Senate Bill 1, passed last year, raised the base excise tax on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon. This initiative would require a majority of voters to approve any increases on the taxes on gas – and it would apply retroactively. 

“This is a message to the millions of forgotten Californians ignored by the Sacramento political elite, help is on the way,” Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox said in a written statement. “Let this also be a message to every special interest in Sacramento, we’re coming for you. You can outspend the people, but you can’t outvote the people, because there are more of us than there are of you.”

Cox worked with other Republican leaders in organizing and providing funds for the repeal effort.

Democrats in the state argue that the higher tax on fuel is needed to fund repairs to crumbling infrastructure in the state, while conservative opponents note that Californians are already highly taxed and that it’s unnecessary spending – like the long-plagued bullet train project – that prevents funds from reaching road repairs.

“The gas and car tax hikes will cost the typical family of four $700 more per year in higher taxes, but the roads will not get fixed because the politicians will continue to divert the funds as they always have in the past,” Carl DeMaio, chairman of Reform California and a leader of the Gas Tax Repeal campaign, explained in a statement.

For Gov. Jerry Brown, a repeal would be a major blow to his budget and legacy as he departs office, with the outgoing governor offering a blistering critique of the move.

“This flawed and dangerous measure pushed by Trump’s Washington allies jeopardizes the safety of millions of Californians by stopping local communities from fixing their crumbling roads and bridges. Just say no,” Brown said.

For Republicans nationally, having the repeal measure on the ballot is thought to be able to increase turnout and could be key in saving vulnerable congressional seats in the 39th and 49th districts, where longtime GOP representatives Ed Royce and Darrell Issa are retiring.

Surveys over the winter showed state voters were evenly split – within the margin of error. But a USC-Los Angeles Times poll posted last week showed 51 percent were opposed to the tax, 38 percent were in favor, and 11 percent had no opinion or didn’t expect to vote on the measure.

What’s changed? Fuel prices in California. They were relatively stable and low throughout 2017, dropping to an average of $2.93 per gallon of unleaded gasoline last July, according to AAA. But as of Tuesday, AAA reported the state average for a gallon of unleaded gas was $3.74 per gallon – a 28 percent increase in less than 11 months, with most of the jump this year.

A Politico story Monday said geopolitical trends made it likely that gas prices would continue to rise nationally and noted Democrats were eager to use the issue to hammer President Donald Trump and Republican congressional incumbents.

That dynamic may not work in California. Brown and Democrats had support of some GOP lawmakers and business groups, but the push for Senate Bill 1 was mostly a one-party affair. It was billed as a way to address badly needed road and infrastructure improvements by raising $52 billion over 10 years. The law added 12 cents per gallon to gasoline taxes and 20 cents per gallon to diesel taxes. It also increased vehicle registration fees by $25 to $175 and for the first imposed a $100 additional fee on the vehicle registration of electric vehicle owners, with the EV fee taking effect in 2020.

State’s reputation as anti-tax haven took hits in 2012, 2016

The November 2018 gas tax repeal is only the latest chapter in decades of ballot fights over taxes in California, most notably the 1978 approval of Proposition 13, which capped annual property tax increases and made it more difficult to increase or add other taxes. But the Golden State’s reputation as the birthplace and home of the national anti-tax movement was shaken in 2012 and again in 2016 when state voters approved raising income taxes on the very wealthy, with future sunset dates on the tax hikes.

Some of these voters may not be as enthusiastic about increasing regressive taxes like those on fuel. Signature gatherers said they found it relatively easy to gather the 900,000 signatures turned in to state officials last month, far more than the 585,000 they needed to qualify the measure for the November ballot. The effort was galvanized by conservative talk-radio hosts, particularly KFI 640 AM’s John and Ken in the Los Angeles region.

The ballot measure has been avidly embraced by the leading GOP candidates in the governor’s race – Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox and Huntington Beach Assemblyman Travis Allen. Congressional Republican officials have also latched on to the idea that having the gas tax repeal on the November ballot may improve the chances of the GOP holding seven California House seats targeted in November by the national Democratic Party and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco.

