Proposition 23 appeared as a ballot proposition on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot. If passed, it would have suspended California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) until unemployment in the state fell to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters (Voters’ Guide). The issue of reassessing existing climate legislation in the state came up for serious debate on the decision agenda because opponents of that legislation believed that the Late-2000s Financial Crisis’ hugely negative impact on the California economy (PRI.org) had opened the existing legislation to enough increased fiscal scrutiny that it would be possible to utilize the channel of direct democracy to overturn said legislation. However, these opponents of the existing climate legislation both overestimated the degree to which the voting public believed that AB 32 would have a negative effect on California’s economy and misinterpreted the degree to which the actions of the state legislature were in sync with the preferences of voters across the state.
California Climate Policy and AB 32 - The Importance of Historical Background
A historical perspective is informative in showing the importantly consistent commitment that the state of California has had to climate, environment, and energy issues. The state has long led the way in enacting progressive legislation in these issues. In 1947, then Governor Earl Warren signed the Air Pollution Control Act into law, creating county level offices statewide charged with investigating and reducing hazardous air pollution. As environmental consciousness grew in the United States during the early 1960s, reflected in the passage of the first Federal Clean Air Act of 1963, California continued its trailblazing by being the first state to authorize tailpipe emissions standards for all automobiles in the state. This trend continued through to 1977, with the California Energy Commission adopting the first statewide energy efficiency standards for buildings of any state in the nation. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, both the state legislature and the governor’s office continued to support and refine the wide array of climate, environment, and energy policies in place (California Climate Change Portal).
The next truly progressive time in California’s climate, environment, and energy policy occurred in the mid-2000s. Early in 2006, the aforementioned AB 32 passed through both houses of the California State Legislature, with votes falling largely on party lines – Democrats made up 45 of the 46 “yes” votes in the 80-member Assembly and all 23 of the “yes” votes in the 40-member Senate (Russo). Republicans legislators attempted to move through traditional legislative channels to block the implementation of AB 32, but were stymied by Democratic proponents.
With the signature of then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006, the climate regulations incorporated into the AB 32 came into effect as law in the state of California (Martin). AB 32 authorized the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to develop regulations that would bring California’s greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. These regulations included strategies such as a cap and trade program, a renewable portfolio standard requiring that 33% of California’s energy come from renewable energy resources by 2020, and statewide auditing of various non-industrial emissions sources (Wikipedia).
Economic Concerns – Moving Towards the Decision Agenda
The most recent inclusion of state level climate change legislation on the decision agenda was a direct product of the 2007-2010 economic downturn’s detrimental effect on employment levels in California. From the time of the passage of AB 32 on September 26, 2006 to the time of the initial circulation of the ballot in February of 2010 of the initiative that would be named Proposition 23, unemployment in the state of California almost tripled from 4.4% to 12.8% (Bureau of Labor Statistics). With this dismal unemployment rate 23% above the national average, economic issues took the forefront in political discussions in California in 2010. In a Field Poll released on March 23, 2010, more than 2/3 of Californians declared issues of economics, employment, and the state budget as being more important than any other issue (Field Poll Online).
Screenshot from March 26, 2010 Field Poll Detailing the Issues Most Important to California Voters (Field Poll Online)
State assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Linda) capitalized upon these sentiments, evoking AB 32 as a wasteful legislative package that dragged down California’s businesses and industry at the moment in time when their economic productivity was most needed: “The upside is minuscule compared to the downside…I'm all for green energy, but don't do it in a way that destroys the economy,” (Van Der Meer). In doing so, he incarnated the idea of Kingdon’s “policy entrepreneur”, helping to cross the stream of problems related to unemployment with the stream of a policy vehicle that took the form of a ballot initiative (Kingdon 179).
Why Direct Democracy? – Political Actors’ Manipulation of the Decision Agenda
The institution of direct democracy, in the form of the California ballot proposition, gave Republican challengers an additional arena to contest AB 32, outside of the consolidated Democratic power base in the State Legislature. Their belief was that the current negative economic climate would be the most conductive one for challenging AB 32, so they leveraged the institution of direct democracy to expand the policy window and venue available for challenging AB 32. In this way, the minority party was able to bring consideration of the existing climate legislation onto the decision agenda when it would have been impossible to do so through conventional policy channels such as the state legislature.
