# data[].attributes.body
5 min per prop
Rachel is Timer
No laughing, scoffing or interrupting
Try your best for under one minute, get to the point.
No side-Bar conversations
silence phones

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Propositions | Official Voter Information Guide | California Secretary of State

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Official Voter Information Guide, November 6, 2018, California General Election.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
2018 California
Ballot Propositions

Seventeen (17) statewide ballot propositions were certified for the ballot in California for elections in 2018. Eleven (11) of the ballot propositions were certified for the election on November 6, 2018. Five (5) of the ballot propositions were certified for the election on June 5, 2018 (four were approved and one was defeated).

On the ballot

June 5, 2018:

Type

Title

Subject

Description

Result

LBM

Proposition 68

Bonds

Issues $4 billion in bonds for parks, environmental protection, and water infrastructure

November 6, 2018:

Removed from ballot

The California Supreme Court removed the following ballot proposition from the ballot:

The campaigns behind the following ballot initiatives collected enough signatures for their measures to appear on the ballot. However, the initiatives were withdrawn.

Summary of campaign contributions

The following chart illustrates how much support and opposition committees had amassed in campaign contributions for each measure on the ballot:

November election

Ballot Measure:

Support contributions:

Opposition contributions:

Outcome:

June Primary

Ballot Measure:

Support contributions:

Opposition contributions:

Outcome:

Newspaper endorsements

The tables below record the endorsements of ballot propositions by major California newspapers in 2018.

Positions of political parties

On July 15, 2018, the California Democratic Party's executive board made endorsements of this year's 12 general election ballot propositions. In late May, the state Republican Party issued endorsements of ballot propositions. The two major political parties took opposite positions on each ballot proposition but one-Proposition 9, the Three States Initiative. Both were also neutral on Proposition 3, which would authorize an $8.877 bond for water infrastructure and conservation.

Comparison to 2016 and 2014

There were 66 citizen-initiated measures filed for the 2018 ballot in California, which was below the number filed for the 2016 ballot and 2014 ballot. The number filed for the 2016 ballot was 135, and 15 (11 percent) of the proposals were certified for the ballot. The number filed for the 2014 ballot was 82, and four (5 percent) of the proposals were certified for the ballot. If 2018 has a similar percentage of certifications (between 5 and 11 percent), three to seven ballot initiatives will appear on the ballot.

Geographic origins of ballot initiatives

Of the citizen-initiated measures proposed for the 2018 ballot, 22 ballot measures, or around 33 percent of the 66 proposed, were filed in southern coastal California (Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego counties). Eighteen (18) initiatives originated in Sacramento County, California, and 15 were filed in the San Francisco Bay Area (Alameda, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties). The remaining ten initiatives originated in the counties of Contra Costa, El Dorado, Fresno, Monterey, Placer, San Bernardino, and San Luis Obispo. One initiative filing did not include an address.

Historical facts

See also: History of Initiative and Referendum in California and List of California ballot propositions

A total of 214 measures appeared on statewide ballots in California from 1996 to 2016.

From 1996 to 2016, the number of measures on even-year statewide ballots ranged from eight to 28.

Between 1996 and 2016, an average of 18 measures appeared on the ballot in California during even-numbered election years.

Between 1996 and 2016, about 59 percent (116 of 198) of the total number of measures that appeared on statewide ballots during even-numbered years were approved, and about 41 percent (82 of 198) were defeated.

Before 1960, citizen-initiated measures appeared only on general election ballots; from 1960 through 2011, California ballot measures appeared on primary, general, and special election ballots and were voted on in both even and odd-numbered years.

In 2011, the California Legislature approved a law requiring all citizen initiatives to go before voters at general elections in Novembers of even-numbered years.

