2018 California Proposition 69

Last updated

Proposition 69
Flag of California.svg
Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes5,386,97281.01%
Light brown x.svgNo1,262,45518.99%

2018 California Proposition 69 results map by county.svg
Yes:   70–80%  80–90%
Source: California Secretary of State [1]

California Proposition 69 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. [2] [3] This measure put the revenue from the Road Repair and Accountability Act, which increased fuel taxes, in a "lockbox" so that it can only be used for transportation-related purposes. It also exempts said gas tax revenue from the previously existing appropriations mandate and expenditures limit. This state constitution amendment ensures that revenues from SB1 Gas Taxes established by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 can only be used for transportation-related purposes.

Contents

Vote results

Proposition 69
Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svgYes5,386,97281.01%
Light brown x.svgNo1,262,45518.99%
Valid votes6,649,427100.00%
Invalid or blank votes00.00%
Total votes6,649,427100.00%
Registered voters/turnout6,649,427100%
Source: California Secretary of State [1]
Sources of Funding for California Infrastructure Sources of Funding for California Transportation.png
Sources of Funding for California Infrastructure

In the June 2018 primary election, voters approved locking the California SB1 gas tax increase to transportation only. The ballot passed with 5,386,972 votes at 81.0% of the polls. [1] The SB1 mandate does not allow any additional lanes or roads built other than car pool, bus, bicycle lane conversion and increased funding for other public transportation such as bus and trains. [4] The SB1 Car Fee increase and all older existing Gas Tax before SB1 still appropriated to the General Fund for any project. Proposition 69 mandated SB1's tax increase and fee schedules exempt from the state appropriations spending limit. [5]

Yes/No Statement

A "yes" vote on Proposition 69 proposes: the California Legislature will be required to continue to spend revenues from recently enacted fuel taxes and vehicle fees for spending on infrastructure, including repairing roads and improving transit. [6] A "no" vote on Proposition 69 proposes: The California Legislature could change current law in the future, allowing it to spend a portion of the revenues from recently enacted fuel taxes and vehicle fees on purposes other than transportation. [6]

Support

Proponents point out that Proposition 69 won't raise taxes while forcing lawmakers to take on necessary road and mass transit projects. [7] California governors and legislators, including Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, have raided transportation funds to balance the state budget. [8] Senator Josh Newman (Democrat- District 29), one of the amendment's authors, said it was essential that the new gas tax revenues will be spent "only on repairing our aging infrastructure, reducing congestion, and otherwise supporting transportation improvements that foster economic development across the state." [9] Of the 51,000 miles of California highways in 2017, 53% were in fair condition and 6% were in poor condition. [10] Supporters highlight that Proposition 69 can maximize the social welfare function for every community in the state, and guarantee that taxes go to valuable transportation projects. [11]

Opposition

Californians against Proposition 69 argue that the measure doesn't go far enough to protect other transportation fees, such as the vehicle weight fee. [11] California Republicans propelled the "No on Prop 69" movement. California Senator John Moorlach (Republican - 37th Senate District) and Assemblyman Frank Bigelow (Republican - 5th Assembly District) justified their opposition: "state spending will continue to spiral out of control, and it fails to fully protect transportation taxes from being diverted to programs that do nothing to fix our roads and highways." [9] Andrea Seastrand, president of the Central Coast Taxpayers Association, stated:

"While this may sound assuring even to those who opposed raising the gas tax, the reality is that this ballot measure is all about creating a false sense of security for taxpayers. The gas tax increase was incredibly unpopular with voters who already felt the burden of some of the highest fuel costs in the nation. In order to help justify the tax hikes, Proposition 69 was conceived as a companion measure to make the public think that they could trust Sacramento this time and transportation funds would only go to their intended purposes." [9]

Opposers contend that the proposition does not go far enough, and fails to fully protect transportation taxes from being diverted to programs that have nothing to do with fixing roads and highways. [7] State lockboxes tend to only be for transportation, but education proponents often oppose them, citing them "as a ceiling rather than a floor" for education spending. [12]

Fiscal Impact Statement

Upon passage of Proposition 69, there would be no direct effect on the amount of state or local revenues, as the initiative does not alter existing tax and fee rates. [6] The measure "could affect how monies are spent," since it ensures that existing revenues will be spent solely on transportation purposes. [6] Finally, the initiative would put California slightly below its constitutional spending limit, since less than one-tenth of spending from the new SB1 revenues would count toward the limit. [6]

Economic Impact

Traffic Congestion

Empirical evidence has displayed that the provision of extra road capacity results in a greater congestion of traffic. [13] An average road improvement has induced an additional 10% of base traffic in the short term and 20% in the long term. [13] Increased traffic occurs on the alternative routes that road improvements are intended to relieve. [13] However, other evidence has shown that in California, there is no conclusive evidence that increases in state highway lane-miles have affected traffic on other roads. [14]