Following the passage of AB 32, Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate voiced concerns that the measures contained in the legislation were “job killers”, and vowed to work towards having the provisions overturned through formal legislative mechanisms (Russo). Buoyed by a series of survey results commissioned in 2008 by the right-leaning, pro-business AB 32 Implementation Group indicating that recession-weary Californians were reluctant to support AB 32 once the costs were demonstrated, Republican Assemblyman Dan Logue drafted a bill intended to halt the implementation of AB 32 until unemployment in the state fell to 5.5% or below for four consecutive quarters (Evans) (AB 32 Implementation Group). This bill, AB 118, reached the California Assembly Natural Resource Committee on February 26 of 2009. However, due to the fact that Democratic legislators dominated this committee, AB 118 was eventually killed by a 6-3 party-line vote on January 11, 2011, preventing it from continuing onwards to the Appropriation Committee (ELobbyist). In terms of traditional legislation, this was the end of the line for the opponents of AB 32.
Having anticipated difficulty in navigating the Democrat-controlled committees in the Assembly, Dan Logue, lobbyist Ted Costa, and State Senator Tom McClintock sent in a formal application for the consideration of a ballot initiative titled the “California Jobs Initiative” just months after authoring AB 118 (Logue – Request for Title and Summary). This initiative-to-be advocated for the exact same action items as the doomed AB 118. If it were to be green-lit by the state Office of the Attorney General, the people of California would put its contents to a direct vote.
Following preliminary approval by the California Office of the Attorney General as well as the collection of the requisite number of signatures, Proposition 23 was approved to appear as a referendum on the November 2, 2010 California statewide ballot (California Secretary of State). Given Kingdon’s definition of the decision agenda as “a smaller set of items [on the governmental agenda] that is being decided upon,” (Kingdon 166) the fact that this initiative reached the voters of California as a direct, legally binding referendum clearly indicates that the issue of California’s climate legislation was indeed on the decision agenda. Dan Logue stated that “[the governor and State Legislature] refuse to order a suspension, so I have teamed up with Ted Costa of People's Advocate and Congressman Tom McClintock to give the people of California an opportunity to make this important decision,” (Logue – Common Sense: Suspend AB 32). The institution of direct democracy offered a potential pathway for Republicans for circumventing the Assembly committees that were blocked by the majority party, allowing the Republicans to take the issue outside the confined arena of Assembly politics and directly to the voting public.
This course of action aligned with Gerber’s contention that “interest groups turn to direct democracy not out of a preference for extreme or permanent policy change but rather when other methods of altering policy…are less favorable,” (Gerber 327). Despite not voicing an outright preference for a more binding, difficult to change counter to AB 32, the actual specifications of Proposition 23 were exactly that, requiring the previously mentioned sustained period of very high economic performance in the state before AB 32 would be permitted to come back into force. This also follows Gerber’s findings that the outcomes of successful instances of direct democracy are often trenchant, rarely challenged, and very hard to overturn (Gerber 314).
The Importance of Opinion Polls – Political Actors’ Misinterpret Voters’ Views on the Economy
In the case of Proposition 23, a glut of public opinion polls emerged in the months leading up to the day of the vote. Proponents of Proposition 23 selectively interpreted the data, championing the polling results that most closely aligned with their position at the cost of a more accurate assessment of true public sentiment regarding AB 32. This illustrates David Brady’s statement that the subjective variability of public opinion polling resulting from sampling choice, question formatting, and pollster bias can lead those interpreting the data to a range of conclusions (Brady).
Proponents of Proposition 23 misinterpreted public opinion in discussions of the impact of AB 32 on the California economy. The official estimate given on the ballot for the net economic result of freezing AB 32 was a “likely modest net increase in overall economic activity,” (California Secretary of State). Dan Logue and other proponents used this as their main argumentative platform, believing that by continually pointing to the negative economic effects that would result from allowing AB 32 to stay in effect. However, the California Air Review Board put out a series of economic analyses of AB 32, including a rigorously vetted and independently approved study in March of 2010 that predicted a net gain of 10,000 jobs from the continued implementation of AB 32 (Roosevelt). Instead of taking into account the fact that this surplus of conflicting accounts might prevent voters from embracing Proposition 23 over the incumbent AB 32, Proposition 23’s proponents continued under the assumption that unemployment figures and a recession would be enough to allow Proposition 23 to pass (Mart).