Getting initiatives on the ballot in California

Ballot initiative process

In California, citizens have the right to initiate legislation through the ballot initiative or repeal legislation through the veto referendum. Getting an initiative or referendum placed on the ballot requires a measure's proponents to complete four steps. Step 1 requires proponents of an initiative to file their proposal with the attorney general's office, which prepares the language used on petitions for the initiative. Step 2 involves the measure receiving the circulating title and summary, allowing proponents to begin collecting signatures. The secretary of state assigns the initiative with a signature filing deadline. Step 3 requires proponents to tell the secretary of state's office that at least 25 percent of the required signatures have been collected for the initiative. Step 4, the final step, is the submission of signatures for a ballot initiative or referendum.

Click on the following bolded text to view which ballot initiatives have completed each step.

Signatures submitted

Proponents of a ballot initiative file signatures with local elections officials, who then have eight days to determine a raw count of unverified signatures and communicate the count to the secretary of state. If the raw count is more than the required number of signatures, the secretary of state instructs local officials to conduct a random sampling of the submitted signatures. If the random sample indicates more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures, the initiative qualifies for the ballot. If the sample indicates fewer than 95 percent of the required number of signatures, the initiative fails to make the ballot. If the random sample indicates more than 95 percent but fewer than 110 percent, a full check of each signature must be conducted.

25 percent of signatures reached

Proponents of initiatives are required to report when 25 percent of the number of signatures required-91,740 for initiated statues and 146,352 for initiated amendments-had been gathered. The secretary of state notifies each chamber of the California State Legislature to hold joint public hearings on the initiative proposals. Legislators could decide to consider the initiative as legislation, although this has no direct effect on whether an initiative appears on the ballot. Proponents of an initiative could consider withdrawing their proposal if the legislature approved their initiative as legislation.

Cleared to circulate

Once the attorney general's office assigns a ballot title and a summary to an initiative, proponents are allowed to begin collecting signatures. Proponents of an initiative are given 180 days from the date the title and summary were assigned to collect the required signatures. Proponents of a veto referendum are given 90 days from the date the governor signed the targeted legislation.

Submitted to attorney general

The first step to getting an initiative prepared for signature gathering is submitting the proposal to the attorney general's office, which prepares a ballot title and summary of the proposal. When a proposal arrives at the office, the measure receives an expected date for when the attorney general will issue a ballot title and summary.

Not on the ballot

The list below contains measures that were proposed and reached a certain stage in the initiative or referral process, but did not make the ballot.

Initiatives

Legislative referrals

State profile

This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.

Both sides of America's political divide have taken the opportunity to emphasize how different California is from the rest of the country. After the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump complained that were it not for Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote. For their part, California's Democratic politicians have taken a leading role in opposing Trump's vision for America; some Californians are even flirting with seceding from the union, though "Calexit" faces constitutional obstacles that make it highly improbable. Despite such antagonism, California and the United States need each other, even if it no longer seems like it.

Americans have long thought of California as the Golden State -- a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America's most populous state remains in many ways a great success story. But in ...( read more)

Demographic data for California

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)**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 five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California 2018 ballot propositions - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
2018 CaliforniaBallot Propositions Seventeen (17) statewide ballot propositions were certified for the ballot in California for elections in 2018. Eleven (11) of the ballot propositions were certified for the election on November 6, 2018. Five (5) of the ballot propositions were certified for the election on June 5, 2018 (four were approved and one was defeated).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California November 2018 Ballot Propositions

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is a 'Bond'

A bond is a fixed income investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (typically corporate or governmental) which borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a variable or fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies, municipalities, states and sovereign governments to raise money and finance a variety of projects and activities. Owners of bonds are debtholders, or creditors, of the issuer.

BREAKING DOWN 'Bond'

Bonds are commonly referred to as fixed-income securities and are one of the three main generic asset classes, along with stocks (equities) and cash equivalents. Many corporate and government bonds are publicly traded on exchanges, while others are traded only over-the-counter (OTC).

How Bonds Work

When companies or other entities need to raise money to finance new projects, maintain ongoing operations, or refinance existing debts, they may issue bonds directly to investors instead of obtaining loans from a bank. The indebted entity (issuer) issues a bond that contractually states the interest rate that will be paid and the time at which the loaned funds (bond principal) must be returned ( maturity date). The interest rate, called the coupon rate or payment, is the return that bondholders earn for loaning their funds to the issuer.

