| Elections in California |
|---|
 |
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]
- ^ "Climate law to go before voters", Fresno Bee. June 23, 2010. Archived July 10, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "Elections and Voter Information :: California Secretary of State". www.sos.ca.gov. Archived from the original on November 5, 2010.
- ^ County Summary Status for the November 2, 2010, Statewide General Election Archived November 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine, California secretary of state, 3 November 2010
- ^ Proposition 23: Backers were outspent, out-organized, Los Angeles Times, 3 November 2010
- ^ "Ballot initiative would curb California efforts". Los Angeles Times. January 25, 2010. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
- ^ "STOP the Texas Oil Companies' Dirty Energy Proposition". www.stopdirtyenergyprop.com. Archived from the original on April 30, 2010.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Schwarzenegger opposewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Critics: State can't handle greenhouse gas mandates". San Diego Union Tribune. February 12, 2010. Retrieved 2013-10-30.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
loguewas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ a b "California Climate Campaign Spending May Top Record" Archived 2010-08-25 at the Wayback Machine, Business Week, April 16, 2010.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search