Until recently, Brown has mostly ignored the push to repeal the tax hike. But in a May 18 speech to transportation officials at Union Station in downtown Los Angeles, the termed-out governor blasted the “stupid” effort as  “devious and deceptive” – “nothing more than a Republican stunt to get a few of their losers returned to Congress, and we’re not going to let that happen.”

Supporters of the gas tax hike also have another tack. They are increasingly emphasizing what transportation projects are in the works at least partly because of the additional funding SB1 provides. In late April, the state announced that $4.3 billion of rail and bus service improvements would be part of the first wave of projects.

The poll was based on 691 registered voters, as well as 517 voters likely to vote in the primary. The top two vote-getters in the primary, regardless of party affiliation, will advance to the Nov. 6 general election.

Newsom, the current lieutenant governor, received 21 percent of the vote, with former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Republican businessman John Cox contending for second place with 11 percent and 10 percent of the vote, respectively; well within the margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Of potential interest to the battle for second place could be President Trump’s recent decision to endorse Cox. While it could potentially mobilize Republican support, it could just as easily backfire and turn away moderates.

California Treasurer John Chiang, who was hoping to become the state’s first Asian-American governor, and Huntington Beach State Assemblyman Travis Allen, who has brashly courted Trump supporters, stand at 6 percent and 5 percent, respectively.

When it comes to issues that could swing voters in congressional races, the Trump administration’s tax overhaul and attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act hold the most cache. Almost half of poll respondents opposed the December tax overhaul, with 52 percent being less likely to re-elect their representative if they supported the changes. And six out of 10 residents support the ACA; similarly, 54 percent would be less likely to vote for a representative trying to repeal Obamacare.

Overall, 44.3 percent of registered voters believe California is on the right track, and 55.7 percent believe it’s on the wrong track. The poll also shows that criticism of the recent gas tax hike may resonate at the ballot box. Of registered voters surveyed, only 45.8 percent would keep the gas tax, while 54.2 percent want it canceled.

Here are a few other insights from the poll:

Newsom strong favorite for governor

Democratic Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom currently has a commanding lead in the race to replace Gov. Jerry Brown, with 31.1 percent of voters backing him. Former Democratic mayor of Los Angeles Antonio Villaraigosa is in second with 20.7 percent of the vote, and Assemblyman Travis Allen leads the Republican field with 15 percent. Rounding out the top five is Democratic Treasurer John Chiang with 12 percent and Republican businessman John Cox with 11.4 percent.

However, despite the majority of registered voters believing the state is on the wrong track, a slim majority of 50.4 percent would like their next governor to continue Brown’s policies, with 49.6 percent wanting a change.

Feinstein re-election likely

In a two-way race between Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Democratic State Senate President pro Tem Kevin de Leon, 58.2 percent would support the incumbent senator while 31.4 percent would support de Leon. In a three-way race between Feinstein, de Leon and progressive businessman Tom Steyer, the figures are, respectively, 49.7 percent, 24 percent and 17.2 percent.

Californians at odds with Trump

Only 22.3 percent of the state approves of the job President Trump is doing, with 66.2 disapproving. In comparison, Gov. Brown has a net approval of 44.6 percent, with 34.9 disapproving. When it comes to his administration, the president fairs a bit better: 25.8 percent agree with some or all of his policies and 61.2 percent disagree with some or all of them.

Consequently, when asked if their member of Congress should work with the president whenever possible, only 46.7 percent said yes, with the remainder wanting their representatives to never cooperate.

Immigration has broad support

When asked about those who come to America without a visa or overstay one, 64.4 percent believe they strengthen the economy, while 39.6 percent believe they take jobs from citizens. Only 35.9 percent believes this population increases crime, while an overwhelming majority – 64.1 percent – believe these people help revitalize cities. Just 20.5 percent believe they come for a handout, while 79.5 percent believe they want to work.

Finally, when it comes to policy, 60.1 percent of registered voters do not want California to cooperate with the president’s immigration policies while 39.9 percent want the state to cooperate.

But the housing package – a spate of measures that increase funding for subsidized housing programs and reduce regulations for building certain high-density projects – is unlikely to halt debate about housing policy as home prices remain high.

For instance, median home prices in the Bay Area topped $740,000 last month and topped $700,000 in Orange County – breaking records and raising concerns about a new housing “bubble.” Statewide, median housing prices have topped $469,000, which is driving down homeownership rates and keeping the state’s cost-of-living-based poverty rates above 20 percent.

Virtually everyone, left and right, agrees that the state is facing a crisis. Candidates for the 2018 gubernatorial election, which is starting to heat up, are likely to make housing a core component of their campaigns. So far, Republican candidates John Cox, a San Diego-area businessman, and Assemblyman Travis Allen, a Huntington Beach conservative, have largely called for reducing housing regulations, but have not offered detailed plans.

Democrat John Chiang, currently the state treasurer, has touted his efforts to promote affordable housing programs. Former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has focused on bringing back government-directed redevelopment-style low-income housing programs. The partisan approaches are not surprising – and not particularly detailed, at least not yet.

The big surprise so far is that Democratic candidate Gavin Newsom, the current lieutenant governor and leader in the major public-opinion polls, has released a fairly thorough housing blueprint. It suggests that housing will be a top priority in his high-profile campaign – and his proposals embrace the main concepts touted by Democrats and Republicans alike.

“Simply put, we’re experiencing a housing affordability crisis, driven by a simple economic argument,” Newsom argued in a new post on the Medium web site. “California is leading the national recovery but it’s producing far more jobs than homes.” Here’s where the plan makes headlines: He’s calling for the development of 3.5 million new housing units by 2025, which would mean a near quadrupling of the state’s annual housing production.

That’s not an unreasonable number. In the last dozen years, “California has only produced 308 housing units for every 1,000 new residents,” he explained. Given continued population growth, “it’s obvious we’re not on pace to meet that demand.”

Typical of a Democratic official, Newsom called for more funding for affordable housing, including support for the $4 billion housing bond that is going on the November 2018 ballot. It was part of the Legislature’s housing package. Newsom also called for increasing the state’s funding of affordable-housing tax credits from $85 million to $500 million.

Taking a similar line as Chiang and Villaraigosa, Newsom called for replacing local housing programs that had previously been funded through the state’s controversial redevelopment agencies, which were shut down by Gov. Jerry Brown during the 2011 budget act, as a means to help the state plug its then-gaping budget hole. The agencies had siphoned around 13 percent of the state’s general fund budget to subsidize economic-development projects including housing.

But the real news is Newsom’s focus on “regulatory reform and creating new financial incentives for local jurisdictions that produce housing while penalizing those that fall flat.” Under the old redevelopment system, cities did indeed subsidize low-income housing. But the tax-increment financing scheme, by which cities were incentivized to permit tax-generating retail complexes, led to the overall underdevelopment of housing projects, according to various state analyses.

Those problems still exist. “Cities have a perverse incentive not to build housing because retail generates more lucrative sales tax revenue,” Newsom wrote. “The bigger the box, the better, because cities can then use the sales tax for core public services.” He doesn’t offer many details, but Newsom wants to revamp the tax system to “financially reward cities that produce housing and punish those that fail.” He’s reviving the old debate about the “fiscalization of land use,” but there’s little doubt that local incentives have a major impact on housing permits.

Echoing Gov. Brown, Newsom notes that solving the problem will take more than “throwing money” at it. He calls for “implementing regulatory reform and creating new financial incentives for local jurisdictions” – issues that will bolster conservatives who want to see more market-based housing.

Indeed, California builders have argued that they are more than capable of meeting the needs – if only government regulations and local land-use controls were loosened enough to enable them to build more. His plan will annoy conservatives, though, as he also calls for stronger tenant protections as the state streamlines the permitting process.

Most significantly, the Newsom plan – with its myriad details and mixture of elements from right, center and left – is sure to focus the early campaign on this significant issue. An energized housing debate should warm the hearts of all Californians who are concerned that housing prices are soaring beyond the reach of most California families.

Steven Greenhut is a Sacramento-based writer. Write to him at stevengreenhut@gmail.com.

