Prop*50

California: no on cigarette tax hike, yes to amending term limits

Californians rejected a proposed five-cent hike on each pack of cigarettes sold. The revenue would have funded research on cancer and other tobacco-related diseases. The vote runs somewhat contrary to historical trends:  since 1992, voters had approved seven of the 11 proposed tobacco tax hikes on statewide ballots. This is a striking exception from voter behavior on most proposed tax increases. Over the 1992-2011 period, voters just 32% of the 73 tax increases that appeared on statewide ballots, but they approved 63.6% of the proposed tobacco tax increases. Perhaps Californians just don't like to pay more for their tobacco though -- they rejected another proposed tobacco tax hike back in 2006. That was Prop. 86, and like yesterday's Prop. 29, the revenue would have funded health care. As of Wednesday morning, the "yes" vote on Prop. 29 was 49.2% (that's still unofficial, since provisional and absentee ballots remain to be counted).

Proposition 28 fared much better, garnering a 61.4% "yes" vote in unofficial results. This measure amends the state's strict term limits law for legislators. Currently, a person may serve up to six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate; after that, you're out for good. These "lifetime" term limits are the nation's strictest. Prop. 28 reduces the total number of years a person can serve in the Legislature from 14 to 12, but removes the chamber-specific limits. This would allow someone to serve the full 12 years in one chamber, or divide it among the two. It also removes a provision that had allowed some members to serve as long as 17 years by discounting partial terms from the limit.

The aim of the measure is to allow lawmakers to avoid the political musical chairs forced by the shorter, chamber-specific limits, and instead allow more time in a single office. The advantage is that with more time in office, lawmakers can develop deeper expertise on issues, state government, and the rules and procedures of the Legislature.

Voters rejected an initiative that was very similar to Prop. 28 back in 2008. The key difference was that the 2008 measure, Prop. 93, would have allowed members currently in office at the time it passed to serve up to 12 years in that chamber, regardless of previous service in the other chamber. This year's Prop. 28 applies only to members elected after the passage of the initiative.

Legislatures in Arkansas, Michigan and Missouri have considered legislation similar to Prop. 28, but to date, none of these measures has made its way to the ballot for voter approval.

Government Reform by Jedi Council?

A California group called the Think Long Committee has issued a new report recommending what almost sounds like a new, fourth branch of government for California:  the Citizens Council for Government Accountability. The Council, made up of 13 members appointed to six-year terms by the governor and the leaders of both parties in the legislature, would have the power to place proposed laws and constitutional amendments directly on the ballot. No legislative vetting or petitioning required.

It's not an idea that's entirely unheard of -- Florida has two entities that are similar. The Tax and Budget Reform Commission and Constitution Revision Commission each meet every 20 years and can place questions directly on the ballot for voter approval. Both have a narrower scope than what's being proposed by Think Long - the TBRC is restricted to (not surprisingly) matters dealing with taxation and budgets. The CRC has somewhat broader discretion and can recommend a change to any part of the state constitution, but even the CRC could not propose changes to state law.

The idea may sound far-fetched (journalist Joe Mathews called it "a Jedi Council for California), but the $20 million backing Think Long has thanks to billionaire Nicolas Berggruen certainly adds at least a touch of credibility to the idea.

Read more about it on KQED News's Capital Notes Blog.

Follow the money: California's Prop. 23

Proposition 23 would temporarily suspend AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, until the state's unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent.  AB 32 requires the state's greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020, with further reductions in later years.

Prop. 23 proponents claim that AB 32 will cost the state over 1,000,000 jobs and lead to energy tax increases.  Read more about their side here.

Opponents of Prop. 23 claim that the initiative was put on the ballot by Texas oil companies to kill clean energy and air pollution standards that would be expensive to their industry.  Read more about their side here.

Rather than listening to the two sides duke it out in 30-second ads, perhaps a more useful tool for discerning the goals of the measure can be found in analyzing who is spending money for and against it.  This is not a good exercise just for Proposition 23, by the way; campaign finance data is always a good gauge of the true motivations behind ballot measures.

Who is spending in favor of Proposition 23?

According to the California Secretary of State's web site, there is just one committee registered in favor of Prop. 23, the California Jobs Initiative Committee, a Coalition of Taxpayers, Employers, Food Producers, Energy, Transportation and Forestry Companies.  Most of the industries mentioned in the committee's name play a minor financial role in the campaign.  The heavy weight is carried by the energy industry.  Of the more than $8.2 million raised so far, $7.5 million, or 91 percent, comes from the energy industry.  Nearly 80 percent of the total raised comes from just three contributors:

• Valero, a Texas oil refiner, has contributed $4,059,678
• Tesoro, a California-based refiner, has contributed $1,525,000
• Flint Hills Resources, a Kansas refiner owned by Koch Industries, has contributed $1,000,000

Who is spending against Proposition 23?

A total of eight committees opposing Prop. 23 are registered with the Secretary of State.  The major player is No on 23, Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition. Sponsored by Environmental Organizations and Business for Clean Energy and Jobs.  This committee has raised just over $6.7 million.  (Of the remaining seven committees, two report no fundraising, four have raised $100,000 or less, and the fifth, sponsored by the National Resources Defense Council, has turned over most of its contributions to the No on 23 committee.)

