“Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, filed paperwork last week seeking a 2018 ballot measure to overturn SB1, a 10-year, $52.4 billion transportation funding bill narrowly passed by the Legislature in April,” the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported. “The bill, also known as the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, raises the state’s gas tax by 12 cents a gallon, boosts taxes on diesel fuel and imposes new annual fees on vehicles to tackle a road repair backlog exceeding $130 billion.”

Passion and pacing

“Jerry Brown’s decision to push through the largest gas tax increase in California’s history without the approval of voters demonstrated a complete disregard for ordinary Californians,” said Allen, the Los Angeles Times noted. “This ballot initiative will correct Brown’s failure and allow the people of California to decide for themselves if they want to raise their taxes.”

Hoping for an enduring grassroots reaction against the package, the assemblyman turned to disaffected state voters for support. “Allen launched a website asking for contributions of $5 to help him gather the 365,880 signatures from registered voters to place the repeal before voters. Allen can begin to gather signatures once the state attorney general issues a title and summary for his repeal,” according to the Sacramento Bee. “Allen is proposing a diverse stream of possible funding sources, including tribal gambling revenue, to replace the tax.” In addition to Allen, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has considered moving forward with an initiative proposal, according to the Los Angeles Times. 

One potential limitation to Allen’s ambitions would be a relative inability to capitalize on the heat of the political moment. Because of the electoral calendar, the Bee observed, “the earliest the tax could be repealed is after the November 2018 election. Referendums, which allow the law in question to be halted until voters pass judgment on the repeal, cannot be used to repeal tax levies or measures that lawmakers passed with an urgency clause, such as the gas tax increase.”

The long game

Yet a series of retaliatory moves against lawmakers who voted for Brown’s infrastructure bill could keep the issue simmering as Allen forges ahead. “In Fullerton, three Southern California radio talk show hosts kicked off a campaign Thursday to recall state Sen. Josh Newman, a first-term Democratic legislator who barely edged out his Republican opponent in November, in retaliation for his vote,” the Washington Times noted. “The Los Angeles hosts, joined by Carl DeMaio of KOGO-AM in San Diego, drove home the point by launching their recall campaign at an Arco gas station.”

“They were backed by Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, who announced the formation Thursday of Californians Against Car and Gas Tax Hikes in order to target Mr. Newman, whose Senate District 29 is based in Brea.”

Even a successful bid to remove Newman could be enough to upset the precarious balance around the tax law. “The loss of one Democratic senator would cost Democrats their two-thirds senate supermajority, making it much easier for Republicans to fight tax hikes,” as the Tribune noted. But it would also damage the legitimacy of the tax deal, which would have faced an even steeper hurdle to passage without Newman’s vote. 

It’s no secret that the state’s legislative leadership is less than thrilled about an open-government initiative that California voters passed in the November election, and are doing what they can to undermine its clear intent.

Yet, it’s a testament to the measure’s importance that the Legislature painstakingly followed its dictates as they passed last week a controversial bill to increase gas taxes and vehicle-license fees to fund $52.4 billion in transportation upgrades over the next decade.

Had they not followed the timelines detailed in the measure, the transportation bill would be subject to legal challenge. That reality showcases the “teeth” in Proposition 54, which passed statewide with 65 percent of the vote – and even had the rare virtue of receiving voter approval in every one of California’s 58 counties.

The proposition is simple, though arcane sounding. It mainly requires that all bills be printed in final form – and published online –72 hours prior to a final vote in either house of the Legislature. Good-government reformers had for years tried to get the Legislature to approve such a measure, but were consistently stymied.

That’s because legislators love to rush through those “gut and amend” measures at the last moments of a legislative session. That’s when the guts of a bill are stripped away and an entirely new piece of legislation is dropped into its shell. In these rush situations, most legislators are unaware of the details of what they are voting on and the public and media can’t see what’s in the bills. This situation breeds cynicism and contempt for the legislative process.

By contrast, the vote over Senate Bill 1, the transportation measure, was a model of openness, according to many observers. As observers have noted, there’s plenty of reason for criticism of the bill and other parts of the process – the size of the tax increases, the pork-barrel projects, the lack of reforms for current transportation programs – but there’s no doubt the voter-approved proposition made it easier to see what was in it, warts and all.

Prior to SB 1’s passage, an ideologically diverse group of Prop. 54 supporters, including the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and California Common Cause, sent a letter to legislative leaders expressing their “concerns with the Legislature’s implementation to date, which could inadvertently result in the invalidation of bills that the Legislature wishes to pass.”

The bill seemed like a warning: The Legislature better follow the details of Prop. 54 in its consideration of SB 1 or potentially face legal efforts to overturn the measure if it passes. Indeed, the Legislature reportedly followed the 72-hour rule with nine minutes to spare.

