2010 California Proposition 23

Elections in California
Federal government U.S. President 1852 1856 1860 1864 1868 1872 1876 1880 1884 1888 1892 1896 1900 1904 1908 1912 1916 1920 1924 1928 1932 1936 1940 1944 1948 1952 1956 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 Dem Rep 2000 Dem Rep 2004 Dem Rep 2008 Dem Rep 2012 Dem Rep 2016 Dem Rep 2020 Dem Rep 2024 Dem Rep U.S. Senate 1849 1850 1852 sp 1856 1857 sp 1860 1860 sp 1868 1872 1873 1873 sp 1878 1880 1885 1886 sp 1887 1891 1891 sp 1893 1895 sp 1897 1900 sp 1903 1905 1909 1911 1914 1916 1920 1922 1926 1928 1932 1934 1938 1940 1944 1946 1946 sp 1950 1952 1954 sp 1956 1958 1962 1964 1968 1970 1974 1976 1980 1982 1986 1988 1992 1992 sp 1994 1998 2000 2004 2006 2010 2012 2016 2018 2022 2022 sp 2024 2024 sp 2028 U.S. House of Representatives 1849 1851 1852 1854 1856 1859 1861 1863 1864 1867 1868 1871 1872 1875 1876 1879 1880 1882 1884 1886 1888 1890 1892 1894 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1908 1910 1912 1914 1916 1918 1920 1922 1924 1926 1928 1930 1932 1934 1936 1938 1940 1942 1944 1946 12th 1948 1950 1952 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1987 5th sp 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2001 32nd sp 2002 2004 2005 5th sp 48th sp 2006 50th sp 2007 36th sp 2008 12th sp 2009 10th sp 32nd sp 2010 2011 36th sp 2012 2014 2016 2017 34th sp 2018 2020 25th sp 2022 22nd sp 2024 16th 20th sp 30th 45th 47th v t e
State government Executive Governor 1849 1851 1853 1855 1857 1859 1861 1863 1867 1871 1875 1879 1882 1886 1890 1894 1898 1902 1906 1910 1914 1918 1922 1926 1930 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2003 (recall) 2006 2010 2014 2018 2021 (recall) 2022 2026 Lieutenant governor 1950 1954 1958 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2026 Attorney general 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Secretary of state 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Treasurer 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Controller 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Insurance commissioner 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Superintendent 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Board of equalization 2018 2022 Legislature Senate 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special Assembly 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2021 (79th sp) 2022 (17th sp) 2024 Special Judiciary Court of appeals 1994 1998 2002 2006 Elections by year 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2005 2006 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2012 Jun Nov 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
State propositions 1910–1919 1911 4 7 8 1960–1969 1964 14 1970–1979 1978 6 8 13 1980–1989 1982 8 1986 64 65 1988 98 99 1990–1999 1994 187 1996 196 209 215 218 1998 6 10 227 2000–2009 2000 21 22 36 39 2003 53 54 2004 1A 55 56 57 58 59 60 60A 61 62 63 64 65 66 69 71 2005 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 2006 81 82 83 85 87 89 90 2008 91 92 93 94, 95, 96, and 97 98 and 99 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2009 1A 1B 1C 1D 1E 1F 2010–2019 2010 13 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2012 29 30 32 34 37 38 39 2014 1 2 41 42 45 46 47 48 2016 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 2018 68 69 70 71 72 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2020–2029 2020 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2022 1 26 27 28 29 30 31 2024 1 2 3 4 5 6 32 33 34 35 36 Full list v t e
Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Board of supervisors 1980 1996 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Ballot measures 1980 A 2008 R 2012 B J 2016 M Elections 2020 2022 2024 Los Angeles Mayor 1896 1898 1900 1902 1904 1906 1909 (sp) 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1929 1933 1937 1938 1941 1945 1949 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017 2022 2026 City attorney 2009 Ballot measures 1986 U 2017 S Elections 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 (sp) 2020 2022 2023 (sp) 2024 Long Beach Mayor 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 v t e
Orange County Orange County Board of supervisors 2018 2020 2022 2024 District attorney 2018 Anaheim Mayor 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 Irvine Mayor 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Costa Mesa Municipal 1947 1953 1954 1956 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 v t e
Sacramento Mayor 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
San Diego County San Diego County Board of supervisors 2020 San Diego Mayor 1887 1889 1891 1893 1895 1897 1899 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1913 1915 1917 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1931 1932 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (sp) 1984 1986 (sp) 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2005 (sp) 2008 2012 2013–14 (sp) 2016 2020 2024 City attorney 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 City council 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Special v t e
San Francisco Mayor 1901 1903 1905 1907 1909 1911 1931 1935 1939 1943 1947 1951 1955 1959 1963 1967 1971 1975 1979 1983 (recall) 1983 1987 1991 1995 1999 2003 2007 2011 2015 2018 (sp) 2019 2024 District attorney 2019 2022 (recall) 2022 (sp) 2024 Board of supervisors 1977 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 Board of education 2018 2022 (recall) Ballot measures 2024 G Elections 2004 Mar Nov 2005 2006 Jun Nov 2007 2008 Feb Jun Nov 2009 2010 Jun Nov 2011 2012 Jun Nov 2013 2022 Feb v t e
San Jose Mayor 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 v t e
Other localities Bakersfield Mayoral elections: 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Fresno Mayoral elections: 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 Oakland Mayoral elections: 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 2022 2024 Riverside Mayoral elections: 1997 2001 2005 2009 2012 2016 2020 2024 San Bernardino Mayoral elections: 2005 2009 2014 2018 2022 Stockton Mayoral elections: 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 v t e
v t e