Cleantech investment and venture capital firms are contributing heavily to the "no" side.  The single largest contribution so far has come from hedge fund manager Thomas Steyer, who gave $2.5 million.  Environmental and community foundations have given as well, and there are many more individual contributions to the "no" side than the "yes" side.  The construction, solar energy and real estate industries have contributed in smaller amounts.

Courts vs. the voters?

An article by Susan Ferriss of McClatchy Newspapers discusses the role of the courts in evaluating measures initiated and approved by voters -- in this case, the 2008 California vote on Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage.  Voters are often frustrated when courts intervene and reject measures approved in an election.  This article makes the important point that initiatives must abide by the constitution just as measures passed by legislative bodies must.  Voter-approval does not always equate with constitutionality, and is not an immunization from judicial review.

Prop. 23 funding investigated

The Fresno Bee reports that legislative leaders in California have asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to launch an investigation into a Missouri non-profit called the Adam Smith Foundation.  The Adam Smith Foundation gave $498,000 to the California Jobs Initiative committee, the sole committee spending in support of Proposition 23.  (See California campaign finance records filed by California Jobs Initiative here.) California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker John Perez allege that the Adam Smith Foundation is taking advantage of its tax status to hide who its contributors are.

The Adam Smith Foundation's filings with the Internal Revenue Service show that it raised just $5,200 in 2009 and ended the year with $109.  The California lawmakers question how the organization is capable of legally contributing nearly half a million dollars to the Prop. 23 campaign under such financial circumstances.  They allege that the foundation is merely acting as a pass-through agent for political contributions, which is illegal under federal tax laws.

CA ballot over ballot title ends in favor of initiative proponent

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued over the title that the Attorney General's office wrote for Proposition 23, and last week, they won.  They thought the Attorney General wrote the title in a way that reflected bias against the measure.  Here's the title that was challenged, along with the court's rewrite:

Suspends Air Pollution Control Laws (AB 32) Requiring Major Pollutors Sources of Emissions to Report and Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions That Cause Global Warming Until Unemployment Drops Below Specified Level for Full Year.

The Howard Jarvis side argued that "major pollutors" was pejorative, and that using the plural "laws" implied that a variety of pollution control laws might be suspending, when in fact only one -- AB 32 -- was addressed by the initiative.  A superior court judge agreed and rewrote the title.

This case illustrates the fact that it can be a difficult balancing act for a partisan state official (Attorney General Jerry Brown is a Democrat) to write a neutral ballot title for a clearly partisan ballot measure.  But it's not any fairer to let initiative sponsors draft their own title, as some states do.  Is there a better way to provide voters with a fair, neutral, and concise title for initiatives?

Read an L.A. Times editorial on this case.

California Poll: Legalized Pot Not So Hot

According to a California Field Poll released on July 9, voters are not supportive of Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana for adults.  44 percent of those surveyed support the measure, while 48 percent oppose it.  While California will be the first state to vote on legalizing the sale of marijuana, several states have voted on decriminalizing possession of marijuana.  In 2008, Massachusetts voted to replace criminal penalties for possession of up to one ounce with a civil penalty.  Similar measures have been rejected by voters in Colorado (2006), Nevada (2002 and 2006) and Oregon (1986).  In 2008, California voters rejected Proposition 5, which would have changed sentencing guidelines for drug crimes, with a preference for parole and rehabilitation over prison time.

The poll asked about three other initiatives on the California ballot:

• Prop. 25 - replace current 2/3 vote requirement for passing a budget in the legislature with a simple majority vote - 65 percent of voters favor this proposal, compared to just 20 percent who oppose it.
• Prop. 23 - suspend limits on greenhouse gas emissions - 48 percent oppose it; 36 percent support it.  Note however that only 39 percent of the voters surveyed said they knew much about the proposal, and among those voters, opinions are split (44 percent yes vs. 45 percent no).
• Prop. 18 - water bonds - 42 percent support it and 32 percent oppose it.  Once again, however, only a small percentage of those polled -- 24 percent -- admit they are familiar with the measure, and support among those voters is much stronger:  57 percent, compared to 33 percent who oppose it.

Two More Initiatives Qualify for California Ballot

Initiatives 1414 and 1454 have qualified for the November 2 ballot in California, bringing the total number of initiatives in that election to five.

Initiative 1414 would prohibit the state from shifting, taking, borrowing, or restricting the use of tax revenues dedicated by law to fund local government services, community redevelopment projects, or transportation projects and services. It would also prohibit the state from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for these purposes even when the Governor deems it necessary due to a severe state fiscal hardship.

Initiative 1454 would temporarily suspend AB 32, an environmental protection law requiring a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, passed in 2006.  AB 32 would go back into effect only when California's unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent.  According to the Los Angeles Times, the oil industry spent $3 million to gather the signatures needed to qualify for the ballot.

Five initiatives are still in signature verification in California.  Tomorrow -- June 24 -- is the last day an initiative can qualify for this year's ballot.  Any initiative that qualifies after that date would go on the 2012 primary ballot, or on the ballot in any special election held between November 2010 and the 2012 primary.

The qualification of these two initiatives brings the total number of measures on statewide ballots in November to 112, and the number of initiatives to 16.