California Proposition 30, Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022)
California Proposition 30 | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Election date November 8, 2022 | |
Topic Taxes and Transportation | |
Status![]() | |
Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 30, the Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative, was on the ballot in California as an initiated state statute on November 8, 2022.[1] The ballot measure was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs. |
A "no" vote opposed increasing the tax on personal income above $2 million by 1.75% and dedicating the revenue to zero-emission vehicle subsidies; zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, such as electric vehicle charging stations; and wildfire suppression and prevention programs. |
Election results
California Proposition 30 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
Yes | 4,560,483 | 42.37% | ||
6,203,806 | 57.63% |
Overview
What would Proposition 30 have done?
- See also: Measure design
Proposition 30 would have increased the income tax by an additional 1.75% on income above $2 million for individuals. At the time of the election, income above $2 million for individuals was taxed at a rate of 13.3% in California. The additional tax would have taken effect on January 1, 2023. The initiative provides that the tax would have ened on the earliest of the following dates:[1]
- January 1, 2043, or
- January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.
Revenue from the increased income tax would have been appropriated into the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund (CCCATF). It would then have been allocated to the following three sub-funds: Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund (35% of revenue), Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund (45% of revenue), and Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund (20% of revenue). The sub-funds would have funded zero-emission vehicles, charging stations, and infrastructure, as well as hiring and training firefighters.[1]
Who supported and opposed Proposition 30?
- See also: Support and Opposition
Yes on 30: Clean Air California led the campaign in support of Proposition 30. It received endorsements from the California State Association of Electrical Workers and California Environmental Voters. Two other committees also registered in support of Proposition 30: Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs and California Environmental Voters Issues Committee. Together the committees reported $48.1 million in contributions. Lyft was the top contributor with $45.2 million in contributions. Bill Magavern, one of the authors of the initiative, said, "We need to protect the health of Californians. California needs to step up to protect its own. The state is doing a lot to reduce harmful emissions but the budget, even with the governor making the commitment he has, is insufficient to address these problems."[2][3]
There are two committees registered in opposition to Proposition 30: No on 30 and No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts. The committees reported $31.9 million in contributions. Proposition 30 has received opposition from Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Teachers Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. Gov. Newsom (D) said, "Prop. 30 is a special interest carve-out — a cynical scheme devised by a single corporation to funnel state income tax revenue to their company. … Californians should know that just this year our state committed $10 billion for electric vehicles and their infrastructure."[4]
Measure design
- See also: Text of measure
Click on the arrows (▼) below for summaries of the different provisions of Proposition 30.
Income Tax Authorization: New income tax on individuals with income over $2 million
- January 1, 2043, or
- January 1 after three consecutive calendar years after January 1, 2030, of statewide greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 80% of 1990 levels.
The Legislative Analyst's Office estimated that the additional tax would generate between $3 billion to $4.5 billion annually.[5]
Creation of the Clean Cars and Clean Air Trust Fund: Revenue allocation
The money in the CCCATF would have been allocated to three sub-funds created by the initiative:
- 35% to the Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund;
- 45% to the Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund; and
- 20% to the Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund.
The initiative would have required that the sub-fund begin awarding financial incentives no later than the second January 1 after the effective date of the funds.
Zero-Emission Vehicle Infrastructure Investment Plan Sub-Fund: Purpose of sub-fund
- 20% to develop multifamily dwelling charging stations;
- 10% to develop single-family charging stations;
- 10% to develop fast fueling infrastructure for passenger vehicles; and
- 10% to develop medium and heavy-duty fueling infrastructure.
The initiative would have required the CEC to consider the following principles in developing infrastructure: low cost to drivers, price transparency, long-term reliability, grid support, a robust grid, and equitable access.
Zero-Emission Vehicle and Clean Mobility Sub-Fund: Purpose of sub-fund
<ref>
tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
The initiative lists the following eligible programs for funding:Cite error: Invalid <ref>
tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
- financial incentives for zero-emission school and transit buses;
- financial incentives for governments and businesses to buy medium-, heavy-duty, and off-road agricultural and construction zero-emission vehicles;
- help drivers retire polluting vehicles and replace them with zero-emission vehicles;
- help workers utilize zero-emission vanpools;
- local air quality benefits in communities overburdened by diesel pollution; and
- access to electric bikes, bike-sharing, bike lanes, and transit passes.
The measure was designed to have funds in the Zero-Emission Vehicle General Account be used to create a zero-emission vehicle incentive program that distributes rebates, subsidies, grants, and other financial incentives for all California residents to purchase or lease zero-emission vehicles. The initiative would have required that CARB, who would administer the program, prioritize applications in the following order: individual residents, businesses and state or local governments that would drive vehicles at least 25,000 miles annually, and any other remaining businesses or governments.Cite error: Invalid <ref>
tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
Wildfire Green House Gas Emissions Reduction Sub-Fund: Purpose of sub-fund
<ref>
tag; invalid names, e.g. too many
Other initiative provisions: Continuous fund appropriation and cap on administrative costs
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title was as follows:[6][1]
“ |
Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute.[7] |
” |
Petition summary
The summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was as follows:[1]
“ |
Increases tax on personal income over $2 million by 1.75% for individuals and married couples and allocates new tax revenues as follows: (1) 45% for rebates and other incentives for zero-emission vehicle purchases and 35% for charging stations for zero-emission vehicles, with at least half of this funding directed to low-income households and communities; and (2) 20% for wildfire prevention and suppression programs, with priority given to hiring and training firefighters. Requires audits of programs and expenditures.[7] |
” |
Fiscal impact
The fiscal impact statement was as follows:[1]
“ |
Increased annual state tax revenue ranging from $3 billion to $4.5 billion, with the additional revenue used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire-related activities. Potential increased state administrative costs paid from other funding sources that could reach tens of millions to the low hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Net decrease in state and local transportation revenue of up to several tens of millions of dollars annually in the initial years, and growing to up to a few hundreds of millions of dollars annually after several years.[7] |
” |
Full text
The full text of the ballot measure is below:[1]
Readability score
- See also: Ballot measure readability scores, 2022
Using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) formulas, Ballotpedia scored the readability of the ballot title and summary for this measure. Readability scores are designed to indicate the reading difficulty of text. The Flesch-Kincaid formulas account for the number of words, syllables, and sentences in a text; they do not account for the difficulty of the ideas in the text. The attorney general wrote the ballot language for this measure.
The FKGL for the ballot title is grade level 12, and the FRE is 28. The word count for the ballot title is 19.
The FKGL for the ballot summary is grade level 21, and the FRE is 8. The word count for the ballot summary is 73.
Support
Yes on 30: Clean Air California led the campaign in support of Proposition 30.[2]
Supporters
The coalition published a full list of endorsements on its website that can be found here.
Officials
- U.S. Rep. Ro Khanna (D)
- U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee (D)
- State Rep. Kevin McCarty (Nonpartisan)
- State Rep. Buffy Wicks (D)
- Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf (D)
Political Parties
Corporations
Unions
Organizations
Individuals
- Thomas Steyer (D) - President of NextGen Climate
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in support of Proposition 30 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[8]
|
Campaign advertisements
The following campaign ads were released by the Yes on 30 campaign:[9]
|
|
Opposition
No on 30 led the campaign in opposition to Proposition 30.[10]
Opponents
Officials
- Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
Political Parties
Unions
Organizations
- California Chamber of Commerce
- California Small Business Association
- Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Arguments
Official arguments
The following is the argument in opposition to Proposition 30 found in the Official Voter Information Guide:[11]
|
Campaign advertisements
The following video was released by Vote No Prop 30:[10]
|
Campaign finance
There are three ballot measure committees, Yes on 30: Clean Air California, Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs, and California Environmental Voters Issues Committee, registered in support of the initiative. Together the committees reported nearly $48.1 million in contributions. There are two ballot measure committees, No on 30 and No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts, registered in opposition to the initiative. The committees reported $31.9 million.[12]
Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Support | $47,105,955.00 | $1,021,764.57 | $48,127,719.57 | $43,301,767.18 | $44,323,531.75 |
Oppose | $24,695,736.00 | $7,180,058.10 | $31,875,794.10 | $30,298,389.29 | $37,478,447.39 |
Total | $71,801,691.00 | $8,201,822.67 | $80,003,513.67 | $73,600,156.47 | $81,801,979.14 |
Support
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in support of the ballot measure.[12]
Committees in support of Proposition 30 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