But the warning was timely. As the San Francisco Chronicle’s John Diaz explained in an April 7 editorial, “Of particular concern was the Assembly’s attempt to interpret the 72-hour rule more narrowly than was presented to voters.” Assembly leaders interpreted the measure – which its authors say applies to all bills – “only to bills that had previously passed the Senate and were on their last stop before the governor.” That interpretation could eventually be challenged in court.

As the letter writers explained, “Each member of the Legislature is constitutionally guaranteed the right to have at least 72 hours to review the final version of any bill prior to a floor vote, regardless of the bill’s house of origin, and your constituents have the same right. We believe the Legislature’s rules should unambiguously reflect that right.”

The proposition also allows the public to record public meetings and requires the Legislature, beginning in 2018, to post videos of all such meetings online within 24 hours. The letter argues that the Legislature, however, is improperly adopting rules regarding such recordings.

“If the Legislature wishes to regulate the placement and use of recording or broadcasting equipment, it must adopt those rules in compliance with the Constitution’s requirements: that is, by a two-thirds vote concurring in each house, or by statute,” the signers explained.

As Diaz argued, the Legislature had for years “rejected any and all such reforms.” Supporters of the status quo had maintained imposing these “sunshine” rules would restrict the ability of legislators to get things done. But with the passage of SB 1, the Legislature passed one of its major and controversial priorities, despite having to operate with a new level of openness.

Legislators still are resisting the new rules, but they face grave risks if they push their recalcitrance too far. “If the Legislature does not adopt rules consistent with Proposition 54, there is a risk that the Legislature may schedule votes in violation of the Constitution’s 72-hour notice requirements,” according to the coalition letter. “Any such vote for passage will be invalid, and that bill will be ineligible to become a law.”

Ultimately, the Legislature understood what was at risk, which is why they apparently didn’t take any chances with their transportation bill.

Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org.

“The California Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 on Thursday night, raising gas taxes and vehicle fees in hopes of generating tens of billions of dollars to fix the state’s roads,” the Desert Sun reported. “The tax increases will take effect November 1 and new vehicle registration fees will begin Jan. 1, 2018. Fees on zero-emission vehicles will take effect July 1, 2020, according to the text of the bill.”

“Gov. Jerry Brown, who stumped for the bill in Riverside this week, said its language had been in the works for years. It squeaked through the Senate and Assembly on Thursday night, barely earning the required two-thirds votes in both houses.”

Getting to yes

To get there, Brown resorted to an uncommon amount of bargaining in close negotiations. “It wasn’t the sort of vote any politician likes to cast. So the measure’s success on Thursday relied on a collection of eleventh-hour sweeteners offered by Gov. Jerry Brown and Democratic legislative leaders to reach the necessary two-thirds super-majority,” the Sacramento Bee observed. “Now that the dust has settled, it’s clear they doled out nearly $1 billion in district-specific transportation projects, with a popular commuter train system linking the valley and Bay Area headed to new locales. It also appears architects could get legal indemnity in construction lawsuits, and four Riverside County cities could see a budget boost. […] Rumors of other SB 1 vote-getting arrangements lingered in the Capitol this week.”

In risking criticism, Brown signaled a sharp judgment that last week’s deal was the best — perhaps the only — shot at getting a substantial tax-funded infrastructure package passed into law. “Similar proposals have languished for years, but Brown and legislative leaders set a quick-turn April 6 deadline for action, hoping to pressure a compromise before the Legislature’s spring break — ahead of big debates to come in 2017 on the state budget and hundreds of bills,” according to the San Francisco Examiner. “The side deals, which still require legislative approval, showed up in two changes to the budget bill language, with most of it made public at 4 a.m. on the day of the vote.”

Costly neglect

One reason for Brown’s sense of urgency was familiar to residents across the state: California has fallen woefully behind on infrastructure repairs and improvements. “Most of the money, about $33.7 billion, will pay for a backlog of infrastructure repair projects that has grown to $130 billion,” as The Hill reported on the deal. “The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that half the state’s roads are in poor conditions.” And, in a familiar pattern, Sacramento’s choice to proceed with the gas tax fueled speculation that other states in similar straits could quickly follow suit. “As infrastructure maintenance costs pile up, several other states are debating whether to raise gas taxes to deal with local projects,” The Hill added. “Louisiana legislators will debate a proposal to raise gas taxes in a special session beginning next week. The Republican-led Montana state House voted to raise taxes by eight cents per gallon in March, and the state Senate will take up the proposal this month.”

The impending change leaves Republicans on the outs — and residents unhappy with the prospect of even higher taxes on one of life’s staples in California. “If voters don’t like the tax, he says they can start a petition to get a referendum on the ballot, but that would require a lot of money and more than 1 million signatures. But supporters say it’s not worth it, so long as the 10-year, $52 billion measure goes to California’s ruined roads,”,” CBS Sacramento noted. “Either side you’re on, energy analysts say the tax will leave California with the highest fuel tax in the nation.”