Sponsors of California initiatives are always seeking broad power. A California initiative either changes the law or puts in place a statute that can only be undone by another vote of the people.

But in recent years, even that much power hasn’t been enough for some initiative sponsors. They write into their initiatives to power to play attorney general.

These provisions grant initiative sponsors the power to defend their own measure in court. Sometimes, the initiatives declare that the state must fund their post-election legal work. That is an extraordinary power grab, and anti-democratic. California voters elect a state attorney general to defend the state legally; the a.g. has to make choices about priorities and resources. But these initiative sponsors want to supplant their judgment; their initiative is always the top priority, no matter what.

This November, two measures seek this extraordinary power. And since there is one man behind each measure, we are seeing an individual power grab.

The first measure is Prop 10, backed by the powerful AIDS Healthcare Foundation and its president, Michael Weinstein. Prop 10 would allow cities to pursue rent control policies—a highly questionable policy in a house shortage. But it also would grant new legal powers to its sponsors.

From Section 10 of Prop 10: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, if the State, a government agency, or any of its officials fail to defend the constitutionality of this Act, following its approval by the voters, the proponents shall have the authority to intervene in any court action challenging the constitutionality of this Act for the purpose of defending its constitutionality, whether in state or federal court, and whether such action is in any trial court, on appeal, or on discretionary review by the Supreme Court of California or the Supreme Court of the United States. The reasonable fees and costs of defending the action shall be a charge on funds appropriated to the California Department of Justice, which shall be satisfied promptly.”

Note that last sentence: it says that initiative sponsors can get their legal bills paid if they must defend their initiative. The only requirement is that they be “reasonable.”

Prop 11 has similar language. It’s an initiative with only one backer, American Medical Response, the nation’s largest medical transport firm, which is trying to reverse a court ruling that affects its employees. That company isn’t even based in California—headquarters are in Colorado—but its CEO, Ted Van Horne—wants the California attorney general’s powers.

The initiative introduces a new wrinkle. It requires that if the initiative needs a legal defense and the governor and attorney general won’t provide it, the state will have to name “an independent counsel” to defend the act. The initiative also requires a continuous appropriation to fund this.

If you’re voting on these two measures, you’re not just voting on rent control or ambulance work conditions. You’re voting on whether to give legal authority and money to two unelected executives.