California Proposition 22, Restrictions on State Government For Local and State Fuel Tax Revenue (2010)

California Proposition 22
Election date November 2, 2010
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens

California Proposition 22 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on November 2, 2010. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting the state from redirecting property tax revenues from local jurisdictions and using fuel tax revenue to pay for transportation bonds, even in the case of a fiscal emergency.

A "no" vote opposed prohibiting the state from redirecting property tax revenues from local jurisdictions and using fuel tax revenue to pay for transportation bonds, even in the case of a fiscal emergency.

Election results

California Proposition 22
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,733,755	60.62%
No		3,725,014	39.38%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

Proposition 22 prohibited the state from doing the following:

• using fuel tax revenue to repay issued transportation bonds;
• redirecting redevelopment property taxes to other local governments;
• temporarily shifting property tax revenue between local jurisdictions; and
• using revenues from vehicle licensing fees to reimburse local governments for state mandated costs.

Proposition 22 also allowed a local government entity to sue the state government under the law. If the local government entity wins, the state comptroller must automatically appropriate the funds the court has decided it is owed.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 22 was as follows:

“

Prohibits the state from borrowing or taking funds used for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services. Initiative constitutional amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

Prohibits the State, even during a period of severe fiscal hardship, from delaying the distribution of tax revenues for transportation, redevelopment, or local government projects and services.

”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact statement

The following fiscal impact statement was included in the state's voter guide:

“

Due to restrictions on state authority over fuel and property taxes, the state would have to take alternative actions—probably in the range of $1 billion to several billion dollars annually. This would result in both: Reductions in General Fund program spending and/or increases in state revenues of those amounts. Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment.

”

Support

"Yes on 22" website banner

Yes on 22 led the campaign in support of Proposition 22.

Supporters

• League of California Cities
• California Fire Chiefs Association
• California Police Chiefs Association
• California Transit Association.
• California Alliance for Jobs
• California Redevelopment Association

Official arguments

Official arguments in favor of Proposition 22 were submitted to the official California Voter Guide by Douglas Fry (President, Fire Chiefs Department, League of California Cities), Kim Bui-Burton (President, California Library Association), and Susan Manheimer (President, California Police Chiefs Association):

“

THE PROBLEM—STATE POLITICIANS KEEP TAKING LOCAL GOVERNMENT and TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. For too long, Sacramento politicians have used loopholes in the law to take billions in taxpayer funds dedicated by the voters to local government and transportation services. The State Legislature took and borrowed $5 billion last year and is planning to take billions more this year. State raids have forced deep cuts to vital local services like 9-1-1 emergency response, police, fire, libraries, senior services, road repairs, and public transportation improvements. THE SOLUTION—YES on 22 will STOP STATE RAIDS of LOCAL GOVERNMENT and TRANSPORTATION FUNDS. YES on 22 will: 1) STOP the State from taking or borrowing local tax dollars dedicated to cities and counties to fund vital local services like 9-1-1 response, police, and fire protection. 2) STOP the State from taking or diverting gas taxes we pay at the pump that voters have dedicated to local road repairs, transportation improvements, and public transportation. YES on 22—PROTECTS VITAL LOCAL SERVICES, including PUBLIC SAFETY. 'Cities spend more than 60 percent of their general funds on police and fire services. By prohibiting State raids of local funds, Prop. 22 will help maintain law enforcement, 9-1-1 emergency response, and other public safety services.'—Chief Douglas Fry, President, FIRE CHIEFS DEPARTMENT, League of California Cities YES on 22 will protect vital locally delivered services, including: Police and sheriff patrols 9-1-1 emergency dispatch Paramedic response Fire protection Senior services Youth anti-gang and after school programs Neighborhood parks and libraries Public transportation, like buses and commuter rail Local road safety repairs YES on 22—ENSURES our GAS TAXES are DEDICATED to TRANSPORTATION. The gas taxes we pay at the pump should be used to improve road safety, relieve traffic congestion, and to fund mass transit. But state politicians keep diverting our gas taxes for nontransportation purposes. Yes on 22 ensures that gas tax funds are used for transportation improvements as voters intended. YES on 22—APPLIES ONLY TO EXISTING FUNDING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT and TRANSPORTATION SERVICES. Prop. 22 will NOT increase taxes. And claims that 22 will hurt school funding are just scare tactics by those who want to continue State raids of local funds. Prop. 22 simply ensures that our existing local tax dollars and existing gas taxes cannot be taken away by the state politicians again. YES on 22—SUPPORTED by a BROAD COALITION: California Fire Chiefs Association Peace Officers Research Association of California, representing 60,000 public safety members Local paramedics and 9-1-1 dispatch operators California Police Chiefs Association California Library Association, representing 3,000 librarians across California California Transit Association League of California Cities California Alliance for Jobs California Chamber of Commerce More than 50 local chambers of commerce More than 300 cities and towns STOP STATE RAIDS OF LOCAL TAXPAYER FUNDS. VOTE YES on 22! www.SaveLocalServices.com

