California Proposition 21, Vehicle License Fee Increase for State Parks Initiative (2010)

California Proposition 21
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic Taxes and Forests and parks
Status d Defeated
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 21 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 2, 2010. It was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported adding an $18 surcharge to vehicle registration fees and dedicating revenue from the surcharge to state parks and wildlife programs.

A "no" vote opposed adding an $18 surcharge to vehicle registration fees and dedicating revenue from the surcharge to state parks and wildlife programs.

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 21
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,190,643	42.73%
No		5,615,595	57.27%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Proposition 21 would have increased vehicle license fees in the state by $18 a year in order to raise about $500 million a year in a dedicated fund for the state's 278 parks. The new fee would have applied to about 28 million vehicles. Mobile homes, permanent trailers, and vehicles registered under the Commercial Vehicle Registration Act would be excluded from the surcharge. Most California vehicles would get free admission and parking at state parks and beaches.

Full text

The full text can be read below:

This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure adds sections to the Public Resources Code and the Revenue and Taxation Code; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

PROPOSED LAW State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act

The people of the State of California find and declare all of the following:

(1) California’s natural resources and wildlife must be preserved and protected for future generations.

(2) The California state park system is essential to protecting these resources for the people of California. Along with the wildlife protection and conservation agencies of the state, the state park system is responsible for preserving the state’s unique wildlife, natural lands, and ocean resources.

(3) Persistent underfunding of the state park system and wildlife conservation has resulted in a backlog of more than a billion dollars in needed repairs and improvements, and threatens the closure of parks throughout the state and the loss of protection for many of the state’s most important natural and cultural resources, recreational opportunities, and wildlife habitat.

(4) California’s state park system benefits all Californians by providing opportunities for recreation, nature education, and preservation of cultural and historic landmarks, and by protecting natural resources that improve the state’s air and water quality.

(5) Californians deserve a world-class state park system that will preserve and protect the unique natural and cultural resources of the state for future generations.

(6) Rebuilding the state park system and protecting the state’s wildlife resources will grow California’s economy and create jobs by drawing millions of tourists each year to contribute to the state’s multibillion-dollar tourism economy.

(7) It is the intent of the people in enacting this measure to protect the state’s resources and wildlife by establishing a stable, reliable, and adequate funding source for the state park system and for wildlife conservation, and to provide increased and equitable access to those resources for all Californians.

(8) It is further the intent of the people that the state park system be operated and maintained at a level of excellence, allow increased access to state parks for all Californians while continuing to charge out-of-state visitors for the use of state parks, and protect the state’s natural and cultural resources, recreational opportunities, and wildlife for future generations.

SECTION 1.

2010 propositions
June 8
Proposition 13
Proposition 14 • Text
Proposition 15 • Text
Proposition 16 • Text
Proposition 17 • Text
November 2
Proposition 19 • Text
Proposition 20 • Text
Proposition 21 • Text
Proposition 22 • Text
Proposition 23 • Text
Proposition 24 • Text
Proposition 25 • Text
Proposition 26 • Text
Proposition 27 • Text
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements
Local measures

Chapter 1.21 (commencing with Section 5081) is added to Division 5 of the Public Resources Code, to read:

Chapter 1.21. State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Act Article 1. Trust Fund

5081. There is hereby established the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund in the State Treasury. All money deposited in the fund shall be held in trust for the people of the State of California and used solely for the purposes of this chapter. The moneys in the fund shall be available for appropriation only for the following purposes:

(a) Operation, maintenance, and repair of facilities, including visitor centers, restrooms, campsites, and ranger stations, in the state park system.

(b) Wildlife conservation and protection of natural resources, including forests, other natural lands, and lands that provide clean water, clean air, and protect the health of people and nature.

(c) Expanding public access to the state park system and natural areas through outreach, public education, improved transportation access and providing for the safety and security of park visitors.

(d) Development, management, and expansion of state park units and facilities as needed to provide and enhance public access and recreational opportunities.

(e) Protecting rivers, lakes, streams, coastal waters, and marine resources.

(f) Grants to local agencies that operate units of the state park system to offset the loss of day use revenues as provided in this chapter, and to state and local agencies that manage river parkways.

(g) Protecting and restoring state park cultural and historical resources.

