The state’s cap-and-trade program, which was extended last summer to 2030, requires that businesses that emit greenhouse gases buy permits from the state or at auction from other businesses that don’t need their permits. The funds from these permits would be placed in a special Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to be used for future projects that would further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, such as the bullet train. Assemblyman Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley convinced seven other Republicans to support last summer’s cap-and-trade legislation. (And as a result of his support for the cap-and-trade legislation, Mayes lost his leadership role as the assembly minority leader.) In exchange for Republican support, Mayes demanded a proposition be placed on the June ballot that, if approved, would change the legislative approval threshold for spending for a cap-and-trade project from a simple majority to a two-thirds majority. Some political observers believe the Democrats oppose this proposition because by requiring a two-thirds majority, Republicans would be able to scuttle plans to build the very expensive bullet train. If the legislature does not have a two-thirds majority to approve a spending plan in 2024, the cap-and-trade funds would sit unused in the GGRRF account. Managing editor Tami Roleff says Mayes is now suing the two Democratic state officials responsible for the proposition’s wording, claiming their description is “false and misleading…”
Assemblyman Chad Mayes of Yucca Valley filed a lawsuit against state officials March 5, claiming that their wording of a cap-and-trade ballot measure is “false and misleading.” Mayes, a Republican, claims that Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Secretary of State Alex Padilla, both Democrats, are trying to mislead voters into opposing Proposition 70, which would change the legislature’s voting threshold from a simple majority vote to a super majority vote, or two-thirds, for cap-and-trade programs, starting in 2024. Mayes argues that the current title of Prop 70, “Limits Legislature’s Authority To Use Cap-And-Trade Revenues To Reduce Pollution” should be changed to “Requires The Legislature To Approve A Greenhouse Gas Reduction Reserve Fund Spending Plan By A Supermajority Vote In 2024.” Mayes’ lawsuit argues the title is misleading because it implies Proposition 70 limits or prohibits the Legislature from “us[ing]” the auction revenue to reduce pollution or greenhouse gas emissions, when in fact the exact opposite is true;” it just requires a two-thirds majority vote instead of a simple majority vote. In addition, Mayes argues that the two-thirds majority vote is only needed once, and not for every subsequent expenditure from the cap-and-trade fund. Under current law, revenues generated from the auction of emission permits are placed in the GGRF, and those funds may only be used for programs that facilitate greenhouse gas reductions.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4405427-Proposition-70-lawsuit.html
