This Measure Is One for the Roads

The state’s gasoline sales tax would be permanently dedicated to fixing roads and addressing other transportation needs under a proposal on next month’s ballot.

The measure, which has put school, health-care and certain labor advocates on edge, would shift an estimated $1.4 billion to transportation projects starting in July 2008. The money would normally go into the state’s general fund and pay for a variety of services ranging from prisons to social programs to education, with only a small portion going to transportation.

It’s one of six measures on the March 5 ballot. Only a proposal to weaken legislative term limits, Proposition 45, has attracted more interest this year.

Voters also will decide whether they want to dig into their pockets to the tune of $2.6 billion for a parks bond issue and $200 million for new voting equipment. The voter bond is a response to the Florida debacle in the last presidential election.

Another measure stemming from the 2000 election would amend the state Constitution to say that all legally cast votes shall be counted.

The final ballot item would make rules and penalties for chiropractors the same as those for doctors.

The proposals will compete for voters’ attention along with the contest among Republican gubernatorial candidates hoping to face Gov. Gray Davis in November, and with a long list of statewide, congressional, legislative and local primary races.

Dubbed the “Transportation Congestion Improvement Act,” Proposition 42 would earmark the state’s 6% sales tax on gasoline to transportation projects.

Backers, who include the engineering firms, contractors and construction and equipment companies that build roads and transit systems, have poured more than $3million into the campaign. The measure also is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, a variety of tax watchdog groups and Davis.

They contend that the proposition would relieve congested streets and thus improve public safety without raising taxes.

Most drivers believe that gas sales tax revenue gets funneled to transportation projects, as money from the state’s 18-cents-per-gallon excise tax does, backers add. Proposition 42 would simply make it official, they say.

“The need is great in California,” said Al Lundeen, a spokesman for the Yes on 42 campaign. “We have what are considered to be the worst roads in the nation, and we spend the least per person to fix them.”

At a recent legislative hearing, Bill Hauck, president of the California Business Roundtable, pegged the state’s transportation backlog at $100 billion.

Opponents, including the California Teachers Assn., the Service Employees International Union and the California State Firefighters’ Assn., say the measure would bolster transportation funding at the expense of education, health care and local governments. They have yet to launch a formal campaign, however.

Jeff Sedivec, president of the firefighters association, took issue with supporters’ contention that fixing roads would improve public safety by allowing emergency workers to respond faster.

“Respond with what?” he asked. “We can have beautiful roadways, but if you allocate that much money to transit, you could take away money from local governments to pay for fire equipment.”

“By making transportation sacrosanct it could essentially cause cuts to other services,” said Anthony Wright of Health Access California, a coalition of more than 200 consumer, community and labor groups.

Under current law, gas sales taxes collected from July 2003 to June 2008 are earmarked for a specific plan to relieve urban congestion. But at the end of that period, the revenue would revert to the general fund. Proposition 42 would permanently dedicate those taxes to transportation projects, beginning in July 2008.

The funds would be divvied up with 20% for public transit, 40% split between cities and counties to fix potholes and make other local road improvements and 40% for projects funded in the State Transportation Improvement Program, California’s long-term construction blueprint. The Legislature could suspend or modify the funding plan with a two-thirds vote.

In addition to the transportation measure, the Legislature placed two bond measures on the March 5 ballot. Proposition 40 would provide $2.6 billion to purchase property for and improve state and local parks, conserve land, air and water and preserve historical and cultural resources.

Voters have approved about $7.6billion in bonds for similar purposes since 1980, and of that amount about $1.2 billion is left, according to the state’s legislative analyst.

The $2.6 billion in bonds would be paid back over 25 years, costing the state $4.3 billion, including interest, the analyst’s office said. State and local officials would face additional expenses to maintain parks purchased with the bond money.

So far proponents have raised nearly $3 million for their campaign, which is backed by a variety of environmental groups and the Congress of California Seniors, among others.

“We believe Californians do want to see land protected as an important resource,” said Trudy Schafer, program director for the League of Women Voters of California, another supporter.

Fiscal watchdogs say the proposal would result in billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on a new round of pork projects at a time when the state can’t afford to take on new debt.

“I am irked to death by the incessant bonds referred to as clean air and clean water and all the rest being put on the ballot by these self-anointed environmental organizations,” said Lew Uhler, president of the conservative National Tax Limitation Committee. “This is how these organizations fund themselves ... in the name of doing good for nature.”

Measure Would Help Buy Voting Equipment

Uhler also opposes Proposition 41, which would raise $200 million through bond sales to help California counties purchase new voting equipment. Counties would be required to put up $1 for every $3 they receive in bond money.

By one estimate, the state could pay $55 million in interest to pay off the $200-million bonds, and counties could expect to spend $66million more in matching funds and tens of millions of dollars more in operating costs.

Proponents say the measure is a crucial step toward helping cash-strapped counties replace punch-card voting systems with faster, more accurate technology. Backers include the League of Women Voters of California, Secretary of State Bill Jones and Assemblyman Kevin Shelley, the San Francisco Democrat vying to replace Jones, who is being forced out of office by term limits and is a Republican candidate for governor.

Shelley described Proposition 41 as crucial in light of a federal judge’s ruling last week that California has to replace its punch-card voting machines by the 2004 presidential election.

“What was important before is essential today,” Shelley said. “Nine counties comprising 72% of the electorate in the state of California use punch cards, including Los Angeles.”

If the need is so pressing, asks Uhler, then why didn’t state officials use billions of dollars in surplus money that materialized over the last few years to purchase the equipment?

“This is spending bond money for depreciable equipment,” he said. “I think it’s bad business.’

Florida’s “hanging chad” mess also has given rise to Proposition 43, which would amend the state Constitution to say that all votes legally cast in an election shall be counted. The measure also would allow county elections officials to petition the courts for an extension of any deadlines so votes may be tallied or recounted.

Proposition 43 is backed by California Common Cause and Assemblyman John Longville, the Rialto Democrat who chairs the Assembly Committee on Elections, Reapportionment and Constitutional Amendments.

Longville said the measure would prevent a repeat of the showdown in Florida, where the need to meet a postelection deadline for certifying the state’s vote was given greater priority than counting ballots.

“The sole purpose of this amendment is to make explicit in the future that even if it takes longer than some deadline, we want to finish counting ballots,” he said.

Attorney Gary B. Wesley said the measure would invite needless postelection litigation.

“We think Prop. 43 will do more harm than good because it will require that all votes be counted even if the ballots cannot be located and even if the missing ballots could not mathematically make any difference in the outcome of an election,” he said.

Finally, voters will decide whether the state’s 15,000 licensed chiropractors should be subject to the same penalties as doctors, including the possibility of having their licenses revoked for 10 years for second or multiple offenses.

Supporters of Proposition 44, including state Sen. Jackie Speier (D-Hillsborough) and the California District Attorneys Assn., say the measure would help prevent insurance fraud. Opponents from the insurance industry and the Libertarian Party say chiropractors who commit insurance fraud should have to pay restitution but not have their licenses revoked.