Voting down Proposition 30 might seem a little off-brand for the California electorate.
These are the voters, after all, who showed no qualms just a decade ago about and also to pay for mental health services. These are the California majorities who, as , told pollsters that they were either considering or had already purchased an electric car. Most named air pollution, wildfire and climate change as areas of major personal concern.
And yet the that would have increased taxes on about 43,000 multimillionaires (on income above $2 million a year) to fund electric car rebates and combat wildfires has suffered an unambiguous defeat. In as of late Wednesday, 59% rejected the proposal.
At first glance, the fate of Prop. 30 may be the most compelling head-scratcher of the 2022 California election. But for the campaigns on both sides of the highly contested measure, and for many independent political observers to boot, there鈥檚 an obvious answer to this electoral mystery 鈥� and its name is Gov. Gavin Newsom.
鈥淵ou can鈥檛 remove the governor from it,鈥� said Matt Rodriguez, campaign manager for No on 30. 鈥淗e鈥檚 a credible messenger on the opposition side, simply because I think a lot of people and a lot of Democrats take their cues from him.鈥�
Newsom鈥檚 decision to in mid-September caught many political observers by surprise. That鈥檚 both because his position seemed at odds with his reputation as a climate advocate in general and a booster of electric cars specifically, and because his opposition was so fervent. Of the seven measures on the state ballot this year, the governor only lent his likeness and directed his own campaign resources to two 鈥� the overwhelmingly successful Prop. 1 to codify abortion rights in the California constitution, and Prop. 30, a riskier political gambit.
That was a coup for the anti-Prop. 30 forces. Comparing polls taken before and after the governor cut his first 鈥淣o on 30鈥� ad, public support wilted 鈥� especially among his supporters.
鈥淭he drop among those who approve of Newsom was three times greater than those who were disapproving,鈥� said Dean Bonner, associate survey director at the Public Policy Institute of California. The No campaign found a similar shift in its .
Mary Creasman, CEO of California Environmental Voters and a member of the campaign supporting Prop. 30, also said Newsom鈥檚 role 鈥�100%鈥� contributed to the measure鈥檚 demise, though she also blamed the 鈥淣o鈥� campaign for what she said were 鈥渓ies鈥� about what the ballot measure would actually do.
Prop. 30 鈥渉ad a record number of billionaires against it, it had complete falsehoods thrown at it, and it had the most popular Democratic leader in the state against it,鈥� she said. 鈥淎nd we still got 40% of the vote.鈥�
Specifically, Creasman said the suggestion, made by Newsom and in many No on 30 ads, that Prop. 30 would have specifically benefited Lyft was false. In fact, though the measure could have helped the rideshare company meet some of the state鈥檚 vehicle electrification mandates, it would have done so by subsidizing zero-emission vehicles and expanding charging infrastructure in general, .
Lyft, however, provided roughly 94% of the funding, nearly $48 million, for the Yes on Prop. 30 campaign.
Creasman said she was especially puzzled by the governor鈥檚 position, given his support for a state policy to . The governor and Legislature have committed $10 billion on zero-emission programs and subsidies over the next five years. But Creasman argued that making the mandated transition will require more, and more reliable, public funding.
The failure of Prop. 30 puts the ball in the governor鈥檚 court, she added.
鈥淲here鈥檚 the money going to come from?鈥� said Creasman. 鈥淚f the governor has some exciting, innovative new stuff that he can pull out of his pocket and say, 鈥楬ere鈥檚 how we鈥檙e gonna pay for it,鈥� we are all in.鈥�
Not a referendum on climate
Both Creasman and Rodriguez cautioned against drawing any sweeping conclusions about California voters鈥� policy preferences from the outcome of this single contentious proposition.
Will voters 鈥渟till be progressive on tax policy? I think possibly,鈥� said Rodriguez. 鈥淲ill they still be very progressive on climate? I think absolutely. I don鈥檛 think any of that is gone. I just think that voters weren鈥檛 fooled.鈥�
David Vogel, author of 鈥淐alifornia Greenin鈥�: How the Golden State Became An Environmental Leader鈥� and a UC Berkeley professor emeritus, agreed.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 see it as a referendum at all on climate change or the environment,鈥� he said of Prop. 30. He pointed to the governor鈥檚 opposition, the neutrality of some high-profile environmental organizations including the Sierra Club and the allegations of self-dealing by Lyft as top reasons for voter skepticism.
The Sierra Club鈥檚 decision was motivated by concerns that some of the money that the measure would have directed toward wildfire mitigation could have funded clear-cutting forests.
But that was only one of many dueling endorsements and non-endorsements in the Prop. 30 campaign that may have confused voters.
In opposing the measure, Newsom joined traditional allies in the state鈥檚 two largest teachers鈥� unions, which to public schools. But he broke with many Democrats and was on the same side as stranger political bedfellows, including the California Republican Party, the state Chamber of Commerce and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.
On the yes side, the Democratic Party, many environmentalists and trades unions joined Lyft, even though they battled the corporate giant just two years ago over its successful referendum to .
The utter strangeness of those coalitions likely contributed to the defeat of Prop. 30 too, said Paul Mitchell, with Political Data Inc., an election analysis firm that works with Democrats.
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think it was so much the governor鈥檚 messaging, but it was confusing to voters. It was like, 鈥榃ait, this is an environmental thing? It鈥檚 a Lyft thing? The governor isn鈥檛 for it?鈥� he said.
Mitchell pointed to the trend in California politics that . That鈥檚 often because undecided and puzzled voters are driven by a 鈥渇irst do no harm鈥� principle and, erring on the side of the status quo, vote 鈥渘o.鈥�
鈥淐onfusion is the best friend of the 鈥榥o鈥� side,鈥� said Mitchell. 鈥淵ou don鈥檛 have to even win the argument, you just have to muddy the waters.鈥�
is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.