Yes on 30: Clean Air California | $46,754,955.00 | $1,016,938.43 | $47,771,893.43 | $43,032,566.88 | $44,049,505.31 |
Yes on 30: Working Families and Environmental Voters to Expose Greedy Billionaires and CEOs | $190,000.00 | $0.00 | $190,000.00 | $200,796.06 | $200,796.06 |
California Environmental Voters Issues Committee | $161,000.00 | $4,826.14 | $165,826.14 | $68,404.24 | $73,230.38 |
Total | $47,105,955.00 | $1,021,764.57 | $48,127,719.57 | $43,301,767.18 | $44,323,531.75 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in support of the ballot measure.[12]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
Lyft | $45,000,000.00 | $210,573.84 | $45,210,573.84 |
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers PAC | $1,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,000,000.00 |
Zinc Collective | $200,000.00 | $0.00 | $200,000.00 |
Joseph Sanberg | $100,000.00 | $0.00 | $100,000.00 |
California Environmental Voters Issues Committee | $90,000.00 | $0.00 | $90,000.00 |
Opposition
The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.[12]
Committees in opposition to Proposition 30 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Committee | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions | Cash Expenditures | Total Expenditures |
No on 30 | $19,487,236.00 | $7,180,058.10 | $26,667,294.10 | $25,059,495.31 | $32,239,553.41 |
No on 30 - Educators Opposed to Corporate Handouts | $5,208,500.00 | $0.00 | $5,208,500.00 | $5,238,893.98 | $5,238,893.98 |
Total | $24,695,736.00 | $7,180,058.10 | $31,875,794.10 | $30,298,389.29 | $37,478,447.39 |
Donors
The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.[12]
Donor | Cash Contributions | In-Kind Contributions | Total Contributions |
---|---|---|---|
California Teachers Association/Issues PAC | $5,000,000.00 | $0.00 | $5,000,000.00 |
Michael Moritz | $1,000,000.00 | $1,333,007.80 | $2,333,007.80 |
Newsom for California Governor 2022 | $0.00 | $1,617,216.88 | $1,617,216.88 |
Leonard G. Baker Jr | $463,084.80 | $1,066,957.44 | $1,530,042.24 |
Mark Heising | $1,250,000.00 | $0.00 | $1,250,000.00 |
Methodology
To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.
Media editorials
- See also: 2022 ballot measure media endorsements
Ballotpedia identified the following media editorial boards as taking positions on the initiative.
Ballotpedia lists the positions of media editorial boards that support or oppose ballot measures. This does not include opinion pieces from individuals or groups that do not represent the official position of a newspaper or media outlet. Ballotpedia includes editorials from newspapers and outlets based on circulation and readership, political coverage within a state, and length of publication. You can share media editorial board endorsements with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
Support
Opposition
Polls
- See also: Ballotpedia's approach to covering polls and 2022 ballot measure polls
- Are you aware of a poll on this ballot measure that should be included below? You can share ballot measure polls, along with source links, with us at editor@ballotpedia.org.
California Proposition 30, Tax on Income Above $2 Million for Zero-Emissions Vehicles and Wildfire Prevention Initiative (2022) | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Public Policy Institute of California | 10/14/2022-10/23/2022 | 1,111 LV | ± 5.1% | 41% | 52% | 7% |
Question: "Proposition 30 is called Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income over $2 Million. Initiative Statute. It allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. The fiscal impact is increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 30?" | ||||||
Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS) | 9/22/22 - 9/27/22 | 6,939 LV | ± 2.5% | 49% | 37% | 14% |
Question: "PROVIDES FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS TO REDUCE AIR POLLUTION AND PREVENT WILDFIRES BY INCREASING TAX ON PERSONAL INCOME OVER $2 MILLION. INITIATIVE STATUTE. Allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. Fiscal Impact: Increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, how would you vote on Proposition 30?" | ||||||
Public Policy Institute of California | 9/2/22 - 9/11/22 | 1,060 LV | ± 5.4% | 55% | 40% | 5% |
Question: "Proposition 30 is called Provides Funding for Programs to Reduce Air Pollution and Prevent Wildfires by Increasing Tax on Personal Income Over $2 Million. Initiative Statute. It allocates tax revenues to zero-emission vehicle purchase incentives, vehicle charging stations, and wildfire prevention. The fiscal impact is increased state tax revenue ranging from $3.5 billion to $5 billion annually, with the new funding used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire response and prevention activities. If the election were held today, would you vote yes or no on Proposition 30?" | ||||||
Public Policy Institute of California | 7/8/22 - 7/15/22 | 1,132 LV | ± 4.1% | 63% | 35% | 2% |
Question: "A citizens’ initiative on the November ballot provides funding for programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing the tax on personal income over $2 million with the additional revenue used to support zero-emission vehicle programs and wildfire-related activities. Do you favor or oppose this initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?" | ||||||
Note: LV is likely voters, RV is registered voters, and EV is eligible voters.
