California Proposition 70, Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue 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 70
Election date June 5, 2018
Topic State and local government budgets, spending and finance and Energy
Status d Defeated
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 70, the Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue Amendment, was on the ballot in California as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on June 5, 2018. The measure was defeated.

A "yes" vote supported this amendment to require a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature in 2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for revenue from the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.

A "no" vote opposed this amendment to require a one-time two-thirds vote in each legislative chamber in 2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for revenue from the state's cap-and-trade program.

Election results

California Proposition 70
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		2,229,468	37.31%
No		3,746,434	62.69%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

What would Proposition 70 have required?

Proposition 70 would have required a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature to use revenue from the State Air Resources Board's auctioning or sale of greenhouse gas emissions allowances under the state's cap-and-trade program. To make sure no revenue was spent without the two-thirds vote, the measure would have placed all revenue from the cap-and-trade program in a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund beginning on January 1, 2024. The vote would have taken place anytime on or after January 1, 2024. Revenue would have been collected in this reserve fund until the one-time two-thirds vote occurred. If legislators failed to secure a two-thirds vote, revenue would have kept collecting in the reserve fund and the state would be unable to spend the revenue. Between January 1, 2024, and the passage of the spending bill, the measure would have also suspended a sales tax exemption for manufacturers, increasing tax revenue about $260 million per year. If legislators succeeded at securing a two-thirds vote, revenue would have begun to fill the non-reserve Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, which requires a simple majority vote to use money from.

How was Proposition 70 tied to cap-and-trade negotiations in California?

Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42) designed Proposition 70. The amendment resulted from negotiations between Gov. Brown (D), legislative Democrats, and legislative Republicans over the future of the state’s cap-and-trade program. The negotiations resulted in three bills passing on July 17, 2017―an extension of cap-and-trade until 2030 (AB 398), new air pollution regulations (AB 617), and Proposition 70 (ACA 1). As Proposition 70 would have required a two-thirds (66.6 percent) vote of the state legislature to spend revenue from the program, members of the minority party may have been needed to pass a spending plan. As of January 2018, Democrats were the majority party and controlled two-thirds of the seats in both the state Senate and state Assembly. Republicans were the minority party in both chambers. Larry Gerston, a professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University, said, "This is one of those “politics makes strange bedfellows” situations."

Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title was as follows:

“

Requires Legislative Supermajority Vote Approving Use of Cap-and-trade Reserve Fund. Legislative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary was as follows:

“

Beginning in 2024, cap-and-trade revenues will accumulate in a reserve fund. These cap-and-trade revenues cannot be used unless the Legislature authorizes such use by a two-thirds majority. On the effective date of any such authorization, the requirement that new revenues accumulate in this reserve fund will expire. Suspends certain tax exemptions, including for equipment used in manufacturing and research and development, beginning in 2024, until the effective date of any such authorization.

”

Fiscal impact statement

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Potential temporary increase in state sales tax revenue from the sale of manufacturing and certain other equipment beginning in 2024. Amount could range from no increase to a few hundred million dollars annually. Possible change in the mix of cap-and-trade funding provided to state and local programs.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XX, California Constitution

The measure would have added a Section 24 to Article XX of the California Constitution. The following language would have been added: Note: Hover over the text and scroll to see the full text.

SEC. 24.

(a) The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund is hereby created as a special fund in the State Treasury.

(b) For the time period specified in subdivision (d) only, all moneys collected by the State Air Resources Board from the auction or sale of allowances pursuant to a market-based compliance mechanism established pursuant to the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Division 25.5 (commencing with Section 38500) of the Health and Safety Code) shall be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution, moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund shall be available upon appropriation by the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring, for the same purposes applicable on January 1, 2024, to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created pursuant to Section 16428.8 of the Government Code.

(d) Subdivision (b) shall apply beginning January 1, 2024, and until the effective date of legislation that contains an appropriation from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund. After the effective date of that legislation, all new moneys collected pursuant to a market-based compliance mechanism shall be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, created pursuant to Section 16428.8 of the Government Code.

(e) Section 6377.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code shall not apply to sales that occur while the moneys specified in subdivision (b) are being deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund, but shall resume on the effective date of legislation identified in subdivision (d).

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 and Sacramento County Superior Court wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 16, and the FRE is -4. The word count for the ballot title is 15, and the estimated reading time is 4 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 14, and the FRE is 29. The word count for the ballot summary is 75, and the estimated reading time is 20 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

Supporters

Officials

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
• State Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42)

Organizations

• California Chamber of Commerce
• Rural County Representatives of California

Arguments

• California Chamber of Commerce said, "The CalChamber Board voted to support this measure because ACA 1 will encourage bipartisan support for an expenditure plan and allow for a process to negotiate expenditures that furthers the goals of the Legislature as a whole. The pause on expenditures will allow time to evaluate the efficacy of programs that are being continuously funded."

Official arguments

Gov. Jerry Brown (D), Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42), and Allan Zaremberg, president of California Chamber of Commerce, wrote an official argument in support of Proposition 70:

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 70 TO PROTECT TAXPAYERS AND OUR ECONOMY AND ENSURE CALIFORNIA CONTINUES ITS LEADERSHIP ON CLIMATE CHANGE. California’s ambitious plan to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions PASSED WITH SUPPORT FROM DEMOCRATIC AND REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS and more than 150 organizations representing agriculture; environment; clean energy and technology; business; labor; firefighters; public health professionals; economists; and newspaper editorial boards from across the state. PROPOSITION 70 HELPS ENSURE THAT MONEY FOR PRIORITY PROGRAMS IS NOT DIVERTED BY POLITICIANS FOR PET PROJECTS. It is essential that future climate change revenues continue to reduce emissions and provide benefits to all Californians. Proposition 70 provides a strong safeguard against any effort to undermine this goal. It forces two-thirds of the legislature to come together in 2024 to evaluate if the money has been spent wisely and beneficially for the good of all Californians. PROPOSITION 70 SAFEGUARDS CALIFORNIA’S HISTORIC CLIMATE CHANGE PROGRAM WHICH PROTECTS OUR ENVIRONMENT, ENHANCES OUR ECONOMY, AND CREATES JOBS. The future of California’s signature climate change program depends on demonstrating that we can protect our environment while growing our economy. To accomplish this goal Proposition 70 helps ensure that the money to reduce greenhouse gases is spent in the wisest and most cost effective way; that protects taxpayers and our most polluted communities. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 70 Proposition 70 is part of a historic bipartisan effort to achieve our climate goals, retain good paying jobs to sustain our growing economy, and protect air quality and public health.

Opposition

Protect Climate Funds and Stop Prop 70 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 70.

Opponents

Officials

• Sen. Ben Allen (D-26)
• Asm. Todd Gloria (D-78)

Parties

• California Democratic Party

Organizations

• Coalition for Clean Air
• Asian Pacific Environmental Network
• Climate Hawks Vote
• Environmental Health Coalition
• SoCal 350 Climate Action
• 350 Bay Area
• Friends of the Earth
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Courage Campaign
• The Trust for Public Land
• Center for Biological Diversity
• NextGen America
• Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
• Fossil Free California
• California Interfaith Power & Light
• Sierra Club California
• SEIU California
• Communication Workers of America
• California Labor Federation
• Mi Familia Vota

Individuals

• Tom Steyer

Arguments

Chris Chavez, Deputy Policy Director for the Coalition for Clean Air, said the amendment "could create major gridlock for California’s climate investment." He stated:

“

Supposedly, ACA 1’s two-thirds vote requirement in 2024 is to ensure that cap and trade allocations maintain support from the state Legislature. We agree that it makes sense for the program’s allocations to be reviewed, but the Legislature should do that every year through the budget process, and there’s no valid reason to set up an anti-democratic two-thirds hurdle. ... A two-thirds vote gives polluters more leverage in how cap-and-trade funding is spent after 2024. The fact is, ACA 1 itself was a part of a deal to get a two-thirds vote for the cap-and-trade extension. When a two-thirds vote was required to approve California’s budget, legislative hostage-taking, gimmicks and pork barrel spending were part and parcel of the process.

”

Official arguments

Sen. Ben Allen (D-26), Asm. Todd Gloria, and Helen L. Hutchinson, president of the League of Women Voters of California, wrote the official argument against Proposition 70 found in the state's voter guide:

NO ON PROPOSITION 70 Proposition 70 grew out of an oil industry-backed effort to derail the state’s premiere program to curb harmful air pollution. According to the Los Angeles Times, the industry spent millions of dollars lobbying to water down California’s commitment to clean air policies that reduce our dependence on high-polluting fossil fuels. Proposition 70 will increase legislative gridlock, undermine our clean energy progress, and empower special interests who are out of step with the majority of Californians. It doesn’t deserve your support. CLEAN AIR AND ENERGY POLICIES ARE WORKING A key component of California’s clean air strategy is a program called Cap and Trade that requires polluters to reduce their emissions or pay into a fund. This fund is used to increase energy efficiency in homes, businesses and schools, provide consumer rebates that make electric and hybrid cars more affordable, increase public transit, clean up dirty, heavy-duty trucks that pollute neighborhoods, and other successful anti-pollution programs. A RECIPE FOR GRIDLOCK By requiring a 2/3 supermajority vote of the legislature to allocate the funds paid by polluters, Proposition 70 would change this effective system and empower a small minority of politicians to divert the funds away from environmental priorities and prevent them from being spent to reduce pollution and provide needed transportation, housing and energy services to our communities. Californians will remember the painful deal-making to pass a state budget when that also required a 2/3 vote. Many months passed without a budget, and the deals became more desperate and more compromised by special interests as time passed. The voters put an end to that dysfunction back in 2010 when they changed the vote required for a budget to majority. We shouldn’t return to that broken system. LACK OF TRANSPARENCY Proposition 70 was the result of a backroom deal. Normally, it takes about nine months for a bill to pass the legislature. Measures typically have several hearings with the details studied and discussed. In contrast, Prop. 70 passed in only four days, without any hearing and without any opportunity for public comment. If it were such a great idea, why was it rushed through in secrecy? WHO DO YOU TRUST? The oil companies and a small group of politicians support efforts like Proposition 70 that weaken our state’s clean energy policies. Opposing Proposition 70 are good government groups like the League of Women Voters of California, and the state’s most respected environmental and social justice organizations including the California League of Conservation Voters, Natural Resources Defense Council, Coalition for Clean Air and California Environmental Justice Alliance. The Sierra Club California says the law behind this ballot measure would “delay urgent expenditures for climate, air quality, and other identified statewide and local priorities.” We urge you to vote No on Proposition 70 because it’s bad for the environment, bad for our economy, bad for good government, and could undo years of progress toward a cleaner future.

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$0.00
Opposition:	$55,544.09

There was one ballot measure committee registered in support of Proposition 70. The committee was Assemblyman Chad Mayes Ballot Measure Committee to Support ACA 1/Proposition 70, which did not raise or expend funds.

There was one ballot measure committee registered in opposition to Proposition 70. The committee was Protect Climate Funds and Stop Prop 70, CEJA Action Committee. The committee raised $55,544 and spent $45,194.

See Forward Fund, Inc. contributed $10,000 to the opposition. NextGen CA Committee provided $6,000 and Thomas Steyer, an investor and donor to progressive causes, provided a $5,000.

Support

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

Committees in support of Proposition 70 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Assemblyman Chad Mayes Ballot Measure Committee to Support ACA 1/Proposition 70 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Total $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

Totals in support Total raised: $0.00 Total spent: $0.00

Opposition

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

Committees in opposition to Proposition 70 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Protect Climate Funds and Stop Prop 70, CEJA Action Committee $41,359.00 $14,185.09 $31,008.44 Total $41,359.00 $14,185.09 $31,008.44

Totals in opposition Total raised: $55,544.09 Total spent: $45,193.53

Donors

The following were the top six donors who contributed to the opposition committee:

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
See Forward Fund, Inc.	$10,000.00	$0.00	$10,000.00
NextGen CA Committee	$6,000.00	$0.00	$6,000.00
Thomas Steyer	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council Issues PAC	$5,000.00	$0.00	$5,000.00
California Trust for Public Land Action Fund	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00
Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund	$3,000.00	$0.00	$3,000.00

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

Media editorials

Support

• The San Diego Union-Tribune said, "The measure is best seen as a clunky way to achieve a worthy goal: forcing a supermajority of the Legislature to take responsibility for continued funding of the state’s massively troubled $77 billion bullet-train project, which Brown wants to get a substantial cut of all cap-and-trade revenue in coming years."

Opposition

• The Desert Sun said, "In the past, when supermajorities were required to pass the state budget Sacramento routinely became bogged down in long delays and state government uncertainty trickled down into the lives of everyday people. Needing to get to that two-thirds threshold didn’t necessarily spur thoughtful decision-making, but instead usually led to giveaways for projects to individual lawmakers in order to to secure their vote."
• Los Angeles Times said, "In fact, they should reject this pointless exercise. There is little indication that a supermajority vote in 2024 would result in more responsible spending, as supporters of Prop 70 claim. History shows that when legislators need to find enough votes to reach a two-thirds threshold, they are more likely to end up funding pet projects to persuade (or buy the votes of) on-the-fence lawmakers."
• The Mercury News said, "But Prop. 70’s two-thirds approval requirement would, if anything, give more power and money to special interests seeking their pieces of the revenue pie. In sum, there’s nothing to be gained from Prop. 70. It’s bad public policy and a waste of voters’ time. Vote no."
• Monterey County Herald said, "Proposition 70, on the June 5 California primary ballot, is an attempt by opponents of California’s landmark cap-and-trade law regulating greenhouse gas pollution to hoodwink voters into giving Republicans and the oil industry more control of how the money is spent. It’s a bad idea and should be rejected."
• The Orange County Register said, "All things considered, we don’t think voters need to be party to political games like this. This measure won’t stop the bullet train, nor will it ensure anything in particular. If anything, it might just encourage more miscalculated negotiations like the one that produced this. Vote no on Proposition 70."
• The Press-Democrat said, "This is a head-scratcher. It would require lawmakers to approve a spending plan for revenue from the state’s cap-and-trade auctions by a two-thirds majority. But just once. Six years from now. No."
• The Sacramento Bee said, "No. In the last-minute deal-making that extended California’s landmark cap-and-trade law regulating greenhouse gas pollution, Brown gave Republicans this gift in exchange for their critical votes. ... But if Californians want to change the way cap-and-trade money is spent, they have an easier fix: Elect Republicans and put them in control of the Legislature. This measure is an attempted end run around a much-needed public works project that a lot of Californians want and that the majority of voters approved, at the behest, by the way, of a Republican governor."
• San Francisco Chronicle said, "Instead of a simple majority in approving where cap-and-trade money goes, this measure obliges a two-thirds vote in 2024, a higher threshold that gives Republican skeptics a chance to curb the program. Though Brown felt he needed to put that concession on the ballot, voters shouldn’t feel obliged. A majority of elected lawmakers in the Legislature oversee the budget. It doesn’t make sense to boost the number up to a supermajority of two-thirds in six years. Vote No."

Background

Development of cap-and-trade in California

AB 32

In 2006, the state government enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). The act required the State Air Resources Board (SARB) to monitor and regulate the emission of greenhouse gases in California. SARB was instructed to determine what the greenhouse gas emission output was in 1990, and then adopt rules and regulations to decrease the state's output to 1990-levels by 2020.

Asm. Fran Pavley (D-27) introduced AB 32 into the California State Legislature on December 6, 2004. The bill remained in the committee process until August 30, 2006. The California Senate approved the bill 23-14. The California House of Representatives approved the bill 47-32. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) signed AB 32 on September 27, 2006.

SARB voted 9-1 to adopt a cap-and-trade program as a method for meeting the requirements of AB 32 in December 2010. Mary Nichols, chairperson of the board, said, "This program is the capstone of our climate policy, and will accelerate California’s progress toward a clean energy economy." John Telles, the board member who voted against cap-and-trade, stated, "This is a regressive tax on the most economically disadvantaged communities." The program was implemented in late 2012.

As designed in 2012, the program caps greenhouse gas emissions at a specific amount each year, and the cap decreases about 2 or 3 percent annually until reaching 1990 emission levels. SARB determines the number of emission allowances to provide for free, auction, or sell to industrial businesses that emit 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide, a type of greenhouse gas, each annual quarter. In 2012, each allowance permitted the emission of one ton of carbon dioxide. As the cap decreases over time, the number of emissions allowances also decreases. At the first auction, held on November 14, 2012, all 23.1 million allowances for 2012 emissions were sold. Businesses that purchased more allowances than were necessary are allowed to sell allowances to businesses that purchased too few allowances. The November 2012 auction brought in $289 million, which was divided between investor-owned utilities and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund.

Proposition 23

In March 2010, Asm. Dan Logue (R-3) and Ted Costa, president of People's Advocate, launched an initiative campaign to suspend AB 32 until the state unemployment rate dropped to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Supporters collected the required 433,971 signatures, and the initiative was certified as Proposition 23 for the election on November 2, 2010. Voters rejected the proposition 62 percent to 38 percent.

The campaign in support of Proposition 23, named Yes on 23, received $10.7 million from contributors, including petroleum businesses Valero and Tesoro. Valero contributed $5.1 million, and Tesoro contributed $2.2 million. Opponents organized as Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs, and received $25.3 million to defeat Proposition 23. Thomas Steyer was the largest contributor to the campaign, donating $5 million.

Bills related to extending cap-and-trade in California

AB 398

Assembly Bill 398 (AB 398) extended SARB's power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions beyond December 31, 2020, to December 31, 2030. SARB was instructed to decrease the state's emissions output to 40 percent of 1990-levels by 2030.

Through negotiations between Gov. Brown, Democrats, and Republicans, AB 398 was also designed to repeal the state's fire fee and extend the manufacturer's sales tax exemption. AB 398 suspended the fire prevention fee until January 1, 2031. As of 2017, about 800,000 state residents lived an area subject to the annual $152.33 fee, although 98 percent of them paid $117.33 due to a $35 discount. The fee program was designed to spend revenue on grants to fire safe councils, tree removal and chipping projects, other fire prevention activities, and administration. AB 398 also extended the manufacturer's partial sales and use tax exemption, which was set to expire on July 1, 2022, to July 1, 2030. That tax exemption was also given to agricultural businesses and utilities under AB 398.

AB 398 needed to receive a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature to pass. Both chambers voted on July 17, 2017. The California Senate voted 28-12 to pass the bill. At least 27 senators needed to approve the bill. Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-8) joined the chamber's 27 Democrats in voting yes. The California State Assembly voted 55-22, with two members not voting, to pass the bill. Democrats held 54 seats in the state Assembly. Seven Republicans joined 48 Democrats to pass the bill. Three Democrats joined 18 Republicans to vote against the bill.

AB 617

Assembly Bill 617 (AB 617) was designed to authorize local air districts to require oil refineries and other facilities to replace equipment with the best available retrofit control technology (BARCT) no later than December 31, 2023. SARB was tasked with maintaining a statewide clearinghouse that identifies BARCT and related technologies to control toxic air contaminants. AB 617 increased penalties on air pollution law violations from non-vehicular sources from $1,000 per day to $5,000 per day and tacked this amount to changes in the California Consumer Price Index. The bill also tasked SARB with identifying communities with high cumulative exposure burdens to toxic air contaminants.

Impact of party control of state government

See also: Party control of California state government

Proposition 70 would have required a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature in 2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for revenue from the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases. As of 2018, Democrats controlled two-thirds of the seats in both chambers of the state legislature, along with the governor's office. As the spending legislation would be a statute, the governor would also need to sign off on the plan.

Between 1992 and 2018, Democrats controlled both chambers of the legislature and governor's office—a status known as a trifecta—for a total of 13 years. The following table below illustrates partiasan control of the state Senate, state Assembly, and governor's office between 1992 and 2018:

Year	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	00	01	02	03	04	05	06	07	08	09	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
Governor	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	R	R	R	R	R	R	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Senate	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D
Assembly	D	D	D	S	R	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D	D

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 chamber of the state legislature during one legislative session.

Assembly Constitution Amendment 1 (ACA 1) was introduced into the California State Legislature on December 5, 2016. The introduced version of ACA 1 did not address state funds, greenhouse gases, or the cap-and-trade program. Rather, ACA 1 was designed to change the effective date of ballot measures. On July 13, 2017, the Senate Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee voted 5 to 0 to change ACA 1 to create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund.

On July 17, 2017, the California Senate voted 27 to 13 to pass ACA 1. As a two-thirds vote was required, 27 senators needed to vote yes on the amendment. While Democrats controlled 27 seats in the state Senate, Sen. Ben Allen (D-26) voted against the measure. Sen. Tom Berryhill (R-8) joined with the other 26 Democrats to pass ACA 1.

The California Assembly suspended chamber rules to allow a vote on ACA 1 on July 17, rather than waiting until July 19. The state Assembly voted 59 to 11 with nine members not voting. Nine Democrats opposed referring the amendment, and 20 Republicans supported ACA 1. The amendment was chaptered on July 18, 2017.

Vote in the California State Senate July 17, 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	13	0
Total percent	67.50%	32.50%	0.00%
Democrat	26	1	0
Republican	1	12	0

Vote in the California State Assembly July 17, 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	59	11	9
Total percent	74.68%	13.92%	11.39%
Democrat	39	9	6
Republican	20	2	3

Mayes v. Padilla

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Ballot language; whether ballot language written by state attorney general is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70
Court: Superior Court of Sacramento County, California
Ruling: Ruled in favor of the plaintiff, requiring the attorney general to change the ballot title.
Plaintiff(s): Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42)	Defendant(s): Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
Plaintiff argument: Attorney General Xavier Becerra's (D) ballot language for Proposition 70 "is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70" because (1) the measure does not limit the legislature's authority, but requires a one-time supermajority vote, and (2) the measure does not limit the legislature from using revenue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.	Defendant argument: As of March 8, 2018, the offices of the secretary of state and attorney general had not commented on the lawsuit.

  Source: Superior Court of Sacramento County

On March 5, 2018, Asm. Chad Mayes (R-42), who was the legislative author of Proposition 70, sued Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) over the ballot language for the proposition found in the voter pamphlet. Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) wrote the ballot language for Proposition 70. The language that was proposed stated:

“

LIMITS LEGISLATURE’S AUTHORITY TO USE CAP-AND-TRADE REVENUES TO REDUCE POLLUTION. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Beginning in 2024, cap-and-trade revenues will accumulate in a special fund. These cap-and-trade revenues cannot be used unless the Legislature authorizes such use by a two-thirds majority. On the effective date of any such authorization, the requirement that new revenues accumulate in this special fund will expire. Suspends certain tax exemptions, including for equipment used in manufacturing and research and development, beginning in 2024, until the effective date of any such authorization.

”

Asm. Mayes said the language “is false, misleading, and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70." He said that the title, in particular, would mislead voters. The offices of Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) and Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) did not release statements in response to the litigation. Mayes made two arguments in his legal complaint:

1. "... the title and summary mischaracterize [Proposition 70] as placing a “limit” on the Legislature’s authority to use auction revenue to reduce pollution. In fact, Proposition 70 simply requires a higher vote threshold (two-thirds instead of a majority) for a one-time appropriation in 2024."

2. "perhaps most problematic, the title is misleading because it implies Proposition 70 limits or prohibits the Legislature from “use[ing]” the auction revenue to reduce pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, when in fact the exact opposite is true."

Asm. Mayes asked the court to strike the attorney general’s ballot language and consider adding the following italized ballot language to the voter pamphlet:

“

REQUIRES THE LEGISLATURE TO APPROVE A GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION RESERVE FUND SPENDING PLAN BY A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE IN 2024. LEGISLATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Beginning in 2024, money from the state’s market-based compliance mechanism will accumulate in a special reserve fund. These moneys will be held in the reserve fund until a two-thirds majority of the legislature authorizes a spending plan. On the effective date of any such authorization, the requirement that new revenues accumulate in this special fund will expire. Suspends certain tax exemptions, including for equipment used in manufacturing and research and development, beginning in 2024, until the effective date of any such authorization.

”

On March 12, 2018, Judge Allen Sumner ruled in favor of Asm. Mayes, ordering Attorney General Becerra to change the ballot title to "Requires Legislative Supermajority Vote Approving Use of Cap-and-Trade Reserve Fund." Becerra agreed to change the ballot title. Asm. Mayes responded, "I'm glad that the Attorney General agreed that Prop. 70 does not limit the Legislature’s authority to use revenues from the sale of greenhouse gas emission permits to reduce pollution, but instead requires a supermajority to approve a spending plan." According to The Desert Sun, Becerra's office did not comment.

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...

See also

2018 measures

• 2018 ballot measures
• Energy on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws
• Energy policy in California

News and analysis

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

External links

• Assembly Constitutional Amendment 1

Support

Email links to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Opposition

• Stop Prop. 70 website

Recent news

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

California Proposition 70, Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue Amendment (June 2018) - Google News