Proposition 1A: Transportation Funding Protection. Legislative Constitutional Amendment. - recommend No
Prop 1A is a relatively inoffensive and concise bit of legislation that would add additional restrictions on how gas tax money (about $2 billion/year) is spent. A previous proposition, 42, put in place some protections on this money, requiring that it be spent for transportation needs unless the governor declares a financial emergency. He has since done this twice, once partially and once fully, in the last two years or so. Prop 1A would impose the following restrictions:
- Money diverted from the gas tax to the General Fund would have to be repaid, with interest
- More money could not be diverted in a subsequent year until all such repayment was completed
- No more than two fiscal years could be declared "emergency" years (that allow such diversion) in any ten-year window
As I said, concise and inoffensive. I'm against Prop 1A simply because I think our state legislature needs at least the responsiveness allowed by current law (in which a two-thirds vote and a declaration by the governor is required to declare a fiscal emergency and redirect gas tax money) to let our state weather potential fiscal or material emergencies.
Money for Prop 1A has come from pretty much anyone with an interest in transportation in one form or another, including housing construction companies, power companies, cargo transportation firms, banks, title companies, business groups, Native American groups and so forth. There are no committees working against Prop 1A.
Overall, I'm not a big fan of additional spending constraints. If you can't trust two thirds of our legislature to properly decide when there is or isn't an emergency, that suggests that you need to replace your current legislators.
You can see who's supporting Prop 1A financially here.
You can read the full text of Prop 1A here.
You can read my reviews and recommendations for the other propositions by clicking here.