(h) Auditing and oversight of the implementation of this chapter to ensure that funds are only spent in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and are not diverted or misspent.

(i) Other costs related to the operation and management of the state park system.

(j) Collection costs for the State Parks Access Pass.

5082. The Department of Parks and Recreation shall prepare a strategic plan to improve access to the state park system that addresses the needs of each region of the state and identifies programs and policies consistent with this chapter to improve access to state parks and state park services and benefits to underserved groups and regions.

5082.5. For the purposes of this chapter, “fund” means the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund.

5082.6. For the purposes of this chapter, “department” means the Department of Parks and Recreation.

5082.7. For the purposes of this chapter, “wildlife” has the same meaning as provided in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.

Article 2. Fiscal Accountability and Oversight

5085. (a) The State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund shall be subject to an annual independent audit by the State Auditor that shall be released to the public, placed on the department’s Internet Web site, and submitted to the Legislature for review as part of the state budget.

(b) Up to 1 percent of the annual revenues of the fund may be used for auditing, oversight, and administrative costs of this article and costs for collection of the State Parks Access Pass.

(c) The Secretary of Natural Resources shall establish the Citizens Oversight Committee to review the annual audit and issue a public report on the implementation of this chapter and its effectiveness at protecting state parks and natural resources. Members shall include citizens with expertise in business and finance, park management, natural resource protection, cultural and historical resource protection, and other disciplines as may be deemed necessary by the secretary.

5085.5. Funds deposited into the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund, together with any interest earned by the fund, shall be used solely for the purpose of this chapter and shall not be subject to appropriation, reversion, or transfer for any other purpose, shall not be loaned to the General Fund or any other fund for any purpose, and shall not be used for the payment of interest, principal, or other costs related to general obligation bonds.

5086. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all state park fee and concession revenues shall be deposited into the State Parks and Recreation Fund pursuant to Section 5010, and, together with any interest earned thereon, shall be available for appropriation only to the department for operation, management, planning, and development of the state park system and shall not be subject to appropriation, reversion, or transfer for any other purpose, shall not be loaned to the General Fund or any other fund for any purpose, and shall not be used for the payment of interest, principal, or other costs related to general obligation bonds.

5086.5. It is the intent of the people in enacting this chapter to provide a stable and adequate level of funding to the department. General Fund moneys used to support the department may be reallocated to other uses if the Legislature determines that the financial resources provided from the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund and the State Parks and Recreation Fund are adequate to fully maintain and operate the state park system.

Article 3. State Parks Access Pass

5087. (a) All California vehicles subject to the State Parks Access Pass shall have free admission to all units of the state park system and to designated state lands and wildlife areas as provided in this chapter.

(b) For the purposes of this section, “free admission” means free vehicle admission, parking, and day use at all units of the state park system and shall be subject only to those limitations as the department deems necessary to manage the state park system to avoid overcrowding and damage to natural and cultural resources and for public health and safety. Other state and local agencies shall designate those lands whose management and operation is funded pursuant to this chapter for free vehicle access where that access is consistent with the management objectives of the land. As used in this subdivision, free admission does not include camping, tour fees, swimming pool fees, the use of boating facilities, museum and special event fees, any supplemental fees, or special event parking fees.

5087.1. The department shall issue rebates of the State Parks Access Pass surcharge to veterans who qualify for a park fee exemption pursuant to Section 5011.5.

Article 4. Allocation of State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund Revenues

5088. Except for the costs pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 5085) of audits, oversight, and collection costs, all funds deposited in the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund shall be allocated only to the following agencies and as provided in this section:

(a) Eighty-five percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the department. Except for costs for grants and grant management pursuant to Section 5088.1, all funds allocated for appropriation to the department shall be used only for operation, management, planning, and development of the state park system.

(b) Seven percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the Department of Fish and Game for the management and operation of wildlife refuges, ecological reserves, and other lands owned or managed by the Department of Fish and Game for wildlife conservation.

(c) Four percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the Ocean Protection Council for marine wildlife conservation and the protection of coastal waters, with first priority given to the development, operation, management, and monitoring of marine protected areas.

(d) Two percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to state conservancies for management, operation, and wildlife conservation on state lands that are managed for park and wildlife habitat purposes by those conservancies. A state conservancy may provide grants to a local agency that assists the conservancy in managing state-owned lands under that conservancy’s jurisdiction.

