Prop. 91 example of 'screwy' state politics

By: DAVE DOWNEY - Staff Writer
While sponsor abandons initiative, some local leaders come to measure's support | Thursday, January 31, 2008 1:11 PM PST ∞

In a quirky, unintended result of California's initiative process clashing with its let's-make-a-deal politics, voters will consider an initiative Tuesday that is the product of a 2006 petition drive and was long ago abandoned by its sponsors.

That initiative is Proposition 91, which would bar the Legislature from borrowing transportation dollars to balance state budgets any time, including during fiscal emergencies such as the one Sacramento finds itself mired in now. But the construction contracting lobby that worked to place the measure on the ballot in the first place is now asking Californians to defeat it.

"It's part of the screwy way we do things in California," said Gary Jacobson, a political science professor at UC San Diego.

Discussing not only Prop. 91's sponsors' odd reversal, but also the initiative's appearance on the ballot after a similar measure passed in November 2006, Jacobson said the apparent contradiction was confusing, but not terribly surprising.

Often, he said, groups launch ballot initiatives to force state politicians to address issues, and the groups routinely halt their signature-gathering campaigns once they get the desired results.

This time, however, the sponsors didn't act fast enough.

Transportation California, the Sacramento-based construction industry group, halted its petition drive in spring 2006 and elected not to turn in thousands of signatures gathered in eight large counties, one of them being Riverside. But petition organizers had done a good job up to that point making sure signatures were from valid registered voters, and the initiative qualified for the ballot anyway.

So, after brokering a deal with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, "we agreed to basically abandon our orphan," said Mark Watts, executive director for Transportation California.

As a result, voters who have closely read their voter guides have come across some strange language. There is no official argument against Prop. 91, and the one supposedly in favor of the ballot measure urges Californians "to vote no."

Signed by Watts and Jim Earp, executive director for the California Alliance for Jobs, the ballot argument says that Proposition 1A, passed in November 2006 as part of a $37 billion package of infrastructure bond measures, accomplished what Prop. 91 set out to do.

Prop. 91 was intended to halt lawmakers from routinely balancing state budgets by raiding the $2 billion a year that is collected from the sales taxes on gasoline purchases.

But unlike Prop. 1A, Prop. 91 has attracted little attention in this election.

"We consider it to be irrelevant at this point," said Kris Vosburgh, executive director of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which has not taken a stance on Prop. 91.

Neither have the San Diego Association of Governments or Riverside County Transportation Commission, the major highway planning agencies in San Diego and Riverside counties.

But some local groups and politicians suggest the decision to abandon Prop. 91 is no reason for voters to fall in line.

Lani Lutar, executive director of the San Diego County Taxpayers Association, an aggressive taxpayer-watchdog group, said the bottom line is Prop. 91 is on the ballot and voters should consider the measure on its merits.

Riverside County Supervisor Jeff Stone, a former Temecula mayor, agreed.

"The citizens of this state don't want backroom deals," Stone said. "They want measures that are prudent."

It turns out, Lutar said, that Prop. 91 is a pretty good deal for the folks who commute on Southern California's chronically congested freeways.

Prop. 1A provides some protection for transportation revenues. It limits tapping gas sales-tax revenues to twice a decade, and the money must be paid back within three years.

But Lutar said Prop. 91 is better because it would ban borrowing.

The orphaned measure also has garnered support from one of California's most prominent fiscal conservatives, Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Los Angeles.

"If you want to genuinely protect our transportation taxes from being raided, Prop. 91 is the real McCoy," McClintock wrote recently on his blog. "This measure flatly prohibits Sacramento from raiding our highway taxes to paper over their budget deficits."

And, while the San Diego association is neutral, its executive director, Gary Gallegos, said Prop. 91 would "provide a little more certainty in a very uncertain world."

Lutar said even though it passed overwhelmingly, 2006's Prop. 1A was a watered-down compromise.

Still, said Watts, the original sponsor, Prop. 1A is working. Watts noted that since its passage, the Legislature refrained from dipping into gas sales-tax money last year and the governor this month did not mention borrowing from it in his proposed budget for next year.

Lutar said that doesn't mean the funds won't be raided in coming years.

"We know for a fact that it has happened before, so why wouldn't it happen in the future?" she asked.

In urging a "yes" vote on Prop. 91, the taxpayer group notes that Sacramento has yet to give back all of the $3.4 billion it borrowed earlier this decade. According to the legislative analyst's office, the balance is $670 million.

It was that borrowing that triggered the petition drive that wound up bringing Californians not one, but two initiatives. Frustrated motorists were quick to sign petitions, after watching Sacramento repeatedly tap gas sales-tax funds following voters' passage in 2002 of Proposition 42.

That was the measure that declared dollars collected from sales taxes at the pump were to be used exclusively for transportation.

"When the will of the people is not followed, it is unfortunate that you need another initiative to enforce an initiative," Stone, the Riverside County supervisor, said. "The bottom-line question is, 'Can you trust Sacramento?' And my answer is, 'No, you cannot.' "

-- Contact staff writer Dave Downey at (760) 745-6611, Ext. 2623, or ddowney@nctimes.com.

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.