The issuance price of a bond is typically set at par, usually $100 or $1,000 face value per individual bond. The actual market price of a bond depends on a number of factors including the credit quality of the issuer, the length of time until expiration, and the coupon rate compared to the general interest rate environment at the time.
Are you ready to invest in bonds? Pick the right broker by reading Investopedia's broker reviews.
Example

Because fixed-rate coupon bonds will pay the same percentage of its face value over time, the market price of the bond will fluctuate as that coupon becomes desirable or undesirable given prevailing interest rates at a given moment in time. For example if a bond is issued when prevailing interest rates are 5% at $1,000 par value with a 5% annual coupon, the bondholder will be credited $50 in interest income annually. The bondholder would be indifferent to purchasing the bond or saving the same money at the prevailing interest rate.

However, if interest rates in the economy drop to 4%, the bond will continue paying 5% coupon rates, making it a more attractive option. Investors will purchase these bonds, bidding the price up to a premium until the effective rate of the bond equals 4%. On the other hand, if interest rates rise to 6%, the 5% coupon is no longer attractive and the bond price will decrease, selling at a discount until it's effective rate is 6%.

Because of this mechanism, bond prices move inversely with interest rates.

Characteristics of Bonds

Most bonds share some common basic characteristics including:

Face value is the money amount the bond will be worth at its maturity, and is also the reference amount the bond issuer uses when calculating interest payments. For example, say an investor purchases a bond at a premium $1,090 and another purchases the same bond at a discount $980. When the bond matures, both investors will receive the $1,000 face value of the bond.

Coupon rate is the rate of interest the bond issuer will pay on the face value of the bond, expressed as a percentage. For example, a 5% coupon rate means that bondholders will receive 5% x $1000 face value = $50 every year.

Coupon dates are the dates on which the bond issuer will make interest payments. Typical intervals are annual or semi-annual coupon payments.

Maturity date is the date on which the bond will mature and the bond issuer will pay the bond holder the face value of the bond.

Issue price is the price at which the bond issuer originally sells the bonds.

Two features of a bond - credit quality and duration - are the principal determinants of a bond's interest rate. If the issuer has a poor credit rating, the risk of default is greater and these bonds will tend to trade a discount. In addition, bonds with a high default risk, such as junk bonds, have higher interest rates than stable bonds, such as government bonds.

Credit ratings are calculated and issued by credit rating agencies. Bond maturities can range from a day or less to more than 30 years. The longer the bond maturity, or duration, the greater the chances of adverse effects. Longer-dated bonds also tend to have lower liquidity. Because of these attributes, bonds with a longer time to maturity typically command a higher interest rate.

When considering the riskiness of bond portfolios, investors typically consider the duration (price sensitivity to changes in interest rates) and convexity (curvature of duration).

Bond Issuers

There are three main categories of bonds.

Corporate bonds are issued by companies.

Municipal bonds are issued by states and municipalities. Municipal bonds can offer tax-free coupon income for residents of those municipalities.

U.S. Treasury bonds (more than 10 years to maturity), notes (1-10 years maturity) and bills (less than one year to maturity) are collectively referred to as simply "Treasuries."

Varieties of Bonds

Zero-coupon bonds do not pay out regular coupon payments, and instead are issued at a discount and their market price eventually converges to face value upon maturity. The discount a zero-coupon bond sells for will be equivalent to the yield of a similar coupon bond.

Convertible bonds are debt instruments with an embedded call option that allows bondholders to convert their debt into stock (equity) at some point if the share price rises to a sufficiently high level to make such a conversion attractive.

Some corporate bonds are callable, meaning that the issuer can call back the bonds from debtholders if interest rates drop sufficiently. These bonds typically trade at a premium to non-callable debt due to the risk of being called away and also due to their relative scarcity in the bond market. Other bonds are putable, meaning that creditors can put the bond back to the issuer if interest rates rise sufficiently.

The majority of corporate bonds in today's market are so-called bullet bonds, with no embedded options and a face value that is paid immediately on the maturity date.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A bond is a fixed income investment in which an investor loans money to an entity (typically corporate or governmental) which borrows the funds for a defined period of time at a variable or fixed interest rate. Bonds are used by companies, municipalities, states and sovereign governments to raise money and finance a variety of projects and activities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are municipal bonds?

Municipal bonds (or "munis" for short) are debt securities issued by states, cities, counties and other governmental entities to fund day-to-day obligations and to finance capital projects such as building schools, highways or sewer systems. By purchasing municipal bonds, you are in effect lending money to the bond issuer in exchange for a promise of regular interest payments, usually semi-annually, and the return of the original investment, or "principal." A municipal bond's maturity date (the date when the issuer of the bond repays the principal) may be years in the future. Short-term bonds mature in one to three years, while long-term bonds won't mature for more than a decade.

Generally, the interest on municipal bonds is exempt from federal income tax. The interest may also be exempt from state and local taxes if you reside in the state where the bond is issued. Bond investors typically seek a steady stream of income payments and, compared to stock investors, may be more risk-averse and more focused on preserving, rather than increasing, wealth. Given the tax benefits, the interest rate for municipal bonds is usually lower than on taxable fixed-income securities such as corporate bonds.

The two most common types of municipal bonds are the following:

General obligation bonds are issued by states, cities or counties and not secured by any assets. Instead, general obligation are backed by the "full faith and credit" of the issuer, which has the power to tax residents to pay bondholders.

Revenue bonds are not backed by government's taxing power but by revenues from a specific project or source, such as highway tolls or lease fees. Some revenue bonds are "non-recourse", meaning that if the revenue stream dries up, the bondholders do not have a claim on the underlying revenue source.

In addition, municipal borrowers sometimes issue bonds on behalf of private entities such as non-profit colleges or hospitals. These "conduit" borrowers typically agree to repay the issuer, who pays the interest and principal on the bonds. In cases where the conduit borrower fails to make a payment, the issuer usually is not required to pay the bondholders.

Where can investors find information about municipal bonds?

Investors wishing to research municipal bonds may access a range of information online free of charge at the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website. Information available to you includes:

Disclosure documents going back as early as 1990, including a bond's official statement, which is a disclosure document similar to a prospectus that includes important characteristics, such as type, yield, maturity, credit quality, call features and risk factors, as well as audited financial statements, material event notices and other continuing disclosures (including ratings changes, principal and interest payment delinquencies and non-payment related defaults).[1]

Historical and real-time transaction price data, including information relating to a type of municipal bond called a "variable rate demand obligation" that resets its interest rate periodically. Investors should be aware that recent price information may not be available for bonds that do not trade frequently.[2]

What are some of the risks of investing in municipal bonds?

As with any investment, investing in municipal bonds entails risk. Investors in municipal bonds face a number of risks, specifically including:

Call risk. Call risk refers to the potential for an issuer to repay a bond before its maturity date, something that an issuer may do if interest rates decline -- much as a homeowner might refinance a mortgage loan to benefit from lower interest rates. Bond calls are less likely when interest rates are stable or moving higher. Many municipal bonds are "callable," so investors who want to hold a municipal bond to maturity should research the bond's call provisions before making a purchase.

Credit risk. This is the risk that the bond issuer may experience financial problems that make it difficult or impossible to pay interest and principal in full (the failure to pay interest or principal is referred to as "default"). Credit ratings are available for many bonds. Credit ratings seek to estimate the relative credit risk of a bond as compared with other bonds, although a high rating does not reflect a prediction that the bond has no chance of defaulting.

Interest rate risk. Bonds have a fixed face value, known as the "par" value. If bonds are held to maturity, the investor will receive the face value amount back, plus interest that may be set at a fixed or floating rate. The bond's market price will move up as interest rates move down and it will decline as interest rates rise, so that the market value of the bond may be more or less than the par value. U.S. interest rates have been low for some time. If they move higher, investors who hold a low fixed-rate municipal bond and try to sell it before it matures could lose money because of the lower market value of the bond.

Inflation risk. Inflation is a general upward movement in prices. Inflation reduces purchasing power, which is a risk for investors receiving a fixed rate of interest. It also can lead to higher interest rates and, in turn, lower market value for existing bonds.

Liquidity risk. This refers to the risk that investors won't find an active market for the municipal bond, potentially preventing them from buying or selling when they want and obtaining a certain price for the bond. Many investors buy municipal bonds to hold them rather than to trade them, so the market for a particular bond may not be especially liquid and quoted prices for the same bond may differ.

In addition to the risks, what other factors should you consider when investing in municipal bonds?

Tax implications. Consider consulting a tax professional to discuss the bond's tax implications, including the possibility that your bond may be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax or eligible for state income tax benefits.

Broker compensation. Most brokers are compensated through a markup over the cost of the bond to the firm. This markup is usually not disclosed on your confirmation statement. If a commission is charged, it will be reported on your confirmation statement. You should ask your broker about markups and commissions.

The background of the broker or adviser selling the bond. A securities salesperson must be properly licensed, and, depending on the type of business the firm conducts, his or her firm must be registered with the MSRB and with FINRA, the SEC or a state securities regulator. You can check out an investment adviser on the SEC's Investment Adviser Public Disclosure website at www.adviserinfo.sec.gov and a broker on FINRA's BrokerCheck website at www.finra.org/brokercheck. To confirm MSRB registration, you can review the MSRB's registered dealers list at http://www.msrb.org/msrb1/pqweb/registrants.asp.

Related Information
Investor Bulletin: Municipal Bonds (March 2012)
Investor Bulletin: Focus on Municipal Bonds (September 2010)
Investor Bulletin: New Rules for Improving Municipal Disclosure
Using EMMA - Researching Municipal Securities and 529 Plans
FINRA and MSRB Investor Alert: Municipal Bonds-Staying on the Safe Side of the Street in Rough Times
SEC's Office of Municipal Securities
Spotlight on Municipal Securities Markets
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board EMMA Education Center
Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board
Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Municipal bonds (or "munis" for short) are debt securities issued by states, cities, counties and other governmental entities to fund day-to-day obligations and to finance capital projects such as building schools, highways or sewer systems. By purchasing municipal bonds, you are in effect lending money to the bond issuer in exchange for a promise of regular interest payments, usually semi-annually, and the return of the original investment, or "principal."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
California Proposition 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative, is on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The ballot initiative would repeal the gas and diesel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017 and require voter approval for fuel tax and vehicle fee increases in the future.

A no vote opposes 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.

How would this ballot initiative impact 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 create 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 affect 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 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 is 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 will go into effect in 2020. According to the state Senate Appropriations Committee, the RRAA is 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 impact 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 is running 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 is campaigning 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 is behind the campaigns surrounding the ballot initiative?

Note: The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which covered through September 22, 2018, and interim reports available as of October 4, 2018. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is October 25, 2018.

Around $35.95 million had been raised for and against Proposition 6. More than 87 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, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 6. Yes on Prop 6 and allied committees had raised $4.42 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 $31.53 million. Around $1.64 million was spent on Proposition 69 and local ballot measures, leaving the committees with $29.89 million to oppose Proposition 6. The largest contributors to the opposition committees included the California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee ($3.02 million), Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC ($1.60 million), and Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California ($1.49 million).

Text of the measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title is 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 is 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 is 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

The measure would add a Section 3.5 to Article XIII A of the California Constitution. The following text would be 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

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.

For the 2017 ballot, the average ballot question required 20 years of U.S. formal education (graduate school-level of education) to read and comprehend, according to the FKGL formula.

Yes on Prop 6, Repeal the Gas Tax is leading 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

Incumbents

Organizations

Individuals

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

"

Fact: The Legislature allows these new higher GAS and CAR TAXES to be spent on bike lanes, but not new roads or highways

Fact: The Legislature PROHIBITS the new higher GAS and CAR TAXES from being spent on increasing capacity on our clogged highways. Motorists will be sitting in the same traffic and suffering the same long commutes, and paying more for the privilege

Fact: Californians now pay the highest gas prices in the nation

Fact: By 2021, many Californians will be paying close to $2 a gallon extra because of taxes, fees and other government created costs - that's almost $40 extra every time you fill up your car.

Fact: Sacramento politicians have the wrong priorities. Other states with lower gas taxes have far better roads, because they make transportation a priority. Our politicians waste our tax dollars - and keep coming back for more.

"

Official arguments

, 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 is leading 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.

Municipalities

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

The following political parties oppose Proposition 6:

Organizations

The following organizations oppose Proposition 6:

The following labor organizations and unions oppose Proposition 6:

Businesses

The following businesses oppose Proposition 6:

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 is running for reelection in 2018, said the initiative would help Republicans defend congressional seats in California and keep control of the U.S. House. Rep. 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

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 is also backing 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) is challenging 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.

Campaign finance

There were three ballot measure committees registered in support of Proposition 6. The committee Yes on Prop 6, Repeal the Gas Tax received most of the funds. Together, the three support committees received $4.42 million and spent $3.13 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 $31.53 million and spent $10.67 million.

The top contributors to the opposition committees were the California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee, which donated $3.02 million, and the Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC, which contributed $1.60 million.

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

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

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.

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

California Alliance for Jobs - Rebuild California Committee

$3,000,000.00

$22,500.00

$3,022,500.00

Members' Voice of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California

$1,425,000.00

$65,934.60

$1,490,934.60

Southern California District Council of Laborers Issues PAC

$1,400,000.00

$0.00

$1,400,000.00

Southern California Partnership for Jobs (Nonprofit 501(c)(6))

$1,000,000.00

$119,347.72

$1,119,347.72

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

Methodology

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

Media editorials

Opposition

Background

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 is 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. Rep. Rudy Salas (D-32) joined Republicans to oppose the RRAA, leaving Democrats with just enough members to approve the legislation.

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.

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

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

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 (R), founder of Reform California, initiated the recall against Sen. Newman over the senator's support for 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 Rep. Ling Ling Chang (R). 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).

Gas tax rates in the United States

Diesel tax rates in the United States

Polling on Proposition 6

The polls below were specific to Proposition 6.

California Proposition 6 (2018)

Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. 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.

October 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...

"

October 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 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 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 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.

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 indirect initiated state statutes 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.

Registration requirements

To vote in California, an individual must be U.S. citizen and California resident. A voter must be at least 18 years of age on Election Day. Conditional voter registration is available beginning 14 days before an election through Election Day.

On October 10, 2015, California Governor Jerry Brown ( D) signed into law Assembly Bill No. 1461, also known as the New Motor Voter Act. The legislation authorized automatic voter registration in California for any individuals who visit the Department of Motor Vehicles to acquire or renew a driver's license. The law was scheduled to take effect in 2016.

Online registration

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

Voter ID requirements

State profile

This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.

Both sides of America's political divide have taken the opportunity to emphasize how different California is from the rest of the country. After the 2016 presidential election, supporters of Donald Trump complained that were it not for Hillary Clinton's margin of victory in California, Trump would have won the popular vote. For their part, California's Democratic politicians have taken a leading role in opposing Trump's vision for America; some Californians are even flirting with seceding from the union, though "Calexit" faces constitutional obstacles that make it highly improbable. Despite such antagonism, California and the United States need each other, even if it no longer seems like it.

Americans have long thought of California as the Golden State -- a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America's most populous state remains in many ways a great success story. But in ...( read more)

Demographic data for California

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015)**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 five presidential elections between 2000 and 2016.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

External links

Information

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
California Proposition 6, Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative (2018) - Ballotpedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
California Proposition 6, the Voter Approval for Future Gas and Vehicle Taxes and 2017 Tax Repeal Initiative, is on the ballot in California as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018. The ballot initiative would repeal the gas and diesel tax increases and vehicle fees that were enacted in 2017 and require voter approval for fuel tax and vehicle fee increases in the future.