Proposition 23 was a California ballot proposition that was on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot.^[1] It was defeated by California voters during the statewide election by a 23% margin.^[2][3][4] If passed, it would have suspended AB 32, a law enacted in 2006, legally referred to its long name, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.^[5] Sponsors of the initiative referred to their measure as the California Jobs Initiative while opponents called it the Dirty Energy Prop.^[6]

The goal of the proposition was to freeze the provisions of AB 32 until California's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. Since the rate was then at 12.4%, and it had been decades since the state had seen an unemployment rate below 5.5% for such a period of time, this wording was seen by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and others as a wording trick to delay the environmental regulations indefinitely.^[7] AB 32 requires that greenhouse emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020, in a gradual process of cutting that is slated to begin in 2012.^[8] Reducing greenhouse emission levels to 1990 levels will involve cutting them by about 15% from 2010 levels.

AB 32 includes a provision allowing the Governor of California to suspend the provisions of AB 32 if there are "extraordinary circumstances" in place, such as "significant economic harm". The supporters of Prop 23, Assemblyman Dan Logue and Ted Costa, decided to circulate a petition to accomplish a suspension of the environmental regulations.^[9] Governor Schwarzenegger, as well as the major party candidates for Governor, Jerry Brown, and Meg Whitman, all stated they would vote "no" on Prop 23.^{[citation needed]} Brown however favored "adjustments" to AB 32, while Whitman would have immediately suspended the law.^{[citation needed]}

Louise Bedsworth, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California, predicted in April 2010 that total campaign spending on this proposition would top the $154 million record set in 2006 by Proposition 87.^[10]

If campaign spending on the proposition does reach that level, it could be because supporters and opponents view the battle over the suspension of AB 32 as symbolic in the larger national debate over global warming. Steven Maviglio, speaking for a group that wants to keep AB 32 intact, said, "...this could be a ground zero for the battle for the future of clean energy".^[10]

Ballot 09-0094 was cleared for circulation on February 3, 2010. Ballots 09-0104 and 09-0105 were cleared for circulation on February 7. The ballot title given to all three measures is identical. The estimated fiscal impact for all three measures is identical. The summary is slightly different. 09-0094 and 09-0104 both set 5.5% as the level of unemployment beneath which California's unemployment level must drop for four quarters before AB 32 could be re-instated, while 09-0105 sets 4.8% as that unemployment level.

The original ballot label (09-0094) was "Suspends air pollution control laws requiring major polluters to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment rate drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year".

After a California Appeals Judge ruling on August 3, 2010: the Official Ballot Label became "Suspends implementation of air pollution control law (AB 32) requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year."

The Official summary: "Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California’s unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters. Suspends comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries."

The Estimated fiscal impact was: The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues. Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations. Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise.

While Proposition 23 was put forward by a group of individuals, it immediately drew the support of large corporations and eventually became identified with out-of-state oil interests.^[11] Assemblyman Dan Logue, who was a key sponsor, said of the proposed initiative: "This has been the blind leading the blind, political correctness that has collapsed the economy in California. California already has the fifth-cleanest air in the country, so why are we doing this when no one else is?"