An interview with Assemblyman Logue in July of 2010 further illustrated the degree to which Proposition 23’s opponents misgauged the situation. In it, Logue called the debate over Proposition 23 “a dead heat” (Logue – YouTube Interview), based on a poll released that month from the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) which showed a 48%-for / 48%-against result for the question of 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 improve” (Reston). What Logue did not consider was the fact that a Field Poll published in July of 2010 showed that 48% of likely voters would oppose Proposition 23 versus 36% who would support it (Field Poll Online). In doing so, Logue and other proponents of Proposition 23 equated opposition to immediate state action on greenhouse gas emissions to support for Proposition 23, despite the fact that the data showed that rewording the polling question to deal specifically with Proposition 23 resulted in 25% less support than instead speaking more generally about opposing immediate state action on greenhouse gas emissions.
Finally, despite the fact that climate legislation was clearly on the decision agenda by this point in time, with proponents and detractors running well-financed and sophisticated campaigns and the initiative itself firmly on the ballot, only 37% of those polled in a September 25, 2010 Field Poll had even heard of Proposition 23 (Field Poll Online). A lack of public knowledge or understanding of a climate or energy related initiative on the California ballot has historically worked against that initiative – in the absence of a compelling reason, inertia usually results in referenda being voted down by the public in favor of the existing legislation or the status quo, as seen in the 2006 failure of Proposition 87 (Alternative Energy Research, Production, and Incentives / Tax on California Oil Producers) and the 2008 rejection of Proposition 7 (Renewable Energy Production) (Field Poll Online).
Screenshot from September 23, 2010 Field Poll Detailing Awareness of Proposition 23 (Field Poll Online)
Given that the problem, policy, and politics were all in place to bring climate legislation onto the decision agenda at this point in time in California, it is informative to note that public awareness of those outside of the traditional political class regarding issues on the decision agenda need not always be present in order for a policy entrepreneur to take advantage of a policy window and initiate movement towards a decision point. This is in line with Baumgarnter and Jones’ model of policy creation as being more dependent on the actions of political elites than on those of the larger public (Baumgartner and Jones 83).
This combination of misconceived assumptions about the nature of the public’s interpretation of the relationship between AB 32 and the economy and selective attention to the data from public opinion polling lent false bravado to the proponents of Proposition 23 to the point that they believed that they were representing public opinion on the issue of climate policy (Morain).
Lead Up to the Vote – Proponents and Opponents Mobilize
The peculiarities of the California state legislative process are such that, given signatures from 5% of those who voted in the past gubernatorial election, actors such as Logue can petition to have legislative questions presented in the form of a ballot initiative to the public for direct referendum (California Secretary of State). This is especially important to note because it effectively means that opponents of a given piece of legislation can choose the moment that they feel is most opportune to challenge said legislation via direct democracy. Were the signature limit far higher than it is by California law, then the level of control over such challenges would be far less than it currently is for opponents of current legislation.
By directing and funding Logue’s signature gathering campaign in March of 2010, the Koch Brothers, the California Republican Party, and two Texas-based oil companies, Valero and Tesoro, wanted to ensure that Proposition 23 would indeed be included in the upcoming November 2, 2010 statewide ballot (Sacramento Bee). The heavy involvement of political actors from other states in funding the campaign for Proposition 23 is a telling indicator of both the absolute and the relative importance of California’s climate, environment, and energy legislation. Absolute importance in that out-of-state corporations that have infrastructure in California definitely feel the impact of the restrictions put in place by AB 32, and relative in that California’s policy in this area sets a tone for other states’ legislatures to potentially emulate, thereby further regulating the commercial dealings of polluters and emitters in those states.
Opposition groups also mobilized, attempting to cast those in favor of Proposition 23 as derailing attempts to establish California as a clean energy leader for the future (Cavanagh). CREDO mobile encouraged consumers to boycott gas stations owned by Valero and Tesoro, organized phone banks at towns and universities across the state that made over 800,000 calls to California voters’ homes, and launched a state-wide advertising campaign with emotionally appealing slogans such as “Hell No on 23”, “Stop Texas Oil: No on 23”, and “Stop the Dirty Energy Proposition: No on 23” (Bond). This multifaceted strategy of voter outreach was a calculated effort to cast Proposition 23 in the most emotionally negative terms possible – as something supported by big corporations, out-of-state meddlers, and environmentally irresponsible interests.
Altogether, these actions pushed climate change legislation to the forefront of political discourse, perhaps best illustrated in campaign spending from both sides totaling $37 million by October of 2010, with opponents of Proposition 23 raising almost 250% more than proponents ($25.2 million vs. $10.6 million)(Koch).
Prop 23 Fails – The Importance of the Median Voter
Despite the fact that Republicans’ utilization of the channels of direct democracy increased the time spent debating the merits of AB 32 and also moved discussion of the legislative package further from the Assembly and into the public sphere, the resulting public vote resoundingly defeated Proposition 23, with 61.5% of respondents voting “no” and 38.5% voting “yes” (Wikimedia Foundation).
County by County Results for Proposition 23 (Wikimedia Foundation)
Compare to Country Results for 2010 California Gubernatorial Elections - All Counties Voting Yes for Proposition 23 Voted Republican (Wikimedia Foundation)
Perhaps the single greatest flaw of the campaign in favor of Proposition 23 was its inability to recognize that when it came to climate, environment, and energy policy the legislative preferences that the state legislature held were directly aligned with those held by California’s voters. As another way to think of it, the California Assembly and Senate accurately reflected the wishes of the median voter in regards to this specific policy question, whereas the proponents of Proposition 23 mistakenly interpreted their own position as being representative of the median voter (Black) (Downs).
As an example of this, proponents of Proposition 23 failed to take into account data from a Public Policy Institute of California poll, data that stated that a full 67% of the California voting public explicitly support AB 32. Of those supporting AB 32, 78% were Democrats, who, as a group, are 36% larger than Republicans in the state of California, the 8th most liberal state in the nation (Garcia) (Gallup). This meant that the biggest likely voting group deciding the fate of Proposition 23 would be liberal-identifying Democrats, those most likely to vote against it. Proponents of Proposition 23 were clearly not representative of the median voter, as the overwhelming number of liberal-minded Democrats in the state pulled the median identification for the issue firmly to the anti-Proposition 23, pro-environment side.
Screenshot from Public Policy Institute of California Poll on Support for AB32 (Public Policy Institute of California)
Additionally, Proposition 23 proponents’ decision to misconstrue the importance of political ideological leanings reflected an unfamiliarity with the findings of scholars such as Robert Erikson that demonstrate the important statistical influence of state ideology on the general liberality of policies in that state (Erikson 89).
Looking Ahead – Future Challenges and Defenses
The impacts of the anti-AB-32 campaign reverberate beyond Election Day of 2010. By choosing to utilize direct democracy, opponents of AB 32 moved the issue outside the relatively controlled environment of the Assembly committees, opening AB 32 to a whole host of other challenges from everyone from judges to Attorneys General in other US states concerned that AB 32 presents a constitutional violation of interstate commerce (Schapiro). In a way opposite the stimulating effect that Proposition 13 has had on tax reduction measures since 1978, the failure of Proposition 23 serves as an encouraging base case for other state and federal initiatives aimed at decelerating anthropogenic climate change (Citrin). Through all of these future developments, it bears remembering that it was through the institution of direct democracy that Republicans detractors of AB 32 were able to augment the time-span and venue of consideration for both their arguments and those of AB 32’s supporters. Direct democracy provided an invigorating effect, ensuring lively debate, challenges, and defense of AB 32 into the future.
Additionally, the failure of Proposition 23 will likely sharpen the degree to which political organizations within the state of California mobilize to defeat future challenges to AB 32. Having put forth such an effort to ensure its viability, and given the tremendous backing given by the state’s voting population, environmentally minded non-profit groups, legislators, and state attorneys are very likely to continue to coalesce in support of the progressive climate, environment, and energy initiatives and legislation that have been a California hallmark for decades.
Works Cited
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. "Chapter 4 - The Construction and Collapse of a Policy Monopoly." Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. 83.
Black, Duncan. "On the Rationale of Group Decision-making." Journal of Political Economy56.1 (1948): 23.
Bond, Becky. "California Voters Say Hell No to Texas Oil and Proposition 23." The Huffington Post. 2 Nov. 2010. Web. 07 June 2011.
Brady, David. "Public Opinion and Congressional Policy." The Oxford Handbook of the American Congress. By Eric Schickler. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2011. 8.
"California's Climate Bill Debate | PRI.ORG." PRI: Public Radio International. Web. 07 June 2011.
"California Proposition 23 (2010)." Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 5 Apr. 2011.
Cavanagh, Maureen. "What's The Motivation Behind Prop. 23? | KPBS.org." KPBS San Diego: Public Radio, TV and Web. 23 Sept. 2010. Web. 07 June 2011.
Citrin, Jack. "Proposition 13 and the Transformation of California Government." California Journal of Politics and Policy 1.1 (2009): 1.
