On election days, voters become public officials, and on Nov. 5 Californians made the most of the opportunity by, as it now appears, rejecting Proposition 5 and passing Proposition 36. While they celebrate those victories, the people might recall a greater loss.

Proposition 5 was an attack on the “People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation,” the famous Proposition 13 from 1978, when some Californians were literally being taxed out of their homes. Prop. 5 would have reduced the two-thirds vote to pass bonds to 55%, making property tax hikes more likely.

Prop. 36 aimed to restore the damage from the 2014 Prop. 47, which reduced some felonies to misdemeanors. The “Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act,” so named by state attorney general Kamala Harris, looked the other way at theft of property valued at less than $950. The measure launched a wave of shoplifting and vandalism that continues to this day.

As Katy Grimes of the California Globe notes, Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative Democrats had 10 years to deal with escalating crime, but failed to do so until Prop. 36 qualified for the November ballot. Another key measure qualified for the same ballot, but voters did not get the chance to make the call.

California’s Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act required voter approval for all new taxes passed by the legislature and two-thirds voter approval for all new special tax increases. The act required that before any tax or fee is enacted, politicians must clearly outline how revenues would be spent. The measure gathered nearly one million signatures and qualified for the Nov. 5 ballot. That disturbed Gov. Gavin Newsom and former governor Jerry Brown.

Gov. Newsom contended that the measure is a constitutional revision, rather than a constitutional amendment, and would “effectively block the state’s ability to quickly respond to major challenges.” Proponents of the measure charged that Newsom was simply attempting to disenfranchise the voters.

Brown’s amicus brief made the same argument as Gov. Newsom, that the measure was a constitutional “revision” rather than an amendment, basically a distinction without a difference. The former governor mentions Prop. 13, which Brown loudly opposed until it passed in a landslide. The state supreme court ruled that Prop. 13 “was both modest and does not change our basic governmental plan.” According to Brown, a Yale law alum, the Taxpayer Protection and Accountability Act, “turns our governmental plan inside out.”

If taxpayers thought that was exactly what the state needs it would be hard to blame them. Consider the government’s ongoing plan to keep income and sales taxes among the highest in the nation. Unfortunately, the state’s high court sided with the ruling class, booting the Taxpayer Protection Act from the ballot.

On the other hand, the people scored victories by, as it now appears, rejecting Prop. 5, rejecting Prop. 33, (rent control), and passing Prop. 36.

In Santa Ana, yet another victory escaped notice. By a 62-38 margin, voters rejected Measure DD, which would have allowed non-citizens to vote. Non-citizens voting is like an imposter replacing an elected official and, say, casting a vote to increase taxes. Those who support non-citizen voting, regardless of party affiliation, have no claim to support the rule of law.

Prop. 13 made California a national leader but a reactionary ruling class now bars the people from curtailing tax and fee hikes. To restore national leadership and respect the rights of the people, the state should put the Taxpayer Protection Act on the next ballot, along with a measure to ban non-citizen voting statewide.

Lloyd Billingsley is a policy fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland.