Texas oil companies and other supporters of Proposition 23 (the Dirty Energy Proposition) are celebrating the decision by a Sacramento judge, who has ordered Attorney General Jerry Brown’s office to modify the ballot language describing the proposition. Supporters of Prop 23, which would roll back California’s climate law AB 32, had sued Brown, claiming the description — particularly the words “major polluters” — would bias voters who went to the polls in November. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley agreed, saying “”My concern is that the word ‘polluters’ suggests something that comes out of a smokestack. That’s where the prejudice lies.”
The disappointing decision comes with just days to spare before the copy for voter information guides is submitted to the state printer.
According to the Los Angeles Times blog “Greenspace”:
Language drafted by Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown referred to “major polluters,” which the judge changed to “sources of emissions.” The judge also narrowed the wording of the title from “suspends air pollution control laws” to “suspends implementation of air pollution control law (AB 32).” The Brown language had in the initiative summary that it would require the state to “abandon” the law, which the judge changed to “suspend.”
As noted above, Judge Frawley also said the original language was inaccurate in describing the proposition as “abandoning” California’s climate change law, and ordered Brown to substitute the term “suspends.” But as the No on Prop 23 campaign has pointed out again and again, the “suspension”, which would last until California’s unemployment rate remains at or below 5.5% for four consecutive quarters, would in effect repeal AB 32. That’s because those conditions have only been met a handful of times in the last three decades, and are unlikely to be seen anytime soon, given the severity of the recession.
Compare the old and new ballot titles:
Old ballot label: “SUSPENDS AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS REQUIRING MAJOR POLLUTERS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5% OR LESS FOR FULL YEAR.”
New ballot label: “SUSPENDS IMPLEMENTATION OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAW (AB 32) REQUIRING MAJOR SOURCES OF EMISSIONS TO REPORT AND REDUCE GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS THAT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING UNTIL UNEMPLOYMENT DROPS TO 5.5 PERCENT OR LESS FOR ONE FULL YEAR.”
Although Prop 23 supporters called the decision a major victory, the Sacramento Bee reports that Prop 23’s opponents in the public health, environment, and clean technology sectors see the changes as mostly “cosmetic”:
Paul Knepprath, vice president of advocacy and health initiatives for the American Lung Association, said the changes ordered by the judge were “cosmetic.”
“We’re confident that voters will see Prop 23 for what it really is: a job-killing proposition bankrolled by Texas oil companies,” he said.
Considering the results of a major poll released last week by the Public Policy Institute of California, which showed voters are unwavering in their support for the state’s landmark climate law (at a robust 67%) and the thousands of clean tech jobs it is already creating, we agree that Californians will almost certainly see through the dirty tricks of the Texas oil executives in November. However, considering the stakes, we can’t take any chances. Please take two minutes and sign up to join the campaign against Prop 23 today.
