Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 1A, Transportation Funding Amendment (2006)
| California Proposition 1A | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 7, 2006 | |
| Topic Transportation and State and local government budgets, spending and finance | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin State legislature |
California Proposition 1A was on the ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment in California on November 7, 2006. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution to require gasoline sales tax revenue Transportation Investment Fund transfer suspensions to be treated as loans to the state general fund that must be repaid in full with interest within three years and limit such suspensions to twice in 10 fiscal years. |
A "no" vote opposed amending the state constitution to require gasoline sales tax revenue Transportation Investment Fund transfer suspensions to be treated as loans to the state general fund that must be repaid in full with interest within three years and limit such suspensions to twice in 10 fiscal years. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 1A |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
6,400,587 | 76.95% | ||
| No | 1,916,925 | 23.05% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 1A amended the California Constitution to limit the conditions under which the Proposition 42 transfer of gasoline sales tax revenues for transportation uses can be suspended. Proposition 42 of 2002 required that revenue from the gasoline sales tax be allocated for transportation purposes. Transferring Proposition 42 revenues from the general fund to the Transportation Investment Fund could be suspended by the state legislature under specific conditions.
Proposition 1A required gasoline sales tax revenue Transportation Investment Fund transfer suspensions to be treated as loans to the state general fund that must be repaid in full with interest within three years and limit such suspensions to twice in 10 fiscal years. Under the amendment, new suspensions cannot be ordered until all prior suspensions have been repaid in full.[1]
By the time of the vote on Proposition 1A, Proposition 42 suspensions had taken place in 2003-04 and 2004-05. Proposition 1A changed the repayment schedule of those suspensions, ordering that the suspended amounts must be repaid and dedicated to transportation uses not later than June 30, 2016.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 1A was as follows:
| “ | Transportation Funding Protection. Legislative constitutional amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Protects transportation funding for traffic congestion relief projects, safety improvements, and local streets and roads. Prohibits the state sales tax on motor vehicle fuels from being used for any purpose other than transportation improvements. Authorizes loans of these funds only in the case of severe state fiscal hardship. Requires loans of revenues from states sales tax on motor vehicle fuels to be fully repaid within the three years. Restricts loans to no more than twice in any 10-year period. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
- "No direct revenue or cost effects. Increases stability of funding for state and local transportation uses in 2007 and thereafter; reduces somewhat the state’s authority to use these funds for other, nontransportation priorities."
Support
Supporters
- Thomas V. McKernan, president of the Automobile Club of Southern California (AAA)[1]
- Michael Brown, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol[1]
- Marian Bergeson, chair of the California Transportation Commission [1]
- Steve Krull, president of the California Police Chiefs Association[1]
- Mark Watts, interim executive director of Transportation California[1]
- Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following supporting arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 1A:[1]
| “ |
YES ON PROPOSITION 1A: USE EXISTING GAS TAXES FOR ROADS AND TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS In 2002, California voters made their commitment to California roads a priority by passing Proposition 42. Voters said they wanted their gas taxes spent on making roads and highways safer and less congested. But a loophole in the law has made it easy—too easy—for the politicians to use those funds for other purposes. In the last three years, nearly $2.5 billion has been siphoned away from road and highway projects—bringing critical safety and congestion relief projects to a halt. YES ON 1A STOPS OUR EXISTING GAS TAXES FROM BEING USED FOR OTHER PROJECTS Proposition 1A closes the loophole in the law and ensures that the gas taxes you already pay are spent only on transportation projects benefiting California’s 20 million drivers. YES ON 1A BUILDS NEW ROADS AND HIGHWAYS California currently has the most congested roads in the nation and our streets and highways are in major disrepair. Drivers spend $20.7 billion in extra fuel each year and 500,000 hours stuck in traffic every day because of our overcrowded roads. Prop. 1A ensures a stable source of long-term funding to get urgently needed transportation improvement projects off the drawing board, allowing engineers to:
YES ON 1A MEANS A STRONGER ECONOMY California’s economy depends on a first-rate transportation system (something we used to have). Without a major emphasis on improving our infrastructure so we can move people and goods throughout the state, our economic future will suffer. YES ON 1A: PART OF A LONG-TERM PLAN TO REBUILD CALIFORNIA Proposition 1A is part of the Rebuild California Plan, the first comprehensive infrastructure plan in 40 years. The plan uses the taxes we’re already paying to build the roads, housing, schools, and water systems we need to sustain our economy and our quality of life for the long-term. REBUILD CALIFORNIA: YES ON 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, and 1E California’s population will reach 50 million in the next 20 years—twice what our current infrastructure was designed for—and it can’t be rebuilt overnight. That’s why we’ve got to start now. To learn more about how this infrastructure plan will benefit you and your community, visit www.ReadForYourself.org. YES ON 1A: ENSURE EXISTING GAS TAX DOLLARS ARE USED TO IMPROVE CALIFORNIA’S ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND MASS TRANSIT SYSTEMS[2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
- Jackie Goldberg, chair of the California State Assembly Education Committee[1]
Arguments
Official arguments
The following opposing arguments were presented in the official voter guide for Proposition 1A:[1]
| “ |
When the next recession hits, the Legislature and the Governor must be able to prioritize both cuts and expenditures. Proposition 1A would put still more of California’s budget on “automatic pilot.” That means that the Governor and the Legislature won’t be able to set priorities. If education, healthcare, public safety, or childcare funds are in need of money, during any recession, the fi rst priority for gasoline taxes will be potholes and highways. Highways and potholes are very important. But on this ballot Proposition 1B will provide almost $20 billion dollars for Transportation. Proposition 42 of 2002 already has strong protections for highway and pothole funds. Money can only be borrowed by a 2/3 vote of both houses and the signature of the Governor. It must be repaid and with interest for the full time it was borrowed. Proposition 1A tightens the restrictions, and makes borrowing almost impossible. Everyone seems to agree in California that our number one priority is Public Education! But, if Proposition 1A were to pass, that would no longer be true. We only have to look at recent history to understand the impact of Proposition 1A. In 2003–04, the Legislature and the Governor borrowed $868 million from the sales tax revenue on gasoline. And in 2004–05, we again borrowed $1.258 billion from the same funds. Without the ability to borrow money internally, the choices would have been to borrow from Wall Street, make massive cuts to health and education, or raise taxes. Even with about $2 billion in borrowing from gasoline tax funds, K–12 public schools still were cut $2 billion from what they were guaranteed. We also cut funds for textbooks and maintenance of classrooms and school buildings. Community college students saw their fees more than double, rising from $11 per unit to $26 per unit, and hundreds of thousands of community college students had to quit college as a result. University of California and California State University students saw their undergraduate fees rise a whopping 30% in three years time. We have not repaid the $2 billion cut made to K–12 education in 2004–05. And, if Proposition 1A had been in effect, the cut to K–12 public education could have been $4 billion! In bad years, the Legislature and the Governor need the fl exibility to shift funds temporarily to ensure that education receives at least its minimum guarantee. The Legislature and the Governor need to be able to set priorities as they come up. If there is an earthquake, fl ood, or major fi res, or if trauma centers and emergency rooms continue to close, we need to be able to address those emergencies. Don’t tie the hands of those whose job it is to refl ect your priorities in the State budget. VOTE “NO” ON PROPOSITION 1A! {[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
A simple majority vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the measure to the ballot for voter consideration.
The California State Legislature voted to put Proposition 1A on the ballot via Senate Constitutional Amendment 7 of the 2005–2006 Regular Session (Resolution Chapter 49, Statutes of 2006).
| Votes in legislature to refer to ballot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Chamber | Ayes | Noes |
| Assembly | 58 | 11 |
| Senate | 38 | 0 |
See also
External links
- Official 2006 General Election Voter guide
- PDF of the mailed November 7, 2006 voter guide for Propositions 1A-1E and 83-90
- Proposition 1A on the Smart Voter Guide (dead link)
- Analysis of Proposition 1A (dead link) from the Institute of Governmental Studies
- Guide to Proposition 1A from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 1A from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 1A from Follow The Money
- Official November 7, 2006 California ballot proposition election results
Footnotes