“The measure, formally called the ‘Name All Sponsors California Accountability Reform (or NASCAR. Get it?) Initiative,’ would require all state legislators to wear the emblems or names of their 10 top donors every time they attend an official function,” the Los Angeles Daily News explained. “The measure’s sponsor, Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox, takes delight in the idea and has already done some touring around California with 120 life-size photographic cutouts of politicians dressed up as they might have to under his plan.”

Populists wanted

Cox’s group announced it has already gathered 40,000 signatures out of the 365,880 valid ones necessary to make November’s ballot, telling the Huffington Post they “are confident they can muster enough support.” In an interview with U.S. News, Cox spoke expansively — noting the historically low threshold for signatures based on last election cycle’s low turnout, and banking on a high-energy California electorate in a year when political insurgents have shaken up national politics and captivated Golden State voters:

“Cox says he’s seeking the endorsements of GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump and Democratic candidate Sen. Bernie Sanders, both of whom have rallied passionate supporters in part by denouncing their rivals as indentured servants to corporations and other wealthy donors.”

Cox’s grand vision may resonate especially with Sanders, whose fundraising has been driven almost entirely by small donations, and whose digital strategist is a 24-year-old Eagle Scout from California named Kenneth Pennington. (“Pennington began as a press aide to the senator, where he grew accustomed to typing out the Facebook posts that his boss would think of in the shower and dictate once he arrived in the office,” according to the Associated Press.)

Although a somewhat related measure, Prop. 89, previously went down to defeat because voters didn’t want to foot the bill for its public financing regime — which “would also have required every privately financed political ad, whether on television or in newspapers or mailed fliers, to list its three biggest financiers in type as large as the biggest print anywhere else in the ad,” as the Daily News noted, adding that Cox, once a Chicago Republican, has pledged to foot $1 million of the bill for NASCAR.

Dem dollars

In that same 2014 election cycle with historically low turnout, analysts noted that Democrats made out better than Republicans in California, overturning the conventional wisdom that big business interests tip the scales in favor of the GOP. “The biggest donors to statewide races in California for the 2014 election cycle were Kaiser Permanente and Anthem Blue Cross of California, pulling $23 million and $19 million, respectively,” as Al Jazeera America reported. “For the state races, Democrats actually received almost three times as much ($145 million) as Republicans ($52 million). Much of the health care lobbying was around Proposition 45, which would have required insurance companies to provide public notice when raising rates.”

Despite contempt among some for those perceived to be buying influence, few have raised objections to a twist on the formula. Some high-profile California candidates have begun raffling off perks gained through privileged access in exchange for small donations. Although presidential hopefuls have indulged in the strategy for years, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has gained notice for taking the idea to new heights. Last month, the San Francisco Chronicle reported, he dangled special seats at the Super Bowl before constituents willing to send at least $5 to the gun-control package he has been touting as part of his early-bird run for the governorship.

“This isn’t Newsom’s first venture into online raffles. In May, for example, the former San Francisco mayor offered the chance to win a pair of tickets to a Giants-Dodgers game to people donating to his 2018 campaign for governor. And in October, that $5 contribution could have turned into seats at a private concert by the band Train and the chance to hang out backstage with Newsom, his family and the band.”

ost Democrats and Republicans seem to agree on is that special interests have too much influence in politics. The little guy is feeling less and less relevant — especially at the voting booth.

John Cox says the best way to fix this is by electing a larger Legislature. He's the author of the Neighborhood Legislature initiative. I interviewed Cox for a third time since March to follow up on his progress.

Because legislators have largely become professional fundraisers, and the individual voter has so little influence, Cox is working to develop a system to elect 12,000 state lawmakers in California, rather than the current 120, to allow for better representation, closer to home.

Cox anticipates his plan would take the big crony bucks out of campaigns, and allow neighbors to campaign door-to-door, in a real grassroots campaign. “You can do it with shoe leather and a few flyers,” Cox said.

For democracy to work, it must be representative democracy. It must be a government of, by and for the people.

The Neighborhood Legislature

With 38 million California residents, there are only 120 state legislators. There are nearly 500,000 residents for each member of the Assembly, and nearly 1 million per state Senator.

Districts this large cost candidates millions of dollars to win an election, leaving special interests, public employee and labor unions, and big corporations funding the bulk of the campaigns. As a result, average Californians are left out of the process.

Compare California's meager representation with New Hampshire. The “Live free or die” state is small, with only 1.3 million residents. However, New Hampshire has 424 elected legislators. Known as the General Court of New Hampshire, it consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 400 Representatives and 24 Senators.

Each member of the New Hampshire House, their version of our Assembly, represents only about 3,170 people. Chances are, New Hampshire elected officials know most of their constituents.

Yet New Hampshire legislators review more than 1,000 bills every legislative session — and do it for $100 in pay and a mileage reimbursement.

While New Hampshire is significantly smaller than California, people who spend excessively in New Hampshire on political campaigns don't win, according to Cox. The voters don't trust them.

Making a Neighborhood Legislature happen

Under a Neighborhood Legislature, each of California’s 120 current legislative districts would be broken into 100 smaller districts. This would give California 12,000 legislative districts.

The tiny neighborhood districts would have either 5,000 residents for the Assembly, or 10,000 residents for the Senate. Each of the 12,000 sub-districts then would elect a neighborhood “working committee.”

Each group of 100 Neighborhood Assembly Members in a big district elects one member of a Working Committee, thus allowing 80 members of the Assembly Working Committee, and 40 members of the Senate Working Committee.

All the Neighborhood Assembly Members are voting members. “The 80 that go to Sacramento are just a committee of the whole who do the nitty gritty work,” according to Cox.

So ultimately, the number of legislators would remain the same as today at 120. But the process of choosing them would be insulated from the powerful interests, and all members have voting power.

This is one way to hold elected representatives accountable. As it currently stands, most Californians don't know their representatives, nor will they ever meet.

The movement is growing thanks to “grassroots research,” according to Cox. He and his colleagues have been meeting with grassroots groups — Rotary groups, Kiwanis clubs, Lions clubs, and even smaller cities' Chambers of Commerce. They've been meeting with the neighborhood councils and community activists in Los Angeles, and have nearly 100 percent support from the groups.

Because the idea is so new, and the initiative isn't on the ballot yet, there really isn't any opposition. But objections likely will be to charge that we already have too many legislators, so multiplying them to 12,000 would make them even worse. Another objection likely would be that the process insulates the voters from directly electing a legislator.

“The status-quo political people say this initiative will fail,” Cox said. He's talking about the political consultants vested in things remaining the same. “But because the average person doesn't want his or her personal life splashed all over television, the same people always run for office,” said Cox. “But not with a Neighborhood Legislature. People are already signing up to run for office.”

Cox said he already has 3,000 Californians committed to run for office. His goal is 12,000.

Cox plans on having his initiative on the Nov. 2014 ballot.

He and his statewide coordinators will be in Los Angeles for a press conference Thursday morning as they submit the initiative for title and summary.

Cox said his initiative will be “the greatest peaceful transformation of power since 1776.”

By Katy Grimes

Big spending on California politics has become one of the state’s largest industries. But the return on investment is lousy.

California’s political system has become so heavily manipulated by labor unions and other big money interests that the system is broken. Legislators have become professional fundraisers instead of managing public policy. And the individual voter no longer has much voice or influence.

It may sound farfetched, but the only way to fix this system is to expand it. California needs more lawmakers.

For democracy to work, it must be representative democracy. It must be a government of, by and for the people.

The Neighborhood Legislature

Last year Assemblywoman Shannon Grove, R-Bakersfield, pushed an initiative for a part-time Legislature. She succeeded in bringing much needed attention to the broken system. And while it may not be the right fix for a state as large as California, Grove started many people thinking seriously about doable reforms.

One person is doing something about it as well. I met John Cox at the California Republican Party convention March 1. Cox, a businessman, radio host from Illinois and former Cook County Republican Party Chairman, is promoting a proposed ballot initiative to create a “Neighborhood Legislature.”

Approved for circulation in California for the November 6, 2012 ballot, the Neighborhood Legislature sponsors did not submit any signatures by the deadline. But they are working diligently on it again for 2014.

Under a Neighborhood Legislature, each of California’s 120 current legislative districts would be broken into 100 smaller districts. This would give California 12,000 legislative districts.

In each of the small districts, Cox said the neighborhood legislator would know most of his or her constituents. “Campaigns in the Neighborhood Districts would be door to door, face to face, voter by voter,” he said. “Social media, email and Internet campaigns will be key, and fundraising will be almost non-existent and of little effect.”

This could be the reason so many of California’s political elites aren’t crazy about the idea. Political consultants would be virtually unnecessary for legislative seats, and the current crop of political elites would have their power and influence greatly diminished. While this is appealing to liberty-loving Californians, those now controlling the state would lose out.

Changing the system would mean that each Neighborhood Legislator would be elected by only a few thousand voters — his neighbors — instead of 500,000 to 900,000 voters for the current districts.

Two tier system

Cox explained that, by using this two-tiered system, the actual number of lawmakers who serve in the Legislature in Sacramento would remain the same. And the 100 newly elected Neighborhood Legislators within the 12,000 districts would caucus and select one person to serve in Sacramento.

But there would still be plenty of accountability back home.

California: “Live free or die”

California’s current population is 38 million, represented by only 120 state legislators: 40 state senators and 80 Assembly members.

Compare that meager representation with New Hampshire. The “Live free or die” state is small, with only 1.3 million residents. However, New Hampshire has 424 elected legislators. Known as the General Court of New Hampshire, it consists of two chambers, the House of Representatives and the Senate. There are 400 Representatives and 24 Senators.

Each member of the New Hampshire House, their version of our Assembly, represents only about 3,170 people, as opposed to the 465,000 in California state Assembly districts. Chances are, New Hampshire elected officials know most of their constituents.

Yet New Hampshire legislators review more than 1,000 bills every legislative session — and do it for $100 in pay and a mileage reimbursement. Granted, the state is smaller than California.

So what’s wrong with California?

It’s all about control. The fewer representatives California elects, the more control and power they have. Even within the legislative body, only a few of the 120 members are actually part of the elite, controlling class.

Far too few wield a big stick for a state the size of California. And that could explain why California is poised on the brink of disaster. Yet our Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown are increasing speed.

What real outreach looks like

The surest way to guarantee outreach to the many different ethnic and cultural communities in California is to increase the size of the Legislature. The Republicans keep talking about Latino outreach, but have been ineffective thus far. Latinos are voting more heavily Democratic than ever. Yet Latino legislators themselves are frustrated, especially on education reform, as the powerful Assembly and Senate leaders are heavily influenced by the public-employee unions and other special interests.

As long as too few legislators are elected to represent this growing state, the California Legislature will continue to be dominated by professional career politicians, who use the advantages of their offices to perpetuate their positions of power.

California voters tried to deal with this by voting to impose term limits in 1990. But in the ensuing years, the political class has done a work-around. Legislators instead merely move from public office to political appointments, and state boards and commissions. Many are even going back to their communities and running for local offices, proving that they cannot leave public office.

The concept of career politicians has become a very big problem in California. The question of who seeks to become a member of the Legislature in the first place anymore should make the voting public wary and take notice. The Legislature is no longer comprised of private citizens who work in the private sector.

California would be best served by an elected body composed of citizens who served out of a sense of civic duty — who then went home at the end of their terms to live their lives in the private sector, as they did before serving in the Legislature.

It’ll never work…

Cox says the nay-sayers claim special interests could overwhelm small districts with community organizers. “But candidates can follow them door to door, making their own case and telling the truth,” Cox said. And neighborhood candidates would know their neighbors and the neighborhoods. Cox said they will be able to arm themselves with persuasive policy arguments instead of the usual trite slogans and sound bites.

Another argument against the Neighborhood Legislature is finding anyone to do the job for little or no pay. “Nonsense,” said Cox. “In a state of 38 million residents, we should be able to fund 12,000 interested citizens who are civic minded, and interested.”

Finally, Cox said constituent services and legislative staff cuts supposedly would be threatened by the Neighborhood Legislature. But Cox was quick to answer, “Instead of small numbers of district offices staffed by interns in a huge district, constituents will have access to a legislator they know and have a personal relationship with.”