California Proposition 6, Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative (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 6
Election date November 6, 2018
Topic Direct democracy measures and Taxes
Status d Defeated
Type Constitutional amendment	Origin Citizens
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 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The ballot measure was defeated.

A yes vote supported this initiative to: repeal fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) and require voter approval (via ballot propositions) for the California State Legislature to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees in the future.

A no vote opposed this initiative, thus: keeping the fuel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), in place and allowing the state legislature to continue to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees through a two-thirds vote of each chamber and without voter approval.

Election results

California Proposition 6
Result		Votes	Percentage
Yes		5,283,222	43.18%
No		6,952,081	56.82%

Results are officially certified.

Source

Overview

How would this ballot initiative have impacted taxes and fees?

As of 2018, increasing a tax in California requires a two-thirds vote of each state legislative chamber and the governor's signature. Proposition 6 would have created the additional step of voter approval (via ballot propositions), along with legislative passage and the governor's signature, to impose, increase, or extend fuel taxes or vehicle fees. The requirement that tax increases receive voter approval would have affected taxes and tax rates enacted after January 1, 2017, meaning fuel taxes and vehicle fees that were created or increased in 2017 or 2018 would be repealed. This would have had the effect of repealing the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), which the state legislature approved along party lines in April 2017.

What was the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017?

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), also known as Senate Bill 1, was enacted into law on April 28, 2017. The RRAA increased the gas tax by $0.12 per gallon, increased the diesel fuel tax by $0.20 per gallon, increased the sales tax on diesel fuels by an additional 4 percentage points, created an annual transportation improvement fee, and created an annual zero-emission vehicles fee. The RRAA was designed to dedicate the revenue to transportation infrastructure. The increased taxes went into effect on November 1, 2017, one fee went into effect in 2018, and the second fee went into effect in 2020. According to the state Senate Appropriations Committee, the RRAA was expected to generate an estimated $52.4 billion between 2017 and 2027. In the California State Legislature, the RRAA had the support of most Democrats (two legislators voted "no"). Most Republicans voted against the RRAA (one legislator voted "yes"). Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the legislation into law. In June 2018, voters approved Proposition 69, which created a constitutional mandate for the legislature to spend RRAA revenue on transportation-related purposes. The RRAA could have a notable impact on state politics in 2018.

Could the ballot initiative have impacted other elections in California?

"It’s a big deal," said Katie Merrill, a Democratic strategist. She added, "This gas tax measure, and especially based on the results of the Orange County recall [of Josh Newman], is going to increase Republican turnout, and that could be problematic for us in taking back these seats." On June 5, 2018, voters in State Senate District 29 recalled Sen. Josh Newman (D), following a recall campaign that focused on Newman's support for the RRAA. DeMaio commented, "Sacramento politicians must be flipping out in panic. Not only are we going to repeal the tax, but it’s going to kick several politicians out of Sacramento." Gov. Brown's spokesman Evan Westrup responded to DeMaio, stating, "Carl and his fellow Trumpites don’t care about California’s crumbling roads and horrible congestion, but the voters of California do. See you in November."

U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters (R-45), who ran for reelection in 2018, said the initiative would help Republicans defend congressional seats in California and keep control of the U.S. House. Carl DeMaio (R), who was involved in the recall against Sen. Newman and launching the ballot initiative, agreed, saying, "It will motivate turnout, and let's be very clear: Republicans have a turnout problem this year." Committees for GOP leadership in the U.S. House—Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.)—had all contributed to the initiative campaign. Gubernatorial candidate John Cox's (R) committee also contributed and campaigned on the initiative.

Michael Quigley, executive director of the pro-RRAA California Alliance of Jobs, responded to congressional Republicans' contributions, saying, "The repeal is being funded by D.C. Republicans and their party leaders for purely political reasons; to re-elect Republican politicians." He added, "It’s some of the more cynical politics that we’ve seen in a long time." John Vigna, a spokesman for the California Democratic Party, commented, "Republicans are deluding themselves if they think this is a silver bullet that will save them from the Trump-sized anchor weighing them down. ... The condition of our infrastructure is an embarrassment that hurts the entire economy of the state, and Californians want it fixed."

Who was behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

Around $51.88 million had been raised for and against Proposition 6. More than 90 percent of the aggregate total was raised by opponents of the ballot initiative. Yes on Prop 6, Repeal the Gas Tax, a ballot measure committee, led the campaign in support of Proposition 6. Yes on Prop 6 and allied committees had raised $5.16 million, including $467,143 from the California Republican Party, $300,000 from Kevin McCarthy's campaign committee, and $250,000 from John Cox's campaign committee.

The Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements, which supported Proposition 69, reorganized as No on Prop 6 on July 3, 2018. No on Prop 6 and allied committees had raised $46.72 million. Around $1.64 million was spent on Proposition 69 and local ballot measures, leaving the committees with $45.08 million to oppose Proposition 6. The largest contributors to the opposition committees included the California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee ($5.03 million), Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC ($1.90 million), and Southern California Partnership for Jobs ($1.72 million).

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Eliminates Recently Enacted Road Repair and Transportation Funding by Repealing Revenues Dedicated for those Purposes. Requires any Measure to Enact Certain Vehicle Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Submitted to and Approved by the Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

”

Ballot summary

The official ballot summary was as follows:

“

Repeals a 2017 transportation law’s tax and fee provisions that pay for repairs and improvements to local roads, state highways, and public transportation. Requires the Legislature to submit any measure enacting specified taxes or fees on gas or diesel fuel, or on the privilege to operate a vehicle on public highways, to the electorate for approval.

”

Fiscal impact

The fiscal impact statement was as follows:

“

Reduced annual state transportation tax revenues of $2.9 billion in 2018-19, increasing to $4.9 billion annually by 2020-21. These revenues would primarily have supported state highway maintenance and rehabilitation, local streets and roads, and mass transit. In addition, potentially lower transportation tax revenues in the future from requiring voter approval of such tax increases, with the impact dependent on future actions by the Legislature and voters.

”

Constitutional changes

See also: Article XIII A, California Constitution

The measure would have added a Section 3.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution. The following text would have been added:

Section 3.5

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Legislature shall not impose, increase or extend any tax, as defined in section 3, on the sale, storage, use or consumption of motor vehicle gasoline or diesel fuel, or on the privilege of a resident of California to operate on the public highways a vehicle, or trailer coach, unless and until that proposed tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote.

(b) This section does not apply to taxes on motor vehicle gasoline or diesel fuel, or on the privilege of operating a vehicle or trailer coach at the rates that were in effect on January 1, 2017. Any increase in the rate of such taxes imposed after January 1, 2017 shall cease to be imposed unless and until approved by the electorate as required by this section.

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 attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure. The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 15, and the FRE is 7. The word count for the ballot title is 38, and the estimated reading time is 10 seconds. The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 16, and the FRE is 31. The word count for the ballot summary is 55, and the estimated reading time is 14 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.

Conflict regarding ballot language

The official ballot title, written by Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D), read, "Eliminates Recently Enacted Road Repair and Transportation Funding by Repealing Revenues Dedicated for those Purposes." Reform California, which helped launch the campaign in support of Proposition 6, said the official ballot title didn't mention the tax repeal and should have read, "Gas Tax Repeal," and stated, "[Proposition 6] would repeal gas and car tax hikes that were approved by the State Legislature."

Support

Yes on Prop 6, Repeal the Gas Tax led the campaign in support of the ballot initiative.

Carl DeMaio, a former member of the San Diego City Council, helped launch the campaign. DeMaio, discussing the initiative, stated, "Once we qualify this initiative for the ballot, 2018 will be remembered as the year we had another taxpayer revolt in California – where the outrageous car and gas taxes were reversed by voters and the politicians that enacted those tax hikes are punished at the ballot box."

Supporters

Officials

Incumbents

• Speaker of the U.S. House Paul Ryan (R-1, Wisconsin)
• U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-23)
• U.S. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-1, Louisiana)
• U.S. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-1)
• U.S. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-22)
• U.S. Rep. Ken Calvert (R-42)
• U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters (R-45)
• Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4)
• Sen. Patricia Bates (R-36)
• Asm. Brian Dahle (R-1)
• Asm. James Gallagher (R-3)
• Asm. Travis Allen (R-12)
• Asm. Melissa Melendez (R-67)
• Asm. William Brough (R-73)

Candidates

• John Cox (R), candidate for governor in 2018
• Young Kim (R), candidate for 49th Congressional District
• Josh Harder (D), candidate for 10th Congressional District
• Diane Harkey (R), candidate for 39th Congressional District
• Jessica Morse (D), candidate for 4th Congressional District
• Kimberlin Brown Pelzer (R), candidate for 36th Congressional District
• Katie Porter (D), candidate for 45th Congressional District
• Shannon Grove (R), candidate for State Senate District 16

Parties

• California Republican Party
• Ventura County Republican Party

Organizations

• National Federation of Independent Businesses
• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

Individuals

• Joy Villa, musician

Arguments

Give Voters a Voice provided a list of arguments on the campaign's website:

“

Fact 1: California’s cost of living is skyrocketing and working families can barely keep up. The new gas and car tax hikes can cost a family of four more than $500 per year! That’s not pennies, that’s real money. Fact 2: The gas tax hike is not fair. It is a regressive tax that hits working families and the poor much harder than the wealthy. Fact 3: Californians pay 95.5 cents to the government on every gallon of gas. That’s about $18 in taxes and fees on a typical fill-up – much more than motorists pay in other states. Fact 4: California has a $16 billion budget surplus this year. The Sacramento politicians decided to use it for their own pet projects instead of improving roads, bridges and highways. In fact, the Legislature has actually REDUCED Caltrans funding by 18 percent over the last ten years. Fact 5: 72% of all state motor vehicles related taxes and fees collected by the state are used for programs other than streets, roads and highways. It’s time to end the transportation fund shell game. Fact 6: If the transportation-related taxes and fees we already paid before this new tax increase took effect were spent on transportation – the state would have $5.6 billion annually for transportation needs, without raising taxes.

”

Official arguments

John Cox, 2018 gubernatorial candidate and chairman of Give Voters a Voice, Delores Chavez, president of the Latino American Political Association, and Peggi Buff, president of the California Women’s Leadership Association, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in support of Proposition 6:

“ Vote YES on Proposition 6 to immediately lower the price you pay for gasoline. Prop. 6 does two things. It repeals the massive increase in gas, diesel and car taxes imposed by the Legislature just last year. Second, it requires voter approval for any future attempt by the Legislature to do it again. That’s it. Here’s why Prop. 6 deserves your YES vote: FACT: California’s cost of living is skyrocketing and working families can barely keep up. The new gas and car tax hikes can cost a family of four more than $500 per year! That’s not pennies, that’s real money. FACT: The gas tax hike is not fair. It’s a regressive tax that hits working families and the poor much harder than the wealthy. FACT: Californians pay about 95.5 cents to the government on every gallon of gas. That’s about $18 in taxes and fees on a typical fill-up—much more than motorists pay in other states. FACT: California has a $16 billion budget surplus, but the Sacramento politicians decided to spend billions this year on their pet projects instead of improving roads, bridges and highways. In fact, the Legislature has actually REDUCED Caltrans funding by 18 percent over the last ten years. FACT: 72% of all state motor vehicle related taxes and fees collected by the state are used for programs other than streets, roads and highways. It’s time to end the transportation funding shell game. (Check these facts and learn more at GiveVotersAVoice.com) Don’t be fooled by opponents who claim there is no money to fix roads if Prop. 6 passes. If the transportation-related taxes and fees we already paid before this new tax increase took effect were spent on transportation—the state would have $5.6 billion annually for transportation needs, without raising taxes. That’s why unbiased transportation experts agree the Legislature needs to prioritize its spending and gas and car tax hikes are NOT necessary to fix the roads. “The waste of taxpayer dollars going to transportation is legendary. California could have great roads if it simply adopted basic reforms.”—Robert K. Best, former Director of Caltrans Before raising gas and car taxes by $52 BILLION over 10 years, the Legislature should clean up the corruption and inefficiency that causes California to spend 62% above the national average to build highway lanes. Nearly a million Californians hurt by high gas prices— small-business owners, teachers, retired people, union members—signed the petition to place Prop. 6 on the ballot. Vote YES on Prop. 6 to save your family hundreds of dollars a year by repealing the unnecessary gas and car tax increase—and end the shell game Sacramento politicians play with our transportation funds. Vote YES on Prop. 6 to help California’s struggling middle class and working families make ends meet. Vote YES on Prop. 6 to demand that politicians spend our transportation tax dollars as intended and promised—to maintain our streets, highways and bridges. Vote YES on Prop. 6 to immediately lower gas prices! ”

Opposition

No on Prop 6: Stop the Attack on Bridge & Road Safety led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 6. No on Prop 6 was previously organized as The Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements, which supported Proposition 69.

Opponents

Officials

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D)
• Sen. Bill Dodd (D-3)
• Mayor Eric Garcetti (D), Los Angeles
• Mayor Robert Moon (D), Palm Springs

Municipalities

The following local government boards passed resolutions to oppose Proposition 6:

City of Alameda City of Albany City of Arcata City of Artesia City of Avalon City of Bell City of Belmont City of Benicia City of Blue Lake City of Brisbane City of Burlingame City of Calexico City of Capitola City of Carmel-by-the-Sea City of Carson City of Cathedral City City of Claremont City of Clayton City of Clearlake City of Cloverdale City of Compton City of Concord City of Crescent City City of Cudahy City of Culver City City of Davis City of Delano City of Downey City of Duarte City of East Palo Alto City of El Centro City of El Cerrito City of Fortuna City of Glendale City of Los Angeles City of Hawaiian Gardens City of Hermosa Beach City of Hollister City of Indian Wells City of Inglewood City of Ione City of King City City of Larkspur City of Lathrop City of Long Beach City of Lynwood City of Malibu City of Manteca City of Marina City of Martinez City of Modesto City of Monterey City of Moorpark City of Morgan Hill City of Napa City of National City City of Norwalk City of Novato City of Orinda City of Pacifica City of Palos Verdes Estates City of Pasadena City of Petaluma City of Piedmont City of Pinole City of Placerville City of Pleasant Hill City of Point Arena City of Riverbank City of Rolling Hills Estates City of Salinas City of San Pablo City of San Rafael City of Sand City City of Santa Ana City of Santa Cruz City of Santa Maria City of Santa Monica City of Scotts Valley City of Soledad City of Sonoma City of South Gate City of Stockton City of Suisun City City of Union City City of Vallejo City of Walnut Creek City of Waterford City of West Hollywood City of Willits Town of Corte Madera Town of Danville Town of Fairfax Town of Los Gatos Town of Portola Valley Town of Windsor Town of Yountville Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Glenn County Board of Supervisors Imperial County Board of Supervisors Lake County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Mono County Board of Supervisors Monterey County Board of Supervisors San Benito County Board of Supervisors San Francisco Board of Supervisors San Mateo County Board of Supervisors Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Yolo County Board of Supervisors

Parties

The following political parties opposed Proposition 6:

California Democratic Party Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club Aliso Niguel Democratic Club Burbank Democratic Club Calaveras County Democratic Central Committee Chico Democrats Colusa County Democratic Central Committee Contra Costa Young Democrats Costa Mesa Democratic Club Culver City Democratic Club Democratic Club of West Orange County Democratic Party of Orange County Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley Green Party of Los Angeles County Laguna Woods Democratic Club Los Angeles County Democratic Party Los Angeles County Young Democrats Madera County Democratic Central Committee North Valley Democratic Club Pacific Palisades Democratic Club Palm Desert Greens Democratic Club Riverside County Democratic Party San Diego County Democratic Party San Fernando Valley Young Democrats San Francisco Eastern Neighborhoods Democratic Club Santa Monica Democratic Club Sonoma County Democratic Party Stonewall Democratic Club Torrance Democratic Club Valley Grassroots for Democracy Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club West Hollywood-Beverly Hills Democratic Club

