HealthyCal.org

One in a series of brief analyses of the measures on California’s November statewide ballot.

To see our other ballot prop analyses:

Proposition 19, go here.
Proposition 20: Congressional districts.
Proposition 21: State Parks.
Proposition 22: local government revenue
Proposition 23: Suspension of global warming law
Proposition 24: Repeal business tax deductions
Proposition 25: Majority vote for state budget

Proposition 26: two-thirds vote for fees.

Background:It currently takes a two-thirds vote in each house of the Legislature to raise taxes, but a majority vote to raise most fees. With Republicans in the Legislature almost always opposed to raising taxes, the Democrats have tried to raise revenue by raising fees instead, since in many cases they can do so without any votes from the minority party. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger blocked many of these fee increase plans during his seven years as governor, although he proposed and signed a few of his own.

Local government can also generally raise fees by a majority vote of city councils or county boards of supervisors, while it takes a vote of the people to raise taxes.

A 1997 state Supreme Court ruling confirmed the Legislature’s ability to raise most fees by majority vote. Business interests, taxpayer groups and Republican lawmakers have been hoping ever since to overturn that decision by changing the law. Proposition 26 would do that.

What Proposition 26 would do: Proposition 26 would require the Legislature to get a two-thirds vote in each house to raise fees that do not directly benefit the people paying them. User fees, such as park entrance fees, for example, could still be set by majority vote. But most regulatory fees that pay for broader costs and do not benefit the interest paying the fee would require a two-thirds vote. The same would be true for local governments. Many of these fees are assessed on businesses to pay for environmental protection programs.

Who is for and against Proposition 26?

Proposition 26 is supported by oil and gas companies, food and alcohol manufacturers, other corporate interests and business groups. Chevron alone has contributed nearly $4 million to a combined campaign in favor of Proposition 26 and opposed to Proposition 25, which would lower the vote requirement for passing a state budget from a super-majority of two-thirds to a simple majority. Other big donors include Exxon and Phillip Morris.

Proposition 26 is opposed by health, environmental, education and civic groups. Among the opponents are the Sierra Club, the American Cancer Society, the League of Women Voters and the California Teachers Association.

Bottom line:

Vote Yes on Proposition 26 if you want ot make it more difficult for the Legislature and local governments to raise fees on business.

Vote No on Proposition 26 if you want to continue to require a majority vote, not a two-thirds vote, to raise fees on business.

–Daniel Weintraub

One in a series of brief analyses of the measures on California’s November statewide ballot.

To see our other ballot prop analyses:

Proposition 19, go here.
Proposition 20: Congressional districts.
Proposition 21: State Parks.
Proposition 22: local government revenue

Proposition 23: Suspension of global warming law

Background:This measure seeks to suspend, and essentially repeal, California’s landmark global warming law, known as AB 32. Ab 32, passed in 2006, requires the state to reduce its emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 to the levels emitted in 1990. That would mean an estimated 30 percent reduction by 2020 from the levels where they would be without the requirements of AB 32.

Most of those reductions are expected to come from changes in the way heavy industry operates. Power plants, cement manufacturers, oil refineries and other heavy industries are preparing to retool their operations to reduce their emissions and meet regulations imposed by the state’s Air Resources Board. The board is also expected to create a market for emissions “credits” that will allow businesses that cannot economically reduce their emissions to buy credits from other companies that are able to reduce their emissions by more than the amount required. This market is expected to allow industry to meet the state’s goal in the most economically efficient way possible.

The regulations are supposed to be adopted by Jan. 1, 2011 and take effect no later than Jan. 1, 2012.

What Proposition 23 would do: Proposition 23 would suspend the provisions of AB 32 until the state’s unemployment rate drops below 5.5 percent for four consecutive calendar quarters. The unemployment rate is currently 12.4 percent and will not likely drop below 5.5 percent for several years. There have been only three periods in the past 40 years when the rate was below 5.5 percent for four consecutive quarters.

Who is for and against Proposition 23?

Proposition 23 was put on the ballot with financial support from two Texas-based oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, and they are largely funding the campaign. The two companies have contributed more than $7 million in support of the measure. The measure is also supported by many business groups, including the California Farm Bureau, the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, and the California Trucking Association.

Proposition 23 is opposed by nearly every environmental group in California, plus many green energy and high tech companies, labor groups, business associations and local governments.

Bottom line:

Vote Yes on Proposition 23 if you think the state should stop its efforts to reduce the greenhouse gases believed to lead to global warming.

Vote No on Proposition 23 if you think the state should continue to lead the nation in regulating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

–Daniel Weintraub