Background
Income tax rates in California
At the time of the election,California had a graduated individual income tax with rates ranging from 1% to 13.3%. The various brackets are listed below:[13]
California income tax brackets | ||
---|---|---|
Tax rate | Single filer bracket | Married filer bracket |
1% | > $0 | > $0 |
2% | > $9,325 | > $18,650 |
4% | > $22,107 | > $44,214 |
6% | > $34,892 | > $69,784 |
8% | > $48,435 | > $96,870 |
9.3% | > $61,214 | >$122,428 |
10.3% | > $312,686 | >$625,372 |
11.3% | > $375,221 | >$750,442 |
12.3% | > $625,369 | >$1,000,000 |
13.3% | > $1,000,000 | >$1,250,738 |
As of 2022, 43 states tax individual income—41 taxed wages while New Hampshire taxes only dividend and interest revenue and Washington taxes the capital gains income of high earners. The remaining seven states did not tax personal income. Of the 41 states with an income tax, 11 states have a flat rate, and the other states have graduated rates that varied depending on different income brackets. The number of income tax brackets ranged from three in Kansas to 12 in Hawaii.
The tax rate applied to income within the highest bracket across the 43 states with income taxes ranging from 2.9% applied to income above $445,000 in North Dakota to 13.3% applied to income above $1,000,000 in California.[14]
California Air Resources Board (CARB)
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) was created on August 30, 1967, with the passage of the Mulford-Carrel Air Resources Act. In that same year, the federal government enacted the Federal Air Quality Act authorizing states to set their own air quality rules. CARB adopted the nation's first NOx (nitrogen oxides) emissions standards for motor vehicles in 1971.[15]
CARB consists of 16 members—12 appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate; one member appointed by each legislative chamber; and one nonvoting member appointed by each legislative chamber for legislative oversight. The 12 members appointed by the governor include six who serve on local air districts, four members considered experts in the fields that shape air quality rules, two public members, and one full-time member who serves as the chair of the board.[16]
On the board's website, it lists the following responsibilities: set the state's air quality standards; identify pollutants that pose the greatest health risk; measure progress in reducing pollutants; verify automakers' emissions compliance; and research the cause of air pollution problems; study the costs and benefits of pollution controls.[15]
In 2020, Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) directed CARB to adopt regulations to end the sale of gas-powered cars in California by 2035. In 2021, CARB adopted regulations requiring about 8% of new cars sold in the state to be zero-emission by 2025. Also in 2021, CARB adopted regulations requiring rideshare companies, such as Uber and Lyft, to achieve a level of zero greenhouse gas emissions and to ensure 90% of their vehicle miles are fully electric.[17][18]
California Energy Commission (CEC)
The California Energy Commission (CEC) was established in 1975 by the Warren-Alquist Act. CEC is the state's primary energy policy and planning agency. The commission consists of five members appointed by the governor and approved by the senate that serve five-year staggered terms. The commissioners must represent one of the following fields: law, environment, economics, science or engineering, and the public at large.[19]
The commission's website lists the following responsibilities: advancing state energy policy, achieving energy efficiency, investing in energy innovation, developing renewable energy, transitioning the transportation sector to low-carbon fuels and zero- and near-zero-emission technologies, overseeing energy infrastructure, and preparing for energy emergencies.[20]
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE)
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) was founded in 1885. CAL FIRE is tasked with "providing wildland fire protection, fire prevention, and resource management on more than 31 million acres of State Responsibility Area (SRA) lands throughout California ... [and providing] emergency services to 115 local government cooperators through agreements with districts, cities and counties." The CAL FIRE Budget for fiscal year 2021-2022 was $2.6 billion.[21]
Office of the State Fire Marshall (OSFM)
The Office of the State Fire Marshall has been under CAL FIRE since 1995. The OSFM is responsible for providing fire safety where people live, work, and congregate by enforcing fire-related laws and codes. Between 2020 and 2021, the OSFM conducted over 230,000 inspections of defensible space and pipelines.[21]
Path to the ballot
Process in California
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast in the preceding gubernatorial election. Petitions are allowed to circulate for 180 days from the date the attorney general prepares the petition language. Signatures need to be certified at least 131 days before the general election. As the verification process can take multiple months, the secretary of state provides suggested deadlines for ballot initiatives.