Organizations

The following organizations opposed Proposition 6:

350 Bay Area Action 350 Sacramento Alameda Corridor – East Construction Authority (ACE) Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) Alliance for Community Transit – Los Angeles (ACT – LA) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Southern California American Council of Engineering Companies – California American Institute of Architects (AIA) Los Angeles American Lung Association in California American Public Works Association – Southern California Chapter American Road & Transportation Builders Association American Society of Civil Engineers – California American Traffic Safety Services Association American Traffic Safety Services Association – California Chapter Associated General Contractors – California Associated General Contractors – San Diego Association of Bay Area Governments Association of Equipment Manufacturers Bay Area Council Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce Bike San Gabriel Valley Bike Santa Cruz County Bike The Vote L.A. Bikecar101 Breathe California of Los Angeles County Breathe California Sacramento Region Business Council of San Joaquin County CalAsian Chamber of Commerce California Alliance for Jobs California Alliance for Retired Americans California Asphalt Pavement Association (CalAPA) California Association for Coordinated Transportation (CALACT) California Association for Local Economic Development (CALED) California Association of Councils of Governments (CALCOG) California Association of Highway Patrolmen California Bicycle Coalition California Building Industry Association California Chamber of Commerce California Coalition for Rural Housing California Construction & Industrial Materials Association (CalCIMA) California Contract Cities Association California Electric Transportation Coalition (CalETC) California Green Academy California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce California League of Conservation Voters California Nevada Cement Association California Professional Firefighters California ReLeaf California School Employees Association California Short Line Railroad Association California Small Business Association California State Association of Counties (CSAC) California State Firefighters Association California State Park Rangers Association California Transit Association California Trucking Association California Urban Partnership CALSTART Camarillo Chamber of Commerce Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Capitol Corridor Joint Powers Authority Center for Climate Protection Central City Association of Los Angeles Central Valley Latino Mayors & Elected Officials Coalition Central Valley Rail Working Group Chamber of Commerce Alliance of Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties Chamber of Commerce of the Santa Barbara Region Circulate San Diego Cities Association of Santa Clara County City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Civic Projects Civil Engineers for Infrastructure Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice Climate Resolve Coalition for Clean Air Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA) Coalition for Rapid Transit Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities Coalition for Smarter Transportation Coalition for Sustainable Transportation Coastal Rail Santa Cruz Community Arts Resources Congress of California Seniors Disability Action Center, Chico/Redding Earth Day Los Angeles East Bay Economic Development Alliance East Bay for Everyone East Bay Leadership Council East Bay Regional Park District East LA Community Corporation Eco-Rapid Transit EcoBiz Sustainability Strategy Ecology Action El Dorado County Transportation Commission Emphysema Foundation of America Endangered Habitats League Environmental Defense Fund Environmental Health Coalition Fairfield-Suisun Chamber of Commerce Fixing Angelenos Stuck in Traffic (FAST) Flasher Barricade Association Folsom Area Bicycle Advocates Foothill Environmental Action Club Foothill Transit Fossil Free California Fremont Chamber of Commerce Fresno County Transportation Authority Friends of SMART FuturePorts Garden Grove Chamber of Commerce Gateway Chambers Alliance Global Green Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Golden State Gateway Coalition Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce (GLAAACC) Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce Greater Riverside Chambers of Commerce Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce Green Commuter Harbor Association of Industry and Commerce Harbor Trucking Association Hayward Chamber of Commerce Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Independent Living Partnership Inland Congregations United for Change (ICUC) Inland Empire Economic Partnership Intelligent Transportation Society of California International Slurry Surfacing Association Investing in Place Kern Transportation Foundation LA Voice Lake Area Planning Council Lake Tahoe South Shore Chamber of Commerce LandWatch Monterey County Latin Business Association Latino Environmental Advancement & Policy Project (LEAPP) Latino Water Watch Coalition League of California Cities League of Women Voters of California Local Government Commission Long Beach Transit Los Angeles Aging & Advocacy Coalition Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE) Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce Los Angeles Business Council Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition Los Angeles County Business Federation (LA BizFed) Los Angeles County Economic Development Corporation Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Los Angeles Forward Los Angeles LGBT Center Mendocino Transit Authority Metropolitan Transportation Commission Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) Mi Familia Vota Mono County Local Transportation Commission Monterey Bay Economic Partnership Monterey-Salinas Transit District Move LA NAACP, California State Conference Napa County Bicycle Coalition Napa Valley Transportation Authority Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) North Bay Leadership Council North Lake Tahoe Resort Association/Chamber Northern California Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) Northern California Engineering Contractors Association Orange County Business Council Oxnard Chamber of Commerce Parents for Safe Routes Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Placer County Transportation Planning Agency Planning and Conservation League Policy in Motion Public Advocates, Inc. Rails-to-Trails Conservancy Redondo Beach Chamber of Commerce Redwood City-San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce Regional Economic Association Leaders of California (R.E.A.L. Coalition) Ripon Chamber of Commerce Riverside Transit Agency Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates Sacramento Asian-Pacific Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Transit Advocates and Riders (STAR) Safe Routes to School National Partnership San Diego 350 San Diego Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) San Francisco Chamber of Commerce San Francisco County Transportation Authority San Francisco Transit Riders San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership San Joaquin Joint Powers Authority San Joaquin Regional Rail Commission San Joaquin Regional Transit District San Joaquin Valley Rail Committee San Mateo County Economic Development Association (SAMCEDA) San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) San Mateo County Transportation Authority (TA) San Rafael Chamber of Commerce Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) Santa Clara Chamber of Commerce Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Santa Cruz Area Chamber of Commerce Santa Cruz County Business Council Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Santa Monica Forward Santa Rosa Metro Chamber of Commerce Save the Bay Seamless Bay Area Si Se Puede Fresno, Kern & Kings Sierra Club California Silicon Valley Leadership Group Solano County Transit Solano Transportation Authority Sonoma County Alliance Sonoma County Transportation Authority Sonoma County Transportatoin & Land Use Coalition Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce South Gate Chamber of Commerce Southern California Contractors Association Southern California Partnership for Jobs Southern California Resource Services for Independent Living Southern California Transit Advocates Southwest Concrete Pavement Association St. Barnabas Senior Services Streetsblog California Subway to the Sea Coalition Sunflower Alliance TechNet The California Chapters of the American Public Works Association (APWA) The Campaign for Sustainable Transportation The Construction Industry Force Account Council (CIFAC) The Greenlining Institute The Nature Conservancy The Silicon Valley Organization The Transit Coalition Traffic Management, Inc. TransForm Transportation Agency for Monterey County Transportation Authority of Marin Transportation California Transportation Construction Coalition Union of Concerned Scientists United Contractors Vacaville Chamber of Commerce Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA) West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce Westside Council of Chambers of Commerce YIMBY Action Yolo County Transportation District

Labor

The following labor organizations and unions opposed Proposition 6:

California Labor Federation AFL-CIO State Building & Construction Trades Council of California Service Employees International Union (SEIU) California AFSCME California PEOPLE AFSCME District Council 36 Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 192 Blue Green Alliance Building & Construction Trades Council of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, AFL-CIO California Association of Professional Scientists California Legislative Board – Sheet Metal, Airline, Railroad and Transportation Workers Union (SMART – TD) California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers California State Association of Electrical Workers (CSAEW) California State Council of Laborers California State Pipe Trades Council California Teamsters Joint Public Affairs Council CalPro – IUSD & Nonprofit Local 2345 Civil Service, Paint Makers & Industrial Local 1991 Construction and General Laborers Local 185 Contra Costa Building & Construction Trades Council District Council of Ironworkers California and Vicinity Drywall Finishers Local 1136 Floor Coverers Local 1247 Glaziers & Floor Coverers & Painters Local 1399 Glaziers Local 636 Heat and Frost Insulators, Local 16 Imperial County Building Trades International Brotherhood of Boilermakers International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Locals 6, 11, 47, 100, 234, 302, 340, 428, 440, 441, 551, 569, 617, 639 International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21 Ironworkers Locals 118, 155, 416 Jobs to Move America Kern, Inyo, Mono Counties Building Trades Council Laborers International Union of North America Locals 220 & 1184 Laborers Local 73 Latino Seaside Merchants Los Angeles Black Worker Center Los Angeles Chapter of the Coalition of Labor Union Women Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO Los Angeles/Orange County Building & Construction Trades Council Marin County Building & Construction Trades Council North America’s Building Trades Council Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Operating Engineers Local 3 Painters & Allied Trades District Council 36 Painters Local 52 Painters Local 1036 Plaster Tenders Union Local 1414 Professional Engineers in California Government Sailors’ Union of the Pacific San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council Santa Clara and San Benito Counties Building & Construction Trades Council Sign & Display Local 510 SMART – Northern California Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 Sonoma, Mendocino and Lake Counties Building & Construction Trades Council Southern California Pipe Trades District Council 16 Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Teamsters Locals 952 & 986 Tradeshow & Sign Crafts Local 831 Tradeswomen, Inc. Transport Workers Union Local 250A United Association of Landscape & Irrigation, Sewer & Storm, Underground Industrial Piping Industry Local 345 United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Locals 38, 364, 460 United Association of Plumbers & Steamfitters Locals 62, 159, 290, 342, 343, 398, 403, 442, 582, 761 United Association of Plumbers Local 78 United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters & Welders Local 114 United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Refrigeration Fitters & Service Technicians Local 447 United Association of Plumber, Pipefitters, Steamfitters, HVAC & Welders Local 228 United Association of Plumbers, Pipefitters, Welders and Apprentices Local 484 United Association of Plumbers, Steamfitters & HVAC/R Locals 230, 393, 467 United Association of Sprinkler Fitters Locals 483, 669, 709 United Association of Steam-Refrigeration-Air Conditioning-Pipefitters & Apprentices Local Union 250 United Association of Underground Utility & Landscape Irrigation Local 355

Businesses

The following businesses opposed Proposition 6:

A&A Ready Mixed Concrete, Inc. Alabbasi Construction & Engineering AnchorCM Anvil Builders Inc. Avvantt Partners, LLC BCA Watson Rice LLC Bentacourt Bros. Construction Inc. Brosamer & Wall, Inc. BYD America Cahill Resources, LLC Caliagua Inc. Central Concrete Supply Co., Inc. Chaudhary & Associates, Inc. Comet Electric Inc. Compass Engineering Contractors, Inc. Condon-Johnson & Associaties, Inc. Cornerstone Structural Engineering Group, Inc. CPM Logistics, LLC Creative Housing Associates Desilva Gates Construction Dokken Engineering Ergon Asphalt and Emulsions, Inc. Estolano LeSar Advisors Filippin Engineering First Vanguard Rentals & Sales Inc. Frank Schipper Construction Company G2B Consulting G3 Quality, Inc. Ghilotti Bros., Inc. GILLIG LLC Goodfellow Bros., Inc. California Gordon N. Ball, Inc. Granite Construction Inc. Graniterock Griffith Company Harris & Associates, Inc. Harrison Engineering Inc. Hazard Construction Company HDL Companies HNTB Corporation HSG Safety Supplies, Inc. Hunt Masonry, Inc. InfraStrategies LLC Jacobs Engineering Group Joseph J. Albanese, Inc. Kal Krishnan Consulting Services, Inc. Kiewit Corporation Killefer Flammang Architects Knife River Construction Lone Star Landscape, Inc. Mann Logistics Inc. Marina Landscape, Inc. Mark Thomas McGuire and Hester Meyers Nave MNS Engineers, Inc. Moffet Park Business Group MSL Consulting MuniServices, an Avenu company NCE Nossaman LLP Ortiz Enterprises Inc. Pacific Crest Realty Parsons Corporation Pavement Recycling Systems, Inc. PointC, LLC Preston Pipelines Inc. Proterra, Inc. Psomas Reliance Business Park Rick Engineering Company Riley’s Compliance Consulting Rinker Materials – Napa Plant RNR Construction Inc. Royal Electric Company RTC, Inc. SA Associates Safety Striping Service, Inc. SENER USA Solutions International Steelhead Constructors, Inc. Sundt Construction, Inc. Surfa Slick, LLC Szeremi Sweeping Services LLC Teichert Construction Teichert Materials Teichert Pipelines Telfer Pavement Technologies, LLC Terry Equipment Inc. The Great Lakes Construction Company Thomas Safran & Associates Tolar Manufacturing Company, Inc. Towill, Inc. Vintage Paving Company Vulcan Materials Company Wagner Engineering & Survey, Inc. Wallace Group Way Sine LLC Western Emulsions, Inc. WKE, Inc. Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. WSP USA Zenith Sales of Indiana, LLC

Arguments

• Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said, "I can’t believe the proponents of this ballot measure really want Californians to keep driving on lousy roads and dangerous bridges. Taking billions of dollars a year from road maintenance and repair borders on insanity." He also stated, "This flawed and dangerous measure pushed by Trump’s Washington allies jeopardizes the safety of millions of Californians by stopping local communities from fixing their crumbling roads and bridges."
• Lucy Dunn, president of the Orange County Business Council, stated, "While Congress has repeatedly failed to act, California finally passed a historic measure to invest in fixing roads, repairing unsafe bridges, and reducing traffic congestion. This measure, which won’t be voted on for a year if it goes forward, will have the effect of halting billions of dollars worth of local road repair and improvement projects mid-stream. It will kick people off the job site and completely leave road construction in disarray."
• The California Chamber of Commerce voted to oppose the ballot initiative. The following is an excerpt from the organization's statement to oppose the measure: "Hurt job creation and the state’s economy. Reliable transportation infrastructure is critical to get Californians to work, move goods and services to the market, and support the economy. This measure would eliminate more than 680,000 good-paying jobs and nearly $183 billion in economic growth that will be created fixing California roads over the next decade."

Official arguments

Brian Rice, president of the California Professional Firefighters, Kwame Agyare, regional director of the American Society of Civil Engineers, and Doug Villars, president of the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, wrote the official argument found in the state voter information guide in opposition to Proposition 6:

“ VOTE NO ON PROP. 6: STOP THE ATTACK ON BRIDGE & ROAD SAFETY The California Professional Firefighters, California Association of Highway Patrolmen, American Society of Civil Engineers and first responders urge NO on Prop. 6 because it will stop critical transportation projects and jeopardize the safety of our bridges and roads. Prop. 6 eliminates $5 billion annually in existing funds dedicated to fixing roads, bridges and infrastructure. Prop. 6 will stop projects currently underway throughout California to upgrade bridges and overpasses to meet earthquake safety standards and to improve the safety of our roads. Here are the facts: • California has more than 1,600 bridges and overpasses that are structurally deficient and unsafe. • Eighty nine percent (89%) of counties have roads that are in ‘poor’ or ‘at-risk’ condition. • According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were more than 3,600 fatalities on California roads in 2016. Improving road conditions and roadway safety features have been found to have a significant effect improving traffic safety. PROP. 6 ELIMINATES FUNDING FOR MORE THAN 6,500 ROAD SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS According to the California State Transportation Agency, there are more than 6,500 local transportation improvement projects underway in every California community, including: • 3,727 projects fixing potholes and repaving crumbling, unsafe roads • Repairs or replacement of 554 bridges and overpasses • 453 improvements to public transportation operations and services including buses and rail • 337 projects relieving traffic congestion If Prop. 6 passes, construction will come grinding to a halt in cities and counties throughout the state, wasting money and making road conditions even worse. VOTERS SPOKE LOUD AND CLEAR TO DEDICATE ROAD FUNDING Voters overwhelmingly passed Prop. 69 in June preventing Sacramento politicians from raiding transportation funds and ensuring these funds are only used for transportation improvements. We should not eliminate transportation revenues that are accountable to taxpayers, can’t be diverted, and that voters overwhelmingly dedicated to fixing our roads. PROP. 6 ELIMINATES THOUSANDS OF JOBS AND HURTS OUR ECONOMY The California Chamber of Commerce opposes Prop. 6 because it could eliminate 68,000 jobs annually and $183 billion in economic investments as thousands of road construction projects are halted. PUBLIC SAFETY AND LOCAL LEADERS OPPOSE PROP. 6 • California Professional Firefighters • California Association of Highway Patrolmen • American Society of Civil Engineers • Emergency responders and paramedics • California Chamber of Commerce • California League of Conservation Voters • State Building & Construction Trades Council of California • California State Association of Counties • League of California Cities • California Alliance for Jobs • Latin Business Association • California NAACP • Congress of California Seniors • California League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) “Emergency responders see firsthand the safety risk to drivers caused by crumbling roads, structurally unsafe bridges and outdated infrastructure. By stopping thousands of transportation improvement projects, Prop. 6 will make our roads, bridges and transportation system less safe and lead to more traffic accidents and fatalities.”—Mark Ghilarducci, Director, California Office of Emergency Services STOP THE ATTACK ON BRIDGE & ROAD SAFETY. VOTE NO ON 6. ”

Impact on other elections in California

Both supporters, such as Carl DeMaio (R) and U.S. Rep. Mimi Walters (R-45), and opponents, including Michael Quigley of the California Alliance of Jobs and state Democratic Party spokesperson John Vigna, commented that the ballot initiative could be used as a tactic to help Republicans in competitive elections, particularly congressional elections.

DeMaio (R) said the initiative would help boost turnout among Republicans. He stated, "It will motivate turnout, and let's be very clear: Republicans have a turnout problem this year." U.S. Rep. Walters (R-45), who ran for reelection in 2018, said the initiative would help Republicans defend congressional seats in California and keep control of the U.S. House. Asm. Walters said, "Before the Democrats try to defeat President Trump in 2020, they are targeting Republicans in 2018 -- and nowhere harder than right here in California. Their plan to cripple our Republican president means first cracking Congress ... If the Democrats can't drive us out of California, we will still stand strong everywhere -- one way we will do this is through the direct democracy of the initiative process." David Gilliard, a political consultant for former candidate Greg Haskin (R), said, "Everybody on the Republican side, at least all my clients, are definitely making this an issue. It's generating a lot of support in their districts, because people are angry about this gas tax and the price of gasoline in California."

Contributions from Republicans to initiative support campaign

Committees for GOP leadership in the U.S. House—Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.)—had all contributed to the initiative campaign. Rob Stutzman, a Republican political consultant, said that he thought the donations were made to help the initiative campaign energize voters and thus boost Republican turnout. Stutzman said he was skeptical that the method would work, as he expected opponents to counter the initiative with more fundraising and a counter-message. The following is a list of Republican officials and candidates for office who contributed to the Give Voters a Voice initiative committee:

Contributions from elected officials and candidates
Official	Office sought	Incumbent status	Committee	Amount
Kevin McCarthy	23rd District of U.S. House, California	Yes	Kevin McCarthy for Congress	$300,000.00
John Cox	Governor, California	No	John Cox for Governor 2018	$250,000.00
Ken Calvert	42nd District of U.S. House, California	Yes	Ken Calvert for Congress Committee	$200,000.00
Mimi Walters	45th District of U.S. House, California	Yes	Walters for Congress	$194,303.00
Devin Nunes	22nd District of U.S. House, California	Yes	Devin Nunes Campaign Committee	$100,000.00
Paul Ryan	1st Congressional District, Wisconsin	Yes (Retiring)	Ryan for Congress, Inc.	$50,000.00
Diane Harkey	49th District of U.S. House, California	No	Harkey for Board of Equalization 2018	$25,000.00
Steve Scalise	1st Congressional District, Louisiana	Yes	Scalise for Congress	$25,000.00
Patricia Bates	State Senate District 36, California	Yes	Pat Bates for Senate 2018	$20,993.85
Jim Nielsen	State Senate District 4, California	Yes	Taxpayers for Jim Nielsen - Senate 2018	$15,574.88
Doug LaMalfa	1st Congressional District, California	Yes	Doug LaMalfa Committee	$15,000.00
Young Kim	39th District of U.S. House, California	No	Young Kim for Congress	$9,372.00
Shannon Grove	State Senate District 16, California	No	Grove for Senate 2018	$7,500.00
Brian Dahle	State Assembly District 1, California	Yes	Brian Dahle for Assembly 2018	$5,000.00
Melissa Melendez	State Assembly District 67, California	Yes	Melissa Melendez for Assembly 2018	$4,400.00
William Brough	State Assembly District 73, California	Yes	Bill Brough State Assembly 2018	$1,322.60
Brian Jones	State Senate District 38, California	No	Jones for Senate 2018	$1,000.00
James Gallagher	State Assembly District 3, California	Yes	Gallagher for Assembly 2018	$574.88

Letter to Republican members of Congress

On September 28, 2017, The Sacramento Bee reported that a coalition of 20 business, labor, and local government organizations opposed to the ballot initiative sent letters to California's 14 Republican members of Congress. The letter warned the congressional members not to get involved in the initiative campaign to repeal the RRAA, stating:

“

With so much at stake, our organizations will have no option but to mount a robust and powerful effort in opposition to this initiative, using the voices of California’s business community to counter your efforts. We don’t think your objective is to create new political adversaries. Rather than enter into a battle that is likely only to be a distraction from your primary objective and self-defeating, we would like to engage you in a conversation to discuss the pitfalls of this approach.

”

Dave Gilliard, a consultant for the initiative's backers, said he does not believe the letter would impact the decisions of congressional members. He stated, "I think the Republican Party will be strongly in favor of this, regardless of what the other side does. I don’t think threatening members of Congress is an approach that will work."

Democratic support

Democrats Josh Harder and Katie Porter endorsed California Proposition 6, despite the state Democratic Party's opposition to the ballot initiative. The Democratic candidates are challenging Republican incumbents at the general election on November 6, 2018.

Katie Porter, a law professor, is challenging incumbent Mimi Walters (R) in California's 45th Congressional District. Incumbent Walters also backed Proposition 6, with her congressional campaign committee donating to the Yes on Prop 6 PAC. California's 45th Congressional District includes a part of Orange County, where voters recalled state Sen. Josh Newman (D) on June 5, 2018, following a recall campaign that focused on Newman's support for the gas tax increase. Ben Christoper, a reporter for CALmatters, described Porter's endorsement of Proposition 6 as "the most prominent defection from the Democratic ranks yet." He added, "It also may mark the first time that the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and a single-payer advocate have stood on the same side of a tax policy debate." Josh Harder (D) challenged incumbent Jeff Denham (R) in California's 10th Congressional District. As of September 2018, U.S. Rep. Denham had not endorsed Proposition 6.

Carl DeMaio (R), a leader of the campaign behind Proposition 6, responded to the Democrats' endorsements, saying, "Not only are they not helping repeal to the gas tax but now they are lying to their constituents." DeMaio said Democrats had not responded to his requests to support the campaign at organizing rallies and press conferences nor to give donations or promote the campaign's arguments.

Democratic candidates in support of Proposition 6
Candidate	Incumbent	District
Katie Porter (D)	Mimi Walters (R)	California's 45th Congressional District
Josh Harder (D)	Jeff Denham (R)	California's 10th Congressional District

Campaign finance

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

Total campaign contributions:
Support:	$5,161,188.80
Opposition:	$46,719,587.54

There were four ballot measure committees registered in support of Proposition 6. The committees Yes on Prop 6, Repeal the Gas Tax and Reform California - Yes on 6 received most of the funds. Together, the four support committees received $5.16 million and spent $4.98 million.

The top contributor to the support committees was the California Republican Party, which provided $467,143. Kevin McCarthy for Congress—the congressional committee of U.S. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-23)—donated $300,000. John Cox for Governor 2018—the gubernatorial committee of Republican businessman John Cox—which contributed $250,000.

There were two ballot measure committees registered in opposition to Proposition 6. The committee No on Prop 6: Stop the Attack on Bridge & Road Safety received most of the funds. No on Prop 6 was previously organized as The Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements, which spent about $1.15 million supporting Proposition 69. Together, the committees opposed to Proposition 6 had raised $46.72 million and spent $45.90 million.

The top contributors to the opposition committees were the California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee, which donated $5.03 million, and the Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC, which contributed $1.90 million.

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of Proposition 6.

Committees in support of Proposition 6 Supporting committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures Yes on Prop 6, Repeal the Gas Tax $2,308,661.77 $112,151.13 $2,310,711.33 Vote Yes on Prop 6, a Committee Sponsored and Funded by No New Taxes, a Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association $273,758.10 $9,515.41 $273,758.10 Reform California - Yes on 6 $2,399,834.30 $6,943.09 $2,221,557.78 Voter Protection Alliance, Yes on 6 $50,325.00 $0.00 $50,325.00 Total $5,032,579.17 $128,609.63 $4,856,352.21

Totals in support Total raised: $5,161,188.80 Total spent: $4,984,961.84

Donors

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

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
California Republican Party	$465,000.00	$2,142.83	$467,142.83
Kevin McCarthy for Congress	$300,000.00	$0.00	$300,000.00
John Cox for Governor 2018	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Protect Prop. 13, A Project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Making Investments Majority Insured PAC (MIMI PAC) - Federal Leadership PAC	$239,000.00	$0.00	$239,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to Proposition 6.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 6 Opposing committees Cash contributions In-kind services Cash expenditures No on Prop 6: Stop the Attack on Bridge & Road Safety, Sponsored by Business, Labor, Local Governments and Transportation Advocates $45,943,360.63 $676,368.82 $45,142,833.74 Associated General Contractors Issues Pac, No on SB 1 Repeal $96,917.60 $2,940.49 $81,004.31 Total $46,040,278.23 $679,309.31 $45,223,838.05

Totals in opposition Total raised: $46,719,587.54 Total spent: $45,903,147.36

Donors

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

Donor	Cash	In-kind	Total
California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee	$5,000,000.00	$25,692.42	$5,025,692.42
Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC	$1,900,000.00	$0.00	$1,900,000.00
Southern California Partnership for Jobs (Nonprofit 501(c)(6))	$1,600,000.00	$119,347.72	$1,719,347.72
Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California	$1,525,000.00	$73,868.96	$1,598,868.96
International Union of Operating Engineers	$1,500,000.00	$0.00	$1,500,000.00

Reporting dates

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

Campaign finance reporting dates for November 2018 ballot
Date	Report	Period
1/31/2018	Annual Report for 2017	1/01/2017 - 12/31/2017
4/30/2018	Report #1	1/01/2018 - 3/31/2018
7/31/2018	Report #2	4/01/2018 - 6/30/2018
9/27/2018	Report #3	7/01/2018 - 9/22/2018
10/25/2018	Report #4	9/23/2018 - 10/20/2018
1/31/2019	Annual Report for 2018	10/21/2018 - 12/31/2018

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Support

• Orange County Register: "No one would dispute that California’s roads are in terrible condition, or that the backlog of needed repairs must be addressed. The question is whether Californians were already paying enough in taxes before last year’s tax increase to maintain the state’s transportation infrastructure, or if a tax increase was unavoidably necessary. ... We understand why voters are angry. SB1 was not necessary to fix the roads. The state’s budget has increased from $86 billion in 2011-12 to nearly $139 billion in the current fiscal year, but money was not allocated to this vital public safety need. ... Proposition 6 repeals the SB1 tax increase and requires voter approval for future gas and car taxes. It deserves a yes vote."
• The Fresno Bee: "Most recently, Brown and the Legislature decided to put $16 billion into the so-called “rainy day fund” meant to cover state expenses when the next recession hits. They could have just as easily allocated some of that money back to roads. And why does the reserve fund exist? In large part because the state is too reliant on income taxes and capital gains. That’s because the lawmakers won’t do the hard work of reworking the state’s tax system to generate more stable revenues. Rather than come to drivers with their hands out for more, legislators and the governor need to look at the budget. They have $200 billion. Figure it out and be leaders. That is what they get elected to do."

Opposition

• Bakersfield Californian: "No one wants to pay taxes. But, then again, no one wants to drive on pothole-plagued, deteriorating roads or get stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic. Those were the road conditions when state lawmakers bit the bullet and increased taxes – an act they knew would be unpopular. So unpopular it led to the recall of one lawmaker. Now it’s time for Californians to bite the bullet: They should reject efforts to repeal the much-needed tax. The Californian urges voters to reject Proposition 6."
• Los Angeles Times: "It’s hard to overstate how destructive Proposition 6 would be for California. It would eliminate $5 billion a year from the state budget, wiping out funds that could be used to fill potholes on local streets, smooth highways and stabilize bridges. It would cancel funding for highway and rail projects designed to move cargo more cleanly and efficiently, hurting the state’s vital freight industry. It would slash money for light rail lines and commuter rail service, meaning fewer trains for people trying to get to work."
• Marin Independent Journal: "This is a political proposition that will sidetrack many projects that motorists, weary of worsening traffic jams and bad roads, are counting on. We recommend voters reject Prop. 6. A no vote keeps the tax on the books and much-needed transportation improvements in the works."
• Monterey Herald: "If passed, Prop. 6, would not mean gas prices would drop. There’s nothing in the measure that would, or should, force oil companies to seek lower profits by lowering the price of gasoline. ... We strongly urge voters to reject this political ploy that would end up costing every California motorist far more than the relatively slight uptick in the cost of gasoline. Vote no on Proposition 6."
• San Francisco Chronicle: "California’s plan to improve the state’s roads, highways, and transit infrastructure is supported by major business groups, first responders, environmental groups, and nearly every public policy outfit with an interest in good governance. Proposition 6 is a cynical political ploy that will starve California’s already-crumbling transportation networks, and it may not save drivers any money. Vote no."
• Santa Cruz Sentinel: "And what’s an alternative source of revenue to improve roads and highways? Even the Trump administration has talked about a major reinvestment in highways and infrastructure and delivered a plan to Congress last year that required states and local communities to come up with the most of the money. As for what the federal government would contribute, Trump suggested raising the federal gas tax by … 25 cents a gallon. We strongly urge voters to reject this political ploy that would end up costing every California motorist far more than the relatively slight uptick in the cost of gasoline. Vote no on Proposition 6."
• The Mercury News: "So, in sum, Prop. 6 misses the mark on two counts: It reverses badly needed funding for roads and transportation, and it imposes unnecessary restrictions on future fuel and car taxes. For either or both reasons, voters should say no."
• The Press Democrat: "It seems more likely that Republicans hope tax-wary voters will help them hold on to some closely contested legislative and congressional seats this November. It’s a cynical approach, especially for a party that, to its credit, pioneered the user-fee system of financing roads and highways. The Press Democrat recommends a no vote on Proposition 6."
• The Sacramento Bee: "No one likes to pay more at the pump. But seriously tackling our state’s $130 billion backlog of highway and bridge maintenance and upgrades takes a significant, separate source of revenue. And these taxes and fees are the fairest method because those who use roads most are paying the most."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "But there’s one reason to reject the measure that deserves more attention: It’s that in a state in which many environmentalists believe cars are evil, the 2017 tax legislation amounts to an affirmation that our roads and freeways are and will be hugely important for many years to come. Nothing in California’s history suggests fixing these roads and freeways is feasible without it. Vote no on Proposition 6."
• The San Luis Obispo Tribune: "Here’s what we would lose locally: Over the next 10 years, the gas tax is expected to generate between $970 million and $1.4 billion for San Luis Obispo County communities. That’s money already being used to repair local streets and roads, as well as to fund regional projects, such as improvements to the “Y” intersection at Highway 41/46. Many of our roads already are in poor condition. If this revenue goes away, they will further deteriorate — and cost even more to repair down the road."
• Ventura County Star: "California’s economy and population depend on a strong highway and road network, and many projects will not be funded if Prop. 6 passes. The state gas tax increases were the first in 23 years. They are a fair form of user fee — those who drive the most pay the most. And under Proposition 69, approved by state voters in June, the new revenue cannot be diverted to other uses. With this safeguard in place and a huge need for road improvements in our state, we again urge a no vote on Prop. 6."

Background

California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

See also: California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

The California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA), also known as Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), was enacted into law on April 28, 2017. The RRAA increased transportation-related taxes and fees, including the gas excise tax, diesel excise tax, and diesel sales tax, and was designed to dedicate the revenue to transportation infrastructure. The increased taxes went into effect on November 1, 2017. According to the state Senate Appropriations Committee, the RRAA was expected to generate an estimated $5.2 billion per year or $52.4 billion between 2017 and 2027.

In the California State Legislature

The RRAA required a two-thirds vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature. The state Senate voted 27-11 to pass the bill. Democrats controlled 27 seats in the state Senate, just enough to pass the bill. However, Sen. Steve Glazer (D-7) joined Republicans to oppose the RRAA. Sen. Anthony Cannella (R-12) joined Democrats to approve the RRAA, giving the bill 27 votes.

Likewise, the state Assembly approved the RRAA with no votes to spare. The bill passed 54-26. Democrats controlled 55 seats in the state Assembly. Asm. Rudy Salas (D-32) joined Republicans to oppose the RRAA, leaving Democrats with just enough members to approve the legislation.

Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed the legislation into law on April 28, 2017.

Revenue from the RRAA

The California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) increased transportation-related taxes and fees. The tax increases went into effect on November 1, 2017. Other than the diesel sales tax, the RRAA was designed to adjust the tax and fee rates based on annual changes in the California Consumer Price Index (CPI). The following is a list of taxes and fees that were created or increased:

• Gas Excise Tax: The RRAA increased the gas excise tax 12 cents per gallon, from 29.7 cents per gallon to 41.7 cents per gallon.

• Diesel Excise Tax: The RRAA increased the diesel excise tax 20 cents per gallon, from 16 cents per gallon to 36 cents per gallon.

• Diesel Sales Tax: The RRAA increased the sales tax on diesel fuels by an additional 4 percentage points, from 9 percent to 13 percent.

• Zero-Emission Vehicles Fee (ZEV): The RRAA created an annual $100 per vehicle fee for owners of zero-emission vehicles (ZEV) model years 2020 or later. ZEV was slated to go into effect on January 1, 2020.

• Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF): The RRAA enacted a new annual fee based on the market value of vehicles. TIF went into effect on January 1, 2018.

California Transportation Improvement Fee (TIF)
Fee	Market Value
$25	$0-$4,999
$50	$5,000-$24,999
$100	$25,000-$34,999
$150	$35,000-$59,999
$200	$60,000 or higher

RRAA appropriations

The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA) provided for the allocation of revenue from the tax and fee increases to specific funds and programs. The California Legislative Analyst’s Office issued the following diagram to illustrate how the revenue would be spent, according to the legislation:

Note: Read more about the RRAA's specific funds and programs on the following page: RRAA appropriations.

California Proposition 69

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

On June 5, 2018, 81 percent of voters in California approved Proposition 69. Proposition 69 required that revenue from the diesel sales tax and Transportation Improvement Fee enacted by Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) be used for transportation-related purposes.

Proposition 69 was part of a legislative package that included the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA). All legislative Democrats, along with two legislative Republicans, voted to refer the proposal to the ballot.

Without the RRAA, Proposition 69 would not have affected anything. Prior to Proposition 69, the state constitution required the legislature to use gasoline excise tax revenue or diesel excise tax revenue for transportation purposes. However, the state constitution did not require revenue from the diesel sales tax to be used for transportation purposes. Proposition 69 placed similar restrictions on how the revenue from the diesel sales tax could be used. The measure also required the TIF revenue be spent on public streets and highways and public transportation systems. Although the RRAA required revenue from the zero-emission vehicles fee to be placed in a Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, Proposition 69 did not contain a provision creating a constitutional mandate for zero-emission vehicles fee revenue.

Recall of state Sen. Newman

See also: Josh Newman recall, California State Senate (2018)

Sen. Josh Newman (D-29) was recalled on June 5, 2018. Ling Ling Chang (R), Newman's opponent in 2016, was elected to replace him. Because Newman was recalled and replaced by a Republican, Democrats lost their two-thirds supermajority in the California State Senate.

Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a former member of the San Diego City Council, launched the campaign to recall Sen. Newman in response to his support of the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (RRAA). Supporters of the recall effort collected more than 63,593 signatures. On August 18, 2017, enough signatures were verified for the recall election to occur. On January 8, 2018, the governor announced a recall election for June 5, 2018.

Sen. Newman was first elected to represent District 29 in the California State Senate on November 8, 2016. He defeated former Asm. Ling Ling Chang (R).

Gas tax rates in the United States

In California, the total tax on a gallon of gasoline, including federal and state taxes, was 73.62 cents, as of July 1, 2018. California had the second-highest gasoline tax rate in the United States. Pennsylvania had the highest at 77.10 cents per gallon. Alaska had the lowest at 33.05 cents per gallon. Prior to the RRAA, the total tax on a gallon of gasoline in California was around 61.13 cents. As of July 1, 2018, the average total gas tax across the states was 48.94 cents per gallon. The federal government's portion of the total taxes was 18.4 cents. The following map illustrates the gas tax rates across the states as of July 1, 2018:

Diesel tax rates in the United States

In California, the total tax on a gallon of diesel, including federal and state taxes, was 110.76 cents, as of July 1, 2018. California had the highest diesel tax rate in the United States. Pennsylvania had the second-highest at 99.60 cents per gallon. Alaska had the lowest at 39.09 cents per gallon. Prior to the RRAA, the total tax on a gallon of diesel in California was around 64.50 cents. As of July 1, 2018, the average total diesel tax across the states was 56.36 cents per gallon. The federal government's portion of the total taxes was 24.4 cents. The following map illustrates the diesel tax rates across the states as of July 1, 2018:

Polls

See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls

Polling on Proposition 6

California Proposition 6 (2018)
Poll	Support	Oppose	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
Public Policy Institute of California 10/12/2018 - 10/21/2018	41.0%	48.0%	11.0%	+/-4.2	989
SurveyUSA 10/12/2018 - 10/14/2018	58.0%	29.0%	13.0%	+/-4.8	762
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 9/17/2018 - 10/14/2018	41.0%	42.0%	17.0%	+/-4.0	794
Public Policy Institute of California 9/9/2018 - 9/18/2018	39.0%	52.0%	8.0%	+/-4.8	964
Probolsky Research 8/11/2018 - 8/16/2018	35.8%	48.3%	14.6%	+/-5.8	900
SurveyUSA 6/26/2018 - 6/27/2018	46.0%	33.0%	22.0%	+/-3.6	559
AVERAGES	43.47%	42.05%	14.27%	+/-4.53	828
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Summaries

October 12, 2018 - October 21, 2018: The Public Policy Institute of California surveyed 989 likely voters on Proposition 6, finding support at 41 percent and opposition at 48 percent. A majority of Republicans (53 percent) supported Proposition 6, as did a plurality of independents (49 percent). A majority of Democrats (59 percent) opposed Proposition 6. The question asked was:

“

Proposition 6 is the Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Approved by the Electorate. If held today, would you vote yes or no?

”

October 12, 2018 - October 14, 2018: SurveyUSA polled 762 likely voters on Proposition 6, finding support at 58 percent, opposition at 29 percent, and 13 percent undecided. Proposition 6 had the support of 79 percent of Republicans, 61 percent of independents, and 44 percent of Democrats in the poll. The question asked was:

“

Next, Proposition 6, a constitutional amendment which would repeal gasoline and diesel taxes, and vehicle fees, that were enacted in 2017 and would require any future fuel taxes be approved by voters. A YES vote on Prop 6 would repeal fuel tax increases that were enacted in 2017, including the Road Repaid and Accountability Act of 2017. A NO vote on Prop 6 would keep the fuel taxes imposed in 2017 by the California legislature in place, and would allow the legislature to impose whatever fees and taxes it approved in the future, provided 2/3 of the CA House and 2/3 of the CA Senate approved. On Proposition 6, how do you vote?

”

September 17, 2018 - October 14, 2018: USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times surveyed 794 voters on Proposition 6, finding support at 41 percent, opposition at 42 percent, and 17 percent undecided. The poll found that 32 percent of Democrats, 37 percent of independents, and 65 percent of Republicans supported Proposition 6. Respondents were asked the following question:

“

Proposition 6: Eliminates Recently Enacted Road Repair and Transportation Funding by Repealing Revenues Dedicated for those Purposes. Requires any Measure to Enact Certain Vehicle Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Submitted to and Approved by the Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment • Repeals a 2017 transportation law’s tax and fee provisions that pay for repairs and improvements to local roads, state highways, and public transportation. • Requires the Legislature to submit any measure enacting specified taxes or fees on gas or diesel fuel, or on the privilege to operate a vehicle on public highways, to the electorate for approval If the election were held today, given what I know now I would…

”

September 9, 2018 - September 18, 2018: The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) surveyed 964 likely voters on Proposition 6. Of those surveyed, 39 percent supported, 52 percent opposed, and 8 percent were undecided on the ballot initiative. A majority of Democrats (62 percent) opposed the ballot proposition, while 50 percent of Republicans supported it, and a plurality of independents (47 percent) opposed it. The question asked was:

“

Proposition 6 is called the ‘Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Approved by the Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.’ If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 6?

”

August 11, 2018 - August 16, 2018: Probolsky Research surveyed 900 likely voters on Proposition 6. Probolsky Research read interviewees the exact ballot language for Proposition 6, finding that 35.8 percent supported, 48.3 percent opposed, and 14.6 percent were undecided on Proposition 6. An additional 1.3 percent refused to answer the question. The voters with the highest level of support were Republicans, who favored the initiative 57.8 percent to 30.9 percent. A majority of Democrats opposed the ballot initiative, with 23.9 percent in support and 59.1 percent opposed. The question asked was:

“

The General Election ballot in November includes Proposition 6, an initiative that reads: “Eliminates Certain Road Repair and Transportation Funding. Requires Certain Fuel Taxes and Vehicle Fees be Approved by the Electorate. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” If you were voting today, would you vote yes or no?

”

June 25, 2018 - June 27, 2018: SurveyUSA polled 559 likely voters in California on Proposition 6, finding that 46 percent supported, 33 percent opposed, and 22 percent were undecided on Proposition 6. The group with the highest level of support was Republicans, who favored the initiative 61 percent to 20 percent. A majority of independents also supported Proposition 6, with 53 percent in support and 30 percent opposed. A plurality of Democrats opposed the ballot initiative, with 34 percent in support, 40 percent opposed, and 27 percent undecided. The question asked was:

“

California voters will also be asked to vote yes or no on an initiative called "The California Voter Approval for Gas and Vehicle Taxes Initiative," or the "Gas Tax Repeal Initiative." This initiative repeals a 2017 transportation law's tax and fee provisions that pay for repairs and improvements to local roads, state highways, and public transportation. It requires the Legislature to submit any measure enacting specified taxes or fees on gas or diesel fuel, or on the privilege to operate a vehicle on public highways, to the electorate for approval. Fiscal impact: Reduced annual state transportation tax revenues of $2.9 billion in 2018-19, increasing to $4.9 billion annually by 2020-21. These revenues would primarily have supported state highway maintenance and rehabilitation, local streets and roads, and mass transit. In addition, potentially lower transportation tax revenues in the future from requiring voter approval of such tax increases, with the impact dependent on future actions by the Legislature and voters. If you were marking your November ballot now, would you vote yes, to repeal the 2017 law's taxes and fees? Or no, to leave the 2017 law alone?

”

Polling on RRAA

The polls below were not specific to the ballot initiative. Rather, the polls asked residents what their position was on the future status—keep or repeal—of the RRAA.

USC Dornsife and the Los Angeles Times polled registered voters on whether to keep or repeal Senate Bill 1 (SB 1). The first poll was conducted in October and November 2017 and indicated that 46 percent wanted to keep and 54 percent wanted to repeal SB 1. The bill had the support of 55 percent of Democrats, 50 percent of independents, and 25 percent of Republicans. The second poll was conducted in April and May 2018 and estimated that 38 percent wanted to keep and 51 percent wanted to repeal the tax increase. The bill had the support of 49 percent of Democrats, 43 percent of independents, and 12 percent of Republicans.

California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017
Poll	Keep	Repeal	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 4/18/2018 - 5/18/2018	38.0%	51.0%	11.0%	+/-4.0	691
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 10/27/2017 - 11/06/2017	46.0%	54.0%	0.0%	+/-4.0	1,504
AVERAGES	42%	52.5%	5.5%	+/-4	1,097.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements and Laws governing the initiative process in California

Process in California

In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated constitutional amendment is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.

The requirements to get initiated constitutional amendments certified for the 2018 ballot:

• Signatures: 585,407 valid signatures were required.
• Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was June 28, 2018. However, the suggested deadlines for turning in signatures was March 7, 2018, for initiatives needing a full check of signatures and April 24, 2018, for initiatives needing a random sample of signatures verified.

Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.

Initiative #17-0033

On September 14, 2017, Thomas W. Hiltachk submitted a letter requesting a title and summary for the initiative. The California attorney general issued a title and summary on November 20, 2017, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. Proponents of the initiative needed to submit 585,407 valid signatures by May 21, 2018, in order for the initiative to make the ballot.

On December 15, 2017, proponents of the initiative had collected 25 percent of the required signatures. On April 30, 2018, the campaign reported that supporters filed 963,905 signatures signatures. Counties had until June 25, 2018, to conduct a random sample of signatures.

On June 25, 2018, Secretary of State Alex Padilla said his office received more than the 585,407 required signatures, qualifying the measure for the ballot. The random sample indicated that an estimated 754,352 signatures were valid.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired GOCO Consulting and The Monaco Group to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,094,520.02 was spent to collect the 585,407 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $3.58.

In California, individuals need to be registered to vote to sign petitions for ballot initiatives. The largest number of raw signatures (211,188) were filed in Los Angeles County. The largest number of raw signatures filed per 1,000 registered voters came from San Diego County, where 41.01 signatures were filed per 1,000 registered voters. The largest numbers, per 1,000 registered voters, were filed in southern California and the southern and northern portions of the interior Central Valley. The lowest numbers, per 1,000 registered voters, were filed in the San Francisco Bay Area. The following map illustrates the raw count of signatures filed per 1,000 registered voters in each of California's 58 counties.

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
• Direct democracy measures on the ballot
• Taxes on the ballot
• Transportation on the ballot

California

• California ballot measures
• California ballot measure laws
• California Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017

News and analysis

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

External links

Information

• Initiative Petition #17-0033

Support

• Vote Yes on Prop 6 website
• Vote Yes on Prop 6 Facebook
• Vote Yes on Prop 6 Twitter

Opposition

• No on Prop 6 website
• No on Prop 6 Facebook
• No on Prop 6 Twitter