GPCA position on Proposition 70

Ranked Choice Vote ID 141
Ranked Choice Vote GPCA position on Proposition 70: ACA 1 (Resolution Chapter 105, statutes of 2017), Mayes. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund.
Number of Seats 1
Ranked Choice Vote Administrator Victoria Ashley, Brian Good, Laura Wells, Eric Brooks, Mike Goldbec
Discussion

02/12/2018 - 03/25/2018

Voting 03/26/2018 - 04/01/2018
Voting ends at Midnight Pacific Time
 
   
Result  

Presens Quorum

 

Candidates

Endorse

Oppose

No Position

Abstain

 

Background

This is the ranked choice vote for the GPCA to take a position on Proposition 70: ACA 1 (Resolution Chapter 105, statutes of 2017), Mayes. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund.

The choices are to rank 'endorse', 'oppose', 'no position' and/or 'abstain.' Delegates can rank as many or few of these options in their order of preference.

An 'endorse' vote would mean the GPCA would endorse Proposition 70.

An 'oppose' vote means the GPCA would oppose Proposition 70.

A 'no position' vote means the GPCA would not take a position on Proposition 70.

An 'abstain' vote means the voter is not expressing a preference, but is voting to help achieve quorum.

Any of these position that receives 2/3 after all preferences are transferred is the position of the party. If neither 'endorse' nor 'opposes' receive 2/3, the GPCA's position will be 'no position'.

The proposition is listed below, along with the Legislative Counsel’s digest and a link to the full text.

 

Proposition 70

ACA 1 (Resolution Chapter 105, statutes of 2017), Mayes. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund.

The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation.

The California Constitution requires appropriations from the General Fund of the state to be passed by a 2/3 vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature and requires a majority vote to pass appropriations for the public schools and appropriations in the Budget Bill and in other bills providing for appropriations related to the Budget Bill.

This measure would create the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund, in which all moneys collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism beginning January 1, 2024, and until the effective date of specified legislation would be deposited. The measure would require all moneys in the fund to be available upon appropriation for specified purposes and would require a bill making those appropriations to be passed by a 2/3 vote of the membership of each house of the Legislature. The measure would require all new moneys collected as part of a market-based compliance mechanism after the effective date of that specified legislation to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The measure would prohibit a specified sales tax exemption from being applied until the effective date of that specified legislation.

Link to full text: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ballot-measures/pdf/aca-1.pdf

 

Recommendation of the Green Party of Alameda County:

Proposition 70 -- NO
Vote Requirement to Use Cap-and-Trade Revenue 
California Proposition 70 is on the June ballot as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment. If approved, this amendment will require a one-time two-thirds vote in each chamber of the state legislature in 2024 or thereafter to pass a spending plan for revenue from the state's cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases.
 
We completely oppose this Proposition and urge a NO vote on it, because this was a bill designed to give the Republicans in the California Legislature more power on how to spend the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund proceeds that pour into the state coffers from the polluters.  This measure was only agreed to be put onto the ballot by the Governor in order to gain a couple of Republican votes on the cap-and-trade bill last year, and it is a terrible idea, essentially putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.  We see enough of that at the Federal level these days, and do not need any more at the State Level.
 
Further, at a moment where we need nimble investments in climate change solutions, the 2/3 requirement this bill would impose would most definitely lead to more gridlock and bad deals, vs. cleaning up the state's energy, transport, food production, and other greenhouse gas related sectors.
 
To quote in this case the California Democratic party: "A two-thirds vote gives polluters more leverage in how cap-and-trade funding is spent after 2024. The fact is, ACA 1 itself was a part of a deal to get a two-thirds vote for the cap-and-trade extension. When a two-thirds vote was required to approve California's budget, legislative hostage-taking, gimmicks and pork barrel spending were part and parcel of the process."
 
A DEFINITE NO.
 
-- Sources:

 

Candidates:

Endorse

Oppose

No Position

Abstain

 

Full details are available at:

Please send your discussion comments to gpca-votes@sfgreens.org