”

Donors

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

Two campaign finance committees supported Proposition 22, the "Yes on 22/Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Vital Services, a Coalition of Taxpayers, Public Safety, Local Government, Transportation, Business and Labor" and the League of California Cities CitiPAC. The "Yes on 22" campaign committee raised $5.8 million.

Larger donors, and the amounts they contributed to the "Yes on Prop 22" committee included:

Donor	Amount
League of California Cities	$3,080,350
California Alliance for Jobs	$500,000
California Transit Association	$299,177
California Public Securities Association	$250,000
Members' Voice of the State Building Trades	$150,000
California Redevelopment Association	$108,820
Amalgamated Transit Union	$105,000
United Transportation Union	$75,000
California Society of Municipal Finance	$50,000
Democrat, Republican, Independent Voter Education (DRIVE)	$50,000
Peace Officers Research Association	$50,000

Consultants

See also: Vendors and consultants to California's 2010 ballot proposition campaigns

Political consultants who provided paid services to the "Yes on 22" campaign included:

• Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks: $455,555
• Capital Campaigns: $100,000
• Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin, Metz & Associates: $126,665
• Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor: $484,070
• PCI Consultants, Inc.: $1,646,596
• Winner & Mandabach Campaigns: $405,000

Opposition

Logo of the "No on Prop 22" campaign

No on Prop 22 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 22.

Opponents

• California Teachers Association
• Health Access California.
• California Professional Firefighters.
• Carly Fiorina, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate

Arguments

• Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said, "I think that one of the problems the state is facing is too much ballot-box budgeting. What happens when you do this, you break up the budget into lots of silos."

Official arguments

The arguments against Proposition 22 in the state's official Voter Guide were written by David Sanchez (President of the California Teachers Association), Ken Hambrick (President of Contra Costa Taxpayers), and Lew Stone( President, Burbank Firefighters):

“

Proposition 22 is another one of those propositions that sounds good, but is filled with hidden provisions that hurt taxpayers. Look at what it really does. If Proposition 22 passes our schools stand to lose over $1 billion immediately and an additional $400 million every year after that. That is the equivalent of 5,700 teachers every year. It means larger class sizes. Overcrowded schools. Cuts in academics, music, art, vocational training, and classroom safety. At a time when our public schools are already suffering from crippling budget cuts, Proposition 22 would devastate them. That’s why the California Teachers Association, joined by school principals and parents across the state, say strongly: Vote NO on Proposition 22. If that isn’t bad enough, Proposition 22 also takes money that firefighters across the state need. The California Professional Firefighters opposes Proposition 22 because it will leave us all in greater danger from fires, earthquakes, floods, and other natural disasters. It also means cuts in emergency medical services, forcing longer response times if your family needs a paramedic— or perhaps no paramedic at all in a major emergency. Proposition 22 will reduce funding available for health care at a time when our safety net for children is already collapsing. Tens of thousands of children in California are at risk of losing their health insurance and access to affordable health care if Proposition 22 passes. Finally, Proposition 22 has another hidden provision—it locks protections for redevelopment agencies into the State Constitution forever. These agencies have the power to take your property away with eminent domain. They skim off billions in local property taxes, with much of that money ending up in the hands of local developers. And they do so with no direct voter oversight. Supporters of Proposition 22 claim this will somehow help public services. We disagree. Your tax dollars should go first to schools, public safety, and health care. They should go LAST to the developers and the redevelopment agencies that support this proposal. In 2004, voters approved Proposition 1A which allows local funds to be borrowed in times of real fiscal crisis, but requires full repayment within 3 years. Proposition 22 will reverse what Californians wisely approved in 2004, leaving schools, children’s health care, seniors, the blind and disabled with even less hope. Riverside City Firefighter Timothy Strack says, 'Proposition 22 won’t put one more firefighter on an engine or one more paramedic in an ambulance. It simply props open the door for redevelopment agencies to take away our public safety funding.' We all know that ballot propositions often don’t do what they promise, and too often make things worse. Proposition 22 is the perfect example. During the current budget crisis we face throughout our state, why would locking in more budgeting be a smart thing? With virtually no accountability and no taxpayer protections? To benefit redevelopment agencies and the developers they serve? Protect our schools. Our public safety. Our children’s health care. Vote NO on Proposition 22.