Other States with Lockbox Amendments

Alaska is the only state to not have statutory or constitutional restrictions on transportation revenue diversion. [12] Since 2010, Maryland, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, and Louisiana voters have all amended their constitutions through ballot measures to enable transportation lockboxes. [12] Twenty-one states dedicate revenues to transportation broadly (such as Rhode Island, Nebraska, and Florida), while twenty-seven restrict revenues only to highways (such as Arizona, Iowa, and Maine). [12] Yet, such amendments also come with risk. While lockboxes ensure that transportation revenues won't get suddenly get cut, they tie transportation to fuel taxes, which inflated or increased fuel economy can erode. [12]

Demand Effect

Claims that road investments spur new travel, known as induced demand, and thus fail to relieve traffic congestion have thwarted road development in the United States. [15] In California, road investments not only stimulated travel demand but respond to it as well. [16] Induced demand effects build over time, as more roads are improved. [16] Furthermore, there are strong reciprocal relationships between road investment and travel demand in California. [16] There is no simple quick fix to achieve road demand reduction, especially in a growing state like California. [17]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1978 California Proposition 13</span> Ballot initiative which capped property tax at 1% and yearly increases at 2%

Proposition 13 is an amendment of the Constitution of California enacted during 1978, by means of the initiative process. The initiative was approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. It was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (1992). Proposition 13 is embodied in Article XIII A of the Constitution of the State of California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">California ballot proposition</span> Statewide referendum item in California

In California, a ballot proposition is a referendum or an initiative measure that is submitted to the electorate for a direct decision or direct vote. If passed, it can alter one or more of the articles of the Constitution of California, one or more of the 29 California Codes, or another law in the California Statutes by clarifying current or adding statute(s) or removing current statute(s).

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights is a concept advocated by conservative and free market libertarian groups, primarily in the United States, as a way of limiting the growth of government. It is not a charter of rights but a provision requiring that increases in overall tax revenue be tied to inflation and population increases unless larger increases are approved by referendum.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2005 California special election</span>

The California special election of 2005 was held on November 8, 2005 after being called by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 13, 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment which revolutionized local and regional government finance and taxation in California. Named the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act," it was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark property tax reduction initiative constitutional amendment, Proposition 13, approved in June 1978. Proposition 218 was approved and adopted by California voters during the November 5, 1996, statewide general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Oregon Ballot Measure 48</span>

Oregon ballot measure 48 was one of two unsuccessful ballot measures sponsored by the Taxpayers Association of Oregon (TAO) on the November 7, 2006 general election ballot. Measure 48 was an initiated constitutional amendment ballot measure. Oregon statute currently limits state appropriations to 8% of projected personal income in Oregon. If Governor declares emergency, legislature may exceed current statutory appropriations limit by 60% vote of each house. This measure would have added a constitutional provision limiting any increase in state spending from one biennium to next biennium to the percentage increase in state population, plus inflation, over previous two years. Certain exceptions to limit, including spending of: federal, donated funds; proceeds from selling certain bonds, real property; money to fund emergency funds; money to fund tax, "kicker," other refunds were included in the provisions of the measure. It also would have provided that spending limit may be exceeded by amount approved by two-thirds of each house of legislature and approved by majority of voters voting in general election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2007 Texas constitutional amendment election</span>

The 2007 Texas constitutional amendment election took place 6 November 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 91</span> Failed ballot proposition on fuel tax use

California Proposition 91 was a failed proposal to amend the California Constitution to prohibit motor vehicle fuel sales taxes that are earmarked for transportation purposes from being retained in the state's general fund. The proposition appeared on the ballot of the February primary election.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2004 California elections</span> Elections held in California

California's state elections were held November 2, 2004. Necessary primary elections were held on March 2. Up for election were all the seats of the State Assembly, 20 seats of the State Senate, and sixteen ballot measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California elections</span>

California's state general elections were held November 5, 1996. Necessary primary elections were held on March 26, 1996. Up for election were all eighty (80) seats of the State Assembly, twenty (20) seats of the State Senate, and fifteen (15) statewide ballot measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Taxation in California</span> Overview of taxation in the U.S. state of California

Taxes in California are collected by state and local governments through a number of tax categories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2015 Michigan Proposal 1</span> Michigan ballot measure

2015 Michigan Proposal 1, also known as the Michigan Sales Tax Increase for Transportation Amendment, was a referendum held on May 5, 2015, concerning a legislatively-referred ballot measure. The measure's approval would have caused one constitutional amendment and 10 statutes to go into effect. It is estimated that Proposal 1 would raise state revenues from sales and use taxes by $1.427 billion, fuel taxes by $463 million, truck registration fees by $50 million, and vehicle registration fees by $10.1 million in the first year. If approved, the proposal was estimated by the Associated Press to result in an average tax increase of $545 per household in 2016.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1996 California Proposition 218 (Local Initiative Power)</span> Adopted initiative constitutional amendment

Proposition 218 is an adopted initiative constitutional amendment in the state of California that appeared on the November 5, 1996, statewide election ballot. Proposition 218 revolutionized local and regional government finance in California. Called the “Right to Vote on Taxes Act,” Proposition 218 was sponsored by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association as a constitutional follow-up to the landmark Proposition 13 property tax revolt initiative constitutional amendment approved by California voters on June 6, 1978. Proposition 218 was drafted by constitutional attorneys Jonathan Coupal and Jack Cohen.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Road Repair and Accountability Act</span> California legislative bill

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, also known as the "Gas Tax", is a California legislative bill that was passed on April 6, 2017 with the aim of repairing roads, improving traffic safety, and expanding public transit systems across the state. The approval of the fuel tax was for a projected $52.4 billion, or $5.24 billion per year, to be raised over the next 10 years to fund the state's infrastructure. The bill passed primarily along party lines, with most Democrats supporting the bill while most Republicans were against it. The bill passed with a vote of 27–11 in the Senate and 54–26 in the Assembly. According to California Department of Transportation, for maintenance projects on state highways, while providing funding to enhance trade corridors, transit, and active transportation facilities, in addition to repairing local streets and roads throughout California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California elections</span>

California state elections in 2018 were held on Tuesday, November 6, 2018, with the primary elections being held on June 5, 2018. Voters elected one member to the United States Senate, 53 members to the United States House of Representatives, all eight state constitutional offices, all four members to the Board of Equalization, 20 members to the California State Senate, and all 80 members to the California State Assembly, among other elected offices.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2018 California Proposition 6</span> Failed amendment to the Constitution of California

California Proposition 6 was a measure that was submitted to California voters as part of the November 2018 election. The ballot measure proposed a repeal of the Road Repair and Accountability Act, which is also known as Senate Bill 1. The measure failed with about 57% of the voters against and 43% in favor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 19</span> Successful property tax ballot initiative

California Proposition 19 (2020), also referred to as Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 11, is an amendment of the Constitution of California that was narrowly approved by voters in the general election on November 3, 2020, with just over 51% of the vote. The legislation increases the property tax burden on owners of inherited property to provide expanded property tax benefits to homeowners ages 55 years and older, disabled homeowners, and victims of natural disasters, and fund wildfire response. According to the California Legislative Analyst, Proposition 19 is a large net tax increase "of hundreds of millions of dollars per year."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment</span>

On November 8, 2016, Illinois voters approved the Illinois Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox Amendment, a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that prohibits lawmakers from using transportation funds for anything other than their stated purpose.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Statement of Vote
  2. "Proposition 69: Dedicated Transportation Revenues Approved — TPG, Inc". Times Publishing Group. June 24, 2018. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  3. Board, The Times Editorial. "Proposition 69 would put California's transportation funds in a lockbox. Vote yes". latimes.com. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  4. Orange County Register: Orange County drivers are no winners in Sacramento backroom deal
  5. "California Proposition 69, Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment (June 2018)".
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 "Proposition 69: ACA 5 (Resolution Chapter 30, Statutes of 2017), Frazier. Motor vehicle fees and taxes: restriction on expenditures: appropriations limit" (PDF). Legislative Analyst's Office: The California Legislature's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor. March 9, 2019.
  7. 1 2 "What Is Proposition 69? California Voter Guide 2018". Northridge-Chatsworth, CA Patch. May 18, 2018. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
  8. Hakel, John. "What is Proposition 69 and Why is it Important?". Southern California Partnership for Jobs. Retrieved March 11, 2019.
  9. 1 2 3 "California Proposition 69, Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment (June 2018)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
  10. "CalFacts 2018" (PDF). Legislative Analyst's Office: The California Legislature's Nonpartisan Fiscal and Policy Advisor.
  11. 1 2 "Proposition 69 — Transportation Funding". Voter’s Edge California. Retrieved March 10, 2019.
  12. 1 2 3 4 5 "Unboxing Transportation Lockboxes at the Ballot Box". The Eno Center for Transportation. Retrieved March 14, 2019.
  13. 1 2 3 Goodwin, Phil (1996). Transportation. Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 35.
  14. Hansen, Mark; Huang, Yuanlin (1997). Road supply and traffic in California urban areas. Elsevier. p. 205.
  15. Server, Robert (2003). "Road Expansion, Urban Growth, and Induced Travel: A Path Analysis" (PDF). Journal of the American Planning Association. 69 (2): 145–163. doi:10.1080/01944360308976303.
  16. 1 2 3 Server, Robert; Hansen, Mark (October 2001). "Induced Travel Demand and Induced Road Investment". Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. 36: 469–490 via Ingest Connect.
  17. Luk, J.; Rosalion, N.; Brindle, R.; Chapman, R. (1998). Reducing road demand by land-use changes, public transport improvements and TDM measures-a review. ARRB Group. p. 100. ISBN   0-86910-752-6.