GOP legislator challenges ballot language in cap-and-trade initiative

SACRAMENTO -- A Republican lawmaker has challenged the ballot language of a June voter initiative that was a key part of last year's cap-and-trade deal in the Legislature.

Assemblyman Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley, said the language voters will see "is false, misleading and likely to cause prejudice against Proposition 70," according to the complaint filed by James C. Harrison, a partner with Remcho, Johansen & Purcell LLP in Oakland.

The suit names Secretary of State Alex Padilla and Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office wrote the language. Padilla's office deferred to Becerra, who represents the secretary in ballot cases. Becerra's office did not reply to a request for comment.

Neither Mayes nor Harrison returned calls seeking comment on the case. Mayes v. Padilla, 80002819 (Sacramento Super. Ct., filed March 5, 2018).

Proposition 70 was the product of a set of complex negotiations last year that allowed Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature to extend the state's cap-and-trade program. GOP backlash ultimately cost Mayes his job as the leader of the Assembly Republicans.

With the package of greenhouse gas bills needing a two-thirds vote in each house and facing opposition from both sides of the political spectrum, Mayes negotiated concessions in exchange for yes votes from himself and several other Republicans.

Chief among these was ACA 1, authored by Mayes, which put Proposition 70 on the ballot. It would require that beginning in 2024 cap-and-trade funds be placed in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund. A onetime, two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature would then be needed to move this money into another fund that could be appropriated by majority vote.

This two-thirds threshold is key, given that the GOP has won about one-third of each house in recent elections.

Among other changes, Mayes' complaint seeks to replace the words "Limits Legislature's Authority" in the ballot title with "Requires the Legislature." The complaint claims Proposition 70 is not a limit because it "does not change the underlying requirements for how those funds may be spent."

"The measure doesn't limit the Legislature, because upon passing a bill with a two-thirds vote they will still be able to spend the money the way they intended," said Loren Kaye, president of the California Foundation for Commerce and Education, a think tank affiliated with the California Chamber of Commerce.

"The only provision is that there be a mid-course check to establish that the implementing agencies, the Air Resources Board in particular, are meeting the intent of the legislation," Kaye added.

The Chamber of Commerce is a key backer of Proposition 70. While the group is not a party to the lawsuit, Kaye said, "The suit is well founded and we hope he prevails."

"This measure, by imposing a two-thirds requirement, would in fact limit the Legislature's authority," said Bill Magavern, the policy director at the Coalition for Clean Air, which opposes Proposition 70. "Mayes' alternative is the kind of wonky language that is going to make it harder for voters to understand."

Magavern said it's important for voters to know that if Proposition 70 passes, 14 senators out of 40 could have veto power over these funds. They could force the Legislature to give away millions to oil companies to help them comply with emissions requirements rather than spending the money to clean up pollution in low-income communities, he said.

"If you can't get the people of California to elect you to a majority, you try to get leverage so you'll have influence even when you're only a small minority of the Legislature," Magavern said.

The complaint also seeks to remove the phrase "cap-and-trade revenues" from two sentences describing the effects of Proposition 70, replacing it at one point with "money from the state's market-based compliance mechanism."