Downs, Anthony. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper, 1957
"Drive to Suspend AB 32 Will Submit Voter Signatures Monday." Capitol Alert - The Latest on California Politics and Government. Sacramento Bee, 30 Apr. 2010. Web. 07 June 2011.
Erikson, Robert S. "Public Opinion and Policy in the States." Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1993. 89.
Evans, Alex. Dan Logue - California State Assemblyman - AB 32 Implementation Survey. Rep. EMC Research, Inc., 19 Aug. 2008. Web. 17 May 2011.
"Field Poll - July 9, 2010." Field Research Corporation. 9 July 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
"Field Poll – March 23, 2010." Field Research Corporation. 23 March 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
"Field Poll – September 25, 2010." Field Research Corporation. 25 September 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
Garcia, Edwin. "California Dems Outpace Republicans in Voter Registration - San Jose Mercury News." San Jose Mercury News. 21 Oct. 2008. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.
Gerber, E. R. "Evaluating the Effects of Direct Democracy on Public Policy: California's Urban Growth Boundaries." American Politics Research 33.2 (2005): 314-327.
"Global Climate Change and California - Background." California Climate Change Portal. The State of California. Web. 07 June 2011.
"Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." Wikipedia. Web. 07 June 2011.
"Initiative Guide - Elections & Voter Information." California Secretary of State. Web. 07 June 2011.
"Interview with Prop 23 Proponent Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-CA)." YouTube. 28 July 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.
Kingdon, John W. "Chapter 8 - The Policy Windows, and Joining the Streams." Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown, 1984. 166-179.
Koch, Wendy. "Measure Targets California Green Law." USATODAY.com. Web. 07 June 2011.
"Legislative Detail: CA Assembly Bill 118 - 2009-2010 Regular Session." ELobbyist. Web. 18 May 2011.
"Local Area Unemployment Statistics Home Page." U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Web. 07 June 2011.
Logue, Dan. "Op-Ed: Common Sense: Suspend AB32 | Massive, Ab32, State - Editorials - Appeal-Democrat." AppealDemocrat.com. 6 Dec. 2009. Web. 18 May 2011.
Logue, Dan. "Request for Title and Summary." Letter to Office of the Attorney General, State of California. 25 Nov. 2009. Office of the Attorney General. State of California - Department of Justice, 29 Nov. 2009. Web. 16 May 2011.
Mart, Greta. "Prop. 23: Oil vs. Greens." The Martinez News-Gazette. 28 Oct. 2010. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
Martin, Mark. "State's War on Warming / Governor Signs Measure to Cap Greenhouse Gas Emissions -- Sweeping Changes Predicted in Industries and Life in Cities." SFGate.com. 05 Oct. 2010. Web. 17 May 2011.
"Members Involved with the AB 32 Implementation Group." AB 32 Implementation Group. Web. 18 May 2011.
Morain, Dan. "As Prop. 23 Dives, Money Goes Elsewhere - Sacramento Opinion - Sacramento Editorial | Sacramento Bee." The Sacramento Bee. 17 Oct. 2010. Web. 28 Apr. 2011.
"Political Ideology: "Conservative" Label Prevails in the South." Gallup.com. 14 Aug. 2009. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.
"Proposition 23 | Propositions." Voter Information Guide November 2, 2010 | California Secretary of State. Web. 6 Apr. 2011.
Reston, Maeve. "California Poll: Support for Climate Law, Opposition to Oil Drilling | Greenspace | Los Angeles Times." LATimes.com. 28 July 2010. Web. 27 Apr. 2011.
Roosevelt, Margot. "Climate Law Won't Hurt California Economy, Report Says - Los Angeles Times." LATimes.com. 24 Mar. 2010. Web. 29 Apr. 2011.
Russo, Frank. "California State Assembly Passes Historic Global Warming Bill, AB 32 Now Heads to Governor." California Progress Report. 31 Aug. 2006. Web. 17 May 2011.
Schapiro, Mark. "Four States Prepare Legal Assault on California's Climate Law." California Watch. 9 Sept. 2010. Web. 18 May 2011.
Van Der Meer, Ben. "Logue Wants Air Rules to Face Popular Vote | State, Logue, Jobs - Local News - Appeal-Democrat." Appeal-Democrat. 1 Dec. 2009. Web. 07 June 2011.
"Voters’ Guide: Proposition 23 | Propositions." Voter Information Guide November 2, 2010 | California Secretary of State. Web. 07 June 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment