Vote NO on Proposition 26

“POLLUTER PROTECTION”
Requires That Certain State and Local Fees Be Approved by Two-Thirds Vote. Fees Include Those That Address Adverse Impacts on Society or the Environment Caused by the Fee-Payer’s Business.
Initiative Constitutional Amendment

League Positions | Discussion | Supporters | Opponents | Resources | Sample Letter to Editor | Sample E-mail | Points to Make | Flyer

Note: For a full explanation of the measure and background information on it, including the fiscal effect, refer to the analysis included in the Secretary of State’s Official Voter Information Guide for Proposition 26 and the LWV California Education Fund publications Pros & Cons and In Depth.

LEAGUE POSITIONS

Our State and Local Finances position calls for retention of existing sources of revenue with bases as broad as possible consistent with fairness. We support local revenue sources including fees, with provisions for persons unable to pay fees or charges levied on essential community wide services; and benefit assessments, when benefits accrue primarily to those paying. Our position calls for legislative control of state tax sources and rates, and a simple majority vote by the public or the governing body to adopt, repeal or change a revenue or finance measure.

Several of our Natural Resources positions deal with the question of how adverse impacts on the environment should be paid for and who should bear the costs. For instance, our position on Hazardous Materials calls for incentive and inspection programs coupled with penalties to encourage compliance and discourage illegal practices. It also calls for compensation for economic damages caused by involuntary exposure to hazardous materials, to be financed by public and private monies. It says the state should recover its regulatory costs primarily through taxes on industrial users and producers, and through license and permit fees, penalties and fines.

DISCUSSION

This is a repeat of an initiative measure on the November 2000 ballot (Proposition 37) that would also have redefined fees imposed to pay for monitoring, studying or mitigating the environmental, societal or economic effects of any activity as taxes, thereby requiring a two-thirds vote. The proposition was sponsored by many of the same business interests that have brought Proposition 26 before the voters. The LWVC and many environmental organizations opposed that measure, and it was defeated. We continue to believe that business has an obligation to pay for damages caused by its operations. They should not be allowed to call legitimate fees imposed to protect the public interest “taxes” and use the two-thirds vote for taxes to protect themselves from costs and shift those costs to the taxpayers.

There are two provisions of Proposition 26 that were not in Proposition 37 of 2000:

  • A requirement that if a state law results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax, it must be approved by a two-thirds vote. That would eliminate the legislature’s ability to pass “revenue-neutral” bills that raise some taxes but lower others. (This is an amendment to Proposition 13 of 1978, Article XIII A of the Constitution, section 3(a). It is described in the Legislative Analyst’s analysis in the Voter Information Guide under “Approval Requirement for State Tax Measures.”)

  • The repeal of state laws adopted between January 1, 2010 and Election Day, November 2, 2010, that conflict with Proposition 26, which the LAO notes would mean a $1 billion problem for the General Fund. This is a provision that the opponents didn’t recognize in time to include it in the ballot argument or rebuttal, but it is significant.

SUPPORTERS

Signing the ballot argument for:

  • Teresa Casazza, President, California Taxpayers’ Association
  • Allan Zaremberg, President, California Chamber of Commerce
  • Joel Fox, President, Small Business Action Committee

Signing the rebuttal to the opponents’ argument:

  • John Dunlap, former Chairman, California Air Resources Board
  • Manuel Cunha, Jr., President, Nisei Farmers League
  • Julian Canete, Chairman, California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Supporters: Stop Hidden Taxes, No on 25/Yes on 26
866-218-4450 • www.no25yes26.com

OPPONENTS

Signing the ballot argument against:

  • Janis R. Hirohama, President, League of Women Voters of California
  • Jane Warner, President, American Lung Association of California
  • Bill Magavern, Director, Sierra Club California

Signing the rebuttal to the supporters’ argument:

  • Ron Cottingham, President, Peace Officers Research Association of California
  • Warner Chabot, Chief Executive Officer, California League of Conservation Voters
  • Patty Velez, President, California Association of Professional Scientists

Opponents: Taxpayers Against Protecting Polluters, No on Prop 26; 510.444.4710, ext. 319 • www.stoppolluterprotection.com

RESOURCES

Helen Hutchison, Vice President for Advocacy & Program, hhutchison@lwvc.org

Anne Henderson, State and Local Finances Program Director, annehenderson@att.net

Trudy Schafer
LWVC Senior Director for Program
1107 9th Street, Suite 300, Sacramento 95814
916.442.7215
tschafer@lwvc.org

Taxpayers Against Protecting Polluters, www.stoppolluterprotection.com

SAMPLE LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Note: Please adapt this letter to your own community and check your local paper’s word limit for a published letter.

Editor:

Proposition 26 on the November ballot is an attempt by the oil, alcohol and tobacco industries to shift the burden of paying for pollution and public health effects of their businesses onto California taxpayers.

At a time when state and local government services are facing drastic cutbacks, those businesses want to change the California Constitution so that the legitimate fees charged them to pay for adverse impacts on public health they cause would be defined as taxes. That would require a two-thirds vote of the Legislature, or a costly local election also requiring a supermajority, to pass such measures.

Please vote No on this assault on fundamental consumer, health and environmental safeguards.

Sincerely,

(your name)

SAMPLE E-MAIL - Send to your Friends

Vote NO on Proposition 26, which would make new definitions of taxes and therefore require a two-thirds vote on many more government revenue decisions at both the state and local levels.

Payments by those who cause harm to the environment or public health are currently defined as regulatory fees. Such fees would become much harder to enact, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill instead of those who pollute or create a public nuisance.

Decisions on revenue measures should be made by a simple majority vote.

Vote NO on Proposition 26.

Read more about the League’s recommendation.

 POINTS TO MAKE

  • Proposition 26 would redefine regulatory fees imposed on companies for harm done to the environment or public health as taxes.
  • Since taxes, unlike fees, require a two-thirds vote for approval, it would be much harder for state and local governments to seek such payments from those making harmful products or creating public nuisances.
  • The result is that the fiscal burden of the harm to the environment or public health will fall on the public rather than on the companies involved. We need to require these companies to pay for the damage they cause.
  • Voters rejected a similar proposition in 2000 (Proposition 37).
  • Prop 26 also requires a two-thirds vote on any law which would include an increase in the taxes paid by any taxpayer, even if the overall result does not increase state revenues.
  • Decisions on all revenue measures should be made by a simple majority vote.
  • Proposition 26 would also change the rules to repeal tax changes already passed in 2010 that helped solve our budget problems.

FLYER

For a summary of arguments against Proposition 26, please see the flyers: