A total of three measures have qualified for the November 2010 ballot and at least seven others are likely to qualify pending signature verification. Kersten Communications has produced a brief summary of each measure, its fiscal impact, and list of key proponents and opponents of each measure.
I. Measures Qualified for November 2010 Ballot
A. Marijuana Legalization: This initiative measure, titled “The Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010,” would allow persons 21 years old or older to possess, cultivate, or transport marijuana for personal use. This measure would permit local governments to regulate and tax commercial production and sale of marijuana to people 21 years old or older and prohibit persons from possessing marijuana on school grounds, using it in public, smoking it while minors are present, or providing it to anyone under 21 years old. The measure also maintains current prohibitions against driving while impaired. To view text click here.
Fiscal Impact: Summary of fiscal impact on state and local governments by Legislative Analyst (LAO) and Department of Finance (DOF): Savings of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually to state and local governments on the costs of incarcerating and supervising certain marijuana offenders. Unknown but potentially major tax, fee, and benefit assessment revenues to state and local government related to the production and sale of marijuana products.
Proponents: Marijuana industry and others. Visit: http://www.taxcannabis.org/
Opponents: Coalition for a Drug-Free California, California Narcotics Officers Association, California Bus Association, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, California Police Chiefs Association.
B. Water Bond: This measure was placed on the ballot as a result of a deal between Governor Schwarzenegger and state lawmakers. The measure is titled “The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010” and is an $11.14 billion general obligation bond proposal that would provide funding for California’s aging water infrastructure and for projects and programs to address the ecosystem and water supply issues in California. The measure is comprised of seven categories, including drought relief, water supply reliability, Delta sustainability, statewide water system operational improvement, conservation and watershed protection, groundwater protection and water quality, and water recycling and water conservation. (Source: California Department of Water Resources). To view the text of this measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: $11.14 billion in general obligation bonds to be paid back from future General Fund revenues.
Proponents: Association of California Water Agencies, California Chamber of Commerce, California Cotton Growers Association, California Groundwater Coalition, California Farm Bureau, Kern County Water Agency, Contra Costa Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, State Building and Construction Trade Council of California, Wateruse Association, Westlands Water District. Click here for a full list of supporters or visit: http://www.waterforca.com/
Opponents: California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, California School Employees Association, Environmental Justice Coalition for Water, Friends of the River, Planning and Conservation League, Restore the Delta, Service Employees International Union, Sierra Club California, Yolo County Board of Supervisors (partial list). Visit: http://nowaterbond.com/
C. Redistricting of Congressional Districts: This measure would remove elected representatives from the process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to the recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission. Proposition 11, which was passed by California voters in 2008, set up a new redistricting process but did not include Congressional seats. To view the text of this measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF project that this measure would not significantly impact state redistricting costs.
Proponents: Visit: http://www.votersfirstact.org/
Opponents: Opponents have filed a competing initiative, titled the “California Financial Accountability in Redistricting Act,” that would repeal Proposition 11. The measure was drafted by former Fair Political Practices Commission chairman Daniel Lowenstein and is backed by Democratic Rep. Howard Berman and his brother Michael, a Democratic consultant. Campaign strategists say the goal of the competing measure is to defeat this ballot measure by confusing voters. Assemblymember Karen Bass, former Speaker of the Assembly, and at least fourteen Democratic members of California’s delegation to the U.S. Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, cumulatively gave $160,000 to this competing initiative effort in February 2010. Business mogul Haim Saban loaned $2 million to the competing initiative campaign to overturn Prop. 11 in mid-April which makes it very likely that this competing measure will qualify. Saban’s donation has made some observers wonder because in 2008 he gave $200,000 to the campaign to pass Prop. 11.
II. Measures Pending Signature Verification at Secretary of State’s Office
A. Majority Vote for State Budget: The measure, titled “Passing the Budget on Time Act of 2010,” would change the legislative vote requirement to pass the state budget from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority. The measure retains the state’s two-thirds vote requirement to increase state taxes. The measure also provide that if the Legislature fails to pass a budget bill by June 15, all members of the Legislature will permanently forfeit any reimbursement for salary and expenses for every day until the day the Legislature passes a budget bill. To view the text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: LAO and DOF find that the fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future legislatures. The measure would result in a minor reduction in state costs related to the compensation of legislators in years when the budget is passed after June 15.
Proponents: Supporters include the California Faculty Association, AFSCME, the California Federation of Teachers, the California Professional Firefighters, and the California School Employees Association and various others. Visit: http://www.endbudgetgridlock.com
Opponents: Small Business Action Committee, others unknown at this time.
B. Repeal of Corporate Tax Breaks: “The Repeal Corporate Tax Loopholes Act” repeals the corporate tax breaks enacted by the Legislature as part of the 2008 and 2009 budget deals. Specifically, the measure repeals legislation that allows businesses to shift net operating losses (NOLs) to prior tax years and extends the period permitted to shift operating losses to future tax years. The measure repeals legislation allowing corporations to share tax credits with affiliated corporations. It also repeals legislation that would allow multistate businesses to use a sales-based income calculation, as opposed to a combination of property, payroll, and sales. To view the text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF estimate that the measure would result in a state revenue increases from business taxes of about $1.7 billion when fully phased in, beginning in 2011-12.
Proponents: The California Teachers Association sponsored the signature drive but the measure is expected to be supported by a number of other advocacy groups.
Opponents: A large business coalition including the California Chamber of Commerce, California Taxpayers Association, Silicon Valley Leadership Group, and California Building Industry Association, among others. Visit: http://stopthejobstax.org/
C. Modification of Term Limits: The “California Term Limits Initiative” would reduce the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 to 12 years, but allows legislators to serve at total of 12 years either in the Assembly or the Senate, or any combination of both houses not exceeding 12 years. The measure would only apply to legislators elected after the measure is passed. To view the text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF project that there would be no fiscal impact on state and local governments.
Proponents: The measure is sponsored by the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. The groups have formed “Californians for a Fresh Start” and Maria Elena Durazo, the executive secretary-treasurer of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, is reported to be leading the ballot proposition effort.
Opponents: Unknown.
D. Protection of Local Revenues from Raids by State: A coalition of local government, transportation, business, public safety, labor, and public transit groups have submitted 1.1 million signatures to qualify the “Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010.” The measure would prohibit the state from borrowing or diverting local revenues including local property tax revenues and other local tax revenues (i.e. parcel, sales), gasoline taxes that are dedicated to transit or transportation, funds dedicated for public transit, and redevelopment funds. To view the full text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF say the measure would place significant constraints on state authority over city, county, special district, and redevelopment funds. The measure would result in higher and more stable local resources, potentially affecting billions of dollars in some years, and a commensurate reduction in state resources that would result in major decreases in state spending and/or increases in state revenues.
Proponents: The measure is backed by a long list groups including the League of California Cities, California Redevelopment Association, California Special Districts Association, and California Transit Association. Visit: http://www.savelocalservices.com/
Opponents: Unknown.
E. Vehicle Surcharge to Fund State Parks: The “State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act” would establish an $18 annual state vehicle license surcharge on the state’s vehicle license fee and grants free admission to all state parks for surcharged vehicles. The measure would require surcharge revenue to be used solely to operate, maintain and repair the state park system, and to protect wildlife and natural resources. It would exempt commercial vehicles, trailers, and trailer coaches from the surcharge. To view the text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF estimate increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from the imposition of the surcharge on the VLF and potential savings of up to $200 million annually to the extent that the VLF surcharge revenues are used to reduce support from the General Fund and other special funds for parks and wildlife conservation program. They estimate a reduction of about $50 million annually in state and local revenues from state park day-use fees.
Proponents: Early supporters of the proposed ballot measure include the California State Parks Foundation, the Nature Conservancy, and the Save the Redwoods League.
Opponents: Unknown.
F. Increases Legislative Vote Requirement From A Majority to a 2/3 Vote for Fees: This measure would increase the legislative vote requirement from a majority vote to a two-thirds vote for state levies and charges, with limited exceptions, and for certain taxes currently subject to a majority vote. The measure would also amend the Constitution to require voters to approve, either by a two-thirds or a majority vote, specified local levies and charges, with limited exceptions. The measure is very similar to Proposition 37 which was defeated by California voters on the November 7, 2000, ballot with 52% of the electorate voting against it. To read the text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF find that the measure would lead to a major decrease in state and local revenues and spending depending upon future actions of the Legislature, local governing bodies and local voters.
Proponents: The California Chamber of Commerce is the lead force behind the “Stop Hidden Taxes” Initiative. Other notable supporters include the California Taxpayers Association, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Americans for Tax Reform, Chevron, Aera Energy LLC, and the Wine Institute. Visit: www.nomorehiddentaxes.com
Opponents: The California Tax Reform Association, others unknown at this time.
G. Suspension of AB 32 Greenhouse Gas Regulation Legislation: This measure would suspend state law relating to AB 32 (2006), which requires reducing greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until California’s unemployment rate drops to 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters. The measure would require the state to abandon implementation of this comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program which includes increased renewable energy, and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emission reporting and fee requirements for major polluters such as power plants and oil refineries, until the suspension is lifted. To view the text of the measure click here.
Fiscal Impact: The LAO and DOF estimate a potential positive short-term impact on state and local government revenues from the suspension of regulatory activity, with uncertain longer-run impacts. The analysis notes potential foregone state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
Proponents: Assemblymember Dan Logue (R) is a key sponsor. The measure is also supported by the California Republican Party, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and a number of major industry groups and companies, including the oil industry. Click here for a list of donors to the campaign. Visit: http://www.suspendab32.org/
Opponents: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Green Tech Action Fund.
###