California Proposition 42, Allocation of Gas Tax Revenues (March 2002)
Proposition 42 provided that, from 2003–04 through 2007–08, gasoline sales tax revenues were used for specified state and local transportation purposes. The revenues were allocated for transportation purposes specified under the Transportation Congestion Relief Program begun in 2000.
Proposition 42 also required that starting in 2008–09 the gasoline sales tax revenues continue to be used for state and local transportation purposes. The revenues are therefore allocated as follows:
- 20% to public transportation.
- 40% to transportation improvement projects funded in the State Transportation Improvement Program, a five-year transportation capital investment program.
- 40% to local streets and roads improvements; with half of the amount (20%) allocated to counties and half to cities.
|I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XA • XB • XI • XII • XIII • XIII A • XIII B • XIII C • XIII D • XIV • XV • XVI • XVIII • XIX • XIX A • XIX B • XIX C • XX • XXI • XXII • XXXIV • XXXV|
In 2010, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed eliminating the sales tax on gasoline and instead increasing a separate excise tax. This would result in similar revenue, but from different sources. The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times said that the proposal would "eviscerate Proposition 42, a 2002 voter initiative designed to put an end to transportation fund raids."
Text of measure
The ballot title was:
The question on the ballot was:
- "Should the California Constitution be amended to require gasoline and diesel fuel sales tax revenues be allocated for specified transportation purposes, including highways, streets and roads, and transit improvements?"
- Requires, effective July 1, 2003, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes on the sale of motor vehicle fuel be used for transportation purposes as provided by law until June 30, 2008. Requires, effective July 1, 2008, existing revenues resulting from state sales and use taxes be used for public transit and mass transportation; city and county street and road repairs and improvements; and state highway improvements. Imposes the requirement for a two-thirds of the Legislature to suspend or modify the percentage allocation of the revenues.
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:
- Starting in 2008-09, about $1.4 billion in gasoline sales tax revenues, increasing annually thereafter, would continue to be used for state and local transportation purposes.
In favor of 42
- California Alliance for Jobs: $ 1,053,534
- Granite Construction: $557,637
- A. Teichert & Son: $354,556
- Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3: $300,000
- Herzog Contracting: $153,000
- E.L. Yeager Construction Company, Inc.: $150,494
- Desilva Gates Construction: $150,000
Opposed to 42
- California Teachers Association: $1,500,000
- Service Employees International Union: $950,000.
- CA State Council of Service Employees: $450,000
- California Federation of Teachers: $200,000
- California Faculty Association: $100,000
Path to the ballot
Proposition 42 was voted onto the ballot by the California State Legislature via Assembly Constitutional Amendment 4 of the 2001–2002 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 87, Statutes of 2001)
|Votes in legislature to refer to ballot|
- Official Voter Guide
- Smart Voter information about Prop 42
- Pros and cons of Proposition 42 as prepared by the California League of Women Voters
- Election results for Proposition 42
- Donors to Proposition 42
- Official declaration of the March 5, 2002 vote
- March 5, 2002 ballot proposition voter guide (PDF)
- Legislative Analyst's summary of Proposition 42