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.

Since 1998, Republican candidates for governor in California have gotten 38 percent, 42 percent, 56 percent, 41 percent and 40 percent in the general election. Will that figure be 0 percent in this November’s race?

That is the consensus of state pundits and analysts with former Sacramento Rep. Doug Ose becoming the third GOP candidate seeking to replace termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown, joining Huntington Beach Assemblyman Travis Allen and Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox. Unless one of the three Republicans breaks out as the strong favorite of the expected 40 percent GOP share of June primary voters, there is a good chance that the November election will pit Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom against former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa – two Democrats.

“It gets very hard to do the math to find some scenario where a Republican gets enough votes to slip into the runoff,” Paul Mitchell, vice president of Political Data, told the San Francisco Chronicle. “It’s a math problem. It makes a Dem-on-Dem race more likely if you continue to split the Republican vote.”

“I think Doug Ose’s heart is in the right place … but he further dilutes the field,” Bill Whalen, a fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution, told the Los Angeles Times. “If all the Republicans stay in, it’s mutually assured destruction.”

In the most recent major poll – released by the Public Policy Institute of California in late November – Newsom had 23 percent, Villaraigosa 18 percent, Cox 9 percent, state Treasurer John Chiang 9 percent and Allen 6 percent.

Ose told the Chronicle that the state GOP establishment privately hailed his decision to join the race. Like Ose, Cox is a wealthy businessman who can self-fund his campaign if necessary. But Cox has never held office. Allen, meanwhile, has little name recognition and has struggled to raise funds.

Allen hammers Cox for not voting for Trump in 2016

Cox is launching a statewide radio ad campaign this week targeting Newsom for high state taxes. Allen, meanwhile, is bidding to become the breakout GOP candidate by emphasizing his leadership of one attempt to overturn the unpopular gas tax hike approved by the Legislature last year and his support for President Donald Trump.

In their first debate on Jan. 4 in Mentone – before Ose joined the race – Allen slammed Cox over and over for voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the 2016 presidential election.

“If you didn’t vote for the Republican nominee for president in 2016, you supported Hillary Clinton,” Allen said, according to an L.A. Times account. “If you’re not voting for Trump, you’re voting for crooked Hillary.”

Cox has said he shunned Trump in 2016 not because of Trump’s various controversies that campaign season but because of his history of voting for Democrats. Cox expresses regret for backing Johnson and says he is now a Trump admirer. Ose has been a consistent supporter of Trump.

Polls suggest the U.S. Senate race in November will have only Democratic candidates as well. With no high-profile GOP candidate yet in the picture and hedge fund billionaire Tom Steyer deciding against running, incumbent Dianne Feinstein seems poised for a November showdown with Senate President Kevin de León.

Chronicle senior political writer Joe Garofoli suggested the lack of Republican candidates for the state’s two top elections could hurt GOP turnout. But November ballot measures affecting taxes, guns and public education could still generate substantial Republican interest – especially the bid to repeal the gas tax hike and an attempt by Democrats to roll back parts of Proposition 13 to allow for annual tax hikes on commercial properties.

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.

Continuing a longstanding bipartisan tradition, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra came

Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, is sponsoring a measure to repeal the fuel tax and vehicle fee hikes approved this spring. The description given to Allen’s proposal by Becerra’s office didn’t mention taxes or fees. Instead, it said the measure “eliminates recently enacted road repair and transportation funding by repealing revenues dedicated for those purposes.”

Allen’s lawyers said the description was fundamentally deceptive. Last week, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy M. Frawley agreed: “The Attorney General’s title and summary … must be changed to avoid misleading the voters and creating prejudice against the measure,” he wrote.

The revision Frawley ordered: “Repeals recently enacted gas and diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Eliminates road repair and transportation programs funded by these taxes and fees.”

The perception of attorneys general using ballot language to manipulate voters has been common for decades.

When Becerra’s predecessor, fellow Democrat Kamala Harris, was attorney general before her election in November to the U.S. Senate, Republicans alleged she was particularly ready to put her thumb on the scale. The ballot description for 2016’s successful Proposition 58 made it seem as if it reinforced English-learning standards in state public schools when its primary intent was to repeal mandatory English-only immersion programs required by 1998’s Proposition 227. In 2015, Harris was trashed by the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board for effectively killing pension reform measures with what the board called ballot descriptions that sounded like “union talking points.”

When Gov. Jerry Brown was attorney general before Harris, his office also courted controversy. Two of his ballot descriptions were castigated by state judges in the same week in August 2010.

One was for Proposition 23, an unsuccessful measure which would have suspended implementation of state climate-change pollution rules. The initial ballot language was condemned as prejudicial and misleading by Frawley, the same judge who recently ruled against Becerra.

Two days after Frawley’s ruling, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette rejected ballot language for Proposition 25. The successful ballot measure’s key change was to allow the state Legislature to approve a state budget on a simple majority vote. The ballot language Brown approved made it appear as if the measure’s main intent was to reinforce the requirement that the Legislature could only approve tax increases on a two-thirds vote of both the Assembly and the Senate.

Republican attorneys general also accused of voter manipulation

But in the 20th century, when it wasn’t unusual to have Republicans holding statewide office in California, GOP attorneys general drew fire as well for their perceived ballot language machinations.

The most famous example was in 1978, when California voters approved Proposition 13 to put sharp limits on how much property taxes could increase annually. Neither the ballot title or summary approved by GOP Attorney General Evelle Younger mentioned that it also would raise the threshold for raising taxes in the Legislature to a two-thirds vote.

In 1996, Republican Attorney General Dan Lungren also drew fire over the ballot language he approved for Proposition 209, a successful measure limiting the use of racial preferences by state government. In 2012, Chronicle editorial page editor John Diaz revisited criticism first made in 1996, arguing that Lungren used “loaded words” to sell opposition to affirmative action.

“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. 

The column set off a war of words over the difference between legalization and decriminalization, with critics panning the column as “misleading,” “irresponsible” and “an unsubstantiated hot take.”

But the column’s author, Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, shot back on Tuesday in an interview with CalWatchdog, saying: “There is no war of words; the Democrats are lying about this.”

War of words

Allen’s critics have argued that California lawmakers (mostly, but not exclusively, Democrats) did not legalize child prostitution. Instead, child prostitution was decriminalized, in that minors could not be arrested and charged with prostitution or for loitering in public with the intent to commit prostitution. 

But Allen told CalWatchdog on Tuesday that decriminalization and legalization are the same thing. And in his column he argued that the new law makes it so that law enforcement can’t “interfere with minors engaging in prostitution.” 

Is there a difference?

At first glance, the difference between decriminalization and legalization may seem like the type of petty detail in a dispute between politicians that would frustrate the average constituent. 

But in practical terms, the difference in this instance is that while minors are immune from charges related to prostitution, customers and pimps are not. It is just as illegal as ever to purchase or sell sex with a minor, a fact noted by both The Sacramento Bee, which called Allen’s column “misleading,” and the conservative website Red State, which wrote Allen’s editorial was “an unsubstantiated hot take.” 

“Pimping is still illegal. Solicitation of sexual acts – whether from a minor or an adult – is still illegal. Statutory rape is still illegal,” Red State wrote. “So how is it that law enforcement can’t interfere?”

“Even so, Mitchell’s bill does allow for law enforcement to ‘interfere’ and for the minor to be adjudicated as dependent and brought into state custody,” Red State added.

Allen argued to CalWatchdog that under the new law, custody is only temporary. Allen added that legalization (or decriminalization) of child prostitution removed a tool for prosecutors, as the charges against minors were often pleaded down or dropped in exchange for testimony against pimps and others involved in the crime.

What’s the point?

In late September, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 1322, which made it no longer a crime for minors to engage in prostitution. The point was to treat minors engaged in prostitution as victims of crimes instead of criminals. 

The line of logic used by the bill’s sponsor, Senator Holly Mitchell, in a recent interview with KCRA, was that children under the age of 18 cannot legally consent to sex and therefore it’s rape. The Los Angeles Democrat also called Allen’s column “irresponsible.”

“You cannot consent to any kind of sexual experience if you’re under 18,” Mitchell said. “And so how then therefore could you be convicted of prostitution?” 

So what’s your solution?

When asked what more should be done to combat child prostitution, Allen said SB1322 was a step backwards. When asked again –  what specifically could be done to reduce child prostitution – Allen told CalWatchdog, “There’s always more that could be done,” and then repeated SB1322 was not the solution.

Whose law is it?

The Bee debunked claims made by Allen about certain opponents of the measure, as well as the claim that the law was “passed by the progressive Democrats,” when in fact moderate Democrats and a few Republicans supported the measure as well (though it was just a few Republicans).

“He includes a quote from Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O’Malley stating that decriminalizing child prostitution ‘opens up the door for traffickers to use these kids to commit crimes and exploit them even worse,'” The Bee wrote. “O’Malley initially opposed the bill, but ultimately signed on as one of the its highest-profile supporters.”