Become part of the movement for unbiased, accessible election information. Donate today.
California Proposition 91, Dedicated Transportation Funds Initiative (February 2008)
| California Proposition 91 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date February 5, 2008 | |
| Topic Transportation and State and local government budgets, spending and finance | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type Constitutional amendment | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 91 was on the ballot as an initiated constitutional amendment in California on February 5, 2008. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported prohibiting certain funds generated from gas taxes dedicated for transportation projects to be deposited into the state's General Fund. |
A "no" vote opposed prohibiting certain funds generated from gas taxes dedicated for transportation projects to be deposited into the state's General Fund, thereby maintaining the existing conditions that permit borrowing dedicated gas tax revenue for the General Fund. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 91 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 3,427,588 | 41.69% | ||
|
|
4,794,776 | 58.31% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 91 would have prohibited funds dedicated for transportation from being transferred to the General Fund except in certain circumstances. Loans of transportation funds would have been allowed for cash flow purposes but would have to be repaid within 30 days of adopting a new state budget. In 2008, the total estimated revenue generated by gas and other certain motor vehicle taxes was $9 billion. Proposition 91 would have also required that funds borrowed from the Transportation Investment Fund, between 2003 and 2005 be repaid by June 30, 2017, according to an established payment schedule.[1]
It was intended to alter some of the provisions of Proposition 42 (2002).
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 91 was as follows:
| “ | Transportation Funds. Initiative Constitutional Amendment. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
• Prohibits certain motor vehicle fuel sales and use taxes, that are earmarked for the Transportation Investment Fund, from being retained in the General Fund. Currently, such taxes may be retained if Governor issues a proclamation, a special statute is enacted by a 2/3 vote of the Legislature, repayment occurs within three years, and certain other conditions are met. • Requires repayment by 6/30/17 of such vehicle fuel taxes retained in General Fund from 7/1/03 to 6/30/08. Currently, repayment is generally required by 6/30/16. • Changes how and when General Fund borrowing of certain transportation funds is allowed. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Constitutional changes
If Proposition 91 had been approved, it would have:
- Amended Section 6 of Article XIX
- Repealed Section 1 of Article XIX A
- Repealed Section 1 of Article XIX B
- Added a new Article XIX C
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
Increases stability of state funding for highways, streets, and roads and may decrease stability of state funding for public transit. May reduce stability of certain local funds for public transit.[2] |
” |
Support
Supporters
- Southern California Transit Advocates, a nonprofit organization supporting public transportation[3]
- California Republican Assembly[3]
- Kern Council of Governments[3]
Official arguments
No official arguments were submitted in support of Proposition 91 for the state's voter guide.[1]
Opposition
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 91 for the state's voter guide were submitted by Mark Watts, the executive director of Transportation California, and Jim Earp, the executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs:[1]
| “ |
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. IT’S NO LONGER NEEDED. As the official proponents of this measure, we are encouraging you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 91. In 2006, our coalition qualified this measure for the ballot as a means of stopping the Governor and Legislature from taking the state sales tax on gasoline, which is supposed to be used on transportation projects, and using those funds for non-transportation purposes. As this initiative was being qualified, Governor Schwarzenegger and a bipartisan group of legislators put a different constitutional measure on the November 2006 ballot that also accomplished what Proposition 91 set out to do. That measure, Proposition 1A, was approved by an overwhelming 77% of California voters in November 2006. Passage of Prop. 1A means that state politicians in Sacramento can no longer take our gas tax dollars and use those funds for non-transportation purposes. Because Prop. 1A is now law, hundreds of millions of dollars in existing gasoline sales taxes are being sent each year to local communities for projects to relieve traffic congestion, improve safety, and fund mass transit. By passing Proposition 1A, voters solved the problem of state raids of our gas tax funds. Proposition 91 is no longer needed. We respectfully urge you to vote NO ON PROPOSITION 91.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
As an initiated constitutional amendment, 694,354 signatures were required to qualify Proposition 91 for the ballot.
The petition drive to qualify Proposition 91 for the ballot was launched in January 2006 by the California Alliance for Jobs because they wished to close what they regarded as a loophole in Proposition 42 (March 2002) that allowed legislators to use funds for non-transportation purposes. While collecting signatures, the group was simultaneously working in the California State Legislature for a legislative fix. That work resulted in the state legislature referring Proposition 1A to the November 2006 ballot, where it was approved.
Proposition 91 campaign collected approximately 1 million signatures. The campaign made the decision to submit 600,000 of these signatures, and withhold about 400,000, prior to the time that the state legislature referred Proposition 1A to the ballot. The validity rate of the 600,000 submitted signatures was higher than anticipated, and the measure qualified for the ballot.[4]
See also
External links
- February 5, 2008 voter guide for Propositions 91-93
- Full text of Proposition 91
- February 5, 2008 ballot proposition election returns
- Proposition 91 in the Smart Voter Guide
- Guide to Proposition 91 from the California Voter Foundation
- Summary of donors to and against 91 from Cal-Access
- Donors for and against Proposition 91 from Follow The Money
- Website of the "Yes on Proposition 91" campaign (archival)
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 University of California Hastings, "Proposition 91," accessed February 24, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 San Francisco Chronicle, "Abandoned transportation measure hangs on ballot," January 29, 2008
- ↑ ABC, "Prop. 91 on the ballot for voters," June 30, 2008
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
