year’s Prop. 33, also almost completely funded by Joseph, is that Mercury’s new measure would let insurance companies base their rates in small part on the number of years new customers have had any kind of coverage. Consumer advocates maintain that could produce significantly higher rates for both new drivers and those renewing existing policies.

Then there is Prop. 32, the so-called “paycheck protection” measure that would force labor unions to get annual member approvals before spending any of their dues money on politics.

Voters saw that one in the 1990s and again in a 2005 special election, where it had the strong backing of then-popular Gov. Schwarzenegger. It lost anyhow, buried beneath a tide of union-sponsored TV commercials and a classic get-out-the-vote effort. Unions will make the same sort of effort again this year, having put up $10 million to fight the measure by Aug. 1.

Is the Law Unfair?

Prop. 36 is a measure to ease some of the harsh sentencing requirements of the Three-Strikes-and-You’re-Out law that puts three-time felons away for 25 years even if their third offense is so minor or non-violent it might only be a misdemeanor but for the two prior convictions. That sentencing policy is one reason for California’s gigantic prison expenditures. The three-strikes component in prison spending won’t be changed during the current realignment program sending supposedly low-risk offenders back to the counties from which they came – unless Prop. 36 passes.

The last effort at easing three-strikes in the early 2000s got nowhere. It remains to be seen whether voters have come around to seeing the law’s current configuration as at least a partial waste of money.

Prop. 30 so far is the most debated measure on the November list. This is Gov. Brown’s effort to win approval for temporary tax increases to ease the state’s budget crunch and keep key state programs running at or near current levels.

The proposition bears a lot of similarity to a Schwarzenegger-backed effort in 2009, which failed miserably.

The Brown proposal’s fate may have been sealed by revelations of hundreds of millions of dollars simply lying around in special funds – some unknown even to the governor – that so far have not been tapped even in emergencies. Unless something dramatic occurs between now and early October, when mail voting begins, chances are the early polls that favored this will be reversed in the official vote.

Legislative redistricting is also on the ballot again, via the Republican-sponsored referendum known as Prop. 40, which would nix the state Senate district lines drawn by the rookie Citizens Redistricting Commission, which was set up under another initiative. The cash-strapped GOP will spend nothing on this one, but it could pass anyway because of possible voter confusion over what a yes vote (to nix the districts) or a no one (to keep them) means. So yes means no on the districts, and how many voters will comprehend that?

There are also new issues on this ballot, like taxes dedicated only to education, labeling of genetically engineered food and the tax treatment of multi-state and multi-national corporations.

Voters can be excused if they feel they have decided the most controversial of this fall’s issues before, and wonder why proponents keep bringing back the same ideas. The reason, of course, is that times change, and so can public opinion.

Mr. Elias may be contacted at tdelias@aol.com. His book, “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,” is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, see www.californiafocus.net