The requirements to get initiated state statutes certified for the 2022 ballot:
- Signatures: 623,212 valid signatures were required.
- Deadline: The deadline for signature verification was 131 days before the general election, which was around June 30, 2022. However, the process of verifying signatures can take multiple months and proponents are recommended to file signatures at least two months before the verification deadline.
Signatures are first filed with local election officials, who determine the total number of signatures submitted. If the total number is equal to at least 100 percent of the required signatures, then local election officials perform a random check of signatures submitted in their counties. If the random sample estimates that more than 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, the initiative is eligible for the ballot. If the random sample estimates that between 95 and 110 percent of the required number of signatures are valid, a full check of signatures is done to determine the total number of valid signatures. If less than 95 percent are estimated to be valid, the initiative does not make the ballot.
Initiative #21-0037
Joseph Wiedman filed the ballot initiative on November 4, 2021. The Attorney General of California issued ballot language for the initiative on January 10, 2022, allowing a signature drive to begin. Signatures were due on July 11, 2022. Proponents reported collecting 25% of the required signatures on February 16, 2022.[22]
On May 16, 2022, the secretary of state reported the campaign had filed 990,608 raw signatures.[6]
On June 28, 2022, the secretary of state reported that the initiative had qualified for the ballot. The final random sample count concluded that 720,238 of the 990,608 submitted signatures were valid.[23]
Sponsors of the measure hired 2022 Campaigns Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $8,419,126.80 was spent to collect the 623,212 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $13.51.
How to cast a vote
- See also: Voting in California
See below to learn more about current voter registration rules, identification requirements, and poll times in California.
See also
External links
Support |
Opposition |
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 California Attorney General, "Initiative 21-0037," December 13, 2021
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Clean Air California, "Home," accessed March 9, 2022
- ↑ The Press Enterprise, "Ballot proposal would raise billions for electric cars, charging stations," January 14, 2022
- ↑ CalMatter, "Climate Change California Newsom," accessed July 27, 2022
- ↑ Legislative Analyst's Office, "Initiative 37 analysis," accessed May 6, 2022
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed January 31, 2022
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed October 23, 2022
- ↑ Facebook, "Yes on 30 - Clean Air California, accessed October 12, 2022
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 YouTube, "Vote No Prop 30," accessed September 13, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Official Voter Information Guide," accessed October 23, 2022
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 12.2 12.3 12.4 Cal-Access, "CLEAN AIR CALIFORNIA, A COALITION OF RIDESHARE COMPANIES, LABOR, AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS," accessed March 7, 2022
- ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2022," July 27, 2022
- ↑ Tax Foundation, "State Individual Income Tax Rates and Brackets for 2017," March 9, 2017
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 California Air Resources Board, "About," accessed July 27, 2022
- ↑ California Air Resources Board, "History," accessed July 27, 2022
- ↑ CAP Radio, "Clean-car rules: California unveils proposed measure to ban new gasoline-fueled cars," April 17, 2022
- ↑ California Air Resources Board, "California requires zero-emissions vehicle use for ridesharing services, another step toward achieving the state’s climate goals," May 20, 2021
- ↑ California Energy Commission, "About," accessed July 27, 2022
- ↑ California Energy Commission, "Core Responsibility Fact Sheets," accessed July 27, 2022
- ↑ 21.0 21.1 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, "CAL FIRE at a Glance," accessed July 27, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Initiatives," accessed January 11, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Final Count," accessed June 29, 2022
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Section 3: Polling Place Hours," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Voter Registration," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ 26.0 26.1 California Secretary of State, "Registering to Vote," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Same Day Voter Registration (Conditional Voter Registration)," accessed August 13, 2024
- ↑ SF.gov, "Non-citizen voting rights in local Board of Education elections," accessed November 14, 2024
- ↑ Under federal law, the national mail voter registration application (a version of which is in use in all states with voter registration systems) requires applicants to indicate that they are U.S. citizens in order to complete an application to vote in state or federal elections, but does not require voters to provide documentary proof of citizenship. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the application "may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to prevent duplicate voter registrations and permit State officials both to determine the eligibility of the applicant to vote and to administer the voting process."
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "What to Bring to Your Polling Place," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, "Section 20107," accessed August 12, 2024
- ↑ Democracy Docket, "California Governor Signs Law to Ban Local Voter ID Requirements," September 30, 2024
![]() |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
---|---|
Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |