California Proposition 69, Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment (June 2018)

Elections in California, 2018

• General election: Nov. 6
• Voter registration deadline: Oct. 22
• Early voting: Oct. 8 - Nov. 5
• Absentee voting deadline: Postmark Nov. 6

• Online registration: Yes
• Same-day registration: Yes
• Voter ID: No
• Poll times: 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

---

On the ballot: U.S. Senate • U.S. House • Governor • Lt. Gov • Attorney General • Secretary of State • State executive offices • State Senate • State Assembly • Special state legislative • Supreme court • Appellate courts • Local judges • State ballot measures • Local ballot measures • School boards • Municipal • Recalls • Primaries in California, 2018

California Proposition 69
Election date June 5, 2018
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance and Transportation
Status a Approved
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin State legislature
List of California measuresCalifornia Proposition 68 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 69 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 70 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 71 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 72 - JuneCalifornia Proposition 1California Proposition 2California Proposition 3California Proposition 4California Proposition 5California Proposition 6California Proposition 7California Proposition 8California Proposition 10California Proposition 11California Proposition 12Submit

California Proposition 69, the Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on June 5, 2018. The measure was approved.

A "yes" vote supported this amendment to: require that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee enacted by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) be used for transportation-related purposes; and exempt revenue generated by SB 1's tax increases and fee schedules from the state appropriations limit.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to: require that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee enacted by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) be used for transportation-related purposes; and exempt revenue generated by SB 1's tax increases and fee schedules from the state appropriations limit.

Election results

California Proposition 69
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		4,886,924	81.33%
No		1,121,924	18.67%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What did Proposition 69 have to do with the transportation taxes and fees bill passed in 2017?

Proposition 69 was part of a legislative package that included the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA). Without the RRAA, Proposition 69 would not have affected anything. RRAA, which was also known as the Senate Bill 1, enacted an estimated $5.2 billion-a-year increase in transportation-related taxes and fees, including a $0.12 cents per gallon increase of the gasoline excise tax, a $0.20 cents per gallon increase of the diesel excise tax, a 4 percentage points increase of the diesel sales tax, an annual $25 to $100 Transportation Improvement Fee, and an annual $100 zero-emission vehicles fee.

What did Proposition 69 change about government spending?

Proposition 69 required that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) be dedicated for transportation-related purposes. As of June 2018, the state constitution prohibited the legislature from using gasoline excise tax revenue or diesel excise tax revenue for general non-transportation purposes. The amendment required the diesel sales tax revenue to be deposited into the Public Transportation Account, which was designed to distribute funds for mass transportation and rail systems. Proposition 69 required the TIF revenue be spent on public streets and highways and public transportation systems. Although SB 1 required revenue from the zero-emission vehicles fee to be placed in the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, Proposition 69 did not contain a provision creating a constitutional mandate for zero-emission vehicles fee revenue.

Proposition 69 made revenue from SB 1's tax increases and fee schedules exempt from the state appropriations limit, also known as the Gann Limit. In other words, the revenue did not count toward the limit. The Gann Limit prohibited the state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year 1978-1979, with an adjustment allowed for changes in the cost-of-living and population. Amendments were made to the Gann Limit in 1988 and 1990, modifying the formula and requiring half of the excess revenue to be distributed to public education and the other half to taxpayer rebates. Rejecting the constitutional amendment would have made SB 1's revenue subject to the Gann Limit. As of 2018, the Gann Limit had been exceeded just once in 1987.

How did Proposition 69 get on the ballot?

The constitutional amendment was referred to the ballot box with support from just two legislative Republicans—Asm. Baker and Sen. Cannella. Just one Republican—Sen. Cannella—voted for the RRAA. The constitutional amendment required a two-thirds vote in both chambers of the California State Legislature. Democrats, controlling two-thirds of the seats in both chambers, were united in voting to refer the amendment.

Who contributed to the campaigns?

There were two committees registered to support Proposition 69. The committees in support of the measure had raised a combined $11.20 million. The top contributors included the California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee ($1.02 million), Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California ($1.00 million), the Southern California Partnership for Jobs ($1.00 million), and United Contractors ($1.00 million). There were no committees registered to oppose the ballot proposition.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Requires That Certain New Transportation Revenues Be Used for Transportation Purposes. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Requires that revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law, through a certain vehicle license fee and diesel sales tax, be used only for transportation purposes, including public transportation. Generally prohibits the Legislature from diverting those funds to other purposes. Prohibits revenue from new vehicle license fees from being used to repay general obligation bond debt. Exempts new revenues from state and local spending limits.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

No direct effect on the amount of state and local revenues or costs, as the measure does not change existing tax and fee rates. The measure could affect how some monies are spent by ensuring that revenues from recently enacted taxes and fees continue to be spent on transportation purposes. The measure would put the state a little further below its constitutional spending limit.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XIII B and Article XIX A of the California Constitution

The measure added a Section 15 to Article XIII B and amended Section 1 of Article XIX A of the California Constitution. The measure also added a new Article XIX D to the constitution. The following underlined text was added:

Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

Section 15 of Article XIII B

“Appropriations subject to limitation” of each entity of government shall not include appropriations of revenues from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account created by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, or any other revenues deposited into any other funds pursuant to the act. No adjustment in the appropriations limit of any entity of government shall be required pursuant to Section 3 as a result of revenues being deposited in or appropriated from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account created by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 or any other account pursuant to the act.

Section 1 of Article XIX A

(a) The Legislature shall not borrow revenues from the Public Transportation Account, or any successor account, and shall not use these revenues for purposes, or in ways, other than those specifically permitted by this article.

(b) The Public Transportation Account in the State Transportation Fund, or any successor account, is a trust fund. The Legislature may not change the status of the Public Transportation Account as a trust fund. Funds in the Public Transportation Account may not be loaned or otherwise transferred to the General Fund or any other fund or account in the State Treasury.

(c) All revenues specified in paragraphs (1) through (3), inclusive, of subdivision (a) of Section 7102 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as that section read on June 1, 2001, shall be deposited no less than quarterly into the Public Transportation Account (Section 99310 of the Public Utilities Code), or its successor. The Legislature may not take any action which temporarily or permanently diverts or appropriates these revenues for purposes other than those described in subdivision (d), or delays, defers, suspends, or otherwise interrupts the quarterly deposit of these funds into the Public Transportation Account.

(d) Funds in the Public Transportation Account may only be used for transportation planning and mass transportation purposes. The revenues described in subdivision (c) are hereby continuously appropriated to the Controller without regard to fiscal years for allocation as follows:

(1) Fifty percent pursuant to subdivisions (a) through (f), inclusive, of Section 99315 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on July 30, 2009.

(2) Twenty-five percent pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 99312 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on July 30, 2009.

(3) Twenty-five percent pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 99312 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on July 30, 2009.

(e) For purposes of paragraph (1) of subdivision (d), "transportation planning" means only the purposes described in subdivisions (c) through (f), inclusive, of Section 99315 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on July 30, 2009.

(f) For purposes of this article, "mass transportation," "public transit," and "mass transit" have the same meaning as "public transportation." "Public transportation" means:

(1) (A) Surface transportation service provided to the general public, complementary paratransit service provided to persons with disabilities as required by 42 U.S.C. 12143, or similar transportation provided to people with disabilities or the elderly;

(B) operated by bus, rail, ferry, or other conveyance on a fixed route, demand response, or otherwise regularly available basis; (C) generally for which a fare is charged; and (D) provided by any transit district, included transit district, municipal operator, included municipal operator, eligible municipal operator, or transit development board, as those terms were defined in Article 1 of Chapter 4 of Part 11 of Division 10 of the Public Utilities Code on January 1, 2009, a joint powers authority formed to provide mass transportation services, an agency described in subdivision (f) of Section 15975 of the Government Code, as that section read on January 1, 2009, any recipient of funds under Sections 99260, 99260.7, 99275, or subdivision (c) of Section 99400 of the Public Utilities Code, as those sections read on January 1, 2009, or a consolidated agency as defined in Section 132353.1 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on January 1, 2009.

(2) Surface transportation service provided by the Department of Transportation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 99315 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on July 30, 2009.

(3) Public transit capital improvement projects, including those identified in subdivision (b) of Section 99315 of the Public Utilities Code, as that section read on July 30, 2009.

(g) All revenues specified in Sections 6051.8 and 6201.8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as those sections read on January 1, 2018, shall be deposited no less than quarterly into the Public Transportation Account, or its successor. Except as provided in Sections 16310 and 16381 of the Government Code, as those sections read on January 1, 2018, the Legislature may not take any action that temporarily or permanently diverts or appropriates these revenues for purposes other than those described in subdivision (d), or delays, defers, suspends, or otherwise interrupts the quarterly deposit of these revenues into the Public Transportation Account.

Article XIX D

(a) Notwithstanding Section 8 of Article XIX, revenues derived from vehicle fees imposed under the Vehicle License Fee Law pursuant to Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 11050) of Part 5 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or its successor, over and above the costs of collection and any refunds authorized by law, shall be used solely for transportation purposes, as defined by Section 11050 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, as that section read upon enactment of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017.

(b) The revenues described in subdivision (a) shall not be used for the payment of principal and interest on state transportation general obligation bonds that were authorized by the voters on or before November 8, 2016, nor shall those revenues be used for payment of principal and interest on state transportation general obligation bond acts approved by the voters after that date, unless the bond act expressly authorizes that use.

(c) Except as provided in Sections 16310 and 16381 of the Government Code, as those sections read on January 1, 2018, the Legislature shall not borrow the revenues described in subdivision (a), and shall not use these revenues for purposes, or in ways, other than as authorized in subdivisions (a) or (b).

Readability score

See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2018

Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The California attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 17.5, and the FRE is -18. The word count for the ballot title is 14, and the estimated reading time is 3 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 21. The word count for the ballot summary is 64, and the estimated reading time is 17 seconds. In 2018, for the 167 statewide measures on the ballot, the average ballot title or question was written at a level appropriate for those with between 19 and 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education), according to the FKGL formula. Read Ballotpedia's entire 2018 ballot language readability report here. During the 10-year period from 1997 to 2007, political scientists Shauna Reilly and Sean Richey found that average California ballot title score was equivalent to 13 years of U.S. formal education.

Support

The Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements led the campaign in support of Proposition 69.

Supporters

Scroll within the box below to view the full list of supporters.

Officials The following officials sponsored the amendment in the legislature: Sen. Josh Newman (D-29) Asm. Jim Frazier (D-11) Asm. Kevin Mullin (D-22) Asm. Evan Low (D-28) Asm. Miguel Santiago (D-53) Asm. Todd Gloria (D-78) Parties California Democratic Party Municipalities City of Alameda City of Albany City of Belvedere City of Blue Lake City of Carpinteria City of Cathedral City City of Clayton City of Cloverdale City of Delano City of Downey City of Duarte City of El Cerrito City of Farmersville City of Fortuna City of Hawaiian Gardens City of King City City of Kingsburg City of Malibu City of Manteca City of Martinez City of Modesto City of Norwalk City of Piedmont City of Placerville City of Rancho Palos Verdes City of Salinas City of San Pablo City of San Rafael City of Santa Cruz City of Santa Monica City of Sonora City of Suisun City City of Union City City of Waterford City of West Hollywood City of Willits Town of Yountville Lake County Board of Supervisors San Benito County Board of Supervisors Organizations California Association of Highway Patrolmen California Business Properties Association California Business Roundtable Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers Business Council of San Joaquin County CalAsian Chamber of Commerce California Chamber of Commerce California Trucking Association Cerritos Regional Chamber of Commerce California State Conference NAACP Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region Congress of California Seniors East Bay Leadership Council Fairfield-Suisun Chamber of Commerce Flasher Barricade Association Gateway Chambers Alliance Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce Innovation Tri-Valley Leadership Group Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles County Business Federation (LA BizFed) North Bay Leadership Council Orange County Business Council Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce Rural County Representatives of California Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce Santa Cruz County Business Council Silicon Valley Leadership Group South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce South Gate Chamber of Commerce Tuolumne County Chamber of Commerce Vacaville Chamber of Commerce Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA) Planning and Conservation League TransForm California League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) League of Women Voters of California Breathe California Sacramento Region Sonoma County Alliance California State Association of Counties (CSAC) League of California Cities California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG) California Contract Cities Association City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Gateway Cities Council of Governments Humboldt County Association of Governments Los Angeles County Division, League of California Cities Marin County Council of Mayors and Councilmembers Orange County Division, League of California Cities Peninsula Division, League of California Cities Sonoma County Mayors’ and Councilmembers’ Association Stanislaus Council of Governments Urban Counties of California California Alliance for Jobs Alameda Corridor – East Construction Authority (ACE) American Council of Engineering Companies – California American Public Works Association – Southern California Chapter American Society of Civil Engineers – California Associated General Contractors – California Associated General Contractors – San Diego California Asphalt Pavement Association (CalAPA) The California Chapters of the American Public Works Association (APWA) California Construction & Industrial Materials Association (CalCIMA) California Nevada Cement Association California Transit Association Coastal Rail Santa Cruz Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Golden State Gateway Coalition Lake Area Planning Council Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Metropolitan Transportation Commission Northern California Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) Placer County Transportation Planning Agency San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Sonoma County Transportation Authority Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) Southern California Contractors Association Southern California Partnership for Jobs Southwest Concrete Pavement Association Transportation Agency for Monterey County Transportation California United Contractors Unions State Building & Construction Trades Council of California AFSCME California PEOPLE AFSCME District Council 36 California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers California State Council of Laborers Heat and Frost Insulators, Local 16 Laborers International Union of North America Local 1184 Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Businesses Brosamer & Wall, Inc. BYD America Central Striping Services, Inc. CPM Logistics, LLC Ghilotti Bros., Inc. Granite Construction Inc. HNTB Corporation Knife River Construction MuniServices, an Avenu company Nossaman LLP Reliance Business Park Shimmick Construction Company, Inc. Surfa Slick, LLC Teichert Construction Teichert Materials Way Sine LLC

Arguments

Sen. Josh Newman (D-29), one of the amendment's authors, said:

“

Given the urgency of the transportation and infrastructure repair backlog before California, and the additional burden we are asking the state’s taxpayers to take on to address it now, it is essential that we provide Californians with a very clear assurance that these new revenues will be spent only on repairing our aging infrastructure, reducing congestion, and otherwise supporting transportation improvements that foster economic development across the state – in urban, suburban, and rural areas alike. ACA 5 provides voters with the important assurance that their hard-earned money will be spent in a responsible and fiscally prudent manner.

”

Official arguments

Warren Stanley, commissioner of the California Highway Patrol, Helen Hutchison, president of the League of Women Voters of California, and Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 69 found in the state's voter guide:

YES ON 69: PREVENT THE LEGISLATURE FROM REDIRECTING TRANSPORTATION REVENUES AND ENSURE THEY CAN ONLY BE USED TO FUND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS. YES on 69 ensures existing transportation revenues we pay at the pump and when we register our vehicles can ONLY be used for road and transportation improvement projects. Proposition 69 constitutionally protects these funds by prohibiting the legislature from using these revenues for non-transportation purposes. And YES on 69 won’t raise taxes one cent. YES ON 69 REQUIRES TRANSPORTATION FUNDS BE SPENT ON PRIORITIES LIKE FIXING LOCAL ROADS, HIGHWAYS, BRIDGES AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS. Californians depend on a safe and reliable transportation network to support our quality of life and a strong economy. YES on 69 protects transportation taxes and fees we already pay for: • SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS to repair aging and deteriorating bridges, tunnels and overpasses, as well as highways, freeways and local streets and roads. • FILLING POTHOLES and PAVING OVER CRACKED AND CRUMBLING ROADS. • RELIEVING TRAFFIC CONGESTION by adding new lanes and making repairs to remove bottlenecks that cause congestion. • UPGRADING LIGHT-RAIL AND COMMUTER RAIL, buses and other public transportation services to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. • IMPROVING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY by building and upgrading crosswalks and sidewalks. YES ON 69 PROTECTS TRANSPORTATION FUNDS AND BENEFITS EVERY CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY. Passing Proposition 69 protects revenues dedicated to every city, county and transportation agency in the state for repairing local roads and improving public transportation. YES ON 69 PROTECTS EXISTING REVENUES AND DOES NOT INCREASE TAXES. Proposition 69 protects existing taxes and fees we are already paying. It does not raise taxes. YES ON 69 PROMOTES JOBS AND A STRONGER ECONOMY. Ensuring transportation revenues are dedicated to transportation projects will support hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs and will boost our economy by improving the transportation network that gets employees to work and goods and services to the market. YES ON 69 MEANS STRONG ACCOUNTABILITY TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS. Proposition 69 ensures our transportation tax dollars can only be used to make road safety improvements, fill potholes, repair local streets, freeways and bridges, and to invest in public transit. “Cracked, potholed roads in poor condition pose a major safety threat to California drivers,” said Warren Stanley, commissioner, CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL. “We need Prop. 69 to protect revenues to fix the poor condition of our roads, to protect public safety and provide drivers with smoother, less congested roads and highways.” YES ON 69 IS SUPPORTED BY A BROAD COALITION. YES on 69 is supported by a broad coalition representing business, labor, local governments, transportation advocates and taxpayers, including: • League of Women Voters of California • California Chamber of Commerce • California State Conference, NAACP • California Alliance for Jobs • California Business Roundtable • California State Association of Counties • League of California Cities • Southern California Partnership for Jobs • Transportation California • California Transit Association VOTE YES ON PROP. 69 TO ENSURE OUR TRANSPORTATION REVENUES CAN ONLY BE SPENT ON TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

Opposition

Opponents

• Sen. John Moorlach (R-37)
• Asm. Frank Bigelow (R-5)

Arguments

Andrea Seastrand, president of the Central Coast Taxpayers Association, stated:

“

While this may sound assuring even to those who opposed raising the gas tax, the reality is that this ballot measure is all about creating a false sense of security for taxpayers. The gas tax increase was incredibly unpopular with voters who already felt the burden of some of the highest fuel costs in the nation. In order to help justify the tax hikes, Proposition 69 was conceived as a companion measure to make the public think that they could trust Sacramento this time and transportation funds would only go to their intended purposes.

”

Official arguments

Sen. John Moorlach (R-37) and Asm. Frank Bigelow (R-5) each wrote an official argument against the measure found in the state's voter guide:

“ How insulting can a ballot proposition be? Last year, a two-thirds majority of state legislators voted for a gas tax and vehicle fee increase for transportation improvements. And now they are asking you to tell them to only spend the money on that intended purpose? Do you see the lunacy of this request? Is this measure supposed to make us feel better? Or is it an indictment that Sacramento can’t help itself when it comes to spending your money? It’s wasting billions of dollars for high speed rail, with massive cost overruns. And this proposition is supposed to prevent them from spending drift? Or is this an admission that, like an alcoholic, Sacramento is saying it won’t siphon off some of your gas tax for other boondoggles, this time? And, once again, they really mean it. How sad can California’s legislature get? Did you know that Caltrans wastes some $500 million per year? Because it’s overstaffed by nearly 3,300 architects and engineers and it is hiring more? That it only outsources ten percent of engineering work when most states outsource half? Did Sacramento streamline Caltrans before raising your gas taxes? No! It embarrasses me, as a fiscal conservative, to have to ask you to tell Sacramento to spend a gas tax on highway repairs. It’s disingenuous and duplicitous. How long will the voters of this state enable free-spending liberals to drive our Golden State into the ground? Accordingly, I’m voting “No” on this tripe called Proposition 69. You should too. Senator John Moorlach, 37th Senate District ” “ PROPOSITION 69 FAILS TO PROTECT ALL TRANSPORTATION REVENUE. All transportation related revenues must be protected from being diverted by the legislature for programs that don’t fix our roads. Fact: most transportation revenues, including gasoline, diesel excise taxes and vehicle registration fees, are constitutionally protected from being used for purposes other than transportation. Unfortunately, PROPOSITION 69 FAILS TO PROTECT OVER $1 BILLION ANNUALLY FROM VEHICLE WEIGHT FEES THAT HAVE BEEN SIDETRACKED SINCE 2011. ALL transportation taxes must be protected from being diverted and misused by politicians, otherwise these games will continue. PROPOSITION 69 ALLOWS UNCHECKED SPENDING. In addition to Proposition 13 (1978)—California’s landmark initiative that limited local property taxes—voters passed Proposition 4 (1979), which limited the spending of government operations. Proposition 69 exempts the recently enacted transportation taxes and fees from the state spending limit. This effectively RAISES THE CAP ON GENERAL FUND SPENDING BY APPROXIMATELY $2 BILLION ANNUALLY. By exempting these expenditures, state spending would be allowed to grow to levels that otherwise could not be reached. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 69 I am opposed to the new gas taxes and vehicle registration fees. Too many Californians struggle to pay for housing, food and other necessities in this high-cost state. Californians don’t need more taxes. I don’t support Proposition 69 because state spending will continue to spiral out of control, and it fails to fully protect transportation taxes from being diverted to programs that do nothing to fix our roads and highways. Assemblyman Frank Bigelow, 5th Assembly District ”

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$11,196,378.59
Opposition:	$0.00

There were two ballot measure committees registered in support of the measure. The committee Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements, Yes on Prop. 69, Sponsored by Business, Labor, Local Governments, Transportation Advocates and Taxpayers received all the funds at $11.20 million. The committees spent $1.64 million.

The largest contributor to the committees was the California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee. The organization donated $1.02 million.

Following the election on June 5, 2018, the Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements was reorganized as No on Prop 6: Stop the Attack on Bridge & Road Safety. No on Prop 6 was registered to oppose California Proposition 6, which would repeal the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA).

There were no committees registered in opposition to the initiative.

Support

The contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the initiative were as follows:

Note: Contributions from one committee to another committee are reported for the receiving committee. Counting these funds twice would inflate the total contributions and expenditures. See methodology for more information.

Committees in support of Proposition 69 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements, Yes on Prop. 69, Sponsored by Business, Labor, Local Governments, Transportation Advocates and Taxpayers $11,015,222.00 $181,156.59 $1,456,694.42 County Supervisors Association of California Dba California State Association of Counties (Nonprofit 501(C)(4)) - Yes on Prop. 69 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $11,015,222.00 $181,156.59 $1,456,694.42

Totals in support Total raised: $11,196,378.59 Total spent: $1,637,851.01

Donors

The following were the top five donors who contributed to the support committees:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee	$1,015,000.00	$7,500.00	$1,022,500.00
Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
Southern California Partnership for Jobs (Nonprofit 501 (c)(6))	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
United Contractors	$1,000,000.00	$0.00	$1,000,000.00
International Union of Operating Engineers	$750,000.00	$0.00	$750,000.00

Reporting dates

In California, ballot measure committees filed a total of four campaign finance reports in 2018. The filing dates for reports were as follows:

Campaign finance reporting dates for June 2018 ballot
Date	Report	Period
1/31/2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
4/26/2018	Report #1	1/01/2018 - 4/21/2018
5/24/2018	Report #2	4/22/2018 - 5/19/2018
7/31/2018	Report #3	5/20/2018 - 6/30/2018
1/31/2019	Annual Report for 2018	1/01/2018 - 12/31/2018

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• The Desert Sun said, "The taxes are already in place and being collected and money already is being spent on improvements to California’s crumbling roads. This amendment, which was a companion measure to the Legislature’s tax legislation, gives voters the power to ensure the money is spent on what was promised."
• Los Angeles Times said, "Last year, legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown agreed to increase taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel, and to impose new and bigger fees on vehicles, to help build and maintain the state's transportation infrastructure. To win support from tax-wary Republicans, proponents of the legislation (Senate Bill 1) promised that the new money would be used only for transportation. Proposition 69 would fulfill that promise. Voters should hold lawmakers to their word and pass it."
• The Mercury News said, "The measure might not be everything opponents and some supporters might want. But its defeat would be worse — opening the door to spending of some of the new money for any government program. Voters should make sure that doesn’t happen. Vote yes on Prop. 69."
• Monterey County Herald said, "Prop. 69 should not be confused with a possible repeal, however. The transportation taxes are already in place and being collected and money already is being spent on our crumbling roads. This amendment gives voters the power to ensure their taxes are spent on what was promised."
• The Orange County Register said, "Ultimately, while we have reservations about the measure’s raising of the Gann Limit by hundreds of millions of dollars according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, given the amount of revenues SB1 is dealing with, it’s important to have some degree of certainty that that money will go toward its intended purposes. On balance, we suggest voting yes on Proposition 69."
• The Press-Democrat said, "This constitutional amendment would ensure that taxes and fees approved for roads and transit aren’t diverted to other purposes. Yes."
• The Sacramento Bee said, "Yes. The 12-cent gas tax increase passed last year by California lawmakers was the first in 23 years, and, gauging from the number of potholes in need of filling, it was way overdue. This companion measure would ensure that $5 billion in new revenue only gets spent on transportation projects. While most transportation revenue is already constitutionally earmarked, some of the new funding falls outside those protections, so this is just common-sense cleanup, endorsed by a long list of good government groups."
• San Diego Union-Tribune said, "Given past diversions of fuel taxes, this is an excellent idea. That it is being pushed to help blunt the Republican attempt to repeal the overall fuel tax hike enacted in 2017 isn’t a good reason to oppose it."
• San Francisco Chronicle said, "If that reassurance seems unnecessary, it’s because anti-tax opponents are readying a repeal of the gas tax, claiming the funds may be diverted or misspent. For anyone driving potholed roads or tiring of fist-pounding traffic delays, that argument should sound ridiculous. California is at last tending to its highways, and this measure underlines that promise. Vote Yes."

Opposition

Ballotpedia did not find any media editorial boards opposing Proposition 69. If you are aware of an editorial, please email it to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Senate Bill 1

California State Legislature

Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was passed on April 6, 2017. The California State Senate voted 27 to 11 with two members not voting; 27 votes were required to pass the bill. Democrats controlled 27 seats in the state Senate. Sen. Steve Glazer (D-7) joined Republicans in opposing SB 1, but Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-12) joined Democrats in passing the bill, allowing the bill to pass with 27 votes. The California State Assembly voted 54 to 26 to pass the legislation; 54 votes were required. Democrats controlled 55 seats in the state Assembly. One Democrat, Asm. Rudy Salas (D-32), joined Republicans in opposing the bill, leaving Democrats with 54 votes needed to pass SB 1. Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the legislation into law on April 28, 2017.

Vote in the California State Senate April 6, 2017
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	27	11	2
Total percent	67.50%	27.50%	5.00%
Democrat	26	1	0
Republican	1	10	2

Vote in the California State Assembly April 6, 2017
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 54  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	54	26	0
Total percent	67.50%	32.50%	0.00%
Democrat	54	1	0
Republican	0	25	0

Revenue

SB 1 increased the following transportation-related taxes and fees on November 1, 2017:

• Increased the gas tax $0.12 cents per gallon, from $0.297 cents per gallon to $0.417 cents per gallon.
• Increased the diesel fuel tax $0.20 cents per gallon, from $0.16 cents per gallon to $0.36 cents per gallon.
• Increased the sales tax on diesel fuels by an additional 4 percentage points, from 9 percent to 13 percent.

SB 1 created a new annual Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF) based on the market value of a vehicle. The fee went into effect on January 1, 2018. The fee rate was scheduled as follows:

• $25 per year for vehicles with a market value of $0-$4,999;
• $50 per year for vehicles with a market value of $5,000-$24,999;
• $100 per year for vehicles with a market value of $25,000-$34,999;
• $150 per year for vehicles with a market value of $35,000-$59,999; and
• $200 per year for vehicles with a market value of $60,000 or higher.

SB 1 enacted an annual $100 per vehicle fee for owners of zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) model years 2020 or later starting in 2020.

Other than the diesel sales tax, SB 1 was designed to adjust the tax and fee rates based on annual changes in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI).

Funds

According to the California Senate Appropriations Committee, SB 1 was expected to generate an estimated $5.2 billion a year or $52.4 billion between 2017 and 2027.

Diagram from the California Legislative Analyst’s Office on SB 1's revenue sources and appropriations.

Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program

SB 1 created the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Program (RMRP), which was expected to receive an estimated $3.24 billion a year. The RMRP was designed to receive revenue from the gasoline excise tax, excluding revenue from gasoline for off-road vehicles, half of the diesel excise tax ($0.10), the zero-emission vehicles fee, and revenue over $600 million from the Transportation Improvement Fee. The bill required RMRA funds to be distributed as follows:

• $400 million to maintain and repair state bridges and culverts;
• $200 million to counties with voter-approved taxes and fees for transportation improvements;
• $100 million to the Active Transportation Program, which is tasked with bicycling and pedestrian improvement projects;
• $25 million to the freeway service patrol program to remove disabled vehicles from freeways;
• $25 million for local and regional transportation planning grants; and
• $7 million for transportation research;
• $5 million for transportation-related workforce education, training, and development.

Following the distribution of the $762 million in revenue listed above, the remaining $2.48 million in estimated RMRP funds would be divided 50-50 between maintenance of the state highway system and maintenance of local streets.

Trade Corridor Enhancement Account

SB 1 was designed to deposit half of the diesel excise tax ($0.10) into the Trade Corridor Enhancement Account (TCEA) to fund corridor-based freight projects. TCEA was expected to receive an estimated $310 million per year.

Solutions for Congested Corridors Program

The Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) was designed to receive $250 million per year from the Transportation Improvement Fee. SB 1 required SCCP to distribute funds to projects that address transportation, environmental, and community access improvements within highly congested-travel corridors throughout the state.

Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program

SB 1 provided the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) with 70 percent of $350 million from the Transportation Improvement Fee. TIRCP was a competitive grant program that awards funding for transit and rail capital projects.

State Transit Assistance Program

SB 1 was designed to provide the State Transit Assistance Program (STAP) with 30 percent of $350 million from the Transportation Improvement Fee and 87.5 percent of the revenue from the diesel sales tax for about $430 million a year. STAP provided funding for transit operators.

Intercity and Commuter Rail

SB 1 created a new stream of revenue for intercity rail operations and projects from 12.5 percent of the diesel sales revenue tax for a total of about $44 million per year.

Department of Parks and Recreation and Department of Food and Agriculture

The bill was designed to distribute revenue from the gas tax increase received from off-highway vehicles and boats to the state Department of Parks and Recreation and revenue from the gas tax increase received from agricultural vehicles to the state Department of Food and Agriculture.

Reactions

Democratic leadership

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D), upon signing the bill, said, "Safe and smooth roads make California a better place to live and strengthen our economy. This legislation will put thousands of people to work."
• Senate President Kevin de León (D-24) praised the legislation, saying, "Today, after decades of inaction, the legislature approved a fiscally responsible plan to address our decrepit transportation infrastructure. This bipartisan compromise includes strict accountability measures and closes our massive transportation funding shortfalls — without burdening future generations with debt."
• Speaker of the Assembly Anthony Rendon (D-63) stated, "Supporting SB 1 required a combination of common sense, political courage, and concern for the Californians who drive on our roads and bridges."

Republican leadership

• Assembly Minority Leader Chad Mayes (R-42), critical of the bill, stated, "Gov. Brown and Capitol Democrats just gave us the largest gas tax increase in state history — a deal so bad they needed $1 billion in pork to buy the votes to pass it. California deserves better."
• Senate Minority Leader Patricia Bates (R-36) said, "It didn't have to be this way. Senate Republicans put forth our own transportation plan that would have provided $7.8 billion for our crumbling roads without raising taxes. Instead, drivers will be paying more to fund not just road repairs that could have been paid for with existing dollars, but also other projects such as bike trails and potentially high-speed rail. Californians deserve better."
• Senate Minority Caucus Chair Tom Berryhill (R-8) said, "A few weeks ago, Sacramento politicians went into a backroom to cook up a sharp increase in vehicle registration fees and the largest gas tax increase in state history, sticking it to working-class Californians and just about everyone living outside of the Bay Area or Los Angeles. Gas taxes disproportionately hurt lower-income drivers, who have less money to spend on more expensive gas."

Initiatives to repeal SB 1

Asm. Travis Allen (R-72), a candidate for governor in 2018, proposed an initiative to repeal most sections of Senate Bill 1 (2017). He paused the campaign while a court battle ensued over the initiative’s ballot language, which Attorney General Becerra (D) had written. The court case wasn’t resolved until December 2017 and the court ruling sided with the attorney general's office. Citing the legal dispute, Asm. Allen said the initiative failed to collect enough signatures. He said he would support the other initiative to repeal SB 1.

John Cox, a businessman running for governor, is also a part of an [[California Proposition 6, Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative (2018) |initiative]] campaign to overturn the gas tax and fees increase. The two campaigns are different. Asm. Allen's initiative is a state statute, requiring 365,880 signatures. The initiative campaign that Cox is involved in was started by Carl DeMaio’s group Reform California and is a constitutional amendment, requiring 585,407 signatures. Whereas Asm. Allen's initiative was designed to repeal most sections of SB 1, Reform California's initiative would require majority voter approval for the state legislature to impose, increase, or extend a tax on gasoline, diesel fuel, or the operation of a vehicle or trailer coach on public highways after January 1, 2017. The initiative would both repeal SB 1 and require voter approval of future vehicle-related gas and fee increases.

Recall of Sen. Josh Newman

The vote on Senate Bill 1 led to a recall attempt against Sen. Josh Newman (D-29). He was elected to represent District 29 in 2016, when he defeated Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang by 2,498 votes. The recall attempt was launched on April 19, 2017. Supporters of the recall effort needed to collect 63,593 signatures by October 16, 2017, to move the recall forward. On August 18, 2017, recall proponents had gathered enough signatures to trigger an election against Newman. On January 8, 2018, the governor announced a recall election for June 5, 2018. He was recalled at the election, with Ling Ling Chang replacing him.

Gann Limit

The measure exempted from the state appropriations limit, also known as the Gann Limit, the appropriation of revenue from Senate Bill 1's tax increases and fee schedules.

The Gann Limit prohibited the state government and local governments from spending revenue in excess of per-person government spending in fiscal year 1978-1979, with an adjustment allowed for changes in the cost-of-living and population. Voters approved the Gann Limit in 1979. The Gann Limit allowed governments to exceed the appropriations limit for paying off debts from voter-approved bonds; otherwise, governments were required to revise tax rates and fee schedules within the following two fiscal years to return the revenue to taxpayers. In 1988, voters amended the Gann Limit via Proposition 98, requiring that some of the excess revenue (equal to 4 percent of the minimum school funding level) be appropriated to public education. Proposition 111 of 1990 increased the amount of excess revenue dedicated to education—from an amount equal to 4 percent of the minimum school funding level to half the total excess revenue—and exempted appropriations for natural disasters and appropriations financied through increases in transportation-related taxes from the Gann Limit. Proposition 111 also changed the formula for calculating the state appropriations limit, including the measurements for cost-of-living and population growth and the timetable for determining excess revenue. As of 2018, the Gann Limit had been exceeded just once in 1987, when taxpayers received $1.1 billion in rebates.

Between 1988 and 2018, voters approved three ballot initiatives related to tabacco tax increases that exempted appropriation of the revenue from the taxes from the Gann Limit.

Other transportation lockbox measures

See also: State and local government budgets, spending and finance on the ballot and Transportation on the ballot

Voters in California approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 22, in 2010 that prohibited the California State Legislature from allocating revenue from fuel taxes in specific funds to the state's general fund.

In 2014, voters in Maryland and Wisconsin decided on transportation fund lockbox measures. Maryland's Question 1 established a transportation fund defined by the state constitution, required that the fund's revenue only be used for transportation-related projects, and required that the revenue not be transferred (with certain exceptions). Wisconsin's Question 1 required that transportation-related revenue could only be used for projects under the purview of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation. Both measures were approved.

Illinois and New Jersey voted on transportation lockbox measures in 2016. The amendment to the Illinois Constitution was designed to prohibit the state legislature from using transportation funds for non-transportation related projects. Citizens to Protect Transportation Funding, the support campaign, spent $3.8 million to help the amendment pass. New Jersey Question 2 pitted Gov. Chris Christie, an amendment supporter, against his lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno, who opposed the amendment. Voters approved the measure 54.5 to 45.5 percent. Question 2 required that all revenue derived from taxes on motor fuels be deposited into the Transportation Trust Fund. Louisiana voters approved Amendment 3, a transportation lockbox measure, in October 2017.

The following table illustrates the outcome of each transportation lockbox amendment:

State	Initiative	Year	Percent “Yes”	Percent “No”
California	Proposition 22	2010	60.62%	39.38%
Maryland	Question 1	2014	81.65%	18.35%
Wisconsin	Question 1	2014	79.94%	20.06%
New Jersey	Question 2	2014	54.51%	45.49%
Illinois	Amendment	2016	78.91%	21.09%
Louisiana	Amendment 3	2017	53.13%	46.87%
Average			68.13%	31.87%

Referred amendments on the ballot

From 1996 through 2016, the California State Legislature referred 28 constitutional amendments to the ballot. Voters approved 24 and rejected four of the referred amendments. Most of the amendments (23 of 28) were referred to the ballot during even-numbered election years. The average number of amendments appearing on the ballot during an even-numbered election year was two. In 2016, one referred amendment was on the ballot. The approval rate at the ballot box was 85.71 percent during the 20-year period from 1996 through 2016. The rejection rate was 14.29 percent.

Legislatively referred constitutional amendments, 1996-2016
Years	Total number	Approved	Percent approved	Defeated	Percent defeated	Annual average	Annual median	Annual minimum	Annual maximum
Even years	23	23	100.00%	0	0.00%	2.09	2.00	0	6
Odd years	5	1	20.00%	4	80.00%	0.45	0.00	0	4
All years	28	24	85.71%	4	14.29%	1.27	0.50	0	6

Path to the ballot

See also: Amending the California Constitution

In California, a constitutional amendment must be passed by a two-thirds vote in each house of the California State Legislature during one legislative session. The 2017 legislative session ran from December 5, 2016, through September 15, 2017.

Asm. Jim Frazier (D-11) and Sen. Josh Newman (D-29) authored the constitutional amendment, which was introduced as Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5 (ACA 5). Both the state Assembly and the state Senate passed the amendment on April 6, 2017. In the state Assembly, 56 members voted "yes" and 24 voted "no." In the state Senate, 28 senators voted "yes," 10 voted "no," and two did not vote. In the state Assembly, Asm. Catharine Baker (R-16) joined the chamber's 55 Democrats in approving the amendment. In the state Senate, Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-12) joined the chamber's 27 Democrats in approving the amendment. All other Republicans voted against the measure. The measure was enrolled with the secretary of state on April 17, 2017.

Vote in the California State Assembly April 6, 2017
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 54  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	56	24	0
Total percent	70.00%	30.00%	0.00%
Democrat	55	0	0
Republican	1	24	0

Vote in the California State Senate April 6, 2017
Requirement: Two-thirds (66.67 percent) vote of all members in each chamber
Number of yes votes required: 27  a
	Yes	No	Not voting
Total	28	10	2
Total percent	70.00%	25.00%	5.00%
Democrat	27	0	0
Republican	1	10	2

How to cast a vote

See also: Voting in California

Poll times

All polls in California are open from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Pacific Time. An individual who is in line at the time polls close must be allowed to vote.

Registration requirements

Check your voter registration status here.

To vote in California, an individual must be a U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Pre-registration is available at 16 years of age. Pre-registered voters are automatically registered to vote when they turn 18.

Automatic registration

California automatically registers eligible individuals to vote when they complete a driver's license, identification (ID) card, or change of address transaction through the Department of Motor Vehicles. Learn more by visiting this website.

Online registration

See also: Online voter registration

California has implemented an online voter registration system. Residents can register to vote by visiting this website.

Same-day registration

California allows same-day voter registration.

Californians must be registered to vote at least 15 days before Election Day. If the registration deadline has passed for an upcoming election, voters may visit a location designated by their county elections official during the 14 days prior to, and including Election Day to conditionally register to vote and vote a provisional ballot, which are counted once county election officials have completed the voter registration verification process. The state refers to this process as Same Day Voter Registration.

Residency requirements

To register to vote in California, you must be a resident of the state. State law does not specify a length of time for which you must have been a resident to be eligible.

Verification of citizenship

See also: Laws permitting noncitizens to vote in the United States

California's constitution requires that voters be U.S. citizens. When registering to vote, proof of citizenship is not required. Individuals who become U.S. citizens less than 15 days before an election must bring proof of citizenship to their county elections office to register to vote in that election. An individual applying to register to vote must attest that they are a U.S. citizen under penalty of perjury.

As of November 2024, two jurisdictions in California had authorized noncitizen residents to vote for local board of education positions through local ballot measures. Only one of those jurisdictions, San Francisco, had implemented that law. Noncitizens voting for board of education positions must register to vote using a separate application from the state voter registration application.

All 49 states with voter registration systems require applicants to declare that they are U.S. citizens in order to register to vote in state and federal elections, under penalty of perjury or other punishment. Seven states — Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, New Hampshire, and Wyoming — have laws requiring verification of citizenship at the time of voter registration, whether in effect or not. In three states — California, Maryland, and Vermont — at least one local jurisdiction allows noncitizens to vote in some local elections. Noncitizens registering to vote in those elections must complete a voter registration application provided by the local jurisdiction and are not eligible to register as state or federal voters.

Verifying your registration

The secretary of state's My Voter Status website allows residents to check their voter registration status online.

Voter ID requirements

California does not require voters to present identification before casting a ballot in most cases. However, some voters may be asked to show a form of identification when voting if they are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide a driver license number, California identification number, or the last four digits of their social security number. On September 29, 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed SB 1174 into law prohibiting any jurisdiction in the state from adopting a local law that requires voters to present ID before voting.

The following list of accepted ID was current as of October 2024. Click here for the California Secretary of State page to ensure you have the most current information.

“

Current and valid photo identification provided by a third party in the ordinary course of business that includes the name and photograph of the individual presenting it. Examples of photo identification include, but are not limited to, the following documents: driver's license or identification card of any state; passport; employee identification card; identification card provided by a commercial establishment; credit or debit card; military identification card; student identification card; health club identification card; insurance plan identification card; or public housing identification card. Any of the following documents, provided that the document includes the name and address of the individual presenting it, and is dated since the date of the last general election…: utility bill; bank statement; government check; government paycheck; document issued by a governmental agency; sample ballot or other official elections document issued by a governmental, agency dated for the election in which the individual is providing it as proof, of residency or identity; voter notification card issued by a governmental agency; public housing identification card issued by a governmental agency; lease or rental statement or agreement issued by a governmental agency; student identification card issued by a governmental agency; tuition statement or bill issued by a governmental agency; insurance plan card or drug discount card issued by a governmental agency; discharge certificates, pardons, or other official documents issued to the individual by a governmental agency in connection with the resolution of a criminal case, indictment, sentence, or other matter; public transportation authority senior citizen and disabled discount cards issued by a governmental agency; identification documents issued by governmental disability agencies; identification documents issued by government homeless shelters and other government temporary or transitional facilities; drug prescription issued by a government doctor or other governmental health care provider; (R) property tax statement issued by a governmental agency; vehicle registration issued by a governmental agency; or vehicle certificate of ownership issued by a governmental agency.

”

State profile

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Endorsers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Related measures

Transportation measures on the ballot in 2018
State	Measures
Colorado	Colorado Proposition 109: "Fix Our Damn Roads" Transportation Bond Initiative d
Maine	Maine Question 3: Transportation Bond Issue a
Missouri	Missouri Proposition D: Gas Tax Increase, Olympic Prize Tax Exemption, and Traffic Reduction Fund Measure d
Louisiana	Louisiana Amendment 4: No Dedication of Transportation Trust Fund Revenue to State Police Amendment a
Colorado	Colorado Proposition 110, "Let's Go Colorado" Transportation Bond and Sales Tax Increase Initiative d
California	California Proposition 6: Vote on Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative d

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Transportation on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws
• California state budget and finances

News and analysis

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

External links

• Assembly Constitutional Amendment 5

Support

• Yes on Prop. 69 website
• Yes on Prop. 69 Facebook
• Yes on Prop. 69 Twitter

Opposition

Email links to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California 2018 Transportation Lockbox Amendment. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 69, Transportation Taxes and Fees Lockbox and Appropriations Limit Exemption Amendment (June 2018) - Google News