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:
https://lwvc.org/news/our- positions-june-5-2018- election-ballot-measures