(e) Two percent shall be available for appropriation from the fund to the Wildlife Conservation Board for grants to local public agencies for wildlife conservation.

5088.1. The department shall develop and administer a program of grants to public agencies to enhance the operation, management, and restoration of urban river parkways providing recreational benefits and access to open space and wildlife areas to underserved urban communities. The department shall allocate each year an amount equal to 4 percent of the funds deposited in the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund from the funds the department receives pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5088. For the purposes of this section, “public agencies” means state agencies, cities, counties, cities and counties, local park districts, and joint powers authorities. In consultation with the California River Parkways Program (Chapter 3.8 (commencing with Section 5750)), the department shall adopt best management practices for the stewardship, operation, and management of urban river parkways. The department shall consider those best management practices and providing continuity of funding for urban river parkways when allocating grant funds pursuant to this section. The department shall give highest priority for grants to urban river parkways that benefit the most underserved communities.

5088.2. The department shall provide grants to local agencies operating units of the state park system to assist in the operation and maintenance of those units. The department shall first grant available funds to local agencies operating units of the state park system that, prior to the implementation of this chapter, charged entry or parking fees on vehicles, and shall allocate any remaining funds, on a prorated basis, to local agencies to assist in the operation and maintenance of state park units managed by local agencies, based on the average annual operating expenses of those units over the three previous years, as certified by the chief financial officer of that local agency. Of the funds provided in subdivision (a) of Section 5088, an amount equal to 5 percent of the amount deposited in the fund shall be available for appropriation for the purposes of this section. The department shall develop guidelines for the implementation of this section.

5089. For the purposes of this chapter, eligible expenditures for wildlife conservation include direct expenditures and grants for operation, management, development, restoration, maintenance, law enforcement and public safety, interpretation, costs to provide appropriate public access, and other costs necessary for the protection and management of natural resources and wildlife, including scientific monitoring and analysis required for adaptive management.

5090. Funds provided pursuant to this chapter, and any appropriation or transfer of those funds, shall not be deemed to be a transfer of funds for the purposes of Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 2780) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code.

SECTION 2.

Section 10751.5 is added to the Revenue and Taxation Code, to read:

10751.5. (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in addition to the license fee imposed pursuant to Section 10751, for licenses and renewals on or after January 1, 2011, there shall also be imposed an annual surcharge, to be called the State Parks Access Pass, in the amount of eighteen dollars ($18) on each vehicle subject to the license fee imposed by that section. All revenues from the surcharge shall be deposited into the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation Trust Fund pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 5081 of the Public Resources Code.

(b) The surcharge established in subdivision (a) shall not apply to the following vehicles:

(1) Vehicles subject to the Commercial Vehicle Registration Act (Section 4000.6 of the Vehicle Code).

(2) Trailers subject to Section 5014.1 of the Vehicle Code.

(3) Trailer coaches as defined by Section 635 of the Vehicle Code.

Fiscal impact statement

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office:

“

Increased state revenues of about $500 million annually from an annual surcharge on vehicle registrations. New revenues would be used to offset about $50 million loss of park day-use fee revenues, and could be used to replace up to $200 million annually from existing state funds currently spent on state parks and wildlife conservation programs. Increased funding for state parks and wildlife conservation of at least $250 million annually.

”

Support

Website banner of "Yes for State Parks"

Californians for State Parks and Wildlife Conservation led the Yes for State Parks campaign in support of Proposition 21.

Supporters

• Nature Conservancy
• State Parks Foundation
• Peninsula Open Space Trust
• National Audubon Society
• Trust for Public Land
• Save-the-Redwoods League
• Health Access California.
• Ocean Conservancy
• California Teachers Association
• Latino Health Access
• Public Health Institute
• California Travel Industry Association
• California State Parks Foundation
• California State Lifeguard Association

"Don't Let Our State Parks Drown

Arguments

• Elizabeth Goldstein, president of California State Parks Foundation, said,"The repair backlog in California state parks tops $1 billion, and it’s growing. ... In these tough economic times, this measure would ensure the funding needed to keep state parks open, preserve the jobs and revenue they create and assure future generations enjoy the abundant recreational, historical and cultural opportunities of the nation’s largest parks system."

Official arguments

The arguments in favor of Proposition 21 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Jim Adams, the regional executive director of the Pacific Region of the National Wildlife Federation; Mike Sweeney, the executive director of the California branch of the Nature Conservancy; and Pamela Jo Armas, president of the California State Park Rangers Association:

“

CALIFORNIA’S STATE PARKS AND BEACHES ARE IN PERIL. Sacramento politicians have repeatedly cut funding for California’s state parks and beaches in every region of our state. Parks and wildlife are now at immediate risk. 150 state parks were closed part-time or suffered deep service reductions during the past year. Our park facilities are poorly maintained, unsanitary and falling apart. With no reliable funding, state parks have accumulated a backlog of more than $1 billion in maintenance and repairs. Cuts in ranger and lifeguard positions have reduced safety and increased crime. The National Trust for Historic Preservation named California state parks among the 11 most endangered places in America. PROP. 21 KEEPS STATE PARKS AND BEACHES OPEN, WELL-MAINTAINED AND SAFE. Prop. 21 gives California vehicles free day-use admission to state parks and beaches by establishing a new $18 vehicle license fee, paid just once a year, that’s solely dedicated to state parks and wildlife conservation. This immediately-needed and dedicated funding source will prevent the shutdown of our parks and beaches and ensure they are properly maintained and safe for public use. PROP. 21 PROTECTS JOBS AND BOOSTS CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY. California’s state parks receive more than 80 million visits from residents and tourists every year, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and generating billions in business and tax revenues for nearby communities and our state. By keeping parks open, Prop. 21 preserves very important jobs and revenues. PROP. 21 PROTECTS IRREPLACEABLE NATURAL AREAS, OCEAN AND WILDLIFE HABITATS. In addition to keeping our state parks and beaches open and safe, Prop. 21 provides essential funding for wildlife and ocean conservation programs, helping preserve natural areas and improve the state’s air and water quality. PROP. 21 CREATES A TRUST FUND FOR PARKS THAT POLITICIANS CAN’T TOUCH. Prop. 21 contains tough fiscal and accountability safeguards to protect the voters’ investment, including a Citizen’s Oversight Committee and annual audits. The revenues will go into a special Trust Fund specifically dedicated to the operation and maintenance of state parks and beaches, the protection and safety of visitors, and the preservation of natural areas and wildlife. Under Prop. 21, the money in this Trust Fund cannot be redirected by politicians to their pet projects. PROP. 21 PRESERVES CALIFORNIA’S PARKS AS A LEGACY FOR OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN. Our state parks and beaches—and the forests, wildlife, and historic and natural resources they protect—are part of what makes California unique. If we allow them to be degraded or shut down, they cannot be replaced. Prop. 21 will keep state parks open, properly maintained and safe, preserve the opportunities they provide for family recreation, help our economy, and protect jobs. Early supporters include the Ocean Conservancy, California Teachers Association, Latino Health Access, Public Health Institute, California Travel Industry Association, California State Parks Foundation, California State Lifeguard Association and local businesses and chambers of commerce throughout the state. Vote Yes For State Parks and Wildlife Conservation—YES on 21. www.YesForStateParks.com

”

Opposition

Website logo of the "No on 21" campaign

No on 21 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 21.

Opponents

• California Taxpayers’ Association
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Official arguments

The arguments in opposition to Proposition 21 in the state's official voter guide were submitted by Peter Foy, the California chairman of Americans for Prosperity and Michelle Steel, a member of the California State Board of Equalization:

“

State parks are some of California’s true jewels, but Proposition 21 is a cynical ploy by Sacramento insiders to bring back the 'Car Tax' to the tune of $1 billion every two years—according to the venerable watchdog, the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Say NO to the 'Car Tax' and vote NO on Proposition 21. Instead of reducing the size of government to fit these difficult times, this new car tax will allow politicians to play a cynical budget shell game that could still leave our state parks dilapidated while diverting hundreds of millions of dollars into other government programs. Veteran Sacramento Bee columnist Dan Walters recently exposed the politicians’ car tax scheme by reporting that a state senator had argued for eliminating $140 million from the state parks’ budget so that you, the voter, would be more likely to vote for Proposition 21. Walters quotes Senator Alan Lowenthal telling a legislative committee: 'Why would anyone vote for the park pass (Prop. 21) if we’ve already fully funded it (state parks)? I mean why do you need to vote for a park pass if we’re fully funded?' Walters rightly concluded that Lowenthal’s comments 'let the cat out of the bag.' This stunning insight into what goes on in the Capitol is galling, exposes the cynical shell game, and reveals the depths to which politicians will plunge to deceive voters and increase taxes. Clearly, the real agenda the politicians have for Proposition 21 is to fool you into approving a car tax for state parks so that they can shift money towards other wasteful spending. Send the politicians a message with a NO vote on Proposition 21. California’s most trusted taxpayer protection organizations are opposed to Proposition 21. The California Taxpayers’ Association opposes Proposition 21. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes Proposition 21. 'As well-intended as this measure may appear, Prop. 21 is nothing more than a $1 billion car tax every two years on Californians while offering no guarantee that state parks will be repaired or kept open. But even worse, voting for Prop. 21 only enables and encourages the Sacramento politicians to maintain their wasteful spending while finding deceptive ways to increase our taxes. Vote NO on Prop. 21.'—Jon Coupal, President, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Join these taxpayer advocates in voting NO on Proposition 21. Sacramento needs real budget reform and real solutions. Proposition 21 is just more 'ballot box budgeting' that makes Sacramento dysfunctional. We need to hold the politicians accountable and force them to do their jobs for us. Proposition 21 just promotes more budget chaos and politics as usual and doesn’t address the most pressing problems in California like education and job creation. Proposition 21 may seem well intended but don’t be fooled. It’s just Sacramento politics as usual and a sneaky way to increase our taxes by $1 billion every two years. Say NO to Sacramento. Say NO to car taxes. Vote No on Proposition 21.

”

Media editorials

2010 propositions
June 8
Proposition 13
Proposition 14 • Text
Proposition 15 • Text
Proposition 16 • Text
Proposition 17 • Text
November 2
Proposition 19 • Text
Proposition 20 • Text
Proposition 21 • Text
Proposition 22 • Text
Proposition 23 • Text
Proposition 24 • Text
Proposition 25 • Text
Proposition 26 • Text
Proposition 27 • Text
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements
Local measures

See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010

Support

• Bakersfield Californian: "Proposition 21 also removes state parks from budget negotiations so that legislators no longer need to agonize over which recreational programs must take the hit. It's a small price to pay to preserve and protect a vital part of California."

• Fresno Bee: "California's state parks attract millions of tourists each year, and those visitors help the bottom line of nearby motels, restaurants and other businesses. Every dollar invested in parks flows back to us in healthier lifestyles, business retention, sales tax revenues and a cleaner environment."

• Lompoc Record: "If the enthusiasm and resolve Central Coast residents showed in plans to keep regional parks open after the governor’s threat to shut them down is any indication, we’re fairly confident the surcharge will be used in the manner proposed in Proposition 21."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "Unlike most patchwork funding measures, Proposition 21 really appears to solve the parks challenge."

• Sacramento Bee: "State parks, like our local parks, are an inheritance. That puts them in a special category. These are properties and habitats donated or transferred to the state for safekeeping. That means we have an obligation to keep them in good condition and ensure that they remain accessible for future generations."

• San Jose Mercury News: "More than 90 percent of the acreage system-wide is in its natural state, from old-growth redwoods to ocean cliffs. This is why the costs are predictable. California's state parks should be our legacy. The refuge they provide will only grow more precious with time."

• Santa Rosa Press Democrat: "Let's be straight. There are some good reasons to oppose Proposition 21 on the Nov. 2 ballot. Chief among them is a reluctance to contribute to the delinquency of California's absurd system for funding public programs, resources and everything else. Why add another bell and whistle to this Rube Goldberg-like piecemeal system? Here's why: Because the alternatives are worse. And we saw hints of what could be worse last year when the governor proposed shutting down 212 of the state's 278 parks, including such local treasures as Annadel and Jack London state parks, the Petaluma Adobe and Armstrong Woods."

• Ventura County Star: "Voters who love camping by the ocean, swimming in a lake, hiking in the woods or just enjoying the peace and quiet of a California state park should be supporting Proposition 21 on the Nov. 2 ballot. The initiative establishes a stable funding stream of about $500 million per year that not only will keep these treasured lands and beaches open, but also fund needed maintenance and repairs in the state’s 279 state parks. Best of all, lawmakers can’t get their hands on it."

Opposition

• Contra Costa Times: "Proposition 21's appeal in understandable as is the motivation of those who placed it on the ballot. But in a time of fiscal crisis, this is not the time to increase taxes to pay for a service that already has the ability to pay for itself."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "With Proposition 21, California is taking the wrong path for a good cause. The measure carves out a hands-off budget for state parks, which badly need financial support. But this piecemeal approach to budgeting via the ballot box is not the way to set priorities in a state with myriad pressing needs, especially in these lean years."

• Long Beach Press-Telegram: "California's 278 parks will be able to continue to operate without a special vehicle registration tax. There are other far more essential services that are in greater need of revenue and should have a higher priority for receiving funds if new taxes or fees are approved. This is not the time to increase taxes to pay for a service that already has the ability to pay for itself."

• Los Angeles Times: "California's sprawling network of state parks, covering 1.5 million acres and one-third of its coastline, preserves natural space and historical sites and provides a democratic, low-cost form of recreation. But as proud as we are of our parks, are we willing to increase their funding at the expense of, say, medical treatment for children whose parents have no insurance? Are they a higher priority than home health aides for elderly people who otherwise would have to go to a nursing home? Or the public college and university systems that no longer can afford to offer needed courses? These are difficult questions, and the problem with Proposition 21, the car tax for state parks, is that it pretends to make the answer simple. It is another well-intentioned effort at ballot-box budgeting that limits the Legislature's ability to set spending priorities."

• Oakland Tribune: "California's 278 parks will be able to continue to operate without a special vehicle registration tax. There are other far more essential services that are in greater need of revenue and should have a higher priority for receiving funds if new taxes or fees are approved."

• Orange County Register: "By misrepresenting this tax as a fee, Proposition 21 backers attempt to circumvent California's constitutional requirement for two-thirds majority approval of taxes."

• San Bernardino Sun: "But this is quite clearly the wrong way to fund the parks at the wrong economic time. It's a cynical manipulation of the automotive fees system for something entirely unrelated to car registrations."

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "Proposition 21...is not what it seems. Ultimately, it amounts to one more camouflaged attempt to use the vehicle fee to increase overall revenue for spending of all kinds."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "With Proposition 21, California is taking the wrong path for a good cause. The measure carves out a hands-off budget for state parks, which badly need financial support. But this piecemeal approach to budgeting via the ballot box is not the way to set priorities in a state with myriad pressing needs, especially in these lean years."

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "As with sales taxes, this kind of tax is also regressive to the extreme - as a percentage of their income, it hits the poorest Californians the hardest. It also clearly hits those who don't, and don't intend to, ever visit our parks. Why make them pay for the pleasure the rest of us take in the great outdoors? The Legislature and the governor need to start listening to the people's priorities and fully fund the state park system as a matter of course."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 2009, at least 433,971 valid signatures were required.

Initiative language was submitted to the Attorney General for title and summary by Joseph Caves on November 3, 2009. Signatures were filed with election officials in late April. On June 10, 2010, the California Secretary of State certified that sufficient valid signatures were collected to qualify the measure for the November ballot.

Masterson & Wright was paid $1,144,515 to collect signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

See also: 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• Taxes on the ballot
• Parks on the ballot
• land on the ballot
• and natural area conservation on the ballot
• 2010 legislative sessions

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws

News and analysis

• Ballot measure lawsuits
• Ballot measure readability
• Ballot measure polls

External links

Suggest a link

Basic information

• voter guide for 2010 General Election
• Text of proposed law
• Letter filed with Attorney General requesting a ballot title
• Ballot title and summary
• Legislative analysis

Supporters

• State Parks Access Pass
• Yes For State Parks
• Save The Redwoods
• Yes for State Parks on Facebook
• Yes for State Parks on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports of "Yes on 21"
• Campaign finance reports of Conservation Action Fund

Opponents

• Vote No on 21/Stop the Car Tax, website of official opponents
• Vote No on 21 on Facebook
• Campaign finance reports of Californians Against Car Taxes, "No on Proposition 21"

Additional reading

• Budgeting by ballot
• Unprecedented Coalition of Interests Back Proposition 21
• Pros, cons of park funds proposition