• Assemblyman Dan Logue was a key sponsor.^[9] Logue said of the proposed initiative, "This has been the blind leading the blind, political correctness that has collapsed the economy in California. California already has the fifth-cleanest air in the country, so why are we doing this when no one else is?"^[9]
• U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock
• Former Gubernatorial candidate Steve Poizner^[10]
• Jim Kellogg, Secretary and Treasurer of the State Building & Construction Trades Council. He said, "I don't doubt that there will be more green jobs in California, perhaps even thousands of them; however, we don't want to put at risk the millions of well-paying, blue-collar jobs that put bread on the table right now. We need to make sure we do our homework, ask the tough questions and make adjustments as necessary to implement AB 32 in a way that reduces greenhouse gases without hurting millions of families in this state".^[12]

• Valero, employer of 1,600 employees and operator of two oil refineries in California, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas
• Tesoro, headquartered in San Antonio, Texas
• Koch Industries, the largest private U.S. chemical company with more than 1,000 employees in California, and considerable holdings in oil, headquartered in Wichita, Kansas.^[13]

• California Republican Party^[12]
• California Libertarian Party^[14]

• Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

• California Manufacturers & Technology Association, a spokesperson said that if AB 32 is implemented as planned, it would be the "death knell for scores of manufacturing jobs".^[15]

• Ted Costa of People's Advocate, an initial sponsor, withdrew his active support in March 2010, saying, "Big money interests have come in and shut out the people", referring to his grassroots signature gathering operation. Assemblyman Dan Logue pointed out that People's Advocate was never hired to gather signatures and that Costa is just upset that he didn't get the contract.^[16]

The Sacramento Bee reported on March 4 that two Texas-based oil companies, Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, provided the campaign with initial funding to launch its petition drive to qualify for the November 2 ballot.^[17]

According to Cal-Access figures, as of October 19, donations totalling $9.1 million had been made to the "California Jobs Initiative Committee":^[18][19]

Donor	Amount
Valero	$4,050,000
Tesoro	$1,525,000
Flint Hills Resources LP (subsidiary of Koch Industries)	$1,000,000
Adam Smith Foundation	$498,000
Occidental Petroleum	$300,000
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association	$100,000
Tower Energy Group gasoline retailer	$200,000
World Oil Corp	$100,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association	$100,000
Southern Counties Oil (Total Energy Products)	$50,000
California Trucking Association	$50,000
Frontier Oil	$50,000
Murray Energy	$30,000
Berry Petrochemical	$25,000
Boyett Petroleum (Stan Boylett & Son)	$25,000
California State Pipes Trade Association	$25,000
Caminol Management	$25,000
Holly Corporation	$25,000
Robinson Oil	$25,000

According to the LA Times, the Adam Smith Foundation is a non-profit based in Jefferson city, Missouri. Its mission statement says, "The Adam Smith Foundation was created to defend judicial reform, government accountability, education reform, tax and spending reform and protecting private property".^[20]

Goddard Clausen Strategic Advocacy has been retained as a campaign consultant. Spokesman Jennifer Dudikoff of Goddard Clausen said in early March, "Right now, we're not commenting on funders. We expect support from a very broad group of individuals, companies and associations who are currently concerned with keeping and creating jobs in California".^{[17][dead link‍]}

A group called "Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs" had formed to oppose the measure. It was part of the coalition of politicians, consumer organizations, health professionals, environmental organizations, and health advocates.^[11] George Shultz, who had served as secretary of state during the Reagan administration, was the honorary co-chairman of the group. He said in early May, "While some companies in California have said they’re worried about the cost of the planned greenhouse gas limits, the new regulations will boost the state’s economy by creating 'clean-tech jobs'".^[21]

Governor Schwarzenegger criticized the proposition's proponents saying that their interest was to "protect their profits", rather than to protect jobs for Californians as claimed.^[7]

• Barbara Boxer, California^[22]
• Jerry Brown, Democratic candidate for governor^[22]
• Dianne Feinstein, California^[22]
• Meg Whitman, Republican candidate for governor^[22]
• Arnold Schwarzenegger is staunchly opposed to the proposition. Schwarzenegger says that AB 32 will create green jobs in the state.^[23]

• AARP^[22]
• Consumer Action^[22]
• Consumers Union^[22]
• Consumer Federation of California^[22]

• Clean Water Action^[22]
• Friends of the Earth^[22]
• League of Conservation Voters^[22]
• National Audubon Society^[22]
• National Wildlife Federation, based in Reston, Virginia
• Natural Resources Defense Council, based in New York City
• The Nature Conservancy^[22]
• Sierra Club^[22]

• American Lung Association, California^[22]
• American Medical Association, Los Angeles,^[22] Riverside^[22]
• Blue Shield of California^[22]

• eBay^[22]
• Nike^[22]
• TechNet - includes Apple, Google, and Yahoo^[22]
• Virgin America^[22]
• Warner Brothers^[22]

• League of Women Voters, California,^[22] Los Angeles^[22]

• Pacific Gas & Electric^[24][25]

• Union of Concerned Scientists^[22]

• California Conference of Carpenters^[22]
• California Labor Federation^[22]
• California Nurses Association^[22]
• Public Health Institute^[22]
• California Professional Firefighters^[22]
• California Teachers Association^[22]
• California Statewide Law Enforcement Association^[22]
• California Teamsters^[22]
• United Steelworkers^[22]
• Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers^[22]

The No On 23 - Californians To Stop The Dirty Energy Proposition Committee has received $31,504,863. Donors of at least $1,000,000:^[25]

Donor	Amount
Thomas Steyer Hedge Fund Manager, Farallon Capital Management	$10,000,000
Natural Resources Defense Council	$3,072,500
National Wildlife Federation	$3,000,000
Ann Doerr, wife of John Doerr	$2,000,000
L. John Doerr, venture capitalist at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers	$2,000,000
Vinod Khosla, venture capitalist and co-founder of Sun Microsystems	$1,037,267
Robert J. Fisher	$1,000,000
James Cameron	$1,000,000
Environmental Defense Action Fund	$1,000,000
Gordon Moore	$1,000,000

On October 28 at 3pm PST, James Cameron and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled a viral political commercial during a live webcast titled A Message from James Cameron: Vote NO on 23. The commercial was a collaborative effort between Cameron and Schwarzenegger and was directed by Australian director A.J. Carter.^[26] The viral spot which runs for 1 minute 10 seconds, motioned for a 'No on 23' vote and received more than 50,000 web hits on YouTube alone in the 72 hours leading up to the ballot deadline.^[27]

The Courage Campaign and CREDO Action had called for a boycott of Valero and Beacon gas stations in order to punish Valero for providing financial sponsorship of the initiative. Michael Kieschnick, the president of CREDO Action, said, "What is particularly troubling is that anyone who buys gasoline from Valero is now helping to fund audacious attacks on California's air quality standards. Valero believes it will be cheaper to deceive California voters than to compete in the new energy economy". The communications director of the campaign, Anita Mangels responded, "We are not about stopping carbon reduction... We are about doing it in a responsible manner that won't destroy jobs and cost billions of dollars at the worst possible time".^[28]

Prop 23 is a factor in California's 2010 gubernatorial election. This is because the next Governor of California, by the terms of AB 32, has the power to suspend AB 32 regardless of whether the initiative passes.

• Meg Whitman has said she will vote "No" on Prop 23^[29] but may suspend AB 32 for a year to prevent job losses^[30]
• Jerry Brown has also said he will vote "No" on Prop 23. He says he would support "adjusting" some features of AB 32 since neighboring states lack strict global warming regulations and regionally AB 32 sets up California at a competitive disadvantage. He generally supports AB 32 and would not suspend it.^[30]

Polls leading to the ballot initiative revealed that voters who had awareness of Proposition 23 were almost evenly split with 44 percent favoring it, while 45 percent were against it.^[31] This was attributed to economic recession happening during the period. There are 433,971 valid signatures required to qualify the measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot.

The petition drive to qualify the measure for the ballot was launched the first week of March.^[17] Organizers turned in their qualifying signatures on Monday, May 3.^[32] In e-mails to the press on May 3, the campaign said that it had turned in over 800,000 signatures.^[23]

On November 25, 2009, the group People's Advocate filed a request with the Office of the California Attorney General for an official ballot title on 09-0094. An official summary was accordingly provided on February 3, 2010. To qualify 09-0094 for the November 2, 2010 ballot, supporters had to provide qualifying signatures to California's 58 county election clerks no later than July 5.

On December 22, requests for ballot titles were filed on 09-0104 and 09-0105. These ballot titles were provided on February 7, with petition deadlines of July 19.

On July 29 the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued Attorney General Jerry Brown claiming that the ballot description was deceptive. Judge Timothy Frawley agreed that the wording was misleading and ordered Brown to change the wording.

Proposition 23

Choice	Votes	%
No	5,974,564	61.6
Yes	3,733,883	38.4
Total votes	9,708,447	100.00
Source: California Secretary of State[2]

• Pavley predicts ballot measure will aim to overturn global warming law
• Update on initiative to suspend California's global warming bill
• On Climate: Congress Restarts, California Threatens
• Where We Live: The Changing Face of Climate Activism

• Suspend AB 32, official website of the California Jobs Initiative organization
• Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0094)
• Letter from Thomas Hiltachk, attorney for Whitman campaign, to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0104)
• Letter to Attorney General requesting ballot title (09-0105)
• Implementation of AB 32 - Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, a report from the California Legislative Analyst's Office dated April 14, 2010

Supporters

• Campaign finance filings for the California Jobs Initiative Committee

Opponents

• Stop Dirty Energy Prop^[usurped]
• Campaign finance filings for Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs
• Business Case Against Prop 23
• Environmental Groups Confront Oil Industry Backed Law in Prop 23 - video report by Democracy Now!