”

Donors

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

The campaign finance committee set up to finance a campaign to oppose Proposition 22 was called "No on 22 - Citizens Against Taxpayer Giveaways, Sponsored by California Professional Firefighters." This organization raised about $1.8 million for its campaign against Proposition 22.

These larger donors supported the "No on Prop 22" committee:

Donor	Amount
California Professional Firefighters Ballot Issue Committee	$897,500
California Teachers Association	$604,240
SEIU	$100,000
California School Employees Association	$50,000

Consultants

See also: Vendors and consultants to California's 2010 ballot proposition campaigns

Political consultants who provided paid services to the "No on 22" campaign included:

• Goodwin Simon: $34,350
• Kaufman Campaigns: $48,000
• Olson, Hagel & Fishburn: $16,758

Media editorial positions

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: "If one were to sum up Proposition 22 in one word, that word would be 'accountability.'"

• The Gilroy Dispatch: "There's no reason to trust the state legislators to make difficult decisions that invariably compromise the special interests to which they are so beholden. It's sad but true: ballot box budgeting is preferable to leaving it to our legislature. Yes on Proposition 22."

• Lompoc Record: "Our state government is in serious need of restructuring, and passage of Proposition 22 is one way to begin the process. It’s painful, but necessary — and inevitable."

• Long Beach Press-Telegram: "Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would - once and for all, we hope - protect local governments and agencies from these money grabs."

• Los Angeles Daily News: "Lawmakers in Sacramento have for years borrowed or outright raided billions from cities and redevelopment and transit agencies, blowing holes in local spending plans in an attempt to paper over the state's structural deficit. It's dishonest and may even be illegal, and it contradicts the will of voters. Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot would - once and for all, we hope - protect local governments and agencies from these money grabs."

• Palm Springs Desert Sun: "The local agencies of this valley and elsewhere have been responsible with their budgets and have made tough decisions when facing massive shortfalls. Now it's time for the state Legislature to do the same."

• The San Bernardino Sun has written in favor of Proposition 22.

• San Gabriel Valley Tribune: "It's not as if we approve wholeheartedly of all the spending done on the local level - not that it's somehow purer than spending generated from our state Capitol. In fact, the taxing-and-spending scandals journalists are uncovering in California city halls show that local pols and municipal administrators are top-notch scam artists indeed. But citizens are rising up against that institutional corruption, and will clean house."

• San Jose Mercury News: "Proposition 22 would close the loopholes and ensure that local governments and agencies can keep the funding voters want them to have."

• San Diego North County Times: "Our legislators in Sacramento have yet to pass a budget, and are now 77 days past the legally mandated deadline. If the state politicians can't get their collective act together to perform their most basic task, then they certainly shouldn't be allowed to muddy the fiscal waters of other government bodies in the state."

Opposition

• Contra Costa Times: "Certainly, California is in dire need of major fiscal reforms, and it cannot rely on raiding local revenues in the long term. But Proposition 22 is hardly the kind of change that is needed, especially now."

• Fresno Bee: "Government officials continue to protect the money and turf they view as their own. The League of California Cities is the latest group seeking ballot protection of local funding, with Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot. Cities have legitimate complaints. But Proposition 22 is ill-timed and an overreach. It should be rejected."

• Los Angeles Times: "It's hard to see why redevelopment agencies' ever-growing share of local property taxes (at 12% statewide by one estimate) is more worthy of protection than school budgets, worker training programs or any of the other public services coming under the knife. Nor does it make sense to force the Legislature to use the general fund instead of fuel tax revenue to pay off existing transportation bonds, as Proposition 22 would do."

• Oakland Tribune: "With the weak economy and huge deficits, California needs to have flexibility in balancing its budget. Short-term borrowing and shifting of funds is far from an ideal solution, but it is preferable to huge tax increases or the loss of essential services."

• Orange County Register: "We oppose Prop 22 for several reasons. First, it's good to see the rapacious redevelopment agencies lose some funding. The state should go further and abolish them. Second, we oppose "ballot-box budgeting," in which voters lock in portions of government spending, making it more difficult to cut budgets and increasing pressure for tax increases. Third, even though some worthy local programs may be cut, that's better than increases in state taxes to offset money the state otherwise would have grabbed."

• Sacramento Bee: "The League of California Cities is the latest organization seeking to build a moat around "its" money by pushing Proposition 22 on the Nov. 2 ballot. City leaders have legitimate complaints. But Proposition 22 is ill-timed and is an overreach, and should be rejected."

• San Diego Union-Tribune: "In good times, this measure would seem more defensible. These aren’t good times."

• San Francisco Chronicle: "Proposition 22 does not fix this distorted system: It most protects cities' interests - at the expense of others. For example, it would no longer allow 14 percent of state fuel-tax revenue to be sent to the general fund to help pay off voter-approved transportation bonds. It is telling that the California State Association of Counties has remained neutral on the measure."

• Santa Rosa Press-Democrat: "If it passes, Proposition 22 would blow a $1 billion hole — perhaps more — in a state budget that’s already $19 billion in the red."

• Ventura County Star: "...the ballot measure reminds us of an apartment dweller refusing to open his door to firefighters as they struggle to control a spreading blaze in the apartment next door. We’re all in this together, and when the apartment house — California — is on fire, it’s time for everyone to share some very real pain, even if it’s quite inconvenient and even though it might feel extremely unfair to some."

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 2010, at least 694,354 valid signatures were required.

Language for the proposed initiative was filed with the California Attorney General on October 20, 2009, by an alliance of local government groups, including the League of California Cities. Organizers submitted 1.1 million signatures to election officials on April 29, 2010. The signatures were collected by PCI Consultants, Inc. at a cost of $1,646,596.

See also: 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

Lawsuit

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

Supporters of Proposition 22 filed a lawsuit in early August seeking to change the fiscal impact statement for the measure to use the phrase "local government." The plaintiffs said, "Despite the fact that Proposition 22 is the most significant ballot measure in recent memory protecting and stabilizing local government revenues, the fiscal impact statement fails to even include the phrase 'local government' once ... In fact, of the 58 words summarizing Proposition 22's fiscal impact, 51 words detail the impacts to the state. Only seven words contain even an obtuse reference to local government revenues and, again, the phrase 'local government' is completely excluded."

On August 6, the California Third District Court of Appeal ruled in their favor and rewrote that the second bullet point of the Fiscal Impact Statement to say, "Comparable increases in funding for state and local transportation programs and local redevelopment," instead of the original wording of "Comparable increases in transportation and redevelopment resources."

See also

2010 Measures

• 2010 Measures
• State and local government budgets on the ballot
• spending on the ballot
• and finance 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 Proposition 22
• Text of letter to Attorney General requesting a ballot title

Supporters

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

• Save Local Services
• "Yes on 22" on Facebook
• "Yes on 22" on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports for the "Yes on 22" committee
• Campaign finance reports for the "League of California Cities CitiPAC, Supporting Proposition 22" committee

Opponents

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

• No on Prop 22
• No on Prop 22 on Twitter
• Campaign finance reports for "No on 22, Citizens Against Taxpayer Giveaways, Sponsored by California Professional Firefighters

Additional reading

• Ballot Watch: Ban on state using local government funds
• Thomas D. Elias: Tough choice for state's 'robing hoods'
• Unintended consequences of Proposition 22
• Local Government Scandals, High Salaries, Pensions and Prop 22