Propositions 23 and 26: one step forward but two steps back for California's environmental policy

One of the propositions we examined for our elections project--California's proposition 23--was defeated in Tuesdays election. This ostensible victory for California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32), however, is counteracted by another ballot measure, Prop. 26, which requires a 2/3 supermajority vote of the state legislature to pass any fee. This new requirement will significantly effect AB32, which relies on charging these fees on polluters in order to create incentives to invest in cleaner energy technologies. Requiring such a large majority to pass such fees will make the implementation of California's Global Warming Solutions Act nearly impossible.

It is sad to see such progress for the environmental movement in defeating Proposition 23 only to be shut down by Proposition 26. I believe that this was mainly a result of an electorate that lacked knowledge of the lesser-known Proposition 26 and its implications. While 26 seems like a good idea on the surface, promising an end to "hidden taxes," many voters were unaware of its devastating effect on climate change policy. If the campaign against Prop. 26 had done a better job of linking a vote for 26 to a vote for 23 as well, I think many voters would have behaved differently at the polls. As the article suggests, once environmentalists fighting Prop. 23 realized the danger of Prop. 26, it was too late to make a significant impact on the electorate. Unfortunately, the events in California prove that lack of information about lesser-known ballot measures can lead to contradictory election results.