2022 California Proposition 30

Last updated

Proposition 30
Flag of California.svg
November 8, 2022 (2022-11-08)

Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative
Results
Choice
Votes %
Check-71-128-204-brightblue.svg Yes4,560,48842.37%
Light brown x.svg No6,203,81057.63%
Valid votes10,764,29896.57%
Invalid or blank votes382,3223.43%
Total votes11,146,620100.00%
Registered voters/turnout21,940,27450.8%

2022 California Proposition 30 by County.svg
Results by county

Proposition 30 is a California ballot proposition that appeared in the general election on November 8, 2022. The measure was defeated. The initiative would have raised taxes on the wealthy to fund wildfire management and electric vehicle (and ZEV) incentives and infrastructure. [1]

Contents

A "yes" vote supported the tax increase on income above $2 million; a "no" vote supported maintaining the current tax rate for people of this income. [2]

Proposal

The initiative would have raised taxes by 1.75% on annual personal income in excess of $2 million and directed 45% of the revenue to incentives, 35% to charging stations, and 20% to wildfire prevention. [1] The tax revenue the proposal would have generated was estimated to be between $3 and $4.5 billion annually. The tax would have sunset in 2043, or after California achieved a reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of 80% below 1990 levels, whichever was earlier. [3]

Wildfires and gas combustion contribute to air pollution and release greenhouse gases, so these measures could have improved air quality and contributed to climate mitigation. [2] It would have combated wildfires by increasing the budget for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection by up to $1 billion annually. [4]

Support and opposition

The campaign for Proposition 30 was mostly funded by the rideshare company Lyft, which could have used the incentives to facilitate compliance with the state's electric vehicle requirements. [5] Specifically, ride-hailing companies are required by the state to log 90 percent of their miles in electric vehicles by 2030, and the proposition could have increased the number of drivers with electric vehicles. [6] By April 2022, Lyft had already spent $8 million in support of the proposition. [6] It was also supported by the California Democratic Party, California Environmental Voters, the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, and the California State Association of Electrical Workers. [5] [7] [8] It was supported by Representatives Ro Khanna and Barbara Lee, and mayors Sam Liccardo and Libby Schaaf. [3] [8] Environmental and transportation experts argued that Proposition 30 is necessary because the state's prior investments in electrification were insufficient. [9]

The proposition was opposed by the California Republican Party, the California Teachers Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. [5] [7] [8] Governor Gavin Newsom also criticized Lyft, saying that the proposition was "a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company", noting that the state had already committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure. [10] The campaign against Proposition 30 also produced a TV ad featuring Newsom, where he argued that the initiative was "a trojan horse that puts corporate welfare above the fiscal welfare of our entire state". [11] The biggest donors to the opposition campaign were hedge fund manager William S. Fisher and billionaire Michael Moritz, and investment firm founder Mark Heising. [9]

Environmental policy experts such as Bill Magavern of the Coalition for Clean Air refuted the governor's claims, clarifying that nothing in the measure directed money specifically to Lyft. [12] [9] “It doesn’t take money from any other purpose. This is money that otherwise would just be in the pockets of really rich people,” he said. “And I think when you’re talking about motives, you got to look who’s funding the governor’s attack: really rich people.” [12] For this reason, Joe Garofoli of the San Francisco Chronicle alleged that Newsom opposed the measure to further his presidential ambitions. [12] The measure's ultimate failure was widely attributed to Newsom's opposition. [13]

Polling

Poll sourceDate(s)
administered
Sample
size [lower-alpha 1]
Margin
of error
For
Proposition 30
Against
Proposition 30
Undecided
Berkeley IGS Poll October 25-31, 20225,972 (LV)± 2%47%41%12%
Public Policy Institute of California October 14–23, 20221,111 (LV)± 5.1%41%52%7%
Public Policy Institute of California July 8–15, 20221,132 (LV)± 4.1%63%35%2%

Notes

  1. Key:
    A – all adults
    RV – registered voters
    LV – likely voters
    V – unclear

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, to cap property taxes and limit property reassessments to when the property changes ownership, and to require a 2/3 majority for tax increases in the state legislature. The initiative was approved by California voters in a primary election on June 6, 1978, by a nearly two to one margin. It was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1992 in 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">2008 California Proposition 3</span>

Proposition 3, the Children's Hospital Bond Act of 2008, is a law that was enacted by California voters by means of the initiative process. It is a bond issue that authorizes $980 million in bonds, to be repaid from state's General Fund, to fund the construction, expansion, remodeling, renovation, furnishing and equipping of children's hospitals. The annual payment on the debt authorized by the initiative is approximately $64 million a year. Altogether, the measure would cost about $1.9 billion over 30 years out of California's general fund.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 7</span>

California Proposition 7, would have required California utilities to procure half of their power from renewable resources by 2025. In order to make that goal, levels of production of solar, wind and other renewable energy resources would more than quadruple from their current output of 10.9%. It would also require California utilities to increase their purchase of electricity generated from renewable resources by 2% annually to meet Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) requirements of 40% in 2020 and 50% in 2025. Current law AB32 requires an RPS of 20% by 2010.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 California Proposition 10</span>

California Proposition 10, also known as the California Alternative Fuels Initiative, was an unsuccessful initiated state statute that appeared on the November 2008 ballot in California. Proposition 10 was funded by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a corporation owned by T. Boone Pickens. Clean Energy Fuels Corp. is the nation's leading operator of natural gas vehicle fueling stations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2010 California Proposition 19</span> Failed measure to legalize marijuana

California Proposition 19 was a ballot initiative on the November 2, 2010, statewide ballot. It was defeated, with 53.5% of California voters voting "No" and 46.5% voting "Yes." If passed, it would have legalized various marijuana-related activities, allowed local governments to regulate these activities, permitted local governments to impose and collect marijuana-related fees and taxes, and authorized various criminal and civil penalties. In March 2010, it qualified to be on the November statewide ballot. The proposition required a simple majority in order to pass, and would have taken effect the day after the election. Yes on 19 was the official advocacy group for the initiative and California Public Safety Institute: No On Proposition 19 was the official opposition group.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 39</span> Referendum modifying corporate tax burdens

Proposition 39 is a ballot initiative in the state of California that modifies the way out-of-state corporations calculate their income tax burdens. The proposition was approved by voters in the November 6 general election, with 61.1% voting in favor of it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2012 California Proposition 30</span> Referendum on taxes

Proposition 30, officially titled Temporary Taxes to Fund Education, is a California ballot measure that was decided by California voters at the statewide election on November 6, 2012. The initiative is a measure to increase taxes to prevent US$6 billion cuts to the education budget for California state schools. The measure was approved by California voters by a margin of 55 to 45 percent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2016 California Proposition 55</span>

Proposition 55 is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016 ballot, regarding extending by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000, with revenues allocated to K–12 schools, California Community Colleges, and, in certain years, healthcare. Proposition 55 will raise tax revenue by between $4 billion and $9 billion a year. Half of funds will go to schools and community colleges, up to $2 billion a year would go to Medi-Cal, and up to $1.5 billion will be saved and applied to debt.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Road Repair and Accountability Act</span> 2017 California infrastructure funding bill and fuel tax

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, also known as the "Gas Tax", is a legislative bill in the U.S. state of California 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 referendum to repeal a 2017 fuel tax

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">2018 California Proposition 68</span>

California Proposition 68 was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. It was a $4.1bn bond measure to fund parks, environmental projects, water infrastructure projects and flood protection measures throughout California.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 15</span> Initiative to provide education funding

California Proposition 15 was a failed citizen-initiated proposition on the November 3, 2020, ballot. It would have provided $6.5 billion to $11.5 billion in new funding for public schools, community colleges, and local government services by creating a "split roll" system that increased taxes on large commercial properties by assessing them at market value, without changing property taxes for small business owners or residential properties for homeowners or renters. The measure failed by a small margin of about four percentage points.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 14</span> Authorizes bonds for funding stem cell research

California Proposition 14 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that appeared on the ballot in the 2020 California elections, for November 3, 2020. It authorizes state bonds to be issued worth $5.5 billion, which will fund the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM), which serves as the state's center for stem cell research, and enable it to continue its operations. This measure passed with 51% of the vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2020 California Proposition 22</span> Gig economy workers employment status ballot initiative

Proposition 22 was a ballot initiative in California that became law after the November 2020 state election, passing with 59% of the vote and granting app-based transportation and delivery companies an exception to Assembly Bill 5 by classifying their drivers as "independent contractors", rather than "employees". The law exempts employers from providing the full suite of mandated employee benefits while instead giving drivers new protections:

<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">2022 California elections</span>

The 2022 California elections took place on November 8, 2022. The statewide direct primary election was held on June 7, 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2024 California elections</span>

The 2024 California elections will take place on November 5, 2024. The statewide direct primary election was held on March 5, 2024.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2022 California Proposition 1</span> Successful referendum on enshrining reproductive rights in the state constitution

Proposition 1, titled Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom and initially known as Senate Constitutional Amendment 10 (SCA 10), was a California ballot proposition and state constitutional amendment that was voted on in the 2022 general election on November 8. Passing with more than two-thirds of the vote, the proposition amended the Constitution of California to explicitly grant the right to an abortion and contraceptives, making California among the first states in the nation to codify the right. The decision to propose the codification of abortion rights in the state constitution was precipitated in May 2022 by Politico's publishing of a leaked draft opinion showing the United States Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The decision reversed judicial precedent that previously held that the United States Constitution protected the right to an abortion.

References

  1. 1 2 Beam, Adam (July 5, 2022). "Californians to vote on 7 ballot measures this November". San Francisco Examiner. Associated Press. Retrieved July 20, 2022.
  2. 1 2 "Prop 30: Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative". KCET. July 7, 2022. Retrieved July 21, 2022.
  3. 1 2 "California Proposition 30, Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022)". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2022-09-22.
  4. "California's Proposition 30 could add up to $1 billion to CAL FIRE's budget". Wildfire Today. 2022-09-21. Retrieved 2022-09-22.
  5. 1 2 3 "California ballot measures 2022: Your guide to this year's propositions". Politico . Retrieved July 20, 2022.
  6. 1 2 Alexander, Kurtis (April 5, 2022). "Ballot measure would tax California's wealthiest residents to fund efforts curbing wildfires and smoke". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved July 21, 2022.
  7. 1 2 Sheeler, Andrew (July 6, 2022). "The battle over Prop. 30 begins + Rendon to support Youth Jobs Corps rollout". The Sacramento Bee . Retrieved July 21, 2022.
  8. 1 2 3 "Prop 30: Why mayors of SJ, Oakland and Newsom are on opposite sides of the EV ballot measure". ABC7 San Francisco. 2022-09-21. Retrieved 2022-09-22.
  9. 1 2 3 "A California measure would tax the rich to fund electric vehicles. Why is the governor against it?". the Guardian. 2022-10-14. Retrieved 2022-10-27.
  10. Hoeven, Emily (July 25, 2022). "Newsom calls for more aggressive climate action". Calmatters. Retrieved July 31, 2022.
  11. Zavala, Ashley (September 12, 2022). "Gov. Newsom officially urges no on Proposition 30, calls it a 'trojan horse'". KCRA. Retrieved September 17, 2022.
  12. 1 2 3 Garofoli, Joe (2022-09-13). "Newsom's allies support Prop. 30 — here's why it makes sense that he doesn't". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2022-10-27.
  13. Christopher, Ben (2022-11-10). "Why California's eco-friendly, tax-the-rich electorate killed Prop. 30". CalMatters. Retrieved 2022-11-26.