California Proposition 23, Suspension Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Law Initiative (2010)

From Ballotpedia
California Proposition 23
Flag of California.png
Election date
November 2, 2010
Topic
Environment
Status
Defeatedd Defeated
Type
State statute		Origin
Citizens

California Proposition 23 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on November 2, 2010. It was defeated.[1]

A "yes" vote supported suspending Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which required greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California's unemployment rate decreases to 5.5% or less for four consecutive quarters.

A "no" vote opposed suspending Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which required greenhouse gas emissions to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.


Election results[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

California Proposition 23

Result Votes Percentage
Yes 3,733,883 38.46%

Defeated No

5,974,564 61.54%
Results are officially certified.
Source


Overview[edit]

AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006," was passed by the California State Legislature and signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger.[2][3] Proposition 23, if enacted by voters, would have suspended AB 32 until California's unemployment rate dropped to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters. At the time of the election, California's unemployment rate was about 12% and had been at 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters just three times since 1980.[4]

AB 32 required that greenhouse gas emission levels in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020. The process of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the state was slated under AB 32 to begin in 2012.

Supporters referred to Proposition 23 as the California Jobs Initiative, and opponents referred to it as the Dirty Energy Proposition.[5][6] Supporters of the measure filed a lawsuit that resulted in a change to the measure's title and summary.[7]


Text of measure

Ballot title

The ballot title for Proposition 23 was as follows:

“

Suspends implementation of air pollution control law (AB 32) requiring major sources of emissions to report and reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming, until unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for full year. Initiative statute.

”

Ballot summary

The ballot summary for this measure was:

“

• Suspends State law that requires greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020, until California’s unemployment drops to 5.5 percent or less for four consecutive quarters.


• Suspends comprehensive greenhouse-gas-reduction program that includes increased renewable energy and cleaner fuel requirements, and mandatory emissions reporting and fee requirements for major emissions sources such as power plants and oil refineries.		”

Full Text

The full text of this measure is available here.

Fiscal impact[edit]

This is a summary of the initiative's estimated fiscal impact on state and local government prepared by the California Legislative Analyst's Office:[8]

“
  • The suspension of AB 32 could result in a modest net increase in overall economic activity in the state. In this event, there would be an unknown but potentially significant net increase in state and local government revenues.
  • Potential loss of a new source of state revenues from the auctioning of emission allowances by state government to certain businesses that would pay for these allowances, by suspending the future implementation of cap-and-trade regulations.
  • Lower energy costs for state and local governments than otherwise.[9]
 ”

Support[edit]

"Yes on 23" campaign logo

Yes on 23 led the campaign in support of Proposition 23.

Supporters[edit]

Arguments[edit]

Official arguments[edit]

Arguments were submitted to the official California Voter Guide on behalf of a "yes" vote on Proposition 23 by Kevin Nida, president of the California State Firefighters’ Association; John Kabateck, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business/California; and Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association:[8]

“

THE PROBLEM: CALIFORNIA’S GLOBAL WARMING MANDATES ARE ON THE WRONG TRACK

Climate change is a serious issue that should be addressed thoughtfully and responsibly. However, now is not the time to implement AB32, California’s costly global warming law, especially since the California Air Resources Board (CARB) acknowledges AB32 cannot 'change the course of climate change.'

California already has a $20 billion deficit and leads the nation in lost jobs, home foreclosures and debt. Implementing AB32 will cost taxpayers and consumers billions and destroy over a million jobs. Voters must stop these self-imposed energy cost increases that will further damage our economy and families.

THE SOLUTION: PROPOSITION 23

Proposition 23 suspends AB32 until the economy improves. It preserves California’s strict environmental laws but protects us from dramatically higher energy costs. Proposition 23 saves jobs, prevents a tax increase, maintains environmental protections and helps families during these tough economic times.

PROPOSITION 23 SAVES BILLIONS IN HIGHER ENERGY TAXES AND COSTS

California’s poor, working and middle class families are dealing with lost jobs, fewer hours and furloughs. California households cannot afford $3800 a year in higher AB32 costs. 'AB 32 will cause California households to face higher prices both directly for electricity, natural gas, and gasoline, and indirectly as businesses pass costs for GHG reduction on to consumers.'—CARB’s Economic Allocation and Advisory Committee

PROPOSITION 23 SAVES OVER ONE MILLION CALIFORNIA JOBS Other countries and states prudently postponed implementing their global warming laws until economic conditions improve. Without Proposition 23 higher energy prices will hit small businesses and employers, forcing more lay-offs and business closures. Other countries that passed global warming laws experienced a loss of two blue collar jobs for every one green job created.

Proposition 23 saves over a million at-risk jobs, including highpaying blue collar and union jobs, and doesn’t limit green job creation.

PROPOSITION 23 PRESERVES CALIFORNIA’S STRICT PUBLIC HEALTH, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS California has the toughest environmental laws in the country. Proposition 23 doesn’t weaken or repeal the hundreds of laws that protect the environment, reduce air pollution, keep our water clean and protect public health. Proposition 23 applies to greenhouse gas emissions, which CARB concedes 'have no direct public health impacts.'

PROPOSITION 23 PROTECTS ESSENTIAL PUBLIC SERVICES By stopping higher energy costs, Proposition 23 helps protect funding when community budgets are dangerously stretched—keeping teachers in our classrooms and firefighters on the street. 'Public safety is our top priority. Proposition 23 is essential to help protect funding for firefighters, law enforcement and emergency medical services. —Kevin Nida, President, California State Firefighters’ Association

PROPOSITION 23 EMPOWERS VOTERS NOT BUREAUCRATS CARB’s unelected political appointees want to impose hidden taxes without voter approval. Proposition 23 lets voters, not bureaucrats, decide when we implement California’s costly global warming law.

Proposition 23’s common-sense, fiscally responsible approach is a win-win for California’s families, economy and environment.

JOIN TAXPAYERS, FIREFIGHTERS, LOCAL OFFICIALS, ENERGY COMPANIES, FARMERS AND BUSINESSES TO SAVE JOBS AND PROTECT CALIFORNIA’S ECONOMY.

YES ON PROPOSITION 23

Yeson23.com[9]

”

Donors[edit]

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

Supporters of Proposition 23 raised about $10.6 million for their campaign.[14]

Two Texas-based oil companies, Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, provided the campaign with initial funding to launch its petition drive to qualify for the November 2 ballot.[15]

Valero Energy Corporation and Tesoro Corporation, along with Flint Hills Resources, altogether donated over $6.5 million to the "California Jobs Initiative Committee."[16] At the time, Flint Hills Resources had oil operations in several states outside of California, and was a division of Koch Industries.[17][18][19]


According to Cal-Access, these donations of $25,000 or more were made to the "California Jobs Initiative Committee":[20]

Donor Amount
Valero $4,065,636
Tesoro Companies $1,540,636
Flint Hills Resources $1,000,000
Marathon Petroleum Company LLC $500,000
Adam Smith Foundation $498,000
Occidental Petroleum $300,000
National Petrochemical and Refiners Association $100,000
Tower Energy Group $200,000
World Oil Corp $100,000
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association $100,000
Southern Counties Oil (Total Energy Products) $50,000
California Trucking Association $50,000
Frontier Oil $50,000
Murray Energy $30,000
Berry Petrochemical $25,000
Boyett Petroleum (Stan Boylett & Son) $25,000
California State Pipes Trade Association $25,000
Caminol Management $25,000
Holly Corporation $25,000
Robinson Oil $25,000
J.G. Boswell Company $25,000


Campaign advertisements[edit]

The "Yes on 23" campaign released the following videos and commercials:

Opposition[edit]

"No on 23" campaign logo

Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs led the No on 23 campaign in opposition to Proposition 23.

Opponents[edit]

  • American Lung Association- California[21]
  • American Association of Pediatrics in California[21]
  • Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality District[21]
  • California Professional Firefighters[21]
  • League of Women Voters of California[21]
  • Consumers Union[21]
  • AARP[21]
  • VoteVets.org[21]
  • California Climate & Agriculture Network[21]
  • Small Business California[21]
  • Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers[21]
  • California Conference of Carpenters[21]
  • California Infill Builders Association Council[21]
  • Antelope Valley Black Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • California Black Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Culver City Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • German American Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Greater San Fernando Valley Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Green Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Mountain View Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Los Altos Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Latin Business Association[21]
  • Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Pasadena Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • San Francisco Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Sacramento Metro Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Silicon Valley Leadership Group[21]
  • Solano County Black Chamber of Commerce[21]
  • Valley Industry and Commerce Association (VICA)[21]
  • California Teachers Association[21]
  • California Wind Energy Association[21]
  • California Solar Energy Industries Association[21]
  • Oak Creek Energy Systems, Inc.[21]
  • Solaria[21]
  • TechNet[21]
  • Virgin America[21]
  • Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.[21]
  • Abel Maldonado, Lieutenant Governor of California at the time[21]
  • Kamala Harris, a candidate for Attorney General of California.[11]
  • California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R)[22]
  • The California Teamsters[23]
  • California Institute of Architects, California Council[21]
  • California Statewide Law Enforcement Association[21]

Arguments[edit]

Official arguments[edit]

The arguments submitted to the official California Voter Guide urging a "no" vote on Proposition 23 were signed by Jane Warner, president of the American Lung Association in California; Linda Rosenstock, M.D., dean of UCLA School of Public Health; and David Pacheco, president of AARP California:[8]

“

TEXAS OIL COMPANIES DESIGNED PROP. 23 to KILL CALIFORNIA CLEAN ENERGY and AIR POLLUTION STANDARDS.

Big Texas oil companies and state politicians who receive oil company money designed Prop. 23 to repeal clean energy and air pollution standards in California. Those oil companies are spending millions on a DECEPTIVE CAMPAIGN to promote Prop. 23 because 23 would allow them and other polluters to escape accountability and increase their profits.

PROP. 23 is a DIRTY ENERGY PROPOSITION that MEANS MORE AIR POLLUTION and INCREASED HEALTH RISKS—Vote NO.

Prop. 23’s main backers, the Valero and Tesoro oil companies, are among the worst polluters in California. They’re using 23 to repeal portions of the health and safety code that require them to reduce air pollution at their California refineries.

'Prop. 23 would result in more air pollution that would lead to more asthma and lung disease, especially in children and seniors. Vote NO.' —American Lung Association in California

PROP. 23 is a JOB KILLER—THREATENING HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of CALIFORNIA JOBS.

Across California, clean energy companies are sprouting up and building wind and solar power facilities that provide us with clean power, built right here by California workers. By repealing clean energy laws, Prop. 23 would put many of these California companies out of business, kill a homegrown industry that is creating hundreds of thousands of California jobs, and damage our overall economy.

'California is the hub of innovation and investment in clean energy technologies and businesses. But Prop. 23 would reverse the state’s clean energy laws, jeopardizing billions in economic growth and hundreds of thousands of jobs.'—Sue Kateley, Executive Director, California Solar

Energy Industries Association, representing more than 200 solar energy small businesses.

The independent, nonpartisan Legislative Analyst Office says 23 could 'dampen additional investment in clean energy technologies by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than otherwise would be the case.'

PROP. 23 WOULD JEOPARDIZE:

  • 12,000 California-based clean energy businesses
  • Nearly 500,000 existing California clean energy jobs
  • More than $10 billion in private investment in California

PROP. 23 WOULD KEEP US ADDICTED to COSTLY OIL— Vote NO.

By killing incentives for clean energy, 23 reduces choices for consumers already facing high gas and electricity costs.

'Prop. 23 would keep consumers stuck on costly oil and subject consumers to spiking energy prices.' Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports Magazine

OUR OIL ADDICTION THREATENS NATIONAL SECURITY. PROP. 23 MAKES IT WORSE.

Prop. 23 would harm efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil that comes from countries that support terrorism and are hostile to the United States.

JOIN PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCATES, CLEAN ENERGY COMPANIES and SMALL BUSINESSES: VOTE NO on 23.

Prop. 23 is OPPOSED by:

  • American Lung Association in California
  • Coalition for Clean Air
  • AARP
  • League of Women Voters of California
  • More than 50 leading environmental organizations
  • LA Business Council
  • More than 200 solar and wind energy companies
  • Hundreds of other businesses across California

STOP the TEXAS OIL COMPANIES’ DIRTY ENERGY PROPOSITION.

Vote NO on 23. www.StopDirtyEnergyProp.com[9]

”

Campaign finance[edit]

Main article: Donations to California's 2010 ballot propositions

Eighteen different campaign committees filed with Cal-Access in opposition to Proposition 23.[27]

Donors[edit]

According to Cal-Access, these donations of $100,000 or more went to one or more of the "No on Proposition 23" campaign committees:[27]

Donor Amount
Thomas Steyer $5,049,000
National Wildlife Federation $3,000,000
John and Ann Doerr $2,100,000
Natural Resources Defense Council $1,860,000
Sierra Club $1,679,188
League of Conservation Voters $1,295,000
Environmental Defense Fund $1,075,000
Vinod Khosla $1,037,267
James Cameron $1,000,000
Robert J. Fisher $1,000,000
Gordon Miller $1,000,000
Climateworks Foundation $900,000
Nature Conservancy $800,000
Bill Gates $700,000
Clean Energy & Jobs Mobilization Committee $609,632
Green Tech Action Fund $500,000
John Morgridge $500,000
Claire Perry $500,000
Wendy Schmidt $500,000
Julian Robertson $500,000
Pacific Gas & Electric $500,000
Hannelore Grantham $400,000
Susan Mandel $400,000
Ballot Initiative Strategy Center $317,000
Rockefeller Family Fund $300,000
SCOPE $300,000
William Patterson $250,000
Anne Earhart $250,000
Susan Packard Orr $250,000
Nicolas Berggruen $250,000
Democratic State Central Committee $217,470
A.L.L.E.R.T $200,000
Shawn and Brook Byers $200,000
Sergey Brin $200,000
California Teachers Association $200,000
Lauren Powell Jobs $200,000
SunRun Inc. $200,000
Environment California $126,973
Union of Concerned Scientists $113,005
Julie Packard $101,000
Fahrad Ebrahimi $100,000
John Pritzker $100,000
Nancy Burnett $100,000
Lucy Southworth $100,000
Paul Klingenstein $100,000
Green Tech Capital Advisors $100,000
Audubon Society $100,000
Majestic Realty $100,000


Campaign advertisements[edit]

The "No on 23" campaign released the following videos and commercials:

Media editorials[edit]

2010 propositions
Flag of California.png
June 8
Proposition 13
Proposition 14 • Text
Proposition 15 • Text
Proposition 16 • Text
Proposition 17 • Text
November 2
Proposition 19 • Text
Proposition 20 • Text
Proposition 21 • Text
Proposition 22 • Text
Proposition 23 • Text
Proposition 24 • Text
Proposition 25 • Text
Proposition 26 • Text
Proposition 27 • Text
Donations • Vendors
Endorsements
Local measures
See also: Endorsements of California ballot measures, 2010

Support[edit]

Opposition[edit]

Polls[edit]

Legend

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures


Date of Poll Pollster Support Oppose Undecided Number polled
June 22-July 5, 2010 Field 36% 48% 16% 1,005
Sept 15-22, 2010 GQR and AV 40% 38% 22% 1,511
September 14-21, 2010 Field 34% 45% 11% 599
September 19-26, 2010 PPIC 43% 42% 15% 2,004
October 2-4, 2010 Reuters/lpsos 37% 49% 14% 600
October 10-17, 2010 PPIC 37% 48% 15% 2,002
October 14-26, 2010 Field for the Sacramento Bee 33% 48% 19% 1,501

The question in this poll asked whether poll respondents supported AB 32, the 2006 Global Warming law that would be suspended until the unemployment rate dropped.[47]

Date of Poll Pollster Support AB 32 Oppose AB 32 Undecided Number polled
July 6-20, 2010 PPIC 67% 23% 4% Unknown

The question in this poll asked whether the state should take action "right away" on its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or wait until the state’s economy and job situation improved.[48]

Date of Poll Pollster "Take action right away" "Wait until economy improves" Undecided Number polled
July 6-20, 2010 PPIC 53% 42% 5% Unknown

Background[edit]

About AB 32[edit]

See also: California's AB 32, the "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006", and Text of California Assembly Bill 32 (2006)

AB 32 was enacted in 2006. The goal of AB 32 was to cap state-created greenhouse gases by 2020, based on 1990 emissions. Steps taken under AB 32 included retrofits on diesel engines and new devices on gas pumps.

Unemployment in California[edit]

Proposition 23 (article about)
Full text of Prop 23
AB 32 (article about)
Full text of AB 32

In January 2010, California's unemployment rate had crept over 12% and 2.25 million Californians were unemployed.[49] In March 2010, it was discovered that, at the time, 8 of California's 58 counties had an unemployment rate exceeding 20%.[50]

At the time of the vote on Prop 23, the last time the unemployment rate in California was below 5.5% was in 2007.[22] According to the California Employment Development Department in 2010, there had been three periods since 1976 when unemployment in the state remained below 5.5% for four or more quarters:

In 2010, California had lost 34% of its manufacturing jobs since 2001.[12]

Jobs in California's clean energy sector[edit]

The number of clean energy businesses and clean energy jobs increased in California 45% and 36%, respectively, in the period between 1995-2008.[51] This rate of growth is 10 times more than the state's average job growth rate.[51]

At the time of the vote, California had over 12,000 clean energy businesses and 500,000 people were employed in clean energy occupations.[51][52] With over $9 billion in venture capital funds, California's clean energy firms have received 60% of venture capital funds in North America[53].

The independent Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) stated that suspending AB 32 would "dampen additional investments in clean energy technologies or so-called 'green jobs' by private firms, thereby resulting in less economic activity than would otherwise be the case."[54]

Path to the ballot[edit]

Clipboard48.png
See also: California signature requirements
See also: 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

To qualify the measure for the November 2, 2010 ballot, supporters had to provide qualifying signatures to California's 58 county election clerks no later than the July 5, 2010 deadline. A total of 433,971 valid signatures were required to qualify the measure for the ballot.

Multiple versions of the proposed measure were filed with the Office of the California Attorney General. On November 25, 2009, the group People's Advocate filed a request for an official ballot title on 09-0094, the proposed version that eventually became Prop 23. An official summary was provided on February 3, 2010, with a petition deadline of July 5, 2010. On December 22, 2009, requests for ballot titles were filed on 09-0104 and 09-0105, two other versions. These ballot titles were provided on February 7, 2010, with petition deadlines of July 19, 2010.

The petition drive to land the initiative on the ballot was launched the first week of March 2010.[55] Signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot were collected by National Petition Management at a cost of $2,222,312.[56] Organizers turned in their qualifying signatures on Monday, May 3, claiming they collected over 800,000.[57][22]

Lawsuit[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court on July 29, 2010, asserting that the ballot title prepared by the Office of the Attorney General of California was "false, misleading and unfair" and should therefore be changed.[58] Arguments filed in court said the title and summary should not refer to "air pollution control laws" because Proposition 23 did not apply to multiple laws and should not refer to "major polluters" because power plants and refineries were not the only businesses affected by the law, since emissions from universities, agricultural facilities, municipal buildings, and other private companies and citizens were also affected.[59]

On Tuesday, August 3, 2010, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley issued a ruling that took the side of the plaintiffs and ordered that the state government change the ballot title and summary.[60]

Frawley's ruling said:

Reports and analyses[edit]

Note: The inclusion of a report, white page, or study concerning a ballot measure in this article does not indicate that Ballotpedia agrees with the conclusions of that study or that Ballotpedia necessarily considers the study to have a sound methodology, accurate conclusions, or a neutral basis. To read a full explanation of Ballotpedia's policy on the inclusion of reports and analyses, please click here.

The impact that AB 32 would have on jobs in California was widely disputed.

Air Resources Board[edit]

The California Air Resources Board was the state agency charged with enforcing AB 32. This group said in 2008 that AB 32 would create more than 100,000 jobs in the state. In March 2010, the agency revised its estimate, saying that AB 32 would create 10,000 jobs.[49]

Larry Goulder, a professor at Stanford University, was the lead economist in the CARB report. Goulder came under fire in April 2010 when it became known that he was on the board of directors of the Energy Foundation. The Energy Foundation, in turn, was the sole contributor behind the Green Tech Action Fund. The Green Tech Action Fund gave $500,000 in April to "Californians for Clean Energy and Jobs," which was the campaign committee that was attempting to defeat Proposition 23.

When questioned by the New York Times, Goulder said, "I value my reputation as an economist. I have no direct involvement with the Green Tech Action Fund."[61]

CSU-Sacramento Studies[edit]

Two studies of AB 32 were conducted by S. Varshney and D. Tootelian. At the time, Varshney and Tootelian were professors at California State University-Sacramento. Their studies were sometimes referred to as the "Varshney studies" or the "V&T studies."

See also

2010 Measures

California

News and analysis


External links[edit]

BP-Initials-UPDATED.png
 		Suggest a link

Basic information[edit]

Supporters[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

Opponents[edit]

See also: 2010 ballot measure campaign websites

Additional reading[edit]

Footnotes[edit]

  1. ↑ Fresno Bee, "Climate law to go before voters," June 23, 2010
  2. ↑ ChinaDialogue, "Testing time for green California," March 3, 2010
  3. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Ballot initiative would curb California efforts," January 25, 2010
  4. ↑ NationalJournal.com, "California's New Energy Divide," accessed March 6, 2014
  5. ↑ No on 23 campaign website
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Business Week, "California Climate Campaign Spending May Top Record," April 16, 2010
  7. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 23 backers sue over ballot language," July 29, 2010
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 University of California Hastings, "2010 General Election Voter Guide," accessed February 17, 2021
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Appeal-Democrat, "Logue wants air rules to face popular vote," December 1, 2009
  11. ↑ 11.0 11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 Legal Newsline, "Referendum on Calif. greenhouse law appears headed for voters," May 3, 2010
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Legal Newsline, "DiCaro: Shelving Calif. greenhouse law will save jobs," May 5, 2010
  13. ↑ Americans for Prosperity/California
  14. ↑ Official record of "Yes on 23" campaign contributions
  15. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Drive launched to derail state's greenhouse gas law," March 4, 2010
  16. ↑ California Secretary of State, "Cal-Access record of donations to support Proposition 23," accessed February 27, 2014
  17. ↑ San Jose Mercury News, "Oil company owned by Tea Party's billionaire brothers gives $1 million to fight California's climate change law.," September 4, 2010
  18. ↑ Washington Independent, "Koch Brothers Spend Big to Derail Greenhouse Gas Law in California," September 9, 2010
  19. ↑ Grist, "No on Prop 23 campaign rakes in cash as enviro justice advocates join the fight," September 28, 2010
  20. ↑ Cal-Access record of donations to the California Jobs Initiative Committee
  21. ↑ 21.00 21.01 21.02 21.03 21.04 21.05 21.06 21.07 21.08 21.09 21.10 21.11 21.12 21.13 21.14 21.15 21.16 21.17 21.18 21.19 21.20 21.21 21.22 21.23 21.24 21.25 21.26 21.27 21.28 21.29 21.30 21.31 21.32 21.33 21.34 21.35 21.36 21.37 21.38 21.39 No on Prop 23- Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition, "Our Coalition" (dead link)
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 22.2 Reuters, "California may vote to freeze landmark climate law"
  23. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Global warming ballot initiative: Teamsters and cities weigh in," April 23, 2010
  24. ↑ Business Week, "California Carbon Law Fight Takes a ‘Giant Step’," May 3, 2010
  25. ↑ Mercury News, "Opponents of California global warming law turn in signatures for November measure," May 3, 2010
  26. ↑ Mercury News, "Cleantech industry coming out against Proposition 23," August 10, 2010
  27. ↑ 27.0 27.1 Cal-Access record of donations to Californians to Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition
  28. ↑ Orange County Register, "Our picks for the propositions," October 5, 2010
  29. ↑ North County Times, "EDITORIAL: Yes on Proposition 23--OUR VIEW: Economic recovery is single most important issue facing state," October 27, 2010
  30. ↑ Bakersfield Californian, "Keep up momentum, reject Proposition 23," October 6, 2010
  31. ↑ Contra Costa Times, "Voters should endorse cleaner energy by rejecting Proposition 23," September 5, 2010
  32. ↑ Fresno Bee, "State voters should reject Proposition 23," October 8, 2010
  33. ↑ Monterey Herald, "Proposition 23 just a bad ballot measure," October 8, 2010
  34. ↑ Lompoc Record, "Want cleaner air? Defeat Proposition 23," October 3, 2010
  35. ↑ Long Beach Press-Telegram, "No on Proposition 23," October 6, 2010
  36. ↑ Los Angeles Daily News, "No on Proposition 23: Proponents can't make a case for delaying emissions rules," September 19, 2010
  37. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "No on 23," September 28, 2010
  38. ↑ Oakland Tribune, "Voters should endorse cleaner energy by rejecting Proposition 23," September 5, 2010
  39. ↑ Sacramento Bee. "Endorsements: Proposition 23 deserves to go down in disgrace.," September 27, 2010 (dead link)
  40. ↑ San Bernardino Sun, "No on Proposition 23," October 9, 2010
  41. ↑ San Diego Union Tribune, "No on Proposition 23," October 11, 2010
  42. ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Vote no on Proposition 23," September 27, 2010
  43. ↑ San Gabriel Valley Tribune, "Our View: No on Proposition 23; keep green future," October 4, 2010
  44. ↑ San Jose Mercury News. "Vote No on Proposition 23," August 22, 2010
  45. ↑ Santa Rosa Press Democrat, "No on 23," September 7, 2010
  46. ↑ Ventura County Star, "Reject Proposition 23 to clear the air," September 9, 2010
  47. ↑ Public Policy Institute of California, "In Big Shift, Californians Oppose Offshore Oil Drilling"
  48. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California poll: support for climate law, opposition to oil drilling", July 28, 2010
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 49.2 Wall Street Journal, "California's Cap-Trade Law Faces Fall Ballot Challenge," April 5, 2010
  50. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Unemployment tops 20% in eight California counties," March 11, 2010
  51. ↑ 51.0 51.1 51.2 Many Shades of Green, "Collaborative Economics and the Next 10," accessed December 2009
  52. ↑ Employment Development Department: Labor Market Information Division, "California's Green Economy," April 21, 2010
  53. ↑ Clean Tech, "Homepage," accessed February 27, 2014
  54. ↑ California Legislative Analyst's Office, "Analysis of AB 32," accessed February 27, 2014
  55. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Drive launched to derail state's greenhouse gas law," March 4, 2010
  56. ↑ "Yes on Prop 23" campaign expenditures
  57. ↑ Sacramento Bee, "Drive to suspend AB 32 will submit voter signatures Monday," April 30, 2010
  58. ↑ Mercury News, "Judge rules Proposition 23 ballot language must be reworded," August 3, 2010
  59. ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 23 backers sue over ballot language," July 29, 2010
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 60.2 60.3 Orange County Register, "Rebuke of Jerry Brown good news for Proposition 23," August 3, 2010
  61. ↑ New York Times, "Lead Economist for State Analysis Linked to Pro-Climate Law Campaign," April 21, 2010
  62. ↑ 62.0 62.1 62.2 62.3 Legislative Analyst's Office, "Letter of March 9, 2010 to Kevin De León"
  63. ↑ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/24/opinion/la-oe-sweeney24-2010mar24
  64. ↑ http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/24/opinion/la-oe-sweeney24-2010mar24
v • e
2010 ballot measures
I&R States
Ballotbox.jpg
Non I&R States
Political topics
Other
Post-election
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2021 | 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

Categories: [California 2010 ballot measures, certified] [Environment, California] [Certified, environment, 2010] [Defeated, 2010]

↧ Download as ZWI file | Last modified: 12/24/2021 03:03:22 | 2 views
☰ Source: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_23,_Suspension_of_Greenhouse_Gas_Emissions_Reduction_Law_Initiative_(2010) | License: CC BY-SA 3.0

ZWI signed:
  Encycloreader by the Knowledge Standards Foundation (KSF) ✓[what is this?]

ZWI viewer by the EncyclosphereKSF